Anthropometric Analysis of Selected Body Dimensions and Comparison with the Design Approach for Forestry and Agricultural Machine Operators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a very interesting paper and begins to close the gap in knowledge about human-machine interfaces. It needs some significant editing. I have enclosed a few examples, but the entire paper needs work.
Line 45 – reword--- …when designing new…
Line 50 - secular? not sure this word belongs
Line 60-66 – needs more editing – are talking about changing body types, changing attitudes and its impact on worker – machine interference? This is not clear.
Line 78 – I would remove the statement mental demands as criteria
My main problem is that is does present the estimators for the various parameters - I want to know how well correlated they to each other. This would and can a overall index be developed from this data.
Another questions - what are the consequence of misaligned body to seat on production or health and safety?
Author Response
The paper is a very interesting paper and begins to close the gap in knowledge about human-machine interfaces. It needs some significant editing. I have enclosed a few examples, but the entire paper needs work.
Line 45 – reword--- …when designing new…
Was reworded
Line 50 - secular? not sure this word belongs
the sentence has been reworded
Line 60-66 – needs more editing – are talking about changing body types, changing attitudes and its impact on worker – machine interference? This is not clear.
The term "secular trend" refers to the long-term changes in the anthropometric dimensions of the population in the scientific literature. It does not speak explicitly about changes in body types, but about long-term changes in specific dimensions of the human body that affect the human-machine interference. We also emphasized this in the text of the manuscript.
Line 78 – I would remove the statement mental demands as criteria
Was removed
My main problem is that is does present the estimators for the various parameters - I want to know how well correlated they to each other. This would and can a overall index be developed from this data.
We believe that inserting correlation characteristics between individual variables in the article would be unnecessary. The correlation between some dimensions can be logically deduced. E.g. between Stature height 1A - Sitting height 3A (correlation 0.33) Knee height sitting with shoes 3I (correlation 0.56). Sitting height 3A and Eye height sitting 3B (correlation 0.67) is similarly significantly correlated. We attach a table to the reactions with the calculation of the mutual correlation of individual body dimensions.
|
Variable |
Body weight |
1A |
4A |
3A |
3B |
3D |
3I |
3J |
3H |
3K |
3M |
1E |
2F |
|
Body weight |
1,00 |
0,46 |
0,52 |
0,27 |
0,17 |
0,17 |
0,33 |
0,30 |
0,30 |
0,27 |
0,27 |
0,29 |
0,38 |
|
1A |
0,46 |
1,00 |
0,29 |
0,33 |
0,32 |
0,18 |
0,56 |
0,48 |
0,38 |
0,46 |
0,49 |
0,23 |
0,51 |
|
4A |
0,52 |
0,29 |
1,00 |
0,27 |
0,17 |
0,25 |
0,23 |
0,26 |
0,23 |
0,25 |
0,24 |
0,27 |
0,27 |
|
3A |
0,27 |
0,33 |
0,27 |
1,00 |
0,68 |
0,55 |
0,24 |
0,00 |
0,04 |
0,07 |
0,21 |
0,14 |
0,24 |
|
3B |
0,17 |
0,32 |
0,17 |
0,68 |
1,00 |
0,50 |
0,12 |
0,02 |
0,07 |
0,11 |
0,22 |
0,09 |
0,12 |
|
3D |
0,17 |
0,18 |
0,25 |
0,55 |
0,50 |
1,00 |
0,12 |
-0,04 |
-0,05 |
0,04 |
0,11 |
0,11 |
0,19 |
|
3I |
0,33 |
0,56 |
0,23 |
0,24 |
0,12 |
0,12 |
1,00 |
0,35 |
0,39 |
0,37 |
0,36 |
0,23 |
0,48 |
|
3J |
0,30 |
0,48 |
0,26 |
0,00 |
0,02 |
-0,04 |
0,35 |
1,00 |
0,36 |
0,38 |
0,40 |
0,24 |
0,29 |
|
3H |
0,30 |
0,38 |
0,23 |
0,04 |
0,07 |
-0,05 |
0,39 |
0,36 |
1,00 |
0,41 |
0,27 |
0,15 |
0,27 |
|
3K |
0,27 |
0,46 |
0,25 |
0,07 |
0,11 |
0,04 |
0,37 |
0,38 |
0,41 |
1,00 |
0,36 |
0,13 |
0,28 |
|
3M |
0,27 |
0,49 |
0,24 |
0,21 |
0,22 |
0,11 |
0,36 |
0,40 |
0,27 |
0,36 |
1,00 |
0,29 |
0,28 |
|
1E |
0,29 |
0,23 |
0,27 |
0,14 |
0,09 |
0,11 |
0,23 |
0,24 |
0,15 |
0,13 |
0,29 |
1,00 |
0,34 |
|
2F |
0,38 |
0,51 |
0,27 |
0,24 |
0,12 |
0,19 |
0,48 |
0,29 |
0,27 |
0,28 |
0,28 |
0,34 |
1,00 |
Another questions - what are the consequence of misaligned body to seat on production or health and safety?
These questions are already relatively well developed in the available literature. Some of the works that answer these questions are quoted directly in the manuscript. Eg:
- Melander, L.; Ritala, R. Separating the impact of work environment and machine operation on harvester performance. Eur. J. For. Res. 2020, 139, 1029–1043, doi:10.1007/s10342-020-01304-5.
- Zewdie, R.; Kic, P. Microclimate in Drivers' Cabin of Combine Harvesters. In Proceeding of 6th International Conference on Trends in Agricultural Engineering 2016, Prague, Czech Republic, September 07, 2016; Choteborsky, R., Kovar, S., Krepcik, V., Herak, D., Eds.; Czech University Life Sciences Prague: Prague, Czech Republic, 2016; pp. 743–748.
- Pinzke, S.; Svennefelt, C.A.; Lundqvist, P. Occupational injuries in Swedish agriculture: Development and preventive actions. J. Agri. Saf. He. 2018, 24, 193–211, doi:10.13031/jash.12816
- Pompei, D.; Rossi, R.; Vecchiola, R.; Angelone, A.M.; Fabiani, L. Accident prevention in agriculture in the ASL1 Abruzzo Local Health Service: protection facilities for tractors. Med. Lav. 2015, 106, 261–270.
- Jankovský, M.; Merganič, J.; Allman, M.; Ferenčík, M.; Messingerová, V. The cumulative effects of work-related factors increase the heart rate of cabin field machine operators. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 65, 173–178, doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2017.08.003.
- Chandra, M.P.; Sharma, S.C. Anthropometric analysis of selected body dimensions of farm workers for design of agricultural implements - An approach. Ama-Agr. Mech. Asia Af. 2012, 43, 64–68.
- Metha, C.R.; Gite, L.P.; Pharade, S.C.; Majumder, J.; Pandey, M.M. Review of anthropometric considerations for tractor seat design. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 2008, 38, 546–554, doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.08.019.
Our goal was not to examine the impact of this trend on occupational safety and productivity, but rather the impact on design trends in terms of the applicable legislation.
Thank you for the precise revision of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
PAPER: In general, it is well written in terms of organization but still it needs substantial improvements. In particular, English needs a close eye and the help of a native speaker/professional translation service throughout the paper. The data included in the study is important not only for manufacturing industry but also to see the trends in worker’s anthropometry. Since the study covers only a limited population, the limitations need to be stated and explained.
TITLE: Something went wrong here. How can an anthropometric study be a predictor? The authors should consider a revision of the title.
ABSTRACT:
General comment: In this version, it does not provide a proper background of the study. Why is the study important? The authors should give one or two sentences to describe the problem then to jump into methods used, results obtained and conclusions. English should be checked by a native speaker or a translation service.
Specific comments:
L17: Perhaps “subjects” would fit better than “males”.
L20-21: Needs a careful rephrasing.
L22: “the above” >>> “above”.
KEYWORDS: some are unusually long. Perhaps the authors would consider to break them into simple words.
INTRODUCTION
General comment:
In general, the introduction section suffers of poor English language, therefore I would recommend to the authors to use the help of a native speaker or an English proficient colleague. In general, there is a red line of the intro; however, the information given here should be more systematic and it should lead naturally to the aim and objectives of the paper.
Specific comments:
L31: the authors need to clarify or give some examples on the working conditions that make the use of manual labor indispensable.
L32: should be written as “The higher performance of timber harvesting equipment has resulted in the development…”
L35-39: need to be somehow merged into a single sentence then the ideas given here (which are actual and true) need to be referenced by citation.
L40-44: same here. These need rephrasing for a sound English and citations.
L45: should exclude the term “the construction of”
L50-60: need rephrasing and some citations where appropriate
L67-76: need a careful English phrasing. In line 75: “anthropologic” should it be “anthropometric”?
L77-85: need a careful English phrasing.
L86-92: need a careful English phrasing. The authors should setup here also the objectives of their study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
General comment:
Has the same problem as in introduction. Language needs substantial improvement and the methods need to be described in more detail, in particular the equipment used for measurement and the statistical techniques.
Specific comments:
L97: remove “in total”. Remove “of male population”
L98: state the name of the university.
L102: add “The” before 11.
L109-120: need a careful English phrasing.
Figure 2: not relevant here as there are many other machines used in earthmoving operations. I recommend to remove it.
L119-120: the authors need to describe the used anthropometer. Please give details on it and on the procedures used in a short paragraph.
L125-127: more detail on the data would be useful. For instance, how many measurements per years of observation? Are there any limitations in regards to the population used? Is it representative for Europe? How about for the world?
L128-132: Language needs rephrasing; pay attention to the terms used. “modus” >>> “mode”?
L136: Was there any statistical comparison test? This is important to both, mention it and compare the data.
RESULTS
General comment:
Has the same problem as in the previous sections. Language needs substantial improvement and the results should be presented in more context. Figure 5 is somehow redundant. I think that extending the Table 1 to compare with the standard would be more beneficial or the use of boxplots in addition to the standard values in Figure 5 would add more value to the paper and more understanding to the reader.
Specific comments:
L149-150: is it correct in mm or should it be in cm?
Figure 3: pay attention to the terms used and recheck the figure. Should the “occurrence” be “relative frequency”? Same in Figure 4.
L183-185: needs a clarification on why this metric should be used for comparison and why not using standard statistical comparison tests.
Table 1: would add more value if the authors would give the standard figures along with their experimental figures.
DISCUSSION
General comment:
Language needs substantial improvement. It should be more focused on the results of the study. What are the implications of these results? To whom or to what are they important and why? Indeed, comparison to the findings of the international literature is important. However, more emphasis should be put on the way that your findings would or should affect others or other disciplines/industries.
Specific comments:
The “secular trend” syntagm seems to be an important part of your study. You should explain its meaning for the readers in the methods.
The discussion should address the implications and limitations of your study/data.
CONCLUSION
General comment:
Language needs substantial improvement. Focus on the implications of your findings and do not speculate.
Author Response
PAPER: In general, it is well written in terms of organization but still it needs substantial improvements. In particular, English needs a close eye and the help of a native speaker/professional translation service throughout the paper. The data included in the study is important not only for manufacturing industry but also to see the trends in worker’s anthropometry. Since the study covers only a limited population, the limitations need to be stated and explained.
Thank you for your detailed review of the article and recommendations. In general, the manuscript was translated by a certified translator (co-author from the Institute of Foreign Languages) and was judged by a native speaker in the field.
TITLE: Something went wrong here. How can an anthropometric study be a predictor? The authors should consider a revision of the title.
The title was changed
ABSTRACT:
General comment: In this version, it does not provide a proper background of the study. Why is the study important? The authors should give one or two sentences to describe the problem then to jump into methods used, results obtained and conclusions. English should be checked by a native speaker or a translation service.
The importance of research was emphasized
Specific comments:
L17: Perhaps “subjects” would fit better than “males”.
Was changed
L20-21: Needs a careful rephrasing.
Was rephrased
L22: “the above” >>> “above”.
Was changed
KEYWORDS: some are unusually long. Perhaps the authors would consider to break them into simple words.
Keywords were changed
INTRODUCTION
General comment:
In general, the introduction section suffers of poor English language, therefore I would recommend to the authors to use the help of a native speaker or an English proficient colleague. In general, there is a red line of the intro; however, the information given here should be more systematic and it should lead naturally to the aim and objectives of the paper.
Specific comments:
L31: the authors need to clarify or give some examples on the working conditions that make the use of manual labor indispensable.
Was performed
L32: should be written as “The higher performance of timber harvesting equipment has resulted in the development…”
Was performed
L35-39: need to be somehow merged into a single sentence then the ideas given here (which are actual and true) need to be referenced by citation.
Was changed
L40-44: same here. These need rephrasing for a sound English and citations.
Was changed
L45: should exclude the term “the construction of”
The sentence was changed
L50-60: need rephrasing and some citations where appropriate
Citations were added
L67-76: need a careful English phrasing. In line 75: “anthropologic” should it be “anthropometric”?
Was rephrased
L77-85: need a careful English phrasing.
Was rephrased
L86-92: need a careful English phrasing. The authors should setup here also the objectives of their study.
aims have been added
MATERIALS AND METHODS
General comment:
Has the same problem as in introduction. Language needs substantial improvement and the methods need to be described in more detail, in particular the equipment used for measurement and the statistical techniques.
Sorry, we do not consider it necessary to describe a certified meter - anthropometer and how the measurement is performed with it. We also do not consider it necessary to describe the calculation of general descriptive statistical characteristics that are well known to the scientific community. Formulas for their calculation can be found in the cited literature.
Specific comments:
L97: remove “in total”. Remove “of male population”
Was performed
L98: state the name of the university.
Was performed
L102: add “The” before 11.
Was performed
L109-120: need a careful English phrasing.
Was changed
Figure 2: not relevant here as there are many other machines used in earthmoving operations. I recommend to remove it.
The figure is here for a simplified idea of readers who cannot imagine the working space of a forestry machine operator. Although it is not of scientific relevance, in our opinion it suitably complements the described issue.
L119-120: the authors need to describe the used anthropometer. Please give details on it and on the procedures used in a short paragraph.
Was added
L125-127: more detail on the data would be useful. For instance, how many measurements per years of observation? Are there any limitations in regards to the population used? Is it representative for Europe? How about for the world?
Was added
L128-132: Language needs rephrasing; pay attention to the terms used. “modus” >>> “mode”?
Was changed
L136: Was there any statistical comparison test? This is important to both, mention it and compare the data.
A statistical comparison test was not necessary, as the standard offers only three values (maximum, minimum, and average).
RESULTS
General comment:
Has the same problem as in the previous sections. Language needs substantial improvement and the results should be presented in more context. Figure 5 is somehow redundant. I think that extending the Table 1 to compare with the standard would be more beneficial or the use of boxplots in addition to the standard values in Figure 5 would add more value to the paper and more understanding to the reader.
In our opinion, Figure 5 has a better explanatory value, because it is immediately clear to the reader in which body dimensions the anthropometric analysis significantly confirmed the shortcomings of the EN ISO 3411 standard.
Specific comments:
L149-150: is it correct in mm or should it be in cm?
Was corrected
Figure 3: pay attention to the terms used and recheck the figure. Should the “occurrence” be “relative frequency”? Same in Figure 4.
Was changed
L183-185: needs a clarification on why this metric should be used for comparison and why not using standard statistical comparison tests.
In our opinion, standard descriptive statistical methods are suitable precisely to meet the objectives of the article. Detailed statistical testing of these data has already been dealt with by the authors in some published works in the past and would be a duplicate publication.
Table 1: would add more value if the authors would give the standard figures along with their experimental figures.
More clearly, this is replaced by Figure 5
DISCUSSION
General comment:
Language needs substantial improvement. It should be more focused on the results of the study. What are the implications of these results? To whom or to what are they important and why? Indeed, comparison to the findings of the international literature is important. However, more emphasis should be put on the way that your findings would or should affect others or other disciplines/industries.
We tried to specify this exactly at the end. In our opinion, this should not be part of the discussion section.
Specific comments:
The “secular trend” syntagm seems to be an important part of your study. You should explain its meaning for the readers in the methods.
We explained this term in the introduction. It is also explained in detail in the numerous scientific papers we have cited.
The discussion should address the implications and limitations of your study/data.
Was added.
CONCLUSION
General comment:
Language needs substantial improvement. Focus on the implications of your findings and do not speculate.
Some findings may seem slightly speculative but are confirmed by our analysis directly in the results section.
Thank you for the precise revision of our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for improving this manuscript.
I have made some comments on it to help you in drafting a better version. please refer to the attached file.
Best regards,
R.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your precise assessment of our manuscript and comments that have helped to significantly improve its quality. We tried to incorporate the comments. We have already explained some reservations (eg concerning Fig. 2) in the previous cover letter. Thanks again.
