Analysis and Distribution of Conveyor Belt Noise Sources under Laboratory Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See Editorial Changes Required (attached Word Docx)
Changes are Required before paper could be published.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Number: sustainability-1097978
Title: Analysis and distribution of conveyor belt noise sources under 2 laboratory conditions
GENERAL
The reviewed manuscript sustainability-1097978 is aimed at investigation of acoustic performance of conveyor belt in laboratory environment. Authors measured and identified the noise sources within the experimental conveyor belt. They identified location as well as sound pressure levels.
The topic is interesting, since the output from acoustic camera is quite “visual”. It is pretty necessary for the area where conveyor belts are placed to be aware of potential noise pollution which could affect people working there. Moreover, the process of acoustic camera recording helps us with maintenance of machines such as conveyor belt to avoid potential damage and possible subsequent injury.
The group of authors works in the field of noise measurements quite some time, which can be proof by several articles published before. Here we come to my question and wondering. Authors recently published (2020) a paper in The journal of sustainable mining very similar case study, where the same acoustic camera, conveyor belt and was used. Could authors describe, what is the main difference between this paper suggested for publication and paper published before? I am asking since I am not sure about it. What is the added value to the content to be worth to publish it in Sustainability? There are even some figures almost the same for both papers. (e.g. Figure 1). The content of paper is interesting but not innovative and does not include any new findings.
I appreciate and like nice Introduction part supported with references.
I have several comments:
COMMENTS TO THE CONTENT OF PAPER:
- (Page 3 – line 110) – instead of “back-ground acoustics” I suggest to write “background noise”
- (Page 4 – line 118) – “The general noise of the entire laboratory belt …“ – I would suggest to rewrite the sentence since it is confusing and not clear. What does it mean when authors mention “general noise”? What kind of noise is that?
- (Page 6 – line 143) – “This frequency range is considered…” the sentence should be supported by reference/s
- (Page 8 – line 185) – “An acoustic camera does not allow measurements in the considerable part of the low-frequency range” – could authors specify which frequency range? In discussion you have a lowest part of the frequency range set from 22 Hz up to 2000 Hz.
- (figure 16 + table 1) – how is the mean sound pressure level 71.97 dB calculated for range 22-2000 Hz?. From the identified noise sources within the range? It is also not clear how you decided on the division of frequency spectra in analysis 22-1000 Hz, 1000 – 2000 Hz, 2000-3000 Hz.
- (Page 12 – line 248-250) – “The majority of noise sources …” Is this true? When I count noise sources in table 1, I get: 22-2000 Hz – 5 noise sources and 2000-4000 Hz – 7 noise sources.
- FIGURES
- All figures are quite clear and easy to read. Some of them are pretty similar to previous work of authors
REFERENCES
- All of the references are properly cited in the text and are correctly used. I don’t have any comment to this part
CONCLUSION OF THE REVIEW
It is a pity that authors didn’t include into the study some additional measurement, analysis or simulation which would improve the content and allowed to compare and prove the data from acoustic camera. The suggested paper reminds me a report from concultancy measurement, even if it is a bit better described and there is state of the art at the beginning. Moreover, the content is quite similar to already published paper by group of authors.
I find manuscript sustainability-1097978 on an average level. It is a nice case study which shows how you can use acoustic camera for acoustic measurements. I suggest to strengthen the whole methodology and conclusions of the paper. After adding an added value to the content of the paper I would be glad to recommend the paper for publication in journal Sustainability. Unfortunately, in this state I cannot recommend it.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The content of the paper was significantly improved.
I recommend the paper for publication.
