Determination of Requirements for the Improvement of Occupational Safety in the Cleaning of Vertical Tanks of Petroleum Products
, Alberto Cerezo-Narváez 1,*, Andrés Pastor-Fernández 1, Manuel Otero-Mateo 1 and Pablo Ballesteros-Pérez 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript title: Determination of Requirements for the Improvement of Occupational Safety in the Cleaning of Vertical Tanks of Petroleum Products
Manuscript ID: safety-2100570
Reviewer Comments:
The manuscript entitled “Determination of Requirements for the Improvement of Occupational Safety in the Cleaning of Vertical Tanks of Petroleum Products” focus on the occupational safety requirements in cleaning of liquid petroleum products tanks. Occupational safety has always been a concern, especially in hazardous environments. The criteria and sub-criteria are addressed for decision of requirements for improvement of occupational safety. The AHP method is used for determination of factors’ weights. The research issue essentially belongs to a decision issue, the method adapted is correct and the data is credible. It is value for publication.
The major comments:
1) In AHP, the factors for pairwise comparison no more than 9 are allowed. In sub-criteria safety, there are 12 factors for pairwise comparison. The authors should check it.
2) There are 5 experts who offered subjective judgments. The authors should give the description of how dealing with the five difference judgements.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work perfectly addresses the challenges associated with cleaning storage tanks for petroleum products, along with introducing a practical method and, incorporating efficient AHP technique to deal with them.
1. Line 15: “the direct” replaced by “for the direct”-Line 23: “two thirds” replaced by “two-thirds” and, please check the manuscript again for possible grammatical errors.
2. By which tools the AHP method was implemented?
3. Is Fig. 3 a result of your simulation?
4. Fig .9 could be depicted in a better way (the x-axis and y-axis must be described).
5. The conclusion section needs to be summarized. Only the overall results according to research work and a perspective for future work are sufficient. It does not need to repeat what have you done in the body of the manuscript. Maybe some sentences could be used in the introduction (or discussion as a general fact) section instead, and/or omitted.
6. "Result and discussion" section could be a little bit more discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Spelling of “Biotechnology” in Figure 1 needs to be corrected
The objectives of the work need to be listed as bullet points at the end of introduction section
What is meant by “un” in Table 1
What are the properties of “marine dispersant”
What is meant by sweeping column in “Robotic cleaning”
Indicate parts in Figure 5
Work output is “200 m2/d” what does it indicates? (pg. 7, first line )
Section 2.2 , pg. 7 line 188 is it annual or manual cleaning?
How Table 5 is obtained? Can explain brief
On what aspect values in Table 6 are assigned?
Why cost is given least value in “Performance” criteria of Table 6
Conclusion needs to be shortened. List only important findings include scope for future work also
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
