Feature 4 - Response

Evidence that Reducing Knee Injuries in Underground Mining may have a Substantial Impact on Mine Company Finances

Susan M. Moore, PhD and Jonisha Pollard, MS

Response to reviwers:

Overall comments:

  1. The paper is well written, however, there was little discussion in the introduction section about other injuries in mines, and what percentage of knee injuries to the overall number of injuries in mines. 

In response to this reviewer’s comment, the authors have revised the Introduction to include more discussion regarding other musculoskeletal injuries in mining.  Specifically, the authors wrote,

“Musculoskeletal injuries in underground coal mining occur to a variety of body parts and include the neck, should, back, knee, wrist, etc.  These injuries include strains and sprains, joint dislocations, fractures, etc.  In 2007, for underground coal mining, 327 injuries to the back were reported while 217 were reported for the knee, 127 for the shoulder, and 66 for the neck.  The total days lost was the greatest for back injuries with 22,390 total days lost.  The knee resulted in the second largest days lost of these joints with 13,598 days lost.  While many mining companies recognize the various benefits of investing in the reduction of back injuries, fewer resources have been invested in reducing knee injuries.  However, knee injuries are a significant financial burden to the industry.”  

  1. There was no conclusion section.  The 3rd paragraph of the Discussion would actually make a nice conclusion.  Consider making that paragraph into a conclusion, and adapt the discussion and conclusion sections accordingly for better flow-ability.

 

Since the 3rd paragraph that was referenced by the reviewer pertained to the overall limitations of the study, the authors assumed the reviewer intended to reference the 2nd paragraph. Thus, in response to this suggestion, the authors have taken the 2nd and 4th paragraphs of the Discussion section and incorporated them into a Conclusions section. 

Specific comments:

  1. In the Abstract: use the acronym, MSHA, after you have mentioned the "Mine Safety & Health Administration"

The authors have made the suggested revision.

  1. Abstract Pg1: The savings that "were" as opposed to "was"

The authors have made the suggested revision.

  1. Pg 5: insert the word "where:" after you have mentioned equation 2

 

The authors have made the suggested revision.