Risk Level Assessment and CO Prediction of Underground Mines for Poisoning and Asphyxiation Accidents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1 Page 1, line 11. The abstract is incomplete and lacks the research significance of this paper. It is recommended to add research implications at the end of the abstract.
2 Page 1, line 18. What is the full form of the RS-G1, entropy-G1 and CRITIC-G1 methods that appear in the abstract? The full name should be indicated on the first occurrence of the abbreviated form.
3 Page 1, line 29. This paper's title and research content mention the index system's relevant content. However, there is no analysis of the research status of the index system in the introduction. The research status of the indicator system needs to be supplemented.
4 Page 3, line 111. The accident statistics in Table 1 only express the details of 1, 2, 3, and 24, and the other accident contents have not been clearly explained. Please add details of the remaining incidents.
5 Page 4, line 123, Page 5, Line 134. All content is suggested in the introduction section. In line 128, supplement the relevant research literature.
6 Page 5, line 149. This paper establishes an evaluation index system for poisoning and suffocation accidents in underground mines. According to the accident statistics above, it can be seen that the root cause of the accident is CO. However, what is the relationship between the social factors added in the evaluation index system and mine CO? Please explain.
7 Page 6, line 165. The main calculation formulas for each model method are missing from Table 2.
8 Page 8, line 216. The formulas for S1, S2, , and , require numbers. Please recheck the full text and modify the format of the formula uniformly.
9 Page 8, line 228. The manuscript mentions "taking Hunan Province as an example". Please add relevant references.
10 Page 13, line 359. In the manuscript, relevant instruments were used to measure the concentration data of toxic and harmful gases in each middle section and each working area of the mine in summer (August) and winter (December). What time period was it measured? Also, what is the time interval between each measurement? Please elaborate and supplement this section.
11 Page 13, line 364. What is the unit of measurement of time? Whether it is hours, minutes, or seconds. Also, is it reasonable to use a serial number to indicate the measurement time? Please explain. If it is unreasonable, using measurement time representation (hours, minutes, or seconds) is recommended.
12 Page 14, line 367. Fig.7 does not visually express the time point of blasting. The selected time interval is the CO concentration of which part after blasting? Please explain and revise.
13 Page 15, line 398. Fig.9 only shows the data sets 5, 10, and 15; the 20 and 25 mentioned in the text are not displayed. Please complete it.
14 Page 16, line 432. The manuscript mentions "43 minutes", but this conclusion appears abruptly. Please explain how this time was obtained.
15 Page 17, line 433. Conclusions should be concluded for the entire article, not a summary.
Author Response
We would like to thank the expert teachers for their comments on the revision of this thesis. The authors have responded carefully to each of the questions from the expert teachers and have revised the article carefully. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Figures in the Abstract section are unusual. It is recommended to remove the Figures in the Abstract or move them to the Graphical Abstract section.
- There are some long sentences in the text. All sentences of the paper should be short and clear. For example, there is a long sentence in lines 16 to 22, or lines 30 to 34.
- All abbreviations in the abstract should be introduced in full form.
- Numerous previous studies are listed in the Introduction section without any explanation. The applied methods, results, and case studies should be clarified for all past studies, given in the literature review section.
- The advantages and drawbacks of all applied methods in the paper should be explained. It should be clarified why these methods are used.
- Which criteria were used for the classification of accident level in Table 1? Explain.
- What is the meaning of numbers in column “case” of Table 1?
- In the section “Materials and Methods”, the methodology of the paper should be presented in a flowchart.
- All parameters of equations 2, 3, and 4 should be presented and explained.
- What are the equations in Table 2? All parameters should be presented and explained.
- The number of equations in the section “post check difference and errors” are missed.
- In line 294, the qualifying score intervals for both [0,25] and (25,50] are the same. Please, check them. These qualifying scores in the second column of Table 8 should be checked, as well.
- In line 302, it stated that “Ten experts with in-depth research and working experience in underground mines were invited to score the indicators”. Specifications of these experts including working experiences, education level, and specialty should be presented. Moreover, if the authors used the questionnaires to score the indicators, what is the content of these questionnaires? A sample of the questionnaire should be parented.
- The results of the paper should be explained more. It must be explained more about the time when the CO concentration drops to the permissible value, and a reasonable ventilation time after blasting.
Author Response
We would like to thank the expert teachers for their comments on the revision of this thesis. The authors have responded carefully to each of the questions from the expert teachers and have revised the article carefully. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
no comment
