Cause Analysis of Coal Mine Gas Accidents in China Based on Association Rules
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
MAJOR COMMENTS
1) On the subject of Equipment factor. Author states that “B. Gas extraction system missing/imperfect Including the ground gas extraction system has not been established, gas extraction drilling construction is not in place, gas extraction time is not enough” and it is a part of Equipment factor. However, it looks like (4) Management factors - because the main reason for low effectiveness of methane drainage is a wrong technological decision connected with methane management.
2) Authors state that “…when determining the cause of accidents, most studies rely on expert experience and previous literature as the main sources, resulting in a lack of objectivity. At the same time, the occurrence of coal mine gas accidents is not the result of a single factor, but the joint action of multiple factors, and there is usually a potential relationship between these factors.” and “The potential relationship between factors is revealed by association rule method, which provides a new theoretical framework for accident analysis and prevention.”
Indeed, we should take into account the influence of multiple factors but it requires expert experience due to a complex relationship of ones. Without expert experience conclusions of this manuscript it to obvious: the most frequent factors of gas accidents are “Gas accumulation”, “Habitual violation” and “Weakly supervision of the safety supervision bureau”...
You should explain why the association rule method can provide a new theoretical framework for accident analysis.
3) To my mind, it would be better to divide different types of gas accidents because different types of ones (burst, methane explosion and gas asphyxiation (poisoning) have different reasons and roots. It is not clear how to reveal a potential relationship between factors when the entirely different mechanisms of these accidents.
MINOR COMMENTS
1) The Title of the manuscript is “Cause analysis of coal mine gas accident based on association rules” but, to my mind, it would be better to add the name of the country because this manuscript addresses only gas accidents in China.
2) There are several references on articles Liu Q. L.:
Liu, Q. L., & Li, X. C. 2014. Modeling and evaluation of the safety control capability of coal mine based on system safety. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 797-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.048
Liu, Q. L., Meng, X. F., Hassall, M., & Li, X. C. 2016. Accident-causing mechanism in coal mines based on hazards and polarized management. Safety Science, 85, 276-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.012
Liu, Q. L., Meng, X. F., Li, X. C., & Luo, X. X. 2019. Risk precontrol continuum and risk gradient control in underground coal mining. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 129, 210-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.06.031
Fa, Z. W., Li, X. C., Qiu, Z. X., Liu, Q. L., & Zhai, Z. Y. 2021. From correlation to causality: Path analysis of accident-causing factors in coal mines from the perspective of human, machinery, environment and management. Resources Policy, 73. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.RESOURPOL.2021.102157
Some of the references are not very important for the manuscript. As a result, these references look like inappropriate self-citations by authors. It would be better to reduce the number of citations of this author.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous manuscript.
The reviewer comments are listed below in black, with specific questions numbered. Our responses are given in red font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in blue italics font.
The detailed content has been uploaded to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the reasons of typical coal mine gas accidents in China in the past 20 years are studies. The the key words such as human factors, equipment factors, environmental factors and management factors from the accident investigation report are extracted, and the accident causes and accident causation chain are obtained. The paper has strict logic and almost no language errors. The research results are of great significance to find out the root cause of gas accidents and put forward preventive measures, and have certain innovative and practical value. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed in this paper.
(1) The reasons for selecting the 110 gas accidents as the research object need to be emphasized, and the reasons for choosing HFACS as the analysis means need to be clarified;
(2) The full text of the “Coal mine gas accident” and “Gas accident” should be unified;
(3) Fig.2 It is suggested to change the description method, as the form of mind map cannot highlight the key points;
(4) After the accident statistics section, the impact of the statistical results on the subsequent correlation analysis should be explained;
(5) In the methods section, not only should the association rule method be described, but it should also be placed in the context of the current research to provide potential advantages (and disadvantages) compared to other methods.
(6) It is necessary to explain the accident factors, but it is necessary to carefully check whether the branch causes of each classification overlap, such as insufficient gas extraction time, which does not belong to the "missing/imperfect gas extraction system";
(7) What is the reason for choosing 0.2 as the support threshold for the test? It should be indicated or referenced in the paper;
(8) Some pictures in this paper are not clear enough. It is suggested to change the picture format to ensure clarity.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous manuscript.
The reviewer comments are listed in black, with specific questions numbered. Our responses are given in red font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in blue italics font.
The detailed content has been uploaded to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article uses the Shapley value method to allocate the weight values of the prediction model and establishes a combination model for conventional gas production prediction. The research results show that the combination model has higher accuracy, and this method should be adopted. This has practical significance for the development planning of natural gas. On the other hand, due to the following reasons, it requires minor revisions before publication.
1. Please use italics for formulas and proprietary terms in the manuscript.
2. The title of the chart should be bold, and the author should carefully check the chart format in the manuscript and set it correctly.
3. In Figure 1, the author annotated the figure. Please indicate the purpose of doing so in the text and provide an explanation.
4. In section 3.1, the author uses the intermediate value of URR as an example, please explain the basis for the value.
5. In Figure 2 (b), the graph shows the predicted results for the years (2017-2023), but it was pointed out in the previous text that there is a contradiction between the two starting from 2018, and the author should make corrections.
6. Formulas (30) and (31) do not indicate their source. If they are derived by the author, explanations need to be provided. If they are cited, additional references need to be provided.
7. In section 4.1, the author conducted 10 calculations for each model. Please indicate the purpose of doing so in the article and provide an explanation.
8. In section 4.2, there are many variables that have not been explained during the calculation process. Please provide additional explanations.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous manuscript.
The reviewer comments are listed in black, with specific questions numbered. Our responses are given in red font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in blue italics font. The specific content has been uploaded to the attachment, please refer to the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
