Preliminary Design and Construction Database for Laboratory Accidents
, Fang Miao 3, Jiaqi Yuan 4, Huasong Xia 4, Piyachat Udomwong 1,* and Nopasit Chakpitak 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Preliminary Design and Construction Database for Laboratory Accident
Thank you for the opportunity to access the research on “Preliminary Design and Construction Database for Laboratory Accident”. This paper is timely and relevant. Overall, this research paper addresses the issue of laboratory accidents in university chemistry experiment projects and proposes a laboratory accident system to store, share data, and predict risk levels. The paper presents a systematic approach by manually collecting chemistry laboratory accidents and analyzing risk factor variables using Spsspro, followed by establishing a prediction model using Stata.
Introduction
The introduction of this research paper provides an overview of the problem statement related to laboratory accidents in university chemistry projects. The paper briefly mentions previous research efforts, such as accident data collection from websites and literature reviews, analysis of typical accidents, and the importance of safety education. However, the references provided are insufficient to support these claims and should be expanded. The proposed solution, a chemistry accident system based on data ownership safety architecture, is introduced. The process of data collection, risk variable selection, and accident model design is outlined. The concept of data ownership safety architecture is briefly described, but further clarification and examples would enhance the understanding of its application in laboratory management. Expanding on the existing research and providing more clarity regarding the proposed data ownership safety architecture would strengthen the introduction section.
2. Materials and Methods
Overall, the Materials and Methods section provides a clear explanation of the data collection process and the design of the laboratory accident system. However, more details regarding the specific methodologies employed for data collection, encryption, and risk prediction would enhance the section's comprehensiveness.
3. Results
The Results section of the research paper presents the findings obtained from the analysis of laboratory accident data and the establishment of an accident risk model. However, additional information regarding the statistical significance of the findings and the accuracy of the risk model would strengthen the section. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6 have a fatal problem with resolution and very low readability. The authors should have edited Figure 5 back into tabular form to make it look good. This is a very simple task and the authors are a total of six. This makes it doubtful whether the authors are willing to publish this paper in prominent journals such as Electronics. Equation 1 is not organized at all and is difficult to understand.
4. Usage of laboratory accident system
Figures 7, 8, 9, 10 are not directly related to the core of this study.
5. Discussion
Is the content the authors wrote a summary of the study or a discussion? There are no comparisons and discussions with previous studies. A seven-line discussion loses much of what this study actually does. What kind of discussion took place academically?
6. Conclusions
What is your academic contribution? What are the practical implications? Is this study so perfect that no limitations are mentioned? Discussions and conclusions seem insincere enough to show the authors' attitudes toward academic research.
The authors need to proofread the manuscript.
Author Response
Comment #1.
The introduction of this research paper provides an overview of the problem statement related to laboratory accidents in university chemistry projects. The paper briefly mentions previous research efforts, such as accident data collection from websites and literature reviews, analysis of typical accidents, and the importance of safety education. However, the references provided are insufficient to support these claims and should be expanded. The proposed solution, a chemistry accident system based on data ownership safety architecture, is introduced. The process of data collection, risk variable selection, and accident model design is outlined. The concept of data ownership safety architecture is briefly described, but further clarification and examples would enhance the understanding of its application in laboratory management. Expanding on the existing research and providing more clarity regarding the proposed data ownership safety architecture would strengthen the introduction section.
Response: The authors are very thankful to the anonymous reviewers for the efforts and time to review the manuscript and their valuable and critical comments improved the present work. Your positive feedback on the revised manuscript improvement is highly appreciated by all authors. All your comments were considered carefully, and we provide here an itemized reply to each comment.
The authors have added relevant references in the revised manuscript to support authors claims. Also, relevant literature has been added to compare our study with previous studies.
The current study application has been more discussed as can be apply in data ownership safety architecture: Such as in tourism industry, government information resources sharing and application system, digital copyright works protection and trading systems. Managing chemistry laboratories has established supervision management data framework, lab experimental data trading workflow and unconditional sharing lab related data with key algorithm to make sure efficient and safety has been added in the revised manuscript accordingly. Section: 1. Introduction: Lines 26-28. (Ref: 1-4), Lines 78-84(Ref:23-27), Section: 5. Discussions: Lines 359-364. (Ref: 29-32).
Comment #2.
Materials and Methods section provides a clear explanation of the data collection process and the design of the laboratory accident system. However, more details regarding the specific methodologies employed for data collection, encryption, and risk prediction would enhance the section's comprehensiveness.
Response: Thank you for the critical comment. Data collection: Figure 1 has been added in the revised manuscript to explain how to use python to collect accident literature. Meanwhile, we add figure to describe whole conceptual framework (in Figure 3) in the revised manuscript which include collect non-academic website using assignment method.
Encryption: We have added more details to explain encrypt data in 2.2, furthermore we added Figure 2 to show it.
Risk prediction: We have regarded more contents in 2.3, meanwhile it is shown in Figure 3.
Section: 2. Materials and Methods: Line 94, Lines 113-122, Lines 135-148.
Comment #3.
The Results section of the research paper presents the findings obtained from the analysis of laboratory accident data and the establishment of an accident risk model. However, additional information regarding the statistical significance of the findings and the accuracy of the risk model would strengthen the section. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6 have a fatal problem with resolution and very low readability. The authors should have edited Figure 5 back into tabular form to make it look good. This is a very simple task and the authors are a total of six. This makes it doubtful whether the authors are willing to publish this paper in prominent journals such as Electronics. Equation 1 is not organized at all and is difficult to understand.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Figure 2.3 and 4.6 resolution and readability has been improved in the revised manuscript.
Figure 5 has been changed to Table 2 in the revised manuscript. For better understanding more details in Equation 1 has been added in the revised manuscript that how to establish and how to verify its credibility in Section: 3.2.
Section: 3. Results: Line 178, Line 202, Line 208, Lines 221-262, Lines 267-271, Line 295.
Comment #4.
Usage of laboratory accident system. Figures 7, 8, 9, 10 are not directly related to the core of this study.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Previous Figure 7 in the revised manuscript Figure 10 represents our manual accident database predict and search using data ownership safe architecture. We can upload all lab accident-related data into our proposed system using DOSA which can break data barriers with key technology. we add risk level prediction equation in website. Any student who wants to do a new experiment, they can put related data into this website, then he can get a risk predicted result.
Previous Figure 8 in the revised manuscript Figure 11 shows how to collect historical or real-time lab accident website. as we want to collect more accident data, so we establish a system to gather related information.
Previous Figure 9 in the revised manuscript Figure 12 That, the researcher can use to study targeted safety education.
Section: 4. Usage of laboratory accident system Line 313-327, Lines 331-337, Line 347.
Comment #5.
Discussion.Is the content the authors wrote a summary of the study or a discussion? There are no comparisons and discussions with previous studies. A seven-line discussion loses much of what this study actually does. What kind of discussion took place academically?
Response: Thank you for the critical comment. The authors have added relevant comparisons with previous studies. Research gap has been added in the revised manuscript according to the valuable comments.
Section: 5. Discussion.Lines 357-364(Ref 29-32).
Comment #6.
Conclusions. What is your academic contribution? What are the practical implications? Is this study so perfect that no limitations are mentioned? Discussions and conclusions seem insincere enough to show the authors' attitudes toward academic research.
Response: Thank you for valuable comment. The comment has been added in the revised manuscript. We have added academic contribution and practical implications.
The proposed system can guarantee data owners interest, meanwhile it breaks accident-related data barriers. Our contribution is manual organize accident data using Spsspro to choose significant variable, then establish an accident level predication model. Second contribution is we designed an accident system based on data ownership safety architecture which data owner and user can conditionally share data with key algorithm. This method guarantees safety and efficiency if an emergency accident happens. Third contribution is we combined risk model into our proposed system, any experiment project wants to attend in laboratory, it can put related data to predict this project risk level. If the level is high, the research team can study suitable safety education in proposed system which can decrease the accident risk.
We also have added limitations in our research.
During September 2020 to March 2023, it is hard to get details information about accident we knew but not public. Some website information is different or unclear, we contact some universities to ensure data accuracy. Many literatures review or books, samples focus on some typical lab accident or directly put analysis result. So, we try to take assignments methods to get more information details from non-academic channel. The other limitation is risk model, we need to adjust model according to accident database increasing. The accident information is increasing, next step we can try to use machine learning method software, such as orange to obtain a dynamic lab risk model in system.
Section: 6. Conclusions: Lines 393-407.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a laboratory accident system to store and share related data, predict risk levels, and recommend appropriate safety education models. The authors manually collected chemistry laboratory accidents and analyzed risk factor variables using Spsspro. They established a prediction model using Stata and registered laboratory-related data into the proposed chemistry accident system based on data ownership safety architecture. The system can break data barriers using confirmation and authorization key technology to trace non-tampered data source in real-time when the emergency accident happens. The system connects an equation model (SEM) with system dynamics (SD) to dynamically assess lab safety with insufficient data.
1. Significant modifications are necessary to ensure that this paper meets the essential standards of clarity, coherence, and logical flow, allowing readers to comprehend and evaluate the presented research effectively.
2. Specifically, the whole paper lacks proper references. For example, the first sentence in the introduction, which states 'With the increasing number of laboratories, experimental projects, diverse equipment, researchers, and various methods for safety education, the occurrence of university chemistry accidents has also risen.' It is essential to provide a reference to support such statements.
3. In particular, the introduction section lacks clarity and coherence, making it challenging for readers to comprehend the research question.
4. Please ensure all figures are replaced with high-resolution versions. Additionally, in Figure 2, please maintain uniform sizes for all shapes. Moreover, Figure 5 is confusing. It would be helpful to explore alternative ways to present the information more effectively.
5. Equation 1 is unclear, and Algorithm 1 Sm2enc_to_mysql() function, in line 217, needs revision to improve clarity.
6. It is important to provide comprehensive explanations for each figure and table to facilitate the reader's understanding of the author's intended message.
There are many grammatical and vocabulary errors.
Author Response
Comment #1.
Significant modifications are necessary to ensure that this paper meets the essential standards of clarity, coherence, and logical flow, allowing readers to comprehend and evaluate the presented research effectively.
Response: The authors are very thankful to the anonymous reviewers for the efforts and time to review the manuscript and their valuable and critical comments improved the present work. Your positive feedback on the revised manuscript improvement is highly appreciated by all authors. All your comments were considered carefully, and we provide here an itemized reply to each comment.
The authors have added more details in the revised manuscript to improve clarity smoothness. The English editing and revision have been done from English native speaker and expert. Meanwhile, the authors tried their best improve the readability and added Figure 1 to explain how to use python to collect accident literature. The authors also added more details to explain encrypt data in Section: 2.3, furthermore the authors added Figure 2 to give more explanation in the revised manuscript. To describe whole conceptual framework Figure 3 has been added in the revised manuscript.
Section: 2. Line 93, Lines 120-128, Lines 135-147,155.
Comment #2.
Specifically, the whole paper lacks proper references. For example, the first sentence in the introduction, which states 'With the increasing number of laboratories, experimental projects, diverse equipment, researchers, and various methods for safety education, the occurrence of university chemistry accidents has also risen.' It is essential to provide a reference to support such statements.
Response: Thank you for your critical comment. The authors added more reference to support our study. More literature has been added to the introduction part with relevant references to address the comment in the revised manuscript i.e., “Chemistry experimental accidents have increased with the growth of laboratories, experimental projects, new equipment, the number of researchers, and different learning methods for safety class”.
The authors expand the application used in data ownership safety architecture. Such as tourism industry, government information resources sharing and application system, a digital copyright works protection and trading systems. Managing chemistry laboratories has established supervision management data framework, lab experimental data trading workflow and unconditional sharing lab related data with key algorithm to make sure efficient and safe.
Section: 1 Introduction: Lines 26-28(Ref 1-4) Lines 78-84(Ref 23-27),
Comment #3.
In particular, the introduction section lacks clarity and coherence, making it challenging for readers to comprehend the research question.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The introduction part has been revised carefully in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer comments. The English of the manuscript has been revised by native speakers and expert. Section: 1. Introduction: Lines 52-63. Lines 77-84
Comment #4.
Please ensure all figures are replaced with high-resolution versions. Additionally, in Figure 2, please maintain uniform sizes for all shapes. Moreover, Figure 5 is confusing. It would be helpful to explore alternative ways to present the information more effectively.
Response: Thank you for your critical comment. The authors improved Figure 2 and changed Figure 5 to Table according to the reviewer suggestion. For better understanding, we have added more details in Equation 1 how to establish and how to verify it credibility in Section: 3.2.
Section: 3. Results. Lines 177, Line 230
Comment #5.
Equation 1 is unclear, and Algorithm 1 Sm2enc_to_mysql() function, in line 217, needs revision to improve clarity.
Response: Thank you for the critical comment. We have explained more details about Equation 1, furthermore for better understanding we add robustness test to verify this equation.
We are sorry we do not explain SM2 which is Chinese domestic commercial key. To avoid confusing the author, we have changed SM2 to common key in Algorithm 1.
Section: 3. Results. Lines216-242. Lines 299-302
Comment #6.
It is important to provide comprehensive explanations for each figure and table to facilitate the reader's understanding of the author's intended message.
Response: Thank you for valuable comment. We have added more contents to explain each figure and table.
Section: 4. Lines 306-308.Lines318-327, Line 342-345.Line 354-356
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded faithfully to the reviewer's views and revised the manuscript as a whole. The manuscript has been improved enough to be published.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our revised manuscript and for your positive assessment. We appreciate your acknowledgment that we have responded faithfully to your views. We are delighted to hear that the improvements we have made are sufficient for publication.Thank you so much again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Upon careful examination of the manuscript, it is evident that the authors have not fully comprehended the feedback provided in the previous review. The manuscript still exhibits numerous errors and lacks coherent logic throughout. While the previous review contained specific examples, it is important to note that those examples were intended to illustrate areas requiring revision rather than serving as an exhaustive list. Thus, it is imperative that the authors thoroughly review and revise the entire paper, taking into consideration the suggestions provided.
To begin, let us examine the first paragraph, the statement made in lines 31-32: "The current accident systems are mostly concerned with managing instruments, educating people, and producing safety research videos" The authors should provide a clear justification for this claim and requires further elaboration to enhance its academic rigor, meanwhile, reference the sources or studies that support it.
Moreover, certain expressions within the manuscript, such as "Accidents in chemistry laboratories can entail explosions, chemical leaks, and improper use of equipment, all of which result in significant financial loss and human suffering," do not adhere to the conventions of academic writing. It is recommended that the authors adhere to the fundamental principles of academic paper writing, ensuring clarity and conciseness in their language choice. Additionally, the manuscript should be revised to improve overall logical flow, facilitating better comprehension and follow-up.
Furthermore, it is crucial to address the persisting issues related to the figures, which remain in low resolutions. The authors should make the necessary efforts to enhance the quality of the figures to meet the standards expected in academic publications. Similarly, the algorithm presented in the paper requires further clarification and refinement. It is vital that the authors adhere to the established guidelines for describing algorithms, ensuring a clear and unambiguous presentation.
In summary, it is evident that substantial revisions are necessary throughout the manuscript. The authors should not only address the specific examples provided but also undertake a comprehensive review, taking into account all areas requiring improvement.
There are many grammatical and vocabulary errors.
Author Response
Point-by-point Response to Reviewer's Comments
The authors are very thankful to you for your efforts and time to review the manuscript and your valuable and academic comments improved the present work. All your comments were considered carefully, and we provide here an itemized reply to each comment.
Comment #1.
Upon careful examination of the manuscript, it is evident that the authors have not fully comprehended the feedback provided in the previous review. The manuscript still exhibits numerous errors and lacks coherent logic throughout. While the previous review contained specific examples, it is important to note that those examples were intended to illustrate areas requiring revision rather than serving as an exhaustive list. Thus, it is imperative that the authors thoroughly review and revise the entire paper, taking into consideration the suggestions provided.
Response:
We appreciate the thorough examination of the manuscript and your feedback on its current state. We acknowledge that the manuscript requires significant improvement, and we understand the importance of addressing the overall coherence and errors.
We have taken your comments into serious consideration and carefully revised the entire paper. We have focused on enhancing the logical flow and addressed the identified errors. Additionally, we have ensured that the comments are implemented throughout the manuscript, even beyond the specific examples provided.
Thank you for your continued guidance.
For example, the number of chemistry experimental accidents are increasing with the growth of laboratories, experimental projects, experimental devices as well as the new experimental science such as energetic materials, energy storage, et al.
Such as Section: 1. Introduction: Lines 28-39. (Ref: 1-3), Lines 81-93.
Comment #2.
To begin, let us examine the first paragraph, the statement made in lines 31-32: "The current accident systems are mostly concerned with managing instruments, educating people, and producing safety research videos" The authors should provide a clear justification for this claim and requires further elaboration to enhance its academic rigor, meanwhile, reference the sources or studies that support it.
Response: Thank you for the critical comment. We have added more details contents in the revised manuscripts. We have also incorporated relevant references that support this claim, thus strengthening the academic foundation of our statement.
For example, the current accident-related systems mainly focus on managing instruments, safety education and training, and producing safety research videos. Researchers have designed social virtual reality (VR) system which allows experimenters to perform role learning, and social interaction for safety education. To improve laboratory safety, researchers have developed a laboratory accident alarm system based on remote control technology.
Section: 1. Introduction: Lines 36-39(Ref: 5,6)
Comment #3.
Moreover, certain expressions within the manuscript, such as "Accidents in chemistry laboratories can entail explosions, chemical leaks, and improper use of equipment, all of which result in significant financial loss and human suffering," do not adhere to the conventions of academic writing. It is recommended that the authors adhere to the fundamental principles of academic paper writing, ensuring clarity and conciseness in their language choice. Additionally, the manuscript should be revised to improve overall logical flow, facilitating better comprehension and follow-up.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have strived to use language that is more precise, concise, and appropriate for the academic context. Specifically, we have addressed the expression mentioned in the comment and make the necessary modifications to improve clarity and adherence to academic writing standards. Furthermore, we have closely examined the logical flow of the manuscript and make necessary adjustments.
For example: Accidents in chemistry laboratories including laboratory fire (explosions), chemical leakage, and equipment absence, mainly result from improper use of reagents, experimental devices, and operational processes, which would lead to significant financial loss as well as personal injury to some extent.
Section: 1 Introduction: Lines 30-33(Ref 4)
Comment #4.
Furthermore, it is crucial to address the persisting issues related to the figures, which remain in low resolutions. The authors should make the necessary efforts to enhance the quality of the figures to meet the standards expected in academic publications. Similarly, the algorithm presented in the paper requires further clarification and refinement. It is vital that the authors adhere to the established guidelines for describing algorithms, ensuring a clear and unambiguous presentation.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The authors improved Figure5-8 and all website Figures (Figure 9-12) by enlarge and bold font. We also added descriptions content of algorithms in the revised manuscript.
Such as Section 3: Line 207. Line 210.Line 302-306,309-315. Section: 4:Lines 336-370.
Comment #5.
In summary, it is evident that substantial revisions are necessary throughout the manuscript. The authors should not only address the specific examples provided but also undertake a comprehensive review, taking into account all areas requiring improvement.
Response: Thank you for the critical comment. The authors carefully revised the whole manuscript in terms of references and figures and tried to avoid grammatical mistakes and errors.
Such as Section: 5. Discussion.Lines 377-382(Ref 31-34).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
There are no more questions
There are no more questions
