Dust Explosion Risk Assessment for Dry Dust Collector Based on AHP-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The final observed numerical results are to be added in an abstract and conclusion

2. The research gap and objective to be clearly defined 

3. More latest references to be reviewed and added

The following reference related to the article may be reviewed and added

Nallusamy, S., Ganesan, M., Balakannan, K., Shankar, C, Environmental sustainability evaluation for an automobile manufacturing industry using multi-grade fuzzy approach,

International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa, 2016, 19, pp. 123–129

 

Author Response

processes-2048786

Title: Dust Explosion Risk Assessment for Dry Dust Collector Based on AHP-fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

We would like to thank the reviewers for thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions. Accordingly, we have revised the paper extensively. All changes are highlighted in the revised paper. The details of the revision with respect to these comments are summarized as follows.

 

Reviewer

1. The final observed numerical results are to be added in an abstract and conclusion

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract and conclusion.

  [Abstract] Dry dust collectors are a typical dust and gas coexistence space. Dust explosion risk assessments should be performed for effective prevention and control of dust explosion accidents. In this paper, a dust explosion risk assessment index system for dust removal systems is constructed following the dust characteristics and the actual operation of a dry dust collector. The proposed system consists of three first-level indexes (dust explosion characteristic parameters, environmental parameters in the dust collector box, use state of explosion prevention and control device) and seven second-level indexes (dust explosion sensitivity, dust explosion severity, temperature in the dust collector box, pressure difference between inlet and outlet, operation state of spark detection, operation states of explosion venting disc and airlock, and dust discharge valve). The analytic hierarchy process was adapted to calculate the weight of each index. Additionally, a dust explosion risk assessment model for the dust removal system was constructed using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to form a set of dust explosion risk assessment methods suitable for dry dust collectors. The risk of explosion was assessed at level II through the use of paper powder with a particle size of 75 μm, which means this method is reliable.

 

  [Conclusions]

1) Considering the characteristics of dust and the actual operation of dry dust collectors, a dust explosion risk assessment index system for dry-type dust collectors is constructed to effectively prevent and control dust explosion accidents in dry dust collectors. The proposed system consists of three first-level indexes (dust explosion characteristic parameters, environmental parameters in the dust collector box, and use state of explosion prevention and control devices) and seven second-level indexes (dust explosion sensitivity, dust explosion severity, temperature in the dust collector box, pressure difference between inlet and outlet, operation state of spark detection, operation state of explosion venting disc, and operation state of airlock and dust discharge valve.

2) The analytic hierarchy process is adopted to calculate the weights of the risk assessment indicators, and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is employed to construct the dust explosion risk assessment model for a dry dust collector, so as to establish a set of dust explosion risk assessment methods suitable for dry dust collectors. A combination of quantitative calculations and qualitative analysis verifies that the evaluation results are more practical.

3) Use of paper powder with a particle size of 75 μm, by applying an established dust explosion risk assessment method for dry dust collectors, the risk level for dust explosion of a dry pulse bag dust collector is evaluated as grade II in the examples, consistent with the risk level results obtained by experts. Thus, the established risk assessment method for dust explosion is feasible and accurate.

 

2. The research gap and objective to be clearly defined

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have revised the introduction.

The current research on risk assessments for dust explosions focuses on establishing evaluation models with personnel, materials, equipment and facilities, and environment and management factors as indicators. Risk assessments are generally conducted for enterprises, production plants, and powder-related processes, while there are few dust explosion risk assessments purely for dust collectors. Although some researchers have explored the operating parameters of equipment for dust removal systems, dust concentration, and explosion pressure in dust removal boxes, they have not fully considered the impact of the dust explosion characteristics and the operating status of the explosion prevention and control equipment on the risk of dust explosion accidents in dust collectors. There is insufficient research on the risk of dust explosions during the actual operation of dust collectors, restricting the effective prevention and control of dust explosion accidents. Therefore, a dust explosion risk evaluation index system is constructed in this study with the dry dust collector used in powder-related processes as an example. the main contributions in this article are as follows:

• The dust explosion characteristic parameters, the environmental parameters of the dust collector box, and the use status of the explosion prevention and control device are adopted as first-level indicators, while the dust explosion sensitivity and dust explosion severity, the temperature in the dust collector box and the pressure difference between the inlet and outlet, the operation status of the spark detector, the operation status of the explosion venting disc, and the operation status of the airlock and dust discharge valve are utilized as second-level indicators.
• The weight of each index is determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is employed to construct a dust explosion risk assessment model for a dust removal system and quantitatively evaluate and classify the dust explosion risk.

    This system lays a foundation for the prevention and control of dust explosion accidents in a dust collector.

 

3. More latest references to be reviewed and added

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have added the reference.

[15] Nallusamy, S., Ganesan, M., Balakannan, K., Shankar, C. Environmental Sustainability Evaluation for an Automobile Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Grade Fuzzy Approach. JERA 2015,19, 123–129.

[16] Bi, H., Xie, X., Wang, K., Cao, Y., Shao, H. A risk assessment methodology of aluminum dust explosion for polishing process based on laboratory tests. Journal of Risk and Reliability, 2021,235, 627-636.

[17] R. A. Ogle. Amp., B. L. Cox. Dust explosions: risk assessment. Methods in Chemical Process Safety 2019, 3, 167-192.

 

Once again, we would like to thank you and the referees for the time and efforts in processing our paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you about the revision of the paper at your convenience.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear,

The article presents an interesting methodology for assessing the risk of dust explosion.

I would suggest the authors to correct and clarify the following points.

•         Figure 1 is inconsistent with the text, especially in the figure the label "Pressure difference in inlet and outlet" appears twice, instead in the text it is cited as the parameter "the spark detection" which does not appear in the figure. Which is correct?

•         The methodology is presented as with two levels of indicators but as regards the "characteristic parameters of the dust explosion" there is a third level of parameters that make up the secondary parameters, see Figure 2 or Table 2. Can the point be clarified?

•         It is advisable to standardize the acronyms used in the text and those used in the figures (eg MEC in figure 2).

•         As regards the evaluation of ignition sources, the only taken into consideration in section 2.2 is the “temperature in dust collector box” but for example the EN 1127-1: 2019 standard mentions 13 possible sources of ignition. How does the proposed methodology take into consideration all the other possible sources of ignition? Or why were the others excluded from the proposed methodology?

•         In paragraph 3.2 tables 7-11 are presented as an example but on the basis of the space used, it is better to clarify the example. And how expert judgement were collected.

•         The parameters used in equations 11 and 13 do not correspond to those in table 11. Which is correct?

•         It is not clear to me how to pass from the values of A1, A2 and A3 obtained with equations 11, 12 and 13 and those used in equation 14. I suggest to clarify the point.

•         The conclusions are reported as a numbered list suggested to the authors to express as real text, removing the points. Or make a real bulleted list by wrapping between each bullet.

Best regard

Author Response

Processes-2048786

Title: A Dust Explosion Risk Assessment for Dry Dust Collectors Based on AHP-fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions. Accordingly, we have revised the paper extensively. All changes are highlighted in the revised paper. The details of the revision with respect to these comments are summarized as follows.

 

Reviewer

1. Figure 1 is inconsistent with the text, especially in the figure the label "Pressure difference in inlet and outlet" appears twice, instead in the text it is cited as the parameter "the spark detection" which does not appear in the figure. Which is correct?

Response: I appreciate your guidance. As per your advice, the wording was right and the incorrect picture has been replaced with the proper one. We have also made updates to the pertinent sections.

 

2. The methodology is presented as with two levels of indicators but as regards the "characteristic parameters of the dust explosion" there is a third level of parameters that make up the secondary parameters, see Figure 2 or Table 2. Can the point be clarified?

Response: Thanks for your advice.

Dust explosion characteristic parameters consist of dust explosion sensitivity and severity, where dust explosion sensitivity consists of dust cloud low-ignition temperature, dust layer minimum-ignition temperature and dust cloud minimum-ignition energy, whose data is measured through experiments based on Table 1, so as to obtain their risk level. The risk level of MIT_L, MIT_C and MIE is compared in Figure 2, so as to obtain their sensitivity risk level.

Table 1. Dust MIT_C, MIT_L, and MIE risk classifications

Risk grade	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
MITC (℃)	>500	400-500	300-400	100-300	≤100
MITL (℃)	>500	400-500	300-400	100-300	≤100
MIE (mJ）	>1000	500-1000	300-500	100-300	≤100

 

Dust explosion sensitivity risk level consists of, whose data is measured via experiments. According to Table 2, the risk level of their sensitivity can be obtained.

Table 2. Classification of dust explosion severity

等级划分		Pmax (MPa)
		Pmax＜0.3	0.3≤Pmax＜0.6	0.6≤Pmax＜1.0	1.0≤Pmax
Kst (MPa·m/s)	Kst＜20	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ
	20≤Kst＜30	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
	30≤Kst	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ	Ⅴ

 

3. It is advisable to standardize the acronyms used in the text and those used in the figures (eg MEC in figure 2).

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have made changes in the relevant parts.

 

 

4. As regards the evaluation of ignition sources, the only taken into consideration in section 2.2 is the “temperature in dust collector box” but for example the EN 1127-1: 2019 standard mentions 13 possible sources of ignition. How does the proposed methodology take into consideration all the other possible sources of ignition? Or why were the others excluded from the proposed methodology?

Response: Thanks for your advice. You mentioned that the EN 1127-1: 2019 standard mentions 13 possible ignition sources, including (1)Hot surfaces, (2) Flames and hot gases, (3)Mechanically generated impact, friction and abrasion, (4)Electrical equipment and components, (5)Stray electric currents, cathodic corrosion protection, (6)Static electricity, (7)Lightning, (8)Radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic waves from 104 Hz to 3 × 1011 Hz, (9)Electromagnetic waves from 3 × 1011 Hz to 3 × 1015 Hz, (10)Ionizing radiation, (11)Ultrasonic waves, (12)Adiabatic compression and shock waves, (13)Exothermic reactions, including self-ignition of dusts, the focus of this article is on the monitoring of the daily operation of the dust box, involving ignition sources such as Hot surfaces Flames and hot gases, Mechanically generated impact, friction and abrasion. Monitoring sparks through spark detection is performed to monitor two ignition sources, Flames and hot gases, and Mechanically generated impact, friction and abrasion, which can be extinguished in the first instance to prevent explosions from occurring. Monitoring hot surfaces through temperature sensors because dust explosion occurs when combustible dust reaches the minimum ignition temperature, so monitoring the temperature inside the dust box not only prevents dust from reaching the minimum ignition temperature but also protects the dust collector from receiving temperature damage.

 

5. In paragraph 3.2 tables 7-11 are presented as an example but on the basis of the space used, it is better to clarify the example. And how expert judgement were collected.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have made changes to the relevant parts.

Using the investigated index system, a questionnaire survey was used to choose 7 experts (engaged in dust explosion-related university professors instructors and enterprise specialist), and the expert scoring approach was utilized to grade the indexes in the index system. The significance of indicators at each level is then calculated by comparing any two indicators on a scale of 1 to 9. Tables 7 through 10 exhibit examples of the judgment matrix and consistency test results for each assessment indication evaluated by one of the experts. As indicated in Table 11, the weights    of each first-level index and second-level index are calculated by adding the arithmetic mean of the scoring weights of all experts who pass the consistency test.

6. The parameters used in equations 11 and 13 do not correspond to those in table 11. Which is correct?

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, We have made changes to the relevant parts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11 The weight of each primary and secondary indicator

First-level indicators	Weights		Secondary indicators	Weights
Dust explosion characteristic parameters	W8	0.3392	Dust explosion susceptibility	W1	0.2833
			Dust explosion severity	W2	0.7167
Environmental parameters in the dust collector box	W9	0.2241	The temperature in the dust collector box	W3	0.5833
			Air inlet and outlet pressure difference	W4	0.4167
Explosion prevention and control device use status	W10	0.4367	Spark detection operating status	W5	0.3366
			Explosion disk operation status	W6	0.3314
			Operation status of air lock and ash discharge valve	W7	0.332

 

Given the weights of the indicators of all levels in Table 11, A1, A2, and A3 are determined as:

A1 = (W₁ W₂)*(B₁ B₂)^T = (0.2833 0.7167)*(5 2)^T = 2.8499                     (11)

A2 = (W₃ W₄)*(B₃ B₄)^T = (0.5833 0.4167)*(1 1)^T = 1                             (12)

A3 = (W₅ W₆ W₇)*(B₅ B₆ B₇)^T = (0.3366 0.3314 0.332)*(1 1 1)^T = 1              (13)

As demonstrated by comparing A1, A2, and A3 with the evaluation grade division in Table 12, the risk level of the first-level index dust explosion characteristic parameters is grade III, while the risk level of the environmental state and the equipment operation parameters is grade I. The total target vector U can be obtained as:

U = (W₈ W₉ W₁₀)*(A1 A2 A3)T = (0.3392 0.2241 0.4367)*( 2.8499 1 1)^T =1.678     (14)

 

7. It is not clear to me how to pass from the values of A1, A2 and A3 obtained with equations 11, 12 and 13 and those used in equation 14. I suggest to clarify the point.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have made changes in the relevant parts.

First of all, according to Table 11 and Figure 1, we know the meaning of A1, A2 and A3, and then we get their upper target values according to the model.

6）The evaluation vector C is:

                                   C=W•B                                (10)

7）Based on the assessment vector C, the relative assessment score of the target level is obtained based on the maximum membership principle. The target level score is obtained, and the risk assessment level is determined through the comparison in Table 9.

 

8. The conclusions are reported as a numbered list suggested to the authors to express as real text, removing the points. Or make a real bulleted list by wrapping between each bullet.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have revised the conclusion.

Conclusions

1) Considering the characteristics of dust and the actual operation of dry dust collectors, a dust explosion risk assessment index system is constructed for dry-type dust collectors to effectively prevent and control dust explosion accidents caused by dry dust collectors. The system proposed consists of three first-level indexes (dust explosion characteristic parameters, environmental parameters of the dust collector box as well as the use state of explosion prevention and control devices) and seven second-level indexes (dust explosion sensitivity, dust explosion severity, temperature in the dust collector box, pressure difference between the inlet and the outlet, the operation state of spark detector, explosion venting disc, airlock and dust discharge valve).

2) An analytic hierarchy process is adopted to calculate the weight of the risk assessment indicators, and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is employed to construct a dust explosion risk assessment model for dry dust collectors, so as to establish a set of dust explosion risk assessment methods suitable for them. Through the combination of quantitative calculations and qualitative analysis, it is verified that the evaluation results are more practical.

3) Using paper powder with a particle size of 75μm, by applying a dust explosion risk assessment method established for dry dust collectors, the risk level of dust explosion of the dry pulse bag dust collector is evaluated as Grade II based on the examples, consistent with the risk level results obtained by experts. Thus, the risk assessment method established for dust explosion is feasible and accurate.

 

Once again, we would like to thank you and the referees for the time and efforts in processing our paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you about the revision of the paper at your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the change at the paper.

Author Response

Processes-2048786

Title: A Dust Explosion Risk Assessment for Dry Dust Collectors Based on AHP-fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions. Accordingly, we have revised the paper extensively. All changes are highlighted in the revised paper. The details of the revision with respect to these comments are summarized as follows.

 

Reviewer

1. Figure 1 is inconsistent with the text, especially in the figure the label "Pressure difference in inlet and outlet" appears twice, instead in the text it is cited as the parameter "the spark detection" which does not appear in the figure. Which is correct?

Response: I appreciate your guidance. As per your advice, the wording was right and the incorrect picture has been replaced with the proper one. We have also made updates to the pertinent sections.

 

2. The methodology is presented as with two levels of indicators but as regards the "characteristic parameters of the dust explosion" there is a third level of parameters that make up the secondary parameters, see Figure 2 or Table 2. Can the point be clarified?

Response: Thanks for your advice.

Dust explosion characteristic parameters consist of dust explosion sensitivity and severity, where dust explosion sensitivity consists of dust cloud low-ignition temperature, dust layer minimum-ignition temperature and dust cloud minimum-ignition energy, whose data is measured through experiments based on Table 1, so as to obtain their risk level. The risk level of MIT_L, MIT_C and MIE is compared in Figure 2, so as to obtain their sensitivity risk level.

Table 1. Dust MIT_C, MIT_L, and MIE risk classifications

Risk grade	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
MITC (℃)	>500	400-500	300-400	100-300	≤100
MITL (℃)	>500	400-500	300-400	100-300	≤100
MIE (mJ）	>1000	500-1000	300-500	100-300	≤100

 

 

Dust explosion sensitivity risk level consists of, whose data is measured via experiments. According to Table 2, the risk level of their sensitivity can be obtained.

Table 2. Classification of dust explosion severity

等级划分		Pmax (MPa)
		Pmax＜0.3	0.3≤Pmax＜0.6	0.6≤Pmax＜1.0	1.0≤Pmax
Kst (MPa·m/s)	Kst＜20	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ
	20≤Kst＜30	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
	30≤Kst	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ	Ⅴ

 

3. It is advisable to standardize the acronyms used in the text and those used in the figures (eg MEC in figure 2).

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have made changes in the relevant parts.

 

 

4. As regards the evaluation of ignition sources, the only taken into consideration in section 2.2 is the “temperature in dust collector box” but for example the EN 1127-1: 2019 standard mentions 13 possible sources of ignition. How does the proposed methodology take into consideration all the other possible sources of ignition? Or why were the others excluded from the proposed methodology?

Response: Thanks for your advice. You mentioned that the EN 1127-1: 2019 standard mentions 13 possible ignition sources, including (1)Hot surfaces, (2) Flames and hot gases, (3)Mechanically generated impact, friction and abrasion, (4)Electrical equipment and components, (5)Stray electric currents, cathodic corrosion protection, (6)Static electricity, (7)Lightning, (8)Radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic waves from 104 Hz to 3 × 1011 Hz, (9)Electromagnetic waves from 3 × 1011 Hz to 3 × 1015 Hz, (10)Ionizing radiation, (11)Ultrasonic waves, (12)Adiabatic compression and shock waves, (13)Exothermic reactions, including self-ignition of dusts, the focus of this article is on the monitoring of the daily operation of the dust box, involving ignition sources such as Hot surfaces Flames and hot gases, Mechanically generated impact, friction and abrasion. Monitoring sparks through spark detection is performed to monitor two ignition sources, Flames and hot gases, and Mechanically generated impact, friction and abrasion, which can be extinguished in the first instance to prevent explosions from occurring. Monitoring hot surfaces through temperature sensors because dust explosion occurs when combustible dust reaches the minimum ignition temperature, so monitoring the temperature inside the dust box not only prevents dust from reaching the minimum ignition temperature but also protects the dust collector from receiving temperature damage.

 

5. In paragraph 3.2 tables 7-11 are presented as an example but on the basis of the space used, it is better to clarify the example. And how expert judgement were collected.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have made changes to the relevant parts.

Using the investigated index system, a questionnaire survey was used to choose 7 experts (engaged in dust explosion-related university professors instructors and enterprise specialist), and the expert scoring approach was utilized to grade the indexes in the index system. The significance of indicators at each level is then calculated by comparing any two indicators on a scale of 1 to 9. Tables 7 through 10 exhibit examples of the judgment matrix and consistency test results for each assessment indication evaluated by one of the experts. As indicated in Table 11, the weights    of each first-level index and second-level index are calculated by adding the arithmetic mean of the scoring weights of all experts who pass the consistency test.

6. The parameters used in equations 11 and 13 do not correspond to those in table 11. Which is correct?

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, We have made changes to the relevant parts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11 The weight of each primary and secondary indicator

First-level indicators	Weights		Secondary indicators	Weights
Dust explosion characteristic parameters	W8	0.3392	Dust explosion susceptibility	W1	0.2833
			Dust explosion severity	W2	0.7167
Environmental parameters in the dust collector box	W9	0.2241	The temperature in the dust collector box	W3	0.5833
			Air inlet and outlet pressure difference	W4	0.4167
Explosion prevention and control device use status	W10	0.4367	Spark detection operating status	W5	0.3366
			Explosion disk operation status	W6	0.3314
			Operation status of air lock and ash discharge valve	W7	0.332

 

Given the weights of the indicators of all levels in Table 11, A1, A2, and A3 are determined as:

A1 = (W₁ W₂)*(B₁ B₂)^T = (0.2833 0.7167)*(5 2)^T = 2.8499                     (11)

A2 = (W₃ W₄)*(B₃ B₄)^T = (0.5833 0.4167)*(1 1)^T = 1                             (12)

A3 = (W₅ W₆ W₇)*(B₅ B₆ B₇)^T = (0.3366 0.3314 0.332)*(1 1 1)^T = 1              (13)

As demonstrated by comparing A1, A2, and A3 with the evaluation grade division in Table 12, the risk level of the first-level index dust explosion characteristic parameters is grade III, while the risk level of the environmental state and the equipment operation parameters is grade I. The total target vector U can be obtained as:

U = (W₈ W₉ W₁₀)*(A1 A2 A3)T = (0.3392 0.2241 0.4367)*( 2.8499 1 1)^T =1.678     (14)

 

7. It is not clear to me how to pass from the values of A1, A2 and A3 obtained with equations 11, 12 and 13 and those used in equation 14. I suggest to clarify the point.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have made changes in the relevant parts.

First of all, according to Table 11 and Figure 1, we know the meaning of A1, A2 and A3, and then we get their upper target values according to the model.

6）The evaluation vector C is:

                                   C=W•B                                (10)

7）Based on the assessment vector C, the relative assessment score of the target level is obtained based on the maximum membership principle. The target level score is obtained, and the risk assessment level is determined through the comparison in Table 9.

 

8. The conclusions are reported as a numbered list suggested to the authors to express as real text, removing the points. Or make a real bulleted list by wrapping between each bullet.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have revised the conclusion.

Conclusions

1) Considering the characteristics of dust and the actual operation of dry dust collectors, a dust explosion risk assessment index system is constructed for dry-type dust collectors to effectively prevent and control dust explosion accidents caused by dry dust collectors. The system proposed consists of three first-level indexes (dust explosion characteristic parameters, environmental parameters of the dust collector box as well as the use state of explosion prevention and control devices) and seven second-level indexes (dust explosion sensitivity, dust explosion severity, temperature in the dust collector box, pressure difference between the inlet and the outlet, the operation state of spark detector, explosion venting disc, airlock and dust discharge valve).

2) An analytic hierarchy process is adopted to calculate the weight of the risk assessment indicators, and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is employed to construct a dust explosion risk assessment model for dry dust collectors, so as to establish a set of dust explosion risk assessment methods suitable for them. Through the combination of quantitative calculations and qualitative analysis, it is verified that the evaluation results are more practical.

3) Using paper powder with a particle size of 75μm, by applying a dust explosion risk assessment method established for dry dust collectors, the risk level of dust explosion of the dry pulse bag dust collector is evaluated as Grade II based on the examples, consistent with the risk level results obtained by experts. Thus, the risk assessment method established for dust explosion is feasible and accurate.

 

Once again, we would like to thank you and the referees for the time and efforts in processing our paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you about the revision of the paper at your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc