The Accident Path of Coal Mine Gas Explosion Based on 24Model: A Case Study of the Ruizhiyuan Gas Explosion Accident

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work studied the most serious accident, a gas explosion in coal mine safety production. The authors propose to strengthen the logical relationship among the accident causes by analyzing the action path of different employees in the organization, the feasibility and practicality of the steps of the method based on a specific accident case, yields 12 unsafe acts, 4 unsafe conditions, 4 habitual behavior causes, safety management system defects, and 10 safety culture deficiencies. A case study of the accident shows that starting from the direct cause of the accident and working in reverse, the logical relationship of the accident causation 24 model can be traced back to several influence paths, each of which have different effects on the occurrence of the accident. Employees can clearly identify the accident causes listed through each module, and understand the relationship between the people, things, management systems and other causes in order to prevent gas explosion accidents in a more comprehensive and effective manner. Overall, this work is well-written. Some minor revisions are need. The proper reference for the Tables/Figures are needed for this work. The introduction part could be enhanced by a comprehensive review of latest progress in this area.

Author Response

Dear Hobby Hou and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Study on the Accidents Path of Coal Mine Gas Explosion based on 24Model: A case of “RUIZHIYUAN” gas explosion accident” (Manuscript ID:processes-431493). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with the approval. The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer1:

1) Response to comment: Moderate English changes required. With that said, the proper reference for the Tables/Figures are needed for this work. The introduction part could be enhanced by a comprehensive review of latest progress in this area.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. To help readers or practitioners better use the knowledge gained from this paper, we have made the following supplements in the revised manuscript:

(1)   We have revised the entire manuscript and reconstructed many sentences carefully and avoided grammatical errors. In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English of this manuscript. We have also taken the help of an English language editing service of MDPI to improve our manuscript.

(2)   At line 115 and line 117 we have listed the reference of Figure 3 [1] and Figure 4 [2] in the revised manuscript.

(3)   We have improved the introduction part and enhanced a comprehensive review of latest progress in this area: “Therefore, the choice of the analysis method is critical to the result [3]. Currently, accident prevention research focuses on the lack of systematic cause analysis methods and analysis tools, resulting in accident analyses not being comprehensive or specific, so the effect of preventing accidents needs to be strengthened [4]. In order to provide a more comprehensive, clearer analysis of accident causes, this paper provides a systemic accident causation model for effective control to increase accident prevention. (see at line 39 to line 44 —the red part in the revised manuscript)

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Hobby Hou and Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely,

References:

1     FU Gui, etc. A Universal Methodology for the Causation Analysis of Accidents (4th Edition) [J]. Journal of Accident Prevention. 2016, 2(1):7-12.

2.     FU Gui, LI Ren. 2017. Fifth edition 24Model, http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-603730-1083115.html.

3.     XIE, XUE-cai, GUO, DE-yong. Human factors risk assessment and management: process safety in engineering. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018,113: 467–482.

4.     XIE XUE-cai, FU Gui, XUE YU-Jing yang, et al. Risk prediction and factors risk analysis based on IFOA-GRNN and apriority algorithms: Application of artificial intelligence in accident prevention. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019,122, 169–184.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In this paper is reported a detailed analysis of the cause on one case mine gas explosion. The paper result interesting but for me it need some changes and adjustments.

The figure capcom not following the journal template, the authors need to uniform it.

For the reference at line 32 the author can adopt compact form in accord with the template.

For me the section between the line 64 – 69 requires more explanation, such as: why the methods descript in the previous line are not adequate for the mining sector?, what other methods for accidents analysis are adapt for the mining sector?, all with adequate reference.

At line 112 the list of the reference makes reading difficult, I suggest at the author report the effective contribute of each reference.

The section between lines 169 – 187 for me is not clear and it is  inaccurate, for example in your formulation for the explosion is not necessary the contemporary presence of the oxidant, the combustible and the ignition. Or about the ignition sources they are not only the high temperature, for example an exhaust list of ignition source family is presented in the standard EN 1127-1:2011. Or you use the word “gas” for the combustible gas and you don’t clarify what gas you referring (eg. Methane, natural gas, propane, …). I suggest to reformulate the section for a greater clarity.

The figure 3.1 is difficult to read, the writing are too small, the authors can evaluate the possibility to cut the figure in different parts for guaranty the readability.

In the figure 3-2 are reported 6 unsafe condition but in the section 3.3.2 are reported only 3 unsafe condition the authors can explain the difference between the two indication.

The figure 3-3 are not reported in the text.

In the line 373 is cited the official website but it is not contained in the bibliography, add it.

In the results section the authors suggest that the results contained in the paper are more useful for develop corresponding countermeasures than the official one (line 374). I am in accord with the authors for this reason I suggest at the authors to add a section for explain how use the result for prevent other accidents and develop the countermeasure and in the case study what measure can be developed and adopted.

In the conclusion at line 388 - 390 is reported “(1) In this analysis, 12 unsafe acts, 4 unsafe conditions, 4 habitual behaviors, 10 safety defects in the management system, and 10 deficiencies in the safety culture, which induced the accident, were found.”. But fig 3-1 show 15 Unsafe act, fig 3-2 show 6 unsafe condition and fig 3-3 show 10 safety defects in the management system. The author can explain the difference between the different results or how pass from one at the other.

My best regard

Author Response

Dear Hobby Hou and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Study on the Accidents Path of Coal Mine Gas Explosion based on 24Model: A case of “RUIZHIYUAN” gas explosion accident” (Manuscript ID:processes-431493). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with the approval. The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer:

1) Response to comment: The figure Capcom not following the journal template, the authors need to uniform it.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. To help readers or practitioners better use the knowledge gained from this paper, we have made the following supplements in the revised manuscript:

（1）about “ the figure Capcom not following the journal template”, we have modified the Figures to the “TIFF” format according to the format provided by the journal and all Figures, Tables have numbered following their number of appearance (Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 1).(see in the revised manuscript)  

2) Response to comment: For the reference at line 32 the author can adopt compact form in accord with the template.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment, we have made the following supplements in the revised manuscript.

(1) For the reference at line 32, we have adopted compact form in accord with the template ([2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11] revised [2-11]).

3) Response to comment: For me the section between the line 64 – 69 requires more explanation, such as: why the methods descript in the previous line are not adequate for the mining sector? what other methods for accidents analysis are adapt for the mining sector? all with adequate reference. 

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment, we have revised the entire manuscript.

(1) We have added some sentences between the line 64 – 69 and adequate reference in the revised manuscript to explain “why the methods descript in the previous line are not adequate for the mining sector”: The previously described models, while still popular, do not produce adequate results when used to analyze the causes of coal mine gas explosion accidents [1]. For example, although AcciMap establishes a causal analysis method, the subjectivity of the factors selected in the analysis of the cause is too obvious, and individual behaviors and organizational factors are not well distinguished, which is not conducive to statistical analysis of a large number of accidents [2]. Since they include unclear indicators and unspecified definitions when analyzing accident causes, they result in difficulty separating various causes. This results in a lack of logic and difficulty generalizing the findings. (see at line67 to line71 —the red part in the revised manuscript)

(2) In this work, the accident causation 24Model is used as the theoretical basis for the analysis of gas explosion accidents for the mining sector. Some industries have already used the 24Model in accident analysis and prevention. For example, Suoxiao studied the capsizing of the Eastern Star ferry using 24Model analysis of the five factors that led to the accident and proposed appropriate preventive measures [3]; Xueyujingyang used the 24Model to analyze personal and organizational factors that lead to aviation accidents [4]; and Zhanghu used a 24Model analysis of ammonia leakage accident causation factors in food enterprises [5]. Thus, the 24Model is already a more mature accident causation model in both theory and practice. At present, scholars use the 24Model to analyze the causes of coal mine gas explosion accidents [6-8], but there is no detailed action path analysis. This paper analyzes the impact path and relationship of an actual accident in detail. (see at line75 to line81 —the red part in the revised manuscript)

4) Response to comment: At line 112 the list of the reference makes reading difficult, I suggest at the author report the effective contribute of each reference.

           Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. In order to make the reader a clearer understanding, we have explained the reference of line 112 at line 94 between line 96 and also took the suggestion of reviewer to contribute the effective of each reference in the revised manuscript.

5) Response to comment: The section between lines 169 – 187 for me is not clear and it is inaccurate, for example in your formulation for the explosion is not necessary the contemporary presence of the oxidant, the combustible and the ignition. Or about the ignition sources they are not only the high temperature, for example an exhaust list of ignition source family is presented in the standard EN 1127-1:2011. Or you use the word “gas” for the combustible gas and you don’t clarify what gas you referring (eg. Methane, natural gas, propane, …). I suggest to reformulate the section for a greater clarity

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. After thinking of reviewer’s suggestion, we made repeated reading of this section and in order to comply paper logic and rationality, we have decided to delete this section from lines 169-187 in original manuscript, thus, the description of the article becomes greater clarity.

6) Response to comment: The figure 3.1 is difficult to read, the writing is too small, the authors can evaluate the possibility to cut the figure in different parts for guaranty the readability.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. To help readers or practitioners better use the knowledge gained from this paper, we have revised the Figure 3.1 in original manuscript to Table 1, the writing after the change becomes clear, thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. (see at line 287 —the red part in the revised manuscript)

7) Response to comment: In the figure 3-2 are reported 6 unsafe condition but in the section 3.3.2 are reported only 3 unsafe condition the authors can explain the difference between the two indication.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment, the figur3-2 reported 6 unsafe conditions including 3 unsafe conditions that did not participate in the accident but posed potential safety hazards, so the section 3.3.2 are reported only 3 unsafe conditions, and we have explained the other unsafe conditions such as:“ At the same time, inadequate gas detectors in the well, broken methane sensors on the working face, and fake drawings made to deceive leaders were all unsafe conditions, which, although not the cause of the gas accumulation, but posed potential safety hazards.” (see between line 300 and line 302 —the red part in the revised manuscript)  

8) Response to comment: The figure 3-3 are not reported in the text.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment, we have added the explanation of Figure 3-3, the Figure lists the safety knowledge deficiencies manifested by employees. (see between line 315 and line 316 —the red part in the revised manuscript)

9) Response to comment: In the line 373 is cited the official website but it is not contained in the bibliography, add it.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment, we have added the reference of the official website [9]. (see line 360 —the red part in the revised manuscript)

10) Response to comment: In the results section the authors suggest that the results contained in the paper are more useful for develop corresponding countermeasures than the official one (line 374). I am in accord with the authors for this reason I suggest at the authors to add a section for explain how use the result for prevent other accidents and develop the countermeasure and in the case study what measure can be developed and adopted.

Response: (1) Thanks for reviewer’s comment, we have adopted the suggestion of reviewer’s and added a section for explain how use the result for prevent other accidents. We also have drawn a “Accident causes analysis flow chart” at line 403 in the revised manuscript.

(2) We have added the detailed accident analysis process and advice on preventing general accidents at line 394 to 403 in the revised manuscript.

11) Response to comment: In the conclusion at line 388 - 390 is reported “(1) In this analysis, 12 unsafe acts, 4 unsafe conditions, 4 habitual behaviors, 10 safety defects in the management system, and 10 deficiencies in the safety culture, which induced the accident, were found.”. But fig 3-1 show 15 Unsafe act, fig 3-2 show 6 unsafe condition and fig 3-3 show 10 safety defects in the management system. The author can explain the difference between the different results or how pass from one at the other.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment, I am sorry that we did not express this part clearly. We have revised this part in the manuscript and we can have explained the difference between the results: In this analysis, 15 unsafe acts (there were including 3 unsafe acts with potential safety hazards that did not affect the accident), so there were 12 unsafe acts causing the accident; 3 unsafe conditions, and 3 unsafe conditions that did not participate in the accident but posed potential safety hazards, 4 habitual behaviors, 10 safety defects in the management system, and 10 deficiencies in the safety culture that induced the accident were found.(see between line 374 and line 378 —the red part in the revised manuscript.

P.s.: We have revised the entire manuscript and reconstructed many sentences carefully and avoided grammatical errors. In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English of this manuscript. We have also taken the help of an English language editing service of MDPI to improve our manuscript.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Hobby Hou and Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely,

References:

 1.   SUO Xiao.2018. Causation Analysis Method and Application Research of Gas Explosion Accidents in Coal Mines. [D]. China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing.

2.   Salmon P M, Cornelissen M, Trotter M J. Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP[J]. Safety Science, 2012,50(4):1158-1170.

3.     SUO Xiao, FU Gui, WANG CHUN-xue, JIA QING-song. An Application of 24Model to Analysis Capsizing of the Eastern Star Ferry[J]. Polish Maritime Research. 2017,24(95):116-122.

4.     XUE YU-Jing yang, FU Gui. A Modified Accident Analysis and Investigation Model for The General Aviation Industry: Emphasizing on Human and Organizational Factors[J]. Journal of Safety Research.2018,9(67):1-15.

5.     ZHANG Hu. 2018.The Study on Cause for Food Enterprise Ammonia Leakage Accidents in China[D]. China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing.

6.     YIN Wentao, FU Gui, GONG Jianxiang. Research on coal miners’ operating against safety regulation: “cognition-behavior” failure mechanism and control measures[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015,25(10):153-159.

7.     YIN Wentao, FU Gui, etc. Design and Implementation of Coal Mine Accident Prevention Behavior Safety Method[J]. Safety in Coal Mines, 2016,47(03):228-230.

8.     WU Cai, FU Gui. Interaction Study Between Unsafe Acts and Unsafe Conditions[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2018,44(08):16-18+23.

       9.     Baidu baike. 2007.https://baike.baidu.com/item/12·6临汾煤矿爆炸事故/22080965?fr=aladdin [Z].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for addressing my suggestions.

Remain only, a short issue, the figure 9 is not cited in the text.

My best regards

Author Response

Dear Hobby Hou and Reviewer:

Thank you again for your letter and for the reviewer’s comment concerning our manuscript entitled “ Study on the Accidents Path of Coal Mine Gas Explosion based on 24Model: A case of “RUIZHIYUAN” gas explosion accident” (Manuscript ID:processes-431493). The last comments was all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to us researches. Thanks again to the reviewer for their advice. We have studied comment carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with the approval. The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer:

1) Response to comment:  Remain only, a short issue, the figure 9 is not cited in the text.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. To help readers or practitioners better use the knowledge gained from this paper, we have added the explanation of Figure 9 at line 396 and line 400——he red part in the revised manuscript: “When using 24Model to analyze other accidents, it is possible to find the causes of unsafe actions and physical states of employees according to the order of direct cause, indirect cause, root cause, and root cause in the model, according to unsafe acts and conditions, based on this, the paper draws a “Accident causes analysis flow chart “, see Figure 9 for details” .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round  3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,