Research on Early Warning for Gas Risks at a Working Face Based on Association Rule Mining

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents an important problem conecting to the safety of miners in a mine.

In my opinion the article has strictly theoretical character. However, the utility values ​​of the proposed methods of monitoring data analysis are poorly documented. Results research will be dificult to implementation to mining practice.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s recognition of the theoretical research of the paper. Although this research has not yet been implementation to mining practice, the proposed association rule analysis method based on multi-dimensional gas outliers and the gas grading early warning method provide a reference for the coal mine’s daily accurate warning of gas. And this research has a strong application prospect in the analysis and processing of abnormal values in daily collected gas data in the process of realizing intelligent and accurate early warning in coal mines in the future. We have contacted coal mines who are willing to provide us with application scenarios. In the next phase, we plan to integrate the proposed model into the coal mine gas monitoring system and implementation to mining practice.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns the forecast of methane hazard in mines. The authors indicated that data that deviate from the data series may be relevant and useful. They presented the results of optimization calculations with the use of several algorithms. Finally, the gas early warning model is presented in the article. Detailed comments are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s recognition of the paper and the revision comments on the paper. We have conducted a serious discussion and carefully revised the revision comments proposed by the reviewer. Please see the attachment for detailed modification. We wish you good health and good work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting work. The information presented is new. The submitted article is current. Presents solution to a practical problem in the industry.
The manuscript represents interesting research and is suitable for a journal. The abstract is clear and factual, emphasizing the specific application and significant aspects of the work.
The description of the experimental methodology, the presentation of the results and the discussion about them are clear and consistent. The content is briefly described and contextualized with regard to the previous and current theoretical basis and empirical research. From a scientific point of view, the contribution is interesting; is suitably prepared for publication in the Energies Journal.
Research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly stated.
Conclusions and discussion of coherent findings are balanced and convincing.
The figures are legible and well described.
The references are complete, and relatively easy to obtain.
Mathematical relationships are correct.
The general idea of ​​the article is appealing. The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article and referenced in the references. The formal level of the manuscript is followed according to the original of the journal. The content of the manuscript has an adequate and very good informative value.

I recommend to accept and publish the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s recognition and support of the paper. We will continue to optimize and improve based on the editor’s advice. We wish you good health and success in your work.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose an early warning model for multifactor coupling relationship analysis of coal face gas.

The paper is well structured, and overall, the topic is worth investigating in the field of underground coal mining safety.

The references should be thoroughly reviewed and critically commented in the introduction to emphasize the knowledge gaps that the authors want to highlight.

The comparison of the result with the previously established method should also be discussed.

The quality of the figures (graphs) must be improved for better readability.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a relevant hazard associated with the operation of coal extraction operation. It describes and reports an approach to the development of an early warning system aiming at preserving proper safety conditions of the extraction site.

The assessment of the paper pointed out a number of relevant issues that prevent the acceptance of the manuscript in the present form:

a. the sequence made by the title, abstract, introduction and conclusions is not coherent and able to establish in a clear way the context and the contribution of the authors to the area of knowledge;

b. the scientific soundness of the text is poor; in the current form, the manuscript appears to be more a technical report rather than a well designed and balanced scientific paper;

c. the statement of the problem and the definition of the background consist of a long list of items associated to 'highlights' (see what is commonly asked to the authors by other journals);

d. The English language jeopardizes the readability of the text, especially for the incoherent use of terms 'danger' (see the title) and 'hazard' elsewhere.

e. The section 'Materials and Methods' is not well designed; a composition of brief texts and formulas does not provide a comprehensive and clear definition of the procedure.

f. the list of references, even though made of papers on journals, appears to be really Regional; this is not necessarily a problem, but it is not usual for an International reader and may prevent the attractiveness of the paperer a wide and International readership.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1 / The article presents an interesting problem of the use of data from the monitoring system for early warning of methane hazards, which may have a significant impact on the safety of miners in a mine.

2/  The authors did not avoid mistakes that they should correct. The manuscript requires a careful review of the authors before publication. I pay attention to, among others In the form of an article, e.g. line 117 contains chapter number 2, line 118 has subchapter number 2.1, and line 139 has subchapter number 2.2 while on line 200 is subchapter number 2.1.2. This is probably a mistake!

3 / References mostly contain the positions of Chinese authors. There are very few references to the publication of research results from countries with developed mining industries and recognized global universities and research centers.

4 / The article is theoretical with poorly documented utilitarian values. In the presented example, the authors do not specify what measurement data they used. They do not provide the metrological properties of the measuring equipment, i.e. the resolution of methane sensors and their accuracy, and these parameters have a significant impact on the reliability of the results.

The authors should complete the data on metrological parameters of methane sensors and the sampling period for signals in the monitoring system.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made an effort in revising the manuscript and amending a number of issues detected also by the other colleagues involved in the revision.

It is opinion of this reviewer that the improvement does not make the paper acceptable for publication:

a. the references still suffer the original issue; added calls do not change the approach to the technical literature by the authors;

b. the changes made to the abstract are marginal and do not reflect the comments provided in the first round of revision;

c. it is not clear why the authors do not make their lexicon more compliant with International standards; danger vs. hazard could not be the same, a proper use of the concept of risk, limitation of the words like true, truth. The current form of the paper seems to be not compliant with the literature and guidelines in the area of the industrial risk (see for instance among other references: https://inchem.org/documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj1.pdf);  

d. The quality of the figures is more suitable for presentations rather than for a scientific paper. This comment applies particularly to Figure 1, which is really important for the comprehension of the system.

e. The early lined of the discussion and the long list of items must be revised and better proposed in the framework of the manuscript.