Risk Analysis of Hydrogen Leakage at Hydrogen Producing and Refuelling Integrated Station

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• FTA: Clearly explain the steps of constructing the fault tree, identifying minimal cut sets, and calculating importance degrees. Include the specific equations used.
• AHP: Detail how the hierarchy was structured, how judgment matrices were created, and how weights were assigned using consistency tests.

• Include real-world case studies or experimental data to support the simulation findings, clearly define all parameters used in the ALOHA simulations, including environmental variables like temperature, wind speed, and assumptions.

• Ensure all figures and tables have detailed explanations and are directly integrated into the discussion to clarify their relevance.

• Expand the analysis of environmental factors, such as the combined effects of temperature, humidity, and wind on hydrogen leakage and diffusion.

• Discuss the limitations of ALOHA software, potential errors, and validate results using alternative methods or tools.

• Expand on preventive strategies with specific, actionable recommendations, technological solutions, and their practical implementation in hydrogen stations.

 

• Provide detailed interventions for human factors, such as training programs, automation, and ergonomic improvements to reduce accident risks

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations for Authors:

1. Introduction:

   • The introduction provides a detailed background on hydrogen energy and its role in modern energy systems. It adequately discusses the relevance of Hydrogen Producing and Refuelling Integrated Stations (HPRISs) and outlines the primary research objectives. However, the references to global studies could be expanded to contextualize the research in a broader international setting.
   • Recommendation: Enhance the discussion on global safety standards and compare these with Chinese regulations for a comprehensive understanding.

2. Research Design:

   • The research design, which combines Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and ALOHA simulation, is robust and well-suited for the study's objectives. However, the rationale behind choosing these methodologies could be elaborated to emphasize their relevance to the specific research questions.
   • Recommendation: Justify the selection of FTA and AHP methods more explicitly.

3. Methods:

   • The methods are described in detail, with sufficient explanation of the models and calculations employed. However, additional clarity on the assumptions made during the ALOHA simulations would strengthen the methodological transparency.
   • Recommendation: Include a subsection addressing the limitations or assumptions of each method.

4. Results:

   • The results are presented clearly, with adequate use of tables, figures, and diagrams. However, certain findings, such as the probabilistic importance of factors (e.g., misoperation, material aging), could benefit from a deeper interpretation in relation to existing studies.
   • Recommendation: Provide a comparative analysis of your findings with prior research to highlight the novelty and significance of your results.

5. Conclusions:

   • The conclusions are well-supported by the results. However, the discussion could better connect the findings to practical implications for industry practitioners and policymakers.
   • Recommendation: Expand on how the proposed preventive measures can be practically implemented in HPRISs and similar infrastructures.

6. Quality of English Language:

   • The manuscript is clear, but the language sometimes hinders understanding. Some minor grammatical issues and wordy sentences could be improved for conciseness.
   • Recommendation: A language revision is suggested to refine clarity and expression.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Quality of English Language:

   • The manuscript is clear, but the language sometimes hinders understanding. Some minor grammatical issues and wordy sentences could be improved for conciseness.
   • Recommendation: A language revision is suggested to refine clarity and expression.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important and highly topical topic, but its content is not sufficiently rich in scientific information.

The paper is too short, lacking essential information regarding the factors in Figure 5 and Table 11.

Section 2 is difficult to understand because it does not sufficiently describe the methodology and details regarding the simulation performed.

The validation of the research is not sufficiently proven.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been significantly improved. The content is much clearer and more informative. Now the paper has a richer scientific content. The authors have added content on the validiation of simulations. The references are also more numerous. 

Now, due to the content and overall appearance, I think the paper can be published, so I have no comment on changing or correcting the text of the paper.