Author(s)

Qin Liu¹, ZeMin Qi^1*, Ke Liu², HongBing Li¹

Affiliation(s)

¹Aba Teachers College, Wenchuan 623002, Sichuan, China.

²Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, Sichuan, China.

Corresponding Author

ZeMin Qi

ABSTRACT

Recently, safety accident in university laboratories occurs frequently, and it’s necessary to dig into its causes which provide scientific basis for precise management of university laboratories. First, the safety accident causes are identified with qualitative method. Then, quantitative analysis of DEMATEL-ISM-MICMAC method is combined with grey number, and hierarchical structure model is constructed to clarify the causal hierarchy and identify its attribute and characteristics. Finally, the grey DEMATEL-ISM-MICMAC method combined with 24 Model is applied to analyze “4.5” Explosion Death Accident of China University of Mining and Technology. The results show: (1) the factors such as the weak supervision of the education administrative department are the deep objective causes; (2) illegal operation, defects in the safety management system, and insufficient attention to laboratory safety rules and regulations are the key subjective causes; (3) the type of safety inspection, inadequate safety protection measures and other factors are secondary causes of the accident. The analysis results are consistent with the report on “4.5” Explosion Death Accident of China University of Mining and Technology, which shows that the 24Model-Grey DEMATEL-ISM-MICMAC method is reliable in the identification, quantitative characterization and attribute feature identification of the cause of safety accidents in university laboratories, and the proposed method is highly practical, providing a decision-making basis for the refined safety management of university laboratories and the scientific formulation of emergency plans.

KEYWORDS

24 Model; Grey system theory; Decision Making Trail and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL); Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM); Matrix Impacts Cross-reference Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC) method

CITE THIS PAPER

Qin Liu, ZeMin Qi, Ke Liu, HongBing Li. Quantitative analysis method for safety accident causes in university laboratories. World Journal of Educational Studies. 2025, 3(5): 54-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wjes3076.

REFERENCES

[1] Wang Shi. On Characteristics of Creative-type Scientific Research Group in College——Take State Key Laboratory of Life Science Department as Case Study. Operations Research and Management Science, 2013, 22(6): 243-248.

[2] Tian Zhigang, Guo Zimeng, Tong Ruipeng. Analysis of laboratory safety accidents and exploration of crisis management in colleges and universities based on causative mechanism. Experimental Technology and Management, 2021, 38(6): 265-268+286.

[3] Yang Fuqiang, Hu Tao, Yu Longxing. Construction and application of double-loop mechanism for laboratory safety management information in universities. Experimental Technology and Management, 2023, 40(4): 205-211.

[4] Gao Wenhong. Analysis of causes of explosion accidents in university laboratories based on STAMP model. Experimental Technology and Management, 2021, 38(8): 265-268.

[5] Wu Jian, Wu Yong, Shi Dong, et al. Exploring the Construction of Laboratory Safety Education System in Double-Class Universities. Frontiers in Educational Research, 2023, 6(9).

[6] Lin Zhengzheng. Exploring the Path of Laboratory Security Management in Local Universities. Higher Education Research, 2023, 8(2).

[7] Yang Fuqiang, Xie Chengyu, Lin Xiaohang. Application of HFACS model in safety management of university laboratories. Experimental Technology and Management, 2020, 37(10): 278-283.

[8] Yang Fuqiang, Mao Yajun, Tao Jing. Safety management of university laboratory based on FDA accident cause model. Experimental Technology and Management, 2021, 38(4): 307-311.

[9] Wang Li, Yu Yanmei, Liu Linqiang, et al. Prevention and Control Strategy of Security Risks of Scientific Research Laboratories in University. Research and Exploration in Laboratory, 2020, 39(6): 278-284.

[10] Guo Haijun, Tang Hanlu, Wang Kai, et al. Accident analysis and countermeasures of university hazardous chemical laboratory based on 24Model. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(11): 168-174.

[11] Xu Chao, Guo Lin, Zhao Chunyu, et al. Causes and countermeasures of inflammable and explosive laboratory accidents in colleges and universities based on “2-4” model. Experimental Technology and Management, 2021, 38(5): 248-254.

[12] Fu Jing, Liu Hong, Liu Hui, et al. Application of “2-4 Model” in Accidents Analysis of University Laboratories. Research and Exploration in Laboratory, 2019, 38(4): 277-281.

[13] Moray S Stark, Aimilia M Tsokou, Alix Howells. Chemical Spillage as a Model for Accident Causation. Journal of Chemical Education, 2021, 98(1).

[14] Li Xiangong, Wu Zhuwu, Zhang Chunlei, et al. Laboratory accident analysis based on association rules, 2022, 39(10): 218-221.

[15] An Yu, Guo Zimeng, Wang Biao, et al. Accident Cause Analysis And Safety Management Research of Laboratory Collegesand Universities. Safety & Security, 2022, 43(8): 34-39+6.

[16] Zhang Yanni,Yang Dan, Huang Luoxin, et al. A DEMATEL-ISM -integrated cause factors system for fire accidents inancient buildings. Fire Safety Science, 2023, 32(1): 59-66.

[17] Zheng Shiqiu, Zhou Rongyi, Yang Bifan, et al. Research on key causes and transmission paths of hazardous chemicals tank truck transportation accidents. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(04): 172-178.

[18] Tu Mingcong, Wang Song. Analysis of the Influence Factors of Anti-riot Kinetic Energy Bomb Based on ODI Method. Fire Control & Command Control, 2019, 44(11): 78-83.

[19] Zhao Jinlong, Cui Huaying, Wang Guru, et al. Risk assessment of safety level in university laboratories using questionnaire and Bayesian network. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2023, 83.

[20] Zhou Yingxin, Wu Liyun, Zhang Yadong. Research on influencing factors of safety management in university laboratories based on 24Model-D-ISM. Experimental Technology and Management, 2023: 1-10.

[21] Zhu Yuting, Han Ying, Yuan Anfu. Sustainable Laboratory Evaluation Method Based on Improved Pythagorean Fuzzy Linguistic Set. Operations Research and Management Science, 2019, 28(11): 149-155.

[22] Ren Ying. Application of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation in assessment of laboratory safety management. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(1): 186-190.

[23] Fu Gui, Lu Bai, Chen Xiuzhen. Behavior Based Model for Organizational Safety Management. China Safety Science Journal, 2005, 15(9): 21-27.

[24] Suo Xiao, Fu Gui, Wang Chunxue, et al. An Application of 24 Model to Analyses Capsizing of the Eastern Star Ferry. Polish Maritime Research, 2017, 24(s1): 116-122.

[25] Fu Gui, Zhao Ziqi, Hao Chuanbo, et al. The Accident Path of Coal Mine Gas Explosion Based on 24Model: A Case Study of the Ruizhiyuan Gas Explosion Accident. Processes, 2019, 7(2): 7020073.

[26] Yan Mingwei, Chen Wentao, Wang Jianhao, et al. Characteristics and Causes of Particularly Major Road Traffic Accidents Involving Commercial Vehicles in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18(8): 1803878.

[27] Sun Yilin, Zheng Xiaoqiang, Liu Xianfeng, et al. Research on quantitative analysis approach for deep organizational causes of serious leakage and explosion accident of gas pipeline. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(5): 2677-2684.

[28] Safety Management Network. Investigation Report on "4.5" Explosion Death Accident of China University of Mining and Technology. 2015. http://www.safehoo. com/Item/1533355.aspx.

[29] Notice of the Ministry of Education of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China and the General Office of the Ministry of Education on Organizing the Laboratory Safety Inspection of Colleges and Universities in 2022. 2022. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A03/s7050/20 2204/t20220406_614080.html.

[30] Lu Zisheng, Wang Ruzhu, Luo Weili, et al. Analysis of the safety - stressed education regulations for the research - focused university laboratories from the point of view of game theory. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2018, 18(6): 2273-2278.