.75 1.four two.34 1.34 1.68 2.02 1.32 1.79 1.four 1.47 1.64 1.23 P 762.0 392.1 1387.7 800.6 838.1 1005.8 620.four 794.1 632.9 645.9 781.7 671.1 604.6 Ac 0.26 1.43 0.21 0.83 0.39 0.56 0.76 1.17 0.74 1.01 1.53 1.04 1.48 Wd 1729.2 1890.7 1703.three 1987.1 5691.2 4065.two 2918.2 3815.1 1853.8 785.0 879.9 3918.two 6323.Source: compiled by the authors.In Table five, V
.75 1.4 two.34 1.34 1.68 two.02 1.32 1.79 1.4 1.47 1.64 1.23 P 762.0 392.1 1387.7 800.six 838.1 1005.8 620.four 794.1 632.9 645.9 781.7 671.1 604.six Ac 0.26 1.43 0.21 0.83 0.39 0.56 0.76 1.17 0.74 1.01 1.53 1.04 1.48 Wd 1729.2 1890.7 1703.3 1987.1 5691.two 4065.2 2918.two 3815.1 1853.8 785.0 879.9 3918.2 6323.Source: compiled by the authors.In Table five, V is definitely the typical Pinacidil Activator annual production volume, 106 kg, Jc is the integrated coal quality index, P will be the average annual workforce productivity, 103 kg /person, Ac is thethe typical annual quantity of fatal injuries at operate, number/109 kg, Wd could be the typical annual mine water discharge, 103 m3. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER Evaluation 7 of 7 15 Sustainability 2021, 13, 11800 This table presents a ranking in the mines that was utilised to identify regardless of whether thereof 15 is actually a important connection involving the complexity of geological situations and also the indicators of production sustainability. the average annualpresent graphs illustrating function, number/10between Wd is average annual typical annual quantity of fatal injuries thework, number/109 kg, production sustainFigures 1 number of fatal injuries at at relationships 9 kg, Wd could be the the typical annual mine waterand the indicators for assessing geological conditions. potential indicators discharge,m33 m3. mine water discharge, 103 ten . This table presents a ranking of of your mines that was employed to determine irrespective of whether there is a This table presents a ranking the mines that was utilized to recognize whether or not there is certainly a substantial partnership between the complexity of geological circumstances plus the indicasignificant connection between the complexity of geological situations and also the indicators tors of production sustainability. of production sustainability. Figures 11 present graphs illustrating the relationships involving production sustainFigures present graphs illustrating the relationships between production sustainability indicators and thethe indicators for assessing geological conditions. ability indicators and indicators for assessing geological circumstances.Figure 1. The figure illustrates the correlation amongst the typical annual coal production volume and the score reflecting the complexity of geological conditions.The slope in the line indicates an inverse connection amongst these indicators, and also the value of your coefficient of determinationbetweenthataverage annual the variation in SC-19220 site proFigure 1. The figure illustrates the correlation shows the only 6.98 of coal production volume duction volumes is explained correlationgeologicalthe average annual as well as the score reflecting the the by the of in between situations. Figure 1. The figure illustrates complexity model beneath consideration. coal production volumeand the score reflecting the complexity of geological situations.The slope of your line indicates an inverse connection amongst these indicators, plus the worth from the coefficient of determination shows that only six.98 with the variation in production volumes is explained by the model under consideration.Figure two. The figure illustrates the correlation involving the integrated coal excellent index and also the score Figure two. The figure illustrates the correlation among the integrated coal top quality index and the reflecting the complexity of geological situations. score reflecting the complexity of geological conditions.Figure 2. The figure illustrates the correlation involving the integrated coal quality index and also the score reflecting the complexity of geological situations.There Sust.