EXPLOSION CHARACTERISTICS OF DUSTS

FOR DESIGNING
EXPLOSION SAFETY MEASURES
The booklet underlying the present information and data was prepared on the basis of
exhaustive experiments carried out at CSIR-CBRI for determining explosion characteristics
of number of dusts handled in different types of industries. Knowledge of explosion
characteristics of dusts is essential for appropriate and effective design of explosion safety
measures. On request from some industries research projects to determine explosion
characteristics of representative dusts were designed and carried out at CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee,
India. The results are included in this booklet.

Author:

Dr. (Ms.) Manju Mittal

Sr.Pr. Scientist
Fire Research Laboratory
CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India
Email: mm_s123@rediffmail.com
CONTENTS Page

Summary (i)

1. Introduction 1

2. Parameters characterizing dust explosion probability 3

and severity

3. Explosion safety measures and explosion characteristics 5

4. Planning for experiments 7

5. Experimental techniques 7

6. Interpretation of results and limits of applicability of 29

explosion data

7. Explosion characteristics of dusts 31

8. References 48

Figure
1. 20-L Spherical Vessel for determining explosion 9
characteristics of dusts
2. Typical pressure-verses-time trace during a dust 11
explosion experiment in 20-L Spherical Vessel
3. Typical experimental results for explosion severity 14
measurement for dusts (coal A: volatiles- 27.18 %,
coal B: volatiles- 19.69 % )
4. Typical experimental results- variation of maximum 16
explosion pressure with dust concentration for micron-
and nano-size dust (aluminium)
5. Typical experimental results - variation of normalized 17
rate of pressure-rise, (dP/dt)ex.V 1/3, with dust
concentration for micron- and nano-size dust (aluminium)
6. Typical experimental results for determining limiting oxygen 20
concentration, LOC, for dust (coal A: volatiles-27.18 %)
7. Hartmann apparatus for determining minimum ignition 23
energy, MIE, of dust clouds
 8. Typical experimental results for determining minimum 25
ignition energy, MIE, of micron- and nano-size dust
(magnesium)
9. Godbert-Greenwald furnace for determining minimum 27
ignition temperature, MIT, of dust clouds
10. Typical experimental data for determining minimum 28
ignition temperature, MIT, of dust clouds (magnesium)

Table
1. Data and test required for compliance of safety standards 6
2. Explosion characteristics of dusts-CSIR-CBRI study 33
SYMBOLS USED

C [F] Total capacitance of discharge circuit

Cex [g/m3] Optimum dust concentration

KSt [bar.m/s] Explosibility index

IE [J] Ignition energy

P [bar] Pressure

PCI [bar} Pressure due to chemical ignitors (=1.6(IE/10000))

Pm [bar] Corrected explosion pressure

Pex [bar] Maximum explosion pressure for the dust concentration tested

Pmax [bar] Maximum explosion pressure

t [s] Time

V [m3] Vessel volume

Vi [V] Initial voltage of charged capacitor

Vf [V] Final voltage of charged capacitor
W [J] Discharge energy
 SUMMARY

Investigation of explosion characteristics of dusts was undertaken as a part of regular

research program at CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, India, for designing explosion safety measures for
dust handling installations. The available data in literature have limitations when applied for
designing explosion safety measures due to the variable experimental conditions under which
these have been produced and variable nature of dust. The technical objective of this study
was a comprehensive review and analysis of the existing data on various explosion
parameters of dusts and creating new sufficient quantitative explosibility data for specific
dust samples for which such data do not exist for safe design and operation of plants handling
these dusts. On request from some industries research projects to determine explosion
characteristics of representative dusts were designed and carried out.

Probability of ignition and explosion in a stated dust-air environment is assessed based on

parameters: minimum explosible concentration (MEC), minimum ignition energy (MIE) and
minimum ignition temperature (MIT) and severity of explosion is evaluated based on
maximum explosion pressure (Pmax) and explosibility index (Kst). The detailed investigation
was undertaken to measure the explosion characteristics of combustible dusts in relation to
particle size in micron range for number of dusts from all sectors of industries at ambient
conditions with 20-L Spherical Vessel established at CSIR-CBRI, Godbert-Greenwald
furnace and Hartmann apparatus. Some dusts were tested for nano-range particle sizes to
examine whether production, handling and use of metallic nano-powders can present an
enhanced dust explosion risk compared to that of micron-size powders. Standard dust
explosion equipments were used for the study. Some modifications were incorporated in
experimental procedure to minimize the problems faced by earlier investigators in studying
nano-size dusts.

Data presented will be used for hazard analysis, designing explosion preventive/protective
measures like inerting, explosion-resistant construction, explosion relief venting, automatic
isolation of interconnected spaces, explosion suppression, etc., for installations handling the
dusts with similar nature, in accordance with explosion protection standards. The data
collected lead to an extension of the current data for dusts as found in the literature. The
limitations of the research and safety measures are discussed. As the value of explosion
characteristics depend on the determination methods, the importance of limits of applicability
is proposed and it should be noted by the user otherwise faulty assessment with serious
consequences may occur in the evaluation of hazards or in designing explosion safety
measures.

(i)
1. INTRODUCTION

Dust handling industries are associated with the risk of dust explosion. The current
environmental regulations have introduced confined or partially confined systems for
transportation and storage of dusts increasing the probability of dust explosions. Such
installations should conform to relevant regulations like ATEX 95(2009) related to explosive
atmosphere, which in turns needs the evaluation of explosion parameters for safety, hazard
analysis and for designing appropriate explosion safety measures for different circumstances
under which explosions are likely to occur depending on the particular technological
application. The data needed for explosion hazard analysis and safety include explosibility
limit parameters such as dust concentration, oxidant concentration, ignition energy and
minimum ignition temperature as well as the basic explosibility parameters- maximum
explosion pressure and rate of pressure rise.

An accurate knowledge of explosion parameters of dusts is essential for realistic appraisal of

fire and explosion hazards involved in their mining, transportation, storage, use, handling,
and for efficient prevention of dust explosions and mitigation of their disastrous effects. The
explosion preventive measures- good housekeeping and safe design of plant and building,
inerting of plant and machinery with nitrogen or other inerts, ignition source elimination, etc.
- require data on explosibility limits for dust, maximum permissible oxygen concentration,
minimum ignition temperature and minimum ignition energy for dust clouds. The design of
explosion protective measures - explosion-resistant construction, explosion relief venting,
automatic isolation of interconnected spaces and explosion suppression- and risk assessment,
are done using maximum explosion pressure and rate of pressure rise data. The explosion
parameters of dusts required in most design procedures are usually determined in laboratory-
scale apparatus wherein their experimental evaluation is strongly affected by dust dispersion
degree, initial turbulence level and particle size distribution. The experimental variables are
desired to be carefully controlled in order to assure accuracy of experimental data and
interpretation of data for industrial application. There is a wide range of explosibility data of
dusts in technical literature on various aspects including: ignition energy requirements for
adequate measurements of explosibility limits of dusts, effects of particle size on explosibility
data, and comparison of laboratory and large scale data (Cashdollar,1996,2000; Cashdollar &
Chatrathi, 1993; Cashdollar & Hertzberg,1985; Cashdollar, Hertzberg & Zlochower, 1989;
Cashdollar, Sapko, Weiss & Hertzberg, 1987; Cashdollar, Weiss, Greninger & Chatrathi,
1992; Cashdollar & Zlochower,2007; Continilio, Crescitelli, Fumo, Napolitano & Russo,
1990,1991; Dastidar, Amyotte & Pegg, 1997; Deguigand & Galant, 1981; Hertzberg &
Cashdollar, 1986; Hertzberg, Zlochower & Cashdollar, 1988,1992; Jensen & Gillies, 1994;
Rice & Greenwald, 1929; Woskoboenko, 1988; VTT, 1999; Xufan, Renxian & Lin, 1993).
Mixtures of dust and air are inherently difficult to control and even with the same apparatus
and experimental method there may not be reproducibility from one test to the next. Early
research used explosion chambers which seriously underestimated dust explosibility and are
therefore considered inadequate by modern standards. Data reported on explosion violence
for dusts using standard 20-L Sphere (Bartknecht, 1981,1989; Benson,2012; BIA,1997;
Boilard, Amyotte,
Khan, Dastidar & Eckhoff, 2013; Bouillard, Vignes, Dufaud, Perkin & Thomas, 2010;
Cashdollar & Hertzberg, 1985; Cashdollar, Weiss, Greninger & Chatrathi, 1992; Continilio,
Crescitelli, Fumo, Napolitano & Russo, 1990,1991; Eckhoff, 1991; Going, Chatrathi &
Cashdollar, 2000; Hertzberg & Cashdollar, 1986; Kuai et al., 2011; Kwok et al., 2002;
Mittal, 2013, 2014; Nifuku et al., 2007) differ in particle size and chemical nature of dusts.

Detailed investigation of explosion characteristics aimed at designing explosion safety

measures for dust handling installations was undertaken as a part of regular research program
at CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, India. On request from some industries research projects to
determine explosion characteristics of representative dusts were undertaken. The study
covered a comprehensive review and analysis of existing data on explosion parameters of
dust and creation of new data on each identified gap. This booklet covers experimental results
of evaluation of explosion parameters - minimum explosible dust concentration (MEC),
minimum ignition energy(MIE) and minimum ignition temperature (MIT) - used for risk
assessment of explosive atmosphere for analyzing explosion probability and explosion
sensitivity; and the explosion severity characteristics - maximum explosion pressure (Pmax)
and explosibility index (KSt)- of dusts necessary for the design of explosion protection and
mitigation systems. The results of explosion parameters measurement experiments for
particular sizes of dusts determined at normal initial temperature and pressure over a wide
range of dust concentration determined with CSIR-CBRI 20-L Sphere, Hartmann apparatus
and Godbert-Greenwald furnace, are presented. The dusts selected for this study cover
organic as well as inorganic dusts from different types of industries. Different sizes of dusts
were studied. To the authors knowledge, no data obtained for the dust samples selected have
been published.

An increasing range of materials including aluminium, magnesium and titanium are being
produced as nano-powders composed of particles in size range from about 1 to 100 nano-
meter for use in industrial and research fields. Information on explosion characteristics of
nano-size powder is necessary to predict the likelihood and severity of explosions and design
explosion prevention and mitigation measures. Literature studies concerning the evaluation of
flammability and explosion risks of micron-sized powders do not enable to evaluate the fire
and explosion risk probabilities and gravities of nano-powders. So far the literature studies
concerning the evaluation of explosion hazards of powders have been essentially carried out
and well documented for micron-range particles for different types of organic and inorganic
dusts (Eckhoff, 1991; Hertzberg et al., 1992; BIA, 1997; Benson, 2012). As the size is further
decreased into nano-range, new physical and chemical properties change severity and
probability of a dust/powder explosion. For nano-range particles, there are studies
performed since 2002 (Benson, 2012; Boilard et al. 2013; Bouillard et al., 2010; Dufaud,
Vignes, Henry, Perrin & Bouillard, 2011; Eckhoff, 2011; Holbrow et al., 2010; Kwok et al.,
2002; Pritchard, 2004; Vignes et al., 2009; Wu, Chang & Hsiao, 2009; Wu, Ou, Hsiao &
Shih, 2010; Worsfold, Amyotte, Khan, Dastidar & Eckhoff, 2012). Kwok et al. (2002)

2
studied nano-aluminum explosion characteristics. Using 20-L Sphere, Vignes et al. (2009)
investigated explosion data of carbon black, carbon nanotubes and aluminum; Wu et al.
(2009, 2010) studied explosibility of aluminum, titanium and iron; and Holbrow et al. (2010)
determined explosion characteristics of different nano-materials: iron, copper, silicon carbide,
zinc oxide, iron oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon
monofibres, aluminum, carbon black, etc. in specially designed 2-L explosion chamber.
Boilard et al. (2013) studied explosibility of micron and nano-size titanium and Dufaud et al.
(2011) studied aluminum, zinc, carbon nanotubes and carbon black. The knowledge of
explosion data of nano-powders is still limited. The NFPA 484 (NFPA, 2012) covering the
unique hazards associated metal fine dusts and powders, does not include the risks of metal
dust combustibility at nano-scale.

Experiments were also carried out to analyse whether production, handling and use of nano-
powders can present an enhanced dust explosion risk compared to that of micron-size
powders. The materials studied in nano range are: aluminium, magnesium and titanium. The
reliability of standard experimental method designed for micron-size dust explosions has also
been questioned due to various factors influencing behaviour of nano-size powder dust cloud
during experiment. The data presented in this study were evolved by incorporating some
modifications in experimental procedure to minimize the problems faced by earlier
investigators.

Combustion and explosion characteristics have been collected for number of dusts from all
sectors of industry. The data reported form a useful basis for evaluating explosion hazard of
dusts, practical work safety and for designing explosion safety measures. This information
will be useful for safety experts and supervisory authorities. This research booklet will be
available to the experts responsible for assessing the explosion potential of dusts and
evaluating the risk associated with handling combustible dusts. The experimental set-ups and
procedures upon which the explosion characteristics are based are as per international
acceptance. The explosion characteristics provided here will be used for designing explosion
safety measures as per standards (NFPA, 2006, 2007, 2008,2012; VDI,1992a, 1992b,2002).

2. PARAMETERS CHARCTERIZING DUST EXPLOSION PROBABILITY AND

SEVERITY

Dust is a finely divided solid substance of any shape, structure and density below a particle
size of about 500 m. A dust-air mixture is formed when the dust is whirled up in air (dust
cloud) leading to a dust concentration which is a characteristic quantity. Explosion of this
dust-air mixture is abrupt oxidation reaction producing an increase in temperature, pressure,
or in both simultaneously. The parameters characterizing explosion probability and severity
and the important factors influencing them are discussed below.

Minimum explosible concentration (MEC) is the lowest concentration of dust dispersed in air
that will ignite on contact with an ignition source and propagate a dust explosion. Limiting

3
oxygen concentration (LOC) is the maximum oxygen concentration in a dust/air/inert gas
mixture, at which an explosion does not occur, under specified test conditions.

Maximum explosion (over) pressure (Pmax) is the maximum pressure value and maximum
rate of explosion pressure rise ((dp/dt)max) is maximum value of the pressure rise per unit
time occurring during the explosion of a dust/air mixture of optimum concentration in a
closed vessel under specified conditions. Volume-dependence of the maximum rate of
explosion pressure rise is defined by cubic law (Eckhoff,1991):

dP
K St ( ) max .V 1 / 3 (1)
dt

Where,

P - Pressure, bar
t - Time, s
V - Vessel volume, m3
KSt- Explosibility dust constant, bar.m/s

KSt value is the parameter specific to dust and test method. It is numerically equal to the value
for the maximum rate of explosion pressure rise in the 1 m3 vessel under the conditions
specified in standards (VDI, 1992a,1992b,2002; ISO,1985a,1985b). KSt values rounded to
the nearest integer are used. The dust are classified as St 0 (non-explosive) for KSt -0; St
1(explosive) for KSt- 0-200 bar.m/s; St 2 (strongly explosive) for KSt -200-300 bar.m/s; and St
3 (extremely explosive) for KSt > 300 bar. m/s.

Minimum ignition energy (MIE) is the lowest electrical energy stored in a capacitor, which
upon discharge is sufficient to ignite the most ignitable mixture of dust and air under
specified conditions. Minimum ignition temperature of a dust cloud (MIT) is the lowest
temperature of a hot surface on which ignition occurs in a dust-air cloud under specified test
conditions.

There are number of parameters which affect the explosion behaviour of dusts including the
fineness and water content of the solid material, the presence of solvent vapours, combustible
or smouldering gases and the oxygen content in the mixture. The influence of these
parameters on explosion characteristics is well documented (Eckhoff, 1991; Field,1982;
Palmer, 1973).

The explosion behaviour of dusts depends to a large extent on the particle size distribution.
Fine dusts ignite more easily and react more violently than coarser ones. The increase in the
proportion of coarse particles in the dust sample, e.g., by admixing granulate not explosible
by itself to explosible fine dust, leads to dampening of the explosion and thus to reduced
values of the characteristics Pmax and KSt or to higher values, for example, for the minimum

4
ignition energy or the limiting oxygen concentration. As long as the fine dust proportion in
the mixture with air is above the lower explosion limit, in general a dust explosion is
possible. In this connection it should be noted that abrasion of coarse dust, caused by a
variety of reasons in practice, may produce fine dust. Basically, the values for the explosion
characteristics diminish as water content increases. The effect plays hardly any role upto a
water content of about 10% in weight. Clear reduction of the explosion characteristics P max
and KSt occurs only above 20 % in weight to 30% in weight water content.

The explosion behaviour of dusts may be affected and increased by the addition of
combustibles gases, smouldering gases or solvent vapours. Such combination of combustibles
is refereed to as hybrid mixtures. In the case of hybrid mixtures, the maximum rate of
explosion pressure rise in particular becomes higher and the minimum ignition energy lower
than in pure dust/air mixtures. Hybrid mixtures may even be explosible if the concentrations
of the gases, vapours or dusts are individually below their lower explosion limit. Reduction of
the oxygen content of a combustibles atmosphere, e.g., through the addition of inert gas,
reduces the force of an explosion. If the limiting oxygen concentration is not achieved, it is
no longer possible to initiate an explosion. This part of study has not been included in this
booklet.

3. EXPLOSION SAFETY MEASURES AND EXPLOSION CHARACTERISTICS

Explosion safety measures are classified in two groups: preventive measures (avoidance of
explosions) and protective measures (avoidance of the dangerous effects of explosions). The
explosion preventive measures are aimed at minimizing the occurrence of explosions by
eliminating/ avoiding the conditions liable to lead to explosions. In case it is impossible to
fulfil this aim within acceptable limits on technical and economical grounds, safety can be
achieved by limiting the effects of explosion to an acceptable level. Knowledge of explosion
characteristics of the dusts to be handled is required for appropriate selection and design of
explosion preventive and protective measures (Table 1)

The possibility of dust explosions in process units can be eliminated effectively by

substituting the air by a gas which makes flame propagation in the dust cloud impossible.
This technique is commonly employed in industry to prevent dust cloud ignition. Since the
use of large quantities of inert gas in a plant may be expensive, it is important to limit the
inert gas consumption to the extent possible. For most dusts it is not necessary to substitute
the entire atmosphere in the actual area by inert gas e.g. nitrogen and it is essential to know
the limiting gas composition for inerting the dust. In some cases it may even be of interest to
use smaller fractions of inert gas than required for complete inerting, because this will reduce
both the ignition sensitivity and explosion severity of the dust cloud. Implementation of
preventive and protective measures is done based on guidelines, publications and standards
(BS EN,1997; NFPA,2006,2007,2008,2012; VDI,1992a, 1992b,2002).

5
 Table 1. Data and test required for compliance of safety standards

Ignition Source for Dust Property /Test Application

Cloud Ignition

Hot surface MIT for dust Specifying equipment surface

clouds temperature limits including safety
margin.

Electrostatic spark MIE Predicts the ease and likelihood of

ignition of a dispersed dust cloud.
Influences the choice of plant materials
(conductors/ non-conductors, earth
bonding and personnel antistatic
precautions.

Explosion Prevention

Dust control MEC Measures the minimum amount of dust

dispersed in air required to spread an
explosion. Operating plant with low level
of dust present.

Oxygen control LOC Operating plant under an inert gas

nitrogen. An operational safety margin is
required based upon the inert gas control
system and plant layout.

Explosion Protection/ Property /Test Application

Mitigation

Explosion venting Explosion Design and verification of adequacy of

indices- KSt vent design for the material being
and Pmax handled.

Explosion suppression Explosion Design and verification of adequacy of

indices- KSt explosion suppression systems for the
and Pmax materials being handled.

Explosion containment Explosion Design and verification of adequacy of

indices- KSt explosion containment and explosion
and Pmax isolation design for the materials being
handled.

6
4. PLANNING FOR EXPERIMENTS

Information on explosion behaviour of a substance is necessary for assessing the explosion

hazard and safety of industries. The chemical composition of the dust is used to decide
oxidation potential of the dust. In case there is no chance of oxidation of a dust, there is no
need of conducting any test for explosibility and the dust is considered non-flammable and
non-explosive.

The explosion characteristics should initially be determined for the fine dusts to ascertain
critical conditions to be expected in handling the dust as degree of fineness changes during
various operations - grinding, abrasion, exhaustion or sedimentation. The test samples for
this purpose are prepared using standard procedures and specific treatment to control the
moisture in dust sample. In some cases it may be desirable to test the dust samples as
received under operational conditions without any additional treatment in laboratory.

The explosion characteristics measured for micron- and nano-size ranges of dust powder
include maximum explosion pressure (Pmax), maximum rate of pressure rise (dP/dt)max,
minimum explosible concentration (MEC), minimum ignition energy (MIE), minimum
ignition temperature(MIT), and limiting oxygen concentration (LOC) using CSIR-CBRI 20-L
Sphere, Hartmann apparatus and Godbert-Greenwald furnace (Mittal,1996,2012).

5. EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

5.1 Dust Samples Preparation

For preparing suitable dust samples it was decided to mill and sieve the dust and dry them to
a moisture content of less than 5%. The particle size distribution was determined by normal
sieving procedure by screen analysis. The method of mechanical sieving was evaluated by
sieving a number of dusts for 10, 15, 20 minutes. The results suggest a minimum sieving time
of 15 minutes. The dust to be tested is sieved onto standard test screens and the screen residue
is weighed. Nominal size of the particle was considered to be that of the screen opening they
passed through, to be retained by the next smaller mesh. Thus 125 m particles were
regarded as those passing through the 125 m screen and retained on 106 m mesh. The
moisture content of the dust to be tested is measured as the difference between the weight of
wet dust and weight of dried dust. This is determined by carefully drying the dust until a
constant weight is achieved. Samples for particle sizes 355,300,250,180,150,125,106, 74,38
m were prepared using traditional sieve analysis. Other samples were collected from the
manufacturers and particle sizes were taken to be as reported by them. No further size
analysis was performed for these sizes in laboratory. Aluminium, magnesium and titanium
nano-powders were stored under dry nitrogen atmosphere.

7
5.2 Maximum Explosion Pressure and Explosibility Index

Historically, the evaluation of the explosion parameters -maximum explosion pressure and
maximum rate of pressure rise- has been done using a 1.2-L Hartmann apparatus (Dorsett,
Jacobson, Nagy & Williams, 1960) and upto 1970s explosion safety measures like vent
sizing were being performed with these data (Field,1982) which proved often inadequate as
it underestimates explosion severity due to various reasons - Hartmann bomb is much too
small to produce representative explosions and the underlying idea that in dust clouds the
combustion was more or less volumetric, as in a well-stirred reactor was wrong (Hattwig &
Steen, 2004) non-uniform dust dispersion, lack of agreement with large scale tests for rates
of pressure rise, and the inadequacy of the spark ignition source for many dusts. This
technique was therefore judged inadequate and use of data obtained from the test method in
the design of explosion protection systems was not recommended (Eckhoff,1991). For
solving those problems, European researchers developed several larger spherical test
chambers. A 1 m3 chamber designed by Bartknecht (1981,1989) recommended in west
Germany became standard in much of Europe for measuring pressures and rates of pressure
rise for dust explosions. Although the use of the 1m3 vessel seemed to give consistent results
to be worldwide accepted (ISO,1985a,1985b), there were continuous efforts to minimize the
size of vessel so as to ease the tests and enable them to be performed in laboratory which
resulted in acceptance of a 20-L Sphere designed by Siwek (1985) as the minimum size
giving comparable data for rates of pressure rise which is more adiabatic with respect to the
classical Hartmann apparatus. It is an internationally accepted laboratory apparatus providing
a level of control for the significant experimental variables and resolves the many
uncertainties and contradictions of the past data and appears in the latest standards as an
alternative to the 1 m3 vessel (ASTM,2010; BS EN 2004). It can be used with much higher
ignition energy, thus allowing testing of hardly ignitable dusts which would not explode in a
Hartmann apparatus. The well established cubic law correlates data obtained in vessels of
volume of 1 m3 and this 20-L Sphere (ASTM,2010). CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, India has
established a 20-L Spherical Vessel (similar to that designed by Siwek(1985) for studying
explosion parameters of gases, vapours and dusts.

Explosion severity parameters were measured in 20-L spherical vessel as per standard
procedure (ASTM,2010). The 20-L chamber is a hollow sphere made of steel. The
permissible working pressure for the sphere is 30 bar. Test pressure is 40 bar. It was designed
to allow maximum flexibility in positioning of current and additional new instrumentation.
The dust to be tested is dispersed from a pressurized storage chamber (0.6 l) by means of
outlet valve and a perforated annular nozzle using compressed air supply at 20 bar. The 20-L
Spherical Vessel is shown in Figure 1. Chamber top is hinged and opens across the full
chamber diameter allowing easy access to the interior for positioning instruments and for
cleaning. During routine operation at two to four tests per hour, the thick walls of the
chamber provide sufficient heat sink for the post explosion gases and particles to cool to
room temperature without the need for water cooling of the chamber. There are several ports
in chamber for vacuum creation, gas/dust system introduction, installing various instruments

8
Figure 1. 20-L Spherical Vessel for determining explosion characteristics of dusts

9
for measuring pressures, etc. The vacuum creation and dust introduction and dispersion
system were optimized based on a number of preliminary experimental trials. Ignition source
installation system was designed to accommodate different types of ignition sources viz.
spark discharge and pyrotechnic ignitor. The dynamic pressure during explosion is measured
using piezoelectric and strain gauge type pressure transducers provided at two ports. The
strain gauge pressure transducers measure the explosion pressure and can also be used during
partial evacuation of the chamber prior to dispersion and for adding gases to the chamber by
partial pressures since it is an absolute pressure gauge. The pressure time curve is recorded by
storage oscilloscope or high speed chart recorder.

For experiments to measure explosion data, first the known quantity of dust sample is placed
in dust holder at the bottom of the dispersion nozzle and ignitors are placed in centre of 20-L
Sphere. The upper half of the vessel is bolted on. The vessel is partially evacuated to 0.4 bar
prior to dispersing the dust. This evacuation of the 20-L Vessel by 0.4 bar together with air or
air/nitrogen mixture in storage chamber (+ 20 bar; 0.6 l), results in the desired starting initial
pressure (1bar) for the experiment. The ignition source is pyrotechnic ignitors (40 %
zirconium, 30 % barium nitrate and 30 % barium peroxide). Two pyrotechnic ignitors (total
energy 10 kJ) are used for test. The degree of turbulence in the explosion chamber is mainly a
function of the ignition delay time - time between the onset of dust dispersion and the
activation of the ignition source- standardized to 60 5 ms to maintain a moderate level of
turbulence at the time of ignition of dust cloud.

Typical pressure-time curve recorded during the experiment is shown in Figure 2. The
pressure trace starts at the partially evacuated value of 0.4 bar(a). The blast of air that
disperses the dust starts at 40 ms and ends at 90 ms on the pressure-time trace. The ignitor is
activated at 100 ms at a chamber pressure of 1.0 bar(a). Pex is the maximum explosion
pressure (above the pressure in the vessel at the time of ignition). The value of Pex, for a test
at a given concentration, is the highest deflagration pressure (absolute) minus the pressure at
ignition (normally 1 bar). (dP/dt)ex is the maximum rate of pressure rise reached during the
course of a single explosion experiment. Pmax is the maximum pressure (above pressure in the
vessel at the time of ignition) and (dP/dt)max is the maximum value for the rate of pressure
increase per unit time reached during the course of explosion for the optimum concentration
of the dust tested and equals maximum slope of a tangent through the point of inflexion in the
rising portion of the pressure vs. time curve. The values for Pmax and (dP/dt)max are the
averages of the highest values (over the range of dust concentrations). The explosibility dust
constant, KSt,, characterizes the explosibility of the material. KSt is maximum (dP/dt)
normalized to a 1.0 m3 volume measured at the optimum dust concentration and defined in
accordance with the equation 1.

The 20-L Sphere and the test procedure have been designed in such a way that the results are
commensurate with those from the 1 m3 explosion vessel that is standardized in the ISO
standard (ISO,1985a) and VDI guidelines (2002). Because of the cooling effect from the
walls of the 20-L sphere, the values for Pex >5.5 bar are slightly lower than in the 1m3 vessel.

10
11
To obtain results equivalent to 1 m3 vessel, this Pex value may be corrected using equation 2
based on numerous correlation tests between 1 m3 vessel and 20L Sphere (ASTM,2010):

Pm 0.775 Pex1.15 (2)

Where,
Pm - Corrected explosion pressure, bar
Pex - Maximum explosion pressure for a tested dust concentration, bar

When ignited, the ignitors produce a dense cloud of very hot particles and little gas. Some
experiments were conducted to measure the pressures generated by 10 kJ ignitors used in this
study. It was found that these ignitors produce pressure rises of about 0.5 bar in the 20-L
chamber. Due to the small test volume, the pressure effect caused by the pyrotechnic ignitors
have been taken into account in the range Pex <5.5 bar (ASTM 2010). A blind test, with
pyrotechnic ignitor alone, will give a pressure of approximately 1 bar if 10 kJ ignitor are
used. But during a dust deflagration, with rising Pex, the influence of the pyrotechnic ignitors
will be minimized by the pressure effect of the deflagration itself. The equation used for this
correction is given below (ASTM,2010):

Pex PCI
Pm 5.5 x bar (3)
5.5 PCI
Where,

Pm - Corrected explosion pressure, bar

PCI - Pressure due to chemical ignitors =1.6(IE/10000), bar
IE - Ignition energy, J

The criteria for significant flame propagation in the 20-L chamber are that the maximum
explosion pressure, Pex2 bar(a) and that the volume normalized rate of pressure rise
(dP/dt)V1/3 1.5 bar. m/s as used by USBM studies (Cashdollar et al.,1992; Cashdollar &
Chatrathi,1993).

The experiments for explosion violence determination are conducted over a wide range of
dust concentration. As per standard procedure (ASTM,2010) an initial concentration of 250
g/m3 (5 g/20 litre) is tested which may be systematically increased by an equivalent of 250
g/m3 (e.g. 500, 750,1000 g/m3, etc.) until curves are obtained for both maximum explosion
pressure, Pex, and (dP/dt)ex that clearly indicate an optimum value has been reached. Two
additional test series are run at the concentrations where the maximum were found and that at
one concentration on each side of the maximum. If it is indicated that the optimum
3
concentrations for (dP/dt)max or Pmax is less than 250 g/m , the tested concentration may be
halved (e.g. 125, 60,30 g/m3) until the optimum value is obtained. If the maximum values for
the pressure and the rate of pressure rise are not observed in the first test series, experiments
are continued with higher dust concentrations (> 1500 g/m3) until these maximum values

12
have been clearly seen. The tests for range of dust concentrations giving maximum values of
explosion data are repeated in two further test series. Correction for effect of vessel size for
Pmax >5.5 bar is done using equation (2) and that of ignitor for Pmax <5.5 bar is done using
equation (3). All the results of experiments were collected; analysed and predicted data were
presented in various figures showing explosion violence data against dust concentrations. For
calculating Pmax and (dP/dt)max the means from maximum values of each series are taken. KSt
is calculated from the above means by use of cubic law described by equation 1. For
calculating Pmax and (dP/dt)max the means from the maximum values of each series are taken.
The values of Pmax and KSt corresponding to optimum dust concentration were determined
for each particle size of the dusts selected in current study and presented in tables given in
this booklet.

Typical experimental results for explosion severity measurement for micron size dusts are
presented in Figure 3. The lower portion of the graph shows the maximum absolute
explosion pressure, Pex, plotted against dust concentration. The upper portion shows the
maximum rate of pressure rise, normalized by the cube root of chamber volume (dP/dt).V1/3
i.e. KSt . The maximum value of KSt for coal dust is 158 bar.m/s for coal A (volatiles-27.18
%) and 140 bar.m/s for coal B (volatiles- 19.69 %). The maximum explosion pressures for
coal A and coal B are 6.8 bar and 6.2 bar, respectively. The maximum explosion data occurs
at a dust concentration 500 g/m3 for both the coals. The particle size of coal is representative
of those used in pulverized coal boilers (90 % passing through 200 BS Mesh and nothing
remaining on 52 BS Mesh) and moisture content is < 5%.

For dusts (aluminium, magnesium and titanium) for which micron as well as nano-sizes were
studied, experiments for explosion severity measurement were conducted for dust
concentration range 20-2000 g/m3 for nano-size particles (30, 50,100,150,200 and 400 nm)
and for 20-2500 g/m3 for micron-size particles (1, 10, 22, 38, 74 and 125 m). The reliability
of standard experimental procedure used for explosion severity measurement of dusts has
been questioned when applied to nano-size particles due to various factors influencing
behaviour of nano-size dust cloud during experiments (Vigens et al., 2010; Boilard et al.,
2013). In the standard 20-L sphere, powder is dispersed using compressed air. With nano-
powders, their large surface to volume ratio means that many of them are spontaneously
flammable on contact with air, or surface oxidation alters their properties. Hence
equipment/procedure that avoids oxidation until the point of ignition is required. Nitrogen
was used in place of air as dispersion medium for nano- sizes: 30, 50, 100 and 150 nm to
eliminate chances of ignition and explosion in the external dispersion reservoir and explosion
chamber. A lower-than-usual vacuum was created in 20-L chamber and oxygen was
backfilled to create an elevated oxygen atmosphere (prior to dust dispersion). Once
dispersing nitrogen and elevated oxygen level are mixed, atmospheric conditions would be
achieved with 79 % nitrogen and 21 % oxygen. The concentration of oxygen in the explosion
chamber while using nitrogen as dispersing medium in reservoir was ascertained by some
tests done without dusts and measuring the oxygen concentration in the 20-L chamber using

13
Figure 3. Typical experimental results for explosion
severity measurement for dusts (coal A:
volatiles-27.18 %,coal B: volatiles- 19.69 %)

14
the oxygen analyser. A sugar dust with known characteristics was tested using this method to
establish procedural validity.

Tests were started with lowest size of dust (50 nm for aluminium and 30 nm for magnesium).
It was observed that as the dust-nitrogen mixture was dispersed forming the oxygen
concentration in the explosion chamber as 21 %, there was immediate ignition of the mixture.
The recorded pressure-time trace was different from that shown in Figure 2. There was an
overlap of the dust dispersion and explosion steps; with the ignitors firing after the dust had
exploded. Further experiments for 30, 50,100 and 150 nm were conducted without using
chemical ignitors. The resultant pressure change is recorded as a pressure-time curve using
strain gauge pressure transducer for nano-range of dust without chemical ignitor. For all the
experiments involving nm aluminium, magnesium, or titanium in size range 30-150 nm
similar results were obtained. Since the explosion is not occurring at the proper conditions
(time or proper dispersion), the results are different from those for micron size metal powder.
The explosion is violent and causes complete combustion even before the time specified for
activation of ignitor. Typical procedure used for determining maximum explosion pressure
and rate of pressure rise using Figure 2 cannot be applied to particle size range 30-150 nm.
Maximum explosion pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise were estimated by manual
evaluation of pressure-time curve.

The detailed experimental results showing variation of explosion pressure, Pex, and
normalized rate of pressure rise, (dP/dt)ex.V1/3, with dust concentration, respectively, for
micron- and nano-size magnesium particles using explosion severity data for the particle
sizes 125,74,38,22,10 and 1 m, 400nm and 200 nm based on standard experimental
procedure and 150, 100, 50 and 30 nm involve ignition without chemical ignitors due to
frictional or static sparking during dispersal sequence using nitrogen as dispersing gas in the
dispersion chamber are published for aluminium and magnesium (Mittal, 2013,2014).
Typical experimental results showing variation of Pex and normalized rate of pressure rise,
(dP/dt)ex.V1/3, with dust concentration for micron- and nano-size particles are presented in
Figures 4 & 5 for aluminium dust. Optimum dust concentrations at which maximum values
of explosion severity data, Pmax and KSt, occur are higher for micron-size particles than that
for nano-size particles. Similar behaviour was observed for magnesium and titanium dusts.
The experimental results show that explosion severity, characterized by Pmax and KSt,
increases as particle size decreases and reaches a peak for 1 m particle size and then
decreases as particle size was decreased further into nm-particle region. This is probably due
to the degree of passivity of the aluminium that could be different for these two ranges of
particles, degree of agglomeration which is more important for nm- particles, reduction of
reactivity in nanometer range due to higher ratio of oxide to metal in the smaller particles.
The Pmax and KSt values at optimum dust concentration for all the particle sizes of magnesium
and aluminium and titanium are included in this booklet.

15
Figure 4. Typical experimental results- variation of maximum
explosion pressure with dust concentration for micron-
and nano-size dust (aluminium)

16
Figure 5. Typical experimental results - variation of normalized
rate of pressure-rise, (dP/dt)ex.V 1/3, with dust
concentration for micron- and nano-size dust (aluminium)

17
5.3 Minimum Explosible Concentration

Minimum explosible concentration (MEC) of dust is determined following the standard

procedure (ASTM, 2007a) using chemical ignitors with total energy of 2.5 or 5 kJ. The test
procedure is same as described above to determine Pmax and KSt. The test commences with
experiments at a high dust concentration. If this concentration of dust ignites, the dust
concentration is reduced in steps until no ignition is evident. An ignition is deemed to have
occurred if the maximum explosion pressure is at or above 2 bar(a). The test is then repeated
with a lower dust concentration which is reduced further until a concentration is reached at
which no ignition of dust/air mixture is observed in three consecutive tests.

MEC determination for all the dust samples and micron-size (125, 74,38,22,10 and 1 m),
400 nm and 200 nm metal (magnesium, aluminium and titanium) samples in CSIR-CBRI
20-L chamber was done as per standard procedure using chemical ignitor. However, MEC of
nano-size (150, 100, 50 and 30 nm) was determined considering the pre-ignition aspect of the
dust during dispersion sequence. Experiments for 150 nm powder using nitrogen dispersion
and chemical ignitors (2.5 kJ) showed that pre-ignition did not occur at low concentrations
(10 and 20 g/m3 for magnesium and upto 30 g/m3 for aluminium) and no explosions were
recorded at these conditions indicating MEC of 150 nm sample is > 20 g/m3 for magnesium
and 30 g/m3 for aluminium. Experiments at higher dust concentration (30 g/m3 for
magnesium and 40 g/m3 for aluminium) using nitrogen dispersion and ignitor showed pre-
ignition occurred. The maximum recorded pressure was 2.4 bar(a) for magnesium and 2 bar
for aluminium. Given that approximately 0.6 bar of pressure value would normally be
associated with dust dispersal, and a 1 bar overpressure is the accepted explosion criterion for
MEC testing, maximum explosion pressure of 2 bar indicates that an explosion occurred. The
experiments at 30 g/m3 dust concentration for magnesium and 40 g/m3 for aluminium were
then done by nitrogen dispersion without chemical ignitor. The recorded explosion pressure
was same for both the dusts. For 150, 100, 50 and 30 nm magnesium, aluminium and
titanium dusts MEC experiments were conducted without chemical ignitors. The
experimental values of MEC for all the dust samples studied are given in Table 2.

5.4 Limiting Oxygen Concentration

An important measurement of use in dust explosion hazard analysis and safety is the Limiting
Oxygen Concentration (LOC) - the experimentally determined oxygen concentration at the
boundary between propagation and non-propagation of the dispersed dust cloud which will
just not allow an explosion of a dust/air/inert gas mixture. LOC is the highest permissible
oxygen concentration below which dispersed dust ignition is not possible at ambient
temperature and pressure.

The LOC is determined with 20-L sphere by experiments conducted at various oxygen levels
over a wide range of dust concentration as per standard procedure (BS EN 14034-4, 2004)
using two chemical ignitors with total energy of 2kJ. For experiments at varying oxygen

18
levels, 20-L Sphere is filled with air/nitrogen gas mixture of desired oxygen concentration
using partial pressure method. The oxygen concentration is verified using an oxygen analyzer
designed for accurate and reliable measurement of oxygen in air, nitrogen, etc. and calibrated
using standard calibration samples. A 3.5 digit LCD display provides direct percent oxygen
level (by volume) in the range 00.0-25.0 % with least count 0.1% with accuracy of 2%. To
maintain the same actual oxygen concentration in initial stages of dust dispersion and ignition
in 20-L Sphere, the gas storage chamber for dust dispersion is pressurized to desired pressure
with premixed air/inert gas mixture having the same oxygen concentration as in 20-L Sphere.
At least three dust dispersion tests are conducted without igniting the dust cloud to check the
oxygen concentration in the explosion chamber at the time of ignition for each oxygen level.

The experiments are started with an oxygen concentration of 21% to determine the most
severe explosion and for measurement of explosion data at ambient conditions. Further tests
are carried out at reduced oxygen concentrations. The oxygen concentration is lowered in
steps of 3 % initially and 1 % when it came closer to LOC. At the commencement of dust
dispersion the pressure in 20-L chamber is atmospheric. The pressure-time data for each test
is recorded. An ignition/ explosion of dust is considered to have taken place, when the
measured overpressure (influence of chemical igniters included) relative to the initial
pressure Pi is 0.5 bar ( Pex (Pi+0.5 bar)). From pressure-time curve the explosion
pressure, Pex, and rate of explosion pressure rise, (dP/dt)ex , can be determined for each dust
concentration as explained above. Optimum dust concentration, Cex, at which the highest
explosion pressure occurs at any given oxygen concentration, is determined. Maximum
explosion pressures, Pmax, and maximum rate of pressure rise, (dP/dt)max are determined by
varying the dust concentrations at various oxygen levels. By increasing step by step the ratio
of inert gas to air and varying the dust concentration, the oxygen concentration is reduced to a
level at which explosions no longer occur at any dust concentration. Step changes in the
oxygen concentration are made in multiples of 1% V/V at reduced oxygen levels. The highest
oxygen concentration where no ignition occurs in three consecutive tests is reported as the
LOC. The difference between the highest permissible oxygen concentration, at which dust
explosion no longer occur for any dust concentration and the lowest O2 concentration that
gives explosion should not exceed 1% V/V.

Experiments were carried out for some of the dust samples selected in present study to
determine LOC and study the effect of reduced oxygen on explosion violence data at various
oxygen concentrations in the range 5-18 % for ignition energies- 2 kJ for various dust
concentrations (e.g. 60, 80, 100,120, 150,200, 250,300, 350,400, 450 and 500 g/m3 for coal).
The pressure-time curves similar to Figure 2 were recorded for all the experiments. The
experiments, in which recorded explosion pressure was 0.5 bar, were considered as
indicating ignition/explosion. The results are collected as shown in Figure 6 for coal A
(particle size- representative to that used in pulverized coal boilers, 90 % passing through
200 BS mesh nothing remaining on 52 BS mesh; moisture 3.92%). The ignitions/ explosions
are shown as solid data symbols and the non-ignitions/non-explosions as the open data

19
Figure 6. Typical experimental results for determining limiting oxygen
concentration, LOC, for dust (coal A: volatiles-27.18 %)

20
symbols. The boundary between oxygen concentration that supports combustion and that
does not support combustion is the limiting oxygen concentration. LOC for the pulverized
coal A (volatiles-27.18 %) was considered 7 % corresponding to 2 kJ ignition energy. Each
experiment was repeated thrice. The experimental curves were analysed and values of P ex,
and (dP/dt)ex were estimated for each experiment. Pmax and (dP/dt)max and KSt were
estimated at each oxygen concentration.

The experimental results showing the variation of maximum explosion pressure with dust
concentration (Pex) for each oxygen level were recorded. The maximum value of explosion
severity data occurs at particular dust concentration (500 g/m3 for coal A). In 21 % oxygen
explosions could be observed up to a dust concentration closest to MEC of dust (80 g/m3 for
coal A). Explosible behaviour was observed and flame propagation and minor explosions
were recorded for oxygen concentrations down to 1% higher than LOC (e.g. 8% for coal A).
The experimental results showing the influence of particle size and moisture content on LOC
for some dusts are presented in Table 2. It has been observed that dust particle size has a
comparatively small influence on the limiting oxygen concentration e.g. LOC was found to
vary from 7% to 6 % when particle size was reduced from 74 m to 38 m for coal A with
moisture content ~ 4%. The moisture has a significant influence on LOC value. The LOC of
coal increases from 7 to 11 % on increasing the moisture from ~ 4 to 15% for coal A(particle
size 74 m).

Experiments for magnesium samples with sizes 125,74,38,22,10 and 1 m , 400 nm and 200
nm were performed as per standard procedure and those for nano-sizes 150, 100, 50 and 30
nm using nitrogen as dispersing media. The dust concentration range was same as for
explosion severity tests at 21 % oxygen level for each sample. Typical experimental results
showing the variation of maximum explosion pressure, Pex, and normalized rate of pressure
rise (dp/dt)ex.V 1/3 with dust concentration for each oxygen level were recorded. The results
showed that explosion severity decreases with a decrease in oxygen concentration. Explosible
behaviour was observed and flame propagation were recorded for oxygen concentrations
down to 5% and there is no explosion at 4 % oxygen for 22 m magnesium dust as Pex is
< 0.5 bar at all the dust concentrations for 4 and 3 % oxygen. Based on these results, LOC
for 22 m magnesium dust was considered 4 %. The maximum explosion data at various
oxygen levels occur at a dust concentration 1250 g/m3. The maximum explosion pressure,
Pmax, and KSt (i.e. (dP/dt)max.V1/3) varied between 1.8 to 12.4 bar and 28 to 450 bar.m/s,
respectively, when oxygen concentration was increased from 5 to 21 %. Similar data were
collected for particle sizes 125, 74, 38, 10 and 1m, 400 nm and 200 nm. The resultant
values of LOC for these sizes of magnesium, aluminium and titanium are given in Table 2.

For nano-sizes 150, 100, 50 and 30 nm magnesium experiments were conducted without
chemical ignitors for oxygen concentrations 18 and 15 % as pre-ignition followed by
explosion was observed at these oxygen concentrations. However, when the oxygen
concentration was reduced to 12 %, there was no pre-ignition of dust and the test series were
completed using chemical ignitors. The experimental results were analysed in similar manner

21
as explained above. The LOC for 150 nm magnesium was found 4 %. Pmax and KSt varied
between 1.4 to 11 bar and 24 to 400 bar.m/s, respectively, at an optimum dust concentration
of 750 g/m3 when oxygen concentration was increased from 5 to 21 %. Similar data were
collected for particle sizes 100, 50 and 30 nm. Resultant values of LOC for these sizes are
given in Table 2. For micron-size magnesium LOC is 5% for the size range 125-38 m, 4 %
for 22-1 m, 3 % for 400 nm and 4 % for 200-100 nm. As expected LOC was again 5 % for
50 and 30 nm magnesium due to agglomeration effect in nano-powders. It has been observed
that dust particle size has a comparatively small influence on the limiting oxygen
concentration as LOC was found to vary from 3 to 5 % for the particle size range 125 m to
30 nm.

Explosion violence and ignition sensitivity of dust clouds decrease with decreasing oxygen
content of the gas in which the dust is suspended. It is worth mentioning that for 22 m and
150 nm magnesium a reduction of the oxygen content from that of air to 9 % caused a
reduction of KSt by a factor of ~4, whereas Pmax was reduced by a factor of ~2. Similar data
were obtained for other sizes of magnesium and reduction in oxygen levels to 9% resulted in
decrease in Pmax and KSt by a factor of 2-3 and 4-5, respectively, for micron as well as nano-
sizes. This illustrates the strong influence of the oxygen content on the kinetics of the
combustion process. Similar behavior was observed for aluminium dust.

5.5 Minimum Ignition Energy

MIE (the lowest energy value of a high voltage capacitor discharge required to ignite the
most ignitable dust/air mixture), used to represent the ease or difficulty of powder ignition by
electrical sparks and arcs or electrostatic discharge was measured in 1.2-L Hartmann
apparatus (Figure 7) as per standard procedure (Mittal, 1996; ASTM, 2007b). The apparatus
used for this test consists of a glass tube placed over a dispersion cup and fitted with two
brass electrodes (3 mm diameter) connected to a circuit which produces an electrical spark of
known energy. The spark generating system has three units: variable capacitor bank having
capacitors with different values; variable voltage supply/ continuous spark unit; and step-up
transformer. The spark is triggered by high voltage transformer using two-electrode system
connected to the secondary winding of the transformer and fitted in the Hartmann tube. The
self-inductance of the secondary coil of the trigger transformer is 1 mH. Electrodes with
rounded tips have been used to reduce corona effects as for circuit in which high voltage is
maintained across the gap prior to spark breakdown, a significant fraction of the energy
stored in the capacitor may drain away as corona discharge from the sharp electrode tips prior
to spark discharge. This is important at low stored energies. The spacing between the
electrodes is varied between 2-6 mm while carrying tests. With variable combination of
capacitance and voltage, it is possible to obtain sparks with ignition energies in the range 0.5
mJ 3.2 J using this circuit. There is precise electronic synchronization between dust
dispersion and spark onset. The ignition delay times can be selected between 20 to 200 ms
with an increment of 20 ms.

22
Figure 7. Hartmann apparatus for determining minimum
ignition energy, MIE, of dust clouds

23
Energy discharged from the capacitor is calculated from the following formula, assuming no
energy losses in the transformer,

1
W C (Vi 2 V f2 ) (4)
2

Where,

W - Discharge energy, J
C - Total capacitance of discharge circuit, F
Vi - Initial voltage of charged capacitor, V
Vf - Final voltage of charged capacitor, V

A spark energy measurement system has been integrated in the spark generation circuit and
net spark energies generated for various combinations of capacitance and voltages are
determined in the conventional way by measuring current and voltage across spark gap as a
function of time and integrating the power-verses-time curve. Measured spark energies were
typically 90-95 % of the theoretical energies computed using equation 4.

To establish MIEs, the tests are done by starting at relatively high spark energy levels, i.e., a
relatively large discharge capacitance is used. The capacitance is then reduced in steps until
no ignition occurs for ten ignition trials. A weighed sample of dust is placed in the dispersion
cup. A blast of compressed air is used to disperse the dust in the glass cylinder where it is
ignited by a spark between two electrodes. Ignition trials of this dust-air mixture are then
attempted, after a specific ignition delay time, by a spark discharge from the charged
capacitor. The stored energy discharged into the spark and the occurrence or non-occurrence
of flame is recorded by visual observation of flame propagation away from the spark gap. If
flame propagation is observed, the energy of the spark is reduced until no flame propagation
is seen for ten consecutive tests. The minimum ignition energy is sought by varying the dust
concentration, the spark discharge energy and the ignition delay time. When changing the
ignition delay time, only points of non-ignition are tested. Experiment is started with a dust
loading corresponding to dust concentration twice as high as the experimentally determined
MEC or 250-500 g/m3 and go/no-go spark energy is estimated. Once a limit is found for a
particular dust concentration, the procedure is repeated for higher and lower dust
concentrations until a roughly parabolic curve is obtained for ignition energy verses dust
concentration. Ten tests are conduced at most ignitable dust concentration. MIE is determined
from the MIE vs. concentration curve.

The MIEs of all the dust samples were measured over a range of dust concentration. Figure 8
presents typical MIE test results showing ignition energy verses dust concentration for
magnesium for particle sizes 22 m and 150 nm, for optimum ignition delays. Experimental
points showing ignition and non-ignition at ignition energies higher and lower than MIE,
respectively, are also shown. This Figure indicates MIE for 22 m as 4 mJ and for 150 nm as

24
Figure 8. Typical experimental results for determining minimum
ignition energy, MIE, of micron- and nano-size dust
(magnesium)

25
1 mJ. Similar curves were obtained for all the sizes of dusts and MIE was determined using
these.

Experimental results on MIE measurement for all sizes of dusts are given in Table 2. The
MIE data for metal dusts studied in nano-range indicate that ignition sensitivity increases
(MIE decreases) when moving from micron-particle dust clouds to nano-particle clouds.
Once within the nano-range, the minimum ignition energy is quite small (<1 mJ) for 30, 50
and 100 nm sizes. Nano-particle agglomeration does not seem to affect the minimum ignition
energy as particle agglomerates may remain agglomerates in flame propagation or may
disintegrate into primary nano-particles when they approach the extremely hot spark channel
and a small zone of genuine nano-particles may be generated in the vicinity of the spark and
facilitate ignition of dust cloud.

5.6 Minimum Ignition Temperature (MIT) of a Dust Cloud

The MIT is the lowest temperature of a hot surface that will cause a dust cloud to ignite and
propagate flame. Godbert-Greenwald (G-G) furnace (Figure 9) - heated section: 3.9 cm
diameter, 23 cm long, 0.27-L volume) was used to measure MIT of dusts as per standard
procedure (Mittal, 1996; ASTM, 2006). The aim of these tests is to determine the ignition
behaviour of a dust cloud in transient contact with a hot surface in a closed temperature field.
The initial tests are carried out at dust concentrations at which the maximum pressure, P max,
and the maximum normalized rate of pressure-rise, KSt, are found. The dust is placed in a
dust holder at the top of temperature controlled furnace with an open bottom. The
temperature of the furnace is set at a predetermined value. The dust is dispersed by the
compressed air downwards past the hot surface of the furnace to see if ignition occurs and
flame is produced. Ignition is defined as the flame exiting from the furnace chamber.
Furnace temperature, as well as dust concentrations are varied to ensure that the auto ignition
temperature is measured at the most easily ignitable concentration. At least five tests over a
range of concentrations are run at the highest temperature at which ignition is not observed.
At the temperature at which ignition is observed, dust concentration is varied to determine the
range over which ignition occurs. To assure repeatability of data, at least 3 ignitions are
observed over a range of concentrations at the lowest temperature at which ignition occurs.
The MIT is usually relatively independent of dust concentration.

Typical detailed experimental data for determining MIT of a dust cloud (magnesium) are
given in Figure 10. The ignitions/ explosions are shown as the solid data symbols and the
non-ignitions/non-explosions as the open data symbols. This figure shows MIT for 22 m
magnesium as 510oC and 150 nm as 350oC.

Experimental results on MIT measurement for all sizes of dusts are given in Table 2
enclosed. Minimum ignition temperature was found to decrease with decreasing particle size,
increasing the probability of explosions with small-sized particles over larger particles.
Lower values of MITs for nano-size metallic powders studied than those required to ignite

26
Figure 9. Godbert-Greenwald furnace for determining minimum
ignition temperature, MIT, of dust clouds

27
Figure 10. Typical experimental data for determining minimum
ignition temperature, MIT, of dust clouds (magnesium)

28
the micron-powders indicates that nano-sizes have enhanced potential for ignition by hot
surfaces and inflammation or explosion risks are inherently higher.

6. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS AND LIMITS OF APPLICABILITY OF

EXPLOSION DATA

Probability of ignition and explosion in a stated dust-air environment is assessed based on

parameters: minimum explosible concentration (MEC), minimum ignition energy (MIE) and
minimum ignition temperature (MIT). The experimental data presented will be used by
industries producing/ handling similar size range dusts in order to evaluate likelihood of
explosion in their powders and propose/design suitable measures to prevent this hazard. The
Limiting oxygen concentration (LOC) and explosion severity data - maximum explosion
pressure (Pmax) maximum rate of pressure rise ((dP/dt)max) and explosibility index (KSt)-for
dusts may be used for hazard analysis and practical design of inerting systems/ other
explosion safety measures aimed at preventing dust explosions or suppressing their disastrous
effects e.g. sizing explosion relief venting systems in conjunction with the nomograpgs
published in various standards (NFPA,2006,2007,2008,2012; VDI,1992a,1992b,2002:
ISO,1985a,1985b) based on the higher turbulence level of the Siwek 20-L Sphere and the
1m3 chamber. The specifications of explosion protection systems can be worked out using
these data and approved or recognized design methods by those skilled in the art.

The LOC measurement is not used directly to provide inerting levels as a reasonable safety
factor should be applied to account for the sensitivity, accuracy and reliability of the plant
monitoring system to establish safe inerting levels in industrial processes and to set oxygen
concentration alarms or interlocks in internal vessels. NFPA 69 (NFPA,2008) recommends
keeping the system oxygen concentration at least 2% lower than measured LOC value when
protecting equipment. Gases other than nitrogen can also be used to reduce oxygen
concentration. It is also important to recognize that these LOC data are for nitrogen inerting
of air. Inerting with other gases such as carbon dioxide may give different results as LOC of a
given dust cloud is dependent on the type of inert gas used to replace the oxidant of the
atmosphere as well as some process conditions such as temperature. Therefore, LOC testing
should simulate the process conditions and be performed by using inert gas that is
representative of inert gas to be used for the installation in question.

The experimental results of study of explosibility of some powders of metals (aluminium,

magnesium and titanium) having particle sizes from 125m down to 400 nm, encourage to
imagine that dust clouds from combustible nano-size (<200 nm) particles will have extreme
explosion severity. However, laboratory scale experimental data from the current work have
shown that nano-size powder clouds do not have any larger KSt value than clouds of micron-
size powders. The reason for such results is - the formation of clouds of well-dispersed
primary particles from bulk powders with nano-particles is extremely difficult due to
comparatively very strong inter-particle cohesion forces; and should such a dispersion
process nevertheless be fully successful, extremely fast coagulation processes in clouds

29
within the explosive mass concentration range, would transform the primary nano-size
particles into much larger agglomerates within fraction of a second. Thus dust clouds
consisting of nano-size primary particles are not expected to exhibit more severe KSt values
than those of dust clouds of micron-size primary particles. The delay between the moment
of formation of a well-dispersed nano-size particle dust cloud and the moment of ignition of
the cloud is decisive for the extent of coagulation. In laboratory scale determination of MIE
and KSt, typical delays between dust cloud generation and ignition are of the order of 20-60
ms, and coagulation may still be only in its initial stage. Therefore, results from laboratory
tests may overestimate ignition sensitivity and explosions severity of real industrial clouds as
expected ignition delays in accidental explosion scenarios are significantly longer than in
laboratory tests. In fact, in actual industrial scenario, formation of clouds of nano-size
particles is extremely difficult due to comparatively very strong inter-particle cohesion forces
and in case such clouds are formed, coagulation would transform the primary nano-size
particles into much larger agglomerates. Thus dust clouds consisting of nano-size primary
particles in actual practice are not expected to exhibit more severe KSt values than those of
dust clouds of micron-size particles. The delay between the moment of formation of a well-
dispersed nano-size particle dust cloud and ignition decides the level of coagulation. The
experimental results for nano-size powders indicate that likelihood of explosion is quite high
due to very low ignition energies of nano-powders. Relatively low quantities and very low
spark energies can cause nano-metals to ignite leading to severe explosions. Laboratory test
results overestimate ignition sensitivity and explosions severity of real industrial nano-
magnesium clouds as expected ignition delays in accidental explosion scenarios are
significantly longer than in laboratory tests. It is feasible to use dust explosion safety
measures venting, suppression and isolation as per standards (NFPA 2007, 2008; VDI, 2002)
for dust clouds of nano-size particles as with micron-size. However, mitigation techniques in
NFPA 484 (NFPA, 2012) and other such standards which focus on ignition source avoidance
will have to be modified for nano-scale metal dusts. The explosion data for micro-scale
powders cannot be extrapolated to nano-powders with any degree of confidence. In order to
assess the explosion hazards of nano-powders experimental data for the material, at both
scales, are required for designing explosion safety measures for facilities handling the
powders.

As MEC, MIE and MIT values of nano-size metal powders are lower for clouds of nano-size
primary particles than for clouds of micron-size primary particles. These low ignition
energies may allow nano-size metal powders to ignite due to electric/electrostatic sparks,
collision, or mechanical friction/impact during various operations like mixing, grinding,
drilling, sanding, cleaning. Careful precautions have to be taken to prevent ignition of clouds
in air of nano-size metal powders by these ignition sources. Moreover, particles below about
one micron can be considered to remain airborne for long periods of time, with minimum fall
out of the dust, posing higher risk of explosion. Sparks with 2 mJ energy are more likely to be
generated during production, such as with static electricity discharge, mechanical friction or
impact. If MIE of dust is less than 10 mJ, preventing explosions solely by avoiding ignition

30
sources becomes impossible. For this reason, inerting technology has been widely
recommended in handbooks, standards and guidelines as the preferred means of preventing
dust explosions (NFPA 2007, 2012)

The explosion parameters values reported in this booklet are only for the specific dusts tested
and may not be applicable to other particle sizes of the same dusts. There are limits of
applicability of the explosion characteristics specified in this book. They are based on the
wide variation possibilities in the nature of the dusts (e.g. composition, particle size
distribution, surface structure, moisture content), on the one hand, and on the dependence of
the numerical value of the characteristics on the test methods, on the other. Hence the user
must always be aware that the tabulated values can only serve as a guideline for the design of
preventive and protective measures. Above all, the tables indicate on what scale the most
important dust explosibility data can be expected. There is a need to test the dust to be
handled whenever it is unclear if certain important influencing factors, such as composition,
fineness and moisture content, coincide completely with the existing conditions in the case to
be assessed. As well known, the experimental data presented in this study confirm that finer
dusts are more hazardous. Because of the importance of particle size, it is critical that
representative samples of dusts be collected for explosibility evaluation. If the size range of
the dust particles is different from those reported in this booklet, it is advisable to get the
explosion parameters of the dust in question determined experimentally through
organizations involved in such work for incorporation of explosion safety measures as per
standard safety regulations.

It should be noted that higher values for the maximum explosion pressure and the maximum
rate of explosion pressure rise or the KSt value as well as lower values for the lower explosion
limit, for the ignition temperature and for the minimum ignition energy may occur with
diminishing particle size and moisture; hence the numerical values of the explosion
characteristics vary towards the more hazardous size.

The characteristics in the tables apply to the atmospheric conditions in the operating plants. If
other conditions exist in practice, special considerations should be made and, if necessary, the
characteristics determined under the boundary conditions existing in the industry. Increased
pressure, oxygen content and temperature also point to a more critical combustion and
explosion behaviour. The tabulated values do not apply if the simultaneous presence of
combustible dust and gases, vapours or mists (hybrid mixtures) can be anticipated.

7. EXPLOSION CHARCTERISTICS OF DUSTS

The fineness and moisture content refer to the state of the dust sample as tested. The listed
explosion characteristics always apply only to the dust with the conditions described in the
same line. If no data is provided on moisture content of the dust, it must be assumed that the
substance has reached moisture saturation. Prepared test samples consists of dried dust with a
residual moisture as indicated in Table 2.

31
Minimum Explosible Concentration (MEC), maximum explosion pressure (Pmax),
Deflagration index (KSt) and LOC are from the experiments carried out in 20-L sphere. The
information no-ignition (n-i) indicates that the respective dust in the tested state is not
explosible and this statement is not applicable for finer or drier dusts. LOC represents the
highest oxygen concentration of which under described test conditions with step width of 1
% V/V- no ignition occurs. The symbol - indicates that no test was done.

For minimum ignition energy (MIE) an individual value is indicated. The symbol < means
that the dust might ignite if the indicated energy is sparked. MIE values 10 5 mJ come from
tests in closed test apparatus according to procedures described for determination of Pmax and
KSt using chemical ignitors producing the ignition energy. The abbreviation n-i-u. in case of
minimum ignition temperature means- no ignition upto.

32
 Table 2. Explosion characteristics of dusts-CSIR-CBRI study

Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Acrylonitrile- 355 1.0 60 7.0 110 70 470 11
butadiene- 300 1.0 60 7.4 120 64 470 -
styrene 250 0.9 60 7.7 132 53 460 11
180 0.9 50 7.9 144 50 460 -
150 0.8 50 8.0 156 50 450 10
125 0.8 50 8.2 164 30 440 -
106 0.8 40 8.4 172 24 430 -
74 0.5 40 8.6 180 18 430 -
38 0.5 30 8.6 186 14 430 -
22 0.5 30 8.8 184 12 420 10
10 0.5 30 8.8 190 10 420 -
Acetoacetic 106 50 6.0 48 - - -
acid anilide 74 40 6.8 72 - - -
38 40 7.0 84 - - -
22 30 7.2 92 - - -
Acetoguan- 106 130 7.0 64 - - -
amine 74 120 7.6 72 - - -
38 100 8.4 82 - - -
22 90 8.8 90 - >850 -
Acetylsalicyclic 355 1.0 70 8.2 162 70 620 -
acid 300 0.6 70 8.4 170 58 620 -
250 0.4 60 8.4 176 54 600 -
180 0.5 60 8.6 184 46 580 -
150 0.8 60 8.6 198 40 560 -
125 0.7 60 8.8 220 32 540 -
106 0.5 50 9.0 238 29 530 -
74 0.6 50 9.2 254 24 530 -
38 0.2 50 9.8 284 12 500 -
22 0.2 40 9.8 292 9 500 -
10 0.4 40 10.0 296 9 480 -
Activated 74 0.5 70 7.2 76 1000 800 -
carbon 38 1.0 70 7.6 84 920 780 -
22 1.2 60 9.0 92 880 720 -
10 0.9 50 9.4 104 800 630 -
Adipic acid 38 70 7.4 78 - 610 -
22 60 8.0 96 - 600 -
10 50 8.4 108 - 560 -

33
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Alkylbenzene 38 - 6.2 82 3100 650 -
sulfonate 22 - 6.6 88 2800 500 -
sodium salt 10 - 7.0 96 2200 500 -
Aluminum 125 180 6.2 70 200 900 7
powder 74 100 7.3 98 100 820 7
38 80 7.9 120 40 710 7
22 70 9.0 310 14 520 6
10 60 9.8 480 8 500 6
1 30 11.2 580 4 480 5
400nm 40 10.6 530 3 460 5
200nm 40 9.8 460 3 460 5
150nm 40 9.4 322 1 460 5
100nm 40 8.2 310 <1 460 5
50nm 40 7.8 302 <1 460 6
30nm 40 7.3 292 <1 460 6
Aluminium- 74 60 10.8 522 - - -
paint ground 38 50 12.8 542 - - -
Aluminium-iron 38 250 9.0 182 - 850 -
alloy (50:50) 22 240 9.6 202 - 750 -
10 180 10.2 248 - 710 -
Aluminium- 125 170 6.8 86 130 700 -
magnesium 74 90 7.8 184 60 650 -
alloy 38 70 9.0 298 20 580 -
22 60 11.0 382 8 510 -
10 50 12.2 434 4 480 -
1 30 13.2 520 3 450 -
400nm 30 13.8 534 1 430 -
200nm 30 11.8 450 1 410 -
150nm 20 10.6 424 1 400 -
100nm 20 9.8 384 <1 400 -
50nm 20 9 312 <1 400 -
30nm 20 8.2 284 <1 400 -
Aluminium- 22 - 10.2 220 - - -
nickel alloy 10 - 11.8 320 - - -
Aminophena- 38 40 9.4 192 - 360 9
zone 22 30 10.2 220 - 340 9
10 30 10.8 246 - 320 8
Anhydrite/anhy 180 - 7.6 92 52 420 -
drous dextrose 125 - 8.0 102 30 410 -
106 - 8.4 110 24 400 -

34
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Anthracene 250 2.0 30 8.4 242 8 580 -
106 7 20 8.6 262 6 550 -
74 1.2 20 9.4 290 6 540 -
38 0.8 20 9.8 302 6 520 -
Anthranilic acid 74 1.3 40 8.0 110 35 550 -
38 1.2 30 8.4 126 24 530 -
22 0.9 30 8.8 158 8 510 -
Anthraquinone 38 40 9.6 282 - 530 -
22 30 9.8 312 - 500 -
10 30 10.8 374 - 500 -
Apple powder- 355 180 6.0 33 - 620 -
hot spray dried 250 150 6.4 58 - 600 -
106 140 7.0 62 - 580 -
Ascorbic acid 38 80 6.8 62 - 480 -
22 70 7.0 68 - 460 -
10 50 7.4 94 - 450 -
Ash-fly 38 150 2.0 44 - - -
22 130 2.4 56 - - -
10 110 2.8 62 - - -
Azacyclo- 22 - 7.2 82 - - -
heptane 10 - 7.6 104 - - -
Azodicarbon- 22 - 11.4 182 - - -
amide 10 - 12.9 202 - - -
Banana- 38 1.2 70 8.8 170 - - -
dry aroma 22 1.1 60 9.4 192 - - -
10 1.4 40 10.2 218 - - -
Barley grain 180 250 5.4 44 108 460 -
dust 106 220 6.4 62 90 440 -
74 130 7.4 94 60 420 -
38 110 8.0 102 54 400 -
Barley flour 38 50 8.0 86 28 300 -
22 30 8.6 104 18 280 -
Bentonite/hydro 38 70 8.2 126 - 650 -
carbon resin 22 60 8.6 152 - 580 -
10 50 9.0 176 - 540 -
Betaine 22 80 9.4 98 - 420 -
hydrochloride 10 70 10.2 124 - 410 -
Bisphenol A 74 60 9.0 252 12 580 9
38 40 9.4 274 8 560 8
22 30 9.6 282 4 500 8

35
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Bisphenol 22 - 9.2 264 - - -
ketylene 10 - 9.6 282 - - -
Bronze powder 22 700 4.6 48 130 400 -
10 540 5.0 64 50 360 -
Calcium acetate 106 0.5 540 5.0 16 1080 750 -
74 0.8 300 6.5 32 980 700 -
38 1.0 220 6.8 48 800 650 -
22 0.7 160 7.0 58 652 620 -
Calcium- 38 30 9.6 298 8 580 7
aluminium 22 20 9.8 392 6 560 6
alloy(50:50) 10 20 10.4 404 6 520 5
Calcium- 38 0.5 40 8.6 210 - - 13
magnesium 22 1.0 40 9.0 240 - - 12
resinate 10 0.8 30 9.4 310 - - -
Calcium-silicon 74 130 9.2 202 300 690 -
alloy 38 120 9.6 232 250 670 -
(50:50) 22 90 10.0 246 220 650 -
Calcium-silicon 38 60 8.4 186 - 640 -
-aluminium 22 40 9.8 230 - 610 -
alloy(30:50:20) 10 30 10.2 264 - 560 -
Calcium- 74 140 9.6 172 - 730 -
silicon-barium 38 120 10.4 178 - 700 -
alloy 22 90 10.8 184 - 680 -
(30:50:20) 10 70 11.0 192 - 640 -
Calcium Silicate 22 0.6 90 7.2 134 10 640 -
(60:40) 10 0.5 70 8.2 202 6 560 -
Calcium 22 40 9.0 142 8 580 -
stearate 10 40 9.4 168 6 560 -
Carbon 22 0.8 50 7.8 136 - - -
10 0.6 50 8.4 162 - - -
Carboxy methyl 74 130 8.6 126 - 400 -
cellulose 38 110 9.2 156 - 400 -
22 80 9.6 192 - 390 -
Carboxy 74 1.2 100 5.4 38 - 380 -
methyldextran 38 0.8 90 5.8 56 - 360 -
22 1.0 70 6.2 84 - 350 -
Cariander- 106 5.4 60 6.4 54 1000 450 -
ground 74 3.8 40 7.2 68 986 400 -
Casein acid 106 50 6.8 84 112 520 -
74 40 7.4 88 102 510 -

36
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Caseinate 125 70 7.0 112 134 580 -
-sodium 106 60 7.4 124 120 550 -
74 50 7.8 134 106 530 -
38 50 8.2 142 98 530 -
22 40 8.6 150 90 520 -
Cellulose 74 130 8.6 72 320 560 -
38 70 9.0 242 280 540 11
22 60 8.4 250 264 510 9
10 50 9.0 276 258 500 -
Cellulose-ethyl 74 120 8.4 138 18 350 8
38 80 8.6 164 15 330 8
22 60 8.8 172 12 320 7
Cellulose- 300 90 3.8 102 300 520 -
methyl 250 80 8.2 108 300 460 -
180 70 8.6 126 300 430 -
106 70 8.8 136 300 420 -
74 60 9.0 144 298 420 -
38 50 10.0 152 98 410 14
22 50 10.4 172 18 390 14
Cetyl trimethyl 38 30 8.4 182 - - -
ammonium 22 20 9.6 224 - - -
bromide 10 20 9.8 252 - - -
Chlorhexa- 74 - 7.2 84 - - -
carboxylic acid 37 - 7.6 152 - - -
-anhydride 22 - 8.2 162 - - -
Cinnamic acid 38 3.2 40 8.6 232 8 490 -
22 1.0 40 9.3 264 8 480 -
Cinnamon 74 80 7.2 146 32 490 -
38 60 8.6 194 12 450 -
Citrus pellets 74 80 7.0 30 - 400 -
38 60 7.9 62 - 380 -
Coal-volatility 74 3.92 80 6.2 164 - - 7
27.18% 74 9.1 - - - - - 9
74 15.1 - - - - - 11
38 3.92 70 6.2 170 - - 6
38 9.2 - - - - - 8
38 15.34 - - - - - 9
Coal volatility 74 3.80 100 5.2 146 - - 8
19.69% 74 9.3 - - - - - 10
74 15.2 - - - - - 11
38 3.80 80 6.2 160 - - 7
38 9.0 - - - - - 9
38 15.1 - - - - - 10

37
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Cocoa 74 1.8 100 6.6 86 120 530 9
38 1.3 80 7.2 142 100 500 -
22 0.8 60 8.8 150 92 440 -
Coffee 300 2.6 140 6.0 28 180 500 -
180 1.8 120 6.4 42 170 500 -
74 3.0 90 7.0 68 160 490 -
38 6.2 70 7.8 82 132 470 12
22 2.2 60 9.0 88 120 450 12
10 1.6 60 9.2 98 100 420 10
Copper-silicon 38 260 9.4 128 - 720 -
alloy 22 220 10.4 142 - 700 -
10 180 10.8 166 - 680 -
Cork 74 60 7.6 94 100 500 -
38 40 9.2 230 - 460 -
Corn 74 70 6.0 132 60 420 -
38 50 7.2 146 48 390 -
Cotton 74 110 7.6 32 50 580 5
38 90 7.0 18 42 560 -
Curd powder 38 4.5 40 7.9 96 100 530 -
22 3.2 30 8.2 102 84 500 -
Cyano acrylic 300 50 8.4 220 - 550 -
acid methyl 250 40 9.6 252 - 530 -
ester 125 30 10.1 269 - 500 -
Detergent- 106 50 8.2 96 - 420 -
olefin sulpho- 74 40 8.6 124 - 400 -
nate based 38 30 9.2 132 - 380 -
Dextrin 37 2.2 70 9.4 124 32 500 -
22 0.8 50 9.8 136 20 480 -
Dextrose 180 0.8 120 4.4 14 - 600 -
106 0.4 60 4.8 28 1300 520 -
74 1.1 60 6.0 54 204 500 -
Dicyandiamide 22 1.0 140 8.4 120 3100 820 -
10 0.6 120 9.6 158 2800 800 -
Dicyandiamide- 38 230 6.6 76 1200 700 -
formaldehyde 22 180 7.8 98 1000 680 -
polymer 10 100 8.2 102 940 600 -
Dihydroxyaceto 38 70 9.8 186 - 440 -
ne 22 50 10.2 226 - 420 -
1,3-diethyldi 22 30 8.2 146 - 560 -
phenyl urea 10 20 9.0 172 - 540 -
Dimethylamino 22 - 9.8 302 - - -
phenazone 10 - 10.6 352 - - -

38
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
1,3-dimethyl 38 20 9.0 218 - 540 -
diphenyl urea 22 20 9.6 250 - 500 -
Diphenyl 106 50 9.2 226 - 650 -
urethane 74 40 9.6 256 - 620 -
Dimethyl 22 40 9.8 250 2 570 7
terephthalate 10 30 10.4 302 1.6 540 6
Ditertiary butyl- 106 30 8.4 156 - 440 7
p-cresol 74 20 8.8 164 - 420 -
Epoxy resin 22 30 7.9 129 - 510 -
10 0.5 20 8.5 244 - 490 -
2-methyl 74 30 9.0 224 - - -
imidazale 38 20 9.2 236 - - -
22 20 9.6 248 - - -
Elastine 74 140 7.0 56 52 520 -
38 60 7.8 72 34 599 -
Emulsifier- 50% 74 40 9.2 150 28 450 -
carbohy- 38 40 9.4 162 24 430 -
drates,30% 22 30 9.6 168 20 420 -
fat,10% protein 10 30 9.6 172 16 420 -
2-Ethoxybenz- 74 30 8.2 202 - 480 -
amide 37 20 8.8 232 460 -
Ferrocene(dicyc 106 30 8.0 252 12 520 7
lopentadienyliro 74 20 8.4 264 8 510 6
n) 38 20 9.0 272 6 500 6
Ferrosilicon 22 130 8.8 78 - >850 11
10 90 9.2 98 - 800 6
FeSiMg(22:45:2 22 - 8.6 142 310 680 -
6) 10 - 9.2 178 280 640 -
Ferrochromium 22 530 5.4 54 - >850 -
10 430 6.6 90 - >850 -
Ferromanganese 22 300 6.4 82 - 720 -
10 200 7.4 102 - 700 -
Fructose 355 130 6.0 30 3200 540 -
212 80 7.2 48 180 450 -
180 60 8.8 106 1.2 420 -
Fungicide,zinc- 74 80 7.4 124 - 490 -
(N,N-propy- 38 80 8.2 144 - 490 -
lene-1,2-bis(di- 22 60 9.4 162 - 470 -
thiocarbamate) 10 50 9.6 208 - 460 -
Fungicide-org. 22 - 8.6 180 - 470 -
zinc compound 10 - 9.4 172 - 460 -

39
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Ginger 106 8.2 80 6.4 64 2004 480 -
74 7.3 60 7.6 70 2008 450 -
Glucose 38 1.2 60 9.8 138 200 420 -
22 1.1 50 10.0 146 100 400 -
Grain 180 4.2 60 8.4 82 - 480 -
74 3.6 60 8.8 94 - 450 -
38 3.2 40 8.9 102 - 430 -
Graphite 37 80 4.2 70 >3.2J > 850 -
natural large 22 40 5.8 86 >3.2J - -
crystalline 10 0.7 60 6.2 94 >3.2J - -
Herbicide 74 50 8.2 72 3000 520 -
38 40 8.4 92 2000 500 -
22 30 9.0 144 2000 450 12
10 30 9.4 162 1090 400 11
Hexamethylene- 150 60 9.6 216 - 550 -
tetramine 74 60 10.0 231 - 530 -
38 40 10.3 276 - 530 -
22 30 10.6 302 - 520 -
Imidazole 22 50 8.2 132 8 570 -
derivative 10 40 8.6 148 6 550 -
Isosorbide 74 40 11.4 184 - 280 -
dinitrate/lactose 38 30 12.6 228 - 240 -
(50:50) 22 30 12.8 262 - 220 -
Iron 38 500 4.8 52 >3.2J 650 -
22 320 5.4 72 >3.2J 590 -
10 230 5.6 82 >3.2J 540 -
Isophthalo- 22 0.2 80 10.2 274 16 800 -
dinitrile 10 0.5 70 10.8 302 8 720 -
L-cystine 22 60 8.8 162 38 410 -
10 50 9.2 180 32 400 -
Lactose 250 0.4 130 4.4 16 1200 500 -
180 0.3 110 5.1 28 900 500 -
106 0.4 100 5.4 42 300 480 -
74 0.3 80 6.3 56 88 470 -
38 0.5 60 6.9 62 22 460 -
22 0.8 60 7.2 74 14 450 -
10 0.6 50 8.8 84 18 430 -
Lignin 22 30 8.2 154 - 490 -
10 20 9.0 222 - 480 -
Lignite 150 3.4 80 7.4 82 350 480 -
74 4.2 60 8.8 112 300 420 -
38 4.5 60 9.0 124 110 400 -
22 3.0 60 9.4 152 98 390 -
40
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Linen 74 4.2 300 5.4 62 82 470 -
38 3.0 220 5.8 94 60 450 -
Lycopodium 74 40 8.0 162 18 430 9
38 40 8.8 148 12 420 8
22 30 9.0 164 8 410 7
Magnesium 125 160 7 98 120 600 5
74 90 8.8 202 50 570 5
38 60 10.8 362 10 530 5
22 50 12.4 450 4 510 4
10 40 13.2 482 3 480 4
1 30 14 510 2 450 4
400nm 30 14.6 528 1 400 3
200nm 30 12.4 460 1 380 4
150nm 20 11.0 400 1 350 4
100nm 20 10.6 360 <1 350 4
50nm 20 10 332 <1 350 5
30nm 20 9.4 262 <1 350 5
Magnesium- 125 60 8.6 138 - - -
calcium-silicon 74 30 10.0 250 - - -
iron alloy 38 20 10.4 268 - - -
(30:20:40:10) 22 20 10.8 272 - - -
Magnesium- 74 140 8.8 210 90 720 -
silicon alloy 38 60 9.0 225 80 680 -
(60:40) 22 30 9.6 234 40 650 -
Melamine 38 80 7.6 132 - 850
formaldehyde- 22 80 8.4 158 - 850 -
cellulose 10 70 9.8 178 - 820 -
Maize 38 2.1 60 9.6 84 600 480 -
22 2.0 60 9.8 94 450 450 -
Maize flour 74 1.3 70 7.0 124 20 440 -
38 1.1 50 8.2 156 16 420 -
Malt roasted 74 1.8 130 7.4 132 22 - -
38 0.8 110 8.4 148 16 - -
Malt flour 74 6.4 50 7.2 76 26 460 -
38 4.2 40 7.6 116 18 440 -
Melamine- 38 60 10.2 189 - 830 -
formaldehyde 22 50 10.0 176 - 820 -
10 50 10.6 198 - 820 -
Melamine 38 260 9.6 72 - >800 -
peroxide 22 210 11.8 82 - >800 -
Melamine- 38 70 9.0 98 - 700 -
phenol-cellulose 22 60 10.0 116 - 610 -
10 50 10.8 152 - 600 -

41
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Melamine-urea- 37 60 9.2 124 - 780 -
formaldehyde- 22 50 10.2 184 - 760 -
cellulose 10 50 10.6 194 - 750 -
Methionine 22 40 7.6 110 110 420 -
10 30 9.0 162 80 390 11
Methyl metha- 150 30 8.4 112 114 480 -
crylate buta- 74 20 8.7 138 34 470 -
diene styrene 38 20 9.1 154 22 460 -
Milk powder 250 1.1 60 8.4 84 94 460 -
106 0.6 60 8.4 90 82 450 -
74 0.9 50 8.6 102 50 440 -
38 1.0 40 8.6 120 40 420 -
22 0.6 30 9.2 142 36 390 -
10 0.9 30 9.4 168 32 380 -
Molybdenum 38 280 4.2 26 - 540 -
disulphide 22 230 5.0 32 - 510 -
Monocarboxylic 38 - 7.6 52 64 - -
starch 22 - 8.2 64 72 - -
Mustard flour 250 8.0 - 4.6 14 - 520 -
125 7.2 - 5.2 18 - 520 -
74 4.5 - 5.6 22 - 490 -
Naphthalic acid 74 60 7.2 158 20 720 -
anhydride 38 40 8.4 172 16 680 -
22 30 9.4 192 8 670 11
Naphthalene 106 30 8.0 154 2 670 -
74 20 8.6 170 1 660 -
38 20 9.0 182 1 640 -
2-naphthol 22 - 7.6 134 8 450 9
10 - 8.6 148 4 420 9
Naphthylamino 22 - 7.6 132 - - -
sulphonic acid 10 - 8.4 162 - - -
Neodymium-ir- 74 160 4.8 46 - 330 -
on-boron alloy 38 130 5.4 64 - 300 -
Nickel-alumin- 22 140 8.6 232 1000 650 -
ium alloy 10 120 9.0 268 800 640 -
Oat 300 600 5.2 18 620 420 -
106 120 7.0 48 720 410 -
74 60 7.6 62 600 400 -
Organic 22 50 8.0 56 1100 730 12
dyestuff -blue 10 40 9.4 86 1000 700 12

42
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Organic 22 60 10.6 234 520 520 -
dyestuff -red 10 40 11.8 276 400 500 -
Organic dye- 22 80 10.2 246 - 500 -
stuff -yellow 10 70 10.8 272 - 490 -
Paper tissue 74 30 4.6 18 - 580 -
38 30 8.4 52 - 540 -
22 30 8.8 72 - 520 -
Paracetamol 74 20 7.2 142 - 600 -
38 30 7.8 164 - 590 -
Paraformalde- 22 60 9.4 186 - 450 7
hyde 10 60 11.2 242 - 440 6
Pectin 74 70 8.8 132 - 480 -
38 50 10.2 172 - 470 -
Phthalazone 38 30 8.8 162 - 590 -
22 20 9.6 220 - 540 -
Polyamid resin 22 30 8.5 110 - 460 -
10 20 9.2 134 - 420 -
Polyethylene 74 1.0 40 8.2 128 5 -
glycol 38 0.8 30 9.0 164 4 -
Phosphorous 22 - 7.2 422 - 420 -
red 10 - 8.2 536 - 400 -
Pea flour 38 1.2 80 7.4 92 50 560 14
22 1.0 50 8.2 122 40 540 -
Pepper- black 106 7.2 20 7.2 68 30 490 -
ground 74 5.0 20 7.8 64 40 470 -
Phenolic resin 22 1.5 60 9.4 82 - 450 -
foam 10 1.4 40 9.8 110 - 430 -
Potato flour 106 250 5.8 20 420 540 -
74 240 6.2 32 308 520 -
38 140 8.0 86 202 480 -
Polyacrylamide 22 240 4.2 12 - 800 -
10 200 6.0 18 - 780 -
Polyacrylate 74 130 6.4 42 1120 470 -
38 70 8.6 142 1100 460 -
22 50 9.0 182 1000 450 -
Polyacrylo- 74 60 7.4 54 30 580 10
nitrile 38 40 7.8 122 22 570 10
Polyamide 106 220 7.6 78 1000 480 -
74 130 8.2 110 1000 430 -
Polyester 74 50 8.0 182 20 590 -
38 40 8.8 192 16 580 -
22 40 9.6 202 12 560 -
10 30 10.6 210 6 530 -

43
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Polymetha- 74 0.5 50 8.4 250 - 500 8
crylate 38 0.4 40 9.2 272 - 490 7
Polymethacryl- 125 60 9.6 96 - 510 -
amide 106 60 10.0 112 - 500 -
Polypropylene 150 100 7.0 42 50 430 -
74 100 7.6 92 20 420 -
38 40 8.0 110 12 420 -
22 30 8.7 120 8 410 -
Polyestyrene 74 0.3 40 4.0 28 30 440 -
38 0.6 20 8.8 162 22 430 -
Polyurethane 250 2.2 240 5.2 20 100 550 -
180 1.9 125 6.1 29 10 520 -
106 1.4 90 7.2 106 10 510 -
74 1.3 40 7.8 152 8 500 -
38 0.8 40 8.0 172 8 480 -
22 0.8 30 8.2 178 6 460 -
10 0.4 30 8.4 182 6 450 -
Polyvinyl 74 60 7.8 72 - 680 -
acetate 38 30 8.4 98 - 650 -
22 30 8.9 132 - 640 -
Poly-vinyl 250 90 7.0 82 90 490 -
alcohol 180 80 7.8 93 80 460 -
106 80 8.0 96 66 440 -
74 70 8.2 98 54 420 -
38 70 8.4 132 30 410 -
22 60 9.4 142 10 400 -
Powder paint- 74 0.5 40 8.4 210 3 410 -
acrylic resin 38 0.4 40 8.8 228 3 400 -
based 22 0.6 30 9.4 247 2 400 -
Pesticide 10 50 8.2 184 50 400 -
Pyrithiane zinc 10 0.3 50 9.9 272 4 420 -
Propylene 106 120 8.2 74 - 430
glycol alginate 74 90 8.8 94 - 420
Pyromellitic 38 90 8.8 180 - 680
acid 22 80 8.5 198 - 660 -
dianhydride 10 70 9.2 210 - 650 -
Resin-acrylic 38 30 8.4 180 30 - -
22 30 8.6 192 30 - -
Resin-epoxy - 74 40 7.8 144 - 580 -
aluminium 38 30 9.2 218 - 570 -
Resin-melamine 74 130 9.5 82 - 490 -
38 90 9.8 110 - 450 -
22 60 10.2 172 - 440 -

44
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Resin-phenolic 22 30 9.0 184 10 600 -
10 20 9.4 190 8 540 -
Resin 22 30 8.7 110 - 460 -
polyamide 10 30 9.6 156 - 420 -
Resin-silicone 106 60 7.6 92 28 490 -
74 50 8.0 112 12 460 -
Rubber 150 60 9.3 168 84 480 -
106 40 9.6 202 72 460 10
74 30 9.8 210 60 440 -
38 30 9.9 214 48 400 -
22 30 10.0 219 42 390 -
Rice flour 147 3.2 110 5.6 52 200 420 9
147 12.0 140 4.4 42 400 430 9
74 3.1 90 7.5 82 150 410 8
74 12.2 100 6.6 70 200 420 8
38 3.2 60 8.0 96 50 380 8
38 12.0 90 7.5 87 100 400 8
Rye flour 38 4.2 40 8.0 64 350 480 12
22 3.2 30 8.8 84 260 470 -
Sandalwood 22 3.0 30 9.4 178 8 440 -
10 2.6 30 9.8 186 6 420 -
Silicon 22 60 9.4 106 280 840 -
10 60 10.8 112 250 820 -
Sodium alcohol 74 0.8 40 8.4 162 - - -
sulphate 38 0.2 30 9.0 202 - - -
Sodium hydro- 74 130 6.8 56 - 470 -
gen cynamide 38 120 7.4 60 - 440 -
Sodium 250 120 8.4 94 - 440 14
methallyl 150 100 8.6 102 - 440 -
sulphonate 106 90 8.8 106 - 430 -
Soot 106 70 7.2 62 >3.2J 820
74 70 7.8 76 >3.2J 800
38 60 8.2 94 >3.2J 780
22 60 9.0 112 >3.2J 770 11
Sorbitol 106 90 6.8 24 220 440 -
74 60 7.0 82 180 440 -
38 30 7.8 104 130 420 -
22 30 8.4 124 120 420 -
Stearate- 22 40 8.0 94 1 540 11
cadmium 10 30 8.4 86 1 530 -
Stearate- 74 50 8.0 64 40 580 12
calcium 38 40 8.4 76 32 580 -
22 30 8.8 84 20 580 -
10 30 9.4 150 12 560 10
45
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Stearate-lead 106 50 6.0 106 8 480 -
74 40 8.9 162 6 460 -
Stearate-sodium 22 40 8.4 116 - 680 -
10 30 8.9 138 - 650 -
Starch-maize 147 3.5 100 6 90 100 520 -
74 4 90 7.2 110 70 480 -
38 3.2 60 8.4 150 50 450 -
22 3.0 50 8.8 190 26 440 9
10 3.0 40 9.2 220 12 420 5
Starch maize 106 4.0 60 8.0 56 130 430 -
potato(1:1) 74 3.8 50 8.6 68 106 410 -
Starch-potato 74 7.0 60 7.2 42 - 460 -
38 4.5 50 8.6 64 - 430 -
22 3.0 40 9.2 102 - 400 -
Starch-rice 22 6.0 60 9.4 134 90 460 -
10 5.0 60 10.2 232 52 450 -
Starch -wheat 22 5 50 9.0 132 30 460 -
10 4 30 9.2 148 10 430 -
Sugar 250 0.1 120 6 60 1000 480 8
147 0.1 90 7.2 110 50 460 8
74 0.2 60 8.0 138 40 450 8
38 0.2 40 8.6 152 30 430 6
10 0.1 30 9.4 210 10 380 5
Sulphur 74 80 5.2 122 3 290 -
38 45 6.4 149 2.4 250 -
22 30 7.3 168 1 220 -
Steel(100 Cr6) 38 40 3.8 72 - - -
22 40 4.2 86 - - -
Tantalum- 22 - 5.4 26 - 750 -
niobium alloy 10 - 6.2 32 - 720 -
Tea- black 74 1.0 120 7.8 52 - 520 -
38 0.6 60 9.2 96 - 500 -
Terephthalic 74 50 8.4 252 30 660 12
acid dinitrile 38 30 8.7 272 20 640 11
Tetraacetylethyl 74 40 9.2 126 10 400 -
enediamine 38 30 9.8 228 8 380 -
22 30 9.8 246 8 380
Thiourea 300 220 4.2 22 - 430 -
250 180 4.6 32 - 420 -

46
Dust name Particle Moist MEC, Pmax, KSt MIE, MIT, LOC,
Size, ure, % g/m3 bar bar.m/s mJ o
C % vol.
m wt.
Titanium 147 60 5.3 32 3 600 -
74 60 6.3 40 3 570 -
38 60 7.9 132 2 450 -
22 50 8.2 146 <1 270 -
100nm 40 6.9 124 <1 240 -
50nm 40 6.5 114 <1 240 -
Toner 22 60 7.5 104 8 540 -
10 30 8.7 148 <1 520 -
Urea- 22 70 9.4 118 1100 720 13
formaldehyde 10 40 10.6 148 908 690 -
Urea, 22 4.0 140 9.0 122 912 530 -
polymethylene 10 5.0 100 9.9 142 800 500 10
Wheat 74 5.2 80 7.2 70 108 480 -
38 4.0 67 7.5 90 88 440 -
22 3.6 50 7.7 110 64 430 -
10 4.0 30 7.8 130 16 420 -
Wheat flour 147 3.5 120 7 90 300 450 9
147 12.4 200 6.8 82 1000 480 9
74 3 90 8.6 150 200 400 8
74 12.2 100 8.2 120 300 430 8
38 3.2 60 9.2 158 50 380 8
38 12.6 90 8.6 152 100 410 8
Whey powder 106 1.8 125 6.4 48 400 560 -
74 1.4 120 6.8 59 320 560 -
38 2.0 90 7.2 64 200 540 -
10 0.6 60 7.4 72 130 540 -
Wood flour 74 130 8.4 120 1000 420 11
22 90 8.8 154 430 380 10
10 60 9.2 172 200 380 10
Zinc 38 320 6.7 125 1600 600 -
22 240 7.3 176 1400 590 -
10 125 7.8 192 1000 580 -

47
REFERENCES

1. ASTM (2006). Standard test method for minimum auto-ignition temperature of dust
clouds, E1491. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

2. ASTM (2007a). Standard test method for minimum explosible concentration of

combustible dusts, E1515. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

3. ASTM (2007b). Standard test method for minimum ignition energy of a dust cloud in
air, E 2019-03. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

4. ASTM (2010). Standard test method for explosibility of dust clouds, E1226. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

5. ATEX 95 (Sept. 2009). EU Directive 94/9/EC - Equipment and protective systems

intended for use in the potentially explosive atmosphere (ATEX), Version 3.

6. Bartknecht, W. (1981).Explosion: Course, Prevention, Protection, Berlin: Springer.

7. Bartknecht W.(1989). Dust Explosions: Course, Prevention, Protection. Berlin:

Springer.

8. Benson, J.M. (2012). Safety considerations when handling metal powders. The Journal
of Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 7A, 563-575.

9. BIA (1997). Combustion and explosion characteristics of dusts, Report 13/97 from
BIA (Professional Associations Occupational Safety Institute), published by HVBG
(Federation of the Statutory Accident Insurance Institution of the Industrial Sector),
Germany.

10. Boilard, P.S., Amyotte, P.R., Khan, F.I., Dastidar, A.G.,& Eckhoff, R.K. (2013).
Explosibility of micron and nano-size titanium Powders. Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industries,26(6), 1646-1654.

11. Bouillard, J., Vignes, A., Dufaud, O., Perkin, L, & Thomas, D. (2010). Ignition and
explosion risks of nanopowders. Journal of Hazardous Materials,181,873-880.

12. BS EN 1127-1(1997). Explosive atmosphere- Explosion prevention and protection-

Part 1: Basic concepts and methodology. Beuth, Berlin 1997.

13. BS EN 14034-4. (2004). Determination of explosion characteristics of dust clouds-

Part 4: Determination of the limiting oxygen concentration LOC of dust clouds. British
Standards Institution.

14. Cashdollar, K.L.(1996). Coal dust explosibility. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries,9, 65-76.

48
15. Cashdollar,K.L. (2000). Overview of dust explosibility characteristics. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 13, 183-199.

16. Cashdollar, K.L.,& Chatrathi, K.(1993). Minimum explosible dust concentrations

measured in 20L and 1-m3 chambers. Combustion Science and Technology, 87, 157-
171.

17. Cashdollar, K.L.,& Hertzberg, M. (1985). 20-Liter explosibility test chamber for dusts
and gases. Review of Scientific Instruments, 56(4),596-602.

18. Cashdollar, K.L., Hertzberg, M., & Zlochower, I.A.(1989). Effect of volatility on dust
flammability limits for coals, gilsonite and polyethylene. Twenty-second Symposium
(International) on Combustion, pp.1757-1765, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh.
PA.

19. Cashdollar, K.L., Weiss, E.S., Greninger, N.B., & Chatrathi, K.(1992). Laboratory and
large scale dust explosion research. Plant/ Operations Progress, 11, 247-255 .

20. Cashdollar, K.L., Sapko, M.J., Weiss, E.S., & Hertzberg, M. (1987). Laboratory and
mine dust explosions research at the Bureau of Mines. Industrial Dust Explosions, STP
958, pp 107-123, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

21. Cashdollar, K.L., & Zlochower, I. A. (2007).Explosion temperatures and pressures of

metals and other elemental dust clouds. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 20,337-348.

22. Continilio, G., Crescitelli, S., Fumo, E., Napolitano, F., & Russo, G.(1990).
Experimental results of coal dust explosions in a spherical bomb. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Colloquium on Dust Explosions, Warsaw, pp 195-207.

23. Continillo, G., Crescitelli, S., Fumo, E., Napolitano, F., & Russo, G. (1991). Coal
dust explosions in a spherical bomb. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries,
4(4), 223-229 .

24. Dastidar, A., Amyotte, P., & Pegg, M.J. (1997). Fuel, 76: 663-670.

25. Deguigand, B.& Galant, S. (1981). Upper flammability limits of coal-dust-air

mixtures. Eighteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp 705-715, The
Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

26. Dorsett, H.G., Jacobson, M., Nagy, J.,& Williams, R.P. (1960). Laboratory equipment
and test procedures for evaluating explosibility of dusts. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI
5624, 21pp.

27. Dufaud, O., Vignes, A., Henry, F., Perrin, L., & Bouillard, J.(2011). Ignition and
explosion of nanopowders: something new under the dust. Nanosafe 2010:
International Conference on Safe production and use of Nanomaterials, Journal of
Physics: Conference Series 304,012076, IOP Publishing.
49
28. Eckhoff, R. K. (1991). Dust explosions in the process industries. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.

29. Eckhoff, R.K.(2011). Are enhanced dust explosion hazards to be foreseen in

production, processing and handling of powders consisting of nano-sized particles.
Nanosafe 2010: International Conference on Safe production and use of
Nanomaterials, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 304,012075, IOP Publishing.

30. Field, P.(1982). Dust Explosions. Handbook of Powder Technology, Vol.4,

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

31. Going J.E, Chatrathi,K, & Cashdollar, K.L. (2000). Flammability limit measurements
for dusts in 20-L and 1m3 vessels, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
13(3), 209-219

32. Hattwig, M., & Steen, H. (2004). Handbook of Explosion Prevention and Protection.
Wiely CSH Verlag GmbH.

33. Hertzberg M. and Cashdollar KL, 1986. Introduction to dust explosions. Industrial
Dust Explosions, STP 958, pp.5-32, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.

34. Hertzberg, M., Zlochower, I.A., & Cashdollar, K.L. (1988). Volatility model for coal
dust flame propagation and extinguishment. Twenty-first Symposium (International)
on Combustion, pp. 325-333, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

35. Hertzberg, M., Zlochwower, I.A.,& Cashdollar, K.L.(1992). Metal dust combustion:
explosion limits, pressures and temperatures. Twenty First Symposium (International)
on Combustion. The Combustion Institute.pp.1827-1835.

36. Holbrow, P., Wall, M., Sanderson, E., Bennett, D., Rattigan, W., Bettis, R., &
Gregory, D. (2010). Fire and explosion properties of nanopowders. RR782, UK Health
and Safety Executive.

37. ISO 6184/1 (1985a). Explosion Protection Systems- Part 1: Determination of

Explosion Indices of Combustible Dusts in Air, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization.

38. ISO 6184/2 (1985b). Explosion Protection Systems- Part 2: Determination of

Explosion Indices of Combustible Gases in Air, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization.

39. Jacobson, M., Cooper, A.R., & Nagy, J. (1964). Explosibility of metal powders.
Report of Investigation 6516, Pittsburg, U.S. Bureau of Mines.

50
40. Jensen, B., & Gillies, A.D.S.(1994). Review of coal dust explosibility research.
Proceedings, Aus. Ins. Min. Met., 2, pp.9-14.

41. Kuai, N., Li, J., Chen Z., Huang W., Yuan J., & Xu, W. (2011). Experiment-based
investigations of magnesium dust explosion characteristics. Journal of Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries, 24(4), 302-313.

42. Kwok, Q.S.M, Fouchard, R. C., Turcotte, A., Lightfoot, P. D., Bowes, R., & Jones,
D.E.G. (2002). Characterization of aluminium nanopowder composition. Propellants,
Explosives, Pyrotechnic, 27,229-240.

43. Mittal, M. (1996). An analysis of hazards in chemical industries, Indian Chemical

Engineer, 38(2), 69-80.

44. Mittal, M. (2012). Dust explosion violence measurement with 20-L Spherical Vessel,
Chemical Products Finder, 31(5), 34-36.

45. Mittal, M. (2013). Explosibility of micron- and nano-size aluminium powders,

Chemical Engineering World, 48(6), 38-47.

46. Mittal, M. (2014), Explosion characteristics of micron- and nano-size magnesium

powders, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 27, Jan. 2014, 55-64.

47. NFPA 654 (2006). Standard for the prevention of fire and dust explosions from the
manufacturing, processing, and handling of combustible particulate solids, National
Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA.

48. NFPA 68 (2007). Standard on explosion protection by deflagration venting, National

Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA.

49. NFPA 69 (2008). Standard on explosion prevention systems, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA, USA.

50. NFPA (2012). Standard for metal dust explosions, NFPA 484, Quincy, MA: National
Fire Protection Association.

51. Nifuku, M., Koyanaka, S., Ohya, H., Barre C., Hatori, M, Fujiwara, S, Horiguchi, S.,
& Sochet, I. (2007), Ignitability characteristics of aluminium and magnesium dusts
that are generated during the shredding of post-consumer wastes, Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries,20,322-329.

52. Palmer, K.N. (1973). Dust explosions and Fires. Chapman and Hall, London.

53. Pritchard, D.K. (2004). Literature review- explosion hazard associated with nano-
powders. , UK Health and Safety Executive. HSL/2004/12.

51
54. Rice, G.S., & Greenwald, H.P., 1929. Coal dust explosibility factors indicated by
experimental mine investigations 1911 to 1929. Bureau of Mines Technical Paper 464.

55. Siwek, R., (1985). Development of a 20-L laboratory apparatus and its application for
the investigation of combustible dusts. Basel, Switzerland: Ciba Geigy AG.

56. VDI 2263 (1992a). Dust fires and dust explosions, hazards- assessment- protective
measures. Part 1: Test Methods for the determination of the safety characteristics of
dusts. Beuth, Berlin.

57. VDI 2263 (1992b): Dust fires and dust explosions, hazards assessment- protective
measures. Part 2: Inerting. Beuth, Berlin.

58. VDI- 3673 (2002). Part 1: Pressure venting of dust explosions. Dusseldorf, Germany:
Verein Deutschr Ingeniere.

59. Vignes, A., Traore, M., Dufaud, O., Perrin, L., Bouillard, J, & Thomas, D. (2009).
Assessing explosion severity of nanopowders with the 20-L Sphere. Paper presented at
the 8th World Congress of Chemical Engineering (August 23-27, 2009, Montreal,
Canada).

60. VTT Publications 394, 1999. Safe handling of renewable fuels and fuel mixtures,
Technical Research Centre of Finland.

61. Woskoboenko, F.(1988). Explosibility of Victorian Brown coal dust, Fuel, 67(8):
1062-1068.

62. Wu, H.C., Chang, R.C, & Hsiao, H.C. (2009). Research of minimum ignition energy
for nano titanium powder and nano iron powder, Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 2, 21-24.

63. Wu, H.C., Ou, H.J., Hsiao, H. C., & Shih, T.S. (2010). Explosion characteristics of
aluminium nano-powders, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 10(1), 38-42.

64. Worsfold, S.M, Amyotte, P.R, Khan, F.I., Dastidar, A.G., & Eckhoff, R.K.(2012).
Review of the explosibility of non-traditional dusts. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 51(22), 7651-7655.

65. Xufan, D., Renxian, X.,& Lin, X.(1993). Explosibility and ignitability of 16 types of
dust and some opinions on fundamental research for dust explosions. Proceedings of
the Fifth International Colloquium on Dust Explosions, Warsaw, pp. 217-224.

52