Evaluation of fire and explosion hazard of nanoparticles
Transcript of Evaluation of fire and explosion hazard of nanoparticles
© 2019 Fire Protection Research Foundation
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7417, USA Email: [email protected] | Web: nfpa.org/foundation
Evaluation of fire and explosion hazard of nanoparticles
FINAL REPORT BY:
Nabila Nazneen Qingsheng Wang, Ph.D., PE, CSP Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. August 2019
TECHNICAL NOTES
—— Page ii ——
---page intentionally left blank---
—— Page iii ——
FOREWORD The NFPA Dust standards need a common definition for a nanoparticle, an understanding of how
their combustion properties differ from larger particles, and an awareness of the effect on the
selection and application of fire and explosion prevention, detection, and suppression methods.
Are there significant differences in the combustion characteristics between nanoparticles and
larger particles that would significantly affect fire and explosion prevention, detection, and
suppression methods and are these differences present for all commodity dusts? What numerical
size criterion should be used to distinguish a nanoparticle from larger particles from the standpoint
of fire and explosion safety principles?
The goal of this project is to determine the particle size at which the combustion properties
significantly change from that of larger particles through a literature review. More specifically to
identify the combustion properties, fire and explosion hazard posed by the nanoparticles.
The Fire Protection Research Foundation expresses gratitude to the report authors Nabila
Nazneen and Dr. Qingsheng Wang, who are with the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center,
Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, USA. The Research Foundation appreciates the guidance provided by the Project
Technical Panelists, and all others that contributed to this research effort. Thanks are also
expressed to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for providing the project funding.
The content, opinions and conclusions contained in this report are solely those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the views of the Fire Protection Research Foundation, NFPA,
Technical Panel or Sponsors. The Foundation makes no guaranty or warranty as to the accuracy
or completeness of any information published herein.
About the Fire Protection Research Foundation
The Fire Protection Research Foundation plans,
manages, and communicates research on a broad
range of fire safety issues in collaboration with
scientists and laboratories around the world. The Foundation is an affiliate of NFPA.
About the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Founded in 1896, NFPA is a global, nonprofit organization devoted to eliminating death, injury, property and economic loss due to fire, electrical and related hazards. The association delivers information and knowledge through more than 300 consensus codes and standards, research, training, education, outreach and advocacy; and by partnering with others who share an interest in furthering the NFPA mission. All NFPA codes and standards can be viewed online for free. NFPA's membership totals more than 65,000 individuals around the world.
—— Page iv ——
Keywords: nanoparticle, dust, dust explosions, hazard, particle, particulates, deflagration.
Report number: FPRF-2019-10
Project manager: Sreenivasan Ranganathan
—— Page v ——
PROJECT TECHNICAL PANEL
Paul F. Hart, American International Group, Inc. & NFPA 652 Chair
James F. Koch, The Dow Chemical Company
Jack E. Osborn, Airdusco, Inc.
Laura Moreno, NFPA
PROJECT SPONSORS
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
—— Page vi ——
---page intentionally left blank---
—— Page vii ——
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nanoparticles are a wonder of the modern age. It brings tremendous change in the field
of science, from biological to physical sciences. However, like many other blessings,
nanoparticles have their disadvantages too. Being so small makes them create dusts in
the atmosphere, which poses serious fire and explosion threat. The main motivation of
this work is to find the correlation of explosion parameters against the size of the
nanoparticles. Some inflection points were identified, below or above which the explosion
severity decreases. Additionally, the review found that concentration plays a huge role in
determining the explosion severity of nanoparticles. The report also covers the prevention
and suppression nature of nanoparticle explosion and how the size range of nanoparticles
impacts the prevention and suppression nature. The research suggests that the
prevention and suppression largely depend on the normalized rate of pressure rise which
is dependent on particle size.
—— Page viii ——
---page intentionally left blank---
1
Evaluation of Fire and Explosion Hazard of
Nanoparticles
Nabila Nazneen, Graduate Student
Dr. Qingsheng Wang, Associate Professor
Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center
Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering
Texas A&M University
Date: August 2019
2
Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Experimental Apparatuses ............................................................................................................................ 3
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Aluminum .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Magnesium ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Carbon Nanotube ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Effect of Aggregation ................................................................................................................................ 8
Effect of Concentration ............................................................................................................................. 8
Effect of Turbulence and Dispersion ......................................................................................................... 9
Prevention and Suppression ......................................................................................................................... 9
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 12
References .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Reference List for the table......................................................................................................................... 27
List of Figures Figure 1: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. particle size for Aluminum (b) Normalized rate of
pressure rise vs. particle size for Aluminum ................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Minimum explosible concentration vs. particle size for Aluminum ............................................. 5
Figure 3: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. particle size for Magnesium (b) Normalized rate of
pressure rise vs. particle size for Magnesium ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: (a) MEC vs. particle size for Magnesium (b) MIE vs. particle Size for Magnesium .................... 6
Figure 5: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. particle size for Aluminum and Magnesium (b)
Normalized rate of pressure rise vs. particle size for Aluminum and Magnesium ....................................... 7
Figure 6: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. BET surface area for Carbon Nanotube (b)
Normalized rate of pressure rise vs. BET surface area for Carbon Nanotube .............................................. 7
Figure 7: 1 m3 suppression test for 500 g/m3 of Aluminum dust (Taveau, Vingerhoets, Snoeys, Going, &
Farrell, 2015)............................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: 1 m3 suppression test for 1750 g/m3 of Aluminum dust (Taveau et al., 2015) ............................ 10
Figure 9: 1 m3 and 4.4 m3 suppression tests for 500 g/m3 of Aluminum dust (Taveau et al., 2015) .......... 11
3
Introduction The study on dust explosion has become crucial as this kind of incidents has been happening more
frequently than ever. According to the data provided by US Chemical Safety Board (CSB),
between 1980 and 2005, there had been 281 dust explosions which killed 119 workers and injured
718. These explosions brought in severe damage to the industrial facilities in 44 states.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) have guidelines and standards to prevent and suppress dust explosions. Dust explosions
are affected by a few important factors such as particle size, moisture content, dust concentration,
presence of inert gas, etc.
This report focuses particularly on the effect of particle size to determine the size below or above
which the explosion behavior changes.
Experimental Apparatuses The apparatuses below were mainly used to run the experiments to determine the explosion
parameters:
• Spherical chamber (20 L) by Kühner AG
• Dust explosion apparatus (36 L)
• Hartman tube (1.2 L) by Kühner AG
• Spraytec
• Tristar II 3020
20 L and 36 L apparatuses focus on determining Maximum Explosion Overpressure (Pmax),
Maximum Rate of Pressure Rise (dP/dTmax) and Minimum Explosible Concentration (MEC). 1.2
L Hartman tube was used to find MEC and MIE (Minimum Ignition Energy). The problem with
smaller scale chamber is that it has a possibility to have wall quenching effect, i.e., the sphere has
a possibility to disturb the flame propagation and thermal mechanisms by absorbing radiation. It
has been experimented that 20 L and 1m3 vessel give out comparable results but higher ignition
energy may show different behavior.
Particle sizes were measured by using Spraytec, which is based on the idea of using light
diffraction against the size. Tristar II 3020 was used for carbon particles to determine the BET
(Brunauer–Emmett–Teller) specific surface area with N2 adsorption. The greater surface area
indicates smaller particle size.
4
Dust particles are seldom mono-dispersed. Different sized particles are generally distributed in a
dust cloud. However, while determining the explosion parameters, an effective diameter is used,
which influences the overall nature of the explosion. A good estimate is the Sauter Mean Diameter,
d32, which can be defined as the diameter of a sphere having the same volume to surface area ratio
as the particle of interest (Dufaud, Traoré, Perrin, Chazelet, & Thomas, 2010).
Results The data for all the materials were tabulated in one spreadsheet. The explosion parameters were
then plotted against their particle size. There were significant data available for Aluminum,
Magnesium and Carbon Nanotubes. For other particles, there weren’t enough data to make a
correlation, see Appendix A. Thus we only focused on the discussion of Aluminum, Magnesium
and Carbon Nanotubes in this report.
Aluminum
The data from Aluminum were collected from different labs which may have resulted in some
inconsistencies in the graph. The Aluminum plots suggest a particle size ranging from 100 to 200
nm is the most explosive zone. The 100 nm particles show the largest maximum explosion
overpressure (Pmax) and the 200 nm particles show the largest normalized rate of pressure rise.
(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. particle size for Aluminum (b) Normalized rate of
pressure rise vs. particle size for Aluminum
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Pm
ax(b
ar)
Particle Size (nm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Kst
(ba.
ms-
1)
Particle size (nm)
5
When minimum explosible concentrations (MEC) were plotted against the particle size for
Aluminum, it was found that the MEC initially increases with the increase of particle size. At about
1,000 nm, a plateau starts which continues till 10,000 nm and then the MEC starts to decrease. It
is to be noted that the explosion parameters drop at smaller diameter zone. The reason for this is
the particles below a certain size (for Aluminum it is 100 nm) tend to agglomerate which
essentially increases the effective size of the diameter and decreases the explosion intensity.
Figure 2: Minimum explosible concentration vs. particle size for Aluminum
Magnesium
The inflection point for Magnesium falls perfectly on 400 nm. The particles sized below or above
this size have less explosion severity.
0
20
40
60
80
100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
ME
C (
g/m
3)
Particle Size (nm)
6
(a) (b)
Figure 3: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. particle size for Magnesium (b) Normalized rate of
pressure rise vs. particle size for Magnesium
MEC vs. particle size for Magnesium shows an exponential increase in MEC with the increase of
particle size.
(b) (b)
Figure 4: (a) MEC vs. particle size for Magnesium (b) MIE vs. particle Size for Magnesium
Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE) was plotted against the particle size of Magnesium and it was
found that MIE increases with the increase of particle size. When the MEC and MIE of Aluminum
and Magnesium were plotted in a single graph, respectively, it shows that the most severe
explosion range is around 300 to 600 nm.
6
8
10
12
14
16
10 100 1000 10000 1000001000000
Pm
ax(b
ar)
Particle Size (nm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
10 100 1000 10000 1000001000000
Kst
(bar
.m.s
-1)
Particle Size (nm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
10 1000 100000
ME
C (
g/m
3)
Particle Size (nm)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10 100 1000 10000 100000
MIE
(m
J)
Particle size (nm)
7
(a) (b)
Figure 5: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. particle size for Aluminum and Magnesium (b)
Normalized rate of pressure rise vs. particle size for Aluminum and Magnesium
Carbon Nanotube
The review work included lots of data regarding Carbon Nanotube. The explosion parameters were
found against their BET specific surface area. The report focused on Carbon Nanotubes as these
were the data for Carbon that were mostly available. The Pmax and Kst data suggest that when the
particle size decreases, the explosion parameters increase. It should be noted that when increasing
BET surface area, the particle size decreases.
(a) (b)
Figure 6: (a) Maximum explosion overpressure vs. BET surface area for Carbon Nanotube (b)
Normalized rate of pressure rise vs. BET surface area for Carbon Nanotube
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Pm
ax (
bar
)
Particle Size (nm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Kst
(bar
.ms-1
)
Particle Size (nm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 100 1000
Pm
ax(b
ar)
BET (m2/g)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
10 100 1000
Kst
(bar
.m/s
)
BET (m2/g)
8
Discussion MIE has a very strong correlation with particle size. Dobashi showed that Aluminum and
Polyethylene both have their MIE increased when particle size increased (Dobashi, 2009). The
metallic nanoparticles have a very low MIE (less than 1 mJ), which makes them very prone to
explosion.
Effect of Aggregation
According to Worsfold et al., agglomeration plays an important role in influencing explosion
severity (Worsfold, Amyotte, Khan, Dastidar, & Eckhoff, 2012). The nano-sized particles tend to
aggregate, which increases their effective size; these particles thus show different behaviors from
their original size. Contrary to this, Turkevich et al. thought differently. According to their
argument, the aggregate behavior should be based on the same allotropes rather than considering
the nanomaterials only (Turkevich, Fernback, Dastidar, & Osterberg, 2016). Their experiments
on carbonaceous materials show very weak correlation of aggregated particle size with Pmax and
Kst. Different sizes of aggregates from the same allotropes have not been tested yet. So we cannot
reach a conclusion here. Additionally, as we know, Aluminum does not have any allotropes; thus
this leads us to put more faith on Worsfold et al.’s conclusion.
Worsfold et al. showed that while considering the particle size, the diameter of the particle was
considered rather than the length. Although length does not impact much while considering the
parameters of the particles, it does have some impact when the melting point of the material is
lower than the ignition temperature. Then the particle is melted, and it becomes more spherical in
shape with the diameter of the particle being increased. This generally happens with the flocculent
micron sized particles like nylon.
Nanopowders have very low bulk density, which means that their thermal conductivity is low.
This puts them in much higher ignition risk as they tend to self-heat themselves when put in storage
containers (Bouillard, Vignes, Dufaud, Perrin, & Thomas, 2010).
Effect of Concentration
Concentration plays a significant role in the explosion severity. The maximum explosion
overpressure changes with concentration when the particle diameter is kept constant. However,
the particle size decides how the dust will behave. For example, in case of Aluminum, with smaller
particles, the maximum rate of pressure rise increases significantly with increasing concentration.
The larger particles, however, show very little increase of dp/dtmax with increasing concentration.
(Dufaud et al., 2010)
9
Effect of Turbulence and Dispersion Nanopowders are cohesive type. They have greater interparticle forces that hold them together
than the fluid characteristic that would help them in dispersion. For Aluminum, turbulence plays
a major role at low nominal concentrations. At the initial stage of injection, the kinetic energy rises
abruptly, which results in a variable dust dispersion. Uniformity restores when turbulence
decreases. At higher concentrations, uniformity is prevalent, which significantly impacts the
explosion. Turbulence affects dust explosion in both ways. On one hand, the increased flame
surface increases the explosion intensity. On the other hand, the impact on the dust uniformity
decreases the intensity. However, turbulent kinetic energy decays with time after the dust is
injected into the chamber. (Zhang, Liu, & Shen, 2018)
After the feeding, the difference of concentration at different parts of the vessel gets smaller with
time. The following figure depicts the scenario properly. The part closest to nozzle experiences
the most concentration changes. As the distance increases, the concentration change decreases.
After a certain time, when turbulence decreases, the concentrations from all part of the vessel tends
to be the same. Therefore, we can conclude that the high level of turbulence creates a non-
homogeneous dispersion of dust, which impacts the concentration and thus the explosion severity.
Prevention and Suppression As the nanoparticle explosion tends to be quite drastic, the need of effective prevention and
suppression is crucial. The prevention and suppression both depend on the fact that how severe an
explosion can get. Suppression fairly depends on the particle sizes. However, it depends on dust
concentration even more. For nanoparticle explosions, different suppressants are used, among
which SBC (Sodium Bicarbonate) is the most popular one. The rate of pressure rise helps to
understand how soon a suppressant can extinguish the fire. The density of the suppressant matters,
as well as the concentration of the nanodust. A low-concentration dust can be extinguished
abruptly, but a high-concentration dust requires more time and a larger amount of suppressants.
Suppressants work best if it can immediately be effective when the incipient explosion is detected.
There is a protected zone for the vessel safety, suppressing the explosion in this zone ensures full
extinguishment of the explosion. If the suppressant is not effective enough, the explosion crosses
the safety barrier and vessel fails.
There is almost no pressure generation due to combustion at a low dust concentration of 250 g/m3.
As the concentration increases, so does the explosion pressure. When the dust concentration
reaches 1000 g/m3 and beyond, the substantial pressure gets really large before the suppressant
comes into play. If we look at the pressure vs. time curves for dust explosion tests carried out in a
1 m3 vessel with concentration of 500 g/m3 and 1750 g/m3, respectively, we can see that more
pressure is generated per unit time with increasing concentration, which is evident by the steep
10
latter curve. The suppression time also depends on the concentration. For 500 g/m3, the time is less
than 20 ms whereas for 1750 g/m3, it is more than 30 ms. (Taveau, Vingerhoets, Snoeys, Going, &
Farrell, 2015)
Figure 7: 1 m3 suppression test for 500 g/m3 of Aluminum dust (Taveau, Vingerhoets, Snoeys, Going, &
Farrell, 2015)
Reprinted from Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 36, Jerome Taveau, Jim Vingerhoets, Jef Snoeys, John
Going, and Thomas Farrell, Suppression of metal dust deflagrations, p. 250, Copyright (2015), with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 8: 1 m3 suppression test for 1750 g/m3 of Aluminum dust (Taveau et al., 2015)
Reprinted from Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 36, Jerome Taveau, Jim Vingerhoets, Jef Snoeys, John
Going, and Thomas Farrell, Suppression of metal dust deflagrations, p. 250, Copyright (2015), with permission from Elsevier.
11
The suppression behavior of Aluminum dust in 1 m3 and 4.4 m3 vessels suggests a fairly good
scalability of suppression. The total suppression pressure (TSP) for 4.4 m3 vessel is a bit higher
because the suppressant concentration is lower in the 4.4 m3 vessel (9.5 kg/m3 vs. 12.5 kg/m3).
The suppressant discharge device is larger for 4.4 m3 vessel (10 L vs. 5 L), which took more time
to release. Smaller multiple suppressant discharge devices may eliminate this problem.
Figure 9: 1 m3 and 4.4 m3 suppression tests for 500 g/m3 of Aluminum dust (Taveau et al., 2015)
Reprinted from Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 36, Jerome Taveau, Jim Vingerhoets, Jef Snoeys, John
Going, and Thomas Farrell, Suppression of metal dust deflagrations, p. 250, Copyright (2015), with permission from Elsevier
The recent experiments suggest that for Aluminum dust with up to 500 g/m3 concentration and a
Kst below 200 bar·m/s, the explosion can be suppressed with fairly good suppressant concentration.
As the industrial dust collectors do not usually reach more than 500 g/m3 concentration, it is
believed that the dust filter in the Aluminum processing plants can be protected by a suppression
system. However, in the event of a higher dust concentration, the technique of using multiple small
suppressant discharge containers can help lower the pressure. (Taveau et al., 2015) Recent research
by Wang’s lab at Texas A&M University show that wet dust removal systems could be an effective
design for preventing aluminum dust explosion while adding a small amount of special chemicals
(i.e., L-phenylalanine and CeCl3) in the solution to inhibit hydrogen production in the systems.
(Xu et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2018)
12
Conclusions This review found that there is an essentially significant correlation between particle size and
explosion parameters. However, it is also evident that depending solely on particle size to
understand the explosion severity will not give the actual picture. Other factors like concentration,
turbulence, dispersion etc. also have to be considered. It was found while tabulating the data that
some explosion parameters are rarer than the others. For example, for Minimum Ignition
Temperature (MIT), Minimum Auto Ignition Temperature (MAIT), not enough data are available
to develop correlations. There have been outliers in different experimental results, mainly because
the experiments were conducted at different concentrations. This again proves the dependence of
explosion parameters on concentration.
For Pmax and Kst, Aluminum and Magnesium follow a somewhat similar trend, i.e., they have
smaller values at smaller particle size due to agglomeration. The values increase up to a certain
point and then again decreases due to increase in actual particle size. However, the MEC values
show different behavior. While the Aluminum produces a plateau, the Magnesium has its value
slowly increased to a certain point, with increasing particle size, and then opts for a sudden
increase. This happens because larger Magnesium particles needs larger amount of dust, i.e., larger
concentration to reach the same effective surface area as of nano-sized low concentration particles.
The plot trend of MEC vs. particle size for Aluminum may be explained through further
experiments as consolidated different lab data may have not shown the actual picture.
The correlation of explosion parameters with particle size indicates that effective collection of the
dangerous sized particles can help reduce severe incidents. Thus focus should be given to an
effective dust capture method. Also, nanoparticles have very low bulk density, which means their
thermal conductivity is low. They tend to self-heat themselves when put in storage containers.
(Bouillard et al., 2010) Therefore, proper identification of MAIT and design of a safe storage
system should be considered.
References Bouillard, J., et al., Ignition and explosion risks of nanopowders, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
181 (2010) 873-880.
Cashdollar, K., et al., Explosion temperatures and pressures of metals and other elemental dust
clouds, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 20 (2007) 337-348.
Dobashi, R., Risk of dust explosions of combustible nanomaterials, Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 170 (2009) 012029.
Dufaud, O., et al., Experimental investigation and modelling of aluminum dusts explosions in the
20 L sphere, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 23(2) (2010) 226-236.
13
Krietsch, A., et al., Explosion behaviour of metallic nano powders, Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industries, 36 (2015) 237-243.
Taveau, J., et al., Suppression of metal dust deflagrations, Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 36 (2015) 244-251.
Turkevich, L. A., et al., Potential explosion hazard of carbonaceous nanoparticles: screening of
allotropes, Combustion and Flame, 167 (2016) 218-227.
Worsfold, S. M., et al., Review of the explosibility of nontraditional dusts, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 51(22) (2012) 7651-7655.
Xu, K., et al., Inhibition of hydrogen production reactions in the wet dust removal system using
CeCl3 solutions, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43 (31) (2018) 14859-14865.
Zhang, Q., et al., Effect of turbulence on explosion of aluminum dust at various concentrations in
air, Powder Technology, 325 (2018) 467-475.
Zheng, X., et al., Study of hydrogen explosion control measures by using l-phenylalanine for
aluminum wet dust removal systems, RSC Advances, 8 (2018) 41308-41316.
14
Appendix A Data Collection on Nanoparticle Explosions
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Al Metal 100
20L Spherical ASTM E1226, modified Hartmann tube kuhner 8.2 1340 364 St3 <1 30 3 1,2,5
Al Metal 200 9.5 2420 656 St3 7 30 1,5
Al Metal 200 9.5 3480 673 St3 2
Al Metal 21000 7.5 400 106 St1 1
Al Metal 27000 7.2 360 98 St1 1
Al Metal 27000 7.5 400 106 St1 5
Al Metal 3000 9.8 2090 567 St3 14 1,5
Al Metal 42000 900 7.2 360 98 St1 440 5
Al Metal 7000 9.1 1460 396 St3 5
Al Metal 9000 9.1 1460 396 St3 1
Al Metal 40000 10000-50000
20L Spherical kuhner, 1.2 L Hartmann 1250 5 5.9 282 77 60 35
9,10,12
Al Metal 100 20-120
20L Spherical kuhner, 1.2 L Hartmann 1500-2000 5 12.5 1090 296 <1 50
9,10.12
Al Metal 35 10-50
20L Spherical kuhner, 1.2 L Hartmann 1300-1800 5 7.3 1286 349 <1 40
9,10,12
Al Metal 50-70 4.51 15.2 8.8 1551 421 30 16
Al Metal 90-110
20L spherical Siwek Chamber 4.45 12.25 9.1 1360 369 30 16
Al Metal 1000 330 9.4 85 19
Al Metal 7000 330 9 90 19
Al Metal 15000
330 7.5
90
19
Al Metal 40000 330 6.6 120 19
Boron Metal 3000 130 7 110 19
Chromium Metal 10000 610 3 F 19
Cu Metal 50-70 6.7 7.11 0.3 18 5 250 16
Cu Metal 30000 ∼2200 1 NF 19
15
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Fe Metal 150000 4
Fe Metal 15 <1 4
Fe Metal 35 <1 4
Fe Metal 65 <1 4
Fe Metal 50-70 N/A 1.27 6.11 60 16
Fe Metal 90-110 N/A 1.29 6.42 60 16
Fe Metal 4000 400 3.5 12 19
Fe Metal 4000 600 4.2 18 19
Fe Metal 4000 800 4.3 23 19
Fe Metal 4000 1000 4.5 27 19
Fe Metal 45000 400 1.3 2 19
Fe Metal 45000 600 2.4 3 19
Fe Metal 45000 800 3 3.5 19
Fe Metal 45000 1000 2.9 3.5 19
Fe Metal 4000 1000 4.5 220 19
Fe Metal
45000 1000
3.1
500 19
Hafnium Metal 8000 1600 5.2 180 19
Lead Metal 40000 3600 1.1 NF 19
Mg Metal <74000 6.21 621 620 40 17
Mg Metal 28000 17.5 508 30 17
Mg Metal 240000 7 12 760 17
Mg Metal 240000 17.5 508 17
Mg Metal 241000 7 12 760 17
Mg Metal 400000 17
Mg Metal 30000 10.8 400 17
Mg Metal 16000 8.5 17
Mg Metal 0-20000 513 4 <8 17
Mg Metal 20000-37000 530 5 <8 17
Mg Metal 37000-45000 550 12 17
Mg Metal 45000-74000 563 44 17
16
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Mg Metal 74000-105000 575 82 17
Mg Metal 105000-125000 578 102 17
Mg Metal 125000-149000 585 194 17
Mg Metal 149000-177000 625 242 17
Mg Metal 6000 480 >2 17
Mg Metal 47000 8 150 520 46-54 6.8 17
Mg Metal 104000 620 250-300 17
Mg Metal 75000 560 17
Mg Metal 20000-60000 53 17
Mg Metal 7500 7.8 430 17
Mg Metal 22400 6.6 380 17
Mg Metal 54500 5.8 250 17
Mg Metal 28000 17.5 508 17
Mg Metal 240000 7 12 760 17
Mg Metal <44000 620 40 17
Mg Metal <44000 600 240 17
Mg Metal 16000 7.5 17
Mg Metal 125000 1500
7
98
600 120 160 5
17
Mg Metal 74000 1500
8.8
202
570 50 90 5
17
Mg Metal 38000 1250
10.8
362
530 10 60 5
17
Mg Metal 22000 1250
12.4
450
510 4 50 4
17
Mg Metal 10000 1000
13.2
482
480 3 40 4
17
Mg Metal 1000 1000 14 510 450 2 30 4 17
Mg Metal 400 750 14.6 528 400 1 30 3 17
Mg Metal 200 750 12.4 460 380 1 30 4 17
17
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Mg Metal 150 750 11 400 350 1 20 4 17
Mg Metal 100 750 10.6 360 350 <1 20 4 17
Mg Metal 50 750 10 332 350 <1 20 5 17
Mg Metal 30 750 9.4 262 350 <1 20 5 17
Mg Metal 16000 530 8.5 55 19 Molybdenum Metal
5000 600
1
NF 19
Nickel Metal 6000 900 1 NF 19
Niobium Metal 20000 800 4.6 F 19
Niobium Metal 30000 3.7 420 19
Tantalum Metal 10000 1300 4 400 19
Ti Metal 60-80 1.24 30 16
Ti Metal <150000
5.5 84
23
>590 1-3
60 18
Ti Metal <45000 7.7 436 118 460 1-3 60 18
Ti Metal <=20000
6.9 420
114
460 <1
50 18
Ti Metal 150 250 630 250 <1 40-50 18
Ti Metal 60-80 250 640 240 <1 18
Ti Metal 40-60 250 <1 18
Ti Metal 25000 400 5 22 19
Ti Metal 25000 600 5.4 34 19
Ti Metal 25000 800 5.4 34 19
Ti Metal 25000 520 5.7 70 19
Ti Metal 100 <1 4
Ti Metal 20000 18.73 4
Ti Metal 3000 <1 4
Ti Metal 35 <1 4
Ti Metal 45000 21.91 4
Ti Metal 75 <1 4
Ti Metal 8000 21.91 4
Tin Metal 8000 1100 4.3 450 19
Tungsten Metal ⩽1000 1100 3.3 700 19
Tungsten Metal 10000 1100 1 NF 19
Zn Metal 120 3.9 223 61 St1 19 5
Zn Metal 40000 3.7 71 19 St1 >1000 5
Zn Metal 90-150 12.6
8 3.2 4.3 652 177 125 16
18
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Zn Metal 4000 1300 4.4 300 19
Zn Metal 45000 ⩽2 NF 19
Brown Coal Organic 32 11 152 41 60 7
Carbon Organic ⩽1000 120 5.5 90 19
Carbon
Organic
1000
120
5
F
F=Flammable but MEC could not be determined 19
Carbon
Organic
4000
120
1.1
NF
NF= Nonflammable or Nonignitable 19
Carbon (Stoichiometric Conc.) Organic
36L customized vessel 111 6
Carbon black Organic 7.2 112 250000-500000 53 >600 8
Carbon Black - Carbex 330 Organic 33 70 6.4 103 29 71 683 360 Active N330 7
Carbon Black - Carbex 330 (P) Organic 32 81.2 6.3 96 27 75 683 410 Active N330 7
Carbon Black - Carbex 330a Organic 30 85 6.3 182 51 66 667 350 Active N330 7
Carbon Black - Corax N115 Organic 7.7 326 88 St1 780 >1000 60 1
Carbon Black - Corax N115 Organic 150 7.5 503 136 >1 60 7
Carbon Black - Corax N550 Organic 7.5 503 136 St1
>900 >1000 60 1
Carbon Black - Corax N550 Organic 50 6.7 240 65 >1 60 7
Carbon Black - Printex 90 Organic 306.3 4.9 103 28
Carbon Black (DeGussa-Huels)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Carbon Black - Printex XE2 Organic 40 7.2 343 93 St1 810 >1000 60 1
Carbon Black - Printex XE2 Organic 40 200 6.6 227 62 >1 60 7
Carbon Black - Regal 330R Organic 83 5.9 180 49
Carbon Black (Cabot)
Tested in Conc. 7
19
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
500g/m3
Carbon Black - Sapex 20 Organic 89 27 6 79 22 150 885 395 Semiactive 7
Carbon Black - Sapex 20 (P) Organic 89 26.5 6.1 63 18 144 882 435 Semiactive 7
Carbon Black - Sapex 35 Organic 78 36.9 6.8 66 19 126 359 Semiactive 7
Carbon Black - Sapex 35 (P) Organic 78 39.5 6.1 50 14 103 896 415 Semiactive 7
Carbon Black - Sterling V Organic 36.8 5.6 142 39
Carbon Black (Cabot)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Carbon Black - Thermal Black N990 Organic 6.7 240 65 St1
>900 >1000 60 1
Carbon Black - Thermal Black N990 Organic 20 7.2 343 93 >1 60 7
Carbon Black - Vulcan (Furnace) Organic 8.5 24 7 60
Furnace Carbon Black 7
Carbon Black - Vulcan (P) (Furnace) Organic 9.1 62 17 60
Furnace Carbon Black 7
Carbon Black - Vulcan 3 Organic 30 81 6.3 169 47 73 656 450 Active N330 7
Carbon Black - Vulcan 6 Organic 24 122 6.9 246 69 61 645 470 Active N200 7
Carbon Nanotube (MWCNT) (Arkema) Organic 950 7.7 326 88 >1 60 7
CNF Organic 7.1 96
10^6-2.5*10^6 51 >600 8
CNF-PR-19-XT-HHT Organic 18.9 4 16 4
CNF (Pyrograph)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
CNF-PR-19-XT-LHT Organic 22.2 4.8 33 9
CNF (Pyrograph)
Tested in Conc. 7
20
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
500g/m3
CNF-PR-19-XT-PS Organic 28.2 5 47 13
CNF (Pyrograph)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
CNF-PR-24-XT-HHT Organic 33.3 0.4 0 0
CNF (Pyrograph)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
CNF-PR-24-XT-LHT Organic 36.8 5.4 56 15
CNF (Pyrograph)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
CNF-PR-24-XT-PS Organic 57.3 5.1 53 14
CNF (Pyrograph)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Corax N550 Organic >100000
Corn Starch Organic 58000-74000 500 1.5 4.54 26.78 13
Corn Starch Organic 58000-74000 700 1.5 4.95 21.81 13
Corn Starch Organic 58000-74000 875 1.5 4.4 14 13
Corn Starch Organic 58000-74000 500 4.2 7.14 64.77 13
Corn Starch Organic 58000-74000 700 4.2 7.8 69.2 13
Corn Starch Organic 58000-74000 875 4.2 7.5 50.96 13
Crystalline (300 mesh) Organic 11.6 4.7 72 19
Graphite (Alfa Aesar)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Diamond Organic 1000 7.5 6.3 320 87
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Diamond Organic 10 268.9 5.8 430 117
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
21
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
fibrous wood Organic <500000 7.8 80 9
fibrous wood Organic <75000 8.2 149 9
fibrous wood (bulk) Organic 7.2 41 9
Flake (7-10µm) Organic
7000-10000 8.4 5 87 23
Graphite (Alfa Aesar)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Fullerene Organic 8 199 <250000 17 550 8
Fullerene (C60) Organic 0.4 6.6 373 101
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Furnace Carbon Black (Unspecified) Organic 9.4 122 33 60 7
Furnace Carbon Black (Unspecified) Organic 10 65 17 50 7
Grain Sorghum Organic 19100 200 0.095 0.016 0.0604 585 70
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 19100 300 0.14 0.027 0.0604 585 70
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 19100 400 0.13 0.036 0.0604 585 70
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 19100 500 0.205 0.028 0.0604 585 70
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 19100 600 0.16 0.052 0.0604 585 70
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21000 200 0.09 0.03 0.0584 615 115
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21000 300 0.138 0.036 0.0584 615 115
Secondary Explosion data 14
22
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Grain Sorghum Organic 21000 400 0.18 0.034 0.0584 615 115
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21000 500 0.175 0.044 0.0584 615 115
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21000 600 0.22 0.048 0.0584 615 115
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21800 200 0.062 0.039 0.025 890 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21800 300 0.075 0.018 0.025 890 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21800 400 0.12 0.028 0.025 890 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21800 500 0.09 0.017 0.025 890 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Grain Sorghum Organic 21800 600 0.08 0.026 0.025 890 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Graphene Organic 6.6 70 500000-10^6 73 >600 8
Graphite Organic 6.3 64
10^6-2.5*10^6 92 >600 8
Graphite - Natural Crystal (2-15 µm) Organic 6.5 4.6 98 27
Graphite (Alfa Aesar)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Graphite (Coarse-1) Organic
25-32 6 90 24 100
2 × 10^6 –10^7 7
Graphite (Coarse-2) Organic
40-45 6 75 20 100
2 × 10^6 –10^7 7
Graphite (Fine) Organic 4 6.5 260 73 70
10^6 –10^7 7
graphite dust Organic 25000-32000
36L customized vessel 100 10kJ igniter 6
23
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
graphite dust Organic 25000-32000
36L customized vessel >250 2kJ igniter 6
graphite dust Organic 40000-45000
36L customized vessel 120 10kJ igniter 6
graphite dust Organic 40000-45000
36L customized vessel >250 2kJ igniter 6
graphite dust (4μm) (10kJ igniter) Organic 4000
36L customized vessel 70 10kJ igniter 6
graphite dust (4μm) (2kJ igniter) Organic 4000
36L customized vessel
125<MEC<500 2kJ igniter 6
High volatile coal Organic 5500 133 11
High volatile coal Organic 27000 133 11
High volatile coal Organic 50000 149 11
High volatile coal Organic 82800 224 11
Lignite Organic <74000 600 0.091 19.2083 735 290
Secondary Explosion data 14
Low Volatile coal Organic 5100 150 11
Low Volatile coal Organic 12600 154 11
Low Volatile coal Organic 25500 178 11
Lycopodium Organic 446.1 3
Monarch 120 Organic 29.9 5.9 144 39 Carbon Black (Cabot)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Monarch 280 Organic 40.6 6.2 188 51 Carbon Black (Cabot)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
24
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Monarch 900 Organic 239.2 5.9 223 61 Carbon Black (Cabot)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
MWCNT Organic 6.7 104 250000-500000 48 >600 8
MWCNT (BayTubes C150HP) Organic 191.9 6 120 33
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
MWCNT (BayTubes C150P) Organic 200.2 5.8 155 42
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
MWCNT (CheapTubes A) Organic 111.1 5.9 210 57
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
MWCNT (CheapTubes B) Organic 68.7 5.6 156 42
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
MWCNT (Mitsui 7) Organic 23 4.3 19 5
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
MWNTs Organic 6.6 227 62 St1 2
N008-100N Organic 11.6 5.5 168 46 Graphene (Angstron)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Nanotubes Organic 6.6 227 62 St1 >1000 45 1
Peat Organic 38 500 46 8.4 513 15
Peat Organic 54 500 35 8.4 610 15
Peat Organic 72 500 60 7.2 248 15
Peat Organic 96 500 47 7.8 413 15
Peat Organic 100 1000 59 7.8 350 15
Peat Organic 165 500 45 7.7 395 15
Pittsburgh high volatile coal Organic
36L customized vessel 60 6
25
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
SAB-1 Organic 6 73 20 68 Channel & Special Blacks 7
SAB-1 (P) Organic 5.2 69 19 43 Channel & Special Blacks 7
SAGAL-3 (P) Organic 6 83 23 50 Channel & Special Blacks 7
SAKAP-6 Organic 6.1 82 22 62 Channel & Special Blacks 7
SAO Organic 5.6 68 19 86 Channel & Special Blacks 7
Sulfur Organic 35000 280 5 100 19
SWCNT Organic 7.3 123 250000-500000 64 570 8
SWCNT (Cheap Tube) Organic 372 6.8 290 79
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
SWCNT (SWeNT SG-65) Organic 617.2 6.5 198 54
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
SWCNT (Unidym HiPCO) Organic 559.9 6.4 382 104
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Synth. Cond. (325 mesh) Organic 3.3 4.6 57 16
Graphite (Alfa Aesar)
Tested in Conc. 500g/m3 7
Wheat Organic 21100 200 0.062
5 0.022 0.0647 645 110
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 21100 300 0.145 0.04 0.0647 645 110
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 21100 400 0.18 0.062 0.0647 645 110
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 21100 500 0.12 0.022 0.0647 645 110
Secondary Explosion data 14
26
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Wheat Organic 21100 600 0.085 0.022 0.0647 645 110
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 24400 200 0.09 0.032 0.0951 690 120
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 24400 300 0.11 0.042 0.0951 690 120
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 24400 400 0.17 0.086 0.0951 690 120
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 24400 500 0.08 0.02 0.0951 690 120
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 24400 600 0.19 0.06 0.0951 690 120
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 28000 200 0.062
5 0.018 0.0226 670 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 28000 300 0.08 0.039 0.0226 670 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 28000 400 0.065 0.01 0.0226 670 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 28000 500 0.105 0.03 0.0226 670 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wheat Organic 28000 600 0.09 0.02 0.0226 670 150
Secondary Explosion data 14
Wood Char Organic 542.4
3 3
fibrous polyethylene (bulk) Plastic 5.8 22 9
fibrous polyethylene <75μm Plastic <75000 7.2 75 9
Polyethylene Plastic 5460 46 11
27
Material Type Particle Size (nm)
Size Distribution
Equipment Size
Concentration (g/m3)
Turbulent Velocity (m/s)
Ignition Energy (kJ)
Time From Ignition to pressure Peak (ms)
d agg (μm)
d-BET (nm)
BET (m2/g)
Pmax (bar)
(dP/dT)max (bar/s)
Kst (bar.m.s1)
Explosive Class
MIT (oC)
MIE (mJ) MEC (g/m3) LOC (%vol)
MAIT (oC)
MIT cloud (oC)
MIT layer (oC)
Note 1 Note 2 Ref
Polyethylene Plastic 43500 47 11
Polyethylene Plastic 66900 46 11
Polyethylene Plastic 76000 49 11
Polyethylene Plastic 103000 93 11
Silicon 4000 300 7.7 200 19
Reference List for the table 1. Vignes, A. Évaluation de l’inflammabilité et de l’explosivité des nanopoudres : une demarche essentielle pour la maîtrise des risques. Autre. Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, (2008)
2. Bouillard, J., et al., Ignition and explosion risks of nanopowders, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 181 (2010) 873-880
3. Danzi, E., et al., A statistical approach to determine the autoignition temperature of dust clouds, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 56 (2018) 181–190
4. Wu, H., et. Al., Research of minimum ignition energy for nano Titanium powder and nano Iron powder, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22 (2009) 21–24
5. Dufaud, O., et al., Ignition and explosion of nanopowders: something new under the dust, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 304 (2011) 012076
6. Zhang, J. et. Al., Dust Explosion of Carbon Nanofibers Promoted by Iron Nanoparticles, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 54 (2015) 3989−3995
7. Turkevich, L. A., et al., Potential explosion hazard of carbonaceous nanoparticles: screening of allotropes, Combustion and Flame, 167 (2016) 218-227
8. Turkevich, L. A., et al., Potential explosion hazard of carbonaceous nanoparticles: Explosion parameters of selected materials, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 295 (2015) 97–103
9. Worsfold, S. M., et al., Review of the explosibility of nontraditional dusts, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 51(22) (2012) 7651-7655
10. Kadir, N., et al., Investigation of the Explosion Behaviour Affected by the Changes of Particle Size, Procedia Engineering, 148 (2016) 1156 – 1161
11. Lemkowitz, S., et al., Investigation of the Explosion Behaviour Affected by the Changes of Particle Size, KONA Powder and Particle Journal, 31 (2014) 53-81
12. Wu et al., Explosion Characteristics of Aluminum Nanopowders, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 10 (2010) 38–42
13. Kauffman, C., et al., Turbulent and Accelerating Dust Flames, Twentieth Symposium (International) on Combustion, (1984) 1701-1708
14. Lesikar, B., et al., Determination of Grain Dust Explosibility Parameters, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 34(2) (1991) 3402-0571
15. Eckhoff, R., Dust Explosion in the Process Industries, Gulf Professional Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier Science, 3 (2003) 394
16. Krietsch A., et al. Explosion behaviour of metallic nano powders, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 36 (2015) 237-243
17. Mittal, M., Explosion characteristics of micron- and nano-size magnesium powders, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 27 (2014) 55-64
18. Boilard, S., et al., Explosibility of micron- and nano-size titanium powders, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26 (2013) 1646-1654
19. Cashdollar, K., Zlochower, I., Explosion temperatures and pressures of metals and other elemental dust clouds, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 20 (2007) 337–348