4.7 Article

Risk assessment of the ignitability and explosivity of aluminum nanopowders

Journal

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Volume 90, Issue 4, Pages 304-310

Publisher

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2011.09.008

Keywords

Nanopowders; Ignition; Dust explosion; Aluminum; Risk analysis

Funding

  1. European Commission through the Sixth Framework program for Research and Technological Development [NMP2-CT-2005-515843]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previously, an extensive study has been carried out in order to assess the ignition sensitivity and explosivity of aluminum nanopowders. It showed notably that, as the particle size decreases, minimum ignition temperature and minimum ignition energy decrease, indicating higher potential inflammation. However, the explosion severity decreases for diameters lower than 1 mu m. As a consequence, this study leads to the conclusions that the ignition sensitivity and explosion severity of aluminum nanopowders may be affected by various phenomena, as pre-ignition, agglomeration/aggregation degree and the intrinsic alumina content. The presence of wall-quenching effects and the predominance of radiation compared to conduction in the flame propagation process have to be discussed to ensure the validity of the 20 L sphere and of the results extrapolation. Based on the peculiar behaviours that had been previously highlighted, a specific risk analysis has been developed in order to assess the fire and explosion risks of such materials. It has been applied to an industrial plant of aluminum nanopowders production. The hazard identification and the consequence modelling steps, especially the quantification of the likelihood and consequences, have been designed specifically. The application of this method has led to the definition of the most adequate safety barriers. (C) 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available