Lower Explosion Limit/Minimum Explosible
Concentration Testing for Hybrid Mixtures in
the Godbert-Greenwald Furnace
Emmanuel Kwasi Addai, Dieter Gabel, and Ulrich Krause
Department of Systems Engineering and Plant Safety, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Institute of Instrumental and Environmental
Technology, Universit€atsplatz 2, Magdeburg 39106, Germany; emmanueladdai41@yahoo.com; emmanuel.addai@ovgu.de (for
correspondence)
Published online 1 April 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/prs.11825
Experimental investigations of the lower explosion limits
(LEL) of three-component hybrid mixtures of six combustible
dusts, three gases, and four solvents were performed in the
modified Godbert-Greenwald furnace. The test protocol was in
accordance with European standard EN 50281-2-1 which is
originally used to determine the minimum ignition temperature
of dusts. Modification was done on the equipment to test for the
explosion limits for dusts, gases, solvents, and hybrid mixtures.
In order to prove the validity of our experimental procedure, the
LEL for pure gases were initially tested and the results were com-
pared with values found in literature obtained from the stand-
ard procedure which show very good agreement. The
experimental results demonstrated a significant decrease of the
explosion limits of gas, solvent, or dust and an increase in the
likelihood of explosion when a small amount of dust was mixed
with gas or solvent and vice versa. For example, the minimum
explosible concentration (MEC) of high density polyethylene
(HDPE) of 174 g/m3 decreased to 130 g/m3 upon addition of
methane the concentration of which itself was below the LEL.
The MEC of HDPE further decreased to 65 g/m3 when a nonex-
plosible concentration of hexane was added. V C 2016 American
Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 36: 81–94, 2017
Keywords: hybrid mixture explosion; dust explosion; gas
explosion; lower explosion limit
INTRODUCTION
Gas, dust, and hybrid mixture explosions are usually
encountered in systems where combustible dusts, gases, or
solvents are processed or handled. When two or more com-
bustible substances with different states of aggregation are
mixed, hybrid mixture explosions can occur. Some examples
of the facilities where such mixtures could occur are: paint
factories (pigments and solvents), mining (dusts and gas),
grain elevators (small grains and fermentation gases), pharma-
ceutical industries, etc. In any risk analysis or in general to
ensure safe and optimal operation of these processes, it is
necessary to know the lowest concentration of gas, vapor
Lower Explosion Limits (LEL) or the minimum explosible con-
centration (MEC) below which a self-sustaining flame is not
possible. In an analogous way, this applies to mixtures of
C 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
V hot surface as ignition source for which the differences in
Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)
flammable components at different states of aggregation for
which the characteristic safety index is the lower explosion
limit of the hybrid mixture (LEL-hybrid).
Unlike solitary dust, gas, or solvent explosions, which
have been widely studied in the past decades [1–5], data on
explosion characteristics of hybrid mixtures are relatively
few. But, this kind of mixtures is usually encountered in a
system or process where two or more substances of different
state of aggregate are handled.
A number of studies have been conducted by different
authors on the explosion characteristics of hybrid mixtures
[6–13] with the aim of either preventing the occurrence or
mitigating the consequence of hybrid mixture explosions.
But, there are still open questions regarding the phenomena
involved, as well as the sensitivity of hybrid explosions. With
respect to LEL or MEC, the general outcome of these
researches revealed that the addition of small concentrations
of either gas or dust (below the individual LEL or MEC)
decreased the LEL or MEC of gas or dust, respectively. Fur-
thermore, from the analysis of the above mentioned litera-
ture, it appears the complexity of the hybrid explosion to the
extent that, the effect of hybrid mixture explosions cannot
be predicted by simply overlapping the effects of the single-
phase (only dust and only gas or vapor) explosion.
The aim of this article is to report experimental investiga-
tions on the LEL of three-component mixtures. The substan-
ces considered in this case are six combustible dusts (corn
starch, lycopodium, high density polyethylene [HDPE], toner,
wood dust, and CN4), three flammable gases (methane,
hydrogen, and propane) as well as four flammable vaporized
solvents (ethanol, toluene, isopropanol, and hexane).
Contrary to the standard 20L sphere which is normally used
to determine the LEL or MEC of single substances and hybrid
mixtures [14,15], in this work the Godbert-Greenwald (GG) fur-
nace, an apparatus to determine the minimum ignition tempera-
ture of dusts, was used instead. The standard 20L sphere uses 10
J electrical spark ignition for gases and hybrid mixture LEL tests
while 2 kJ chemical igniters are used for MEC tests of dusts.
Considering the factor of 200 between these two ignition
energy values, the difficulty arises which ignition energy
could be an appropriate choice for hybrid mixtures in the
20 l-sphere. One might think, therefore, of using instead a
March 2017 81
Figure 1. Density representation of differential particle size distribution. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which
is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Figure 2. SEM images for the various dust used magnification of (1,0003) and length scale of 100–200 mm).

Table 1. Preparatory analysis of the dusts.

Median Volatile Moisture Heat of Elemental Analysis

Molecular Particle Content Content Combustion (% mass)
Dust Sample Formula Size (% mass) (% mass) (kJ/kg) C H O S N
Starch C3.69H6.34O3.06S0.01 9 93.77 0.50 15,302 44.3 6.3 48.9 0.4 0.0
Lycopodium C5.77H9.59O1.23S0.001N0.08 32 91.06 0.35 28,447 69.3 9.6 19.6 0.4 1.3
Toner C7.17H7.75O0.33 14 90.18 0.92 35,792 86.1 7.7 5.2 1.0 0.0
HD-PE C7.07H13.74O0.09S0.01 61 99.78 0.01 42,740 84.8 14 1.4 0.1 0.0
Wood C4.19H6.26O2.71S0.004 72 84.38 0.20 16,446 50.3 6.3 43.2 0.1 0.0
CN4 C6.70H1.31O0.88N0.02 52 17.08 0.23 26,630 80.4 1.3 14.0 3.0 0.4

82 March 2017 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)
Table 2. Properties of gases and solvents [16–18].

Properties Methane Propane Hydrogen Ethanol Isopropanol Toluene Hexane

Molecular formula CH4 C3H8 H2 C2H6O C3H8O C7H8 C6H14
Purity (%) 99.87 99.00 99.99 96.90 99.9 99.00 98.9
Density (g/cm3) [16] 6.6E-4 4.93E-4 8.99E-4 0.79 0.78 0.87 0.65
Molecular weight (g/mol) [16] 16 44.1 2 46.07 60.1 92.1 86.18
Explosible range (vol %) [16] 4.4–17 1.7–10.8 4.0–77 3.3–19 2.0–13.4 1.1–7.8 1.2–7.7
Specific heat capacity (J/mol K) [16] 35.69 73.60 28.80 112.40 246.00 155.96 265.20
Boiling point (8C) [16] 2182.5 242.1 2253 78.0 82 111 68.5
Heat of vaporization (kJ/mol) [17] 274.87 2103.80 0.49 38.56 44.00 38.06 41.18
Max. explosion pressure (bar) [18] 8.1 9.8 8.3 8.4 8.2 7.7 9.5
MIT (8C) [18] 595 490 570 400 425 535 230
MESG (mm) [18] 1.14 0.92 0.29 0.89 0.99 1.06 0.93
Temperature class [16] T1 T1 T1 T2 T2 T1 T3
Explosion Group [16] IIA IIA IIC IIB IIA IIA IIA
LOC (vol %) [16] 12.0 9.4 4.3 8.5 8.7 9.6 9.1

Figure 3. Schematic diagram for experimental setup.

the ignition criteria for dusts and flammable gases are com-
paratively small.
Furthermore, the standard test method for minimum igni-
tion temperatures of flammable gases which is the Erlen-
meyer flask does not allow for dispersion of particles.
Hence, this article seeks to use hot surface as ignition
source to determine the explosion limit of hybrid mixtures
with the GG furnace tests.
MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Tested Materials
Six different dusts namely corn starch, lycopodium, toner
powder, wood dust, HDPE, and CN4 (a mixture of activated
carbon and black coal) as well as each three perfect gases
(methane, propane, and hydrogen) and four real gases
(vapor of ethanol, toluene, hexane, and isopropanol) were
used in this research project.
Since the particle size distribution is one of the parame-
ters that affect the determination of the explosion limits of
R
dust [4] all the dust samples underwent CAMSIZERV particle
size testing. The larger particles were further ground to
obtain a size which conforms to the European dust explo-
sion testing standards. Figure 1 shows the density representa-
tion of differential particle size distribution for the dusts
used. Out of the six dusts used corn starch indicated the fin-
est with median particle size of 9 mm while wood indicated
the coarsest with the median of size of 72 mm.

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2017 83
Figure 4. LEL/MEC test for two-phase/two-component hybrid mixture flow chart. [Color figure can be viewed in the online
issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Furthermore, in order to reveal the surface structure of
the particles, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images for
all the dusts used were taken with the same magnification of
1,0003. All images are presented in Figure 2. The images
provide the various shapes and pore size of each dust sam-
ple. It could be seen that starch and lycopodium have regu-
lar shapes while wood and CN4 shows irregular shape but
with smoother surface.
Moreover, Table 1 summarizes the data of the elemental
analysis, median particle size, volatiles content, moisture
content, heat of combustion, and molecular formula of the
dusts.
Table 2 additionally provides the basic thermodynamic,
ignition, or combustion properties of the gases and solvents
used [16–18].
Experimental Determination of MEC/LEL for Dusts
and Hybrid Mixtures
The experimental setup consists of a Godbert-Greenwald
furnace (GG furnace) which is normally used to determine
the minimum ignition temperature of dust clouds. In contrast
84 March 2017 Published on behalf of the AIChE
to the furnace dimensions described in EN 50281-2-1 [19],
the GG furnace used for the present study was of double
length of the reaction cylinder (42 cm) with s total volume of
460 cm3. The concentration of the dust was obtained by
dividing the mass of dust used by the volume of the furnace
(460 cm3) For the test with only dust, the EN 50281-2-1 [19]
testing procedure was used. In case of the tests with gases,
solvent or hybrid mixtures, modifications were done on the
equipment. Figure 3 displays the schematic diagram of the
experimental setup of the GG furnace used in our project.
In order to ensure the repeatability and reproducibility of
the experiments, a precise protocol was followed. All experi-
ments were carried out under the same initial conditions,
according to the methods used.
To begin with, the MEC for the individual dusts were ini-
tially tested. The furnace tube was heated and fixed at the
desired temperature (i.e., 20 K above the minimum ignition
temperatures of the individual substances) and the weighed
amount of dust was placed in the dust chamber. The air res-
ervoir was filled with air up to the desired dispersion pres-
sure and the dust sample was then dispersed through the
furnace tube by a blast of air. The criterion for indicating an
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)
Figure 5. LEL/MEC test for three-component hybrid mixture flow chart. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which
is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

explosion was an observation of a flame at the bottom open

mouth of the furnace with the help of a mirror. Both the
pressure (0.1–0.5 bar above atmospheric pressure) and the
mass of dust (0.1–0.5 g) were varied until a vigorous explo-
sion was obtained. The conditions at which a vigorous
explosion was obtained were taken as the “best” explosion
region. These adjustments were maintained, the dust concen-
tration was lowered and testing continued until no flame
was observed in 10 repeated test runs. The criteria used to
ascertain self-sustaining flame propagation was observation
of flame below the lower part of the furnace. In order to
achieve this, a mirror was placed below the furnace which
allows us to view what actually happened when the mixture
is dispersed into the furnace.
For the tests with gases, the GG furnace was modified by
introducing a gas feed line (#2) to the air reservoir (#5) as
shown in Figure 3. The same experimental principle as
Figure 6. LEL of single substances and comparison with the
explained for dust was used for the gas test. The only differ-
LEL according Brandes and M€ oller [18] for seven different
ence in this case was that the air was premixed with the
gases. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which
combustible gas in the air reservoir and the dust chamber
is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
was left empty. The composition of the gas mixtures was
determined based on partial pressures. The pressures chosen

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2017 85
Figure 7. LEL of two-phase hybrid mixture of dust and gas (effect of admixture of dust on the LEL of gases). [Color figure can
be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Table 3. MEC and MIT of dusts as well as the concentrations Table 4. LEL and MIT of gases as well as the various con-
of dust and the furnace temperature used in the centrations gases and the furnace temperature used
hybrid mixtures tests. in the hybrid mixtures tests.

Furnace Furnace
Temperature Temperature
MEC Cd MIT Used for MEC LEL Cg MIT Used for LEL
Dust (g/m3) (g/m3) (8C) Test (8C) Gases (vol %) (vol %) (8C) Test (8C)
Starch 145 82 380 400 Methane 4.0 2.0 600 620
Lycopodium 108 84 400 420 Propane 2.0 1.0 500 520
Wood 217 124 460 480 Hydrogen 5.0 3.0 530 550
Toner 87 30 460 480 Toluene 1.1 0.6 540 560
CN4 304 122 640 660 Ethanol 3.0 1.8 410 430
HDPE 174 87 340 360 Isopropanol 2.0 1.0 440 460
Hexane 1.6 0.8 240 260

were between 0.1 and 0.5 bar above atmospheric pressure

and the concentrations were also within the explosible range
of individual substances.
For solvent testing, the same procedure as explained for
only gas testing was followed, but in this case, another modi-
fication was done on the equipment to allow an input of sol-
vent. The solvent chamber (#11) was heated with a heating
filament to allow vaporization of the solvent before being
dispersed into the furnace. The required amount of solvent
to be tested was measured off with a syringe, introduced
into the solvent chamber, and kept inside for some time in
order to obtain a complete vaporization. The required
amount of air was pressurized into the air reservoir and
upon opening the valve the pressurized air mixed with the
vaporized solvent while passing the feeding line to the hot
furnace.
For the tests with hybrid mixtures, the same experimental
principle as explained before was used. In this case, it was
just the combination of the test methods with pure dust and
pure gas or solvent. The preceding steps followed the same
test principle for pure substance. Figure 4 explains the detail
flow diagram on how the MEC/LEL of hybrids (two phase or
two component mixtures) were obtained. After determining
the MEC/LEL of hybrid mixture, further tests were performed
below that concentration by varying the temperature and
pressure to check if ignition will be obtained or not.
A similar procedure as explained for the two-phase or
two-component hybrid mixtures was used for the three-
component hybrid mixture test. The only difference in this
case was the combination of dusts, gases, and solvent
vapors. The detailed flow diagram for the test procedure is
presented in Figure 5.
The purpose of the present project is mainly to study the
influence of adding limited amounts of flammable compo-
nents (below its individual LEL or MEC) in a different state
of aggregation on the LEL or MEC of a single substance. LEL
is used whenever a gas or vapor is the lead compound; MEC
stands for dust.
For single substances, the LEL/MEC is the amount of sub-
stance in air that is at least needed for an ignition to occur.
For hybrid mixtures, an additional amount of a burnable
substance is added to the atmosphere in a way that it is not
ignitable alone. This could either be because its

86 March 2017 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)
Figure 8. MEC of two-phase hybrid mixture of dust and gas (effect of admixture of gas on the MEC of dust). [Color figure can
be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Figure 9. LEL of hybrid mixture of solvent and gas (effect of admixture solvent on the LEL of gas). [Color figure can be viewed
in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

concentration is too low or because it is not ignitable at the
temperature given.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The LEL of dust clouds, gases, vapors, and hybrid mix-
tures of two-phase and three-component mixtures were
investigated by conducting a series of test with seven differ-
ent flammable gaseous substances and six combustible dusts.
Three main testing cases were considered in this work:
1. Testing for the LEL/MEC of single substances
2. Testing for the LEL/MEC of hybrid mixtures (two-phase
or two-component mixtures)
3. Testing for LEL/MEC of three-component mixtures.
LEL/MEC for a Single Component
With respect to the first case, the MEC/LEL for individual
dust substance obtained can be found in Tables 5–7.
In order to prove the validity of our experimental proce-
dure, the LEL for pure gases were initially tested and the
results were compared with literature values obtained from
the standard procedure according to [14]. From Figure 6, it
can be seen that the experimental results according to the
method described in Materials and Experimental Work
Section were in agreement with the work done by Brandes
and M€ oller [18] with maximum deviations of 0.4% in volume
fraction. The deviations observed from the comparison of
our experimental results and the values found in literature
were within the 6.3% errors obtained from the error analysis
which is discussed in Uncertainty and Error Analysis Section.

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2017 87
Figure 10. LEL of hybrid mixture of solvent and gas (effect of admixture of gas on the LEL of solvent). [Color figure can be
viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Moreover, with respect to the MEC of dust, a comparison
was made between the results obtained from the GG furnace
and the standard 20-L vessel. In our previous paper [8], we
obtain the MEC for corn starch to be 125 g/m3 in the stand-
ard 20-L sphere with 10 kJ electric spark as ignition source.
While, the results obtained from this present paper for corn
starch is 145 g/m3 which is a bit higher than the results
obtained from the standard method. But, this deviation falls
within the error margin of 6.3% as discussed in Uncertainty
and Error Analysis Section.
It should be noticed that the method mentioned above
does not seek to replace the standard method for LEL/MEC
of dusts, gases, or solvents, but could be used as an alterna-
tive method to determine the explosion limits of hybrid mix-
tures. It is well known that, the explosion limits decrease by
increasing temperature [20], due this a standard approach
was taken by performing all tests at 20 K above the mini-
mum ignition temperature of the substance or mixtures. This
standard test was considered because, in the various risk
analyses to eliminate explosion hazards, it is recommended
not to expose combustible materials above their respective
minimum ignition temperatures.
LEL/MEC for Double Phase or Double Component
Hybrid Mixture
The LEL/MEC of a hybrid mixture of combustible dusts,
gases, or vapor were considered. This was done to verify if
the addition of a flammable dust at a concentration below its
MEC could decrease the LEL of gases and vice versa. Two
main testing series were considered which include the effect
of addition of dust on the LEL of gas and the effect of addi-
tion of gases on the MEC of dust.
Figure 7 presents the results of the addition of small con-
centrations of dust, which itself does not form explosible
atmosphere (i.e., below its MEC) to gases below their LEL. It
could be seen that with the exception of hexane of which
there was no influence of dust on its LEL, the LEL of all the
88 March 2017 Published on behalf of the AIChE
other gases decreased by the addition of nonexplosible con-
centration of dust. For example, the LEL of methane
decreased from 4 to 1 vol % when 87 g/m3 of HDPE as pre-
sented in Table 3 were added.
Furthermore, the effect of addition of flammable gases on
the MEC of dusts was also studied by adding volume frac-
tions of the gases, which were below the LEL to the dust.
Figure 8 presents the result of the addition of nonexplosible
concentrations of gases to the different dusts below their
MEC. It could be seen that, the MEC of dust decreased when
a nonexplosible concentration of gas was added. For exam-
ple, the MEC of wood powder of originally 217 g/m3
decreased to 72 g/m3 when 2 vol % in volume of methane,
which do not form explosible atmosphere were added.
These results confirm the work done by [7–10] where it was
concluded that the MEC of dust could decrease upon addi-
tion of a nonexplosible concentration of gas.
Furthermore, the LEL of two component mixtures—one
being a perfect gas and the other showing real gas behavior
(solvent vapor)—were also tested.
Figures 9 and 10 present the results on the LEL of two
component mixtures. It could be seen that the LEL general
decreased when a nonexplosible concentration of one com-
ponent is added to the other at its nonexplosible range. For
example, the LEL of hydrogen decreased from 5 to 0.5 vol %
when 0.8% in volume of hexane were added.
LEL/MEC for Triple Component Hybrid Mixtures
Based on the results obtained from the single and double
phase or component mixtures, the LEL/MEC of mixtures of
three components were tested. Out of the six dusts pre-
sented above, four were further tested against the seven
gases for the three-component mixtures. In this case, three
different groups of experimental tests were considered:
1. the effect of admixture of gases and solvents on the MEC
of dusts,
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)
 Table 5. Effect of admixture of gas and solvent on the MEC of dust, (dust concentration in g/m3).
Effect of Effect of Effect of
Admixture of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of
Effect of Effect of 2.0 vol % Meth- Effect of 1.0 vol % Pro- Admixture of 3.0 vol %
Admixture of Admixture of ane and 0.8 vol Admixture of pane and 0.8 3.0 vol % Hydrogen and
MEC of 0.8 vol % Hex- 2.0 vol % Meth- % Hexane on 1.0 vol % Pro- vol% Hexane Hydrogen on 0.8 vol % Hex-
Only ane on the ane on the the MEC of pane on the on the MEC of the MEC of ane on the
Dust (g/m3) Dusts MEC of Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)

HDPE 174 87 130 65 108 87 170 119
Lycopodium 108 43 87 33 50 43 71 28
Starch 145 111 97 96 72 50 121 65
Toner 87 43 65 22 62 43 87 48

Effect of
Effect of Effect of Admixture of
Effect of Admixture of Admixture of Effect of 3.0 vol %
Admixture of Effect of 2.0 vol % Meth- Effect of 1.0 vol % Pro- Admixture of Hydrogen and
1.0 vol % Iso- Admixture of ane and 1.0 vol Admixture of pane and 1.0 3.0 vol % 1.0 vol % Iso-
MEC of propanol on 2.0 vol % Meth- % Isopropanol 1.0 vol % Pro- vol % Isopropa- Hydrogen on propanol on
ONLY the MEC of ane on the on the MEC of pane on the nol on the MEC the MEC of the MEC of
Dust (g/m3) dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts of Dusts Dusts Dusts
HDPE 174 145 130 72 108 43 170 170
Lycopodium 108 87 87 62 50 43 71 71

Published on behalf of the AIChE

Starch 145 145 97 72 72 62 121 121
Toner 87 62 65 21 62 40 87 87

Effect of Effect of Effect of

Admixture of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of
Effect of Effect of 2.0 vol % Meth- Effect of 1.0 vol % pro- Admixture of 3.0 vol %
Admixture of Admixture of ane and 1.8 vol Admixture of pane and 1.8 3.0 vol % Hydrogen and
MEC of 1.8 vol % Etha- 2.0 vol % Meth- % Ethanol on 1.0 vol % Pro- vol % Ethanol Hydrogen on 1.8 vol % Etha-

DOI 10.1002/prs
ONLY nol on the MEC ane on the the MEC of pane on the on the MEC of the MEC of nol on the MEC
Dust (g/m3) dusts of Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts Dusts of Dusts
HDPE 174 133 130 92 108 63 170 163
Lycopodium 108 108 87 62 50 43 71 71

March 2017
89
90
March 2017
TABLE 5. Continued
Effect of Effect of Effect of
Admixture of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of
Effect of Effect of 2.0 vol % Meth- Effect of 1.0 vol % pro- Admixture of 3.0 vol %
Admixture of Admixture of ane and 1.8 vol Admixture of pane and 1.8 3.0 vol % Hydrogen and
MEC of 1.8 vol % Etha- 2.0 vol % Meth- % Ethanol on 1.0 vol % Pro- vol % Ethanol Hydrogen on 1.8 vol % Etha-
ONLY nol on the MEC ane on the the MEC of pane on the on the MEC of the MEC of nol on the MEC
Dust (g/m3) dusts of Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts Dusts of Dusts
Starch 145 108 97 72 72 56 121 145
Toner 87 62 65 43 62 33 87 66

Published on behalf of the AIChE

Effect of Effect of Effect of
Admixture of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of
Effect of Effect of 2.0 vol % Meth- Effect of 1.0 vol % Pro- Admixture of 3.0 vol %
Admixture of Admixture of ane and 0.6 vol Admixture of pane and 0.6 3.0 vol % Hydrogen and
MEC of 0.6 vol % Tolu- 2.0 vol % Meth- % Toluene on 1.0 vol % Pro- vol % Toluene Hydrogen on 0.6 vol % Tolu-
Only ene on the ane on the the MEC of pane on the on the MEC of the MEC of ene on the
Dust (g/m3) Dusts MEC of Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts Dusts Dusts MEC of Dusts

DOI 10.1002/prs
HDPE 174 145 130 87 108 72 170 170
Lycopodium 108 87 92 62 50 50 71 71
Starch 145 111 97 97 72 41 121 121
Toner 87 62 65 43 62 22 87 87

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)

 Table 6. Effect of admixture of dust and solvent on the LEL of gas, (gas concentration in vol %).
Effect of
Effect of Admixture of Effect of Effect of
Effect of Effect of Admixture of Effect of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Effect of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of
3
Admixture of Admixture of 87 g/m HDPE Admixture of podium and Admixture of 82 g/m3 Starch Admixture of 30 g/m3 Toner
LEL of 0.8 vol % Hex- 87 g/m3 HDPE and 0.8 vol % 84 g/m3 Lyco- 0.8 vol % Hex- 82 g/m3 Starch and 0.8 vol % 30 g/m3 Toner and 0.8 vol %
Only ane on the LEL on the LEL of Hexane on the podium on the ane on the LEL on the LEL of Hexane on the on the LEL of Hexane on the
Gases (vol %) Gases of Gases Gases LEL of Gases LEL of Gases of Gases Gases LEL of Gases Gases LEL of Gases
Methane 4.0 0.2 2.4 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1
Propane 1.9 0.6 0.9 0.2 1.3 0.4 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.3
Hydrogen 5.0 0.5 2.3 0.2 3.1 0.5 3.3 0.3 3.0 0.3

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)

Effect of
Effect of Admixture of Effect of Effect of
Effect of Admixture of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Admixture of Admixture of
Admixture of Effect of 87 g/m3 HDPE Effect of podium and Effect of 82 g/m3 Starch Effect of 30 g/m3 Toner
1.0 vol % Iso- Admixture of and 1.0 vol % Admixture of 1.0 vol % Iso- Admixture of and 1.0 vol % Admixture of and 1.0 vol %
LEL of propanol on 87 g/m3 HDPE Isopropanol 84 g/m3 Lyco- propanol on 82 g/m3 Starch Isopropanol 30 g/m3 Toner Isopropanol
Only the LEL of on the LEL of on the LEL of podium on the the LEL of on the LEL of on the LEL of on the LEL of on the LEL of
Gases (vol %) gases Gases Gases Gases LEL of Gases Gases Gases Gases Gases Gases
Methane 4.0 3.5 2.4 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1
Propane 1.9 1.3 0.9 0.4 1.3 1.0 1.8 0.5 1.6 1.3
Hydrogen 5.0 2.3 2.3 0.7 3.1 1.3 3.3 1.7 3.0 1.5

Effect of
Effect of Admixture of Effect of Effect of
Effect of Effect of Admixture of Effect of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Effect of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of

Published on behalf of the AIChE

Admixture of Admixture of 87 g/m3 HDPE Admixture of podium and Admixture of 82 g/m3 Starch Admixture of 30 g/m3 Toner
LEL of 1.8 vol % Etha- 87 g/m3 HDPE and 1.8 vol % 84 g/m3 Lyco- 1.8 vol % Etha- 82 g/m3 Starch and 1.8 vol % 30 g/m3 Toner and 1.8 vol %
Only nol on the LEL on the LEL of Ethanol on the podium on the nol on the LEL on the LEL of Ethanol on the on the LEL of Ethanol on the
Gases (vol %) Gases of Gases Gases LEL of Gases LEL of Gases of Gases Gases LEL of Gases Gases LEL of Gases
Methane 4.0 0.9 2.4 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1
Propane 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.05 1.3 0.8 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.8
Hydrogen 5.0 1.0 2.3 0.6 3.1 0.7 3.3 1.0 3.0 0.8

DOI 10.1002/prs
Effect of
Effect of Admixture of Effect of Effect of
Effect of Effect of Admixture of Effect of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Effect of Admixture of Effect of Admixture of
Admixture of Admixture of 87 g/m3 HDPE Admixture of podium and Admixture of 82 g/m3 Starch Admixture of 30 g/m3 Toner
LEL of 0.6 vol % Tolu- 87 g/m3 HDPE and 0.6 vol % 84 g/m3 Lyco- 0.6 vol % Tolu- 82 g/m3 Starch and 0.6 vol % 30 g/m3 Toner and 0.6 vol %
Only ene on the LEL on the LEL of Toluene on the podium on the ene on the LEL on the LEL of Toluene on the on the LEL of Toluene on the
Gases (vol %) Gases of Gases Gases LEL of Gases LEL of Gases of Gases Gases LEL of Gases Gases LEL of Gases

March 2017
Methane 4.0 1.8 2.4 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1
Propane 1.9 1.8 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.9

91
Hydrogen 5.0 1.7 2.3 1.5 3.1 0.8 3.3 1.7 3.0 1.7
 Table 7. Effect of admixture of dust and gas on the LEL of solvent (solvent concentration in vol %).

92
Effect of
Effect of Admixture of Effect of Effect of
Effect of Admixture of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Admixture of Admixture of
Admixture of Effect of 87 g/m3 HDPE Effect of podium and Effect of 82 g/m3 Starch Effect of 30 g/m3 Toner

March 2017
2.0 vol % Admixture of and 2.0 vol % Admixture of 2.0 vol % Admixture of and 2.0 vol % Admixture of and 2.0 vol %
LEL of Methane on 87 g/m3 HDPE Methane on 84 g/m3 Lyco- Methane on 82 g/m3 Starch Methane on 30 g/m3 Toner Methane on
Solvents Only the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL podium on the the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL of
(vol %) Gases Gases Solvents Solvents LEL of Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents
Hexane 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Isopropanol 1.9 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6
Ethanol 2.6 2.0 0.7 0.7 1.9 1.5 0.7 0.7 2.6 2.6
Toluene 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3

Effect of Effect of Effect of Effect of

Admixture of Admixture of Admixture of Admixture of
Effect of Effect of 87 g/m3 HDPE Effect of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Effect of 82 g/m3 Starch Effect of 30 g/m3 Toner
Admixture of Admixture of and 1.0 vol % Admixture of podium and Admixture of and 1.0 vol % Admixture of and 1.0 vol %
LEL of 1.0 vol % Pro- 87 g/m3 HDPE Propane on 84 g/m3 Lyco- 1.0 vol % Pro- 82 g/m3 Starch Propane on 30 g/m3 Toner Propane on
Only pane on the on the LEL of the LEL podium on the pane on the on the LEL of the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL of

Published on behalf of the AIChE

Solvents (vol %) Gases LEL of Gases Solvents Solvents LEL of Solvents LEL of Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents
Hexane 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Isopropanol 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5
Ethanol 2.6 2.4 0.7 0.7 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 2.6 1.7
Toluene 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.05 0.4 0.05 0.5 0.2

Effect of
Effect of Admixture of Effect of Effect of

DOI 10.1002/prs
Effect of Admixture of 84 g/m3 Lyco- Admixture of Admixture of
Admixture of Effect of 87 g/m3 HDPE Effect of podium and Effect of 82 g/m3 Starch Effect of 30 g/m3 Toner
3.0 vol % Admixture of and 3.0 vol % Admixture of 3.0 vol % Admixture of and 3.0 vol % Admixture of and 3.0 vol %
LEL of Hydrogen on 87 g/m3 HDPE Hydrogen on 84 g/m3 Lyco- Hydrogen on 82 g/m3 Starch Hydrogen on 30 g/m3 Toner Hydrogen on
Only the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL podium on the the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL of on the LEL of the LEL of
Solvents (vol %) Gases Gases Solvents Solvents LEL of Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents Solvents
Hexane 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Isopropanol 1.9 1.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.6 1.9 1.9
Ethanol 3.0 3.0 0.7 0.7 2.5 2.5 0.7 0.5 2.7 2.7
Toluene 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)

Table 8. Parameters, their uncertainties, and measurement ranges.

Uncertainties Measured Values

Value of
Parameters (Error Generation) Symbol Uncertainty Symbols Measurements
Mass measurement Dm 0.001 g m 0.3 g
Pressure measurement DP 0.015 bar p 0.7 bar
Input gas concentration DCg 0.001vol % Cg 10 vol %
Input solvent concentration DCs 0.01 vol % Cs 10 vol %
Furnace temperature DTF 20 K TF 700 K
Marginally measured concentration DChm 1 g/m3 Chm 100 g/m3
(hybrid mixtures)

in volume of methane were added to the mixture. The stored

Table 9. Estimation of individual relative errors. energy in a single substance could be increased when another
material with different state of aggregate are added, even
Calculated though the added concentration could be lower than its
Parameters (Error Generations) Symbols Value respective explosion concentration. This could be a reason
Mass measurement error Dm/m 0.003 why hybrid mixtures could explode even if the concentration
Pressure measurement error Dp/p 0.024 of the mixtures were below the individual explosion limits.
Input gas concentration error DCg/Cg 0.0001 The above results on the three-component mixtures also
Input solvent concentration error DCS/CS 0.0001 conform to the work done by Addai et al. [8]. They per-
Furnace temperature error DTF/TF 0.0285 formed a series of experimental investigations in the stand-
Marginally measured DChm/Chm 0.01 ard 20-L sphere on the hybrid mixtures of corn starch,
concentration methane, and acetone vapor. They concluded that a hybrid
(hybrid mixtures) error mixture explosion is possible even when dust, gas, and
vapor concentrations are all lower than their individual
explosion limits.

2. the effect of admixture of dusts and solvents on the LEL Uncertainty and Error Analysis
of gases, The estimated uncertainties are based on all quantifiable
3. the effect of admixture of gases and dusts on the LEL of errors, according to measured quantities and process control
solvents. parameters. Table 8 illustrates the error generation parame-
ters, their uncertainties, and measured values with regard to
With regard to the first test series, of both a gas and a sol-
the determination of the minimum ignition temperature of
vent at a concentration below their LEL were added to a dust
hybrid mixtures in the modified GG-furnace.
being at a concentration below its MEC. Table 5 shows the
Knowing uncertainties of the individual sources of error
result of the effect of adding gas and solvent on the MEC of
and the measured values, the relative error could be esti-
dust. It can be seen that in comparison with the two-
mated. Table 9 provides the calculated results for the individ-
component hybrid mixtures the amount of dust for which a
ual relative errors.
successful ignition was observed further decreased. For
example, HDPE with MEC of 174 g/m3 decreased to 130 g/m3
upon addition of methane which is itself not explosible or Individual relative error; ðIREÞ
below the LEL. This concentration further decreased to 65 g/ Maximum error ðuncertaintiesÞ
m3 when a nonexplosible concentration of hexane was added. 5
measured value
Furthermore, Table 6 presents the results of the effect of
admixture of dusts and solvents on the LEL of gases. Dust at Hence, the total relative error could be obtained by com-
a concentration below its MEC and solvent at a concentration bining the individual relative P
error.
below its LEL were added to the gas to check if an explosion Total Relative Error, DC
c 5 (IRE)
could be obtained at a concentration below the LEL of the
gas. A similar explosion behavior as explained above was DC Dm Dp DCg DCS RTF DChm
also noticed. Explosion could be obtained at the concentra- 5 1 1 1 1 1
c m p Cg CS TF Chm
tion where both dusts and solvents mixtures did not ignite.
The LEL of propane decreased from 1.9 to 1.3 vol % when Total Relative Error, DC
5 0.003 1 0.021 1 0.0001 1 0.0001 1
c
84 g/m3 of lycopodium were added. This concentration fur- 0.028 1 0.01
ther decreased to 0.8 vol % when 1.8% in volume of ethanol
were added. DC
Finally, Table 7 provides the results obtained for the effect 5 0:063
c
of admixture of dust and gas on the LEL of solvents. In this
 
case, dust at a concentration below its MEC and flammable Hence, % DC
c ; hybrid mixture test 5 6.3%
gas at a concentration below its LEL were added to the sol-
vents. It was observed that explosions were obtained at con- CONCLUSION
centrations where both dust and gas mixtures alone could The explosion limits of three component hybrid mixtures
not explode. For example, the LEL of toluene of 1.1 vol % have been studied using the GG furnace. The suitability of
decreased to 0.4 vol % when 82 g/m3 of starch were added. the GG furnace to measure also explosion limits of hybrid
This concentration further decreased to 0.2 vol % when 2% mixtures—apart from its original purpose to determine

Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2017 93
minimum ignition temperatures of dust/air mixtures—had
been proven in a previous paper by the present authors
[6–11]. Various types of dusts, gases, and solvents as vapor
were used in these studies. This present work has affirmed
that admixing of further combustible components (gases,
vapors, or dusts), even in amounts well below their individ-
ual LEL or MEC, respectively, has an influence on the LEL or
MEC of the original fuel-air mixture. It was also noticed that
the effect of hybrid mixture explosions cannot be predicted
by simply overlapping the effects of the single (only dust
and only gas or vapor) explosion.
LITERATURE CITED
1. P. Amyotte, An Introduction to Dust Explosions: Under-
standing the Myths and Realities of Dust Explosions for a
Safer Workplace, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Wal-
tham, MA (2013), p. 46.
2. A. Di Benedetto and P. Russo, On the determination of
the minimum ignition temperature for dust/air mixtures, J
Loss Prev Process Ind 20 (2007), 303–309.
3. R. Eckhoff, Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, 3rd
ed. Boston, MA: Gulf Professional Publishing/Elsevier;
(2003), pp. 25–141, 251–424.
4. R.H. Essenhigh, M.K. Misra, and D.W. Shaw, Ignition of
coal particles: A review, Combust Flame 77 (1989),
3–30.
5. H.M. Cassel and I. Liebman, The cooperative mechanism
in the ignition of dust dispersions, Combust Flame 3
(1959), 467–475.
6. I. Khalili, O. Dufaud, M. Poupeau, N. Cuervo-Rodriguez,
and L. Perrin, Ignition sensitivity of gas vapor/dust hybrid
mixtures, Powder Technol 217 (2012), 199–206.
7. A. Agreda, A. Di Benedetto, P. Russo, E. Salzano, and R.
Sanchiro, Dust/gas mixtures explosion regimes, Powder
Technol 205 (2011), 81.
8. E.K. Addai, D. Gabel, and U. Krause, Explosion charac-
teristics of three component hybrid mixtures, Process
Safety Environ Protect 98 (2015), 72–81.
9. E.K. Addai, D. Gabel, and U. Krause, Lower explosion
limit of hybrid mixtures of burnable gas and dust, J Loss
Prev Process Ind 36 (2015), 497–504.
94 March 2017 Published on behalf of the AIChE
10. E.K Addai, D. Gabel, and U. Krause, Ignition and explo-
sion behavior of hybrid mixtures of two and three com-
ponents, In: 4. Magdeburger Brand- und
Explosionsschutztag, HS-Magdeburg Stendal, Magdeburg,
March 26–27, 2015, ISBN 978-3-00-048960-0.
11. P. Amyotte, M. Lindsay, R. Domaratzki, N. Marchand, A.
Di Benedetto, and P. Russo, Prevention and mitigation of
dust and hybrid mixture explosions, Process Saf Prog 29
(2010), 17–21.
12. M. Nifuku, H. Tsujita, K. Fujino, K. Takaichi, C. Barre, E.
Paya, et al. Ignitability assessment of shredder dusts of
refrigerator and the prevention of the dust explosion,
J Loss Prev Process Ind 19 (2006), 181–186.
13. O. Dufaud, L. Perrin, M. Traore, S. Chazelet, and D.
Thomas, Explosions of vapor/dust hybrid mixtures: A
particular class, Powder Technol 190 (2009), 269–273.
14. European Committee for Standardization, ECS EN 1127-1,
Potentially Explosive Atmospheres, Explosion Prevention
and Protection, Determination of Explosion Limits of
Gases and Vapors, Brussels, Belgium (2010).
15. European Committee for Standardization, ECS EN 14034,
Potentially Explosive Atmospheres, Explosion Prevention
and Protection, Determination of Explosibility of dust,
Brussels, Belgium (2010).
16. W. Nazaroff and R. Harley, Air Quality Engineering,
218A., Journal of the Air and Waste Management Associa-
tion (1998) 48,p. 899–906
17. Standard Thermodynamic Properties of Chemical Substan-
ces, CRC Press LLC, 2000. http://www.update.uu.se/
~jolkkonen/pdf/CRC_TD.pdf (retrieve 07/03/2016
18. E. Brandes and W. M€ oller, sicherheitstechnische
Kenngroßn, Brand 1: Brennbare Fl€ ussigkeiten und Gase,
PTB, Braunschweig, (2003).
19. European Committee for Standardization (ECS), (2003).
EN 50281-2-1, Potentially Explosive Atmospheres, Explo-
sion Prevention and Protection, Minimum Ignition Tem-
perature for Dust Cloud of Dust/air Mixtures. ECS,
Brussels, Belgium (2007).
20. SAFEKINEX Report, Experimental Investigation of Explo-
sion Limits, Explosion Pressure and Rate of Explosion
Pressure Rise, , Part 1, Bundesanstalt f€ ur Materialfor-
schung und pr€ ufung, Germany, 2002.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.36, No.1)