MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088877556 · doi:10.1002/prs.10333

Prevention and mitigation of dust and hybrid mixture explosions

2009· article· en· W2088877556 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Amyotte, Matthew B.J. Lindsay, Ruth Domaratzki, Neil Marchand, Almerinda Di Benedetto, Paola Russo

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlammable liquidFlammability limitDust explosionPropaneFlammabilityWaste managementEnvironmental scienceChemical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceEngineeringCombustionComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The results presented in this article focus on the importance of the prevention and mitigation of dust and hybrid mixture explosions. The main objective is to demonstrate the use of the inherent safety principle of moderation to achieve a significant reduction of the risk of explosions. Experiments and a companion modeling study were conducted with a test matrix composed of various size fractions of polyethylene powder together with concentrations of hydrocarbon gas (ethylene, hexane, and propane). The results quantitatively show the increased hazard posed by fine particle sizes of dust and the addition of flammable gases. There are clear implications for industry in terms of moderating the risk of an explosion. Gas concentrations used in this work were all less than the lower flammability limit (LFL) of the particular chemical species and the ratio of gas concentration to LFL concentration was at least 75%. The enhancement of mixture reactivity brought about by a flammable gas admixture could therefore be correlated with the burning velocity of the gas. This article describes how to predict K St for hybrid mixtures and includes the concept of using propane as a surrogate for hexane. Additionally, it shows that the avoidance of both fine dust sizes and hybrid mixtures is a beneficial approach in the process industries to reduce the risk arising from the hazards posed by combustible dusts and their mixtures with flammable gases. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2010

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety ProgressSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207