On Potential Fire Hazard of Use of Environmentally Friendly Refrigerants in Refrigeration Equipment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the most common domestic electric equipment is a household refrigerator. The use of flammable substances as refrigerants for refrigerators can lead to severe consequences. As the production of hydrofluorocarbon class refrigerants for refrigeration equipment was restricted by the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol, refrigeration technologies have been transferred from using hydrofluorocarbon class refrigerants to natural refrigerants (propane, butane, isobutane). The replacement of hydrofluorocarbon class refrigerants with natural refrigerants is already noticeable since in many cases isobutane (R-600a) is used as a refrigerant for refrigeration equipment. Isobutane is a combustible substance with a wide explosion limit (1.8–9.5 % vol.); hence, it is classified as an A2 refrigerant class of hazard (combustible substances). As R-600a is classified as an A2 class of fire hazard, its use in refrigeration technologies is limited with the refrigerant mass; therefore, the use of R-600a for refrigeration equipment is considered safe. According to international and Russian data, however, some accidents involving the use of flammable refrigerants in refrigeration equipment were registered. In the US, two explosions of serviceable household refrigerators were registered; in the Russian Federation, one explosion of refrigeration equipment during repair jobs was registered. According to the parameters of refrigeration equipment explosion, R-600а was used as a refrigerant. This study provides a calculation of excess pressure of explosion in case of leakage of R-600a from a refrigerator in the volume of a living accommodation (kitchen) in order to estimate the fire safety of combustible refrigerants. Based on the results of calculations, it has been concluded that the existing norms of the use of combustible refrigerants are insufficient and cannot ensure fire-explosion and fire safety for a person and refrigeration equipment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".