Open Access

Background Iron powder appears to be a promising solution for long-term energy storage and (inter-) continental transport, as it is safe to store and does not require energy to maintain its state, unlike, for instance, liquefied hydrogen. However, while the fundamental research is well underway, large-scale implementation is still in its early stages, with a growing number of promising demonstrators emerging. Methods This article contributes to the large-scale implementation of iron as an energy carrier by presenting a round-robin test of four iron powders currently used in research and larger-scale demonstrators. These powders were tested on their safety characteristics in the standard 20 L apparatus across eight European countries. Results The resulting data are intended to support future standardization efforts using different iron samples as standardized fuel. All tested powders were classified either as non-explosible or as belonging to the category of marginally explosible dusts (Class 1). This provides a clear picture of the level of explosion protection measures that need to be considered for the safe use of iron powders in energy carrier applications. Conclusions Along with that, the study detected variations in the results and pointed to shortcomings in the current standards that may cause such discrepancies. These findings emphasize the importance of improving testing procedures to support standardization and ensure the safe use of iron powder as an energy carrier using an a-priori-approach rather than subsequent testing.

The hybrid mixture of combustible dusts and flammable gases/vapours widely exist in various industries, including mining, petrochemical, metallurgical, textile and pharmaceutical. It may pose a higher explosion risk than gas/vapor or dust/mist explosions since the hybrid explosions can still be initiated even though both the gas and the dust concentration are lower than their lower explosion limit (LEL) values. Understanding the explosion threat of hybrid mixtures not only contributes to the inherent safety and sustainability of industrial process design, but promotes the efficiency of loss prevention and mitigation. To date, however, there is no test standard with reliable explosion criteria available to determine the safety parameters of all types of hybrid mixture explosions, nor the flame propagation and quenching mechanism or theoretical explanation behind these parameters. This review presents a state-of-the-art overview of the comprehensive understanding of hybrid mixture explosions mainly in an experimental study level; thereby, the main limitations and challenges to be faced are explored. The discussed main contents include the experimental measurement for the safety parameters of hybrid mixtures (i.e., explosion sensitivity and severity parameters) via typical test apparatuses, explosion regime and criterion of hybrid mixtures, the detailed flame propagation/quenching characteristics behind the explosion severities/sensitivities of hybrid mixtures. This work aims to summarize the essential basics of experimental studies, and to provide the perspectives based on the current research gaps to understand the explosion hazards of hybrid mixtures in-depth.

As part of the development of a new standard testing procedure, a round robin study was conducted by six participating laboratories. This study involved the measurement of both the maximum explosion pressure and the maximum rate of pressure rise for hybrid mixtures comprising dust and vapor. Measurements were performed using a modified 20L-sphere. The primary objective of this collaborative effort was to assess the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of analytical and measurement methods across multiple laboratories, thereby increasing confidence in the obtained results. The method and protocol were developed as part of the NEX-HYS project and documented in a technical specification by the German Institute for Standardization Registered Association (DIN). The study revealed that precise pre-ignition pressure rise (PIPR) measurements and the use of a leak-free test apparatus significantly influenced the results of the measured maximum explosion pressure and maximum pressure rise rate.

In the standards for the determination of safety characteristics of dusts an initial pressure difference of 400 mbar (all: abs) is applied, that increases to 1013 mbar to achieve a homogeneous dust-air mixture. Since the measuring equipment accuracy is given with ± 0,1 bar the initial pressure could range somewhere between 300 and 500 mbar and the pressure increase between 500 and 700 mbar, leading to a testing pressure of 800 to 1200 mbar. This variation does not only affect the testing pressure but also the concentration of dust and the level of turbulence, leading to wrong values of Pmax, Kst and assigning them to wrong concentrations. When tests for hybrid mixtures are conducted there are more degrees of freedom leading to even higher variations. To overcome these variations a higher accuracy is demanded for hybrid mixture testing. Further, in this presentation four standardized ignition sources are presented.

There are several standardized ignition sources in use for the determination of explosion characteristics of gases, vapors and dusts. In the standards the ignition source is stated, but they vary in stating other characteristics like burning duration, energy or burning volume. Since heat is not visible under normal circumstances a Schlieren-Technique was used to make the full heating volume and not just the flames visible. While an earlier paper of the authors focused on the ignition energy and burning duration of four standardized ignition sources, this paper focuses on the initial igniting volume, the ratio between initial igniting volume and the test-vessel size and other phenomena that were observed with the Schlieren-Technique-.