Tutorial on Combustible Dust

Timothy J. Myers and Alfonso F. Ibarreta

Exponent, Inc., 9 Strathmore Road, Natick, MA 01760; [email protected] (for correspondence)
Published online 28 April 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/prs.11596
This article provides an overview of combustible dust. A
summary of recent combustible dust incidents and the vari-
ety of types of materials that can represent a combustible
dust hazard when present in a particulate form are pro-
vided. Fundamentals of combustible dust are covered, com-
paring and contrasting combustible dust to ammable gases
and vapors. Test methods used to characterize the hazards of
combustible dust are reviewed. Relevant standards and regu-
lations are described. Finally, guidance on the primary
methods to prevent and mitigate combustible dust incidents
is summarized. VC
2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Process Saf Prog 32: 298306, 2013
Keywords: combustible dust; dust explosion
RECENT AWARENESS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUST HAZARDS
Recent combustible dust res and explosions have
increased awareness of combustible dust hazards in industry.
Table 1 summarizes combustible dust incidents at six industrial
facilities during the last decade. The ve most recent incidents
were investigated by the United States Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and reports detailing their
investigations are available from the CSB website [1].
In October 2007, the United States Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) introduced a combustible dust
National Emphasis Program (NEP) that provides guidance to
OSHA inspectors on how to identify and cite combustible dust
hazards in industry using existing OSHA regulations and the
General Duty Clause [2]. The NEP was reissued in March 2008
after a sugar renery explosion [3]. In 2009, OSHA issued an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) announc-
ing the intent to create a general industry combustible dust
regulation [4]. No proposed regulation has been released at
the time of this article. Exponent has analyzed OSHAs general
duty clause citations and observed a signicant increase in
citations containing the phrase dust explosion starting in
2008 as shown in Figure 1 [5].
The increased awareness caused by these events has led
many facilities to examine whether they have combustible
dust hazards and, if so, how to abate the hazards.
FUNDAMENTALS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUST
A variety of denitions of combustible dust exist. More
recent denitions are not explicitly based upon particle size but
based solely upon the combustibility of material when dis-
persed in air. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
654 Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions
from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of
Combustible Particulate Solids currently denes combustible
dust as: A nely divided combustible particulate solid that
presents a ash re hazard or explosion hazard when sus-
pended in air or the process-specic oxidizing medium over a
range of concentrations. [6]. Although specic particle size cri-
teria have been removed from many modern denitions of
combustible dust, it is the small particle size or large surface
area to mass ratio of a combustible dust that differentiates it
from a bulk combustible solid. The combustion rate of bulk sol-
ids is typically limited by the surface area of the solid in contact
with the oxidizer (air), and so as the particle size of a material
decreases, the specic surface area increases and combustion
rate per mass of material increases. This concept is illustrated in
Figure 2, which is based upon Eckhoffs illustration [7]. A log of
wood is difcult to ignite and burns relatively slowly. If the log
is chopped into kindling, it is easier to ignite and burns more
rapidly. In the extreme, if the log is ground up into a ne dust
and dispersed in air, it is much easier to ignite and burns very
rapidly. A ame propagating through a cloud of ne wood dust
dispersed in air is in some ways similar to a ame propagating
through a mixture of ammable gas or vapor and air.
For organic materials, combustion of the particulates in
air typically involves some form of pyrolysis and/or vaporiza-
tion of the particulate into the air where gas phase reactions
occur. Figure 3 shows scanning electron microscope (SEM)
images of Pittsburgh pulverized coal before and after testing
in a dust explosion chamber. Particles in the virgin coal have
relatively at surfaces with fracture patterns created by the
coal pulverizing process. In contrast, particles in the post
explosion residue have rounded surfaces and are porous
with visible holes on the surface and voids in the middle.
This morphology is created when the particles are heated
during the combustion event and volatile components of the
dust particle rapidly vaporize. Other materials, like metals
burn heterogeneously, with reaction occurring at the particle
surface, without volatilization of the solid.
Elements of a Combustible Dust Event
NFPA standards dene an explosion as [t]he bursting or
rupture of an enclosure or a container due to the develop-
ment of internal pressure from a deagration, where a dea-
gration is subsonic propagation of combustion through the
media. Five elements are required to have a dust explosion:
1. Combustible dust
2. Oxidizer (e.g., air)
3. Ignition source
4. Dispersion of dust
5. Connement
In general, materials that can burn or exothermically oxi-
dize can be combustible dusts if present in a sufciently
small particle size. This includes organic materials like wood
This article was originally presented at 8th Global Congress on
Process Safety, Houston, TX, April 14, 2012
VC
2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
298 September 2013 Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3)
that burn in bulk form but also includes materials like ele-
mental metals that do not normally burn in bulk form. Mate-
rials that are already oxidized or that cannot be
exothermically oxidized, such as limestone (CaCO
3
), rust
(Fe
2
O
3
), sand (SiO
2
), and table salt (NaCl) are not combusti-
ble dusts. Limestone is used to inert coal dust in coal mines.
At least a small amount of combustible dust is present in
most industrial facilities, whether it is a raw material, inten-
tional product, or generated as a byproduct.
Oxygen in air is the most common oxidizer in combusti-
ble dust events. However, other gases that can oxidize mate-
rial can also serve as an oxidizer. For instance some metals
are explosible in carbon dioxide or halogens like uorine.
Depending on the material, a variety of ignition sources
can be sufcient to ignite a combustible dust cloud. Potential
ignition sources include static electricity, sparks from electrical
equipment, hot surfaces, frictional heating, and open ames.
Because dusts are solids and not in the gas phase, some
mechanism must disperse the dust in appropriate concentra-
tions in an oxidizing medium. Dust may become dispersed
by powder handling processes, unintentional releases from
equipment, or disturbance of accumulations during cleaning
operations in a facility.
With the rst four elements, a ash re can occur which
can cause thermal damage to property and personnel. In
order to have an explosion with damage causing overpres-
sure, some level of connement is required to restrict the hot
combustion products from expanding, causing a pressure
rise. Connement can be caused by the shell of equipment
like a dust collector, the walls of a building, or by the pres-
ence of a heavily congested area. In addition to the thermal
damage caused by a ash re, a dust explosion can cause
equipment or buildings to burst or collapse.
Concentration Ranges of Combustible Dust in Air
Similar to the Lower Flammable Limit (LFL) of a gas or
vapor, dusts have a Minimum Explosible Concentration
(MEC) required to create a combustible mixture. For very
ne materials, on a mass basis, the MEC of a dust
approaches the LFL of an analogous gas or vapor. For
instance, the MEC of polyethylene dust, which has a volatil-
ity of 100%, tends to the LFL of methane, as the dust particle
size is decreased [9,10]. The MEC of combustible dusts are
typically above 30 g/m
3
. A rough rule of thumb is that the
concentration of dust required to create a combustible dust
cloud is so high that you would not be able to see your
hand in front of you or a light bulb several feet in front of
you. The amount of light blocked out by a combustible dust
cloud is exemplied in Figure 4, based upon Eckhoffs illus-
tration [7]. Because the concentration of dust required to sup-
port a ash re or dust explosion is several orders of
magnitude above most industrial hygiene limits for respirable
dusts, these concentrations will not typically be present in
work areas during normal operation. However, these con-
centrations can be present within process equipment or in
work areas during upsets that cause releases of dust or dis-
persion of dust accumulations. Most catastrophic combustible
dust explosions that propagate through a large portion of an
industrial facility involve dust releases from bursting equip-
ment or dispersion of dust accumulations in the facility.
Unlike most gases or vapors, most combustible dusts
do not have a sharply dened upper ammable limit and
the mass concentration ranges in air that are ammable
may span a few orders of magnitude. A dust may have an
MEC of 30 g/m
3
, maximum P
max
value at approximately
1,000 g/m
3
, and still be explosible at concentrations above
3,000 g/m
3
.
Combustible Dust Releases
A key difference between ammable gases or vapors and
dust is their behavior when they are released from equip-
ment. When a ammable gas leaks from equipment, the con-
centration in air tends to decrease with distance and time
from the leak source as the gas mixes with air. Thus, a leak
of gas from equipment that is below the LFL will not concen-
trate in a portion of a facility and exceed the LFL. Releases
of dust can have the opposite behavior. Dust can be released
from a piece of equipment at a concentration below the
Figure 1. Number of citations and inspections containing
the phrase dust explosion in OSHAs general duty clause
database [5]. [Color gure can be viewed in the online issue,
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Table 1. Commonly referenced combustible dust incidents during the last decade.
*
Year Facility Product State Powder/Dust Fatalities
2002 Recycled rubber Mississippi Scrap Tire 5
2003 Rubber drug delivery products North Carolina Polyethylene 6
2003 Fiberglass insulation Kentucky Phenolic Resin 7
2003 Automotive wheels Indiana Aluminum 1
2008 Sugar Georgia Sugar 14
2011 Steel powder Tennessee Iron or Steel ?
**
*Data about the incidents are based upon publicly available information and are not based upon Exponent investigations of
the incidents.
**The CSB investigated three incidents causing ve fatalities in 2011. The role of dust is not clear in some incidents and some
fatalities may not be related to combustible dust.
Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs September 2013 299
MEC but increase in concentration as it settles on surfaces
due to gravity, becoming orders of magnitude above the
MEC. Layers of dust that accumulate over time can later be
redispersed in air, create a dust cloud that is above the MEC,
and cause a ash re or dust explosion if ignited. A histori-
cally referenced example from previous editions of NFPA 654
[11] involves a dust layer 0.8 mm (1/32 in.) thick, about the
thickness of a paper clip, on the oor of a room with a 3 m
(10 ft) ceiling. For a dust layer with a bulk density of 1,200
kg/m
3
(75 lb/ft
3
), a dust cloud of 350 g/m
3
across the height
of the room can be formed if the entire dust layer is evenly
dispersed in the room. This concentration is above the MEC
of many combustible dusts.
Effect of Particle Size
Figure 5 shows quantitatively the particle size depend-
ence of combustion properties of four dusts when ignited as
a cloud in a sealed pressure vessel. The maximum overpres-
sure, P
max
, and the maximum rate of pressure rise (dP/dt)
max
are plotted versus the mean particle size of the material.
Above a certain particle size, the materials are not explosible
and the P
max
and (dP/dt)
max
are zero. As the particle size
decreases, P
max
increases, indicating more complete combus-
tion, and (dP/dt)
max
increases, indicating a greater rate of
combustion. For most organic materials, the values of P
max
and (dP/dt)
max
reach a maximum at small particle size val-
ues, where the combustion is no longer limited by the
Figure 2. Analogy of how the rate of combustion of wood increases as the particle size decreases [7]. [Color gure can be
viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Figure 3. SEM images of Pittsburgh pulverized coal. Images a and b on the left show virgin coal, while images c and d show
post explosion residue from tests in a 20-L vessel at a concentration of 500 g/m
3
[8].
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) 300 September 2013 Published on behalf of the AIChE
specic particle size of the material but is instead limited by
gas phase combustion. The particle size dependence varies
for different materials; there is no universal particle size for
all materials that denes the transition between material that
is explosible or is not explosible. Similarly, properties like
the minimum ignition energy (MIE), minimum autoignition
temperature (MAIT), and minimum explosible concentration
(MEC) tend to decrease with decreasing particle size indicat-
ing that smaller particle size materials are easier to ignite.
TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE HAZARDS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUST
Facilities are often posed with the issue of trying to
determine if dust in their facility is a combustible dust and
the severity of the hazard. If the dust is a raw material in
a process, the manufacturer may have already character-
ized the material and be able to provide dust testing
results. However, experience has shown that many suppli-
ers of dusts or powders either do not know the combusti-
ble dust properties of their material or do not
communicate these properties in material data safety
sheets or other documents.
Various references provide dust testing values for some
materials. However, it is typically recommended to perform
testing on a specic dust rather than relying on published
reference values. Much of the published testing data used
older testing methods that may underestimate the hazard of
some materials. Additionally, the specic hazard of a dust is
strongly dependent on the chemistry, particle size distribu-
tion, and morphology of the dust which may be different
than material listed in references. In the United States, the
most common combustible dust tests are based upon ASTM
test methods [1419]. An article by members of the ASTM E-
27 Committee on the Hazard Potential of Chemicals
describes in detail a battery of tests that may be used to
determine the hazard of dusts [20]. Some of the most com-
mon test methods and their application are discussed
below.
Initial Hazard Screening Go/No-Go Test (ASTM E1226)
Historically, a variety of different test methods were
used by labs as an initial screening or Go/No-Go test to
determine if a ame would propagate through a dust
cloud. More recently, NFPA standards refer to the Go/
No-Go test published in ASTM E1226 in 2010. In this test,
a dust cloud is dispersed in a closed vessel with a strong
5 or 10-kJ ignition source, and the pressure rise is meas-
ured. The test is performed at two or more concentrations.
If the corrected pressure in the vessel increases by a factor
of two or greater, the dust is a Go or explosible mean-
ing it is able to propagate a dust explosion. The test is
most commonly performed in a 20-L chamber shown in
Figure 6. However, due to the potential of false positives
caused by the strong pyrotechnic igniters overdriving the
test in the 20-L chamber, tests are sometimes also repeated
in a larger 1-m
3
(1,000-L) chamber when overdriving is
suspected.
Figure 4. Illustration demonstrating that a 25 watt light bulb
would be barely visible when looking through a 2 meter
path of 40 g/m
3
coal dust [7]. [Color gure can be viewed in
the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.
com.]
Figure 5. Particle size dependence of maximum overpres-
sure, P
max
, and rate of pressure rise (dP/dt
max
) (From Ref.
12] based upon data from Ref. 13]).
Figure 6. 20-L combustion chamber used for Go/No-Go
explosion screening test and measuring P
max
, K
St
, MEC, and
LOC. Flame is visible in the watch glass on the front of the
chamber during a test. [Color gure can be viewed in the
online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs September 2013 301
Minimum Ignition Energy of Dust Clouds
(ASTM E2019)
This test is commonly performed in a cylindrical acrylic
vessel where a dust cloud is dispersed and an electrical
spark generated. Dust cloud concentration, spark energy,
electrode gap, and spark timing are typically varied to deter-
mine the MIE at the most ignitable dust concentration. Igni-
tion energies of most dusts are higher than those of vapors
or gases, and can range from as low as a few millijoules (mJ)
to thousands of joules (J). Many labs can only measure val-
ues between 1 and 500 mJ. The apparatus during a positive
test and typical test data are shown in Figure 7. The results
are used as a general hazard classication and to determine
the level of precaution needed to prevent ignition by static
or electrical sparks.
Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds
(ASTM E1491)
Dust clouds of varying concentration are dispersed
through the center of a heated furnace. The minimum tem-
perature within the furnace at which a ame is observed
with the most ignitable dust concentration is recorded. The
results are used as a general hazard classication and are
compared to temperatures that may occur in equipment
such as drying ovens or on hot surfaces, to determine if
they can serve as ignition sources for a potential dust cloud
(Figure 8).
Hot Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers
(ASTM E2021)
Layers of dust of a specic thickness are heated on a tem-
perature controlled surface. Ignition is gauged by either a
50

C temperature rise within the dust layer above the tem-

perature of the surface or glowing or ame. The standard
layer thickness in the test is
1
=2 in. The ignition temperature
of thicker dust layers is generally lower than thinner layers.
The results can be used to determine the maximum tempera-
tures of surfaces that should be allowed in an area handling
dusts, or to determine maximum allowed dust thickness
accumulations on a heated surface. Test data for two differ-
ent surface temperatures resulting in ignition and non-igni-
tion are shown in Figure 9.
Figure 7. MIE test showing visible re ball and paper disc bursting on top of chamber (left). Typical data from an MIE test
[16]. [Color gure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Figure 8. MAIT test furnace (left). Typical data from an MAIT test [17]. [Color gure can be viewed in the online issue, which
is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) 302 September 2013 Published on behalf of the AIChE
Minimum Explosible Concentration of Dust Clouds
(ASTM E1515)
A dust cloud is dispersed in a 20-L (or larger) vessel
shown in Figure 6, and a 2.5 or 5-kJ pyrotechnic ignitor is
used to ignite the dust. If the pressure in the vessel increases
by a factor of two or greater, the dust concentration is at or
above the MEC. The MEC, with a safety factor, is compared
to concentrations inside of duct work and other enclosures
to determine if a dust explosion hazard can be present in the
equipment.
Limiting Oxygen Concentration in Dust Clouds
(ASTM WK41004)
A working standard is in development by the ASTM E27
committee to measure the minimum concentration of oxygen
needed to support a dust explosion. The developing stand-
ard uses a method similar to the method used to measure
the MEC of a dust. An inert gas is used to reduce the oxygen
concentration in the vessel and the dust concentration is var-
ied to determine the oxygen level at which a dust explosion
can no longer propagate in a dust cloud. The limiting oxy-
gen concentration (LOC), with a safety factor, is used to
determine the level of inerting that should be used inside
equipment or ductwork that may contain dust clouds.
Maximum Pressure and Maximum Rate of Pressure
Rise (ASTM E1226)
Dust clouds are dispersed in a 20-L (or larger) vessel
shown in Figure 6, and ignited with 10-kJ pyrotechnic igni-
tors. The concentration of dust is varied to determine the
concentration at which the maximum pressure and rate of
pressure rise occur. Similar to vapor and gas explosions, dust
can generate pressure on the order of 6 to 12 atmospheres
in a closed vessel. The results of the tests are used as a gen-
eral screening tool and to determine the required explosion
vent areas for equipment and buildings. Typical test data is
shown in Figure 10.
The maximum rate of pressure rise is typically presented
in a volume-normalized form as the K
St
, where the K
St
5(dP/
dt)
max
V
1/3
. The K
St
value increases with increasing
turbulence level in the test. The ASTM E1226 method uses a
standardized turbulence level to correlate to original tests in
the 1-m
3
chamber based upon ISO 6184/1 Explosion Protec-
tion Systems, Part 1, Determination of Explosion Indices of
Combustible Dusts in Air. Explosion vent sizing equations in
NFPA 68 are based upon this standardized turbulence level.
OSHAs Salt Lake Technical Center sometimes conducts
testing in a 20-L vessel designed by the US Bureau of Mines
that uses a lower turbulence level and produces lower K
St
values that should not be used in designing explosion pro-
tection systems. Some historic K
St
values in the literature
were measured using a cylindrical Hartmann chamber devel-
oped by the US Bureau of Mines; that also should not be
used for designing explosion protection systems.
STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDELINES FOR MITIGATION AND PREVENTION
OF DUST FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS
There are a number of standards and regulations related
to dust explosion hazards throughout the world. This article
focuses on common U.S. standards. Most U.S. building codes
provide at least minimal guidance related to facilities with
dust explosion hazards. Additionally, individual state or local
jurisdictions may have specic building codes that contain
Figure 9. Data from hot surface ignition test of a 25.4 mm
(1 in.) layer of Pittsburgh pulverized coal on surfaces of
190

C and 200

C. Ignition occurred at 200

C but not 190

C.
Figure 10. Typical test data for a single explosion test (left) and a series of tests (right) [15].
Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs September 2013 303
requirements related to dust explosion hazards. An insurer,
FM Global, produces engineering guidelines called Property
Loss Prevention Data Sheets related to dust explosion
hazards that are publicly available. These include Data Sheet
776 Prevention and Mitigation of Combustible Dust
Explosion and Fire [21] as well as data sheets for specic
industries and types of equipment. The most frequently ref-
erenced dust explosion standards in the U.S. are produced
by the NFPA and are discussed below.
NFPA Guidelines and Standards
The NFPA has developed a series of standards for the pre-
vention and mitigation of dust explosions. The NFPA has no
enforcement authority and these standards only become reg-
ulations when adopted by an authority having jurisdiction.
The NFPA standards are increasingly being adopted by build-
ing codes, local, and state regulations.
Many of the NFPA standards originated in the early 1900s
as standards for specic industries with a history of dust
explosions. Through the years, these standards have com-
bined into more general documents that describe prevention
methods that are applicable across groups of industries. Spe-
cic standards do still exist for some specialized industries.
NFPA standards and recommended practices for the preven-
tion of dust explosions include:
NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust
Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities
NFPA 120, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in
Coal Mines
NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals
NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust
Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Han-
dling of Combustible Particulate Solids
NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and
Explosions
NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and
Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking
Facilities
NFPA 850, Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for
Electric Generating Plants and High Voltage Direct Cur-
rent Converter Stations
In general, these standards provide requirements to prevent
the occurrence of ignitable dust clouds in the presence of igni-
tion sources. Additionally, the standards contain requirements
for mitigation methods that minimize the effect of dust explo-
sions when they do occur. Some of the standards are very com-
prehensive containing requirements for the design, operation,
modication, and maintenance of facilities, as well as training
and protection of employees. It is not uncommon for more than
one of these standards to apply to different parts of a facility.
For instance, a plastic facility handling resin powder may be
within the scope of NFPA 654 and also have a wood shop that
would be within the scope of NFPA 664.
Each of these standards in turn reference a number of
other NFPA standards and guidelines that provide additional
requirements or guidance for facilities with dust explosion
hazards, including explosion prevention and venting meth-
ods, and classication of areas for electrical equipment and
industrial trucks. For instance, based upon requirements in
NFPA 654, a facility may install explosion vents on a dust
collector. NFPA 654 additionally requires that the vents com-
ply with NFPA 68. NFPA standards and guidelines commonly
referenced in combustible dust standards are listed below:
NFPA 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deagra-
tion Venting
NFPA 69 Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems
NFPA 70 National Electric Code
NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying
of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate
Solids.
NFPA 499 Recommended Practice for the Classication of
Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classied) Loca-
tions for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas
NFPA 505 Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial
Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conver-
sions, Maintenance, and Operations
NFPA 2113 Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Mainte-
nance of Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of
Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire
Some local and state building codes, as well as re codes,
have adopted much of the National Fire Code of the NFPA,
which contains key standards for the prevention of dust explo-
sions. Some states where recent catastrophic dust explosions
have occurred have adopted NFPA standards in response to
those incidents. For instance, after a 2008 sugar renery explo-
sion, the state of Georgia created Emergency Regulation Chap-
ter 120-3-24-0.12 Rules and Regulations for Loss Prevention
due to Combustible Dust Explosions and Fire [22], which
adopts a number of NFPA standards related to dust explosions.
OSHA Regulations
OSHA does not currently have a comprehensive general
industry regulation for the prevention of dust explosions.
Current OSHA regulations do contain some requirements
that are specic to dust explosions hazards, for example,
electrical classication of areas containing combustible dusts,
as well as more general requirements that have been cited to
address dust explosion hazards, including applying house-
keeping requirements to dust accumulations. Regulations
that OSHA believes apply to combustible dust hazards are
summarized in the combustible dust NEP [2,3] and a previous
article has summarized OSHAs enforcement of regulations
applied to combustible dust hazards [23]. These include regu-
lations related to housekeeping, ignition sources, ventilation,
hazard communication, personal protective equipment, per-
mitting, process safety management, re protection, and
egress. Where OSHA believes a dust explosion hazard exists,
but there is not an applicable OSHA regulation, OSHA issues
General Duty clause citations that often reference consensus
standards, including NFPA standards and guidelines, as a
possible method to abate the hazard. OSHA issued an
ANPRM in 2009, for a general industry combustible dust reg-
ulation but has not yet released a draft of the proposed rule.
PRIMARY GUIDANCE FOR PREVENTING AND MITIGATION COMBUSTIBLE DUST
EVENTS
NFPA combustible dust standards cover a wide range of
subjects that are summarized below:
Hazard Analysis Particle size separation
Building construction Mixers and blenders
Building explosion venting Dryers
Equipment explosion
protection
Dust collection equipment
Equipment isolation Fire protection
Bulk storage Housekeeping
Material transfer systems Management of change
Size reduction operations Control of ignition sources
Segregation, separation,
or detachment of dust
handling and processing areas
Employee training,
inspection, and
maintenance
Discussing all of these topics is beyond the scope of this
article. However, some primary guidance is described below.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) 304 September 2013 Published on behalf of the AIChE
Inherent Safety
Some facilities may only handle combustible powders or
dusts in a portion of the facility. These facilities can some-
times eliminate or reduce the dust explosion hazard by elimi-
nating the powder or dust from the facility, or reducing the
combustibility of the material [24]. This may be more cost
effective than adding required dust explosion protection sys-
tems. Facilities that add a combustible powder ingredient to
a liquid slurry product could purchase the additive in a
liquid or slurry form. This eliminates the use of the powder
from their facility. Many facilities recycle scrap material from
their process by rst pulverizing the material. It may be pos-
sible to recycle the material as a larger particle size to reduce
dust explosion hazards, or to recycle the product at an exter-
nal facility.
Minimizing Dust Clouds and Accumulations of Dust in
Facilities
Requirements in standards focus on keeping combustible
dusts and powders inside of process equipment and mini-
mizing dust clouds and accumulations in facilities. This can
be addressed using multiple methods:
Designing and maintaining equipment to be dust tight
Operating equipment at negative pressure
Using dust collection at points of dust generation
Frequent housekeeping to prevent accumulations from
reaching hazardous thresholds.
The better the design of equipment and dust collection
systems, the less frequent housekeeping is required. House-
keeping must be performed in a safe manner to prevent creat-
ing a hazard during cleaning. Guidance in standards includes:
Using cleaning methods that minimize generation of
clouds
Vacuuming with vacuums approved for combustible
dust and classied areas
Gentle sweeping
Vigorous sweeping, or blow down with air or steam, is
not recommended and should only be used after using
other cleaning methods and performing a hazard analysis
that includes:
Elimination of ignition sources
Use of low supply pressure
Proper personal protection equipment
Thresholds for Housekeeping
Recently, there has been signicant focus on trying to
improve guidance on threshold dust accumulations that
should trigger housekeeping. Historically, some people have
used rules of thumb, like if you can see foot prints in the
dust or if you can write your name in the dust, it needs to
be cleaned. A 1/32 in. criterion, adjusted for bulk density,
had been referenced by NFPA 654, but some analyses show
that this may be overly conservative for some dusts in some
facilities. The 2013 edition of NFPA 654 [6] now includes
methodologies to calculate dust thresholds for enclosures
based upon the properties of the dust, the dimensions and
strength of the enclosure, and hazard criteria based upon
damage to the building or thermal exposure to workers. Var-
ious thresholds for dust accumulations in some current
standards and guidelines are summarized below (Table 2).
NFPA 484, a standard for metal dusts, states that dust
should not be allowed to accumulate. There is debate on the
practical meaning of that threshold. The requirements in
NFPA 654 and 664 are similar, since NFPA 654s 1/32 in. is
based on a bulk density of 75 lb/ft
3
while the NFPA 664
thickness of 1/8 in. is based on a typical wood bulk density
of 20 lb/ft
3
. NFPA 499 contains thresholds for dust accumula-
tion that are one trigger for determining if electrical classi-
cation is required in an area. If accumulations are thick
enough that the color of underlying surfaces is not discerni-
ble, but the accumulations are less than 1/8 in. thick, the
area would be Class II, Division 2. If the thicknesses are
greater than 1/8 in. they would be Class II, Division 1.
Unless the layer ignition test, discussed above, is performed
at a greater thickness, Division 1 equipment is to be immedi-
ately cleaned if accumulations reach
1
=2 in. For conductive
metal dusts, there is no Division 2, and the Class II, Division
2 thresholds cause classication as Class II, Division 1.
Ignition Source Control
The standards contain requirements to control ignition
sources to minimize the probability that ignition of a dust
cloud or accumulation will occur. A variety of requirements
address the following potential ignition sources:
Sparks (friction, electrical, static electricity)
Improper grounding, bonding
Hot surfaces
Hot work
Open ames
Heating systems
Slipping belts
Bearings
Electrical equipment
Classied Electrical Equipment
Depending on the likelihood of the presence of a com-
bustible dust cloud and the thickness of combustible dust
accumulations, some areas may be identied as hazardous
(classied) Class II, Division 1 or 2, requiring special electri-
cal equipment and wiring methods. The extent of classied
areas can often be reduced through improved housekeep-
ing, equipment maintenance, and dust collection. Addition-
ally, barriers can be used to separate classied areas from
unclassied areas to further limit the extent of classied
areas. In some cases, the original electrical equipment can
be relocated from classied to unclassied areas. These
approaches can greatly reduce the amount of classied
electrical equipment required. In a metal bufng operation,
for example, it was possible to add ame retardants to the
bufng compound and bufng wheels to reduce the com-
bustibility of bufng dust to change the area to unclassied
[28].
Explosion Protection of Equipment
Even if accumulations of combustible dust are eliminated
from a facility, dust explosion hazards can still exist inside of
equipment like bins, silos, dryers, and dust collectors.
Table 2. Housekeeping thresholds.
Source Threshold
NFPA 484 (metal) [25] Not allowed to accumulate
NFPA 654 (general) [6] 1/32 over 5%, or 1000 ft
2
NFPA 664 (wood) [26] 1/8
NFPA 499 (electrical
classication) [27]
1/8 (Class II, Division 1)
NFPA 499 (electrical
classication) [27]
Color of surface not discernible
(Class II, Division 2)
Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs September 2013 305
Ignition of dust inside the equipment can cause a deagra-
tion, which may be able to burst or rupture the equipment
causing an explosion. The various NFPA standards often
require some form of explosion protection on equipment
with explosion hazards. These can be broken down into two
groups, deagration prevention (i.e., preventing combustion
of a dust cloud) and deagration mitigation, (i.e., preventing
the deagration from rupturing the equipment). Deagration
prevention methods include:
Oxidant concentration reduction (inerting) in accordance
with NFPA 69
Combustible concentration reduction (operating below
the MEC) in accordance with NFPA 69
Dilution with a noncombustible dust
In general, the prescriptive requirements in the standards
assume that an ignition source can always be present, and
do not recognize elimination of ignition sources as an explo-
sion protection method.
Deagration mitigation methods include:
Deagration venting in accordance with NFPA 68
Deagration venting through listed ameless vents in ac-
cordance with NFPA 68
Deagration pressure containment in accordance with
NFPA 69
Deagration suppression in accordance with NFPA 69
Deagration isolation in accordance with NFPA 69
SUMMARY
Recent catastrophic dust res and explosions have
increased awareness of the hazards of combustible dust. This
has led to increased regulatory and enforcement efforts, as
characterized by recent building code updates and the OSHA
combustible dust NEP and ANPRM.
Most materials that can exothermically oxidize can be a
combustible dust if present in a sufciently small particle
size. Standardized ASTM test methods exist for characterizing
the properties of combustible dust. NFPA standards provide
guidance on combustible dust re and explosion prevention
and mitigation. These standards emphasize the importance
of containing dust, proper housekeeping, control of ignition
sources, and explosion protection of equipment.
LITERATURE CITED
1. CSB Investigations. Available at: http://www.csb.gov/
investigations/default.aspx, accessed February 5, 2012.
2. Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program, OSHA
CPL 03-00-006, October 18, 2007.
3. Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (Reissued),
OSHA CPL 03-00-008, March 11, 2008.
4. Combustible Dust Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Federal Register 74:5433354347, October
21, 2009.
5. OSHA General Duty Standard Search. Available at:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/generalsearch.html,
accessed February 2013.
6. NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust
Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and
Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2013.
7. R.K. Eckhoff, Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, 3rd
Ed., Gulf Publishing/Elsevier, Massachusetts, USA, 2003.
8. T.J. Myers, K.C. White, and T. Xu, Did a dust explosion
occur? Microscopic and thermogravimetric techniques to
determine if dust participated in an explosion event,
Proceedings, Mary Kay OConnor Process Safety Center
Symposium, College Station, TX, 2008.
9. M. Hertzberg, K.L. Cashdollar, and I.A. Zlochower,
Flammability Limit Measurements for Dusts and Gases:
Ignition Energy Requriements and Pressure Dependen-
ces. Twenty-rst Symposium (International) on Combus-
tion, the Combustion Institute, Technical University of
Munich, West Germany, 1986, 303313.
10. M. Hertzberg and K.L. Cashdollar, Introduction to Dust
Explosions, Industrial Dust Explosions, ASTM STP 958, K.L.
Cashdollar and M. Hertzberg, (Editors), 1987, pp. 532.
11. NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust
Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and
Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2006.
12. NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deagra-
tion Venting, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA, 2007.
13. W. Bartknecht, Explosions: Course, Prevention, Protec-
tion, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
14. ASTM Volume 14.02. ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA.
15. ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of
Dust Clouds, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2012.
16. ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition
Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
17. ASTM E1491, Standard Test Method for Minimum Autoig-
nition Temperature of Dust Clouds, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
18. ASTM E2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Igni-
tion Temperature of Dust Layers, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.
19. ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explo-
sible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
20. L.G. Britton, K.L. Cashdollar, W. Fenlon, D. Frurip, J.
Going, B.K. Harrison, J. Niemeier, and E.A. Ural, The role
of ASTM E27 methods in hazard assessment Part II: Flam-
mability and ignitability, Process Saf Prog 24 (2005), 1228.
21. FM Global Data Sheet 776: Prevention and Mitigation of
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire, Factory Mutual
Insurance Company, January 2012.
22. Ofcial Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.), Rules
And Regulations of the Safety Fire Commissioner Chapter
120-3-24-0.12 Rules and Regulations for Loss Prevention
Due to Combustible Dust Explosions and Fire.
23. T.J. Myers, A.F. Ibarreta, R.W. Ashcraft, Dust Explosion Pre-
vention: Regulations, Standards, and Mitigation Techniques.
Proceedings, 43rd Annual Loss Prevention Symposium,
AICHE Spring National Meeting, Tampa, FL, 2009.
24. P. Amyotte, F. Kahn, and A. Dastidar, Reduce dust explo-
sions the inherently safer way. Chemical Engineering
Progress 99 (2003),3643.
25. NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2012.
26. NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explo-
sions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2012.
27. NFPA 484, Recommended Practice for the Classication of
Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classied) Locations
for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2013.
28. T.J. Myers, Reducing aluminum dust explosion hazards:
Case study of dust inerting in an aluminum bufng oper-
ation, J Hazardous Mater 159 (2008), 7280.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.32, No.3) 306 September 2013 Published on behalf of the AIChE