|
|
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF GAS MEASUREMENT DEVICES IN ANFO DETONATIONS
|
|
|
|
Ilie-Ciprian Jitea; Bogdan Garaliu-Busoi; Robert Laszlo. Daniela Rus; Stefan Ilici
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
10.5593/sgem2025/1.1
|
|
|
|
1314-2704
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
English
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
• Prof. Dr. hab. oec. Baiba Rivza, LATVIA• Prof. DSc. Ildiko Tulbure, GERMANY• Prof. DSc. Oleksandr Trofymchuk, UKRAINE
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
This study presents a comparative analysis of the performance of three gas measurement devices used to detect toxic gases generated by the detonation of ANFO explosive. The study was conducted following the operational procedure PI-102, which complies with the requirements of the SR EN 13631-16:2005 standard for detecting and measuring toxic gases produced by explosions. The aim was to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of the devices in monitoring key toxic gases released during detonation.
The experiment took place in a controlled environment, specifically a 15.4 m³ gas chamber, where a predetermined amount of ANFO explosive was detonated under standardized conditions. The concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitric oxide (NO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) were simultaneously monitored using the three different measurement devices. Measurements were performed according to a standardized methodology, ensuring proper homogenization of the gases and maintaining appropriate sampling times to obtain reliable data. The results of the study revealed significant differences in the values recorded by the three devices, suggesting variations in sensor sensitivity, calibration status, or differences in data processing algorithms. Statistical analysis of the obtained data indicated that one of the devices consistently reported higher NOx values, raising concerns about its calibration and overall measurement accuracy. These discrepancies underline the need for rigorous validation and periodic calibration of measurement devices to ensure accurate gas concentration assessments. This study provides valuable insights into the limitations of the tested equipment and highlights the importance of continuous validation and standardization in gas detection methodologies. Ensuring the accuracy of gas monitoring devices is essential for compliance with safety regulations, improving workplace safety, and minimizing the risks |
|
|
||
|
|
conference
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Proceedings of 25th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2025, Volume 25, Issue 1.1
|
|
|
|
25th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2025, Volume 25, Issue 1.1, 29 June - 6 July, 2025
|
|
|
|
Proceedings Paper
|
|
|
|
STEF92 Technology
|
|
|
|
International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM
|
|
|
|
SWS Scholarly Society; Acad Sci Czech Republ; Latvian Acad Sci; Polish Acad Sci; Russian Acad Sci; Serbian Acad Sci and Arts; Natl Acad Sci Ukraine; Natl Acad Sci Armenia; Sci Council Japan; European Acad Sci, Arts and Letters; Acad Fine Arts Zagreb Croatia; Croatian Acad Sci and Arts; Acad Sci Moldova; Montenegrin Acad Sci and Arts; Georgian Acad Sci; Acad Fine Arts and Design Bratislava; Russian Acad Arts; Turkish Acad Sci.
|
|
|
|
253-260
|
|
|
|
29 June - 6 July, 2025
|
|
|
|
website
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10310
|
|
|
|
gas measurements, monitoring devices, sampling, evaluation, calibration
|
|