rdf-syntax-grammar
mods:
  schema location: http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsd
  title info:
    title: Cotton Gin Dust Explosibility Determinations
  name:
    name part: Vanderlick, Francis Jerome
    role:
      role term: creator
    role:
      role term: author.
  name:
    name part: Parnell, Calvin B.
    role:
      role term: thesis advisor.
  name:
    name part: Texas A & M University
    role:
      role term: degree granting institution.
  type of resource: text
  genre: bibliography
  origin info:
    place:
      place term: txu
    date issued: 2015
    issuance: monographic
  language:
    language term: eng
  physical description:
    form: remote
    extent: 1 online resource.
  abstract: Following the recent Imperial sugar dust explosion in 2008, a comprehensive survey of past dust explosions was conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to determine potential explosible dusts. After the survey, OSHA personnel listed dust found in cotton gins, or gin dust, fueled two explosions in the past. OSHA is required by law to regulate facilities handling explosible dusts to provide a safe working environment for employees. The dust handling facilities must test the dust for explosibility based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1226 to ensure proper regulation of facilities. Dusts found in cotton gins were tested to determine if they are explosible. Safety Consulting Engineers Inc. (SCE) personnel tested gin dust in accordance with the ASTM method and reported that gin dust (GD) was an explosible dust. However, personnel from the Center for Agricultural Air Quality Engineering and Science (CAAQES) utilized the CAAQES test method and reported that gin dust was non-explosible. The goal of this research was to analyze the two different test methods and determine if gin dust should be regulated as an explosible dust. It is assumed that either the ASTM or CAAQES test method had incorrectly classified gin dust. The CAAQES test method was analyzed and tests were conducted on multiple dusts to the accuracy of the test procedure. A theoretical analysis of the ASTM test method was conducted to determine potential flaws in the test method. The ASTM test method was found to be flawed. It used pressure as the only criterion for a dust explosion, utilized high energy ignition sources, limited the amount of oxygen, and had no requirement for a dust to have a minimum explosible concentration (MEC) to be classified as explosible. Utilizing high energy ignition source can result in a determination that a dust explosion occurred when the measured reaction was actually due to the ignition source and not a dust explosion. This …
  note: by Francis Vanderlick.
  note: "Major Subject: Biological and Agricultural Engineering"
  note: Includes vita.
  note: Master of Science Texas A & M University 2014 http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152442
  note: Includes bibliographical references.
  note: Text (Thesis)
  subject:
    topic: Major Biological and Agricultural Engineering
  subject:
    topic: Cotton Gin
  subject:
    topic: Gin Dust
  subject:
    topic: Dust Explosion
  subject:
    topic: Deflagration
  identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152442
  record info:
    record content source: TXA
    record creation date: 150129
    record change date: 20151206125601.0
    record identifier: in00003505148
    language of cataloging:
      language term: eng