Chemical Engineering October 2014 - 53

Feature Report
systematic procedure to scale up
experimental results also hinders
chemical reactivity determinations
- the ability to evaluate the hazards
of larger sample sizes is crucial,
since the scale can have a significant
effect on the hazards. Finally,
chemical reactivity assessment can
also be more systematically applied
during the design phase of a
process, especially to determine an
inherently safer design.
Generally, eliminating further
incidents in facilities with reactive
chemical hazards requires industry,
academia and government to work
together to improve communication
and information sharing, and to provide
guidance and quality training.
As explained previously, there is no
system for sharing reactivity data,
which would allow for the development
of more efficient preliminary
screening tests.
There is also no standard procedure
for evaluating chemical reaction
hazards [30], and guidelines
or clear procedures are needed.
The systematic approach shown in
Figure 1 presents a multilevel approach,
but also indicates the importance
of choice of the method
depending on what needs to be
predicted: dominant pathways or
accurate thermodynamics. A 2006
study surveyed the chemical engineering
departments of various
U.S. universities - only 11.2% of
responders had a compulsory core
course in process safety offered to
undergraduates [31]. Since then,
the Engineering Accreditation
Commission of the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET; Baltimore, Md.; www.
abet.org) has stated that " curriculum
must include the engineering
application of the basic sciences to
the design, analysis and control of
chemical, physical and/or biological
processes, including the hazards associated
with these processes. " [32]
ABET's declaration is a major step
toward a more systematic education
in process safety, and will certainly
result in a more comprehensive understanding
of reactive chemicals
in the CPI.
■
Edited by Mary Page Bailey
References
1. Kohlbrand, H.T., The Relationship Between
Theory and Testing in the Evaluation of Reactive
Chemical Hazards, Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Prevention of
Major Chemical Accidents, 1987.
2. U.S. Chemicals Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board, Improving Reactive Hazard
Management, Report No. 2001-01-H, Oct.
2002.
3. Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement
durable et de l'Energie,, French ARIA Data
Bank, www.barpi.aria.preprod.addonline.biz.
4. United Nations, Globally Harmonized System
of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
(GHS), Fifth Revised Edition. New York
and Geneva, 2013.
5. Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines
for Safe Storage and Handling of Reactive
Materials, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, 1995.
6. Cheremisinoff, N.P., " Practical Guide to Industrial
Safety: Methods for Process Safety
Professionals, " Taylor & Francis, 2000.
7. Wang, Q., and others, Molecular Simulation
Studies on Chemical Reactivity of Methylcyclopentadiene.
Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol. 165, Issues 1-3, pp. 141-147, 2009.
8. Csicsery, S.M., Methylcyclopentadiene Isomers,
The Journal of Organic Chemistry, Vol.
25, Issue 4: pp. 518-521, 1960.
9. Judge, J.M. (1972). Organic Peroxides, Vol. 2,
Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer
Letters, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 230-231, 1972.
10. OSHA, Flammable Liquids. 29 CFR
1910.106., 2012.
11. Jackson, H.L., and others, Control of Peroxidizable
Compounds, Journal of Chemical
Education, Vol. 47, Issue 3, A175, 1970.
12. Aldeeb, A.A., Rogers, W.J. and Mannan, M.S.,
Evaluation of Styrene-acrylonitrile Copolymerization
Thermal Stability and Runaway
Behavior, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol. 104, Issues 1-3, pp. 269-282, 2003.
13. Carson, P.A., " Hazardous Chemicals Handbook, "
Elsevier Science, March 2002.
14. Aldeeb, A.A., Systematic Approach for Chemical
Reactivity Evaluation, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Texas A&M University, College Station,
Tex., 2003.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Identifying Chemical Reactivity Hazards:
Preliminary Screening Method, EPA 550-F04-004,
May 2004.
16. Mannan, M.S., " Lees' Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, " Chapter 33, Reactive
Chemicals, (Fourth Edition), ButterworthHeinemann:
Oxford, August 2012.
17. Gorman, D., and others, Enhanced NOAA
Chemical Reactivity Worksheet for Determining
Chemical Compatibility, Process
Safety Progress, Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 4-18,
2012.
18. Fauske, H.K., The Reactive System Screening
Tool (RSST): An Easy, Inexpensive Approach
to the DIERS Procedure, Process
Safety Progress, Vol. 17, Issue 3, pp. 190-195,
1998.
19. Adamopoulou, T., and others, Thermal Decomposition
of Hydroxylamine: Isoperibolic
Calorimetric Measurements at Different
Conditions, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
pp. 254-255, 382-389, 2013.
20. Keller, A., and others, Estimation of the Time
to Maximum Rate Using Dynamic DSC Experiments,
Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 31-41,
1997.
21. Wei, C., others, Thermal Runaway Reaction
Hazards and Mechanisms of Hydroxylamine
with Acid/Base Contaminants, Thermochimica
Acta, Vol. 421(1-2), pp. 1-9.
Circle 10 on p. 72 or go to adlinks.che.com/50981-10
ChemiCal engineering www.Chemengonline.Com oCtober 2014 51
http://www.barpi.aria.preprod.addonline.biz http://www.abet.org http://adlinks.che.com/50981-10 http://www.Chemengonline.Com
Chemical Engineering October 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Chemical Engineering October 2014
