文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Pitfalls of accelerating rate calorimeter for reactivity hazard evaluation

作者：Wu, Zhanhua[1];Li, Shuangkui[2];Wang, Jinjun[2];Chen, Youwei[3];Wang, Chengke[3];Shen, Wenyi[4];Sheng, Min[1];Wang, Fangfang[1]

机构：[1]East China Univ Sci & Technol, Shanghai 200237, Peoples R China;[2]Adm Comm Ningdong Energy & Chem Ind Base, Emergency Management Bur, Yinchuan 750411, Ningxia, Peoples R China;[3]Ningbo Customs Technol Ctr, Ningbo 315012, Zhejiang, Peoples R China;[4]Shanghai Municipal Publ Secur Bur, Inst Forens Sci, Shanghai 200083, Peoples R China

年份：2026

卷号：102

外文期刊名：JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES

收录：;EI(收录号：20261420439112);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:001741262600001)】；

基金：This work was supported by Scientific Research Project of the Gen-eral Administration of China Customs (2025HK253) and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Crime Scene Evidence (2024XCWZK04) . We acknowledge facility support from the Reactive Chemical Safety Center at East China University of Science and Technology.

语种：英文

外文关键词：Accelerating rate calorimeter; Reactivity hazard evaluation; Risk assessment; Thermal hazard; Process safety; Experimental pitfalls

摘要：The Accelerating Rate Calorimeter (ARC) was developed by Dow Chemical in 1980 and has since found extensive application in reactivity hazard evaluation and risk assessment. This paper comprehensively summarizes the application of ARC in reactivity hazard evaluation and identifies several common experimental pitfalls during ARC testing. These issues, such as insufficient sample loading size, chemical compatibility between the sample cell and the sample, and loss of low-temperature reaction samples, can be mitigated through careful experimental design. In addition to these issues, the inherent limitations of the ARC instrument itself also affect testing results. These include the limitation of furnace temperature rise rate, heat loss through pressure connection fittings, steam condensation interference in pressure connection tubes, and temperature lag at high temperature rise rates. This study highlights how these experimental and instrumental factors may distort measured onset temperatures, heat release, and pressure data, thereby affecting the reliability of ARC-based thermal hazard assessment. The analysis leads to several key recommendations for ARC testing. A sample loading size of 3 g to 5 g is recommended for a 10 mL sample container. It is crucial to select a sample cell that is compatible with the sample material, use freshly prepared samples, and be aware of potential non-adiabatic conditions when the sample's maximum temperature rise rate exceeds that of the ARC furnace. This paper examines common pitfalls in ARC-based reactivity hazard evaluation, with a focus on the most critical issues in experimental design and instrument limitations that can have significant consequences. It aims to raise awareness among researchers to improve experimental design and data interpretation, providing a framework for enhancing ARC data accuracy and offering practical recommendations to help practitioners avoid misinterpretation and improve hazard assessments.