Next Article in Journal
Response Characteristics of Soil Water in Vegetated Slopes to Spring Rainfall Under Different Covers
Next Article in Special Issue
Activated Carbon from Selected Wood-Based Waste Materials
Previous Article in Journal
Development of an Environmentally Friendly Steel Structural Framework: Evaluation of Bending Stiffness and Yield Bending Moment of Cross-Laminated Timber Slab–H-Shaped Steel Composite Beams for Component Reuse
Previous Article in Special Issue
Indium Phosphide Semiconductor Technology for Next-Generation Communication Systems: Sustainability and Material Considerations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/su17052075
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of the Type of Energetic Material on the Fume Emission in Open-Pit Mining

by
Andrzej Biessikirski
1,*,
Michał Dworzak
1,
Mateusz Pytlik
2 and
Sonia Nachlik
2
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Resource Management, AGH University of Krakow, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
2
Conformity Assessment Body, Central Mining Institute-National Research Institute, 1 Gwarków Square, 40-166 Katowice, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 2075; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052075
Submission received: 5 February 2025 / Revised: 19 February 2025 / Accepted: 26 February 2025 / Published: 27 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Materials and Technologies for Environmental Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines the fume emissions from various energetic materials utilized in open-pit mining, emphasizing the influence of chemical composition on their environmental impact. The analysis of fume emissions based on data from an open-pit mine reveals that the annual consumption of approximately 89.7 tons of ANFO, 121.4 tons of emulsion, or 137.8 tons of dynamite can result in total COx and NOx emissions ranging between 16,432.88 and 21,834.07 m3. The use of TNT boosters in ANFO and emulsion energetic material further amplified emissions; however, substituting TNT with dynamite for priming achieved a notable reduction in overall fumes by approximately 9–9.5%, depending on the energetic material used. The scale effect of energetic material mass highlighted the importance of optimized formulations for large-scale blasting. A three-year predictive model indicated fluctuations in energetic material demand, with reductions anticipated as deposits deplete. The result of this study offers pathways for reducing emissions and process optimization, particularly in large-scale mining operations, where the blasting technique is the major extraction method.

1. Introduction

The application of energetic materials in the mining sector represents the most time-efficient and cost-effective method for extracting hard rock. Despite its advantages, the underlying mechanisms of explosive-induced rock fragmentation are associated with a range of adverse impacts. The interplay of shock waves and the rapid expansion of large volumes of detonation gasses effectively fractures the rock [1]. Yet, this process significantly contributes to environmental disturbances in the vicinity and impacts the natural ecosystem [2,3,4].
A characteristic feature of energetic materials that are applied in the mining industry is the generation of substantial quantities of gaseous byproducts during detonation, predominantly carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The specific chemical composition of each explosive type results in varying emissions of these gasses [5,6]. These byproducts pose risks to worker health due to their toxicity [7,8,9] and are recognized as environmental pollutants [10,11,12,13]. The risks to workers’ health are particularly pronounced in underground blasting operations, where blast fumes infiltrate the ventilation systems [14,15,16], and in deep open-pit mines, where the natural dispersal of these fumes may be hindered [17]. Blasting emissions are regarded as air pollutants in both surface and underground mining, with the environmental impact being more significant in surface operations due to the large-scale detonation of energetic materials in single events, releasing concentrated gaseous byproducts directly into the atmosphere.
The most commonly employed energetic materials in modern mining are ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO), emulsion, and dynamite [18,19,20]. The choice of energetic material for surface mining is generally informed by factors such as detonation velocity, thermal energy, density, impedance, and brisance [21,22]; the mechanical and geological properties of the rock (e.g., Protodyakonov coefficient, tensile strength, density, impedance, and fracture patterns) [23,24,25]; parameters dependent on both the rock mass and explosives (e.g., powder factor) [26]; mining conditions (e.g., water table depth, drilling configurations, and desired fragmentation) [27]; and economic considerations [28]. However, the production of gaseous detonation byproducts is seldom factored into the selection process. Furthermore, existing regulatory standards impose limits on permissible gas emissions (fumes) exclusively for underground mining [29]. Consequently, fumes from blasting in open-pit mines are often overlooked, limiting the environmental sustainability of such operations.
Research into blasting emissions in open-pit mining is relatively sparse, likely due to the lower direct exposure of workers to these fumes. Existing studies predominantly focus on dust generation, dispersion, and mitigation [30,31,32,33]. Nonetheless, investigations into the emissions of carbon and nitrogen oxides from blasting operations have yielded insights into their measurement and reduction. For example, Oluwoye et al. [12] quantified nitrogen oxide emissions from ammonium nitrate (V) (AN) based explosives. Zvyagintseva et al. [34] explored the formation of dust and gaseous pollutants, including carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, during blasting in the Mikhailovsky GOK pit. Hosseini and Pourmirzaee employed integrated Monte Carlo simulations and artificial neural networks to predict dust dispersion during bench blasting [30]. McCray [35] utilized small unmanned aerial systems to measure nitrogen oxide emissions in large-scale blasting events, while Bui et al. [36] investigated the potential of unmanned aerial vehicles for topographic mapping and air quality monitoring, including CO and NOx levels, in quarry environments.
Technological innovations for monitoring and mitigating gaseous emissions have also been explored. Dinchev and Gorbounov [37] proposed the deployment of microelectromechanical sensors to detect carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in open-pit atmospheres. Abdollahisharif et al. [10] advocated for a biocompatible blasting approach incorporating calcium hydroxide to mitigate NOx and CO emissions. Similarly, Tverda et al. [38] evaluated borehole stemming using zeolite-based sorption technologies for gas neutralization and dust suppression. Additional studies, such as those by Yi et al. [39] and Solixov et al. [40], examined innovative approaches to reduce toxic gas emissions during ANFO-based blasting. Konorev and Nesterenko [41] discussed atmospheric normalization strategies in open-pit mines, emphasizing the removal of toxic gasses generated by blasting. Moreover, Biessikirski et al. [29] investigated the composition and toxicity of blasting fumes, assessing their implications for industrial mining applications [42].
This study aims to assess the emissions of carbon and nitrogen oxides from typical explosives employed in open-pit mining, with a focus on the influence of chemical composition on atmospheric pollution. The analysis is conducted using a gypsum mine case study, comparing the environmental impact of various energetic materials under identical mining conditions to propose strategies for reducing the release of toxic oxides. This approach holds significant importance when considering the total annual mass of energetic materials undergoing decomposition and possible fume emission from their detonation. According to the most recent data, in 2022, approximately 23.61 million tons of energetic materials were utilized in Polish open-pit mining. This total included 9.24 million tons of ANFO, 14.17 million tons of emulsion explosives, and 0.13 million tons of dynamite as a possible source of fumes [43]. By identifying the significant influence of chemical composition and the priming method, the study offers pathways for reducing emissions as well as highlights the importance of optimized formulations and operational strategies, particularly in large-scale blasting operations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Test Stand

Fume analyses were conducted using data collected from a gypsum open-pit mine located in southern Poland. Deposit extraction is carried out through a combination of mechanical methods and blasting techniques, with blasting serving as the primary method. The blasting operations involve long boreholes with a length of 9 m. Each borehole is charged with an undivided load of ANFO, with a blasting series comprising 11 boreholes. Each ANFO charge is initiated using an electronic detonator and a 0.5 kg TNT booster. The blasting pattern parameters, outlined in Table 1, were provided by mine authorities and reflect the actual parameters utilized during on-site operations.

2.2. Materials

Three different types of energetic material (ANFO, dynamite, and emulsion explosive), which can be applied in open-pit mining, were evaluated.
ANFO was prepared by blending ammonium nitrate (V) with fuel oil in the weight ratio of 94.0:6.0 (% wt.). The material was obtained from the Universal Mixing System (UMS). The material density was approximately 0.82 kg⋅dm−3.
Emulsion explosives were obtained by blending of aqua solution of ammonium nitrate (V) with the fuel oil and emulsifiers. The resulting matrix was further physically sensitized by the application of glass microballoons. The explosive density was ca. approximately 1.25 kg⋅dm−3.
Dynamite is a high-energy material composed primarily of nitroglycerin, and nitroglycol combined with stabilizing agent. The density of the energetic material sample was 1.5 kg⋅dm−3.

2.3. Methods

The emissions of fumes (COx and NOx) were quantified in accordance with the guidelines specified in the standard [44]. For each experiment, 500 g samples were utilized. ANFO and emulsion samples were tested in their bulk forms. The energetic material was placed within a glass tube with a diameter of 46 mm, which was subsequently positioned inside a mortar located within the blasting chamber. For dynamite samples, the coating material was removed prior to the measurements. Following the removal of the sheath material, the explosive charge was directly placed into the ballistic mortar.
All materials were initiated using a consistent priming system, comprising 14 g of RDX (Royal Detonation Explosives) and an electric instantaneous detonator. Upon detonation, the resultant combustion gasses were homogenized for a duration of 3 min.
The additional tests were made for the 500 g TNT booster. The booster was initiated by an electric instantaneous detonator.
Subsequently, gas samples were collected through a ventilation system over a 20 min period. The concentrations of COx and NOx were determined using infrared spectroscopy (MIR 25e, ENVEA, Paris, France) and chemiluminescence analysis (TOPAZE 32M, ENVEA, Paris, France), respectively. Emission data were normalized and reported per kilogram of explosive utilized. Fumes results obtained from blasting tests are presented in Table 2.
The predictive model for emission evaluation was developed using the FBProphet algorithm, implemented through the FBProphet module in Python 3. This algorithm employs an additive regression framework incorporating piecewise linear or logistic growth trends. It is designed to model time-series data by decomposing it into trend, seasonality, and noise components, with Bayesian inference applied to parameter estimation. The underlying decomposable time-series model is based on the methodology described by Harvey and Peters [45].
The trend component was modeled using a piecewise linear regression technique, where the growth function captures the overarching data trend. By default, the algorithm utilizes a linear growth model. A detailed description of the algorithm and its methodology is provided in reference [42].

3. Results and Discussion

Table 2 provides a comparative analysis of the fume emissions associated with various types of energetic materials. Emulsion energetic materials demonstrated the lowest emissions of CO2 and CO, approximately 114.8 and 4.1 dm3·kg−1, respectively, when compared to other tested materials. Correspondingly, the total COx emissions were the lowest, accompanied by NOx emissions of approximately 0.55 dm3·kg−1. In contrast, research dynamite and ANFO exhibited significantly higher total COx emissions, measuring 157.0 dm3·kg−1 and 160.9 dm3·kg−1, respectively. Their NOx emissions were also elevated, with dynamite emitting approximately 1.39 dm3·kg−1, and ANFO producing 13.1 dm3·kg−1. The observed discrepancies in fume emissions, among the energetic materials, are primarily attributed to variations in their chemical compositions. While energetic materials are typically designed to achieve a zero oxygen balance, aimed at optimizing energy output and minimizing fumes, the specific chemical constituents and their proportions significantly influence the resultant fumes volume. ANFO is conventionally formulated by blending AN with FO in a ratio of 94:6 (wt.). This composition, characterized by a high AN content compared to other tested types of energetic materials, leads to the highest NOx emissions (approximately 13.1 dm3·kg−1). Elevated CO levels (16.4 dm3·kg−1) may arise from oxygen deficiency or inadequate homogenization during the blending process. On the other hand, emulsions are typically formulated by blending AN, FO, water, and an emulsifier in a ratio of 78.5:4.8:15.0:1.7 (wt.%). These materials exhibit the lowest CO and CO2 emissions due to the optimized composition and efficient decomposition mechanisms, as governed by decomposition rules such as Springall Roberts or Kistiakowski-Wilson [46]. Dynamite is a complex blend of AN, nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, nitroglycol, fuels, and modifiers in proportions such as 71.29:0.7:13.2:8.8:7.0:0.01 (wt.%). Its CO2 emissions (151.3 dm3·kg−1) are attributed to the high carbon content from its components. From all tested samples, TNT is characterized by the highest COx emissions (approximately 931.1 dm3·kg−1), primarily as CO2 and CO, due to its oxygen-deficient composition and a negative oxygen balance (approximately −74.0%). This factor can have a significant impact on the total fume emission, either from one blasting series or from all blasted series in one year.
Given the total ANFO mass (89,711.54 kg) and the densities of individual materials 0.82 kg·dm−3 for ANFO, 1.50 kg·dm−3 for dynamite, and 1.11 kg·dm−3 for emulsions the total mass of each explosive type was calculated, as presented in Table 3. Emulsion density was set up at 40 min of gasification at 20 °C, which is in line with Kramarczyk et al. findings [47].
The fume emissions presented in Table 4 and Figure 1 were assessed under two scenarios. The first scenario reflects actual conditions, involving the blasting of 2059 boreholes with approximately 89.71 tons of ANFO over the course of one year. The second scenario is based on the calculated equivalent mass of energetic materials (emulsion and dynamite) to ANFO, as detailed in Table 3.
For ANFO and emulsion, the volume of fumes emitted includes contributions from the primary charge (2059 kg of TNT). In contrast, for blasting operations using dynamite, initiation is conducted exclusively with a detonator. Consequently, no additional initiation charge is employed. As a result, the fume volumes emitted from dynamite decomposition, as provided in Table 4, are calculated solely based on the mass of dynamite used.
Table 4 and Figure 1 and Figure 2 demonstrate the scale effect of the energetic material mass on overall fume emissions from the blasting process in an open-pit mine. The results indicate that the lowest emissions of COx (16,356.21 m3) and NOx (76.67 m3), totaling approximately 16,432.88 m3, were achieved using emulsion-type energetic materials. In contrast, the highest emissions of COx and NOx were observed for dynamite, with a total of approximately 21,834.07 m3. Notably, this dynamite emission level was calculated, without the additional use of a TNT booster. Blasting operations using ANFO resulted in an intermediate level of emissions, totaling approximately 17,536.83 m3, comprising 14,856.77 m3 tons of CO2, 1494.95 m3 of CO, and 1185.10 m3 of NOx These results confirm the influence of the chemical composition of energetic materials and scale effect on fume emissions.
Furthermore, Table 2 highlights that the use of a 1 kg TNT booster per borehole contributes 1893.46 m3 of CO2, 23.68 m3 of CO, and 9.88 m3 of NOx. This contribution represents 14.6% and 13.6% of the total CO2 emissions, 1.6% and 4.8% of CO emissions, and 0.8% and 14.8% of NOx emissions for ANFO and emulsion, respectively.
A shift in priming from TNT to dynamite, which is occasionally implemented at blast sites, would reduce fume emissions. In the evaluated case study, the use of 1 kg of dynamite per borehole would generate 311.53 m3 of CO2, 11.74 m3 of CO, and 2.86 m3 of NOx (Table 2). This represents reductions of approximately 6-fold for CO2, 2-fold for CO, and 3.5-fold for NOx compared to emissions from the equivalent mass of TNT. In open-pit mining operations, where tens to hundreds of thousands of primers are utilized, a change in priming materials has the potential to significantly reduce overall fume emissions.
Based on the 5 years of blasting data (Table 5), the 3-year prediction model of the energetic material consumption and fumes, presented in Figure 3 and Table A1 (Appendix A), was established by the Prophet algorithm.
Based on the input data presented in Table 5, a three-year prediction model for energetic material consumption was developed, as shown in Figure 3. The analysis indicates that the annual consumption of ANFO fluctuates between approximately 77 and 120 tons. Over time, the prediction uncertainty increases, which can be attributed to the limited dataset obtained from the case study of the open-pit mine.
As discussed in Section 2.1, both mechanical excavation and blasting operations are employed in the studied open-pit mine. The consumption of energetic materials is heavily influenced by blasting restriction zones, particularly due to the proximity of housing structures, as well as by the overall area of the open-pit mine. Over time, the demand for energetic materials is expected to decrease as the availability of the deposit for excavation diminishes. However, potential factors such as the opening of new excavation levels or the acquisition of additional land may alter the demand for blasting operations and associated energetic materials.
Similar trends were observed for emulsion-energetic materials and dynamite, as their equivalent masses were calculated relative to ANFO, as shown in Table 5. The predicted demand ranges for these materials were approximately 97–126 tons for emulsion and 107–126 tons for dynamite per year. For TNT boosters, the predicted demand was estimated to range between 1.6 and 2.6 tons per year.
Using the annual consumption data for each energetic material, presented in Figure 3 and Table A1 in Appendix A, the corresponding total and individual fume emissions (respectively Figure 4 and Figure 5) were calculated and are summarized in Table A2.
The overall predicted fume emissions, depending on the type of energetic material used, were estimated to range between approximately 16,000 and 28,000 m3. This value may increase if the frequency of blasting operations rises. As previously demonstrated, a potential reduction in fume emissions of approximately 9.13% for ANFO and 9.74% for emulsion can be achieved by altering the priming energetic material. This represents a notable reduction when considering annual emissions.
A transition to mechanical excavation as an alternative to blasting operations is not recommended. As demonstrated by Biessikirski et al., mechanical excavation is both less efficient and more energy-intensive compared to blasting methods. Additionally, comparable ore extraction using mechanical excavation generates over six times the fume emissions of blasting operations [42]. A detailed breakdown of fume emissions from possible annual consumption of energetic material decomposition is provided in Figure 5.
The detailed distribution of fume emissions, as presented in Figure 5 and Table A2 in Appendix A, indicates that, particularly when considering the scale effect, emulsion bulk energetic materials emerge as the most suitable and environmentally friendly option. As previously noted, the composition of fume emissions is directly influenced by the chemical composition of the energetic material. Although emulsion energetic materials can produce slightly higher carbon dioxide emissions (averaging approximately 784 tons, as shown in Table A2 in Appendix A), the emissions of other fumes, specifically CO and NOx, are significantly lower compared to ANFO. Moreover, Kramarczyk et al. demonstrated that an extended gasification period for emulsion energetic materials can effectively reduce their density, thereby decreasing material consumption and subsequently lowering fume emissions [47]. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that, for both ANFO and emulsion materials, additional reductions in CO2 emissions can be achieved by altering the type of primer used. For dynamites, the impact of coating on fume composition must also be considered. It is generally estimated that approximately 1–2% of the oxygen is allocated to the combustion of the coating material. Consequently, coated dynamite is likely to generate higher COx emissions than standard calculations suggest.
Based on the results illustrated in Figure 5, it can be concluded that, unless economic factors (production cost of energetic material) or geological conditions (mechanical strength of the deposit, presence of cracks and fractures, presence of water in boreholes) necessitate otherwise, emulsion bulk explosives should be prioritized as the primary energetic material due to their favorable emission profile.

4. Conclusions

The analysis of fume emissions from various energetic materials used in open-pit mining operations demonstrates that the chemical composition and formulation of these materials significantly influence their environmental impact. Among the evaluated materials, emulsion bulk explosives emerged as the most environmentally favorable option, producing the lowest emissions of CO and NOx, despite slightly elevated CO2 emissions compared to ANFO.
ANFO exhibited the highest NOx emissions due to its high ammonium nitrate (V) content, while dynamite showed elevated COx emissions attributed to its complex composition, including nitroglycerin and nitroglycol. TNT boosters further contributed to the emissions of CO2, CO, and NOx, but substituting TNT with dynamite for priming significantly reduced these emissions, as demonstrated in the case study. The change in priming high-energy material from TNT to dynamite can reduce the overall fume emission by approximately 9–9.5% depending on the high-energy material in the borehole. Future research concerning the impact of primer on fumes should be made towards the characterization of the chemical decomposition pathways of primer materials during detonation, with an emphasis on the effect of the chemical composition of primers based on traditional and new more environmentally friendly compositions, including the occupational and hazard safety, which concern the aspect of the main charge detonation reliability for both cap sensitive and insensitive energetic materials.
The scale effect of the energetic material mass on fume emissions highlights the importance of selecting materials with optimized compositions for large-scale blasting operations. The three-year prediction model indicated fluctuations in the demand for energetic materials, with reductions expected as the availability of deposits diminishes. However, additional factors, such as the expansion of mining operations, could influence this trend.
Taking into account environmental impact, emulsion bulk energetic materials are recommended as the primary energetic material for open-pit mining operations due to their superior environmental performance and reduced fume emissions (lowest fume emission of approximately 16,432.88 m3 obtained from decomposition of 121.4 tons of energetic material). Furthermore, altering the type of primer used in conjunction with emulsion explosives can further minimize emissions, making them a sustainable choice for blasting operations.
Transitioning from blasting to mechanical excavation is not advisable, as it would result in significantly higher fume emissions and reduced efficiency.
The adoption of emulsion bulk explosives, coupled with a careful selection of primers, represents a strategic approach to minimizing the environmental impact of blasting operations in open-pit mining while maintaining operational efficiency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization. A.B.; methodology. A.B. and M.P.; software. A.B. and M.P.; validation. M.D. and S.N.; formal analysis. A.B., M.D., M.P. and S.N.; investigation. A.B., M.D., M.P. and S.N.; data curation. M.D. and M.P.; writing—original draft preparation. A.B., M.D., M.P. and S.N.; writing—review and editing. A.B., M.D., M.P. and S.N.; visualization. M.D.; supervision. A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors wish to thank the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Resource Management at the AGH University of Krakow for the financial support of research no. 16.16.100.215.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Input and predicted annual energetic material consumption in tones.
Table A1. Input and predicted annual energetic material consumption in tones.
Energetic Material TypeAnnual Consumption in Given Period, TonesPredicted Consumption in Given Period, Tones
12345678
ANFO137.25140.9589.7196.12106.75120.1677.3385.15
Emulsion185.79190.80121.44130.11144.5015897.12112.38
Dynamite210.89216.58137.85147.69164.03177.32107.41126.79
TNT3.1503.2352.0592.2062.4502.6511.6061.893
Table A2. Predicted annual COx and NOx emissions in m3.
Table A2. Predicted annual COx and NOx emissions in m3.
Energetic Material TypeFirst YearSecond YearTHIRD Year
CO2CONOxCO2CONOxCO2CONOx
ANFO19,800.982001.1111586.820812,651.062745.092489.90114,044.983137.2632856.268
Emulsion20,576.26678.286599.624812,626.251875.071530.29414,642.032201.5611802.612
Dynamite26,828.521010.724246.474816,251.13612.237149.299919,183.33722.703176.2381

References

  1. Xu, P.; Yang, R.; Zuo, J.; Ding, C.; Chen, C.; Guo, Y.; Fang, S.; Zhang, Y. Research progress of the fundamental theory and technology of rock blasting. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 2022, 29, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Das, B. Blasting Impact on Environment and their Control Measure Techniques in Open Cast Mining. J. Ecol. Nat. Resour. 2022, 6, 000286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mikic, M.; Rajković, R.; Jovanovic, M.; Maksimovic, M. The impact of blasting on the environment in the open pit mining. Min. Metall. Eng. Bor 2017, 3–4, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hidayat, S. Environmental impacts of open pit mining blasting: Particular discussions on some specific issues. J. Min. Environ. Technol. 2021, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zawadzka-Małota, I. Testing of mining explosives with regard to the content of carbon oxides and nitrogen oxides in their detonation products. J. Sustain. Min. 2015, 14, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Suceska, M.; Stimac Tumara, B.; Skrlec, V.; Stankovic, S. Prediction of concentration of toxic gases produced by detonation of commercial explosives by thermochemical equilibrium calculations. Def. Technol. 2022, 18, 2181–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bakke, B.; Ulvestad, B.; Stewart, P.; Lund, M.B.; Eduard, W. Effects of blasting fumes on exposure and short-term lung function changes in tunnel construction workers. Scand J. Work Environ. Health 2001, 27, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ali, F.; Himanshu, V.K.; Kumar, A.; Vishwakarma, A.K.; Sahu, S.K.; Bohra, P.D.; Mishra, A.K. Investigation and mapping of toxic fumes produced by detonation of ANFO explosives in underground space. Propellants Explos. Pyrotech. 2024, 49, e202400002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Katsabanis, P.D.; Taylor, K. Toxicity of blasting fumes as a function of time after blasting. In Book Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 1st ed.; Singh, P.K., Sinha, A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abdollahisharif, J.; Bakhtavar, E.; Nourizadeh, H. Green biocompatible approach to reduce the toxic gases and dust caused by the blasting in surface mining. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abdollahisharif, J.; Bakhtavar, E.; Nourizadeh, H. Monitoring and assessment of pollutants resulting from bench-blasting operations. J. Min. Environ. 2016, 7, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oluwoye, I.; Dlugogorski, B.Z.; Gore, J.; Oskierski, H.; Altarawneh, M. Atmospheric emission of NOx from mining explosives: A critical review. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 167, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Prabandani, D.; Herlyana, A.; Pramayu, A.P. The major impact of coal mining service activities to GHG emissions: Case study at PT Bukit Makmur Mandiri Utama (BUMA) jobsite Binsua and Lati. E3S Web Conf. 2024, 485, 06007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Torno, S.; Toraño, J. On the prediction of toxic fumes from underground blasting operations and dilution ventilation. Conventional and numerical models. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 96, 103194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adhikari, A.; Sridharan, S.J.; Tukkaraja, P.; Sasmito, A.; Vytla, S. The Effect of Trapped Fumes on Clearance Time in Underground Development Blasting. Min. Metall. Explor. 2022, 39, 1811–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, J.; Zhang, T.; Li, C. Migration time prediction and assessment of toxic fumes under forced ventilation in underground mines. Undergr. Space 2024, 18, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ding, C.; Nie, B.; Sun, D. Influence of airflow velocity on exhaust time of blasting fume in deep open-pit mines. Min. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 49, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Batko, P. Technika strzelnicza w gospodarce—Wybrane problemy. Górnictwo Geoinżynieria 2004, 28, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  19. Krzelowski, J.; Szulik, A. Stosowanie materiałów wybuchowych w zakładach górniczych. Górnictwo Geoinżynieria 2004, 28, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cotrin-Teatino, M.A.; Marquina-Araujo, J.J.; Mamani-Quispe, J.N.; Gonzalez-Vasquez, J.A.; Arango-Retamozo, S.M.; Noriega-Vidal, E.M.; Donaires-Flores, T.; Quispe-Tello, R.L. Machine Learning Techniques for Predicting the Quantity of ANFO Used in Blasting a Bench in an Open Pit Mine. Math. Model. Eng. Probl. 2024, 11, 2625–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ishchenko, K.; Us, S.; Ishchenko, O.; Koba, D. New methodical approaches to justify selection explosive for destruction of solid rocks. Essays Min. Sci. Pract. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 109, 00032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jha, A.K. Impedance Matching Algorithm for Selection of Suitable Explosives for Any Rock Mass—A Case Study. J. Geol. Resour. Eng. 2020, 8, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Adebayo, B.; Bolarinwa, H.T. Determination of Suitable Explosives for Dolomitic Marble and Granodiorite Using Blastability Characteristics. Asp. Min. Miner. Sci. 2023, 11, 1209–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Petrovic, N.; Toth, I.; Stranjik, A. Determination rock parameters for effective blasting using GSI. In Proceedings of the 42nd International October Conference on Mining and Metallurgy, Bor, Serbia, 5–8 October 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xiao, S.; Li, K.; Ding, X.; Liu, T. Rock Mass Blastability Classification Using Fuzzy Pattern Recognition and the Combination Weight Method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 1, 724619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fredj, M.; Hafsaoui, A.; Talhi, K.; Menacer, K. Study of the Powder Factor in Surface Bench Blasting. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 2015, 15, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rout, M.; Parida, C.K. Optimization of Blasting Parameters in Opencast Mines. Bachelor Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, India, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tosun, A.; Konak, G. Determination of specific charge minimizing total unit cost of open pit quarry blasting operations. Arab. J. Geosci. 2014, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Biessikirski, A.; Dworzak, M.; Twardosz, M. Composition of Fumes and Its Influence on the General Toxicity and Applicability of Mining Explosives. Mining 2023, 3, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hosseini, S.; Pourmirzaee, R. Green policy for managing blasting induced dust dispersion in open-pit mines using probability-based deep learning algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 240, 122469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Normatova, M.; Pardayeva, S. Reducing dust pollution in the production of mass explosions in quarries. In IV International Conference on Geotechnology, Mining and Rational Use of Natural Resources (GEOTECH-2024). E3S Web Conf. 2024, 525, 01003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nguyen, L.Q.; Bui, L.K.; Cao, C.X.; Bui, X.-N.; Nguyen, H.; Nguyen, V.-D.; Lee, C.W.; Bui, D.T. Chapter 2—Application of artificial neural networks and UAV-based air quality monitoring sensors for simulating dust emission in quarries. In Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Mining and Geotechnical Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sahu, R.; Panda, P.S. Ambient Air Quality Assessment in Opencast Metal Mines. Bachelor Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, India, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zvyagintseva, A.V.; Sazonova, S.A.; Kulneva, V.V. Analysis of sources of dust and poisonal gases in the atmosphere formed as a result of explosions at quarries of the mining and integrated works. IOP Conf. Ser.Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 962, 042045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McCray, R.B. Utilization of a Small Unmanned Aircraft System for Direct Sampling for Nitrogen Oxides Produced by Full-Scale Surface Mine Blasting. Master’s Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bui, X.N.; Lee, C.; Nguyen, Q.L.; Adeel, A.; Cao, X.C.; Nguien, V.N.; Le, V.C.; Nguyen, H.; Le, Q.T.; Duong, T.H.; et al. Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for 3D topographic Mapping and Monitoring the Air Quality of Open-pit Mines. Inżynieria Miner.-J. Pol. Miner. Eng. Soc. 2019, 2, 222–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dinchev, Z.; Gorbounov, Y. Usage of microelectromechanical sensors for the monitoring of critical parameters in the atmosphere of an open pit. Annu. Univ. Min. Geol. St. Ivan Rilski 2022, 65, 114–118. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tverda, O.; Kofanova, O.; Kofanov, O.; Tkachuk, K.; Polukarov, O.; Pobigaylo, V. Gas-neutralizing and dust-supressing stemming of borehole charges for increasing the environmental safety of explosion. Lativan J. Phys. Tech. Sci. 2021, 58, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yi, H.; Zhang, X.; Yang, H.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhan, S. Controlling toxic and harmful gas in blasting with an inhibitor. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0291731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Solixov, J.X.; Barotov, V.N.; Ravshanov, Z.Y.; Ergasheva, Z.A. Theoretical approaches to addressing the primary causes of harmful and excessive gas emissions during explosion processes, as well as strategies for mitigating these emissions. Web Sci. Sch. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2025, 3, 94–99. [Google Scholar]
  41. Konorev, M.M.; Nesterenko, G.F. Present-day and promising ventilation and dust-and-gas suppression systems at open pit mines. Mine Aerogasdynamics 2012, 48, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Biessikirski, A.; Bodziony, P.; Dworzak, M. Energy Consumption and Fume Analysis: A Comparative Analysis of the Blasting Technique and Mechanical Excavation in a Polish Gypsum Open-Pit Mine. Energies 2024, 17, 5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rawicki, Z.; Maj, A. Bezpieczeństwo robót strzałowych w aspekcie niebezpiecznych zdarzeń zaistniałych w zakłądach górniczych w latach 2020–2022. In Proceedings of the Bezpieczeństwo Robót Strzałowych, Ustroń, Poland, 4–6 October 2022. (in press). [Google Scholar]
  44. EN 13631-16:2004; Explosives for Civil Uses. High Explosives. Part 16: Detection and Measurement of Toxic Gases. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
  45. Harvey, A.C.; Peters, S. Estimation procedures for structural time series models. J. Forecast 1990, 9, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Akhavan, J. The Chemistry of Explosives; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kramarczyk, B.; Suda, K.; Kowalik, P.; Swiatek, K.; Jaszcz, K.; Jarosz, T. Emulsion Explosives: A Tutorial Review and Highlight of Recent Progress. Materials 2022, 15, 4952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02075 g001
Figure 1. Total COx in tones emitted from 1-year blasting works in open-pit dependent on the type of explosives.
Figure 1. Total COx in tones emitted from 1-year blasting works in open-pit dependent on the type of explosives.
Sustainability 17 02075 g001
Sustainability 17 02075 g002
Figure 2. Total NOx in tones emitted from 1-year blasting works in open-pit dependent on the type of explosives.
Figure 2. Total NOx in tones emitted from 1-year blasting works in open-pit dependent on the type of explosives.
Sustainability 17 02075 g002
Sustainability 17 02075 g003
Figure 3. Three-year prediction model of the ANFO energy consumption.
Figure 3. Three-year prediction model of the ANFO energy consumption.
Sustainability 17 02075 g003
Sustainability 17 02075 g004
Figure 4. Predicted overall COx and NOx emission from each energetic material.
Figure 4. Predicted overall COx and NOx emission from each energetic material.
Sustainability 17 02075 g004
Sustainability 17 02075 g005
Figure 5. Three-year prediction model of fumes emitted from various types of energetic material.
Figure 5. Three-year prediction model of fumes emitted from various types of energetic material.
Sustainability 17 02075 g005
Table 1. Blasting pattern.
Table 1. Blasting pattern.
Name of ParameterValue
Bench height, m8.0
Borehole diameter, mm95.0
Length of the borehole with subdrill, m9.0
Stemming length, m1.5
Burden, m3.5
Spacing, m3.8
Number of boreholes in series11
Number of rows1
Table 2. Average fume volume formed during decomposition reaction.
Table 2. Average fume volume formed during decomposition reaction.
Type of ExplosivesFumes Volume, dm3⋅kg−1
CO2CONOx
ANFO144.516.413.1
Emulsion114.84.10.55
Dynamite151.35.71.39
TNT919.611.54.8
Table 3. One year of consummation of energetic material.
Table 3. One year of consummation of energetic material.
Type of Energetic MaterialDensity, kg⋅dm−3Total Mass, Tones
ANFO0.8289.71
Emulsion1.11121.44
Dynamite1.50137.85
Table 4. One-year total fume emission from various types of energetic material.
Table 4. One-year total fume emission from various types of energetic material.
Type of ExplosivesFumes Volume, m3Sum of COx and NOx.
CO2CONOxm3
ANFO14,856.771494.951185.1017,536.83
Emulsion15,834.63521.5876.6716,432.88
Dynamite20,856.71785.75191.6121,834.07
Table 5. Annual consumption of various types of energetic material.
Table 5. Annual consumption of various types of energetic material.
Type of Energetic MaterialAnnual Consumption of Energetic Material, Tones
12345
ANFO137.25140.9589.7196.12106.75
Emulsion185.79190.80121.44130.11144.50
Dynamite210.89216.58137.85147.69164.03
TNT3.153.242.062.212.45
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Biessikirski, A.; Dworzak, M.; Pytlik, M.; Nachlik, S. Impact of the Type of Energetic Material on the Fume Emission in Open-Pit Mining. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052075

AMA Style

Biessikirski A, Dworzak M, Pytlik M, Nachlik S. Impact of the Type of Energetic Material on the Fume Emission in Open-Pit Mining. Sustainability. 2025; 17(5):2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052075

Chicago/Turabian Style

Biessikirski, Andrzej, Michał Dworzak, Mateusz Pytlik, and Sonia Nachlik. 2025. "Impact of the Type of Energetic Material on the Fume Emission in Open-Pit Mining" Sustainability 17, no. 5: 2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052075

APA Style

Biessikirski, A., Dworzak, M., Pytlik, M., & Nachlik, S. (2025). Impact of the Type of Energetic Material on the Fume Emission in Open-Pit Mining. Sustainability, 17(5), 2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052075

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop