Risk assessment of hydrogen peroxide production technology by using anthraquinone process based on dynamic Bayesian network

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.1066

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to reduce the risk of fire and explosion caused by the anthraquinone process for preparing hydrogen peroxide, a risk assessment was carried out for the extraction and purification process, which is a more hazardous process in the preparation of hydrogen peroxide by anthraquinone process. Firstly, hazard sources of this process were analysed and a fault tree model was established through Freefta software. On the basis of this fault tree model, a dynamic Bayesian network model was drawn using GeNIe software. Secondly, expert scoring method and fuzzy analysis method were used to calculate prior probabilities of basic events in the model, and GeNIe software was used to calculate posterior probabilities of basic events in the model under the set preconditions. Eventually, by comparing change range between prior and posterior probabilities, important basic events were determined, hazard sources causing fire and explosion were revealed, and emergency response technologies were proposed. The results show that four major hazard sources, including pollution caused by degradation products and impurities, generation and increase of side reactions in process, catalyst failure and active chemical properties of hydrogen peroxide, have great impact on fire and explosion during extraction and purification process. It is more effective to develop emergency response technologies for important hazard sources from the perspective of preventing fire spread and liquid evacuation.

Key words: anthraquinone process, preparation process, hydrogen peroxide, dynamic Bayesian network, risk assessment, fault tree, emergency response technology

CLC Number:

X913.4安全系统工程

ZHANG Shulin, WANG Lanning, LU Yi. Risk assessment of hydrogen peroxide production technology by using anthraquinone process based on dynamic Bayesian network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 110-116.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Transition probabilities without maintenance

$t + τ$	N	DS1	DS2	F
N	$e x p [- (λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5) τ]$	0	0	0
DS1	$λ 4 λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5 {1 - e x p [- (λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5) τ]}$	$e x p [- (λ 2 + λ 6) τ]$	0	0
DS2	$λ 5 λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5 {1 - e x p [- (λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5) τ]}$	$λ 6 λ 2 + λ 6 {1 - e x p [- (λ 2 + λ 6) τ]}$	$e x p (- λ 3 τ)$	0
F	$λ 1 λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5 {1 - e x p [- (λ 1 + λ 4 + λ 5) τ]}$	$λ 2 λ 2 + λ 6 {1 - e x p [- (λ 2 + λ 6) τ]}$	$1 - e x p (- λ 3 τ)$	1

Tab.3

Tab.4

Transition probabilities of moving nodes

X	$λ 1$	$λ 2$	$λ 3$	$λ 4$	$λ 5$	$λ 6$	X	$λ 1$	$λ 2$	$λ 3$	$λ 4$	$λ 5$	$λ 6$
X4	0.09	0.57	0.48	0.27	0.53	0.28	X20	0.10	0.62	0.57	0.28	0.56	0.30
X8	0.01	0.66	0.73	0.29	0.59	0.32	X32	0.10	0.63	0.60	0.29	0.57	0.31
X12	0.10	0.67	0.89	0.30	0.60	0.33	X33	0.10	0.63	0.62	0.29	0.58	0.31
X13	0.01	0.60	0.69	0.29	0.59	0.32	X34	0.09	0.59	0.51	0.27	0.54	0.29
X14	0.08	0.53	0.40	0.25	0.49	0.26	X35	0.10	0.67	0.86	0.30	0.59	0.33
X18	0.01	0.66	0.78	0.30	0.60	0.33

Tab.4

Fig.3

Tab.5

References 19

[1]	中化集团鲁西化工双氧水生产区发生爆炸火灾事故,已致5死1伤[EB/OL].(2023-05-01). http://news.cctv.cn/2023/05/01/ARTIU3uBKruSq8znEixHjVy0230501.shtml.
[2]	双氧水生产装置现状、技术复杂性、防控措施、典型事故分析[EB/OL].(2023-05-04). https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/626594414.
[3]	李志红. 过氧化氢生产工艺危险性分析及防控措施研究[J]. 石油化工安全环保技术, 2021, 37(4):40-44.
	LI Zhihong. Hazard analysis of hydrogen peroxide production process and research on prevention and control measures[J]. Petrochemical Safety and Environmental Protection Technology, 2021, 37(4):40-44.
[4]	王所伟, 魏亮, 史丰坤, 等. 蒽醌法过氧化氢生产受限空间作业风险分析及安全管控措施[J]. 山东化工, 2022, 51(11):199-201.
	WANG Suowei, WEI Liang, SHI Fengkun, et al. Risk analysis and safety control measures of confined space work in anthraquinone process hydrogen peroxide production[J]. Shandong Chemical Industry, 2022, 51(11):199-201.
[5]	李奇, 赵文芳, 高艳霞. HAZOP技术在双氧水装置中的应用[J]. 安全、健康和环境, 2010, 10(7):31-34.
	LI Qi, ZHAO Wenfang, GAO Yanxia. Application of HAZOP in hydrogen peroxide unit[J]. Safety Health&Environment, 2010, 10(7):31-34.
[6]	李永磊, 张青瑞, 郭通, 等. 图形化法对过氧化氢生产工艺的风险评价[J]. 青岛科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2018, 39(2):44-49.
	LI Yonglei, ZHANG Qingrui, GUO Tong, et al. A graphical method for risk assessment of hydrogen peroxide production process[J]. Journal of Qingdao University of Science and Technology: Natural Science Edition, 2018, 39(2):44-49.
[7]	方来华, 吴宗之, 魏利军, 等. 提高重大工业事故预防控制能力研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(9):86-90.
	FANG Laihua, WU Zongzhi, WEI Lijun, et al. Research on the promotion of ability to prevent and control major industrial accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(9):86-90.
[8]	曾明荣, 吴宗之, 魏利军, 等. 化工园区应急管理模式研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2009, 19(2):172-176.
	ZENG Mingrong, WU Zongzhi, WEI Lijun, et al. Study on emergency management model for accidents in chemical industry park[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2009, 19(2):172-176.
[9]	山东民祥化工:新建23万吨双氧水/15万吨环氧丙烷装置![EB/OL].(2019-09-29). https://m.sohu.com/a/344204887_752060/.
[10]	刘耀辉. 蒽醌法双氧水生产管理安全技术要点[J]. 化工管理, 2015(25):117-118.
[11]	刘刚, 李伯尧, 徐加兴, 等. 应用贝叶斯网络识别深水井控主要风险诱因[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(5):157-163.
	LIU Gang, LI Boyao, XU Jiaxing, et al. Application of Bayesian network to identifying principal risk factors in deepwater well control[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(5):157-163.
[12]	林雨青. 基于AHP层次分析法的绿色经济发展成效研究[J]. 产业创新研究, 2023(5):1-4.
[13]	侯风垒. 基于层次分析法和模糊综合评价法的应急管理能力综合评价研究[J]. 现代城市轨道交通, 2022(9):87-92.
	HOU Fenglei. Research on comprehensive evaluation of emergency management capability based on AHP(analytic hierarchy process) and FCA(fuzzy comprehensive assessment)[J]. Modern Urban Transit, 2022(9):87-92.
[14]	陈凯. 基于模糊层次分析法的石油钻井生产风险评价研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2023.
	CHEN Kai. Research on production risk assessment of oil drilling based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2023.
[15]	张长帅. 深水钻井隔水管断裂失效风险评估方法与应急处置技术[D]. 青岛: 中国石油大学(华东), 2020.
	ZHANG Changshuai. Study on risk assessment approach and emergency disposal technique of deepwater drilling riser fracture failure[D]. Qingdao: China University of Petroleum (East China), 2020.
[16]	李玉莲. 基于动态贝叶斯网络的海洋平台火灾概率预测[D]. 青岛: 中国石油大学(华东), 2016.
	LI Yulian. Probability analysis of offshore fire based on dynamic Bayesian network[D]. Qingdao: China University of Petroleum (East China), 2016.
[17]	江苏淮安工业园区“10·14”火灾事故致2死1伤[EB/OL].(2021-10-23). https://www. northnews.cn/p/2039499.html.
[18]	蒋慧灵, 傅智敏, 刘颖杰, 等. 过氧化氢热爆炸危险性研究[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2004, 23(2):121-124.
	JIANG Huiling, FU Zhimin, LIU Yingjie, et al. Investigation on thermal explosion hazard of hydrogen peroxide[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2004, 23(2):121-124.
[19]	张志刚, 蒋慧灵, 黄平. 双氧水爆炸事故机理分析及预防措施研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2007, 7(4):108-110.
	ZHANG Zhigang, JIANG Huiling, HUANG Ping. Study of hydrogen peroxide explosion mechanism and its prevention measures[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2007, 7(4):108-110.

信息	E₁	E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅
学历	博士	博士	硕士	硕士	博士
工龄	4年	10年	4年	3年	6年
职位	讲师	副教授	讲师	讲师	副教授
信息	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	E₁₀
学历	博士	博士	博士	博士	博士
工龄	3年	4年	3年	15年	8年
职位	讲师	讲师	讲师	教授	副教授

X	E₁	E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	E₁₀	Y
X1	L	L	L	VL	L	VL	L	L	L	L	7.80×10^-3
X2	L	VL	L	L	L	VL	L	L	L	VL	7.20×10^-3
X3	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	5.90×10^-3
X4	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	6.01×10^-3
X5	L	M	M	M	M	L	M	M	M	M	1.36×10^-2
X6	VL	L	VL	L	L	VL	VL	VL	L	L	7.20×10^-3
X7	M	VH	H	H	H	VH	VH	H	M	H	3.40×10^-2
X8	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	6.10×10^-3
X9	M	M	H	H	M	H	H	M	H	H	2.35×10^-2
X10	L	VL	VL	L	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	6.30×10^-3
X11	L	M	L	L	L	M	L	VL	L	L	8.90×10^-3
X12	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	6.40×10^-3
X13	VL	VL	VL	L	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	6.10×10^-3
X14	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	5.80×10^-3
X15	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	6.10×10^-3
X16	M	L	L	L	L	M	L	L	M	L	9.60×10^-3
X17	L	L	M	M	L	M	L	L	L	H	1.04×10^-2
X18	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	L	6.30×10^-3
X19	VL	L	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	L	VL	6.70×10^-3
X20	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	5.90×10^-3
X21	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	6.23×10^-3
X22	L	L	L	M	L	L	L	L	L	M	9.02×10^-3
X23	L	VL	L	VL	L	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	6.40×10^-3
X24	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	L	VL	6.60×10^-3
X25	VL	L	L	L	VL	L	VL	L	L	L	7.40×10^-3
X26	L	L	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	6.30×10^-3
X27	M	M	H	H	M	M	H	M	M	H	1.90×10^-2
X28	M	M	M	M	M	H	M	H	H	M	1.87×10^-2
X29	L	L	L	M	L	M	M	L	M	L	1.00×10^-2
X30	VL	L	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	L	6.90×10^-3
X31	VL	L	L	L	L	VL	L	L	L	L	7.70×10^-3
X32	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	5.80×10^-3
X33	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	5.80×10^-3
X34	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	5.80×10^-3
X35	L	VL	L	L	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	6.30×10^-3
X36	M	M	H	H	H	M	M	M	H	M	2.05×10^-2
X37	L	VL	L	VL	L	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	6.40×10^-3
X38	VL	L	VL	VL	VL	VL	VL	L	VL	VL	6.20×10^-3

X	G	Z	X	G	Z	X	G	Z	X	G	Z
X1	1.09×10^-2	0.40	X11	2.30×10^-2	1.58	X21	9.70×10^-3	0.56	X31	1.40×10^-2	0.81
X2	1.03×10^-2	0.44	X12	1.03×10^-2	0.62	X22	2.92×10^-2	2.25	X32	6.10×10^-3	0.06
X3	7.20×10^-3	0.22	X13	1.10×10^-2	0.80	X23	1.18×10^-2	0.84	X33	6.10×10^-3	0.06
X4	7.16×10^-3	0.19	X14	9.61×10^-3	0.67	X24	1.43×10^-2	1.17	X34	6.10×10^-3	0.06
X5	1.57×10^-2	0.15	X15	8.85×10^-3	0.46	X25	2.18×10^-2	1.95	X35	1.22×10^-2	0.94
X6	2.01×10^-2	1.80	X16	2.48×10^-2	1.57	X26	1.50×10^-2	1.37	X36	7.32×10^-2	2.57
X7	8.10×10^-2	1.40	X17	2.67×10^-2	1.57	X27	5.89×10^-2	2.11	X37	1.52×10^-2	1.36
X8	7.90×10^-3	0.29	X18	1.32×10^-2	1.11	X28	6.01×10^-2	2.21	X38	1.33×10^-2	1.15
X9	7.09×10^-2	2.02	X19	1.42×10^-2	1.11	X29	3.96×10^-2	2.96
X10	1.67×10^-2	1.67	X20	1.03×10^-2	0.76	X30	1.52×10^-2	1.21