Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 245–255 | Cite as

Evaluation of Different Carbon Monoxide Sensors for Battery Charging Stations

  • James H. RowlandEmail author
  • Liming Yuan
  • Richard A. Thomas
  • Lihong Zhou


Hydrogen (H2) gas released during battery charging can result in cross-interference for carbon monoxide (CO) sensors used for early fire detection and compromise the integrity of the mine atmospheric monitoring system (AMS). In this study, a series of laboratory-scale and full-scale experiments were conducted to evaluate the responses of different CO sensors to H2 gas. In the laboratory-scale experiments, constant H2 concentrations in the airflow, from 100 to 500 ppm, pass through sensors. While in the full-scale experiments, increasing H2 concentrations generated as a byproduct from charging the batteries at the battery charging station rise to the sensors under different ventilation scenarios. The H2 concentrations at the CO sensor location were measured using H2 sensors and were correlated with the CO sensor response. The effects of ventilation and sensor location on the CO sensors responses were also analyzed. The results of this study can help mining companies to select appropriate CO sensors and improve the deployment of these sensors to ensure the safeguard of underground miners.


Atmosphere monitoring system Battery charging station Carbon monoxide sensor 



The authors wish to thank John Soles of Pittsburgh Mining Research Division (PMRD) for conducting the laboratory-scale and full-scale sensor tests.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Edwards, J.C., Friel, G.F. (1996) Comparative in-mine evaluation of carbon monoxide and smoke detectors, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 9622, 1-11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards JC, Morrow GS (1994) Evaluation of the response of diffusion-type carbon monoxide sensors. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 9520, 1-8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Litton C, Perera IE (2015) Evaluation of sensors for mine fire detection using an atmospheric monitoring system. Min Eng 67(6):68–75Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) (2011) Fire suppression systems used to protect battery charging stations and other unattended electrically powered equipment in underground coal mines. Program Information Bulletin No P11–22Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) (2016) Title 30 Code of Regulations (30 CFR), Part 75.340Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowland JH, Litton CD, Thomas RA (2016) Evaluation of detection and response times of fire sensors using an atmosphere monitoring system. Trans Soc Min Metall Explor Inc 340:104–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Rowland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liming Yuan
    • 1
  • Richard A. Thomas
    • 1
  • Lihong Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Pittsburgh Mining Research DivisionNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations