Discussion - Atmospheric Fogging in Underground Mine Airways Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERING, Vol. 35, No. 4 April 1983, pp. 336-342

M.J. McPherson Having worked on the thermodynamics of air/liquid-water mixtures passing through the surface fans of deep mines, I find this paper of great interest and congratulate the authors on producing it. There are two matters, however, deserving discussion. First, the authors have described the classical theory of fog formation with fogging occurring at "supersaturation." In fact, the process of fog formation begins well below 100% humidity. The more strongly hygroscopic nuclei in the atmosphere will attract water molecules and begin to grow at a relative humidity perhaps as low as 70%. The process is a dynamic one with both condensation and evaporation taking place throughout the mixture on microscopic liquid surfaces. As saturation is approached, the rate of condensation accelerates rapidly producing the familiar reduction in visibility. Hygroscopic nuclei are present in all natural atmospheres and under the appropriate conditions of pressure and temperature, will produce clean fogs. However, if the air is polluted by particulates from combustion or other processes then the resultant coagulation with growing liquid particles may produce dense (and sometimes photochemical) smogs. It is this process that is likely to occur in underground mines when moist air is cooled below dew point. Second, the authors have summarized very well the individual measures that might alleviate the problem. In particular, I agree that neither heating nor refrigerating the air, by themselves, provides a satisfactory solution. However, there is a combination of these that provides a neat and effective control of fog formation. This involves a small, self-contained refrigeration unit within a duct but without the usual external heat rejection facility. The air is cooled below dew point and, hence, dehumidified on passing over the cold evaporator coils. The heat from the condenser is rejected back into the air downstream from the water eliminator, as shown in Fig. 1. The duct configuration can be designed to create good mixing at the outlet. I have used a climatic simulation program to illustrate the effect, assuming a 500-m (1,640 ft) long airway of cross section 60 m2 (645 sq ft), an airflow of 9 m3/s (318 cu ft per sec), inlet conditions of 19/19.25°C (66/67°F) wet bulb/dry bulb temperatures, a virgin rock temperature of 17°C (63°F) and typical rock thermal properties for a hard-rock mine. I have also assumed that 10% of the rock surface is wet. Figure 2 shows the variation in temperatures along the airway if no measures are taken. The relative humidity remains close to 100% and condensation will occur throughout the length of the airway. Before any such installation is designed, the exercise must, of course, be repeated for each location with accurate data. However, this example demonstrates the potential of the system. The idea is not new - the principle is sometimes used in air-conditioning plants for buildings. Figure 3 shows the effect of removing 30 kw of heat by evaporator coils sited 40 m (131 ft) along the airway and rejecting that heat (plus another 10 kw of compressor and fan power) into the air at 60 m (197 ft). Condensate water is produced, at a rate of 0.45 L/min (0.12 gpm). The result of this sequential cooling/dehumidification/heating process is to separate the wet and dry bulb temperatures along the length of the airway. The relative humidity increases from 80% at the duct outlet to 92% at 500 m (1,640 ft). The airway is maintained free from fog.