Prediction of Reaction Enthalpy and Adiabatic Temperature Rise

Effective management of the heat released from a chemical process is critical for the safe,
successful scale-up of chemical processes. These process heats are used to determine engineering
design parameters such as the required jacket temperature(s), the heat load to be handled by heat
exchangers or condensers, and the adiabatic temperature rise of the desired process.
For an average heat capacity, cp, over the temperature range applicable, one may conveniently
calculate the adiabatic temperature rise, deltaTad, as follows:
delta_Tad = Qrxn/(m.Cp)
where m is the reaction mass, and Q_rxn is the total heat liberated from the chemical process or
reaction. The quantity Q_rxn is calculated from the enthalpy of reaction delta_r_H and the
appropriate quantities of reactants. If this adiabatic temperature rise is sufficient to trigger
undesired reactions, e.g. a side-reaction or a decomposition, the heat released from these
undesired reactions must also be determined. The adiabatic temperature rises for "worst-case"
scenarios can then be estimated. The accurate and timely determination of the heats of reaction
for the desired process and for any plausible undesired processes is clearly a key step in the
overall reactive chemicals evaluation process. Furthermore, the process heat (heat of reaction for
example) may very well be the most important piece of information needed to accurately assess
and engineer the reactive chemicals hazard.
It must be emphasised that an experimental determination of the process heat may be the best
approach. This is true, of course, if the means are available (i.e. an analytical technique to
determine the extent of reaction and the reaction can be carried out close to the actual conditions
of the process). However there are many cases where the experimental approach is not the most
feasible. For example, there may be safety considerations to contend with or experimental
challenges which make an experimental determination unfeasible. The reader is referred to a
more detailed discussion of these considerations Lit.:reference (15).
It may be desirable to perform both an experiment and a calculation. If both approaches give
similar results, then the scale-up of the process can be carried out with more confidence in the
expected release of energy.
The theoretical treatment has its own pitfalls one needs to be aware of. One limitation of the
estimation approach is the lack of accurate data for many important species. Another limitation is
the fact that the estimated heats are determined for the chemistry which is believed to occur in
the reaction vessel. There may be cases where one neglects an important source of heat (salt
formation for example) in the calculation but, an experimental determination would probably
detect this heat. Finally, the theoretical treatment does not provide information on rate of heat
release, a parameter which might be critical to the process engineering design. In some cases the
rate of heat release may be the overriding factor for process control. Thus techniques like
Reaction Calorimetry, which carry out the chemical process under conditions identical to the
intended, large scale, process, may be the best approach regardless of the (unquantified) extent of

reaction. Also, techniques such as adiabatic calorimetry can yield invaluable information about
heat and pressure releases for unknown chemical processes which take place at temperatures
well above those intended in the process due to, for example, an undesired temper excursion.

Estimation of Reaction Heats Using Bond Energies

The energy required to break a chemical bond and separate the fragments to infinite distance in
the gas phase at zero Kelvin is a common definition of bond energies. Bond energy tables using
that definition cannot be used to predict heats of formation but may be used to predict heats of
reaction (at zero Kelvin) by summing the bond energies for bonds broken and subtracting the
sum of bond energies for bonds formed (being careful to account for any additional energy
effects such as ring strain - see discussion in Lit.:reference (15) ):
equation for delta_r_H
An example of the bond energy approach is given as follows:
Example for the Estimation of Reaction Heats Using Bond Energies
For the hypothetical reaction:
A A + b B --> c D + d D
the reaction enthalpy, deltarH is determined from the standard heats of formation, deltafH, of
the species in the reaction according to:
equation for calculating delta_R_H
The Bond Energy technique is not very accurate (typically 10 kcal/mol). The key to estimation
of reaction heats lies in the accurate knowledge of the standard heats of formation, deltafH of
the reactants and products.
A more useful approach is that of Lit.:Benson (14) who deals with partial bond contributions to
the gas-phase heat of formation at 298.15 K. Basically the bond contributions are groups which
can be added together to predict either the heat of formation of a molecule or the heat of reaction
directly.
More accurate techniques are described below.

Estimation Using a More Formalised Thermodynamic Approach

There are numerous methods and resources for finding or estimating the enthalpy of formation of
chemical species. It is certainly beyond the scope of this guide to list these. However, these are
summarised and discussed in great detail in reference 15. Perhaps the most comprehensive
computer program for thermodynamic estimations is the aforementioned CHETAH code. For
experimental thermodynamic data, the NIST Web Book, an internet resource is very helpful. For

inorganic reactions he Finnish HSC Code Lit.:reference (19) is useful. Public literature sources
for thermodynamic data are numerous but an excellent resource for organic data is Pedley's
compilation Lit.:reference (18).

A common method is to calculate the reaction heat for a structurally simple reaction, one that is
an analogue to the actual chemistry and where there are available thermodynamic data from the
literature for the reaction constituents (reactants and products). This so-called "Analog Reaction"
method is described in more detail in Lit.:reference (15).

The example below illustrates the methodology to estimate a reaction heat using the procedure
outlined in Lit.:reference (15).

DIFFERENTIAL SCANNING METHODS

GENERAL FEATURES OF DSC/DTA TESTING
In a typical DSC or DTA experiment a few milligrams of sample (often in a sealed metal pan)
and an inert reference material are heated together at a defined rate of typically 10 degree
Celsius per minute. The temperature of the sample and the reference are monitored and if the
temperature of the sample begins to diverge from that of the reference, evidence of thermal
activity is inferred. Using this data it is possible to determine an "onset temperature for the
thermal event and measure the amount of heat released.
Using this information the "onset temperature can be compared with the materials
proposed operating or storage temperature. If these are similar, it might represent a potential
hazard. In a similar manner the information relating to energy release can be used to estimate
the likely temperature and pressure rise if the exothermic reaction did occur. It is through this
type of comparative analysis that DSC/DTA data can be used to estimate the severity of a
possible hazard.
The principle benefit of this type of testing is that it can be conducted in just a few hours,
requiring limited operator skill. When low running cost is also taken into account, the
widespread use of DSC/DTA methods can be easily understood. However, in practice these
aspects should be weighed against the many disadvantages that relate to the possible

reliability of the data and the potential problems that can ensue from not screening reactions
properly.

LIMITATIONS OF DIFFERENTIAL SCANNING DATA

The differential thermal instruments described above are employed for a wide range of
analytical determinations in addition to hazard screening. In fact most DSC and DTA
applications do not relate to hazard assessment at all and the comments made in this paper
will not be concerned with these alternative functions.
A design feature that contributes significantly to the ease of use and low running cost of
DSC and DTA is the small mass of sample required which is typically in the milligram scale.
From a hazard evaluation perspective, this extremely low sample mass can be a serious
disadvantage due to the increased uncertainty in experimental reproducibility. Whilst the
testing of pure materials presents no problems, taking a representative sample of a mixture on
such a small scale can be difficult. For example, in order to evaluate process intermediates.
(and sometimes, even products), it is frequently necessary to draw a "live" sample from a
reactor. The extraction of such low sample masses that are wholly representative of the
system under these conditions can be difficult.
One of the most important pieces of information obtained from thermal scanning devices
is the so-called onset temperature for exothermic activity. However, it is important to
realise that this onset threshold is not a fundamental property of a reaction and the measured
value depends very much on the instrument sensitivity and the procedure by which the
experiment is performed. In Figure 14
, the onset temperature determined by DSC is compared
with that from an adiabatic instrument (in this case the accelerating rate calorimeter, ARC)
using approximately 5g of sample5
. This information was reported by the Dow Chemical Company from their historical data bank.
It shows that in many cases, the onset temperature detected by DSC can be as much as 50 oC
higher than that reported from adiabatic instruments. In fact in a substantial number of instances
the difference between to two methods is as much as 100 oC. (There are several cases where the

DSC determined onset temperature is lower than that reported by the adiabatic testing, but this
can be attributed to the study of non-representative DSC samples).

DSC Vs. ARC Detection Temperatures

Figure 1: A comparison of onset temperatures between DSC and ARC data.

The most significant shortcoming of a DSC or DTA type instrument is that they do not
provide any information regarding the pressures generated or the rates of pressure rises
measured during a screening a test. The authors are aware that some effort has been made
recently to address this problem and produce pressure measuring DSC devices, but so far the
data reported has been found to be unclear and noisy and such instruments are limited to only
a few psi. However, if the DSC is to be considered as an instrument for accurate hazard
assessment and safe process scale-up this information is crucial, since the extent of thermal
hazard will be directly represented by the pressure generated during the reaction. It is after allit is
the large pressures generated in runaway reactions that generally cause product venting
and in extreme cases catastrophic damage to plant and equipment.

Another important factor that needs to be considered when examining the hazard
potential of a material is the aspect of time. It is vital to remember that it is not only the
amount of energy released that is important but also the rate at which this energy is released
(i.e. the reaction kinetics). Although the aspect of DSC scans do partially reflect the kinetics
of the chemical system under study the information that is obtained is very often indirect and
can be applied in a qualitative manner. The time scales determined bear almost no relation to
the real life incident and unless considerable effort and rigour is put into the kinetic analysis,
it is not possible to estimate the rates at which events might occur on the plant.
Taking into account all the above points, it is clear that choice of DSC or DTA, as the
primary, or worse still only, method of thermal screening can be misleading and if used
without information from additional adiabatic calorimeters could be potentially dangerous.
it is the large pressures generated in runaway reactions that generally cause product venting
and in extreme cases catastrophic damage to plant and equipment.
Another important factor that needs to be considered when examining the hazard
potential of a material is the aspect of time. It is vital to remember that it is not only the
amount of energy released that is important but also the rate at which this energy is released
(i.e. the reaction kinetics). Although the aspect of DSC scans do partially reflect the kinetics
of the chemical system under study the information that is obtained is very often indirect and
can be applied in a qualitative manner. The time scales determined bear almost no relation to
the real life incident and unless considerable effort and rigour is put into the kinetic analysis,
it is not possible to estimate the rates at which events might occur on the plant.
Taking into account all the above points, it is clear that choice of DSC or DTA, as the
primary, or worse still only, method of thermal screening can be misleading and if used
without information from additional adiabatic calorimeters could be potentially dangerous.

Based on results of the first test, it was decided that the two starting ingredients could be
safely pre-mixed in drums ready for charging. However, when this was performed the drums
were found to rupture after about 2 hours. Subsequent testing with an adiabatic device (in
which pressure data was measured) revealed that while the DSC had correctly reported a lack
of exothermic activity, however, it had failed to register the fact that, even at room
temperature a considerable amount of gas was being generated albeit at a slow rate. This
highlights the necessity for pressure data when scaling up a process.

THE TSU AS A SCREENING TOOL

ESSENTIAL FEATURES
The TSU (Thermal Screening Unit) has been developed as an alternative to DSC as a primary
thermal screening method. A schematic diagram and a photograph of the TSU are shown
below in Figure 3.

The sample is contained in a pressure tight metal (or glass) test cell, suspended in the
middle of an oven. The oven consists of a metal cylinder with a heating coil wrapped
around the outer surface that is heated at a user-defined rate. On performing a test the user
controls the ramp rate(s) of the oven. After an initial delay due to thermal lagging effects
the sample temperature will be found to follow the oven ramp at the same rate with a slight
offset (which will depend on the physical characteristics of the test material such as specific
heat). When an exothermic or endothermic process is detected the sample temperature will be
found to deviate from the background-heating rate identifying the onset temperature. The
rate of rise in sample temperature (dT/dt) and the maximum value reached, TMax before
returning to the background-heating rate reflects important characteristics of the thermal
event.
In addition to temperature data, the thermal screening unit is also equipped with a
pressure transducer that records changes in sample pressure as the reaction proceeds. This
provides the operator with a second method by which sample activity can be identified. This
alternative method of sample analysis is particularly useful since it provides a measure of the
total pressure generated in the reaction, PMax and the rate of pressure rise (dP/dt). The pressure
data also enables very mild exothermic decomposition reactions which result in the

production of non-condensable gas to be detected even if the associated temperature rise is

too low to be reliably detected.

COMPARISON OF THE TSU WITH ADIABATIC CALORIMETERS

Adiabatic calorimeters such as the ARC5
or PHI-TEC II7
are traditionally considered as the
most reliable tool for exotherm detection and for generating quantitative kinetic and
thermodynamic data with regards reaction severity. In a typical experiment adiabatic
conditions are achieved by taking a sample cell similar to that used in the thermal screening
unit and placing it between a set of guard heaters that precisely match the sample
temperature. Tests are then performed by heating the chemical in temperature steps, (typically
10 to 15 C) holding the sample for a defined period of time and monitoring the sample for
evidence of self-heating. If an exotherm is indeed detected then the guard heaters will follow
and thus maintain an adiabatic environment during the reaction runaway.
The thermal screening unit possess many of the desirable characteristics of an adiabatic
calorimeter. The system contains a thermocouple within the test cell to enable direct sample
temperature measurement and the test cell itself is pressure resistant to over 200 bar and has a
thickness of 0.65 mm. The screening unit also uses more representative sample sizes than
either DSC or DTA again similar to that employed in an adiabatic system. The thermal
screening unit, however, is considerably smaller than an adiabatic system and also much
simpler to set-up and operate, often enabling many runs to be performed in a single working
day or night. When this is coupled with the ability to operate multiple screening units (up to
four) from a single computer interface and the scales of economy involved between the two
units it makes the screening unit more suited to rapid screening of multiple compounds
Clearly the thermal screening unit has not been designed to act in competition with ARC
or PHI-TEC II type instruments but instead helps to fill the gap in the market for a device that
is wholly concerned with routine, fast and multiple hazard screening.

CONCLUSIONS
Although DSC and DTA techniques have been applied with great success to many areas of
chemical testing and process development their application to thermal hazard screening has in
recent years caused much cause for concern. This is particularly true in the modern chemical
manufacturing industry where the pressures on process scale-up and development
organisations are continually increasing but the development-cycle time scales are under a
constant squeeze. This has resulted in the increasing tendency for quick, single test procedures
possibly in combination with reaction calorimetry for thermal stability assessment, which
without careful interpretation and experience cannot provide a sufficient guarantee that
hazardous processes will not slip through the net.
The thermal screening unit has been developed as tool to address some of these problems
associated with modern hazard screening and provide an alternative instrument to DSC and
DTA. Importantly the unit employs representative sample sizes in the range 0.5 to 5g. These
sample sizes not only provide more realistic information for scale up but also enable a whole
range of processes to be examined including heterogeneous systems, air sensitive materials,
starting materials and intermediates. The unit also importantly provides pressure information,
which enables the study of product storage and provides information on expected reactor
pressures if a process were to undergo a runaway reaction. By examining information such as
dT/dtMax and dP/dtMax it is also possible to start to gain information on the rates of energy
release from a systems. This latter information is beneficial for the design of vent lines and
reactor relief systems and will reduce the number of samples that will have to be examined by
an adiabatic calorimeter.

Time to maximum rate (TMRad)

Time taken for a material to self heat to the maximum rate of decomposition from a specific temperature, under
adiabatic conditions.
While much of the emphasis on safety in the pharmaceutical industry relates to ensuring patient safety, as
should be the case, often other crucial aspects of safety in particular process safety receive less
attention than is appropriate. With increasing pressure to deliver faster turnaround times and lower cost,
the performance of comprehensive process safety evaluations, which are time consuming and expensive,
can be glossed over by contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs), most often due
to a lack of awareness and understanding of their importance. Inattention to process safety can, however,
lead to devastating consequences.

It is essential that CDMOs conduct all pharmaceutical manufacturing processes in a safe manner. To do
so requires an effective process safety management system and strategy within a culture that
emphasizes safety. Prior to acceptance, proposed projects must be evaluated to determine whether the
capabilities of the CDMO are adequate, and only those projects for which suitable facilities, equipment
and skilled personnel are available should be accepted. Once a project is underway, both theoretical and
physical analyses must be conducted to determine the thermodynamic and kinetic properties of all
materials involved in the process and the process itself, both under normal and worst case scenario
conditions. Only with access to this information can the behavior of a process be fully understood with
appropriate engineering, safety controls and procedures implemented. The failure to establish an effective
basis of safety can lead to inadequate process design and protection of operators and, in the most severe
cases, the surrounding community and environment.

The types of processes conducted by CDMOs range widely, and consequently so do the potential
hazards and risks they pose. Some processes, such as those that involve the use of unstable raw
materials, exothermic reactions and / or the production of non-condensable gases, are more hazardous
than others. In addition, as reactions are scaled from the lab to the pilot plant and then commercial
volumes, the risk they pose increases.

Not all CDMOs are equipped to safely manage every possible process required for the production of
pharmaceuticals.

Therefore, the first step in establishing an effective process safety strategy is determination of the
companys capabilities and limitations with respect to handling process hazards. In general, a paper

assessment of the hazards presented by a potential new project, including the potency of the compounds
and the potential for highly energetic chemistry / highly hazardous reactivity, should be suitable for
determining whether the process presents hazards beyond what the CDMO is equipped to safely
manage. A willingness to reject potential projects based on such a safety evaluation is the foundation of
an effective safety management strategy.

If a project is deemed within the bounds of the CDMOs capabilities, the proposal / quote submitted to the
client should include an outline of all anticipated process safety testing (and associated costs) needed to
establish an appropriate basis of safety and potential safety measures.

Comprehensive safety evaluations should begin immediately once a project is accepted and run parallel
to process development activities. The benefits of this approach are numerous not only is the
identification of any potential risks / hazards achieved prior to scale-up; any necessary changes to the
process can be completed prior to process scale-up.

The comprehensive hazard evaluation should identify both desired and undesired potential material and
reaction hazards. Thermal stability testing of the materials and mixtures used in the process is completed
using instruments such as a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), a thermal screening unit (TSu) and /
or accelerating rate calorimeter (ARC). The enthalpies of the intended synthetic reactions can be obtained
by either estimation techniques using available thermodynamic data, or measured with a reaction
calorimeter. The generated data is then used to identify any process hazards and establish a defined
basis of safety for each that will minimize the likelihood of adverse events and, where necessary, provide
protection to operators and the environment from any potential event that may occur.

Once a project is accepted, the CDMO should conduct a more thorough paper assessment, considering
all of the functional groups of the molecules involved and the process conditions. If the reaction is
sufficiently simple, this phase may include estimation of the heat of reaction using heat of formation data
for analogous reactants and products taken from the literature. 1 If no concerns are raised, then reaction
calorimetry testing may be deferred until calolater in process development, so the testing will reflect the
process as it will be scaled-up.
If there is any question about the potential stability of the materials in a process, DSC is performed on
individual starting materials / reagents / products and / or reaction mixtures. The sample is heated at a
constant rate, and the heat flows to (endothermic change) and from (exothermic change) the sample are
recorded as a function of temperature and time. A DSC scan provides information about phase changes,
decomposition or other self-reactivity behavior of the sample and whether these events occur
exothermically or endothermically. For reliable results in safety testing, it is crucial that closed pressure
rated crucibles be used for these types of DSC experiments.

There are limitations to DSC methods, however. First, the onset temperature can vary depending on the
instrument sensitivity and the conditions under which the test was conducted. 2 Second, DSC does not
provide any information on changes in pressure, and it is pressure buildup after an energy release due to
solvent vaporization or the release of gases that often leads to undesired consequences.
Therefore, analysis using a TSu or other similar pressure recording screening tool is imperative for
evaluating both temperature and pressure responses, which can be studied under either isothermal or
ramped temperature conditions. There are cases, in fact, where only slight exotherms or even
endotherms are observed in DSC scans, but measurable pressure events are detected during a TSU
analysis (See figure 1).

Zoo
m In

Figure 1 Why Pressure Is Important

TSU scan showing no detectable thermal event in the sample temperature profile,
but generation of non-condensable gases when comparing PFinal to PInitial.
Test conditions:
20C-170C at 1.5C/min
heating rate.
Kinetic data and the heat of reaction of the desired process chemistry are then obtained using a reaction
calorimeter. Traditionally, the Mettler Toledo RC1 has been the industry workhorse used for reaction
calorimetry. A disadvantage of this system is that many users have it equipped with a 500-mL or larger
reactor, and requires substantial quantities of material. Microreaction calorimeters have been recently
developed, however, that utilize 1.5-mL to 20-mL vials and require minimal material, making the test
quicker and more feasible for regular testing of all processes, regardless of development phase. It is
important to note, however, that while a properly designed and executed microcalorimeter experiment will
provide a reliable heat-of-reaction value, it may be difficult to determine the heat-release profile that will
be observed during a slow addition that is typically employed on scale-up. If the microcalorimeter
uncovers a large exotherm that will require strict temperature control via addition rate, further testing in
larger equipment may be appropriate.

To establish the most appropriate basis of safety therefore requires the ability to know which tests to
conduct and how to effectively interpret the obtained data. The experience and expertise of the CDMOs
process safety personnel are thus crucial to successful evaluations. Both an understanding of the
potential reactivities of molecules based on their structures, and extensive experience conducting safety
evaluations of many different processes, are needed to be able to identify the best series of tests that will
fully elucidate the reaction behavior for a given process.

For instance, if a screening test conducted on a reaction mixture uncovers a decomposition event, quite
often the practice is to assign a default safety margin, below which the reaction must be executed.
However, one must remember that the screening test is performed in a sealed system, in which
vaporization of the solvent is suppressed. If the onset of the decomposition event is above the
atmospheric boiling point of the solvent, then to reach that secondary decomposition event, all of the
solvent would first need to be vaporized. Before simply adding a 100C safety margin (a common
practice) that would require cooling of the reaction further than necessary, leading to excessive energy
consumption, carbon emissions and additional expense, it would be prudent to first evaluate the rate of
decomposition at the atmospheric boiling point, and determine the modes of failure that could lead to
evaporation of solvent (i.e., the adiabatic temperature rise of the desired reaction, equipment failures,
etc.), and base a safety margin on these findings.

Zoo
m In
The above DSC scan reveals that the sample melted and then immediately decomposed in the range of
160C-180C. The actual reaction is run in solvent, however. When in solution, the solid would not
undergo melting; the energetic decomposition could therefore potentially shift to a lower temperature.
Additional testing should be conducted to observe the behavior of the compound in the reaction solvent.
Figure 2 DSC Interpretation
DSC scan of solid with melting temp followed immediately by decomposition.
Test conditions:
30C-400C at 10C/min
scan rate.
The rate at which energy is released, and not just the amount of energy, should also be considered.
Information on the time to maximum rate can be gleaned from DSC scans. From a pure qualitative
perspective, a broad decomposition peak suggests that energy may be released following nth order
kinetics, while a sharp peak indicates a rapid release and possible autocatalytic decomposition. In the
latter case once the initiating event is triggered, there is much less time to correct the situation before a
full-blown runaway occurs. If ARC testing is not readily available, conservative Time to Maximum Rate

information can often be estimated by conducting DSC analyses at multiple isothermal temperatures or
scan rates and applying advanced software to develop scalable models of reactions that can be used to
predict stability under different heating conditions.2
If the results of such an analysis raise any flags, more accurate data can be obtained using an
accelerating rate calorimeter. Given the large instrument footprint and expense, ARCs are not typically
owned by smaller CDMOs. Samples must therefore be sent to an external testing laboratory for ARC
analysis. The test provides information about the relationships between time, temperature, pressure and
kinetics for exothermic reactions under adiabatic conditions, such as those generally experienced in
process equipment during loss of cooling.

Finally, it is not sufficient to consider only the desired reaction conditions. The behavior of the process
under various undesirable conditions worst-case scenarios such as loss of cooling or other equipment
failure (i.e., stirring, feed pumps, etc.) must also be evaluated in order to determine the most effective
basis of safety.