See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341029245

Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder-based flash powder

composition for eco-friendly firecrackers

Article in Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry · April 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s10973-020-09707-7

CITATIONS READS

9 1,291

4 authors, including:

Rajesh Shanmugavel Rajajeyaganthan Ramanathan

Kalasalingam University Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education
31 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 169 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Safety View project

Environmental View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajajeyaganthan Ramanathan on 22 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Experimental analysis of tamarind seed
powder-based flash powder composition for
eco-friendly firecrackers

Manikandan Rajendran,
Rajajeyaganthan Ramanathan,
P. Ganesan & Rajesh Shanmugavel

Journal of Thermal Analysis and

Calorimetry
An International Forum for Thermal
Studies

ISSN 1388-6150
Volume 143
Number 4

J Therm Anal Calorim (2021)

143:3009-3021
DOI 10.1007/s10973-020-09707-7

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Akadémiai
Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2021) 143:3009–3021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-09707-7

Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder

composition for eco‑friendly firecrackers
Manikandan Rajendran1 · Rajajeyaganthan Ramanathan2 · P. Ganesan3 · Rajesh Shanmugavel1

Received: 17 November 2018 / Accepted: 13 April 2020 / Published online: 29 April 2020
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2020

Abstract
In this work, considering the various practical concerns during storage, processing, handling and emission of flash powder
used for making firecracker, a slight modification was made in chemical composition of flash powder to overcome all the
above-mentioned practical concerns. Generally, flash powder chemical composition consists of K ­ NO3-60%, Al-20% and
S-20% for making firecrackers. The modification was made by replacing 5% and 10% of sulfur with tamarind seed powder
(TSP) in the flash powder composition. In this study, all the chemicals used for making flash powder were of nanometer
size. Using this TSP-based flash powder, the bijili crackers were fabricated and tested for noise level. The performance of
the noise level by TSP-based flash powder was within the specified limits. The safety aspect of TSP-based flash powder was
tested for its impact and friction sensitivity. To understand the thermal behavior of the TSP-based flash powder, TG analysis
and DSC were performed and compared with existing flash powder composition. The results showed that TSP could be a
perfect substituent for sulfur and could play a vital role in the making of eco-friendly (Green) crackers.

Keywords Tamarind · Flash powder · Thermal analysis · Sensitivity · Noise level · Green crackers

Introduction direct and indirect employment to a huge community. The

Fireworks are widely used in all cultures, religious and
social occasions for crowd-pleasing throughout the world
[1–4]. Firework industries are one of the major revenue
sources for the Indian government, and the town Sivakasi
in India is the place which contributes to 90% of the pro-
duction of firecrackers. The Indian fireworks industry is
the second largest in the world after China and provides
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1097​3-020-09707​-7) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Rajajeyaganthan Ramanathan
rajajeyaganthan.r@klu.ac.in; rajajeyaganthan.r@gmail.com
* Rajesh Shanmugavel
s.rajesh@klu.ac.in
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam
Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, TN,
India
2
Department of Chemistry, Kalasalingam Academy
of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, TN, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amal Jyothi College
of Engineering, Kanjirapally, KL, India
annual turnover of Sivakasi firework industries was billed
at 50 billion Indian rupees (750 million US dollars) in the
year 2017. Firecrackers are available in different varieties,
namely sparklers, chakker (rotating type), bijili cracker,
chorsa (garland-type cracker made from bijili), atom/
cracker bomb, rocket, color fountain, and aerial fireworks
(fancy type) [5]. Among the aforementioned firecrackers,
bijili is one of the highest sold items in the recent past
in firecrackers types. Chorsa (garland of bijilis) is made
with the minimum hundred numbers of bijilis and maxi-
mum with ten thousand bijili. The flash powder chemical
composition [6, 7] of bijili crackers is 60% of potassium
nitrate ­(KNO3), 20% of aluminum (Al) and 20% of sulfur
(S). This same percentage of flash powder composition
is used for making other types of crackers by varying its
mass depending upon the noise level. In the flash powder
composition [8, 9], Al acts as fuel, S as an ignition source
and ­KNO3 as oxidizer which supplies the oxygen needed
for burning [10]. All these chemicals are used in a pow-
dered form for making flash powder. The particle size of
the flash powders is in the range of 50 nm. Grinding of
powders, sieving to the desired size, mixing the powder to
obtain a homogenous chemical mixture and packing them

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
3010
in the paper container are the steps followed for making
the bijili crackers. There are a lot of options to improve the
performance of flash powders like changing their composi-
tion [7], addition of new chemicals [11] and reducing the
particle sizes [12]. Burning of fireworks releases gases like
­SO2, ­NOx, and C ­ Ox, suspended particles, and several met-
als ions/oxides of aluminum, manganese, and cadmium,
as pollutants which pollute the environment [5, 13] and
create serious health hazards [3, 14].
The recreational atmospheric pollution [15, 16] due to
bursting of firecrackers during festival seasons like Diwali
[1] (India), Lantern festival [3] (Beijing, China), Guy
Fawkes or Bonfire Night [4, 17] (London, UK), and Yan-
shui Festival [2] (Taiwan) was very high, and all the con-
centrations of the pollutants are above the permissible lim-
its. Due to the presence of sulfur in flash powders used for
making firecrackers, the emission of S ­ O2 gas by bursting
firecrackers during Diwali was many folds than the per-
missible limits given by Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), India, and World Health Standards. In recent
years (last 10 years), the emission of S ­ O2 in some major
cities during Diwali was 2–6 times higher in Delhi [18],
5 times higher in Kolkatta [19], and 6.59 times higher in
Lucknow [20]. In 2003, the emission of S ­ O2 in Hisar city
of Haryana, India, was increased tenfold at few sites. In
Nagpur [21] city, during the year 2012 Diwali, the amount
of ­SO2 in the ambient air of National Environmental Engi-
neering Research Institute (NEERI) residential colony was
70.33 µg m−3 which was higher than the permissible limit
of 60.0 µg m −3 (24 h) in the residential and rural areas
standard given in National Ambient Air Quality Standards
of India (NAAQS), CPCB, India. Recently (2017–2018),
in India, the developments of green cracker through gov-
ernment and industries collaborative funded projects are
underway to lower the emission of ­SO2 gases. In addition,
any change in flash powder composition could affect the
safety and prone to accidents because of self-ignition [22]
during its storage and handling. The objective of this study
is to reduce the amount of sulfur without comprising the
noise and safety performance of normal flash powder by
replacing it with tamarind seed powder (TSP).
Table 1  Details of raw Name of chemical powders
material used for flash powder
manufacturing
Potassium nitrate ­(KNO3)
Aluminum (Al)
Sulfur (S)
Tamarind seed powder (TSP)
13
M. Rajendran et al.
Experimental
Materials and methods
(i) Tamarind seed power
TSP is obtained from tamarind seed of tamarind fruit (Tama-
rindus indica). The tamarind seed weighs about 40–44% of
tamarind fruit, widely grown in India with an annual growth
of about 300,000 tons [23, 24]. The tamarind seed is a solid
waste [25] obtained as a by-product of tamarind pulp due
to the huge annual growth of tamarind fruit. The tamarind
seed was crushed to fine powder and used in flash powder
to reduce the usage of sulfur. The ultimate analysis [26] of
TSP revealed that TSP can be used as a fuel because of the
high value of mass percentage of carbon (47.76%) and oxy-
gen (42.39%). The TSP contains polysaccharides, tannins,
proteins and having a gross calorific value of 21 MJ kg−1
[23]. In this study, the percentage of TSP replaced for sulfur
in flash powder was 5% and 10%, and the properties of TSP-
based flash powder were tested and compared with normal
flash power samples. The 5% and 10% of TSP-based flash
powder samples were carefully chosen for study because a
minimum of 10% and a maximum of 17% sulfur are required
to impart good cracking characteristics for flash powders
used for making crackers [6]. The tamarind seeds were
brought from a local supplier, Sathur, Tamil Nadu, India.
The tamarind seeds were oven-dried at 110 °C for 12 h to
remove moisture [23]. Then, they were grinded in the flour
mill and finally a fine powder form was obtained.
(ii) Preparation of normal and TSP‑based flash powder
The raw materials used for making flash powder such as
potassium nitrate ­(KNO3), aluminum (Al), and sulfur (S) of
fireworks industrial grade were purchased from local mar-
ket, Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, India. The physical properties of
these raw materials used for making flash powder used in
bijili crackers are listed in Table 1. The raw materials were
thoroughly mixed well in non conducting rubber mat surface
and sieved by a brass sieve with Mesh No. 325-ASTM &
Standard test sieve Average particle Purity/%
size/nm
Mesh no. IS designa-
tion/μm
ASTM BS
325 350 45 43 97.6
325 350 45 45 85.0
325 350 45 43 99.9
325 350 45 46 91.0
 Author's personal copy
Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder composition for eco‑friendly… 3011

350-BS for three to five times to obtain uniform homogene- Table 2  Chemical composition of FPS used in fabricating bijili crack-
ous flash powder mixture. The molar quantity of the ingre- ers
dients used in the flash powder making was summarized in Sample name Chemical composition/%
a table, and table data were provided as supplementary data
Potassium Alu- Sulfur (S) Tamarind seed
for further reference. nitrate minum powder (TSP)
­(KNO3) (Al)
Fabrication of bijili cracker
FPSN 60 20 20 –
FPS5 60 20 15 5
Bijili crackers were made by using the prepared flash powder
FPS10 60 20 10 10
samples in the fireworks industry in Sivakasi, India. About
300 mg of the prepared flash powder sample was tightly
filled in a paper tube of rolled using a newsprint grade paper
of 45–50 g m−2 to make a cylindrical shape of length 4.0 cm,
diameter 0.6 cm and having a paper sheet thickness of
0.5 mm (approximately 4 plies). The paper tube dimension
was as per Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization
(PESO) standards [5]. At the top of the paper tube, a fuse
(made by charcoal powder) of length 4 cm with 6–9 s delay
was fitted at the center position for the ignition of the bijili
cracker. The base of the paper tube was sealed by a mixture
of a binding agent made by clay and dextrin particles to
avoid any leakage of flash powder.
In this work, three different sets of bijili crackers were
made using different flash powder composition. The first
set of bijili crackers were made using normal flash power
composition which was 60% K ­ NO3, 20% Al, and 20% S
which is mainly used in bijili crackers in India. The second
set and third set of bijili crackers were prepared by replac-
ing the normal flash powder of bijili cracker with 5% and
10% of tamarind seed powder (TSP). The second set of
bijili crackers were made using 5% TSP by replacing 5%
of sulfur in the normal flash powder composition, and its
Fig. 1  A sample of bijili crackers made using 5% or 10% TSP-based
composition was 60% ­KNO3, 20% Al, 15% S, and 5% TSP. flash powder samples (FPS5 and FPS10)
The third set (bijili) was made using 10% TSP by replac-
ing 10% of sulfur in the normal flash powder composition,
and its composition was 60% ­KNO3, 20% Al, 10% S, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
10% TSP. The percentage of TSP was chosen according to
study the impact of TSP in flash powder composition with The FTIR spectrum of TSP was recorded in the range of
respect to noise, sensitivity, and emission performance and 4000–400 cm−1 with a resolution of 4 cm−1 using RXI Perki-
compared with the normal flash power composition used nElmer FTIR spectrophotometer to ensure the purity of TSP.
in bijili cracker. For easy understanding, the normal flash
powder composition was labeled as FPSN and the 5% and X‑ray diffraction (XRD)
10% TSP (replaced with sulfur) flash powder was labeled as
FPS5 and FPS10. The chemical composition of flash powder The XRD pattern of TSP was obtained using Bruker Eco D8
samples (FPS) used in the fabrication of bijili crackers and Diffractometer in the 2θ range of 10°–100° using Cu anode
for noise, sensitivity, and thermogravimetry (TG) analysis is having K-alpha beam of 1.5424 Å (average of K-alpha1 and
listed in Table 2. These flash powder samples (FPSN, FPS5, K-alpha2 beam) at a voltage of 40 kV and current of 20 mA
and FPS10) of mass 300 mg were used for the fabrication of to ensure the purity of TSP.
bijili crackers, and it was used for noise level studies. The
samples of bijili crackers made using 5% and 10% TSP are Particle size analysis
shown in Fig. 1. About 10–15 mg of as prepared FPSs was
used for sensitivity test and for thermogravimetry analysis The particle size of the tamarind seed powder and flash
about 4–5 mg was used. powder sample was measured using Shimadzu SALD 2300

13
 Author's personal copy
3012
model particle size analyzer. Particle size distribution is cal-
culated using the light intensity distribution pattern of scat-
tered light generated from sample particles. During analysis,
the holder temperature was maintained at 25 °C with disper-
sion medium viscosity as 0.896 mPa s.
Morphology analysis
The morphology of the flash powder sample was observed
through JSM-7900F Schottky field emission scanning elec-
tron microscope. To observe the morphology of the tamarind
seed powder, a small amount of tamarind seed powder is
taken and placed over the carbon tape for conduction and it
was slightly pressed to bind with the tape. The carbon tape is
placed in the SEM platform, and images were recorded using
electron acceleration of between 15 and 20 kV.
Mechanical sensitivity analysis
The impact sensitivity of the FPSs was measured as per
German Federal Institute for Testing Materials, Bundesan-
stalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM)-[UN Test
Series.3] method by using impact sensitivity tester supplied
by Electro Ceramic (P) Ltd, India. A fixed mass of 2 kg was
dropped from different heights to record the safest impact
energy of FPSs without explosion. The impact sensitivity
of the FPSs was expressed in terms of limiting energy. The
instrumental setup used to determine the limiting energy is
shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2  The instrumental setup used for measuring limiting energy of
the FPSs
13
M. Rajendran et al.
The following procedure was adopted to measure the
limiting energy of the FPSs. 10 mg of bijili cracker sam-
ple was taken and kept in the bottom anvil. Top anvil is
placed above the mixture sample. The impacting mass of
2 kg was set at the required height and dropped from the
predetermined height. Before releasing the impact mass,
the extreme caution was taken to ensure the straightness of
the sample position. The spark sensor was also placed near
the bottom anvil. During the impact test, the distance at
which the explosion occurred was observed and recorded.
The same procedure was repeated for other heights to
determine the limiting energy of the FPSs. The test was
conducted thrice, and the average value of the experiment
was reported.
The friction sensitivity of the FPSs was tested in the
friction test apparatus (Fig. 3) STANAG 4487 as per the
standard procedure dictated in—EN 13631-3 & BAM [27].
Friction sensitivity of the FPSs was observed by placing
~ 15 mg of FPS in the porcelain plate made of technical
porcelain with dimension 25 × 25 × 5 mm. The porcelain
pin was placed over the sample. The porcelain pin was also
made of technical porcelain of length 15 mm and diameter
of 10 mm with a spherical tip on both ends having 10 mm
as a radius of curvature. The porcelain plate was securely
placed in the assembly. The assembly with the porcelain
plate was moved to and fro along a direction over the fixed
porcelain pin for a distance of about 10 mm with a speed
of 141 rpm. Several trials were conducted to exactly iden-
tify the loading range.
Fig. 3  Friction tester used for measuring friction sensitivity of the
FPSs
 Author's personal copy
Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder composition for eco‑friendly… 3013

Thermal analysis 40
TSP
35
The FPSs were analyzed for their thermal properties to study
the mass loss during heating in thermogravimetry (TG) 30

Transmittance/arb. units
analysis and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) using
DSC instrument (PerkinElmer, Model: DSC 4000 System), 25

in a nitrogen atmosphere between the temperature range 20

35–995 °C at 20 °C min−1. A mass of ~ 5.0 mg of FPS was
used for each thermal analysis. 15

Noise level testing
Noise level test was carried out as per the rules of noti-
fication of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization,
Govt. of India. It was measured by four noise level monitors
(Fig. 4) using Model no. 824L (Make: Larson and Davis,
USA), and the measurement procedures are discussed in
[4]. The sound level is measured in decibel unit, denoted
as dB. dBA and dBC are the two common ways to express
the sound level in dB units, where A and C correspond to
the type of filter used in measuring the sound level. Filter
A is used to measure the midrange frequencies, and filter C
is used to measure the low and high frequencies of sound.
The noise produced by crackers at a distance of 4 m from
the point of bursting is recorded in dB(AI) and dB(C) values
[28]. The dB(AI) value indicates the risk of noise (impact
noise)-induced hearing loss [29] in humans, and dB(C) indi-
cates the peak noise level.
Result and discussion
The FTIR spectrum and XRD of the TSP are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. TSP mainly contains polysaccharide with fats,
tannins, proteins, and amino acids in minimum proportion
[30, 31]. The TSP sample was pure, and it was confirmed
10
5
0
4000 3500 3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 800 400
Wavenumber/cm–1
Fig. 5  FTIR spectrum of TSP
by the FTIR spectrum of TSP [23, 30, 32] and by 1.27698
d value from XRD [30] reported earlier. The particle size
distribution and morphology of all the raw materials used
for making FPS are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The particle size
distribution of these raw materials used for making flash
powder is one of the important parameters in firework indus-
tries regarding safety [12] in handling and noise efficiency
[7] of the crackers produced from them. From Fig. 7, the
average particle size of all the raw materials used for making
flash powder was 0.05 μm (50 nm).
The noise level generated by FPSs used to make bijili
crackers is shown in Table 3. The bijilis made using FPS5
and FPS10 generated noise less than the specified noise level
125 dB(AI) and 145 dB(C). The noise level was reduced
by 14 dB(AI) and 12.7 dB(C) for FPS5 when compared to
1200
TSP

1000
Intensity/arb. units

800

600

400

200

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2θ /°
Fig. 4  Measuring the noise level of bijili cracker using noise level
meter Fig. 6  XRD of TSP

13
 Author's personal copy
3014
Fig. 7  Diameter size distribution of a ­KNO3, b Al, c S and d TSP
Fig. 8  SEM images of a ­KNO3, b Al, c S and d TSP
FPSN. Similarly, for FPS10, the noise level was reduced by
9.2 dB(AI) and 7.9 dB(C) when compared to FPSN. This
showed that by adding TSP in flash powder composition,
the noise level generated by the FPS5 and FPS10 of the bijili
cracker was reduced relative to FPSN. The benefit of using
TSP in FPS was the reduction of environmental pollution
13
M. Rajendran et al.
produced due to the use of sulfur in FPS without increas-
ing the specified noise limit. On comparing the noise level
performance of FPS5 and FPS10, the FPS10 noise level was
higher by 4.8 dB(AI) and 4.8 dB(C) than FPS5. Thermal
analysis of FPSs was carried out to understand their thermal
events involved in the decrease in noise level by FPS5 and
FPS10 when compared to FPSN and also to understand the
increase in noise level in FPS10 when compared to FPS5.
The impact and friction sensitivity of all FPSs were tested
to determine the limit of impact and friction load and to avoid
any explosion occurring during its handling. The impact sen-
sitivity of all FPS was measured in terms of limiting energy
in Joules. The limiting energy of the various FPS is summa-
rized in Table 4. It was understood from the BAM fall ham-
mer experiments that all the FPSs of bijili cracker got ignited
when the standard load (m) of 2.0 kg was dropped from the
height (h) of 0.40 m, 0.30 m, 0.25 m and 0.20 m except for
the height of 0.25 and 0.20 m for FPS10 alone. None of
the FPSs got ignited when the standard load of 2.0 kg was
dropped from the height of 0.18 m. The limiting energy is
calculated using the formula mgh (where g is acceleration
due to gravity and its value is 9.81 m s−1) and it was 3.532 J
(above which ignition occur) for FPSN and FPS5 calculated
 Author's personal copy
Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder composition for eco‑friendly… 3015

Table 3  Noise level generated by FPS of bijili cracker

Flash powder samples The mass of the Noise level/dB
chemical mixture/mg
Specified noise limit Generated noise Specified noise limit Generated
(Indian norm) [5] dB(AI) level dB (AI) (Indian norm) [5] dB(C) noise level
dB(C)

FPSN 300 125 107.9 145 131.6

FPS5 (TSP 5 g) 300 125 93.9 145 118.9
FPS10 (TSP 10 g) 300 125 98.7 145 123.7

at the height of 0.18 m. Similarly, the limiting energy cal-
culated for FPS10 was 4.905 J (above which ignition occur)
calculated at the height of 0.25 m. The FPSN, FPS5, and
FPS10 were considered to be very sensitive chemical mixture
according to the Andrejev and Beljajev (1965) which states
that if the limiting energy is less than 5.0 J, then it could be
classified as a very sensitive chemical mixture under class
IV. The addition of 5% TSP instead of sulfur did not affect
or alter the limiting energy of FPS5 and it behaved as the
FPSN composition. On contrary, the addition of 10% TSP
instead of sulfur affected and increased the limiting energy
from 3.532 to 4.905 J. From these observations, FPS10 had
less impact sensitivity (limiting energy value) than FPS5 and
FPSN, and the impact sensitivity (limiting energy value) of
FPSN and FPS5 was same. The reason for this was due to
the 10% of sulfur in FPS10 which was in the lower speci-
fied limit [6] (minimum 10% and maximum 17% of sulfur)
required to impart good cracking characteristics for the FPS
and increased the limiting energy when compared to FPS5
and FPSN. But, 20% and 15% of sulfur in FPSN and FPS5
imparted good cracking characteristics by keeping the limit-
ing energy same for FPSN and FPS5.
Friction sensitivity test of all the FPS is tabulated in
Table 5. The friction sensitivity test limits the value of fric-
tion load, above which the explosion will occur due to fric-
tion [27]. From Table 5, the flash occurred for FPSN and
FPS5 at friction load of 360 N, but not for FPS10 at the
friction load of 360 N. In addition, from Table 5, it was
very clear that the flash did not occur for all the FPS at the
friction load of 324 N. The safe friction load for FPSN and
FPS5 was 324 N, above which explosion will occur. But, for
FPS10, the safe friction load was 360 N above which explo-
sion may occur. This showed that the addition of 5% TSP
did not affect the performance of FPS5 when compared to
FPSN. On contrary, the addition of 10% TSP increased the
safe friction load from 324 N to 360 N when compared to
FPSN and FPS5. The increase in percentage of TSP in flash
powder increased the limiting energy (impact test) and safe
explosion load (friction test), thereby increasing the safety
limit during its handling.

Table 4  Limiting impact energy Flash powder Load (m)/kg Height (h)/m Number of trial Limiting energy/J
of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 samples
1 2 3 4 5 6

FPSN 2.0 0.40 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7.848

FPS5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7.848
FPS10 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7.848
FPSN 2.0 0.30 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5.886
FPS5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5.886
FPS10 X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5.886
FPSN 2.0 0.25 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4.905
FPS5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4.905
FPS10 X X X X X X 4.905
FPSN 2.0 0.20 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3.924
FPS5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3.924
FPS10 X X X X X X 3.924
FPSN 2.0 0.18 X X X X X X 3.532
FPS5 X X X X X X 3.532
FPS10 X X X X X X 3.532

✓ flash occurred, X flash did not occur

13
 Author's personal copy
3016 M. Rajendran et al.

Thermogravimetry (TG) is very useful to understand the 105

FPSN
mechanism of thermal decomposition of energetic materi- 100 FPS5
als. The TG curve of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 is shown in FPS10
95
Fig. 9. In Fig. 9, at the beginning of TG curve of FPSN, there
was an increase in mass of the FPSN and then it gradually 90

decreased with an increase in temperature. This increase

Mass loss/%
85
may due to the Archimedes effect which happened during 80
the start of the analysis. Before increasing the temperature,
75
the fluid (flow of N ­ 2 gas) forces the sample pan upward
which leads to an increase in mass of about ~ 0.9 g during 70

the start of the experiment. As the temperature rises, the 65

density of fluid slightly decreased and when stabilized the
sample pan moves downward. Similar observations were not
observed for other samples, and this confirmed that this hap-
pened at the starting of the analysis. After this, the TG curve
of FPSN had two temperature ramps as shown in Fig. 9.
Thermal events of FPSN during TG analysis are summarized
in Table 6. This indicates that the thermal decomposition
of FPSN was a two-step process. In the first step, the mass
loss was about 21.19%. The radius of curvature of the first
temperature ramp (of the first step) was appreciably smaller
at the end of the ramp than at its beginning. This implies
that there occurred a decomposition chemical reaction in
which mass change occurs. The slope of the temperature
ramp in the first step was greater than one which confirms
that the mass loss occurred rapidly. Based on these obser-
vations, the mass loss was due to thermal decomposition
reaction occurred in FPSN with the formation of gaseous
products. The difference in mass (∆Y) for the first step was
21.19% which may be due to the release of ­SOx/N2 gases
[33] formed during the thermal decomposition reaction [5].
In the second step, the mass loss was about 18.06%.
Before the start of a second temperature ramp (of the sec-
ond step), it was observed that there was a stable mass and
after that, an increase in mass was observed. This stability
in mass was due to the phase transition of amorphous ­Al2O3
to γ-Al2O3 followed by the increase in mass in the TG curve.
This increase in mass was due to the formation of α-Al2O3
which takes place at the temperature range of ~ 500–620 °C.
The presence of ­Al2O3 was unavoidable in the aluminum
raw material because of the oxidation of aluminum during
60
55
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample temperature/°C
Fig. 9  TG curve of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10
the manufacturing process and storing. For 96% purity of
fireworks aluminum powder, 3% of ­Al2O3 was permitted.
The slope of the temperature ramp in the second step was
less than the slope of the temperature ramp in the first step.
Similar TG pattern was observed for FPS5 and FPS10
except in the region between 250 and 480 °C. The TG mass
loss data for FPS5 and FPS10 are summarized in Table 7.
Between these regions, there were two temperature ramps
mainly to due to the devolatilization [25] of TSP. Devola-
tilization in the TG curve was mainly observed during ther-
mochemical conversion process involving biomass [34]. The
first and second temperature ramp of FPS5 and FPS10 was
due to the release of volatile hydrocarbon during devolatili-
zation of hemicellulose between ~ 250 and 325 °C and cellu-
lose between ~ 325 and 480 °C [35, 36], which were present
in TSP. TSP mainly contains cellulose and hemicelluloses
(a polysaccharide of glucose monomers linked by glycosidic
bonds) [30, 37]. Cellulose is a longer chain polymer made of
β-glucose monomer units, whereas hemicellulose is a cross-
linked polymer made of xylose, galactose, mannose, rham-
nose, and arabinose monomer units. Cellulose is the main
component of the primary cell wall of the plant cell, and

Table 5  Friction sensitivity test Flash powder Load/N Number of trial

of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 samples
1 2 3 4 5 6

FPSN 360 X X ✓ – – –
324 X X X X X X
FPS5 360 X ✓ ✓ – – –
324 X X X X X X
FPS10 360 X X X X X X
324 X X X X X X

✓ flash occurred, X flash did not occur

13
 Author's personal copy
Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder composition for eco‑friendly… 3017

Table 6  Thermal events of FPSN during TG analysis

Sample Mass loss/% Temperature/°C Thermal events
From To ∆M From To ∆T

FPSN 100.00 78.81 21.19 139.54 275.36 135.82 Violent decomposition

78.76 60.70 18.06 277.03 972.94 695.91 1. Sulfur vaporization (225–444 °C) [10]
2. The transition of amorphous ­Al2O3 to γ-Al2O3 (~ 500–620 °C)
3. The melting point of aluminum (660 °C)
4. Thermal decomposition of K­ 2O (700–950 °C) [10]
Delta Y 39.25

hemicelluloses are present along with cellulose. The pres-
ence of cellulose and hemicelluloses was confirmed from
the FTIR spectrum of TSP. In Fig. 9, the presence of a high
intense strong broad peak at 3348 cm−1 corresponding to OH
group [37–39] stretching vibration of glucose and another
high intense strong sharp peak at 1158 cm−1 correspond-
ing to glycoside linkage [40, 41] confirmed the presence of
cellulose in TSP. In addition, the strong peak at 1082 cm−1
corresponding to C–O–C stretching vibration [35] also con-
firmed the presence of cellulose in TSP. The absence of a
peak at 1635 or 1638 cm−1 due to OH bending of adsorbed
water [39] showed that the TSP was completed dried and
resistant to hydrolysis because cellulose is crystalline (Fig. 6
shows 2θ peak value at 19.35°) and resists hydrolysis. The
highest absorbance of OH and C–O was found for cellulose,
and on the other hand, the highest absorbance of C=O was
meant for hemicelluloses [35]. The presence of medium peak
1546 cm−1 corresponding to C=O stretching confirmed the
presence of ketone carbonyl present in hemicelluloses. The
small peak at 1745.58 cm−1 was due to the presence of ester
C=O stretching which in turn confirmed the presence of
triglyceride and phospholipids present in the TSP [38]. Due
to 10% of TSP in FPS10, the volume of gases produced dur-
ing devolatilization (around 63% to 68% of volatile matter
[25, 26] in TSP)and decomposition was more than the FPS5
which had only 5% of TSP. The noise level produced by the
FPS10 was higher than the FPS5 due to sudden expansion
of more volume of gases produced by TSP in FPS10 during
its decomposition reaction.
The DSC curve coupled with TG helped to analyze the
transitions involved in the thermal decomposition of FPSN,
FPS5, and FPS10. The DSC curve of FPSN, FPS5, and
FPS10 is shown in Fig. 10. Thermal events of FPSN, FPS5,
and FPS10 during DSC analysis are summarized in Table 8.

Table 7  Thermal events of FPS5 and FPS10 during TG analysis

Flash pow- Mass loss/% Temperature/°C Thermal events
der sample
From To ∆Y From To ∆T

FPS5 100.00 84.79 15.21 147.52 260.22 112.70 Violent decomposition

84.79 82.56 2.23 260.22 320.50 60.28 1. Devolatilization of hemicelluloses of TSP (~ 250–325 °C) [34, 35]
2. Sulfur vaporization (225–444 °C) [10]
82.56 80.58 1.98 320.50 474.64 154.14 1. Sulfur vaporization (225–444 °C) [10]
2. Devolatilization of celluloses of TSP (~ 325–480 °C) [34, 35]
80.58 56.60 23.98 474.64 980.90 506.26 1. The transition of amorphous ­Al2O3 to γ-Al2O3 (~ 500–620 °C)
2. The melting point of aluminum (660 °C)
3. Thermal decomposition of K ­ 2O (700–950 °C) [10]
Delta Y 43.40
FPS10 100.00 90.57 9.44 150.48 257.21 106.73 Violent decomposition
90.57 87.19 3.38 257.21 325.02 67.81 1. Devolatilization of hemicelluloses of TSP [34, 35]
2. Sulfur vaporization (225–444 °C) [10]
87.19 81.54 5.65 325.02 476.97 151.95 1. Sulfur vaporization (225–444 °C) [10]
2. Devolatilization of celluloses of TSP (~ 325–480 °C) [34, 35]
81.54 58.18 23.36 476.97 976.8 499.83 1. The transition of amorphous ­Al2O3 to γ-Al2O3 (~ 500–620 °C)
2. The melting point of aluminum (660 °C)
3. Thermal decomposition of K ­ 2O (700–950 °C) [10]
Delta Y 41.83

13
 Author's personal copy
3018 M. Rajendran et al.

In Fig. 10, for the FPSN, the first small dip at 115 °C corre-
sponded to the endothermal effects associated with the phase
transition of sulfur [42, 43]. The second and third small dip
of FPSN at 135.43 °C and 325.42 °C corresponds to the
endothermic phase transition of ­KNO3. Generally, the melt-
ing point of K­ NO3 takes place at 334 °C. The fourth broad
dip in the DSC curve of FPSN was due to the endothermic
reaction associated with the melting of aluminum in the tem-
perature range of 800–900 °C [44]. The curved fall associ-
ated with dips in the DSC curve indicated that the volatile
melting process was taking place, i.e., the liquid FPS evapo-
rates, and it was confirmed by the large change in mass in the
TG curve. The large peak at 270.75 °C in the DSC curve was
due to the high exothermic thermal decomposition reaction
of FPSN. The first, second, third, and fourth dip in the DSC
curve of FPS5 and FPS10 appeared at the same temperature
Exo 550
FPSN
500 70
60
FPS5
FPS10
450
Heat flow/mW
as mentioned for the FPSN. This implies that the process
occurring in FPS5 and FPS10 was same as the FPSN. In
addition to the first large peak as in FPSN, FPS5 and FPS10
had two more small board peaks at ~ 350 °C and at ~ 420 °C.
These two small exotherm peaks appeared mainly due to the
thermal decomposition of the hemicelluloses and celluloses
present in the TSP [45–47]. In Fig. 10, these exotherm peaks
are easily observed in FPS10 than in FPS5 due to 10% of
TSP in FPS10, whereas the FPS5 had only 5% of TSP.
The onset, end, decomposition temperature, and heat
of decomposition reaction of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 are
summarized in Table 9. For FPSN, the decomposition reac-
tion started at 226.43 °C (onset temperature) and ended at
281.06 °C (end temperature). The decomposition tempera-
ture (peak position) of FPSN was 270.75 °C. Similarly, for
FPS5 and FPS10, the decomposition temperature started at
218.55 and 204.96 °C and ended at 267.56 and 263.61 °C,
respectively. The decomposition temperature of FPS5 and
FPS10 was at 260.26 and 255.90 °C. The onset tempera-
ture is an indication of the thermal stability of the energetic
materials. Generally, the higher the onset temperature, more
the thermal stability is which means that high temperature

50
40
400 30
20
is required for the material for the thermal decomposition
350 10 reaction. On comparing the onset temperature of FPSN and
Heat flow/mW

0
300 – 10 FPS5, the FPS5 has 5% TSP and the onset temperature was
– 20
250 100 150 200 250 300 350 7.88 °C (3.48%) lesser than FPSN. Similarly, on compar-
200
Sample temperature/°C ing the onset temperature of FPS10 with FPSN and FPS5,
150 for the FPS10 with 10% TSP, the onset temperature was
100 21.47 °C (9.48%) lesser than FPSN and 13.59 °C (6.22%)
50 lesser than FPS5. From this, it was very clear that increasing
0
the percentage of TSP powder in FPSs decreases the onset
– 50
temperature and thereby decreases their thermal stability
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 [48]. This may be due to the presence of high volatile mat-
Sample temperature/°C ter [25, 26] present in TSP. On comparing the decomposi-
tion temperature of FPSN and FPS5, the decomposition tem-
Fig. 10  DSC curve of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 perature was 10.49 °C lesser than FPSN. Similarly, for the

Table 8  Thermal events of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 during DSC analysis
Sample Dips/peaks Number Temperature/°C Thermal event

FPSN Dips First 115.00 Endotherm—the transition of sulfur

Second 135.43 Endotherm—phase transition of ­KNO3
Third 325.42
Fourth 800–900 Endotherm—melting of aluminum
Peak First 270.75 Exotherm—violent decomposition of FPSN
FPS5 and FPS10 Dips First 115.00 Endotherm—the transition of Sulfur
Second 135.43 Endotherm—phase transition of ­KNO3
Third 325.42
Fourth 800–900 Endotherm—melting of aluminum
Peaks First 260.26 Exotherm—violent decomposition of FPS5 and FPS10
Second ~ 350 Exotherm—thermal decomposition of hemicelluloses of TSP
Third ~ 420 Exotherm—thermal decomposition of celluloses of TSP

13
 Author's personal copy
Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder composition for eco‑friendly… 3019

Table 9  The onset, end, and decomposition temperature for FPSN, first peak, a small bump can be identified and it clearly
FPS5, and FPS10 revealed that it was a melting process with decomposi-
Sample Temperature/°C ∆H/J g−1 tion. The small second endothermic peak following the
bump at around 320 °C was due to the transformation of
Onset End Decomposition
aluminum to first metastable χ-Al 2O 3. The broad third
FPSN 226.43 281.06 270.75 − 1440.48 endothermic peak at around 800 to 900 °C was due to
FPS5 (5% TSP) 218.55 267.56 260.26 − 814.22 the formation of second metastable κ-Al2O3 [49]. Similar
FPS10 (10% TSP) 204.96 263.61 255.90 − 536.24 peaks were observed for FPS5 and FPS10. For FPS5 and
FPS10, two new peaks appeared at ~ 310 °C and ~ 450 °C
as shown in Fig. 11. These two new peaks were due to the
release of volatile hydrocarbon during devolatilization of
4 FPSN
FPS5 hemicelluloses (at ~ 310 °C) and cellulose (at ~ 450 °C)
FPS10
2
present in TSP.

0
DTG/mg min–1

Conclusions
–2

–4 The noise level of FPSN was 107.9 dB (AI) and

–6
–8
– 10
100 200 300 400 500 600
Sample temperature/°C
Fig. 11  DTG curve of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10
FPS10, the decomposition temperature was 14.85 °C lesser
than FPSN and 4.36 °C lesser than FPS5. This showed that
the decomposition temperature decreased with increasing
percentage of TSP in FPS. Even though there was decrease
in the thermal stability in FPS5 and FPS10 due to TSP, the
enthalpy (∆H) of the decomposition reaction (exothermic) of
FPS5 and FPS10 decreased with an increase in TSP % in the
FPSs. The ∆H of the decomposition reaction of FPS5 and
FPS10 was 1.77 times and 2.69 times lesser than the ∆H of
the decomposition reaction of FPSN.
Derivative thermogravimetry (DTG) is a mathematical
transformation of TG, and it is used to understand the
thermal reactions like changes in the crystal structure of
a substance happening with respect to temperature. DTG
curve of FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 is shown in Fig. 11. In
Fig. 11, for FPSN, the first endothermic peak of the DTG
curve indicated the point of greatest rate of change on the
mass loss curve and it was at 263.03 °C. This 263.03 °C
was also known as an inflection point. The mass loss pro-
cess started at 239.09 °C (onset temperature) and ended
at 276.54 °C (end temperature). The unsymmetrical
shape of the peak was due to more than one event taking
place at the same temperature interval. At the end of the
131.6 dB(C)peak. The noise level for FPS5 was reduced by
13.0% in dB (AI) and 9.65% in dB(C)peak scale when com-
pared to FPSN. Similarly, the noise level for FPS10 was
reduced by 8.53% in dB (AI) and 6.0% in dB(C)peak scale
when compared to FPSN. This showed that FPS10 was bet-
ter and close to the noise level of FPSN when compared to
700 800 900 FPS5. On comparing the sensitivity test, the limiting impact
energy of the FPSN, FPS5, and FPS10 was 3.532 J, 3.532 J,
and 4.905 J and limiting frictional load was 324 N for FPSN
and FPS5 and 360 N for FPS10. This implied that FPS10
was better in safety aspects during its handling. But, due
to decrease in the sensitivity test by FPS10 there may be
a chance for failure in cracking performance. The thermal
analysis revealed that better performance in noise level by
FPS10 was due to the presence of volatile matter in TSP.
More volume of gases was produced by 10% of TSP in
FPS10 than 5% of TSP in FPS5 during devolatilization.
This volatile matter in TSP decreased the thermal decom-
position properties like onset, end, and peak temperature
along with ∆H. These properties improved the safety during
handling and transportation of TSP-based flash powders.
On analyzing all the test results, FPS10 was better in terms
of noise level and in safety aspects, thereby reducing the
emission of S­ O2 gases. On considering the cracking per-
formance of FPS10, there was a chance for cracking failure
due to minimum percentage (10%) of sulfur in FPS10. But,
for FPS5 there was no chance of cracking failure due to
15% of sulfur which favors easy ignition. Based on crack-
ing performance, FPS5 was better than FPS10. This study
revealed that TSP can be used for replacement of sulfur in
flash powder composition which can be used for making
eco-friendly (green) bijili crackers. This TSP-based flash
powder could also be used for making other types of green
crackers by varying their mass percentage depending upon
the noise level limits.

13
 Author's personal copy
3020 M. Rajendran et al.

References 22. Shi XJ, Wang LQ. Thermal self-ignition simulation of pyrotech-
nic composite in different conditions. J Therm Anal Calorim.
2018;134(3):2349–58.
1. Kulshrestha UC, et al. Emissions and accumulation of metals in
23. Kader MA et al. Pyrolysis decomposition of tamarind seed for
the atmosphere due to crackers and sparkles during Diwali festival
alternative fuel. Bioresour Technol; 2013 pp. 1–7.
in India. Atmos Environ. 2004;38(27):4421–5.
24. El-Siddig K, et al. Tamarind, Tamarindus indica. Southampton:
2. Chang S-C, et al. The impact of ground-level fireworks
Southampton Centre for Underutilised Crops; 2006.
(13 km long) display on the air quality during the traditional
25. Sakthivadivel D, Iniyan S. Characterization, density and size
Yanshui Lantern Festival in Taiwan. Environ Monit Assess.
effects of fuels in an advanced micro-gasifier stove. Biofuels.
2011;172(1):463–79.
2018. https​://doi.org/10.1080/17597​269.2018.14261​63.
3. Yang L, et al. Impacts of firecracker burning on aerosol chemi-
26. Parveen M, Islam MR, Haniu H. Thermal decomposition behavior
cal characteristics and human health risk levels during the Chi-
study of two agricultural solid wastes for production of bio-fuels
nese New Year Celebration in Jinan, China. Sci Total Environ.
by pyrolysis technology. J Therm Sci Technol. 2011;6(1):132–9.
2014;476–477:57–64.
27. Wharton RK, Harding JA. An experimental comparison of three
4. Pope RJ, Marshall AM, O’Kane BO. Observing UK Bonfire Night
documented test methods for the evaluation of friction sensitive-
pollution from space: analysis of atmospheric aerosol. Weather.
ness. J Energ Mater. 1993;11(1):51–65.
2016;71(11):288–91.
28. Sharma O, Mohanan V, Singh M. Characterisation of sound pres-
5. Sharma M, et al. Status of pollution abatement measures: FIRE-
sure levels produced by crackers. Appl Acoust. 1999;58(4):443–9.
CRACKERS (patakas), Control of Urban Pollution Series
29. Gjaevenes K. Measurements on the impulsive noise from crackers
CUPS/88/2017-2018, U.P.C. Division, Editor. Central Pollution
and toy firearms. J Acoust Soc Am. 1966;39(2):403–4.
Control Board (CPCB), Ministry of Environment, Forests & Cli-
30. Chowdhury S, Saha PD. Biosorption kinetics, thermodynamics
mate Change, Delhi. India: October 2017. pp. 1–83.
and isosteric heat of sorption of Cu(II) onto Tamarindus indica
6. Sivapirakasam SP, et al. Thermal hazards of cracker mixture using
seed powder. Colloids Surf B. 2011;88(2):697–705.
DSC. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2004;78(3):799–808.
31. Kumar CS, Bhattacharya S. Tamarind seed: properties, processing
7. Selvakumar N, Azhagurajan A, Suresh A. Experimental analysis
and utilization. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2008;48(1):1–20.
on nano scale flash powder composition in fireworks manufactur-
32. Pal D, Nayak AK. Novel tamarind seed polysaccharide-alginate
ing. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2013;113(2):615–21.
mucoadhesive microspheres for oral gliclazide delivery: in vitro–
8. Klapötke TM, Steemann FX, Suceska M. Binary flash composi-
in vivo evaluation. Drug Deliv. 2012;19(3):123–31.
tions—a theoretical and practical study. Propellants Explos Pyro-
33. Rajendran M, et al. Study on noise level reduction in tamarind seed
tech. 2013;38(1):29–34.
powder based fire cracker. AIP Conf Proc. 2019;128(1):050021.
9. Pakkirisamy SV, et al. Adiabatic thermokinetics and pro-
34. Grønli MG, Várhegyi G, Di Blasi C. Thermogravimetric analy-
cess safety of pyrotechnic mixtures. J Therm Anal Calorim.
sis and devolatilization kinetics of wood. Ind Eng Chem Res.
2012;109(3):1387–95.
2002;41(17):4201–8.
10. Russell MS. The chemistry of fireworks, Cambridge. 2nd ed. Lon-
35. Yang H, et al. Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and
don: RSC Publishing; 2009.
lignin pyrolysis. Fuel. 2007;86(12):781–1788.
11. Witkowski W, et al. Products of entertainment pyrotechnics as
36. Cruz G, et al. Physical–chemical characterization and thermal
specific market products. Chemik. 2012;66(1):64–72.
behavior of cassava harvest waste for application in thermo-
12. Azhagurajan A, Selvakumar N. Impact of nano particles on safety
chemical processes. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2020. https​ ://doi.
and environment for fireworks chemicals. Process Saf Environ
org/10.1007/s1097​3-020-09330​-6.
Prot. 2014;92(6):732–8.
37. Proniewicz LM, et al. FT-IR and FT-Raman study of hydrother-
13. Dhasarathan P, Theriappan P, Ashokraja C. Microbial diversity
mally degradated cellulose. J Mol Struct. 2001;596(1):163–9.
in firework chemical exposed soil and water samples collected
38. Dogan A, Siyakus G, Severcan F. FTIR spectroscopic characteri-
in Virudhunagar district, Tamil Nadu, India. Indian J Microbiol.
zation of irradiated hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.). Food Chem.
2010;50(1):46–9.
2007;100(3):1106–14.
14. Gouder C, Montefort S. Potential impact of fireworks on res-
39. Oh SY, et al. FTIR analysis of cellulose treated with
piratory health. Lung India Off Organ Indian Chest Soc.
sodium hydroxide and carbon dioxide. Carbohydr Res.
2014;31(4):375–9.
2005;340(3):417–28.
15. Moreno T, et al. Recreational atmospheric pollution episodes:
40. Nikonenko NA, et al. Investigation of stretching vibrations of gly-
inhalable metalliferous particles from firework displays. Atmos
cosidic linkages in disaccharides and polysaccarides with use of
Environ. 2007;41(5):913–22.
IR spectra deconvolution. Biopolymers. 2000;57(4):257–62.
16. Godri KJ, et al. Particulate oxidative burden associated with fire-
41. Grabowska B, et al. Thermoanalytical tests (TG–DTG–DSC,
work activity. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(21):8295–301.
Py-GC/MS) of foundry binders on the example of polymer com-
17. Hamad S, Green D, Heo J. Evaluation of health risk associated
position of poly(acrylic acid)–sodium carboxymethylcellulose. J
with fireworks activity at Central London. Air Qual Atmos Health.
Therm Anal Calorim. 2019;138(6):4427–36.
2016;9(7):735–41.
42. Vinayan BP, et al. Performance study of magnesium–sulfur battery
18. Singh DP, et al. Study of temporal variation in ambient air
using a graphene based sulfur composite cathode electrode and a
quality during Diwali festival in India. Environ Monit Assess.
non-nucleophilic Mg electrolyte. Nanoscale. 2016;8(6):3296–306.
2010;169(1):1–13.
43. Carotenuto G, et al. Graphite nanoplatelet chemical cross-linking
19. Chatterjee A, et al. Ambient air quality during Diwali festival
by elemental sulfur. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2013;8(1):94.
over Kolkata—a mega-city in India. Aerosol Air Qual Res.
44. Arockiasamy A, et al. DSC analysis of Al6061 aluminum
2013;13(3):1133–44.
alloy powder by rapid solidification. J Therm Anal Calorim.
20. Barman SC, et al. Ambient air quality of Lucknow City (India)
2010;100(1):361–6.
during use of fireworks on Diwali Festival. Environ Monit Assess.
45. Bryś A, et al. Wood biomass characterization by DSC or FT-IR
2008;137(1):495–504.
spectroscopy. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;126(1):27–35.
21. Rao PS, et al. Air quality status during diwali festival of India: a
case study. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2012;89(2):376–9.

13
 Author's personal copy
Experimental analysis of tamarind seed powder‑based flash powder composition for eco‑friendly…
46. Maryandyshev P, et al. Investigation of thermal degradation of dif-
ferent wood-based biofuels of the northwest region of the Russian
Federation. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2015;122(2):963–73.
47. Mattos BD, et al. Thermal tools in the evaluation of decayed and
weathered wood polymer composites prepared by in situ polym-
erization. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2015;121(3):1263–71.
48. Lin W-C, Chen W-C, Shu C-M. Thermal stability evaluation of
multiple tubes of fireworks by calorimetry approaches. J Therm
Anal Calorim. 2019;138(4):2883–90.
View publication stats
3021
49. de Aquino TF, Riella HG, Bernardin AM. Mineralogical and
physical-chemical characterization of a bauxite ore from Lages,
Santa Catarina, Brazil, for refractory production. Mineral Process
Extractive Metall Rev. 2011;32(3):137–49.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13