Observational analysis reveals the limitations of labor safety regulations on underground booster fans, suggesting regulatory amendments may improve ventilation in coal mines.
Purpose. To identify the limitations that prevent the use of underground booster fans in Ukrainian coal mines and to propose amendments to labor safety regulations that would allow for their use in such mines. Method. To substantiate the proposed changes, we analyzed the current state of the issue by examining international experience, the purpose and key advantages of underground auxiliary fans, as well as the regulatory framework governing their use in Ukraine and abroad. Results. The analysis demonstrates that, despite widespread safety concerns regarding underground booster fans in coal mines, their use is not prohibited in most coal-mining countries—with few exceptions—although it may be subject to certain limitations. In some countries, previous bans have been lifted in recent decades due to advancements in technical solutions and the accumulation of positive international experience with such fans. In Ukraine, the use of underground booster fans has become virtually impossible as a result of amendments to the Coal Mine Safety Rules and inconsistencies within relevant regulatory acts. Given the positive track record of underground booster fans in Ukraine and abroad, it is recommended to revise regulatory acts related to mining safety and coal mine ventilation to re-enable their use. Practical Significance. Proposals are presented regarding the need to introduce appropriate regulatory changes that would enable the use of underground auxiliary fans in Ukrainian coal mines, taking into account the benefits they offer, and the safety concerns related to their operation. The use of underground booster fans in Ukrainian coal mines could significantly reduce costs and enhance ventilation efficiency, particularly in mines where existing main ventilation units have been in operation for an extended period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bachurin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: