Process industries — from chemical plants to food manufacturing — depend on hazardous chemicals that can form explosive atmospheres when released uncontrolled. The fundamental mechanism is well-understood: a Loss of Physical Containment (LOPC) event allows a flammable substance to mix with air in concentrations sufficient to sustain combustion or explosion. What this study reveals is that across 64 process industry facilities, the systems designed to prevent that from becoming catastrophic — certified equipment, regular inspections, trained personnel — are broadly failing to meet regulatory requirements.
This research, conducted by ProSCon Engineering consultants, provides one of the most detailed cross-sector assessments of ATEX compliance across Turkish industry. The findings are not encouraging.
01Study Scope: 64 Facilities Across 7 Sectors
The study surveyed 64 process industry facilities representing seven sectors with significant exposure to explosive atmosphere risks.
For each facility, the assessment covered four core compliance areas: the Explosion Protection Document (EPD), Ex equipment inspection records, Ex equipment inventory management, and the training status of personnel working in or near classified hazardous areas.
The breadth of the sample — spanning industries with very different safety cultures and regulatory exposure — makes the findings particularly instructive. It allows direct comparison between sectors where hazardous chemicals are the primary operational concern and sectors where explosion risk is present but secondary to the core production activity.
Source: ProSCon Engineering research — cross-sector field survey
02The Technical Basis: Explosive Atmospheres in Process Industry
An explosive atmosphere forms when a sufficient concentration of flammable substance — gas, vapour, mist, or dust — is present in air. In process industry, the initiating event is Loss of Physical Containment: a flammable substance escapes from the equipment, pipework, or vessels designed to contain it.
Flammable chemicals are classified into two broad categories:
Dust explosions deserve specific attention in industries such as food processing, cement, and pharmaceuticals. Secondary dust explosions — triggered when the pressure wave from an initial explosion dislodges accumulated dust from surfaces, structure, and equipment — can be far more destructive than the primary event.
ATEX compliance addresses these risks through a layered approach: area classification defines zones according to explosive atmosphere probability; equipment selection ensures certified equipment is appropriate to each zone; periodic inspection verifies protection concepts remain intact over time; and the Explosion Protection Document demonstrates that risks have been systematically assessed and controlled.
03The Four Compliance Deficiencies
Across all 64 facilities surveyed, the research found significant non-compliance in every one of the four assessment categories.
Nearly 3 in 4 facilities had overdue or absent IEC 60079-17 inspections. Even correctly installed Ex equipment degrades silently — compromised enclosures, corroded cable entries, and disturbed protection joints go undetected without periodic inspection.
More than 6 in 10 facilities lacked a complete inventory of their Ex-certified equipment. Without an inventory, it is impossible to track inspection status, verify replacement part certifications, or confirm that installed equipment remains suitable for its classified zone.
Almost half of facilities had training deficiencies for personnel working in hazardous areas. Inadequate knowledge directly causes the most common installation errors: incorrect cable glands, disturbed flameproof joints, and improperly closed Ex enclosures.
One in four facilities showed EPD deficiencies — the cornerstone regulatory document demonstrating that explosive atmosphere risks have been systematically identified and controlled. EPD gaps carry the highest regulatory and audit exposure of all four categories.
Source: ProSCon Engineering research — 64 facility cross-sector assessment
04Sector Performance: A Consistent Pattern
The cross-sector data reveals a consistent and predictable hierarchy: facilities that handle hazardous chemicals as their primary operational concern demonstrate measurably better compliance. Facilities where explosion risk is secondary to core production show substantially higher non-compliance rates.
For Ex equipment inspection — the most severely non-compliant category — cement, casting, energy, and food sectors all recorded 100% non-compliance. Not a single facility in those sectors had current inspection records. Oil and gas and chemical industry facilities, while not fully compliant, performed significantly better.
For Explosion Protection Document compliance, food industry, cement, and casting sectors showed the highest deficiency rates. Oil and gas and chemical industry showed the lowest.
For personnel training, the energy sector and cement industry had the highest rates of inadequately trained personnel, followed by food processing and casting. Chemical and pharmaceutical sectors showed the best training compliance.
The pattern is consistent across all four assessment areas. Sectors where explosive atmospheres are routine operational considerations have developed — over time and often through regulatory pressure — the infrastructure, documentation habits, and training investment that other sectors have not.
This is not a finding about the inherent capability of different sectors. It is a finding about the development stage of safety culture. The compliance infrastructure that oil and gas and chemical industry facilities have built is transferable — and necessary — in any facility where explosive atmospheres can form.
Conclusion
Action Priorities from the Research
For facilities in the cement, food, energy, and casting sectors, this research identifies a clear starting point: establish a complete Ex equipment inventory, then use that inventory to schedule overdue inspections. These two steps address the two highest non-compliance rates identified in the study and create the operational foundation for everything that follows.
The 73.59% inspection non-compliance rate is the finding that demands the most immediate response. Equipment that was correctly specified and installed at commissioning can degrade over years of operation to a point where its protection concept is no longer intact. Inspection is the only mechanism that detects this degradation before it becomes a source of ignition. Facilities that forgo inspection are not managing explosion risk — they are accumulating it.
The personnel training gap — 46.23% — is the deficiency with the longest lead time to close. Building competence in hazardous area work requires structured training, practical assessment, and in many cases external certification. Facilities that have not yet started this process should begin immediately, prioritising maintenance personnel who interact directly with Ex equipment.