United States
                     Environmental Protection
                     Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
                     Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-86/072 Jan. 1987
&EPA          Project  Summary

                     Critical  Review  of
                     Open   Source  Paniculate
                     Emission  Measurements:
                     Field  Comparison
                     Bobby E. Pyle and Joseph D. McCain
                      This project consisted of a review of
                     sampling and analytical procedures used
                     by various testing firms to quantify panic-
                     ulate emissions from open sources; e.g.,
                     roads and storage piles. Seven firms, who
                     account for nearly 100 percent of all open
                     source data in the literature, prepared doc-
                     uments describing their current sampling
                     and analytical procedures. Five of these
                     firms then participated in a simultaneous
                     side-by-side field test on a simulated un-
                     paved road at a major steel plant. Each par-
                     ticipant independently measured the par-
                     ticulate emission concentrations produced
                     by roadway traffic. These measurements
                     produced not  only  the particle-size-
                     dependence of the emissions but also the
                     concentrations as functions of the dis-
                     tance above the road surface. The results
                     for each testing organization  were ex-
                     pressed as emission factors for total par-
                     ticulate and the mass fractions of the par-
                     ticulate with sizes <30, <15, <10,  and
                     <2.5 ^m diameter. Based on an analysis
                     of the results, it was found that all five pro-
                     filing systems were capable of producing
                     equivalent results in terms of total emis-
                     sions. This was not the case for emissions
                     by particle size.  The only technique of
                     those tested that produced reliable emis-
                     sion factors by particle size was the iner-
                     tia! sizing method.
                      This Project Summary was developed
                     by EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Re-
                     search Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
                     NC, to announce key findings of the re-
                     search project that is fully documented in
                     a separate report of the same title (see
                     Project Report ordering information at
                     back).
Introduction
  During the past decade, research has
shown that particulate emissions from
open sources such as roads and material
storage piles contribute significantly to
ambient particulate matter concentrations
in many areas. The current EPA emission
trading policy allows excessive emissions
from one source to be offset by improved
control of another source within the same
plant. In implementing this bubble policy,
many steel plants have agreed to reduce
fugitive dust emissions in lieu of tighter
controls on process emissions. However,
the  efforts of several groups to develop
equipment and methods for quantifying
emissions from nontraditional sources
such as roadways have resulted in esti-
mates of emission factors and emission
rates with substantial variability. Whereas
it is  generally agreed that emission factor
estimates of process emssions from duct-
ed sources are good to ±50 percent of a
specified measured value, predictions of
open source fugitive dust emission factors
may vary from measured values by as
much as an  order of magnitude.  These
large uncertainties are due to differences
in both  the measuring techniques used
and  the site examined. Even for sites with
very similar  physical  characteristics,
measured emissions have been found to
differ by as much as an order of magni-
tude. In an effort to resolve  these dif-
ferences, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency contracted  with Southern
Research  Institute (SoRI)  to conduct a
critical review of the various measurement
and  predictive methods and to conduct a
side-by-side field test in which  testing

-------
organizations, whose methods represent
the principal techniques which have com-
monly been applied, would simultaneously
sample emissions from an unpaved road.
  Part I of this review was the compilation
of documents that describe in detail each
testing method and data reduction tech-
nique used in developing the existing data
base. As a  result of Part I of this study,
documents  were  received from seven
organizations.
  Each of these current procedures docu-
ments (CPDs) specifically addressed the
following points:
  1. A description of the testing methods
     and data  reduction schemes em-
     ployed in a specific field test con-
     ducted by that organization for the
     measurement of both the total partic-
     ulate and the size distribution of that
     particulate  resulting  from  open
     source fugitive emissions and other
     ancillary measurements such as sur-
     face loading of silt on the roadway.
  2. A discussion  of the historical devel-
     opment of the current technique with
     emphasis on changes that have been
     made  and  the reasons  for those
     changes. If either  the sampling  or
     data analysis technique has under-
     gone change, the respective organi-
     zation described how data obtained
     before the modifications were insti-
     tuted could be correlated with those
     obtained afterward or detail why
     such correlations cannot  be made.
  3. One or more detailed reports from re-
     cent field tests which utilized the
     sampling and data reduction tech-
     niques  described  in (1),  above.
     Included in these reports were suffi-
     cient raw data to enable the reader
     to reproduce the final results quoted.
  4. A discussion  of how the testing and
     data reduction procedures described
     above would  be modified for use at
     various site locations and under vary-
     ing site conditions.
  As a result of the review of the CPDs,
four organizations were selected to partic-
ipate in the simultaneous field comparison
during Part II of this study. (A fifth firm par-
ticipated at its own expense.)  The four
firms were selected because either:
  1. They have made a significant con-
     tribution to the existing fugitive emis-
     sion data base using different meth-
     odologies; or
  2. They represent alternative method-
     ologies not included in those selected
     by (1), above.
  Because much of the use of the emis-
sions trading policy with respect to road-
ways had been in the iron and steel indus-
try, the desired test site was an unpaved
road within an integrated iron and steel
facility.  Negotiations were  undertaken
with several companies for plant availabi-
lity for the tests; the United States Steel
Corporation responded favorably, offering
the use  of their Gary Works. The  nature
of the tests required a moderately long,
straight stretch of roadway that  was
oriented more or less perpendicular to the
prevailing wind and clear of local perturb-
ing influences for a length of a few hun-
dred meters. It was also desirable that the
road have a moderately high traffic densi-
ty for emissions generation. Unfortunately,
all otherwise suitable roads on the Gary
Works property were either paved or had
been treated with chemical dust suppres-
sant. The most suitable  road section in
terms of physical layout and traffic density
was a paved slag haul road parallel and ad-
jacent to Lake Michigan. Consequently,
this road was made to simulate an uncon-
trolled unpaved road by applying a 5-10 cm
thick layer of dirt to one  300 m section.
This portion of the road  was well away
from other potentially confounding sour-
ces and wind flow obstructions. Five side-
by-side test positions,  each about 15 m
wide, were laid out on both sides of the
road near the center of the simulated un-
paved road section.  A total of 11 tests
were conducted  over a  5-day period in
June 1984.

Conclusions and
Recommendations
   Each  profiling  system used  in  these
tests exhibited both pros and cons  in
terms of its versatility and ease of deploy-
ment. Consequently, no  conclusions are
drawn as to the optimum mechanical de-
sign of the profiling towers or associated
hardware. However,  several conclusions
may be drawn regarding  the methods of
sampling.
   The data from this test  series clearly in-
dicate that there is significant exposure at
heights up to at least the 9 m level. Conse-
quently, the placement of a sampler at the
9 or 10 m (preferably 10 m) level is highly
recommended. Also, because the max-
imum exposure values  usually occur at a
height of 1.5 to 2.0 m, any future profil-
ing system should include a sampler at this
level. The ideal profiling system would
have mass samplers at 1.5, 2.5, 4.0, 6.0,
7.5, and 10.0 m, with concurrent particle
sizing devices at 1.5, 4.5, and 7.0 m. This
configuration  would better  characterize
both the exposure and size distribution of
the particulates in the plume. It was also
demonstrated that sampling isokinetics
can be maintained for each sampling head
on the profiler tower. Therefore, it is rec
ommended that each sampler be equippec
with a servo system and individual velocit\
sensors to provide continuous adjustmem
of the flow rate based on wind speed a'
that elevation.
  The five profiling systems tested were
found to be capable of producing equiva
lent results in terms of total emissions
This was not the  case  for particle size
distributions  and emissions  by  particle
size. Long recognized  problems in recon
stituting size distributions of airborne par
tides from resuspensions of collected buU
material lead to the conclusion that, foi
fugitive emission sampling of the type un
dertaken here, the sizing should take place
prior to collection (or concurrent with col-
lection as in cyclones and impactors). The
recommended  procedure  for measuring
the  particle  size  distribution  is  the
cyclone/impactor  technique  (used   by
Midwest Research Institute)  with  some
modifications. With regard to  field opera
tions, first, a  further reduction  in  the
sampling flow  rate from  20 to  15 cfrr
would help minimize errors from particle
bounce. Alternatively, adhesive coatee
substrates could be used at the current 2C
cfm flow  rate. Second, potential errors
resulting  from  the possible  transfer o
material  from  the outlet tube of  the
cyclone to the first stage of the impacto
can be avoided by counting only  th<
material  collected in the body of  the
cyclone as its catch. The outlet tube catch
would then be combined with that of the
first impactor stage. At the current 20 cfrr
flow rate, this would  result in a  cyclone
D50 of 22 ^m being used rather than the
current 14 /jm. Lastly, while particle size
was measured at the lower elevations (1.E
and 4.5 m), an additional cyclone/impacto
unit at a height of about 7 m would provide
additional  information  regarding  the
changes in size distribution as a functior
of height within the dust plume.
  A better data analysis technique thar
the current cyclone/impactor procedure
would be that commonly used in reducinc
in-stack  impactor data  from industria
sources, where a spline fit is made to th<
cyclone/impactor data in the cumulative
percentage form of the  distribution. Th<
fit is made in a manner that requires con
tinuity in the slope of the curve, and th(
solution is forced to be asymptotic to  10(
percent at a diameter equal to the max!
mum diameter present in the sample. Th<
fitted curve is then used to interpolate o
extrapolate as needed to obtain the mas:
fractions in the selected size intervals. Thii
technique avoids the  requirement of as
suming a functional form for the distribu

-------
on and makes use of the complete data
et rather than just two of the data points.
 With regard to the exposure integration
rocedure, the resultant emission  factor
ppears to be relatively insensitive to the
schnique used so long as the exposure is
dequately characterized with regard to
eight. The most critical area is that where
le peak exposures occur (usually at 1.5
) 2.5 m). With samplers at 1.5, 2.5, and
.0 m, this should not be a major source
 : error. However, under greatly different
te conditions (road type,  silt content,
 c), samplers at the lower elevations may
 ied to be positioned at different heights.
 The utility of an emission factor predic-
je equation is that of predicting the emis-
ons from a particular site in lieu of actual
leasurements. In Order that the equation
3 applicable over a  wide  range of site
cations and conditions, it should include
> many of the  relevant parameters de-
gibing the site as possible. This reqires
lat the predictive equation be developed
om as large a data base as possible. The
luation currently described in "AP-42,
ompilation of Air Pollutant Emission Fac-
irs,"  was  developed from  a fairly broad
ita base using multiple linear regression
 chniques. The data base has some un-
jrtainties  particularly with particle size
stributions. These  uncertainties cast
>me doubt on the accuracy of the values
:ed for the particle size multiplier, k, in
lis equation. However, without an exten-
ve evaluation of the existing unpaved
>ad emissions data base, there is no justi-
:ation for invalidating the relation. This
juation is  probably the most reliable pre-
ctor of unpaved road emissions currently
/ailable. Because of past problems with
article sizing techniques, the values used
ir k  are  less reliable than the overall
Huation.

-------
    B. Pyle and J. McCain are with Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, AL
      35255-5305.
    Robert C. McCrillis is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
    The complete report, entitled "Critical Review of Open Source Paniculate Emissions
      Measurements: Field Comparison," (Order No. PB 86-239 787/AS; Cost: $16.95,
      subject to change) will be available only from:
           National Technical Information Service
           5285 Port Royal Road
           Springfield, VA 22161
           Telephone: 703-487-4650
    The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
           Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Research Triangle Park, NC27711
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-86/072
   00003Z9   PS
   U  S  ENVI8 PROTECTION  AGENCY
   REGION  5  LIBRARY  _
   230  S DEARBORN  STREET
   CHICAGO               IL    60604

-------