United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-83-026 June 1983
v>EPA Project Summary
Chemical Analysis of Waste
Crankcase Oil Combustion
Samples
Robert E. Hall, R.L. Barbour, and W.M. Cooke
In recent years, a dramatic increase
in the price of hydrocarbon-based fuels
caused an impetus for finding alternate,
renewable, and recycled fuel sources.
The use of waste crankcase oil for
residential and industrial heating ex-
perienced a parallel increase as waste
oil, available at 20 to 25 percent of the
cost of distillate heating oil of equiva-
lent thermal value, became attractive
as a heating fuel. Requests from several
state and federal agencies prompted
EPA's Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (Research Triangle Park, NC)
to conduct a series of tests to determine
the level of emissions from two types
of waste oil heaters.
In addition to comparing two burner
types (vaporizing pot and air atomiza-
tion), EPA also investigated an automo-
tive waste crankcase oil from a service
station, and a truck crankcase oil from
a diesel truck fleet.
The major concern about using waste
engine oil as fuel is related to the
potential for harmful emissions. The
tests were designed to quantify criteria
pollutant emissions such as NOX SOX,
CO, and paniculate, as well as organic
and inorganic emission levels. Tests
were performed on the base fuels, flue
discharge gases, and residues left in
the vaporizing pot heater.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC. to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
Two types of waste oil heaters were
tested while firing filtered, but otherwise
untreated, waste crankcase oils. One was
a Kroll, Model W400L, waste oil heater
rated at 35.2 kW (120,000 Btu/hr heat
input). It uses a vaporizing pot burner in
which only the heated vaporized fuel is
combusted. With this type of burner the
residue of unburned material, which ac-
cumulates in the bottom of the fuel pot,
must be physically removed. This residue
was also analyzed for organic and inorganic
content.
The other unit tested, a Dravo Hastings
Thermoflo, Model 20-WO, waste oil heater
rated at 73.3 kW (250,000 Btu/hr heat
input), uses a low-pressure air atomizing
burner. With this type of burner most of
the fuel is burned and discharged as stack
effluent. Tests were performed at EPA's
Research Triangle Park test facility.
Emissions from the two waste-oil-fired
space heaters were sampled by EPA per-
sonnel and analyzed by Battelle-Columbus
personnel using EPA Level 1 procedures.
In addition to Level '1 procedures, fuel
characterization tests and advanced metals
analysis using inductively coupled argon
plasma spectrometry (ICAP) were per-
formed.
The combustion of both truck and auto-
motive crankcase oils was examined in
each heater, resulting in four test runs.
During each run, the stack was sampled by
two different techniques (the Source As-
sessment Sampling System (SASS) train
and a dilution tunnel), producing eight
sets of sampling data. The following
analyses were performed:
(1) Level 1 analysis of four SASS trains,
four sets of dilution filters, and two
samples of pot residue.
-------
(2) Determination of heating value,
moisture, ash, viscosity, andC, H, N,
S analysis of the two waste oils.
(3) Inductively coupled argon plasma
(ICAP) analysis for 28 elements on
20 combustion samples and two
waste oils.
Results
Three basic comparisons were per-
formed in this study: burner type, fuel, and
method of sample collection. Figure 1
shows the two generic combustor types:
air atomization and vaporizing pot. Both
heaters are designed to operate on waste
engine oil. The different oil induction
Stack
Damper-»
systems result in differences in the kinds
and amounts of samples recovered from
the units. The vaporizing pot heater pro-
duced both flue gas and a pot residue,
whereas the air atomizing heater pro-
duced only flue gas.
In both combustion systems the time-
weighted average Threshold Limit Values
(TLVs) were exceeded for several ele-
mental species. No firm risk conclusions
can be drawn directly from the results of
this project Stack concentrations were
sampled, not ground level ambient concen-
trations. Although the dilution tunnel
theoretically simulates natural dispersion
and dilution, it is not certain at this time
Stack
Damper -»\.
Vapors
Waste Oil
^ Pot Residue
Vaporizing Pot Burner
Figure 1. Low-pressure atomizing and vaporizing pot combustion principles.
Low Pressure Air
Atomization Burner
whether the tunnel accurately simulate
air circulation in and around a servio
station or garage work place, where thesi
heaters are commonly used.
Table 1 shows the measured flue dis
charge concentrations for metallic specie:
and compares them to the 8-hour TLV fo
each element The air atomizing burne
yielded higher gas-phase concentration!
of most inorganic species than the vaporiz
ing pot combustion system. Table 1
illustrates this trend for metals.
Two fuel types were compared in this
study: an automotive waste crankcase oi
and a truck crankcase oil from a diese
truck fleet Fuel comparisons revealec
generally higher concentrations of metallic
species in the automotive oil. Total organic
concentrations were similar for the twc
fuels, although chemical composition o
the organic discharges was different.
Metal concentrations in the flue gases
were generally higher for automotive fue
than for truck fleet crankcase oil. This
effect is illustrated in Figure 2, where
gaseous discharges are compared to fuel
concentrations on a per-gram-of-fuel-
burned basis.
The sampling comparison was made
between the two methods used to collecl
gaseous emissions. One technique, the
Source Assessment Sampling System
(SASS), provides information about the
size distribution of particulate discharges
in burner outlet gas streams. The SASS
sampler is also efficient for trapping gaseous
discharges, principally organic material,
which is collected by sorption on a resin
bed The second sample collection system,
a dilution tunnel, employs a clean air
dilution stream followed by filtration. By
diluting the hot discharge gases before a
sample is collected, the dilution tunnel
theoretically simulates the natural dilution
and chemical transformation that occurs
Table 1. Comparison of Discharge Concentrations of Some Elements Determined by ICAP and the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values (all values in ftg/m3)
Element
Threshold Limit
Values (Time-
Weighted Averages}
SASS Trains
Vapor/zing Burner-Truck
Vaporizing Burner-Automotive
Air-Atomizing Burner-Automotive
Air-Atomizing Burner-Truck
Dilution Filters
Vaporizing Burner-Truck
Vaporizing Burner-Automotive
Air-Atomizing Burner-Automotive
Air-Atomizing Burner-Truck
Pb
150
197
1,604
143,900
57,740
124
549
85,800
23,770
P
1000
205
199
19,440
68,710
522
170
40,460
50,760
Cr
500
1547
4198
4954
313
0.9
0.6
295
79
Ni
100
1104
21
3548
1560
4
54
32
Cu
1000
16
16
2377
2377
11
6
1764
1019
2n
5000
450
194
66.210
117,400
341
89
45,650
44,630
Cd
50
1
109
155
0.3
0.4
86
86
Fe
WOO
5,641
15, 180
2Z280
15,510
48
37
9,041
4.374
Co
50
21
54
72
23
2
/
218
9
-------
Air-Atomizing Burner-Truck
E062581
Air-Atomizing Burner-Automotive
E061881
3300 ^
3000
2700..
2400..
2100
1800..
1500
1200..
9001,
600
300..
• Fuel Oil
H SASS Train
§3 Dilution Tunnel
CA
Pb Zn
Ca Fe Mg
Pb Zn
Figure 2.
Comparison of total mass of elements determined b y 1C A P for fuel oil, SASS train and
dilution tunnel for the air-atomizing heater burning automotive and truck crankcase oil
(E062581 andE061881).
when stack gases are discharged to the
atmosphere. As Figure 2 shows, the SASS
train collected larger amounts of the ele-
mental discharges than the dilution tunnel
in most cases. The effect was also ob-
served in organic emissions. The SASS
train incorporates a cooled resin bed posi-
tioned after the heated filter. The resin bed
is effective in collecting organic constitu-
ents, especially semivolatile compounds
that may not be retained on the dilution
tunnel filter.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be sum-
marized from this study.
Burner Type — Air-Atomization
and Vaporizing Pot
• The air-atomizing heater, which
atomizes the fuel before combustion,
does not produce a pot residue. The
vaporizing pot heater, which burns
heated oil vapor, produces a dense
pot residue. The air-atomizing heater
releases much higher concentrations
of metals into the air than does the
vaporizing pot heater. This trend is
also followed by the organics.
• The vaporizing pot heater also showed
significant quantities of organic ma-
terial in the pot residue.
• There was evidence of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in both
types of combustion systems.
Sample Collection Method —
Dilution Tunnel and Source
Assessment Sampling System
• The dilution tunnel collected generally
less organic material than the SASS
train. Three of the four tests showed
20-30 percent lower organic concen-
tration when sampled by dilution
tunnel.
• The SASS train generally collected a
higher percentage of the metals pre-
sent in the fuel than the dilution
tunnel collected.
Fuel — Automotive and Diesel
Truck Fleet Waste Crankcase
Oil
• Ultimate analysis of the two fuels
indicated a higher oxygen content in
the automotive crankcase oil
• The automotive crankcase oil con-
tained higher concentrations of me-
tals than the truck derived fuel. This
was reflected in the effluents, as well
as by fuel analysis.
R. L. Barbour and W. M. Cooke are with Battelle-Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, OH432O1.
Robert E. Hall is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Chemical Analysis of Waste Crankcase Oil
Combustion Samples," (Order No. PB 83-209 882; Cost: $23.50, subject tc
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:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
PS 0000329
U $ ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5 LIBRARY
230 S DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO It 60604
------- |