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

-------