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 ------- |