V
r
A FLUID SORBENT RECYCLING DEVICE
FOR INDUSTRIAL FLUID USERS
by
Abraham S. C. Chen, Robert F. Olfenbuttel, and Brian T. Cano
Battelle
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Contract No. 68-CO-0003
Work Assignment No. 2-36
Project Officer
Johnny Springer, Jr.
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA), under Contract No. 68-CO-0003 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and approved for publication as a U.S. EPA document.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
EPA or Battelle; nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use. This document is intended as advisory guidance only to the industrial
fluid users in developing approaches to waste reduction. Compliance with environmental and
occupational safety and health laws is the responsibility of each individual business and is not the
focus of this document.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt
with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our
environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with
respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes,
Superfund-related activities, and pollution prevention. This publication is one of the products of
that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
Passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 marked a strong change in the U.S.
policies concerning the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. This bill implements the
national objective of pollution prevention by establishing a source reduction program at the EPA and
by assisting States in providing information and technical assistance regarding source reduction. In
support of the emphasis on pollution prevention, the "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology
Evaluation (WRITE) Program" has been designed to identify, evaluate, and/or demonstrate new
ideas and technologies that lead to waste reduction. The WRITE Program emphasizes source
reduction and on-site recycling. These methods reduce or eliminate transportation, handling,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials in the environment. The technology evaluation
project discussed in this report emphasizes the study and development of methods to reduce waste
and prevent pollution.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Battelle acknowledge the important
contribution made by representatives of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Hazardous Waste Management, in identifying and locating a site for this technology
evaluation. Andrew Latham of Environmental Management Products, Inc. and Dick Cariss of
Cook's Industrial Lubricants, Inc. are acknowledged for providing the Extractor™ and support for the
on-site evaluation, and for reviewing the test results.
VIII
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt
with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our
environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with
respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes,
Superfund-related activities, and pollution prevention. This publication is one of the products of
that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
Passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 marked a strong change in the U.S.
policies concerning the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. This bill implements the
national objective of pollution prevention by establishing a source reduction program at the EPA and
by assisting States in providing information and technical assistance regarding source reduction. In
support of the emphasis on pollution prevention, the "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology
Evaluation (WRITE) Program" has been designed to identify, evaluate, and/or demonstrate new
ideas and technologies that lead to waste reduction. The WRITE Program emphasizes source
reduction and on-site recycling. These methods reduce or eliminate transportation, handling,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials in the environment. The technology evaluation
project discussed in this report emphasizes the study and development of methods to reduce waste
and prevent pollution.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
HI
Lubricants, Inc. in Linden, New Jersey. Cook's Industrial is a custom blender of industrial
-------
TABLE 1. CRITICAL AND NONCRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
Objective Measurement
Waste Reduction Potential Extraction Efficiency
Fluid Viscosity
Fluid Temperature
Fluid Specific Gravity
Fluid Boiling Point
Fluid Flash Point
Critical
X
X
X
Noncritical
X
X
X
Product Quality
Rate of Release
Fluid Pickup
X
X
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt
with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our
environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with
respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes,
Superfund-related activities, and pollution prevention. This publication is one of the products of
that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
Passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 marked a strong change in the U.S.
policies concerning the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. This bill implements the
national objective of pollution prevention by establishing a source reduction program at the EPA and
by assisting States in providing information and technical assistance regarding source reduction. In
support of the emphasis on pollution prevention, the "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology
Evaluation (WRITE) Program" has been designed to identify, evaluate, and/or demonstrate new
ideas and technologies that lead to waste reduction. The WRITE Program emphasizes source
reduction and on-site recycling. These methods reduce or eliminate transportation, handling,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials in the environment. The technology evaluation
project discussed in this report emphasizes the study and development of methods to reduce waste
and prevent pollution.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A roller compression Extractor™ that extracts fluids from reusable sorbent pads was
evaluated as a method of waste reduction. The extraction device, evaluated for industrial fluid
users in New Jersey, was found to be effective in recycling unpleated sorbent pads, especially for
low-viscosity fluids. The unpleated sorbent pads can be reused for at least eight times for low-
viscosity fluids and up to three times for medium-viscosity fluids. However, the Extractor™ cannot
be used for pads soaked with high-viscosity fluids. Annual savings, up to 51 % and 75%, would be
possible for pads reused two and eight times, respectively. The cost per use can be as low as
$1.19 for eight reuse cycles, versus $4.80 for single usage. The savings come primarily from cost
and volume reductions in sorbent pad disposal. The number of drums needed for pad disposal
would be reduced 73% and 93% if pads are reused for two and eight times, respectively.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract Number 68-CO-0003, Work
Assignment 0-06, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers a period from February 1991 to November 1991, and the study was completed as of
November 30, 1991.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT . . . iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION SITE 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2
EVALUATION APPROACH 2
Waste Reduction Potential Objective 2
Product Quality Objective 2
Economic Objective 6
SECTION 2
WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION 7
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
Soak Time 10
Adsorbency Ratio and Extraction Efficiency for Low-Viscosity Fluid 11
Adsorbency Ratio and Extraction Efficiency for Medium-Viscosity Fluid 16
Sorbent Pad Performance for High-Viscosity Fluid . 16
WASTE REDUCTION ASSESSMENT 16
SECTION 3
PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION 18
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 18
Rate-of-Release Test 18
Fluid Pickup Test 18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21
Maximum Practical Pickup (MPP) and Maximum Effective Pickup (MEP) 21
Fluid Pickup by Sorbent Pads 21
PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT 21
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC EVALUATION 25
OPERATING COSTS 25
Operating Costs of Single-Use Pads 25
Operating Costs of Reusable Pads 25
Operating Costs for Low-Viscosity Fluid Applications 29
Operating Costs for Medium-Viscosity Fluid Applications 32
Operating Costs for High-Viscosity Fluid Applications 32
CAPITAL INVESTMENT 32
PAYBACK PERIOD 32
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 32
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE 33
QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES 33
Precision 33
Completeness . 36
LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS 36
SECTION 6
REFERENCES 38
APPENDICES
A MANUFACTURERS' LITERATURE 39
B DATA SHEETS USED FOR EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY, RATE OF
RELEASE AND FLUID PICKUP TESTS 41
C RAW DATA OBTAINED FROM ON-SITE TESTING 45
D METHOD OF TESTING COMPLETENESS OF FLUID PICKUP BY
SORBENT PADS 47
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Critical and Noncritical Measurements 4
2 Primary and Replicate Quality Control Samples 5
3 Fluid Characteristics Used for Extraction Tests 10
4 Sorbent Pad Soak Time During Extraction Efficiency Test 11
5 Sorbent Pad Extraction Efficiency for Low-Viscosity Fluid — Four
Extraction Cycles 12
6 Sorbent Pad Extraction Efficiency for Low-Viscosity Fluid — Eight
Extraction Cycles 13
7 Qualitative Pad Conditions Throughout Extraction Efficiency Test 15
8 Sorbent Pad Extraction Efficiency for Medium-Viscosity Fluid 17
9 Maximum Practical Pickup and Maximum Effective Pickup 22
10 Fluid Pickup by Sorbent Pads 24
11 Annual Operating Costs of Single-Use Pads 26
12 Annual Operating Costs of Reusable Pads 27
13 Annual Savings and Cost Per Use 30
14 Payback Period 32
15 Precision Data for Extraction Efficiency Tests for Low-Viscosity
Fluid — Four Extraction Cycles 34
16 Precision Data for Extraction Efficiency Tests for Low-Viscosity
Fluid — Eight Extraction Cycles 34
17 Precision Data for Extraction Efficiency Tests for Medium-Viscosity Fluid 35
18 Precision Data for Rate-of-Release Tests 35
19 Precision Data for Fluid Pickup Tests 36
20 Completeness Data for Extraction Efficiency, Rate-of-Release, and
Fluid Pickup Tests 37
FIGURES
1 Schematic of Pad Disposal and Recycle Processes 3
2 Schematic of Extraction Efficiency Test 8
3 Quantities Measured in the Extraction Efficiency Test 9
4 Adsorbency Ratio for Low-Viscosity Fluid 14
5 Extraction Efficiency for Low-Viscosity Fluid 14
6 Schematic of Rate-of-Release Test 19
7 Schematic of Fluid Pickup Test 20
8 Rate of Release Test 23
9 Annual Operating Costs for Low-Viscosity Fluid 30
10 Annual Savings for Low-Viscosity Fluid 31
11 Cost Per Use for Low-Viscosity Fluid 31
VII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Battelle acknowledge the important
contribution made by representatives of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Hazardous Waste Management, in identifying and locating a site for this technology
evaluation. Andrew Latham of Environmental Management Products, Inc. and Dick Cariss of
Cook's Industrial Lubricants, Inc. are acknowledged for providing the Extractor™ and support for the
on-site evaluation, and for reviewing the test results.
VIII
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
.'•:( '#*,
The objective of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Waste Reduction
Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) Program is to evaluate, in a typical workplace environ-
ment, examples of technologies with potential for reducing wastes at the source or for preventing
pollution. In general, when evaluating each technology, there are three questions to be answered.
First, is the new technology effective in obtaining a satisfactory work product? Because
waste reduction and pollution prevention technologies usually involve recycling or reusing materials,
or using substitute materials or techniques, it is important to verify that the quality of the materials
and the quality of the work product are satisfactory for the intended purpose. Second, does'using
the technology measurably reduce waste and/or prevent pollution? Last, is the new technology
beneficial from an economic viewpoint? It should be noted, however, that improved economics is
not an absolute criterion for the use of the prototype technology. There may be justifications other
than saving money that would encourage adoption of new operating approaches. Nevertheless,
information about the economic implications of any such potential change is useful.
This evaluation involves a commercially available technology, offered by a specific
manufacturer, for fluid recycling using sorbent pads. The unit evaluated was manufactured by
Environmental Management Products, Inc. in Ridgefield, New Jersey. Other sorbent pad recycling
units and technologies for similar applications may also be commercially available from other
manufacturers.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study is to evaluate a technology that extracts fluids such as mineral oils,
cutting fluids, and solvents from sorbent pads by roller compression. In the current method, the
pad and the sorbed fluid have to be disposed of when the pad becomes fully saturated with fluid.
With the roller compression extraction process, the saturated sorbent pads can be reused several
times before disposal. In some cases, it is also possible to recover the fluid. This study has these
objectives:
1. To evaluate the waste reduction potential of this technology (see "Waste Reduc-
tion Potential Objective" in this section and Section 2),
2. To evaluate the fluid retention and fluid pickup of the recycled pads (see "Product
Quality Objective" in this section and Section 3), and
3. To evaluate the cost of recycling pads versus the cost of disposal (see "Economic
Objective" in this section and Section 4).
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION SITE
The evaluation of the roller compression Extractor™ was performed at Cook's Industrial
Lubricants, Inc. in Linden, New Jersey. Cook's Industrial is a custom blender of industrial
-------
lubricants. It manufacturers over three million gallons of industrial lubricants, including 450 active
formulas such as lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, greases, compressor oils, and a full line of metal
working fluids. The plant occupies approximately 50,000 ft2 and employs about 20 full-time
workers. Most of the fluids at Cook's Industrial flow through pipes; therefore, it is not heavily
labor-intensive.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
In the process of mixing, handling, and packaging the fluids, spills occasionally occur. At
the end users' sites, the fluids may be spilled or cutting oil splattered during its use in the machin-
ing process. Currently the spilled or splattered fluid is removed by hand with sorbent pads made of
melt-blown polypropylene. Workers simply lay the pads over the spilled fluid and mop the spilled
areas. Once the pads are saturated with fluid, they are drummed for disposal. Cook's Industrial
has undertaken an effort to reduce its own waste production and that of the end users of its pro-
ducts. Cook's Industrial is using the Environmental Management Products' Extractor™ to recover
the spilled fluid from the saturated sorbent pads (see Appendix A for the description of the
Extractor"). The Extractor™ recovers the fluid by compressing the pads between two gear-driven
counter-rotating rollers. The rollers squeeze the fluid out of the pads. Figure 1 shows the
schematic of the old process of sorbent pad use and disposal and that of the new sorbent pad
recycle system.
EVALUATION APPROACH
Several measurements were performed to achieve the three specific objectives of the
study. Table 1 lists the critical and noncritical measurements. The critical measurements are those
that directly impact the technical objectives of this study. Table 2 summarizes the number of tests
performed and the test (or pad) numbers assigned to each of the three critical measurements, i.e.,
extraction efficiency test, rate-of-release test, and fluid pickup test.
Waste Reduction Potential Objective
Two types of waste were considered in this study: sorbent pads and waste fluids. The
sorbent pads are used to sorb spilled or splashed fluids. The current practice is to dispose of the
spent pads after one use. The roller compression method extracts the sorbed fluid, allowing the
reuse of the pads. The extracted fluid is contaminated with the dirt and debris picked up during the
spill, but may be processed for reuse. Therefore, this technology has the possibility of reducing the
number of sorbent pads used and the volume of sorbent pads and fluids sent to disposal. Although
new pads are not hazardous, the fluid sorbed by them may be. Because the pads take on the
characteristics of the sorbed fluid, pad recycling can reduce the volume of hazardous waste disposal.
The extraction efficiency test (see ASTM Standard Method F726-81 in reference 1) was
selected to determine the number of extraction cycles a sorbent pad can endure before becoming
unusable due to tearing, deforming, or other general deterioration. The test was also used to
examine the rate of decrease in pad sorbing capacity (or adsorbency ratio) and the percentage of
fluid that can be removed by roller compression. Because fluid removal is dependent on the fluid
viscosity, tests were conducted with three different fluids covering a range of viscosities. The fluid
viscosity along with specific gravity, boiling point, flash point, etc., were obtained from the
manufacturer's material safety data sheets (MSDSs).
Product Quality Objective
The extraction process may affect the sorbent pad's ability to retain fluid and provide a
clean surface. These product quality indicators were determined by a rate-of-release test (see
-------
Old Process
Sorbent Pads
Fluid Release
New Process
Sorbent Pads
Package and Dispose
of Pads with Fluid
Spent Pads to Disposal
After Several Uses
Extraction
Fluid to Reprocessing
or Disposal
Figure 1. Schematic of Pad Disposal and Recycle Processes
3
-------
TABLE 1. CRITICAL AND NONCRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
Objective
Measurement
Critical Noncritical
Waste Reduction Potential Extraction Efficiency
Fluid Viscosity
Fluid Temperature
Fluid Specific Gravity
Fluid Boiling Point
Product Quality
Fluid Flash Point
Rate of Release
Fluid Pickup
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
CO
3
f\
UU
S
^£
CO
•J
o
1
^^
H-
1
0
iu
^
LU
cc
Q
^c
^_
• "H.
o o
C DC
2
'5
£
UJ
c
•a
§
$< "c"
UJ CO
1
,
iS'e
iZ Ql Z
;
01
«*- ^
o E
Z
^
£.
*i
w
OCO-
§ S*
*5 01 1
0 2 0
fgs
« is
•*— .2. x
O O yj
CO t^
2 *• "S
u +*
5 2 »
°-S S
* o a.
jO* | 8
* ^ -a ==
0 S '5 "a
* S £ a.
?* ° «
-- a w »
3 E n i
T3 0 0 g
TJ 0) ~ 5
2 S S "°
3 00 fll "5
w o ^ S
«l°l
2"- c 2 °-
o (5 u
2 >. *- o
S. °° £ S
g) ^ 9 ^
!-§ E »
^ ID O rf
U. UJ CO ^
. J> 0 Z
s"amfpre~pad wiere lifted from~the fluid, drainecTfoFSO seconds, and weighed~irhmediafely. The total
fluid sorbed and adsorbency ratio (g of fluid sorbed/g of sorbent pad dry weight) were calculated
according to the ASTM Method F726-81, Section 10.2. The saturated sorbent pad was then
processed through the Extractor™ and reweighed. The total fluid extracted and the extraction
efficiency were calculated as described in ASTM Method F726-81, Section 10.2.
The same extraction cycle was repeated four times for a set of three sample pads and
eight times for another set. At the conclusion of the tests, the sample pads were saved for use in
the rate-of-release tests.
-------
ASTM Standard Method F716-82 in reference 2) and by a fluid pickup test developed specifically
for this study.
The rate-of-release test involved saturating a sorbent pad and weighing it at standard
time intervals to determine its fluid retention capacity. The tests were performed on fresh pads
and pads processed through the Extractor™ for four and eight times. Retention capacity of new
pads compared with that of reused ones would indicate any diminished fluid retention capability as
a result of the extraction process.
The fluid pickup test examined the ability of the sorbent pad to remove fluid from a floor
TABLE 3. FLUID CHARACTERISTICS* USED FOR EXTRACTION TESTS
Viscosity Typeb
Kinematic Viscosity0 (m2/s)
Saybolt Universal Viscosity0
Specific Gravity
Boiling Point (°C)
Flash Point (°C)
Autoignitipn Temperature (°C)
Appearance
Chemical Name
HPO 50
Light (Low)
7.3 x 10-°
50
0.87
Wide Range
135
309
Bright & Clear
Petroleum Distillate
Fluid Name
L1200
Medium
259 x 10-°
1200
0.93
315-535
220
>315
Golden Oily Liquid
Naphthenic
Lubricating
Distillate
E.P. Gear Oil 250
Heavy (High)
993.5 to 1015x ia8
4600-4700 ,
<1.0
Wide Range
179
N/A
Dark Liquid
Paraffinic
Gear Oil
* Data obtained from manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheets.
b Par ASTM Standard Method F726-81.
• At37.80C(100°F).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soak Time
The unpleated sorbent pads were very effective in sorbing the low-viscosity fluid; the
average soak time of the fresh pads was only 8 seconds (see Table 4). Two sample pads had a
slightly longer soak time, i.e., 10 and 11 seconds. This was caused primarily by a thin web of
fibers sticking out from the pads and staying above the surface of fluid. Once wetted, the sorbent
pads sorbed fluid and became saturated in less than 2 to 3 seconds.
As the fluid became more viscous, the time for the sorbent pads to be fully saturated
increased significantly. For the fresh unpleated pads, the soak time was 205 to 288 seconds for
the medium-viscosity fluid. After wetted, the soak time decreased, as expected, to 111 to
175 seconds. The long soak time (318 seconds) during the third extraction cycle was caused by
the partially peeled and separated layers from the deformed pad. The peeled and separated layers
stayed above the fluid surface and did not sorb fluid as effectively. The pad's separation and
deformation was caused by pressure from the Extractor. ™ The sorbent pads had to be discarded
after two to three extraction cycles.
The time to saturate an unpleted pad with the high-viscosity fluid was even longer, i.e.,
718 seconds. The saturated pad, however, failed to pass through the- Extractor™. Therefore, no
additional testing was performed.
The heat-anchored, pleated sorbent pads were less effective in sorbing fluid. For the
fresh pads, a maximum of 907 seconds elapsed before they were fully saturated with the medium-
viscosity fluid. Even after wetted, the soak time was as long as 252 to 648 seconds. The long
10
-------
TABLE 3. FLUID CHARACTERISTICS* USED FOR EXTRACTION TESTS
Viscosity Type"
Kinematic Viscosity0 (mz/s)
Saybolt Universal Viscosity0
Specific Gravity
Boiling Point (°C)
Flash Point (°C)
Autoignitipn Temperature (°C)
Appearance
Chemical Name
HPO 50
Light (Low)
7.3 x 10-"
50
0.87
Wide Range
135
309
Bright & Clear
Petroleum Distillate
Fluid Name
L1200
Medium
259 x 10-"
1200
0.93
315-535
220
>315
Golden Oily Liquid
Naphthenic
Lubricating
Distillate
E.P. Gear Oil 250
Heavy (High!
993.5 to 1015x 1C8
4600-4700
<1.0
Wide Range
179
N/A
Dark Liquid
Paraffinic
Gear Oil
• Data obtained from manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheets.
b Per ASTM Standard Method F726-81.
c At 37.8°C <100°F).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soak Time
The unpleated sorbent pads were very effective in sorbing the low-viscosity fluid; the
average soak time of the fresh pads was only 8 seconds (see Table 4). Two sample pads had a
slightly longer soak time, i.e., 10 and 11 seconds. This was caused primarily by a thin web of
fibers sticking out from the pads and staying above the surface of fluid. Once wetted, the sorbent
pads sorbed fluid and became saturated in less than 2 to 3 seconds.
As the fluid became more viscous, the time for the sorbent pads to be fully saturated
increased significantly. For the fresh unpleated pads, the soak time was 205 to 288 seconds for
the medium-viscosity fluid. After wetted, the soak time decreased, as expected, to 111 to
175 seconds. The long soak time (318 seconds) during the third extraction cycle was caused by
the partially peeled and separated layers from the deformed pad. The peeled and separated layers
stayed above the fluid surface and did not sorb fluid as effectively. The pad's separation and
deformation was caused by pressure from the Extractor. ™ The sorbent pads had to be discarded
after two to three extraction cycles.
The time to saturate an unpleted pad with the high-viscosity fluid was even longer, i.e.,
718 seconds. The saturated pad, however, failed to pass through the Extractor". Therefore, no
additional testing was performed.
The heat-anchored, pleated sorbent pads were less effective in sorbing fluid. For the
fresh pads, a maximum of 907 seconds elapsed before they were fully saturated with the medium-
viscosity fluid. Even after wetted, the soak time was as long as 252 to 648 seconds. The long
10
-------
i(BOS
n
m
•o
S
co
CD
O.
CO
CO
1.
o
CM
ID
•g,
O
o
I
.en
I
jo
1
(O
o
_o
H«
£
O
•;=
o
UJ
T3
a
OJ
tn
ti
I
to
1
-------
I
1
if
•o
1
~ 0.
O
•a
§«
f} «
eg IB
a. n
•§,"8
2 S
T
T
M
|
03
"5
I
u
(O
O)
I!
8
-------
SECTION 2
WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION
The extraction efficiency tests were used to assess waste reduction potential. The waste
reduction potential was measured in terms of volume reduction of spent sorbent pads requiring dis-
posal, which was related to the number of reuse cycles that sorbent pads can endure. The same
test was also used to examine the rate of decrease in sorbent pad sorbing capacity (or adsorbency
ratio) and the extraction efficiency determined by the percentage of fluid that could be removed by
roller compression.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The extraction efficiency tests were performed according to the ASTM Standard Method
F726-81. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the experimental procedures. Appendix B contains blank data
sheets used in the evaluation.
The method involved the use of a tared wire basket and a plastic weighing pan for weigh-
ing the sorbent pads before and after extraction. The tare weight of the basket was determined by
fully immersing the basket into the fluid being used, draining the excess fluid for 30 seconds, and
totaling the weight of the basket and the remaining fluid on the basket. A top-loading Mettler
P1200 balance with 10 mg resolution was used. Table C.1 in Appendix C records the basket tare
weight with three different fluids. Table 3 lists the viscosity, specific gravity, boiling and flash
point, autoignition temperature, and appearance of these fluids. The ambient temperature during
the testing was 34-37 °C (94-99°F), which would cause the fluids to be less viscous and the
saturated pads to be easier to process through the Extractor™.
Two types of sorbent pads were used. White, unpleated, melt-blown polypropylene pads
were used for most tests. Blue, heat-anchored pleated pads were used for comparison for medium-
viscosity-fluid tests. The pleated pads were tested only for medium- and high-viscosity fluids. The
45.7-cm x 45.7-cm (18-in. x 18-in.) pads were equally cut into four sample pads; the dimensions
and weight of the sample pads are recorded in Tables C.2 and C.3 in Appendix C.
During the test, one sample pad was placed horizontally in the center of the basket and
lowered into a container of one of the three fluids to a sufficient depth to saturate the pad. When
the sample pad was fully saturated, the time elapsed was recorded as soak time. The basket and
sample pad were lifted from the fluid, drained for 30 seconds, and weighed immediately. The total
fluid sorbed and adsorbency ratio (g of fluid sorbed/g of sorbent pad dry weight) were calculated
according to the ASTM Method F726-81, Section 10.2. The saturated sorbent pad was then
processed through the Extractor™ and reweighed. The total fluid extracted and the extraction
efficiency were calculated as described in ASTM Method F726-81, Section 10.2.
The same extraction cycle was repeated four times for a set of three sample pads and
eight times for another set. At the conclusion of the tests, the sample pads were saved for use in
the rate-of-release tests.
-------
ASTM Standard Method F716-82 in reference 2) and by a fluid pickup test developed specifically
for this study.
The rate-of-release test involved saturating a sorbeht pad and weighing it at standard
time intervals to determine its fluid retention capacity. The tests were performed on fresh pads
and pads processed through the Extractor" for four and eight times. Retention capacity of new
pads compared with that of reused ones would indicate any diminished fluid retention capability as
a result of the extraction process.
The fluid pickup test examined the ability of the sorbent pad to remove fluid from a floor
surface. A fresh sorbent pad was used to sorb a puddle of fluid and then extracted. The percent-
age of fluid recovered from the floor was compared with that recovered after the same pad had
gone through four and eight fluid pickup/extraction cycles. This test gives a qualitative indication
of the ability of the recycled pads to provide a clean floor surface.
Economic Objective
Cost estimation included capital, operating, and waste disposal costs. Capital costs
included costs to purchase and install the extraction equipment. Operating costs included supplies
{such as sorbent pads) and labor. The operating costs were expected to be reduced by recycling
sorbent pads resulting in slower depletion of the fresh sorbent pad supply. This advantage,
however, would be partially offset by the labor needed to extract sorbent pads. Waste disposal
costs included disposal of spent pads and waste fluid. The disposal costs were expected to be
significantly reduced by the lower volume of pads discarded and the smaller charge for waste fluid
disposal.
The cost data were obtained from Cook's Industrial Lubricants, Inc. and Environmental
Management Products, Inc.
-------
CO
LU
Qu
^
CO
•J
o
o
0
^^
P"
<
i
111
^c
^^
•MB
Q.
in
oc
o
z
1
a.
,
CN
3
S?
p
c
o
3
CD
aj
0)
£
a
"5.
o
DC
"a.
1
E
a
.E
£
2
a
o
1.
o 0
V, a
CO
s
^u
•s
1
a
•c
a.
1
o
1 &
'3
E
UJ
c
_o
'^
S
ai a
.E
a.
w "§ o
(_ ex. Z
**^
09
**r O
° Q_
d E
2 w
||o
CO
"« -1.
o E
CO
** "S o
|2 o. z
CO
«»— (O
*-. —
«ll
CO
^ -H.
o £
Z '
Wl
11 °
jZ a. z
CO
•si
o E
_
to "2 o
£ ?u Z
09
"S -5.
d E
z •
i-of
0 '2 §
"5 u. 5
a: >
"S
S.
1
0
OCO(OOCO"22 »ss
CMCMCM CMCMCM CMCMCM
*"*-*" ''zz "^zz
CM t- tA 't
CM>-O UJ'tCO OOZZ
r- CM ^ CM
CMCMCM CMCMCM CMCMCM
•J_OO> ,j.COCM ]s,55
E E , E
>!.e >=S^>1^
J3lf 5lf ^If
"g "8
ts I
to a
o o o S
50) E .
o
C 09 *
^O *-f
1 of
03 C S
(D *i
O *O m
g£^
S « a>
'U
O *^
o | |
* o a.
^o | 2
^ t) "§ '5
S° I '« 1
2 £ a
? » o o
llfi s
•D (0 ffl S
"° ra m 2
g 9 g ^
3 a o "g
ll 2 §
E S -5 ,g
2 > ™ o
S. " £ f-
III1"
E iS W 5
• A O Z
-------
TABLE 4. SORBENT PAD SOAK TIME DURING EXTRACTION
EFFICIENCY TEST
' Soak Time (sec)
Fluid
Viscosity
Low
Medium"
High6
Pad
No.'
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
13Bd
14Bd
15Bd
22
1
7
7
7
6
1 1e
10e
288
— '
205
305
456
907"
718
2
2
2
2
2
3
5
175
--'
111
252
252
648"
Extraction Cycle
345678
2 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
4 4
318'
288
2222
2223
3323
• Pads 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 21 served as controls. The pads were tested directly for the rate
of release without passing through the Extractor1".
b Only 2 to 3 extraction cycles performed as a result of severe pad separation/deformation.
e Only 1 extraction cycle attempted because the saturated pad failed to pass through Extractor™.
d Heat-anchored pleated sorbent pad.
* Long soak time due to a thin web of fibers sticking out from the pads and staying above the surface of
fluid.
' Data not taken.
8 Long soak time due to peeled pad layers staying above surface of fluid.
soak time was attributed primarily to the pad's tight 'texture. Again, after two to three extraction
cycles, the pads were completely separated and could not be reused.
Adsorbencv Ratio and Extraction Efficiency for Low-Viscosity Fluid
Tables ^ and 6 present the results of the extraction efficiency tests for low-viscosity
fluid. The data include total fluid sorbed (g), adsorbency ratio (g/g), total fluid extracted (g) and
extraction efficiency (%). The average adsorbency ratio and extraction efficiency were plotted
against the extraction cycle in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
The average adsorbency ratio of the unpleated pads was 13.99 g (see Table 6) to
14.79 g (see Table 5) of fluid/g of sorbent pad dry weight (equivalent to 1.44 to 1.48 quarts of
fluid per full-size pad). The adsorbency ratio decreased 18.4% to 21.6% after one extraction cycle
and 32.7% to 36.0% after three cycles. No additional decrease was observed up to eight cycles.
Because the amount of fluid the sorbent pad is able to hold after each extraction cycle is a measure
of the degree of pad's deterioration, the test results suggest that the pads can be reused at least
eight times for low-viscosity fluids.
11
-------
TABLE 5. SORBENT PAD EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY FOR LOW-VISCOSJTY
FLUID - FOUR EXTRACTION CYCLES
Pad
No.
Parameter
Extraction Cycle
1
Total Fluid Sorbed (g)
Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)*
Total Fluid Extracted (g)
Extraction Efficiency {%)"
291.04
14.33
239.01
82.1
231.58
11.41
184.48
79.7
211.23
10.41
167.39
79.2
202.42
9.97
159.55
78.8
Total Fluid Sorbed (g)
Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)*
Total Fluid Extracted (g)
Extraction Efficiency {%)"
311.27
14.87
258.05
82.9
244.40
11.68
194.83
79.7
225.35
10.77
177.95
79.0
208.35
9.95
162.67
78.1
Total Fluid Sorbed (g)
Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)'
Total Fluid Extracted (g)
Extraction Efficiency (%)"
310.59
15.16
258.86
83.3
239.13
11.67
191.59
80.1
218.45
10.66
173.52
79.4
203.90
9.95
159.76
78.4
Ave. Total Fluid Sorbed (g)c
Ave. Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)e
Ave. Fluid Extracted (g)°
Ave. Extraction Efficiency (%)c
304.30
14.79
251.97
82.8
238.37
11.59
190.30
79.8
218.34
10.61
172.95
79.2
204.89
9.96
160.66
78.4
• Adsorbenoy Ratio (g/g) = Total Fluid Sorbed/Sorbent Pad Dry Weight.
b Extraction Efficiency (%) = (Total Fluid Extracted/Total Fluid Sorbed) x 100%.
c Averaged over Pads No. 4, 5, and 6.
12
-------
^
r~
35
o
S
w*
>
Sj
O
_l •
cc
g
^L
^^
z£2
LU «j
GO
Eo
uj j;
z 2
P o
^S ga
S £
5^ Uj
III .^
EH
S U
o. S
UJ _
m Q
§3
CO U.
•
a
m
_
>
O
c
.0
2
x
LU
00
p**
CO
in
**
CO
CM
Parameter
"S 6
r- r- O
» -2 « i
•s « S o
0 CC S £
W >.UJ Lu
•a o -o c
2 « J .2
U--QU. *j
llli
1- < f- UJ
Is-
CN CM cn
.UJ Jjj
•o « -a c
!i ® 1= .2
u- •£ u. *j
||||
CO
O r- O
cn q T- o
co cri in d
en in co
»- «-
cn Is- r--
co cn t co
CO CO r-" CO
cn in Is-
•~ *~
in co co
in CN co m
06 cri in 06
cn in Is-
»— »-
o CN in
q en cq o
CM 06 eri cd
en ^t Is-
r— T—
CN cn o
«- co Is- in
CN eri cd co
o in Is-
CM «-
»- «- in
CO CN CM Is-
cri d in eri
t- r- px f-
CM T-
co co «*
in •«* r^ CN
cd ^ Is- d
•si- T- cn co
CN «-
co cn in
i-; O Is- Tf
co ^t eri CM
O »~ "^J" CO
CO CM
.a
iff 1
•e « go
o oc x E
CO >.UJ Qj
2 g 2 c
.2 ® 2 .2
"- •£ "- o
18 8 2
0 ^ O X
h- < J- UJ
en
00 «- CO
cn CM co q
in cn ^ cn
cn in Is.
S5o^
cri eri co cd
en in Is-
*~ *~
T"~ ^' T™
co 't CM in
d eri r-^ co
o in Is-
CN «-
co co in
r-; CO 'd; q
co cn ^ co
en in Is-
r— r~
CO CO Is-
q cq CN CN
in cri d co
O CO Is-
CM t-
co co «-
"* CO *^| CO
eri d »* cri
T- v- r^ Is-
CN T-
CO »- CO
CO ^t «- »-
CN ^ Tt O
^f r— cn co
CM «-
•* cn co
T-; cn cn in
Is-' CO ^" CM
cn ^* ^j* co
CM CN
u
° CO '--
— ~ i. o"
ll-o-i
O CC sS
V £ 2 c
^ « x -2
u- -e uj tj
"5 2 -a 2
o -o '= x
t— ^ U- UJ
ai aj a5 ai
«S
o
X
-C T3
a o
'5 -9
5 °
"^ O)
-s
-o JJ
£ -o
c o
1^5
o 2
«/) tj
S »
^ e
f'S
ii«
= H
!§ — oo
*—-. o*i O
til
« o w
>§ 1
i .1 "S
1 8 «
O 03 k.
w i- ®
* J3 0
13
-------
16
5. 15-
£ 14-
K
i 12-
2
8
• Four Extraction Cycles
• Eight Extraction Cycles
T
3
4 5
Extraction Cycle
T-
6
T
7
~T~
8
9
Figure 4. Adsorbency Ratio for Low-Viscosity Fluid
86
84-
82-
J 80-
78-
74
Four Extraction Cycles
Eight Extraction Cycles
3456
Extraction Cycle
8
Figure 5. Extraction Efficiency for Low-Viscosity Fluid
14
-------
The percentage of fluid removed by the Extractor™ (or extraction efficiency) from the
fresh sorbent pads ranged from 82.1 % to 83.3%. Subjecting the pads to the Extractor" for three
and seven more cycles resulted in only 3.5% to 4.4% additional reduction in extraction efficiency.
These results further support the conclusion that the unpleated sorbent pads can be reused for at
least eight times.
Observation of pad conditions throughout the testing confirmed the above conclusion.
As indicated in Table 7, after eight extraction cycles no physical deformation or separation was
noticed; the pads were only compressed, and in some cases had a thin web of fibers clinging to the
roller during extraction. It appears that the unpleated sorbent pads can be reused many more than
eight times.
TABLE 7. QUALITATIVE PAD CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT
EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY TEST
Pad Conditions
Fluid Viscosity
Cycle Low* Medium* Medium" High*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.6 2,3,7 2,3,7 5,10
1,6 3,4, 8, 9 4, 5, 9
1,6 5, 9
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
Pad deterioration in a form of separation:
1 = No separation
2 = Thin web of fibers cling to roller
3 = More peeling or one corner separated
4 = 50% separation
5 = Completely or nearly completely separated
Pad deterioration in a form of deformation:
6 = Pad compressed but no deformation
7 = Slight deformation
8 = Moderate deformation
9 = Severe deformation
10 = Total deformation and pad fails to pass through Extract..:
* Unpleated pad
" Pleated pad
15
-------
Adsorbencv Ratio and Extraction Efficiency for Medium-Viscosity Fluid
The unpleated sorbent pads were also effective for medium-viscosity fluid, as indicated
by the adsorbency ratio (17.65 g/g or 1.64 quarts per full-size pad) and extraction efficiency
(80.8%) (see Table 8). After extraction, however, some peeling and slight deformation were
observed (see Table 7). The deformation and separation became so severe after the second and/or
third cycle that the pads had to be discarded.
The performance of the pleated pads was then evaluated and compared with that of the
unpleated pads. The pleated pads had an average adsorbency ratio of only 11.24 g/g (or 1.14 quarts
per full-size pad) and an average extraction efficiency of only 63.9%. The pads were also severely
deformed and completely separated after two to three extraction cycles. Consequently, no more
than two extraction cycles are recommended for medium-viscosity fluids for both pad types.
Additional evaluation is needed to confirm the inferior performance of the pleated pads.
Sorbent Pad Performance for High-Viscosity Fluid
The fresh unpleated sorbent pads had an adsorbency ratio of 17.83 g/g (or 1.6 quarts per
full-size pad) for high-viscosity fluid. The fully saturated pads, however, failed to pass through the
Extractor™ even at a significantly reduced roller pressure. Likewise, attempts to extract 50%-
saturated pads were unsuccessful.
WASTE REDUCTION ASSESSMENT
Based on the results of the extraction efficiency tests, the roller compression technology
can be effectively used to extract low- and medium-viscosity fluids from unpleated, melt-blown
polypropylene sorbent pads. The Extractor1* is particularly useful for low-viscosity fluid applica-
tions; the sorbent pads can be reused at least eight times. For medium-viscosity fluids, no more
than two to three reuse cycles are possible.
The potential to reduce waste by recycling sorbent pads can be substantial. For example,
for a 1,858-m2 (20,000-ft2) plant, the annual consumption of sorbent pads can be reduced from
3,600 full-size pads to 1,800 or 450 pads if the pads can be reused for 2 or 8 times, respectively.
Correspondingly, the number of drums for disposal of the pads would be reduced from 24 drums
(assuming 150 oil-saturated pads per drum) to 6.5 or 1.6 drums (assuming 275 desaturated pads
per drum). The 14 to 16 drums of waste fluids (see "Operating Costs of Reusable Pads" in
Section 4 for detailed calculation) can be processed for reuse or hauled away for fuel blending in an
incinerator.
Therefore, there is a distinct, measurable waste reduction accruing from the use of the
roller compression extraction technology.
16
-------
a
=>
CO
o
o
CO
Q
LU
CC
2
u
LU
U.
U.
LU
O
EXTRAC
LU
CQ
CC
o
CO
CO
u
o
CO
CM
.2
o
o
LU
CO
CM
to 6
Q- Z
Parameter
CO ,_ O <£ 3 t>
g = -e E1
o
H
o ><
H LU
•e «
O CC
1 ^
^ CD
ll
O "O
H <
QJ 0?
S -5
"J
-0 c
= .2
ss
t- LU
to
8 1
f-e s
^5 • .
.
-a E . ° o
o> _ CO c P
Q- O CO O t
^ |ll!*
a .is 32 g
I i 1 |S» i 1
o g J E "g £ 2
11 3 3 - I I
•5 Q.5-Z >3
°--o S g- « -5-S
!|ill!i
3 g n: £ § » S
^ a >iu S "5 c
2 § » ts « "2
5 S < uj < w
17
-------
SECTION 3
PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION
The quality of the sorbent pads might be degraded by the extraction process. To determine
product quality, both quantitative and qualitative aspects of pad degradation were examined.
Degradation of pad quality was quantified using the rate-of-release test. The rate of fluid release
from new pads was compared with that from pads that had passed through the Extractor™ four and
eight times, respectively. If the used pads had a different rate of release, the test indicated
degraded pad performance. The ability of sorbent pads to leave a clean floor after use was
measured by the fluid pickup test. The percentage pickup by a new pad was compared with that
by recycled pads.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Rate-of-Release Test
The rate-of-release test was performed according to the ASTM Standard Method F716-82,
Section 11.3. Figure 6 details the experimental procedures. The data sheet used is included in
Appendix B.
The original test method involved saturating a fresh sample pad with one of the three
fluids, weighing it even if still dripping, and hanging it by one corner until dripping stopped.
However, regardless of fluid types dripping continued at a rate of 5 to 15 drops per minute by the
end of 2 hours. Therefore, the reweighing of the pad took place without further waiting. The fluid
sorbed per unit dry weight of the pad was recorded as maximum practical pickup (MPP).
The pad was rehung in a well-ventilated area using an electrical fan and weighed at
10-minute intervals until the end of 1 hour. (Note that the ASTM Method calls for up to 2 hours of
interval weighing; 1 hour was selected for this experiment.) Again, dripping from the pad contin-
ued at a similar rate. The fluid retained at the end of 1 hour was recorded as maximum effective
pickup (MEP).
The pads that had been processed through the Extractor™ four and eight times, respec-
tively, during the extraction efficiency tests for the low-viscosity fluid also were used for the rate-
of-release tests.
Fluid Pickup Test
The fluid pickup test was performed according to the procedures detailed in Appendix D
and Figure 7. The data sheet used is shown in Appendix B.
The test involved measuring a quantity of fluid equivalent to 50% sorbing capacity of the
sample pad, pouring the fluid on a cleaned floor, removing the fluid puddle with the pad, and
weighing the pad and sorbed fluid. The pad was then processed through a total of four and, then,
eight extraction cycles, before the above procedure was repeated. For medium-viscosity fluid
18
-------
9
I
oc
<*•
o
^o
^
09
U
CO
(O
1
O)
il
19
-------
8
Q.
J£
_O
0,
XI
£
LJU
•s
O
1
I
20
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Maximum Practical Pickup (MPP) and M^im..^ Effect!^ Pi^..p (MCD
^ sir t The MPP and MEP
,n ificant
fresh
""
""
S '•
Fluid Pickup bv Sorbent Pads
f,oo, A
Moreover. re0ardless o, ,he ,eJSe
PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT
*•
retain anrem S0rbent PaJ ^ibit enduring performance to
21
-------
£ to o
3 > O.—.
EC 5-5
>rr QJ CJ O5
31
0) O
o
a.
ui
fe
01
Q.
" ^ -i
« o S
en r> rv t- oincocM
CD in co CM enr^^o)
Ttiriiriiri co co ** co
00 •*
in in
co co co co
co
in
en co to >*
T- in co q
cri co cri cri
co co in CM
oo en en en
CO CD
CO
m co T- «*
en en r» in
co Is* m co
in CD r>
in co en co
co co in in
incoiooo «* in r» in
in o en i— encncnen
CM CM T- CM ,- T- r- «-
in
CM 06
in »*
in en «- oo
cs o •* in
co CM co o
o en o o
co CM co co
O)
«
T3 "«
"3 O
c 8
c
o
T3 S
CO -O
Q- C
O
O
_
a.
_
a.
c
1
M
2
u.
_£
Q.
C
1
a>
2 o <-
•o
§
JS
a.
c
CM
a
CO CO CO
O »- CM
to
<* «— CO O
in en t- CM
«t r^ CM co
^t »- en «-
•."2 >
to C
g tt °
^11
S1«
E-S 5
»- 5> •-
O 3 3
S 5 J
2
-------
Q CS
0 13
o
1 I I I I I
o o o o o o o
CO 10 CM O <0 « O
CM CM CM -I- r- T- £
I
J
1
u.
c c
o o
S(0
« X S
O
Ll» ^f 00
II II II
XXX
o •* co
ill
.2 •£ o>
U) at <.
O O >
S O .ti
«1 to (rt
;r 5 o
J* ^ <3
<- e <"
"O
03
a
if
M
_0
-o
(6)
juaqjos uo piny
23
-------
TABLE 10. FLUID PICKUP BY SORBENT PADS
Fluid Pickup (%}
nuiu
Viscosity
Low
raa
Condition
Fresh
4X«
8Xb
1/28
96.4
93.2
94.2
2/29
98.2
97.2
95.8
3/30
98.2
96.2
95.8
Average
97.6
95.5
95.3
Medium0
Fresh
4X»
8Xb
1/31
2/32
3/33
97.1
97.5
95.8
96.2
94.1
93.8
97.5
94.2
99.5
96.9
95.3
94.8d
1/34
2/35
3/36
High
Fresh
4X«
8Xb
100
N/A
N/A
94.2
N/A
N/A
100
N/A
N/A
98.1
N/A
N/A
• Pad extracted four times.
b Pad extracted eight times.
e For all medium-viscosity fluid tests, pads were soaked at 50% pad sorting
capacity before extractions.
d Based on the performance of Pads No. 31 and 32 only.
N/A = Data not available because pad could not pass through Extractor1".
24
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The objective of comparing costs of pad disposal versus reuse is met by using fluid
capacities and process time measured during the study supplemented by literature and company
historical data. The operating costs, capital investment, and payback period are calculated accord-
ing to the work sheets provided in the Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (U.S.
EPA, 1988) and are shown in the following pages.
OPERATING COSTS
Operating Costs of Single-Use Pads
The operating costs of single-use pads are based on the following data and assumptions:
« Cost of sorbent pads: $99/100 45.7-cm x 45.7-cm (18-in. x 18-in.) pads.
• Sorbent pad consumption for a 1,858-m2 (20,000-ft2) plant: 300 pads/month,
equivalent to 8 bags of 22.7 Kg/bag (50 Ibs/bag) sorbing clays per month.
• Capacity of 208-L (55-gal) drums: 150 pads/drum; pads 75% saturated. This
assumption was made because workers are unlikely to wait until pads are fully
saturated before disposing of them.
• Cost of 208-L (55-gal) drums (new): $30/drum.
• Cost of spent pad disposal: $500/drum.
• Labor cost including full payroll benefits: $14/hour.
• Labor requirements for handling spent pads and drums: 3 hours/drum.
The annual operating costs of single-use pads are calculated in Table 11. The cost per
use (or per pad) is $4.80.
Operating Costs of Reusable Pads
The operating costs of pad recycling using an extractor are calculated based on the
following data and assumptions:
• Labor for extracting pads: 1 minute/pad. Labor for handling spent pads, waste fluids,
and drums: 3 hours/drum. Labor for Extractor™ maintenance: 5 hours/year.
• Capacity of 208-L (55-gal) drums for desaturated pads: 275 pads/drum.
25
-------
TABLE 11. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF SINGLE-USE PADS
Subject
Pads
Disposal
Drums*
Pads in Drums"
Labor
Unit Cost
$0.99/pad
$30/drum
$500/drum
$14/hour
Annual
Consumption
3600 pads
24 drums
24 drums
72 hours
Total
Cost/Use
Annual Costs
$3,564.00
$720.00
$12,000.00
$1,008.00
$17,292.00
$4.80
• Cost to purchase new drums.
b Pad disposal cost.
• Cost of waste fluid disposal at a waste-to-energy facility: $65/drum.
• Scenarios 1 -3: Plant processes only low-viscosity fluid; pads reused
for 2, 4, or 8 times, respectively.
• Scenario 4: Plant processes only medium-viscosity fluid; pads reused for 2 times.
• Scenario 5: Plant processes only high-viscosity fluid; pads for single use.
• Scenario 6: Plant processes one third each of low-viscosity (pads
reused for 8 times), medium-viscosity (pads reused for 2 times) and
high-viscosity fluid (pads for single use).
• All pads 75% saturated before extraction; this assumption made for the reason given
in "Operating Costs of Single-Use Pads."
• Pad sorbing capacity (100% saturation) for low-viscosity fluid:
1217.2 g/pad (1.5 quarts/pad).
• Pad sorbing capacity (100% saturation) for medium-viscosity fluid:
1439.6 g/pad (1.6 quarts/pad).
• Extraction efficiency for all pads: 80%.
• Specific gravity of low-viscosity fluid: 0.87.
• Specific gravity of medium-viscosity fluid: 0.93.
The operating costs for scenarios 1 to 6 are shown in Table 12. The calculations are
made according to the following equations:
26
-------
CO
Q
CL
LU
^J
CO
<
CO
UJ
oc
LL
O
CO
CO
8
z
1—
LU
a.
0
,J
<
z
*
T™
m
1-
CO
o
H-
co
3
O
O
-§
— J
To
to
o
§•
5
s
EC
To
CO
CO
5
Tg
«£
CO
T3
«£
j=
n
£
E -— •
O «
b' 5
•*E —
cJ —
cf 5
1/2
j: —
O ~
^1
"~s -•*
O ~
. 1=
Q 2
5
I? 5
^
Qa 1
S
tfS
S.-I
o co
CO «
II
"D "5
ij
o
•—
a
c
o
o
M
O
CM
O
*t"
00
O
o
CO
CO
to
8
d
f*-»
8
10*
CO
00
co
CO
10
8
3
8
3
O)
to
£
8
8
co-
in
to
O
q
CO
I
CM
1
-
O
oo
CO
en
10
in
8
^
u>
o
o
d
fx
§
in
'*•
fx
CO
in
8
S
00
s
8
m
CQ
to
T—
8
g
CO
«
CO
o
q
m
09
1
-
1
CM
O
o
f>
"*
8
to
00
•<*•
8
d
r^
§
d
00
to
to
00
8
5
00
o
to
T—
O
o
o
§
to
^
o
in
in
1
09
|
co
S
CM
in
ui
oo"
8
CO
to
8
d
rx
8
CO
00
CO
co
co'
to
8
§
09
O
to
O
in
to'
q
*~
•r
to'
o
o
d
in
CM
co-
in
to
1,782.00
8
00
CM
Medium
t
8
tn
CM
^"
8
8
^
8
d
8
00
o
«"
o
CM
8
d
0
8
o*
0
o
8
d
8.
q
CM
3,564.00
C9
o
^
a>
I
in
o o
to CM
CM CO
en co
in CM
>- CM
§.§
d d
;
*£ CM
CM CO
88
d§
in
° §
§.§.
d co
to
to
0 CM
o d
88
88
q co
•* in
q ^
09 O
q m.
09' d
00 TO
o o
o in
CM O)
0
jc c
a §
'± CO
.
umed per yeai
of pads.
i«
8 §
to —
1 §
£ =
•S »
Number
Prorated
ii n
ofo"
• JO
«
i
•5
T3
C
tn
CO CO
11 .
*- C co
iS i
1 1 :-!-!!
S. S '5 "2 = a-
». . — *• Q. S •-
o o o g S ".S'0
lilljJH!
IlliMflil
ao._!=Q.£o-?Sa
llioigf^ll
-j.,43*- Q.^ ^j_.
>5goig£»££| .
«0»0«Scffl»°S
llll-SfS 81 8
•°i-°iIs|sc5g-5
•s §>s g 2"if -g-i g 1
.-•o L-O o— o — — -5 **
-§2^St'ot"5"52"5
Ig ig| i| i isi
zo.2Q-j
-------
CP = $99 x _£_
Dn
275
C^ - $500 x Dn
sp. gr. x 946.4
•~t **" **c *u ru
D,
(2)
(3)
(4)
F. - Fp x 0.75 x 0.80 ' (6)
(7)
(8)
Cfd = $65 x D,
Cd = $30 x
, _ 1 x P0 x Pfu
La _ _
L, = 3 x (Dp+Df)
Lm = 5
C,. = $14 x Le
C,, = $14 x L.
Clm = $14xL
(9)
(11!
(15)
Where Pu (pad)
Pd (pad)
P,u (pad)
Pm (pad)
Cp{$)
Cpd($)
CM ($)
Cd($)
Dp (drum)
D, (drum)
Fe(g)
Fp (quart)
Fa (quart)
F, (quart)
sp. gr.
No. of pads consumed per year
No. of pads to be disposed of per year
Total no. of single-use pads per year
No. of pad reuse cycles
Prorated annual cost of pads
Prorated annual cost for pad disposal
Prorated annual cost for fluid disposal
Prorated annual cost for purchasing disposal drums
No. of drums of pads disposed of per year
No. of drums of fluid disposed of per year
Fluid sorbing capacity per pad
Volume of fluid extracted per pad
Volume of fluid extracted per pad per cycle
Total volume of fluid extracted per year
Specific gravity
28
-------
L. (hour) = Labor for pad extraction per year
L, (hour) = Labor for handling spent pads, waste fluids, and drums
Lm (hour) = Labor for Extractor™ maintenance
Cta ($) = Annual labor cost for extraction
Ci, ($) = Annual labor cost for handling spent pads, waste fluids, and drums
C,m ($) = Annual labor cost for Extractor™ maintenance.
follows:
Using the above equations, the annual operating costs of scenario 3 are calculated as
Pu = 3'6°° = 450 pads
8
(17)
Cp = $99 x = $445.50 (18)
Dp
1 .64 drums
(19)
Cpd = $500 x 1.64 = $820.00 (20)
Fc = 1,217.2 g (see Table 8) (21)
I22>
F, = 1.48 x 0.75 x 0.80 = 0.89 quart (23)
F, = 0.89 x 450 x 8 = 3,204.0 quarts (24)
Df
(25)
Cfd = $65 x 14.6 = $949.00 (26)
Cd = $30 x (1.64 + 14.6) = $486.00 (27)
L. = 1 x 465Q° x 8 = 60 hours (28)
L. = 3 x (1.6 + 14.6) = 48.6 hours (29)
Lm = 5 hours
(30)
Cla = $14 x 60 = $840.00 (3D
C,, = $14 x 48.7 = $680.40 (32)
Clm = $14x5 = $70.00
(33)
Operating Costs for Low-Viscosity Quid Applications
The annual operating costs, annual savings, and cost per use for low-viscosity fluid
(scenarios 1 to 3) are compared in Table 13 and plotted separately in Figures 9 through 11. As
shown in Figure 10, substantial savings occur as a result of pad recycling. Savings up to 51.4%
and 75.3% are possible with as few as two and as many as eight reuse cycles, respectively.
Additional savings are also possible, but much less significant, as reuse cycles increase to more
than 8 times. Similarly, the cost per use is greatly reduced from $4.80 for single use to $1.19 for
8 uses.
29
-------
TABLE 13. ANNUAL SAVINGS AND COST PER USE
Scenario
0'
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fluid
Viscosity
Mixed*
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Mixed"
Reuse
Cycles
0
2
4
8
2
0
Mixed"
Annual
Operating
Costs {$)
17,292.00
8,410.20
5,698.80
4,270.90
8,552.70
17,292.00
9,970.30
Annual Savings
($)
N/A
8,881.80
11,593.20
13,021.10
8,739.30
0.00
7,321.70
(%)
N/A
51.4
67.0
75.3
50.5
0.0
42.3
Cost/Use
{$)
4.80
2.34
1.58
1.19
2.38
4.80
2.77
Single use without extraction.
See Table 12.
20
o -<-
15-
w 10-
K
o
O
5-
Singie Usage Costs
1 2
4 8
Extraction Cycle
10
Rgure 9. Annual Operating Costs for Low-Viscosity Fluid
30
-------
100
90-
0)
CO
80-
70-
60-
50
i i i i i i i
124 8
S2H
Extraction Cycle
Figure 10. Annual Savings for Low-Viscosity Fluid
i
2
i i i i i i r
8
Extraction Cycle
10
10
Figure 11. Cost Per Use for Low-Viscosity Fluid
31
-------
Operating Costs for Medium-Viscosity Fluid Applications
The cost information for medium-viscosity fluid applications is shown in Tables 12
and 13. With two uses, the annual savings are 50.5% and the per use cost is $2.38. Additional
uses and savings are very unlikely because the sorbent pads become severely separated and
deformed as a* result of the extraction process.
Operating Costs for High-Viscosity Fluid Applications
Because the sorbent pads soaked with high-viscosity fluid cannot be processed through
an extractor, they must be disposed of after single usage. The operating costs are identical to
those shown in Table 11.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
The cost of an extractor as quoted by Environmental Management Products, Inc. is $699
(October, 1991). No other capital costs are needed for this process/technology.
PAYBACK PERIOD
The payback periods for each of the six scenarios are presented in Table 14. Because the
capital cost is relatively insignificant and the annual savings are substantial, the payback period of
the investment ranges from 2.8 to 5 weeks.
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
The economic benefits of the roller compression technology are substantial. The use of
an extractor by shops and plants that handle and/or use various oils and fluids would result in
annual savings of 56% to 86%. The savings come primarily from the lower disposal costs for
spent pads. Further savings may be possible if extracted fluids can be recycled. The per use cost
of sorbent pads can be significantly reduced from $4.80 for single usage to $1.19 or less for 8 or
more reuse cycles.
TABLE 14. PAYBACK PERIOD
Scenario
1
2
3
4
5
6
Payback Period
4.1
3.1
2.8
4.2
N/A
5.0
(weeks)
32
-------
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was prepared for and approved by the U.S. EPA
before the on-site testing began (see Reference 3). The QAPP contains a detailed description of
the experimental design and specific quality assurance objectives. The QAPP also includes analyt-
ical procedures and calibration, as well as methods for internal quality control checks, performance
and system audits, and corrective action. Discussion pertinent to quality assurance is provided
below.
QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
The three data quality indicators, i.e., precision, accuracy and completeness, for the
various measurements required for this study have been set at ± 20% (relative standard deviation
[RSD]), ±2% (accuracy of each individual weighing by comparison to known weight)', and 100%
(percentage of valid data over total number of measurements), respectively. These indicators were
calculated according to the equations in Section 8.0 of the QAPP.
The Mettler 1200 top-loading balance used has been regularly maintained and calibrated
by the Cook's laboratory personnel and was found well in the ±2% accuracy range. The precision
and completeness are discussed in the paragraphs below. No independent on-site audits were
performed during the tests. However, the Battelle Study Leader and QA Officer reviewed the
analytical data after completion of the on-site testing.
Precision
The precision is calculated from the field data and quantifies the repeatability of a given
test. The precision of each of these tests is determined as follows:
Precision = RSD = (s/y) x 100% (34)
where RSD = relative standard deviation
s = standard deviation
y = mean of replicate analyses
Standard deviation, s, is defined as follows:
1 »
A (y,-y)2 (35)
fcf n-1
33
-------
where s = standard deviation
y, = measured value of the i th replicate
y = mean of replicate measurements
n = number of replicates
The precision data for the extraction efficiency, rate-of-release and fluid pickup tests are
presented in Tables 15 through 19. All precision data are within the range (20%) specified in the
QAPP.
TABLE 15. PRECISION DATA FOR EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY TESTS
FOR LOW-VISCOSITY FLUID - FOUR EXTRACTION CYCLES
Extraction Cycle
Test Parameter
Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)
Extraction Efficiency (%)
Statistic
y'
sb
RSD (%)c
y*
sb
RSD (%)c
1
14.79
0.42
2.85
82.8
0.61
0.74
2
11.59
0.15
1.32
79.8
0.23
0.29
3
10.61
0.18
1.74
79.2
0.20
0.25
4
9.96
0.01
0.12
78.4
0.35
0.45
y = mean of three replicate measurements.
s = standard deviation.
RSD (%) = relative standard deviation = (s/y) x 100%.
TABLE 16. PRECISION DATA FOR EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY TESTS
FOR LOW-VISCOSITY FLUID - EIGHT EXTRACTION CYCLES
Extraction Cycle
Test Parameter
Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)
Extraction Efficiency (%)
Statistic
y'
sb
RSD (%)e
y'
sb
RSD (%)c
1
13.
0.
2.
82.
0.
0.
99
33
33
5
06
07
2
11.41
0.26
2.31
80.1
0.10
0.12
3
10.33
0.39
3.77
79.3
0.36
0.45
4
9.66
0.39
4.09
78.2
0.35
0.45
5
9.33
0.41
4.34
77.9
0.06
0.07
6
9.44
0.21
2.23
78.5
0.00
0.00
9
0
4
78
1
1
7
.41
.39
.17
.1
.31
.68
8
9.21
0.26
2.87
79.2
0.80
1.01
y = mean of three replicate measurements.
s = standard deviation.
RSD (%) » relative standard deviation = (s/y) x 100%.
34
-------
TABLE 17. PRECISION DATA FOR EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY TESTS
FOR MEDIUM-VISCOSITY FLUID
Unpleated Pads
Extraction Cycle
Test Parameter
Adsorbency Ratio (g/g)
Extraction Efficiency (%)
Statistic
y'
sb
RSD (%)c
V*
s"
RSD (%)e
1 2
1 7.65 N/A
0.46 N/A
2.59 N/A
80.8 N/A
0.96 N/A
1.19 N/A
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pleated Pads
Extraction Cycle
1 2
11.24 12.53
0.48 1.40
4.27 11.12
63.9 68.0
1.07 2.94
1.67 4.32
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• y = mean of three replicate measurements.
b s = standard deviation.
c RSD (%) = relative standard deviation
= (sly) x 100%.
N/A = Data not available as a result of pads separation and
TABLE 18. PRECISION DATA
Pad Fluid
Condition Viscosity
Fresh Low
Extracted Low
Four Times
Extracted Low
Eight Times
Fresh Medium
Fresh Medium
Fresh High
Pad Texture
Unpleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
Pleated
Unpleated
deformation.
FOR RATE OF
Statistic
y"
s"
RSD (%}°
y.
s"
RSD (%)c
y.
sb
RSD (%)°
y'
s5
RSD (%)c
Ya
s"
RSD {%)"
Y'
s"
RSD (%)c
RELEASE TESTS
Maximum
Practical
Pickup
6.19
0.56
9.01
4.73
0.30
6.27
4.40
0.06
1.29
11.58
0.35
3.03
7.80
0.02
0.20
13.63
0.08
0.57
Maximum
Effective
Pickup
5.21
0.46
8.85
3.93
0.19
4.87
3.54
0.06
1.79
* 9.04
0.41
4.54
6.92
0.06
0.80
12.24
0.13
1.03
• y = mean of three replicate measurements.
b s = standard deviation.
c RSD (%) = relative standard deviation = (s/y) x 100%.
35
-------
TABLE 19. PRECISION DATA FOR FLUID PICKUP TESTS
Fluid Picked Up By
Fluid
Viscosity
Low
Medium*
High
Statistic
y*
sb
RSD (%)e
y'
sb
RSD (%)c
Y'
sb
RSD (%)e
Fresh
Pads
97.6
1.04
1.06
96.9
0.67
0.69
98.1
3.35
3.41
Pads Recycled
4 Times
95.5
2.08
2.18
95.3
1.93
2.03
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pads Recycled
8 Times
95.3
0.92
0.97
96.4
2.89
3.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
• y — mean of three replicate measurements.
k a = standard deviation.
• RSD (%) = relative standard deviation = (s/y) x 100%.
4 Pads soaked with fluid equivalent to 50% pad sorting capacity.
N/A = Data not available because pads could not pass through Extractor"'
Completeness
Completeness refers to the percentage of valid data received from actual testing done in
the field. Completeness is calculated as follows:
Completeness = (V/T) x 100%
(36)
where V = number of measurements judged valid
T = total number of measurements
The completeness data for the extraction efficiency, rate-of-release and fluid pickup tests
are presented in Table 20. Except one test, the completeness was 100%, regardless of fluid vis-
cosity, pad texture, and test methods. The sorbent pads saturated with high-viscosity fluid did not
pass through the Extractor™; therefore, the calculation of completeness was not applicable to this
test.
LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS
Based on the above quality assurance data, the results from the on-site testing provide a
good basis for drawing conclusions about product quality and waste reduction.
Most of the data for the economic analysis were obtained from the vendors' management.
Several assumptions made during economic analysis are discussed in Section 4. Informed assump-
tions were made only when hard data were absent. In such cases, the same assumption was applied
on an equivalent basis for all scenarios and should not be a factor in comparative economics.
36
-------
TABLE 20. COMPLETENESS DATA FOR EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY.
RATE OF RELEASE, AND FLUID PICKUP TESTS
Test
Extraction
Efficiency
Rate of
Release
Fluid Pickup
Fluid
Viscosity
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium11
High
Pad Texture
Unpleated
Unpleated
Pleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
Pleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
Unpleated
T'
72
15"
18d
3"
27
9"
9'
9
9
3"
V"
72
15
18
1'
27
9
9
9
9
3
Completeness
(%)c
100.0
100.0
100.0
33.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
• T = Total number of measurements.
b V = Number of measurements judged valid.
c Completeness {%) = (V/T) x 100%.
d Only 2 to 3 extraction cycles were performed as a result of severe
pad separation and deformation.
* Pads failed to pass through Extractor™.
' Two missing data points.
8 Only fresh pads were used for testing.
h Pads soaked in fluid equivalent to 50% pad sorbing capacity.
37
-------
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
1. "Standard Method of Testing Sorbent Performance of Adsorbents." ASTM F726-81,
reapproved 1986, pp. 988-993.
2. "Standard Method of Testing Sorbent Performance of Absorbents." ASTM F716-82,
reapproved 1986, pp. 983-987.
3. Quality Assurance Project Plan for a Fluid Sorbent Recycling Study at Cook's Industrial
Lubricants, Inc., Linden, New Jersey. Submitted by Battelle to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, 1991.
4. Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual, EPA/625/7-88/003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
MANUFACTURERS' LITERATURE
Are You Tired of Oil Spills Soaking Up Your Profits?
Now You Can Shrink Expenses And Clean Up With
And Is Immediately Ready For Reuse
Enjoy Dramatic Savings Right Away
EPA rules are tough. Disposal costs are high and getting higher.
Our unique yet simple system works by letting you quickly and easily de-saturate
sorbent pads, which can then be reused SDCTIMES OR MORE
-You Save Ttoo Ways
Lower Disposal Cost You Need Fewer Pads
A 55-gallon drum can accommodate about 150 oil- With at least six uses per pad instead of just
soaked sorbent pads. But 275 de-saturated pads one. the cost per use is decreased by 50%.
wffl fit in the SAME DRUM! If disposal costs SSOO
per drum, you save S1.51 PER PAD. Total Cost Reduced By 650%
39
-------
The EXTRACTOR
The Ultimate in Waste Minimization
TM
Save Thousands of Dollars Yearly in Waste Disposal Costs!!
• Instant 80% reduction in disposal and purchase costs.1
• Mounts to all 55-gallon, closed-head drums. Drains directly into bung Anti-
Spill Valve prevents drum overfilling.
• Both rollers are gear driven for effortless feeding and cranking. Even oily
sorbents are started easily and feed through smoothly.
• Adjustable, grid work shelf. Adjustable roller pressure. Heavy-gauge
construction. Non-sparking components.
• Why dispose of sorbents after just one use? THE EXTRACTOR enables shop
towels, pads and booms to be used over and over again.
DONT THROW DOLLARS AWAY!
WRING OUT FLUIDS AND WRING
MAXIMUM VALUE FROM YOUR SORBENTS.
' Testing show* that polypropylene sorbents may be easily wrung out six or more times, some more than two dozen
pSrS^nS l«Ul^0rb*nt ,?°*t* I**"0**1 lnd Purchase) by six to realize trie savings available witn THE
EXTRACTOR. (Sorbent supplier recommendations available.)
PART # — EX 490
40
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SHEETS
USED FOR EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY,
RATE OF RELEASE, AND FLUID PICKUP TESTS
Run Number:
Date:
Time:
Operator:
Extractor Setup
Roller Force
Roller Length
Roller Diameter
Crank Force (at Rotation Speed
for Free Turning
for Clean Pad
for Soaked Pad
sec/rev)
Initial Conditions
Fresh Pad Dimensions
Height
Length
Width
Thickness
Basket Tare Weight {Soaked.and Drained)
Trial 1
Trial 2 ~
Trial 3
Trial 4
Trial 5
Tared Basket and New Pad Height
Figure B.1. Extraction Efficiency Test Data (Part A)
41
-------
03
o
(J
C
^_
CD
LU
0
O5
CO
IX
CO
LO
*
CO
CM
-
Run Number:
CD
3
Fluid Temperal
CD
F
(O
o
CO
03
C
£
Q
73
CL
•o
fl5
^>
co
0
f~ tO
°~" fiQ
^ CO
03
3
Fluid Temperal
•
•a
CO
a.
•o
CD
o
CO
H-J
'53 "O
CO
t:
Q
o
o
2
2
CO
.i
u.
42
-------
Run Number:
Initial Conditions
Weight
Length
Date:
Time:
Operator:
Width
Thickness
Pad Type:
Pad Condition:
Test Results
Fluid Temperature
Soak Time
Weight of Pad
and Fluid
Time to Stop
Dripping
Fluid Temp
Weight at Time of
Drip Cessation
Practical
Pickup
(Weight at Drip Cessation minus
Weight of Pad)
Monitor weight of pad at various times during exposure to air flow
arget Actual Weight
0
10
20
30
40
50
.Target Actual
60
Weight
80
100
120
160
200
Figure B.2. Rate-of-Release Test
43
-------
Run Number: Date:
Initial Conditions
Pad Weight
Pad Length
Pad Type:
Pad Condition:
Test Results
Pad Fluid Capacity
Fluid Spill Weight
Time:
(1)
Width
Operator:
Thickness
(2)
(Pad Fluid Capacity * Pad Weight * 0.5)
Fluid Temperature Fluid Spread Time
Saturated Pad Weight
4 - Cycle Extracted
Pad Weight
Fluid Spill Weight
(4)
(5)
(Pad Fluid Capacity * Pad Weight * 0.5)
Fluid Temperature Fluid Spread Time
Saturated Pad Weight
8 - Cycle Extracted
Pad Weight
Fluid Spill Weight
(7)
(8)
(Pad Fluid Capacity * Pad Weight * 0.5)
Fluid Temperature Fluid Spread Time
Saturated Pad Weight (9)
Fresh Pad Pickup ((3 - l)/2)
4 X Pad Pickup ((6 - 4)/5)
8 X Pad Pickup ((9 - 7)/8)
Figure B.3. Ruid Pickup Test
44
-------
APPENDIX C
RAW DATA
OBTAINED FROM ON-SITE TESTING
TABLE C.I. BASKET TARE WEIGHT
Basket Tare Weight (g)
Fluid Viscosity
Trial No.
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Low
211.70
213.00
213.55
213.12
211.72
212.62
Medium
222.89
224.19
224.88
224.35
223.98
224.06
High
230.88
228.15
231.31
229.62
228.35
229.62
45
-------
TABLE C.2. FLUID PICKUP BY SORBENT PADS
Fluid Pickup (%)
Fluid
Viscosity
Low
Medium0
High
Pad
Condition
Fresh
4X'
8Xb
Fresh
4X'
8Xb
Fresh
4X«
8Xb
Replicate No. /Pad No.
1/28
96.4
93.2
94.2
1/31
97.1
97.5
95.8
1/34
100
N/A
N/A
2/29
98.2
97.2
95.8
2/32
96.2
94.1
93.8
2/35
94.2
N/A
N/A
3/30
98.2
96.2
95.8
3/33
97.5
94.2
99.5
3/36
100
N/A
N/A
Average
97.6
95.5
95.3
96.9
95.3
94.8d
98.1
N/A
N/A
• Pad extracted four times.
k Pad extracted eight times.
0 For all medium-viscosity fluid tests, pads were soaked at 50% pad sorbing
capacity before extractions.
d Based on the performance of Pads No. 31 and 32 only.
N/A = Data not available because pad could not pass through Extractor™.
TABLE C.3. DIMENSIONS OF FRESH BLUE HEAT-ANCHORED PLEATED SORBENT PADS
Pad No.
10B
11B
12B
13B
14B
15B
Length (cm)
22.4
22.0
22.1
22.7
22.2
22.4
Width (cm)
23.3
22.9
22.7
22.9
23.0
22.9
Thickness (cm)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Weight (g)
22.60
21.75
21.25
22.26
22.46
22.42
46
-------
APPENDIX D
METHOD OF TESTING COMPLETENESS OF FLUID PICKUP
BY SORBENT PADS
1. Scope
1.1 This is a special method developed for testing under the Waste Reduction
Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) to estimate the performance of sorbent
pads for removing fluids from a shop floor surface.
2. Summary of Method
2.1 This method measures the ability of new and reused sorbent pads to lift fluid from a
typical shop floor surface. The effect of pad reuse by roller compression extraction
of fluids is measured.
j
3. Significance and Use
3.1 This method is used to compare the completeness of fluid pickup with new and
reused sorbent pads.
3.2 This is a preliminary scoping test for use in the WRITE project evaluation of roller
compression fluid extraction of fluids.
A
4. Terminology
4.1 Sorbent - a material used to recover fluid through the mechanisms of absorption or
adsorption or both.
4.2 Sorbent Pad - a sorbent material with length and width much greater than thickness
and which has both linear form and strength sufficient to be handled while
saturated or unsaturated.
4.3 Reuse - the art of extracting sorbed materials from the pad by compression
permitting the sorbent to be used for more than one fluid pickup cycle.
47
-------
5. Apparatus
5.1 Sorbent Pad - a square piece of sorbent about 20 cm by 20 cm.
5.2 Test Fluid - low, medium, or high viscosity fluid sample.
5.3 Top Loading Balance - balance with 10-mg resolution. Mettler P1200 balance or
equivalent.
5.4 Extractor - American Manufacturing roller compression extractor or equivalent
5.5 Dial Thermometer
6. Procedure
6.1 Clean a level area of the test site floor 25 cm by 75 cm. Clean by scrapping,
removing loose debris, wiping with a sorbent pad soaked with test fluid, and wiping
with fresh pads until fluid removal is minimal.
6.2 Measure and weigh the sorbent pad test sample.
6.3 Based on the initial loading of a new, saturated pad measured in the Extraction
Efficiency test and the sorbent pad weight, calculate the quantity of fluid needed to
load the test pad to 50 percent capacity.
i
6.4 Measure fluid temperature.
6.5 Pour the weight of fluid calculated in Step 6.3 on a cleaned spot of the site floor.
6.6 Wait until the fluid pool spreads to a generally flat puddle with a diameter less than
the pad length and width or 30 seconds, which ever is less.
6.7 Place the pad over the fluid pool and tamp lightly to remove wrinkles.
6.8 Wait 4 to 5 minutes and record wait time.
6.3 Lift and weigh the pad and sorbed fluid.
6.10 Saturate and drain the pad using test fluid and extract in the roller compression
extractor (ASTM F 726 Step 10.3.1).
6.11 Repeat the soak and extraction for a total of four times.
6.12 Weight the pad and post extraction fluid residual.
6.13 Repeat the fluid pickup test described in Steps 6.4 through 6.9 using the pad that
has been through four extraction cycles. Use a new section of cleaned floor.
6.14 Repeat the soak and extraction cycles (Step 6.10) for four more times for a total of
eight cycles on the pad.
48
-------
6.15 Weigh the pad and post extraction fluid residual.
I .-' 17: '=••:' s
6.16 Repeat the fluid pickup test described in Steps 6.4 through 6.9.
•ii •) *
6.17 Calculate the fluid pickup for a new pad, a four cycle reuse pad, and an eight cycle
reuse pad as the post fluid pickup weight minus the pre-fluid pickup weight divided
by the weight of fluid spilled.
49
-------
------- |