600SR97024
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-97/024 July 1997
Project Summary
Testing the Performance of
Real-Time Incinerator Emission
Monitors
S.B. Ghorishi, W.E. Whitworth, Jr., C.G. Goldman, and LR. Waterland
In a recently completed test program
at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Incineration Research Fa-
cility (IRF), ten prototype or developing
continuous emission monitors (OEMs)
for measuring trace metal or trace or-
ganic species concentrations were
tested. Of the ten OEMs tested, four
measured concentrations of several
specific volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), one measured total paniculate-
bound polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bon concentrations, two measured
concentrations of up to 14 trace met-
als, and three measured mercury con-
centrations. While the testing consisted
of obtaining quantitative measurement
data on the four measures of GEM per-
formance checked in a relative accu-
racy test audit as described in 40 CFR
60 Appendix F—relative accuracy (RA),
calibration drift (CD), zero drift (ZD),
and response time—the primary project
objective focused on the RA measure-
ment. The RA measurement was
achieved by comparing the monitored
analyte concentration reported by the
CEM to the concentration determined
by the EPA reference method (RM) for
the analyte. Four series of tests were
performed, each simultaneously test-
ing up to three monitors measuring the
same or similar analyte type. Each test
series consisted of performing tripli-
cate RM measurements at each of three
target flue gas monitored analyte con-
centrations while the tested OEMs were
in operation. All measurements were
taken in the wet scrubber exit flue gas
from the pilot-scale rotary kiln incin-
eration system at the IRF.
The test program results clearly
showed the prototype nature of most
approaches tested, and the clear need
for further development. Mercury OEMs
will require the least development and
are nearly commercial offerings. How-
ever, the approaches tested for multi-
metals and VOC determinations require
further development. Given this need,
the importance of continuing test pro-
grams of the scope and scale of this
one cannot be overemphasized.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering Information at
back).
Introduction
EPA is currently developing more strin-
gent emission standards and considering
changes in the way that permits for waste
combustion facilities are handled. More
public involvement in the process has been
proposed. Because the public's apparent
perception of incinerators is that high con-
centrations of hazardous compounds are
continually being released from the stacks
of the thermal treatment devices, a means
by which the "real-time" (defined as rang-
ing from instantaneous to within several
hours) organic and metals emissions can
be monitored would be of great benefit to
both regulators and the regulated commu-
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
nity. The ability to have "immediate" knowl-
edge of stack emissions would provide
assurances that the thermal treatment de-
vice is operating correctly or indicate the
change of operating conditions needed to
adjust stack emissions. Thus, having this
monitoring capability would constitute one
means of responding to and allaying the
public's fears by showing that good, safe,
and clean combustion practices can be
demonstrated.
Several developers have designed moni-
toring units that they claim will measure
various regulated hazardous compounds
using a number of different innovative con-
cepts and technologies. The development
of these GEM approaches for both trace
metal and trace organic analyte classes
has advanced to the state that several
candidate approaches are now in the pro-
totype instrument stage. Given this, the
general objective of the project reported
herein was to test several prototype in-
struments and establish or estimate for
each unit the effectiveness, reliability, ac-
curacy, and detection limit.
For this test program, ten developing
GEM approaches were tested. These are
listed in Table 1 by monitored analyte
class. As shown, included in the list of
CEMs tested in this program are one
semivolatile organic constituent (SVOC),
four VOC, two multi-metal, and three mer-
cury CEMs.
Table 1. Participants in the GEM Test Program
Test Program
The selected approaches evaluated in
this test program were performed in the
pilot-scale rotary kiln incineration system
(RKS) at EPA's IRF, located in Jefferson,
AR. The testing consisted of obtaining
quantitative measurement data on four
measures of GEM performance checked
in a relative accuracy test audit of a GEM
as described in 40 CFR 60 Appendix F.
These measures are RA, CD, ZD, and
response time.
Measuring a CEM's RA requires com-
paring the monitored analyte concentra-
tion reported by the GEM to the
concentration determined by the RM for
the analyte. In this program, the RM for
trace metal (including mercury) monitors
was draft Method 29, the EPA multiple
metals method documented in the boiler
and industrial furnace rules. The RM for
VOCs was Method 0030 with analysis us-
ing thermal desorption, purge and trap by
Method 5040, and quantitation by Method
8015A. The RM for SVOCs was Method
0010 with analysis by Method 8270B.
Test Facility
Figure 1 is a process schematic of the
RKS as configured for these tests. The
RKS consists of a primary combustion
chamber, a transition section, and a fired
afterburner chamber. After exiting the af-
terburner extension, flue gas flows through
a quench section that is followed by a
Monitored
Analyte
Developer
Approach
SVOCs
VOCs
EcoChem
EcoLogic
Marine Shale Processors (MSP)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
EPA, Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Division (APPCD)
Multi-metals Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
Metorex
Mercury
Perkin-Elmer
Senova
EcoChem
Photoionization of aerosol-bound polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons
Continuous chemical ionization mass
spectrometry
Continuous online mass spectrometry
Direct sampling ion trap mass spectrometry
Online gas chromatography with dual flame
ionization, electron capture detection
Laser induced plasma spectroscopy
Extractive beta gauge particulate monitor
with x-ray fluorescence metals analysis
Gold trap amalgamation collection, cold
vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy
analysis
Noble metal film solid state chemical
microsensor
Cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy
primary air pollution control system
(ARCS). The initial element of the primary
ARCS for these tests was the venturi
scrubber/packed-column scrubber combi-
nation shown in Figure 1. This scrubber
system removes from the flue gas most of
the coarse particles and any acid gas,
such as HCI. Following the scrubber sys-
tem, the flue gas is reheated to about
120°C (250°F) by a 100-kW electric duct
heater, then passed through a fabric filter
(baghouse). The baghouse removes most
of the remaining flue gas particles. Down-
stream of the baghouse, a backup, sec-
ondary ARCS, comprised of an
activated-carbon adsorber and a high-effi-
ciency particulate air filter is in place. The
CEMs tested in this program sampled flue
gas at the scrubber exit location.
Testing Procedures
The test program consisted of four se-
ries of tests; each series tested one set of
CEMs, generally monitoring the same ana-
lyte set. Up to three CEMs were tested at
the same time during each of the four test
series. The major portion of the test pro-
gram consisted of performing three se-
quential RM measurements, while the
tested CEMs were in operation, at each of
three flue gas concentrations of monitored
analytes. Thus, each test series was de-
signed to supply nine sets of parallel RM
and CEM reading data, three at each of
three analyte concentrations. These nine
sets of parallel RM and CEM data sup-
ported the calculation of each CEM's RA.
Thus, up to three RAs were calculated for
each CEM, one at each of the three flue
gas concentrations tested. Other test ef-
forts supported the measurements of CD,
ZD, and response time.
Test Waste Feed
The incinerator feed material was a syn-
thetic hazardous waste comprised of an
attapulgite clay solid sorbent combined
with a mixture of 14 trace metals and
VOCs. The mixture of VOCs added to the
sorbent base contained 76% toluene by
weight, with 12% each of chlorobenzene
and tetrachloroethene. This mixture was
combined with the clay sorbent in the ra-
tio of 1.0 kg of organic constituent mixture
to 2.4 kg of clay. The mixture was a free-
flowing solid with no freestanding liquid
and was continuously fed to the RKS via
a screw feeder system. For all tests, the
target clay/organic mixture feedrate was
68 kg/hr (150 Ib/hr). The target kiln exit
gas temperature was 870°C (1,600°F), and
the target afterburner exit gas tempera-
ture was 1,065°C (1,950°F).
f. *-:
-------
Quench
Air
Natural
liquid
feed
Transfer
duct
Primary Air Pollution Control System
Carbon bed HEPA
adsorber filter
Baighouse
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Redundant Air Pollution
Control System
Atmosphere
Stack
ID fan
Figure 1. Schematic of the IRF rotary kiln incineration system.
Multi-Metal and Mercury OEM
Tests
The trace metals of interest to the test
program are listed in Table 2, which also
notes the program target scrubber exit
flue gas concentrations of each metal for
the tests of multi-metals CEMs. For the
mercury CEMs tests in Test Series 3, the
low concentration targets were at half the
levels noted in the low concentration col-
umn in Table 2. The intermediate concen-
tration targets were those noted in the low
concentration column in Table 2. The high
concentration targets were those noted in
the intermediate concentration column in
Table 2. This change was incorporated at
the request of the mercury CEM develop-
ers.
Trace metals were added to the RKS,
to result in scrubber exit flue gas levels,
via two routes. Both routes used an aque-
ous spike solution of the metals. A con-
centrated solution was added for the
multi-metal CEM test days at the high
target flue gas metals concentration. This
concentrated solution was diluted for the
multi-metal CEM test days at the interme-
diate and low target concentrations and
for the mercury CEM tests. The two routes
of metals addition were incorporated into
the clay/organic mixture and atomized into
the kiln main burner flame.
VOC and SVOC CEM Tests
The VOCs present in the scrubber
exit flue gas for all tests included ben-
zene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroben-
zene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene,
toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and tri-
chloroethene. The target flue gas con-
centrations of the compounds were in the
2, 20, and 200 ng/dscm ranges (low, in-
termediate, and high concentrations).
Naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene
were the SVOCs introduced into the flue
gas for all tests, at the same target flue
gas concentrations noted above.
The VOCs and SVOCs were introduced
into the flue gas by metering a solution of
the spiking compounds in methanol
through a length of fine bore stainless
steel tubing into the afterburner extension
at its centerline. The afterburner exit flue
gas was partially quenched to a tempera-
ture of between 360° to 427°C (680° and
800°F) by a water spray introduced at the
Table 2. Test Trace Metals and Target Flue
Gas Concentrations
Target Flue Gas Concentration,
ng/dscm
Metal
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Thallium (Tl)
Low
10
5
50
0.5
5
20
10
50
5
20
10
40
5
5
Intermediate
40
20
200
2
20
80
40
200
20
80
40
200
20
20
High
400
200
2,000
20
200
560
400
2,000
200
800
400
2,000
200
200
-------
beginning of the afterburner extension. A
concentrated organic spiking solution was
prepared and used for the high target flue
gas VOC and SVOC GEM tests. The con-
centrated solution was diluted appropri-
ately for the intermediate and low target
flue gas concentration tests.
Test Results
VOC CEM Tests
Tables 3 through 5 present the results
of the three sequential RM measurements,
along with the Oak Ridge National Labo-
ratory (ORNL) and EcoLogic CEM results,
for each of the three VOC concentrations
tested in Test Series 1. The EcoLogic
CEM data for the first day of testing at the
low VOC concentration were not reported
in EcoLogic's test report because of op-
erator error that resulted in CEM readings
that were inflated and incorrect. RAs cal-
culated using the RM and CEM data in
Tables 3 through 5 are summarized in
Table 6. The data in Table 6 show that
the calculated RAs for the ORNL CEM
ranged from 123% to 305% at the low test
concentration, with an average of 196%
over the seven compounds reported.
ORNL CEM RAs were improved at the
intermediate test concentration, at 113%
to 278%, with an average of 154% over
the nine compounds reported. Further im-
provement is seen at the high test con-
centration, with an RA range of 84% to
144%, and an average of 105% over all
ten compounds reported. In fact, the RA
for all VOCs reported uniformly improved
as the test concentration increased.
Table 3. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs at the Low VOC Concentration
Concentration, ng/dscm
IstDailvRM
Compound
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
RM
32.4
31.2
55.6
40.8
2.4
86.4
89.9
352
2.5
6.9
ORNL
1.3
<0.4
0.76
0.56
2.5
3.2
1.7
9.2
<0.4
<0.4
Eco-
Logic
NO*
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2nd Dailv RM
RM
41.9
34.2
49.2
47.3
3.3
35.6
73.9
316
4.6
5.9
ORNL
1.6
<0.4
1.2
0.4
1.5
<0.4
1.3
9.2
<0.4
<0.4
Eco-
Logic
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3rd Dailv RM
RM
59.6
38.0
86.7
41.6
2.6
16.9
126
462
6.4
3.9
ORNL
1.6
0.92
5.6
3.6
6.8
11.0
4.3
16
<0.4
<0.4
Eco-
Logic
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
aNO=CEM not operational.
Table 4. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs at the Intermediate VOC Concentration
IstDailvRM
Compound
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
RM
32.7
46.9
59.8
57.1
17.4
24.0
81.4
342
13.8
19.4
ORNL
12.0
10.1
25.8
23.9
43.3
55.3
11.1
147
<2.3
4.6
Eco-
Logic
97
7.9
81
140
210
320
120
210
800
420
2nd Dailv RM
RM
28.7
41.7
46.3
56.7
12.3
20.5
64.1
218
13.3
18.6
ORNL
<2.3
3.8
7.2
9.6
16.6
26.7
2.5
71.8
<2.3
0.9
Eco-
Logic
820
24
81
230
340
430
770
120
910
770
3rd Dailv RM
RM
36.4
58.5
74.3
66.3
15.3
14.3
101
413
12.9
20.4
ORNL
5.5
6.4
27.6
18.4
29.5
40.5
7.4
103
<2.3
1.8
Eco-
Logic
870
16
98
170
290
370
710
250
840
510
-------
Table 5. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs at the High VOC Concentration
Concentration, ng/dscm
1st Dailv RM
Compound
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
RM
102
423
337
417
184
116
429
1,760
175
189
ORNL
36.8
101
138
101
88.4
38.7
62.6
847
24.9
15.7
Eco-
Logic
140
380
250
330
450
350
690
1,300
170
340
2nd Dailv RM
RM
89.1
409
299
411
174
140
374
1,393
164
176
ORNL
50.7
119
170
168
114
44.2
61.7
921
37.8
19.3
Eco-
Logic
160
350
270
350
500
440
740
1,200
190
300
3rd Dailv RM
RM
91.3
446
269
413
183
162
324
1,024
182
185
ORNL
28.6
76.4
97.6
91.2
6.3
35.9
37.8
460
20.3
14.7
Eco-
Logic
190
360
280
390
540
480
690
760
210
360
Table 6. Relative Accuracies of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs
RA,%
ORNL
Test Concentration
Compound
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Average6
Median"
Low
173
NCa
164
123
305
299
162
145
NC
NC
196
164
Intermediate
119
129
93
105
278
277
142
131
NC
113
154
129
High
98
100
84
97
144
115
113
88
110
103
105
100,
103
EcoLoqic
Test Concentration
Low
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Intermediate
5,020
135
74
396
2,890
2,520
1,640
65
7,320
5,140
2,520
1 ,640,
2,520
High
154
27
52
33
239
283
128
47
36
116
121
52,
116
" NC=Not calculated.
b Average and median excludes NC entries.
For the intermediate test concentra-
tion, the RAs of the EcoLogic CEM
ranged from 65% to 7,320%, with an
average of 2,520%. Improved perfor-
mance was seen at the high test con-
centration, for which the RA ranged from
27% to 283% and averaged 121%. As
seen for the ORNL CEM, the RAs for
nine of the ten VOCs reported were im-
proved at the high test concentration
compared to the intermediate concen-
tration.
Tables 7 through 9 present the results
of the three sequential RM measure-
ments, along with the EPA/APPCD and
MSP CEM results, for each of the three
VOC concentrations tested in Test Se-
ries 4. The tables indicate that, out of
the nine sampling periods, MSP obtained
data for only two periods. RAs corre-
sponding to the RM/CEM concentration
data given in Tables 7 through 9 are
summarized in Table 10. The data in
Table 10 show that the RAs for the EPA
CEM ranged from 71% to 3,190% and
averaged 638% for the low test concen-
trations. The relatively high average RA
was driven by the two very high RAs for
1,2-dichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroeth-
ene. These two compounds were found
in EPA/APPCD system blanks. EPA/
APPCD's decision not to blank-correct
their data led to the corresponding high
RAs. The median RA for the low con-
centration test at a much improved 113%
-------
Table?. Measured
Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the
EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs at the Low VOC Concentration
Concentration, ng/dscm
1st Daily RM
Compound
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
aNO=Not operational
Table 8. Measured
RM
8.2
13.9
21.6
15.8
1.8
2.0
32.7
160.9
2.1
2.6
EPA/
APPCD
21.31
9.68
18.56
16.95
43.21
76.34
15.65
131.92
2.21
2.18
MSP
NO"
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the
RM
5.9
11.9
20.8
18.4
1.5
6.3
26.9
149.4
1.9
2.9
2nd Daily RM
EPA/
APPCD
29.93
5.99
29.16
14.89
39.18
90.23
31.7
221.38
2.22
2.71
MSP
795
118
143
3,439
73.7
322
124
1,308
3.6
3,022
EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs at the
RM
8.4
13.3
16.0
15.8
1.6
5.1
20.6
97.1
1.8
3.0
Intermediate
Concentration, ng/dscm
1st Daily RM
Compound
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
RM
33.9
53.5
29.5
43.2
20.7
14.2
39.3
143
17.3
22.9
EPA/
APPCD
35.8
31.45
24.86
26.33
27.97
47.14
22.87
90.22
13.68
16.04
MSP
NO"
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RM
32.9
57.8
64.6
62.1
18.1
11.3
92.7
498.5
16.2
20.6
2nd Daily RM
EPA/
APPCD
42.41
37.58
54.15
31.61
34.9
54.48
58.32
306.1
14.33
16.63
MSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RM
33.6
64.1
75.0
63.5
16.6
9.9
96.8
551.8
17.4
19.1
3rd Daily RM
EPA/
APPCD
22.21
4.99
18.8
9.25
30.33
84.49
8.56
57.85
3.53
1.74
MSP
707
126
60.2
1,515
78.5
271
107
814
4.1
1,602
VOC Concentration
3rd Daily RM
EPA/
APPCD
50.34
40.55
40.73
43.31
55.71
101.19
30.3
163.48
14.54
15.74
MSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
aNO=Not operational.
to 137%, removes the dominant influence
of the two compounds for which the GEM
did poorly. The RAs for the EPA GEM
were improved at the intermediate test
concentration, ranging from 29% to 1,130%
and averaging 213%. Poor performance
in quantitating 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,1-
dichloroethene again accounts largely for
the high average RA. Again, the median
RA at 83% to 98% better reflects the
mean performance of the GEM by remov-
ing the dominant influence of the RAs for
the two VOCs poorly quantitated. Further
improved performance of the EPA GEM
was seen at the high test concentration,
with an RA range from 34% to 133% and
an average RA of 73%. In fact, at the high
test concentration, the RAs for two com-
pounds poorly quantitated at the low and
intermediate test concentrations are more
in line with those calculated for the other
-------
Table 9. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs at the High VOC Concentration
Concentration, ng/dscm
1 st Dailv RM
Compound
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
RM
102.6
222.5
104.8
229.4
93.7
65.9
112.8
176.6
97.8
98.2
EPA/
APPCD
96.33
209.55
119.78
190.9
95.44
113.67
150.65
191.23
92.89
98.46
MSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2nd Dailv RM
RM
129.5
266.2
146.5
243.8
121.2
65.5
162.6
445.4
106.8
114.3
EPA/
APPCD
98.73
205.53
113.78
199.06
107.96
124.81
161.66
213.8
87.31
91.81
MSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3rd Dailv RM
RM
117.7
283.7
127.2
241.1
114.9
71.9
132.2
261.5
103.5
113.1
EPA/
APPCD
88.66
135.72
126.99
178.42
90.81
144.06
131.62
217.23
57.93
70.04
MSP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
aNO=Not operational.
Table 10. Relative Accuracies of the EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs
RA,%
EPA/APPCD
Test Concentration
Compound
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Average
Median
Low Intermediate
429
86
87
76
3,190
2,040
137
113
150
71
638
113,137
83
45
98
71
334
1,130
134
158
29
45
213
83,98
High
48
95
53
34
40
133
50
138
73
70
73
53,70
MSP
Test Concentration
Low
18,300
1,200
3,150
85,800
6,740
10,700
673
3,040
315
384,000
51,400
3,150,6,740
eight compounds. For this reason, the
median RA at 53% to 70% is comparable
to the average RA.
The calculated RAs based on the two
available CEM/RM measurement pairs for
the MSP GEM were quite large, ranging
from 315% to 412,000% and averaging
54,600%. Even the median RAs for the
MSP GEM, at 2,840% to 6,480%, are
quite high.
SVOC OEM Tests
The SVOC GEM tests were performed
at the same time as the second set of
VOC GEM tests. Table 11 presents the
results of the three sequential RM mea-
surements performed each test day, and
compares these to the EcoChem CEM
results for the test days at the low and
intermediate SVOC concentrations. Due
to problems in the flue gas conditioning
(moisture removal) system, the EcoChem
CEM could not be brought into operation
on the last day of testing at the high
SVOC concentration. In addition, no CEM
data were obtained during the first RM
period on the intermediate concentration
test day because the EcoChem CEM was
not in operation, again due to problems
with the flue gas moisture removal sys-
tem.
Table 11 also notes the RA of the
EcoChem PAH CEM for the two test days
the CEM was in operation. The
table indicates that the RAs for the
-------
Table 11. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Tests of the EcoChem PAH CEMs
Concentration, ng/dscm
Test
1st Daily RM
Low Concentration Test
Naphthalene 1 .7
Phenanthrene 1 .3
Pyrene 1 .0
Total PAH 4.0
EcoChem CEM 6.9
Intermediate Concentration Test
Naphthalene 1 7.5
Phenanthrene 15.7
Pyrene 9.1
Total PAH 42.3
EcoChem CEM NO
High Concentration Test
Naphthalene 97.0
Phenanthrene 91.4
Pyrene 68.2
Total PAH
EcoChem CEM
aNO=Not operational
bNP=Not performed.
cNC=Not calculated.
Table 12. Measured
256.
NO
6
2nd Daily RM
1.8
1.2
0.8
3.8
14.8
10.9
10.1
19.6
40.6
33.2
NP»
NP
NP
NP
NO
Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the
3rd Daily RM RA,%
SNL and
1.7
1.3
0.9
3.9
15.5
15.8
15.3
9.7
40.8
39.0
NP
NP
NP
NP
NO
527
99
NC
Metorex CEMs at the
Concentration,
Metal
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Thallium (Tl)
RM
4.5
4.4
11.7
9.7
22.3
7.8
101
21.8
39.6
11.4
1.1
1st Daily
SNL
ND"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RM
Metorex
ND
3.65
ND
2.63
2.49
12.11
11.51
5.89
27.52
1.51
ND
RM
5.1
3.8
15.8
12.1
23.5
7.1
85.6
29.2
29.1
12.3
1.5
2nd Dailv
SNL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ng/dscm
RM
Metorex
ND
0.83
ND
ND
0.56
ND
9.06
ND
6.15
1.47
ND
c
Low Metals Concentrations
RM
4.5
3.6
18.6
13.2
28.0
7.1
110
31.6
42.4
12.3
1.7
3rd Dailv
SNL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RM
Metorex
5.13
1.19
6.23
10.02
22.29
14.68
12.36
19.43
21.87
3.62
ND
•ND=Not detected.
EcoChem CEM were 527% and 99%. As
was seen in the VOC CEM tests, the RA
at the higher test flue gas concentration
was improved in comparison to the lower
test concentration.
Multi-Metal CEM Tests
Tables 12 through 14 summarize the
results of the three sequential RM mea-
surements performed each test day and
compares these to the Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL) and Metorex CEM
measurements. Neither CEM measured
beryllium or mercury, so these metals are
not included in the three tables. In addi-
tion, results for silver are not included in
the tables. Spike recovery from QA
samples was poor, so silver concentra-
-------
Table 13. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the SNL and Metorex CEMs at the Intermediate Metals Concentrations
Concentration, iig/dscm
Metal
Reference Method 1
RM SNL Metorex
Reference Method 2
RM SNL Metorex
Reference Method 3
RM SNL Metorex
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Thallium (Tl)
11.0 NDa 39.73
11.1 63 11.92
78.0 251 44.37
14.0 ND 7.22
54.7 ND 56.48
32.3 ND 14.72
141 144 107.07
24.2 ND 61.4
59.9 ND 26.48
43.2 ND 29.34
11.1 ND 12.96
11.6 ND 22.00
10.8 42 0.74
80.0 199 11.87
15.0 ND 26.93
59.5 ND 72.51
33.9 ND 20.79
141 93 51.80
24.6 ND 55.58
61.2 ND 21.26
54.5 ND 21.27
11.2 ND 4.49
9.5 ND 8.49
8.7 115 6.61
49.2 463 9.92
14.2 ND 10.09
50.3 ND 25.68
27.4 ND 9.79
136 106 40.86
18.2 ND 31.25
52.6 ND 15.76
53.2 ND 18.12
12.4 ND 2.72
aND=Not detected.
Table 14. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations for the Test of the SNL and Metorex CEMs at the High Metals Concentrations
Concentration, ng/dscm
Metal
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Thallium (Tl)
Reference Method 1
"EKfl 5RE Metorex
Reference Method 2
§NTMetorex
114 233 27.32
82.2 75 21.82
331 650 207.37
88.0 ND 33.58
425 ND 129.33
357 ND 100.16
1,650 ND 297.20
179 ND 52.89
550 ND 160.10
421 ND 102.52
114 ND 32.29
75.7 186 18.35
64.8 86 13.28
484.3 ND" 111.07
60.9 ND 31.73
299 ND 91.85
229 ND 67.47
1,082 ND 282.71
89.9 ND 35.25
347 ND 111.42
399 ND 96.70
94.3 ND 28.10
•ND=Not detected.
tions as measured by the RM are highly
suspect. The SNL GEM did not detect any
of the test trace metals on the low con-
centration test day, only arsenic, barium,
and lead were reported on the intermedi-
ate concentration test day, and only anti-
mony, arsenic, barium, and lead for one
or more RM periods were reported on the
high concentration test day.
The RAs corresponding to the mea-
surement pair data in Tables 12 through
Reference Method 3
SNL
Metorex
43.5 131 6.59
54.8 65 4.68
285 ND 27.29
88.7 ND 22.18
241 ND 34.70
248 ND 37.62
2,176 54 167.04
95.6 ND 16.56
429 ND 67.89
383 ND 39.92
113 ND 16.84
14 are summarized in Table 15. The data
in Table 15 show that the RAs for the
SNL GEM ranged from 64% to 1,560% for
the three metals reported on the interme-
diate concentration test day, and from 65%
to 188% for the two metals reported on
the high concentration test day. RAs for
the Metorex GEM ranged from 88% to
236%, with an average of 129% and a
median of 116% for the low concentration
test. Corresponding RAs for the interme-
diate concentration test were 72% to
467%, with an average of 168% and a
median of 135%, and, for the high con-
centration test, 93% to 177%, with an
average of 129% and a median of 121%.
The RAs for the Metorex GEM were com-
parable for each test concentration. No
marked improvement as flue gas concen-
tration increased, as observed for the VOC
CEMs, is seen in the Metorex GEM data.
-------
Table 15. Relative Accuracies of the SNL and Metorex CEMs
RA,%
Metal
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Thallium (Tl)
Average6
Median6
SNL
Test Concentration
Low
NCa
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
—
—
Intermediate
NC
1,560
905
NC
NC
NC
64
NC
NC
NC
NC
843
905
High
188
65
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
127
65,
188
Metorex
Test Concentration
Low
NC
125
NC
89
158
236
115
116
88
104
NC
129
116
Intermediate
467
174
135
177
94
72
112
261
77
113
171
168
135
High
158
101
153
123
113
118
177
146
121
93
111
129
121
"NC=Not calculated.
bAverage and median exclude RAs NC.
Mercury CEM Tests
Table 16 summarizes the results of three
sequential RM measurements performed
each mercury CEM test day and com-
pares these to the corresponding three
mercury CEM measurements. Calculated
RAs for each CEM are also given in the
table for the three test days, each repre-
senting a different flue gas mercury con-
centration. The table indicates several
periods during which the Perkin-Elmer and
the Senova CEMs were not in operation.
The data in Table 16 show that the
EcoChem CEM had an RA of about 60%
for both the low and the high concentra-
tion tests. The RA at the intermediate
concentration was increased, at 92%. The
RA of the Perkin-Elmer CEM was 602%
at the low mercury concentration and
1,150% (based on two measurement pairs)
at the intermediate mercury concentration.
The RA of the Senova CEM was 186% at
the one test concentration having data.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-C4-0044, Work
Assignments 0-4 and 1 -1, by Acurex En-
vironmental Corporation under the spon-
sorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Table 16. Measured Flue Gas Concentrations and RAs for the Mercury CEM Tests
"NO=Not operational.
"NC=Not calculated.
Mercury Concentration, ug/dscm
Test
Low Mercury Concentration
RM1
RM2
RM3
RA,%
Intermediate Mercury Concentration
RM1
RM2
RMS
RA,%
High Mercury Concentration
RM1
RM2
RMS
RA,%
RM
21
16
13
56
34
40
119
94
86
EcoChem
CEM
22
20
19
60
83
43
56
92
137
81
62
61
Perkin-Elmer
CEM
78
42
11
602
61
NO
125
1,150
NO
NO
405
NC
Senova
CEM
NO«
NO
NO
NCb
NO
NO
NO
NC
232
116
165
186
10
-------
-------
S. B. Ghorishi, W. E. Whitworth, Jr., C. G. Goldman, andL R. Waterlandare with
Acurex Environmental Corporation, Jefferson, AR 72079.
R. C. Thurnau is the EPA Project Officer, and M. K. Richards is the Work
Assignment Manager (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Testing the Performance of Real-Time Incinerator
Emission Monitors," (Order No. PB97-142871; Cost: $38.00, subject to change)
will be available only from
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer and Work Assignment Manager can be contacted at
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/SR-97/024
------- |