APTD-1463
EVALUATIONS OF EMISSIONS
AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
IN THE
GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRIES
PHASE II: WEB OFFSET AND
METAL DECORATING
PROCESSES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1463
EVALUATIONS OF EMISSIONS
AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
IN THE GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRIES
PHASE II: WEB OFFSET
AND
METAL DECORATING PROCESSES
by
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone,
Mary P. David, andW. J. Green
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
4615 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Contract No. 68-02-0001
EPA Project Officer: .John T. Dale
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
May 1973
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Water Pro-
grnms, Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical data of interest
to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports are available free of
charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and non-
profit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711 or may be obtained, for a nominal cost, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-02-0001. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from the contractor. The opinions, findings, and con-
clusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of
the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product
names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Publication No. APTD-1463
11
-------
Eva luation of Emissions and Control Technologies
in the Graphic Arts Industry
by
Raymond R. Gadomski
Anthony V. Gimbrone
Mary P. David
William J. Green
Pha se II
Fina 1 Technica 1 Report
Prepared Under Contract No. EPA 68-02-0001
for
Industrial Studies Branch
Applied Technology Division
Stationary Source Pollution Control Programs
Office of Air & Water Programs
Environmenta 1 Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
May 1973
-------
FOREWORD
This report summarizes the studies conducted by
the Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation for the
Env ironmenta 1 Protection Agency, 0 ffice of Air &
Water Programs, during the second phase under
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0001. Previous (first
phase) work was conducted under a National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare Contract No. CPA-
22-69-72.
The work was performed by staff members of the
Environmenta 1 Control Divis ion of the Research
Department of GATF and covers the contract
period between January 4, 1971 and July 4, 1972.
This report is intended to be a fina lone for two
graphic arts processes, web offset lithography
and metal decorating. It is anticipated that addi-
tional contract work will cover the remaining
printing processes, letterpress, gravure, flexo-
graphy and s ilk screen.
-------
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Environmental
Protection Agency as well as that of the industry members of the Graphic Arts
Technica 1 Foundation. On many occasions throughout the conduct of the
field sampling performed under this Contract, industry members gave freely
of time and facilities for which a dollar cost cannot be estimated. It was
this cooperation which provided a sound basis for the conduct of the on-site
field sampling studies so necessary and valuable to the study. The work
upon which this report is based was performed pursuant to Contract No. EPA-
68-02-0001 with the Office of Air & Water Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency.
The authors wish to thank Mr. William H. Webber, Executive Director of the
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, for his support of this effort. Dr. William
D. Schaeffer, Research Director of GATF, provided supervision and coordina-
tion throughout this w<;)rk. In addition, he offered guidance and assistance
in the review of this text.
The Air Pollution Control Advisory Committee comprising thirty-one (31) indus-
try members (see Appendix A) is acknowledged for their technical review,
assistance and support in this effort. In addition, various members of the
Ad Hoc Web Heatset Committee served in a technical review capacity of the
draft report and are acknowledged for their efforts.
Dr. J. J. McGovern, Head of Research Services, and Dr. Robert J. Reitz,
Senior Fellow, Mellon Institute of Carnegie- Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pa., are acknowledged for their contribution to this study. Mr. P. R.
Eisaman, Fellow and Mr. V. G. Colaluca, Research Assistant of the Physical
Measurements Laboratory, Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pa., contributed to the analysis, data calculations, and materials
handling practices associated with the field sampling program. Their diligent
and conscientious efforts to the overall conduct of the analytical studies
enabled the contract work to be completed as scheduled.
Mr. William H. Webber, Executive Director, Mr. James Alm, Administration
Director, Dr. William D. Schaeffer, Research Director, and Mr. Raymond R.
Gadomski, Project Manager, of the Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation suc-
cessfully coord inated the contractua 1 and ad ministrative proced ures ass oci-
ated with this effort. Mr. David B. Crouse served as a consultant for the
printing processes. The final report as well as the many drafts and re-
vis ions to the report was typed by Ms. Lenore Hyatt, Secretary, Environ-
mental Control Division of the Research Department of the Foundation.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY.
1
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT.
3
INTRODUCTION.
5
PERSPECTIVE OF THE INDUSTRY
11
CONTROL THROUGH CHANGE.
~. .
14
1.0 MATERIALS MODIFICATION.
1.1 Innovative Ink Systems.
1.11 Heat-reactive Inks
1.12 Photo-reactive Inks.
L 13 Other Radiation-cured Inks.
1.2 Research/Development/Commercia lization
L 21 Heat-reactive (Therma lly-Cata lyzed) Ink.
L 22 Photo-reactive (UV) Inks.
1.3 Ink Reformulation
1.4 Miscellaneous Materials Modification.
1 . 5 Trend s .
14
14
16
17
19
21
22
25
28
28
29
2.0 PROCESS MODIFICATION/CONTROL EQUIPMENT.
2.1 Incineration .
2.11 Energy Shortage.
2.2 Carbon Adsorption
2.3 Scrubbing
2.4 Ozone Treatment.
2.5 Coating Process for Web Offset
2.6 Electrostatic Precipitation.
31
31
32
33
33
34
35
35
3.0
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT.
37
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STACK EFFLUENT FOR GRAPHIC
ARTS PROCESSES
4.1 Introduction
4.11 Sampling.
4.12 Analysis
4.2 Sampling and Analytica 1 Technique.
4.21 Summary
4.22 Summary of Stack Gas Sampler Consideration.
4.23 Stack Gas Sampler (Figure 9, Appendix B).
4.24 Sa mpling Proced ure .
4.25 Tota 1 Sa mple Volume.
4.26 Ana lys is of the Cylinder.
39
39
40
42
43
43
45
45
46
47
48
cont'd.
i
-------
Table of Contents continued
4.27 Analysis of the Trap Sample.
4.28 Cylinder and Probe Trap Maintenance
4.29 Cost Analysis.
4.3 Appraisal and Summary
4.4 Experimenta 1
4.41 Introduction and Summary.
4.42 Preliminary Studies
4.5 Preliminary Field Studies.
4.6 Stack Simulator Study.
4.7 Comparison of Isokinetic Sampling With GATF Integrated.
Grab Sampling
4.71 Introduction
4.72 Experimenta 1
4.73 Discussion of Test Results
4.8 Gradient Studies
4.9 Efficiency of Trap.
5.0 TREATMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL SA MPLING DATA
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Data Sheets (Forms)
5.3 Data Sheets (Description)
5.31 Data Sheet #=l-ECD (Source Location and Sample Background Data) .
5.32 Data Sheet #=2-ECD (Physical and Operational Plant Data)
5.33 Data Sheet #=3-ECD (Effluent Sampling Data)
5.34 Data Sheet #=4-ECD (Visible Emissions Evaluation)
5.35 Data Sheet #=5-ECD (Gas Velocity Data)
5.5 Development of a Test Program.
5.51 Web Offset Publication Printing Test Program.
5.52 Metal Decorating Test Program.
5.6 Basis for Calculations
5.61 Calculation of Observed Emissions.
5.62 Ca lculation of Materia 1 Inputs
5.63 Significance of the Material Balance
5.7 Ca lculation of Control Equipment Organic Conversion Efficiency.
5.8 Sample Calculations.
5.9 Discus s ion of Error
5.91 Effluent Gas Flow Rate
5.92 Hydrocarbon Concentration.
5.93 Hydrocarbon Emission Error Ca lculations
5.94 Summary of Error, Organics Emission Ca lculations
6.0 WEB OFFSET FIELD STUDIES.
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Uncontrolled Sources.
6.21 Web Offset Press Using Direct Flame Hot Air Drying.
6.22 Web Offset Press Using High Velocity Hot Air Drying.
ii
52
53
54
58
58
58
59
61
66
67
67
68
70
71
74
77
77
77
77
77
78
78
78
78
80
80
80
81
81
85
87
87
88
90
90
93
96
. 107
. 109
. 109
. 109
. 109
. 114
cont'd.
-------
Table of Contents continued
6.23 Field Observations .
6.3 Controlled Sources.
6.31 Introd uction .
6.32 Thermal Incineration With High Velocity Hot Air Dryer.
6.33 Thermal Incineration With Direct Flame Hot Air Dryer.
6.34 Catalytic Incineration (I-bed) With Direct Flame Hot Air Dryer
6.35 Cata lytic Incineration (2- bed) With Direct Flame Hot A ir Dryer
6.36 Field Observations.
6.4 Summary of Web Offset Test Results.
6.5 Recommendations/Conclusions Ba sed on Web Offset Field.
Studies
7.0 METAL DECORATING FIELD TESTS.
7.1 Introduction.
7.2 Experimental Results - Uncontrolled Plants.
7.21 Plant Test No. 2-MD (Appendix E).
7.22 Plant Test No. 3-MD (Appendix E).
7.23 Field Observations.
7.3 Experimenta 1 Res ults - Controlled P la nts .
7.31 Plant Test No. 4-MD (Appendix E).
7.32 Plant Test No. 5-MD (Appendix E).
7.33 Field Observations.
7.4 Summary Tables.
7.5 Conclusions/Recommendations on Metal Decorating
Field Studies
8.0 TESTING OF BEST CONTROLLED INSTALLATIONS.
8.1 Introduction.
8.2 Objectives
8.3 Background for Conduct of Tests.
8.4 Test Results.
8.41 Web Offset With Therma 1 Incineration
[8-WO (BC) Appendix D]
8.42 Web Offset With Cata lytic Incineration.
[9-WO (BC) Appendix D]
8.43 Meta 1 Decorating With Cata lytic Incineration
[6-MD (BC) Appendix E]
. 8.44 Meta 1 Decorating With Therma 1 Incineration.
[7- MD (BC) Appendix E]
Discussion of Test Results.
Cost Versus Effectiveness.
Conclus ion.
8.5
8.6
8.7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
iii
117
118
118
118
122
125
12.9
129
134
148
153
153
J.53
153
159
160
161
161
167
172
172
183
191
191
191
192
193
193
196
197
199
201
203
205
207
cont'd.
-------
Table of Contents continued
APPENDIX A - Air Pollution Control Advisory Committee
APPENDIX B - Figures.
APPENDIX C -- Tables
APPENDIX D - Data Sheets, Web Offset Plants.
APPENDIX E - Data SheetS, Metal Decorating Plants.
APPENDIX F - Carnegie Mellon University, Physical.
Mea sure men ts La bora tory Reports
. 221
. 225
. 257
. 269
. 385
. 481
iv
-------
SU MMARY
The initia 1 study of the a ir pollution problems of the graphic arts industry*
provided the information and direction for further study. Two of the major
printing processes, web offset lithography and metal decorating, were
examined more closely so as to more fully define and minimize the pollution
potential of these processes. Web offset uses heatset inks and metal decor-
ating employs a variety of coatings that are dried by the application of heat.
Both usually are located where the concentration of hydrocarbons in the ambient
air frequently exceeds the prescribed level and where restrictive legislation
now exists.
An apparatus and procedure for integrated grab sampling was developed that
was reliable and relatively simple, as well as the analytical technique using
gas chromatography for total organic analysis. The sampling apparatus was
eva luated under controlled laboratory conditions. Isokinetic sa mpling was
conducted to determine if significant particulates (condensed organics) existed
in the stack gas in amounts which would inva lidate grab sampling techniques.
The testing effort was directed first to assessment of emissions from the web
offset process and then to metal decorating. Uncontrolled as well as controlled
sources were studied, with examples of both thermal and catalytic incineration
represented in the data. The organic conversion efficiency of incineration
equipment was also determined and related to operational parameters.
In web offset, the effect of press speed, ink coverage, method of drying
(direct flame hot air or high velocity hot air) and type of incineration equipment
on the quantity of organics emitted were determined. The contributions of
paper and dryer exhaust to the total organic content of the stream were con-
sidered. Experience verified that the two major variables in the process, press
speed and ink coverage, determine the quantity of organics emitted. An equa-
tion of this direct relationship was developed that has utility for predicting
quantity of emissions when all parameters (process variables) are known.
Both dryer systems (direct flame hot air and high velocity hot air) served to
oxidize some of the solvent vapors, with the former more effective than the
la tter .
For each control (incineration) unit evaluated, a temperature range was deter-
mined which produced an organic conversion efficiency of about 95 percent.
The coating and lithographic operations of the metal decorating process were
studied in a manner consistent with that for web offset. The individual and
net effects on organic emissions for various coatings, ink and oven combus-
tion prod ucts were determined. The organic emiss ions from lithographic
operations were found to be insignificant when compared to emissions from
the coating operations. The major variables in the meta 1 decorating process
*C ited in first bibliographic reference.
1
-------
directly affecting organic emissions - the solvent fraction in the coating,
area of the sheet coated, weight of coating or film applied and coater speed-
were correlated and expressed in an equation as for web offset.
Thermal and catalytic combustion equipment installations studied were found
to be effective in reducing organics. 80 as to characterize the effectiveness
of incineration equipment in both the web offset and metal decorating operations
to the maximum degree possible, four additional sources, chosen as being the
most recent control insta llations, were stud ied. Thus, a tota l of nine ins ta lla-
tions with air pollution control equipment were evaluated.
Operationa l incineration temperatures for both web offset and meta l decorating
are indicated as being llOOo-12000F and 7000-8000F for thermal and catalytic
incineration, respectively, to achieve an organic conversion efficiency of 95
percent.
Cost information on the control units is presented and an attempt made to
develop a comparison of cost vers us effectivenes s between the various cata ly-
tic and thermal incineration units as evaluated. A selective bibliography with
review comments is presented. Efficiency curves for each system eva luated
appear throughout the tethnical discussions.
Although this study was aimed primarily at developing data on air pollution
control technology already in use by the industry (thermal or catalytic incin-
eration), the changes being investigated within the industry, with raw
materials as well as process modifications were followed to the extent possible.
All information and data, mostly qualitative, made available to us is included
in this report. The state of the art regarding the development and use of
innovative inks presented is as current as possible.
2
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT
A. Symbols
aefm
Btu
BC
C
°c
1 -C
c. i.
efh
efm
C MUPML
concppm
cu ft
cyl
d.f.h.a.
Eca lc
Eobs
.!:.::::L
of
h.v.h.a.
iph
imp
oK
lb C/hr
lb, #
MD
mg
n.a.
n.d.
%
ppm
oR
sefm
sq in
T, Temp.
t. i.
V /V%, v/v%
WO
actua 1 cubic feet per minute
Britis h therma 1 unit
a best controlled process
ratio of the observed to the ca lculated
organics emission
degrees centigrade (Celsius)
effectiveness of dryer in conversion of
orga n ic ma teria 1
ca ta lytic incineration
cubic feet per hour
cubic feet per minute
Carnegie Mellon University, Physical
Measurements Laboratory
concentration in ppm
cubic feet
cylinder
direct flame hot air dryer
ca lculated organics emission (lb C/hr)
observed organics emission (lb C/hr)
equals approximately
degrees Fa hrenheit
high velocity hot air dryer
impressions per hour
impression
absolute temperature, degrees Kelvin = °c + 273.1
pound carbon per hour
pound
meta 1 decorating plant, process or operation
milligra m
information not available
not detected
percentage
parts per million parts
absolute temperature, degrees Rankine = of + 460
standard cubic feet per minute at 600F and
29.92 inches of mercury (Hg)
square inches
temperature
therma 1 inc inera tion
volume to volume percentage
web offset plant, process or operation
continued
3
-------
Abbreviations and Terms Used in This Report continued
B.
Terms
coa ted
ti tho
perfecting
trace
uncoated
web
0.0000
coated paper used
lithography
printing both s ides of a web
a maximum of 10 ppm
uncoated paper used
roll of paper to be printed
less than one ppm; greater than n.d.
4
-------
INTRODUCTION
In order to 'conduct a systematic nationa 1 investigation a imed at eva luating air
pollution generated by the printing and meta 1 decorating industry, GATF pro-
posed, obtained and completed a Phase I emission study entitled "Evaluations
of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic Arts Industries, "
Contract No. CPA-22-69-72, with the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion (NAPCA), CPE, Public Rea lth Service, Department of Rea lth, Education
and Welfare. The contract, awarded April 28, 1969, culminated in a Final
Report in August 1970. The report may be obtained for a nominal cost, from the
Nationa 1 Technica 1 Information Service under the publication number PB 195-770.
So as to provide a logical and uninterrupted extension of the work completed in
Phase I, technical proposals covering Phase II were submitted early in 1970 to
the Environmental Protection Agency. The original proposed technical program
had to be reduced in several areas because of limited funds. The revised pro-
posal was accepted and the Foundation awarded a cost reimbursement contract
on January 4, 1971. The contract awarded consisted of a period of performance
of twelve months encompassing a four-task project (Figure 1, Appendix B).
Essentially the work to be performed in the various tasks was as follows:
Task 1 - Maintain Perspective and Awareness
Continue the study initiated in Phase I to provide the necessary information
and background as to developments in related fields that can influence the
course of Phase II and subsequent efforts.
The results will provide current awareness of new and revised a ir pollution
legislation; modified and new sampling and analytical instrumentation (con-
tinuous and automated techniques are of prime interest); changing and evolu-
tionary raw material modifications (inclusive of new drying system) with the
graphic arts industry and its suppliers; improved concepts in air pollution
control equipment; ava ila bility and effectiveness in processes; a nd genera lly
to gather information required for project planning and execution.
Task 2 - Familiarization with Field Testing Equipment
Perform measurements at local printing and metal decorating plants to provide
field testing personnel with experience in source testing equipment. Mass
flow rates based on stack dimensions and gas velocities, temperature and
pressure mea s urement will be made. Sa mpling apparatus des igned and de-
veloped in Phase I will be used to obtain stack effluents which will be ana-
lyzed according to procedures adopted as a result of Phase I investigations.
5
-------
Task 3 - Web Offset Source Tests/Evaluation
Only continuous, or web offset, lithographic processes using heatset inks wilt
be studied in this task. At least one direct flame plus hot air dryer and one
high velocity hot air dryer wilt be included for study in this task. Also, one
of the processes stud ied should have cata lytic combustion and one should have
thermal oxidation type of APC equipment. Some of the operations sampled may
not have a ir pollution control equipment. This work will proceed a s follows:
a.
Contact appropriate companies to arrange visit schedule and site
preparation.
b.
Obtain samples as in Task 2, above. Sample and analyze exhaust
gases. Take plant operating data and exhaust gas mass flow rate.
Observe smoke density and odor character at the point of emission.
Analyze gas samples.
c.
Tabulate data from each plant visit.
d.
Ca lculate emission factors for each process stud ied. Data on ink and
paper usage rate; type of paper and dryer operating temperature are
necessary to obtain an adequate basis for correlation among plants.
e.
Evaluate control techniques. From field sampling data determine the
effectiveness of present control equipment for the dryer/incinerator
systems studied.
Task 4 - Metal Decorating Source Tests/Evaluation
Operations in this category are limited to sheet-fed coating operations where
most of the effluent is from materials which dry by solvent release and are
applied by roller coa ters.
Comparatively little effluent is attributable to the high solids ink used and the
product is dried or polymerized in ovens us ing relatively long retention times.
An adequate number of plants will be visited to obtain representative data on
operations based on typical coatings and lacquers. At least one thermal and
one cata lytic combustion incinerator will be stud ied. The work will proceed
as follows:
a.
Contact appropriate companies to arrange visit schedule and site
prepara tion.
b.
Obtain samples. In the field, obtain samples of exhaust gases from
both oven and air pollution control equipment. Take plant operating
data and exhaust gas flow rates, pressures, and temperatures. If
possible, observe approximate Ringlemann number, odor intensity
and character at point of exit to atmosphere. Analyze exhaust gases
according to methods developed in Phase 1.
6
-------
c.
Tabulate data from each plant visit.
d.
Calculate emission factors using all the field sampling data; calculate
emission factors for the various types of coatings tested.
e.
Evaluate control techniques. From field sampling data determine the
effectiveness of present control equipment for the dryer/incinerator
systems studied.
Phase II had two specified goals initially. The first was to acquire familiarity
with the sampling and analytical techniques recommended in Phase I and then
to characterize the emissions from the web offset and metal decorating opera-
tions. These processes had been chosen because they possess the greatest
potential for air pollution among the graphic arts processes. Neither appeared
to be amenable to solvent recovery because the high temperatures in the dryer
were likely to produce chemical modification of the solvents. The second ob-
jective was to determine the effectiveness of air pollution control equipment
presently installed on these printing operations, using the sampling and ana-
lytical technique developed in Phase I and further refined in Phase II.
Con tra ct Mod ifica t ions
During the first six months of the contract, five mod ifications were made. In
February the time was extended 30 days to allow for preparation of a draft of
the final technical report (Modification No.1).
As a result of problems encountered during the preliminary field testing of both
the metal decorating and web offset processes performed under Task 2, some
modifications were deemed necessary by the EPA project officer. These included
laboratory tests on the sampling equipment to determine 1) what sampling pro-
cedures should be followed to insure proper sampler operation and 2) the accu-
racy of the ana lytica 1 method being used. This additiona 1 effort (Mod ification
No.2) and commensurate financial support (Modification No.3) were supplied
accordingly.
Also during the period assigned for work under Task 2, EPA discussed with the
Foundation various aspects of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. EPA is respon-
sible for obtaining emission data from plants, using the best known control
equipment, with the purpose of establishing standards of performance for new
stationary sources. Since standards of performance for new sources may be
required for the graphic arts industry, it was logical that some data be obtained
under the current contract work which could be used for that purpose. Thus,
the Foundation submitted a technica 1 proposa 1 to EPA for additiona 1 work to be
performed under the existing contract. As a result, Modifications Nos. 4 and 5
extended the existing contract to 15 months (inclusive of a final technical
report) and created Task 5, "Source Testing of Best Controlled Processes." The
work to be completed in Task 5 is outlined as follows:
7
-------
Task 5 - Source Testing of Best Controlled Processes
To further characterize the effectiveness of control equipment in both web off-
set and metal decorating operations, four additional sources shall be studied.
(Here the work "source" means any combination of press, dryer and incinerator;
hence, a single plant may contain several sources.) These sources shall
include: 1) web offset press with thermal incineration; 2) web offset press
with cata lytic incineration; 3) meta 1 decorating operation wi th therma 1 inc inera-
tion; 4) metal decorating operation with catalytic incineration.
Procedure. Contact appropriate companies to arrange visit schedule and site
preparation. Obtain EPA agreement that the selected source is a "best" con-
trolled process.
Obtain Samples. Take plant operating data prior to and during the test and
measure exhaust gas flow rates, pressures and temperatures throughout the
testing period. Obtain samples of exhaust gases prior to the inlet of the con-
trol equipment and at the outlet. Analyze the exhaust gases according to the
presently deve loped method of ana lys is.
Tabulate Data from Each Source Test. Perform necessary calculations to pro-
vide data that can be used to eva luate the control techniques being used.
Shown in Figure 2 (Appendix B) is the Phase II Air Pollution Program complete
with contract modifications Nos. 1 through 5 as discussed previously in this
section. Figure 2 (Appendix B) also depicts each task divided into specific
sub-tasks. For administrative as well as cost purposes, Task 1 was to con-
tinue for the duration of the contract while three months were allotted for
Task 2. Tasks 3 and 4 were allotted 4-1/2 months each, and Task 5 two
months of project time. As indicated earlier, all task effort would be followed
by preparation of the final report.
In the course of Task 2 work, problems occurred with the sampling and analytical
work which could not be foreseen when time estimations were made for the work,.
Consequently, Modification No.6 essentially provided for four additional con-
tract months to satisfactorily complete this segment of the contract. As a result,
Modification No.6 extended the contract to 19 months from the effective date
of the contract of January 4, 1971 to August 4, 1972 (inclusive of the prepara-
tion time of a draft final technical report.) A final modification was made which
extended the contract to 26 months and provided additional financial support
(Modification No.7). This was required because final reporting, reviewing and
redrafting required longer than anticipated and the completion of all required
work items enta iled higher costs than planned.
In summary, the scope of research and technological activity as stated in
Contract No. 68-02-0001 entitled "Evaluations of Emissions and Control Tech-
nologies in the Graphic Arts Industry" represents a continuation of the efforts
initiated in Phase I of a 1969 contract (NAPCA CPA 22-69-72). The Graphic
8
-------
Arts Technica 1 Foundation through cooperation and financia 1 support of the
Office of Air & Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, has utilized
the accomplishments and results of the initial study to examine more closely
two printing processes, namely web offset lithography which uses hea tset inks
and metal decorating which employs coatings, to measure emissions from these
processes and determine the effectiveness of existing air pollution control
systems.
With the program oriented toward those specific areas in greatest need, and
timed to provide the necessary data, the goals of Phase II were: 1) con-
tinued awareness of the legal and technical aspects of emission control to
include continual survey of research disclosures in the literature and the
screening of commercial developments in air pollution control equipment as
well as materials modification such as innovations in ink systems; 2) a pre-
liminary effort at obta ining samples of effluent from a meta 1 decorating and
web offset process in order to insure that the proposed sampling and analyticaL
techniques are both suitabLe and reliabLe for obtaining data on the type of
emission encountered with these processes; 3) the conduct of Laboratory tests
on the sampling apparatus as deveLoped to insure reLiability of the sampLing
method as well as the accuracy of the method of anaLysis; 4) on-site fieLd
sampLing and ana Iys is of emiss ions from web offset and meta t decorating pro-
cess conducted to the extent needed to characterize effluents with respect to
processes and product, and within defined capabilities, the establishment of
emission factors based on the process-materiaL-product orientation as studied;
5) a determination of the efficiency of a ir pollution equipment insta lled on web
offset and metal decorating processes according to the anaLysis of gases as
they enter and Leave the equipment; 6) the further characteri~ation of the effec-
tiveness of controL equipment in both web offset and metaL decorating opera-
tions considered as best controlled processes.
9
-------
10
-------
PERSPECTIVE OF THE INDUSTRY
The report submitted on the Phase I contract (1) presented an in-depth perspec-
tive of the industry in the manufacturing community including its rank in value
added to the Gross National Product, employment figures, distribution of estab-
lishments according to geography, size and printing process(es) involved,
dollar value of shipments and other similar data. No substantial changes have
taken place in the interim and the statistics (primarily 1967 Census of Manu-
factures) included in that report can still be considered valld representation.
Accordingly, there is no need to present here a detailed discussion of the
status of the printing industry in the manufacturing community. However, a
few remarks are in order relative to the specifics of the contract here reported
upon.
Accord ing to recent government statis tics (2) commerc ia l l ithogra phic printing
(SIC 2752) experienced a 9.9 percent annual growth throughout the 1960's,
exceedi.ng that of all other printing and publishing activities. Approximately
ten percent of magazines are printed by lithography, 75 to 80 percent of which
is by the web-fed process. Ten years ago, only 60 percent of the magazines
printed by offset lithography was done by web. The trend is expected to con-
tinue, but letterpress continues to dominate in periodicals printing.
Lithography a nd letterpress (SIC 2751) continue to account for approximate ly
90 percent of the $9.2 billion commercia l printing market, with lithography's
share steadily increasing, from 47 percent to an expected 53 percent for the
five-year period 1967 to 1972. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and
Philadelphia continue to be the major commercial printing production areas.
The total value of shipments of the entire printing and publishing industry (15
individual industries are included in SIC 27) is expected to reach $28 billion
for 1972, representing approximately a 15 percent increase over 1969.
As reported earlier (1) metal decorating, classified by the U. S. Department
of Commerce as a product of the metal can industry (SIC 3411), is considered
by both printers and metal decorators to be a segment of the printing industry.
Its economic performa nce ha s followed earlier pred ictions with $4.3 bill ion
value of shipments realized for 1971 and $4.6 billion expected for 1972 (3).
The metal can industry consists of over 100 companies operating approximately
300 plants, with the four largest compani.es accounting for 73 percent of the
total can production. According to statistics taken from a recently published
marketing guide to the packaging industries and published in the trade press (4),
the sale of metal cans is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.6
percent to 1980.
Tn addition to statistics, the status of the commercial printing industry and pro-
jections for the next ten years are expressed in the recent remarks of one of
the industry's most respected consultants (5). "It will still be many years
11
-------
before the industry will resolve itself into more professionally managed com-
panies that recognize the value of research and education and are prepared
to pay for them, and fewer job shops that cannot afford these services and
have to depend on others to supply them... The primary changes will be in
technology rather than the products. .. Materia ls will change a lso, with
radiation sensitive inks dominating the litho field, and water-base inks and
mircrowave dryers satisfying gravure's needs for pollution-free printing...
PollutLon will not be as great a problem because by the time the printer makes
the switch to web offset, rad iation sens itive inks will be in widespread use...
commercial printers will gain the advantages of developments made for other
printers without incurring the displeasure of civic groups and facing litigation
from civil authorities. "
Driography. A milestone in commercial lithography was reached in 1970 with
the development of a new printing plate which imparts selective ink receptivity
to the planographic (plate) surface without the use of water. Introduction of
this new process does not affect the solvent-ink-emission problem; but it is
now an established commercial process - in small to medium size runs -
and properly deserves mention in the present status of the lithographic offset
process. It is expected that, as the specia 1 inks suitable for the process are
refined further, "driography can command an apprecia ble s hare of the plano-
graphic printing market, which will represent the bulk of commercia 1 printing
in the next ten years" (5).
The Industry and the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. As implementation of the
1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act proceeded through 1971 and 1972, the
entire industrial community became increasingly aware of and individually
involved with the timely subject of responsibility for the quality of the en-
vironment. The graphic arts industry is no exception. All 50 states are
equally responsible for attaining the national ambient air quality standards
establis hed for six pollutants: sulfur oxides, particular matter, carbon mon-
oxide, nitrogen oxides, photochemica 1 oxidants and hydrocarbons. Although
each state is equally liable, the severity of the problem is not equally dis-
tributed. Accordingly, the extent and type of state (and ultimately local)
activity required is determined by the quality of the air under existing circum-
stances. As a result, restrictions placed on industry are governed by those
pollutants and their concentrations in a given area. As steps are taken below
the federal level in order to accomplish the standards, emission sources
become targets for control and involvement on an individual basis becomes a
rea li ty .
Each state wa s required to submit to the Environmenta 1 Protection Agency (EPA)
its plan for accomplishing the standards that have been established. In
order that plans submitted by the states would be likely to be approved in a
minimum length of time, EPA, in April 1971, publis hed proposed regulations
and guidelines for the states to follow in formulating their implementation
plans.
12
-------
During the period provided for cons ideration and public comment, a tota 1 of
more than 400 interested parties - government agencies at all levels, citizen
groups, commercial and industrial organizations - were heard from. Although
the nature of complaints was diverse, the most general adverse criticism was
embodied in the statement that the proposed regulations spelled out in the
most minute detail the scope, limitations and provisions of state implementa-
tion plans in conflict with the Clean Air Act and the intent of Congress that
"each state shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within
the entire geographic area comprising such state..."
After extensive evaluation of all considerations for revision, the final guide-
lines promulgation took place in August 1971, six to eight weeks later than
expected.
In the period from August 1971 to January 30, 1972 when all state plans were
due, activity in and among the states was indicative of whatwould be required
eventually of industry. Most states found it necessary to enact new legisla-
tion, or at least modify regulations in existing legislation, so as to comply
with the provisions of the Act. In the months that followed, during which EPA
was reviewing plans, and since June 1, when EPA made announcement of its
initia 1 approva ls and d isa pprova ls, administrative and legis lative activity
within state regulatory agencies and with the public has continued to be
vigorous.
The net result of all the laws and regulations that now exist throughout the
country is that many segments of the graphic arts industry, as expected,
will be extensively affected by restrictions imposed on hydrocarbon emissions
from stationary sources. Other regulations will have little, if any, impact.
The industry is highly concentrated in densely populated urban areas, where
the incidence of Priority I (photochemical oxidants) areas of Air Quality
Regions is greatest. Over half of all commercial printing is performed in
Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and California (1), each containing at
least one such Priority I area. Major centers for printing and meta 1 decorat-
ing also are located in Ohio, Maryland, Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin, -
states with Priority I areas. Not all will be able to attain and maintain hydro-
carbon standards by control of mobile sources.
At present, hydrocarbon emission regulations are in effect, have been adopted
or are in the process of being adopted for most of the important graphic arts
centers: coastal areas of California, and some, if not all, of the Priority I
areas of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. (Although not enacted by the state of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia's
Regulation V has the same effect on industry as state law applicable to a
des ignated area of the state.) Connecticut, Kentucky, North Carolina and
Virginia regulations will affect many, although fewer, members of the industry.
The effect of regulations in Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana and Oklahoma will
be scattered and minimal.
13
-------
Solid particulate does not pose a problem, but most printers, as most of all of
industry, are affected by plume opacity being restricted to 20 percent or less
nationwide; and the ubiquitous odor problem possibilities may plague many,
irrespective of location.
Members of the graphic arts industries should experience little or no difficulty
in complying with the standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur
oxides.
Carbon monoxide is not normally recognized or observed as a significant product
(45-50 ppm) of controlled drying ovens or incineration equipment (6). However,
a plant may be required to check for this contaminant infrequently or under cer-
ta in circumstances.
Nitrogen oxides emis sion may present a problem for some printing plants. The
experience of the Foundation in eva luating emis s ions from therma l incineration
equipment (included elsewhere in this report) indicated that a temperature of
1100o-1200oF was required to achieve an organic conversion efficiency of 95
percent. In both instances where the effluent in this temperature range was
examined for nitrogen oxides, tests were positive, as measured by the length-
of- sta in method. With cata lytic combustion, 95 percent convers ion of organics
was achieved at temperatures in the range of 700o-800oF and no nitrogen oxides
were detected.
No equipment or process found in a printing or metal decorating plant at the
present time is capable of emitting sulfur oxides, with the possible exception
of the source of heat to the plant. This pollutant is not a potential process
emission.
CONTROL THROUGH CHANGE
Whenever possible, a preferred control approach is to eliminate air contamina-
tion by prevention rather than correction. Effort expended before the fact -
preservation - can be more rewarding, if only esthetically, than that required
after the fact - restoration. The latter implies that the manufacture of a
salable commodity becomes the product of two distinct and diverse processes,
where formerly only one direct procedure was required. It follows that ulti-
mately, if not immediately, the value of an ounce of prevention being equal
to a pound of cure will become an economic fact.
The printing process is amenable to the "prevention" approach, and appro-
priately is being pursued. Both restoration and preservation measures are
discussed in the three sections that follow.
1.0
MATERIALS MODIFICATION
1.1
Innovative Ink Systems
Except for news ink which never really does dry (vehicle is absorbed
by newsprint), inks traditionally dry by a combination of absorption
of one or more components by the paper, chemical oxidation of
unsaturated oils catalyzed by heavy metal salts of organic acids
14
-------
(conventional for sheet-fed operations) and solvent removal by evapora-
tion at slightly elevated or room temperatures. Although such inks do
not dry for several hours, they set rapidly and, with the assistance of
spray powders to protect the printed film, allow satisfactory over-printing
through successive units as in multicolor work. However, they are not
acceptable for high speed web operations in letterpress and offset.
These relatively recent processes require an ink that will dry in a second
or less. Heatset inks were developed to fill this need.
Heatset inks contain varnishes made by solubilizing solid resins in
high-boiling hydrocarbon solvents and are dried by rapidly removing
the solvent as the paper web passes through a dryer at elevated tempera-
tures sometimes as high as 400-5000F. Thus, the drying of heatset
inks is a physical process rather than chemical, although some thermal
degradation, principally of ink and paper components, does occur.
The use of these heatset inks makes possible the printing of webs
effectively, but they a lso impose limits on high speed web operations.
The practica 1 length of dryers approaches a maximum and the use of
lower-boiling solvents allows solvent evaporation at the press, result-
ing in ink viscos ity control problems.
These considerations furnished the incentive for the study of instantane-
ous reactions to convert liquids to solids. For severa 1 years ink manu-
facturers sought more economical means of printing with high-speed
presses. To put solvent into an ink before printing and promptly remove
it - by a costly process - was expedient, but not the answer (7). A
typical conventional heatset ink such as is used for letterpress or
offset printing may conta in 35 to 45 percent of petroleum hydrocarbon
solvent blends in the high boiling range of 450 to 5500F (230-2900C) (8).
When the imprinted ink film is heated in the press oven, the solvent 1S
rapidly flashed off through the oven stack to the atmosphere.
Since late 1969, announcements have been forthcoming from printing
ink manufacturers concerning the availability, subsequent field testing
and commercial use of "innovative inks." This designation may be
used to include all the recent accomplishments in ink technology for
high-speed printing by the web-fed processes, from the relatively
simple reformulation to reduce or eliminate photochemically reactive
and odorous solvents, to the most sophisticated systems presently
available commercially, those cured by ultraviolet light and completely
solventless.
Emerging from the research and development stage at a time when pro-
tection a nd restoration of our environment is of maxil!1um concern, the
new ink systems are designed to be consistent with restrictive legis-
lation on emissions of solvents and other organic material from station-
ary sources. Some inks that have been reformulated to eliminate odor
15
-------
and certain solvents probably owe their existence primarily to the estab-
lishment of air quality standards. Highly refined deodorized solvents
were developed some time ago for printing on materials for use on pacr:-
aging for food products. Other inks, however, have resulted from long-
term research conducted to improve several ink qualities, including
drying characteristics, to be compatible with increased press speeds
and a wide variety of papers and other substrates. Undoubtedly, atmos-
pheric pollution problems furnished impetus to the research, but such
considerations were not the initial motivating force.
New inks that represent scientific and technological advancement
beyond solvent reformulation of conventional heatset inks are empha-
sized in the sections that follow. The thermally-catalyzed single
and two-component (heat-reactive) systems and the ultraviolet
sensitive (photo-reactive) systems developed have progressed to
commercial feasibility and installation in the United States, and
are at present receiving the maximum attention, consideration and
publicity. (Some references to work abroad are included in the
bib 1 iogra phy. )
Other innovative inks are dried by microwave, electron beam and radio
frequency energy. These are not at present receiving commerc ia 1 appli-
cation cons ideration in this country.
1. 11 Heat-reactive Inks
Therma lly reactive cata lyzed inks have become known a s "thermoset"
and "catalytic" inks, but more properly should be called "heat-reactive."
Presumably, no confusion with heatset inks (which dry by solvent re-
mova I at elevated temperatures) has resulted.
Both single and two-component systems contain a prepolymer, a cross-
linking resin and a catalyst. The catalyst becomes active when heated
to a temperature of 300-3500F in the dryer and rapidly converts the
liquid into a solid polymeric film via condensation polymerization
reaction. The web is cooled as it passes over chill rollers to approxi-
mately 900F (320C). The reaction byproducts (10-15 percent of that
from a conventional system) are principally C1-C4 alcohols, moisture,
and in certain cases small amounts of formaldehyde, thus precluding
condensate buildup in the dryer. The overall volatile content of such
inks is 20 percent or less of that of a conventional heatset ink, the
smoking tendency is nil, and stack odor level is said to be reduced to
about one-tenth of that from a conventional heatset ink (5, 7,9).
Systems for web operations in both letterpress and offset have been
developed because of the need for water insensitivity in the litho-
graphic vehicle. In addition, since there is little liquid vaporizing
during the reaction (ink drying), the resultant films (printed solids)
16
-------
are substantially smoother, have exceptionally high scratch and rub
resistance, and very little solubility in greases and skin oils. An
attractive feature of these inks is that they can be used with existing
equipment - pres ses and dryers, ink founta ins and tra ins.
However, because heat is required for drying, these inks cannot be
used on sheet-fed presses, the heat required tends to dry the paper
more than is desirable, and the properties of the ink which impart high
scratch and rub resistance also make repulping of the printed waste
paper more difficult. Other objectionable properties of some of these
inks are in-plant odor (the reaction mixtures are unpleasantly odiferous),
two-component systems must be mixed before use and unused mixed ink
is not recoverable after completion of a press run. The latter could
increase costs substantially. Informally it has been reported that heat-
reactive inks have caused problems with static electricity in the fold-
ing operation. This phenomenon has been explained, at least partially,
by the fact that some of these inks are melamine-formaldehyde sys-
tems which are good dielectrics and that charges build up readily on
the surface during web transport.
These disadvantages coupled with the principal one of price (35 to 80
percent more than heatset) may delay their wide acceptance. However,
an ink company spokesman estimated that a printer uSing 250 thousand
pounds of ink per year and forced to insta 11 incineration equipment
would effectively increase the cost of his conventional heatset ink to
97 percent of that of heat-reactive ink. Also, when these inks become
a large-volume production item, the price may ~rop somewhat. The
president of a major ink company marketing heat-reactive inks stated (10):
"Our assessment of the market generally indicates these inks will
not receive printers I acceptance until such time as the printing
business finds a level of equity in the competitive requirements
of effluent control related to economics within a given competitive
situation. This is not unusual as this same type of condition seems
to exis t in many other area industries."
1.12 Photo-reactive Inks
Photo-reactive ink systems utilize ultraviolet radiation to initiate a
free-radical polymerization which is accomplished in one second or less.
The novel vehicles involved consist minimally of one or more monomers
and a photo-sensitizer which selectively absorbs energy in the wave-
length region of 2400 to 3600 angstroms. These inks have become
known as UV- inks.
Unlike the heat-reactive (thermally catalyzed) systems, most of which
contain limited amounts of solvent, no solvents are contained in the
UV-reactive mixture. Also, there are no byproducts since the reaction
17
-------
is addition (rather than condensation) polymerization. The system is
reported to be simple to operate and easy to maintain (11). Since the
reaction is cool (120 to 1250F, ca. 500C), a minimum of moisture is
lost from from the paper. Paper handling problems caused by brittle-
ness are thus reduced. The low reaction temperature may a llow chill
rolls to be eliminated. Chill rolls are now an integral part of web
presses using conventiona 1 heatset or heat-reactive inks. However,
chill rolls commonly serve to not only cool the web but also to help
pull the web through the press, and removal would depend on press
manufacturer determination. In addition, a printer has indicated that
the need for chill rolls depends on the temperature at which given
resins (ink films) no longer are tacky. Tests have indicated that sub-
stantially all of the lamp energy is absorbed by the system, with
approximately 25 percent to the web.
Since the UV inks do not react until exposed to the energy source, they
may be allowed to remain in the fountains and on the rollers for long
periods of time. No washup is necessary between runs or after web
breaks. They are equa lly applicable to letterpress and offset, sheet-
fed and web.
UV inks offer several advantages that are specific to sheet-fed lithog-
raphy. An ink film that dries instantaneously precludes the possibility
of "setoff", the unintentiona 1 transfer of ink to adjacent sheets before
the ink has dried completely. With the possibility for setoff eliminated,
there is no need to use "anti- setoff sprays ", powders that are applied
to protect an ink film that is "set" but not "dry". The use of these dry
powder sprays can cause an in-plant dust nuisance. Also eliminated
with the use of UV inks in sheet-fed work is the annoying necessity at
times to "ventilate" stacks of printed sheets as the oxidative drying
process continues. Conventional inks dry by oxidation over a period
of severa 1 hours. The process of ventilating the stacks by riffling the
sheets is ca lled "winding" by printers.
The attractive features of the UV-cured ink film are similar to the heat-
cured - smooth, resistant to scratch and rub, etc. De-inking of printed
waste is not possible using conventional commercial procedures. Much
effort is being directed toward providing a process for waste paper
recovery, ess entia 1 in the trad itiona 1 economy of the ind us try.
Irrespective of the advantages, real and potential, some disadvantages
exist that must, at present, be considered serious deterrents to their
being used extensively soon (12, 13).
These inks can be as much as 75 or 100 percent more expensive than
conventional heatset inks and the press itself must be equipped with
18
-------
a costly high-pressure UV lamp system (conventional dryers are useless).
On existing sheet-fed equipment the available space for these installa-
tions is lacking (or les s than optimum) and physica 1 interference between
energy source and the imprinted sheet inhibits drying. The temperature
rise of press components due to convective and radiation heating can
limit the time the press is run continuously. Web-fed presses can
utilize space where heaters currently are installed. A variation of UV-
cure called UV-set has been developed for sheet-fed operations (see
Section 1. 22).
At present the drying efficiency of high pressure mercury vapor lamps
drops gradually after about 1000 hours and so have a maximum life
expectancy of 1500-2000 hours depending upon the ratio of time off to
time on. Several lamps, costing about 7.5 cents per hour per lamp,
are necessary for each press (13).
A recently published Foundation report (14) presented a model for analy-
sis of the economic considerations in evaluating the installation of UV
drying systems on both web and sheet-fed lithographic processes.
Each judgment must be made as an individual case.
Economic considerations (14, 15) comprise only a portion of the disad-
vantages of the use of UV-cured inks. Hazards to the hea lth and safety
of personnel also exist. Operators must be protected from ultraviolet
radiation, both direct and reflected, since either can damage the retina
of the eye, and from ozone that is formed during warm-up periods by the
action of ultraviolet light on oxygen. The need for retraining of opera-
tors a ls 0 is obvious.
Regardless of the sizable capital investment involved in order to use
UV inks, as well as other considerations, the attitude of several ink
manufacturers is that these are the inks of the future and will dominate
web offset for printing on coated papers before the end of the decade.
Should such become reality, the heat-reactive inks would serve as in-
terim inks until pres ses are equipped with UV energy sources. Others,
however, feel that the use of solventless inks (all species) represents,
essentially, another way of printing and that progress will be evolu-
tionary rather than revolutionary (16).
1.13 Other Radiation-cured Inks
As indicated earlier, innovative inks which are dried by microwave,
electron beam and radio frequency are not at present receiving commer-
cial application consideration, at least in this country. However, the
ink industry is looking at all non-conventional drying methods. One
major ink maker to date has claimed a limited measure of success in
formulating a web offset ink for microwave drying (17). The company
fee ls, however, tha t add itiona 1 work mus t be d one before thes e inks
would be ready for commercial use. (Coatings for plywood and certain
automobile bodies are being cured by the electron beam technique.)
19
-------
The principles of these radiation curing systems are discussed briefly
here.
Microwave. Microwaves are used industria lly in such applications as
evaporating solvents in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, curing
resins in foundry molds, cooking foods; and have been proposed for
drying paper webs. In the United Kingdom (18), microwave drying
captured the imagination of printers to the point that the principle be-
came popular when discussing new ink drying and processing techniques.
(However, at least one unit has been removed from a commercial plant
where trials were made.)
Water and other polar liquids, (alcohols, ketones and esters are some)
can be heated efficiently by microwaves. Polar solvents tend to
become oriented in the direction of a magnetic field. A s energy is
absorbed, the rapidly alternating field causes molecular motion gen-
erating heat which volatilizes solvent, promotes oxidative drying,
evaporation, etc. Specially formulated inks absorb most of the
energy passing through the imprinted paper, thus allowing not only
efficient drying of the ink film but also the paper to be little affected
by the hea t genera ted .
Although solvent-free systems for microwave drying are, to our knowl-
edge, not available, much developmental work is reported to be in
progress abroad, primarily in Europe and Japan (18, 19). Solvents
which are vaporized suffer little or no degradation, and if adsorbed
or otherwise trapped (and recovered, if desired) are not contamin-
ated with products of partial oxidation. The temperature of the exit
gases is much lower than from a gas-fired burner. The conserva-
tion of one of our natural resources - natural gas - is obvious.
As with other innovative inks, special formulations are necessary and
equipment costs are very high (20). Maintenance must be performed
by an operator skilled in microwave equipment. Metal substrates pre-
sent a problem because they reflect the waves back to the applicator
(energy source) and damage it. Microwaves are a potential health
hazard should leakage occur. (The Department of HEW has issued a
standard (21) limiting microwave radiation emission from cooking ovens.)
Microwave drying is said to have its widest possible application at
present in gravure and flexography, and offers a means of using exten-
sively water-base gravure inks on plastic substrates (22, 23). However,
even some of those enthusiastic about these possibilities, anticipate
that acceptance of such a system is some time away.
In lithography, microwave energy has been tried in high speed web
printing and on sheet-fed carton board. The web offset trial, a tempor-
ary installation in England at a newspaper plant, had limited success,
partia lly attributed to the fact that "respons ive" inks were not very
well developed at that time (1967). Commercial trials in Europe with
microwave units for drying ink on cartons (presumably by gravure)
20
-------
1.2
have been sufficiently successful that several large Europ(~un conv(~r-
ters reportedly have installed such dryers (18). Microwave appcurs
to have no application in web offset drying (23) principally becuusc
the polar solvents are incompatible with the litho process.
Rad io Frequency. The principle of us ing rad io frequency energy to
heat and so dry or cure an ink film is essentially the same as that for
microwave. Radio and television frequencies are adjacent to micro-
wave on the electromagnetic spectrum. The difference is one of fre-
quency range. Some researchers have stated that utilization of radio
energy is more efficient than microwave (24), thus affording an advan-
tage to drying by radio frequency. One pilot plant trial with a water-
base gravure ink and similar production conditions required twice as
long to dryas with high velocity air heaters, but only one-tenth the
energy (25). They advocated a combination of hot air and radio fre-
quency for maximum efficiency.
Electron Beam (13). Energy in the form of a beam of electrons may be
used to "dry" or "cure" an ink film. The reaction is one of free-radical
polymerization wi th the electrons a s the free-rad ica 1 initiators to pro-
mote crosslinking and so curing. The number of free radicals created
is large and the reaction is rapid. The cure is effected at low (room)
temperature and no solvents are required (the monomers are liquid).
Because no cata lytic agent is conta ined in the reaction mixture, the
ink has a long shelf life and good press stability.
However, there are many serious disadvantages and/or deficiencies
to the use of this system for ink drying, some of which are the loss of
tear and tensile strength of paper by the dosage required to cure exist-
ing coatings, and the need for development of new inks curable at an
energy dosage not deleterious to paper. (The effect on paper prompted
one writer to say that the future of electron beam lies in the metal
decorating field.) In add ition, X-rays, generated when the bea m
strikes the target, necessitate elaborate and expensive operator pro-
tection, and printed waste cannot be recovered by traditional de-inking
processes.
Research/Deve lopment/Commerc ia 1 iza tion
As mentioned in Section 1.1, ink ma nufacturers have been seeking to
replace heatset inks, or at least provide alternate methods of utiliz-
ing the capabilities of the high-speed printing presses. The results
of their research and development activity progressed to commercial
availability of several heat-reactive catalytic inks (and limited use)
during 1969 and 1970 (26-38), Success had been realized earlier
with catalytic inks in the letterpress process, but the use of water
in lithography precluded applicability of the initial ink systems
interchangeably. At present, catalytic systems for web operations in
both letterpressand offset lithography are available.
21
-------
During the late months of 1970, announcements were made of field
testing with the photo-reactive inks cured by ultraviolet light with
projections for commercia 1 insta llation during 1971 (39).
The use of ultraviolet light to dry ink is not new (12). As far back
as 1944, several ink companies received patents on the concept,
but results achieved on commercial equipment were poor and research
progra ms were terminated. The origina 1 inks were composed of dry-
ing oils such as tung and linseed, and the mechanism for curing was
by ozone absorption rather than rapid polymerization of the vehicle.
UV radiation across an air gap produced ozone which dried the ink
film in the same manner as conventional (oxidative drying) ink, except
that the agent was ozone rather than oxygen. A more sophisticated
approach (by a press manufacturer) in the late fifties also failed to
reach commercialization. The present work, initiated in 1961, was
motivated by the need to eliminate the solvents from ink and improve
the over-all efficiency and quality of printing. These goals could be
achieved only by the development of radically new techniques.
Ink companies known to have developed and on the market heat-reactive
and/or photo-reactive (UV) inks are identified below. Pertinent infor-
mation and data included were furnished primarily directly from each
company, from notes in the trade press resulting from company news
releases, or presentations by company representatives.
Additional companies were included in some of the early publicity as
having developed heat-reactive inks. However, progress to the point
of commercial availability and acceptance presumably has not been
accomplis hed. Current comment in the trade press is tha tall ink com-
panies are devoting a major portion of their effort to innovative inks
and that most, if not all, will be marketing at least one type in the
not too distant future.
1. 21 Heat-reactive (Therma lly-C a ta lyzed) Inks
Bowers Printing Ink Company introduced IICrysta l-A ire II inks in 1969
after five years work (27, 28). Initial testing on production jobs took
place in the Los Angeles area and presumably this ink is being used
primarily in west coast areas.
Kohl 5, Madden Printing Ink Corporation was one of four ink companies
who lIafter extensive researchll field tested their inks under con-
trolled pressroom conditions at the Rochester Institute of Technology (40)
in the early months of 1971. In June of 1971 (41) K & M announced
very satisfactory res ults with their CLEAN-AIR inks in four-color print-
ing trials using normal procedures and existing equipment. Satisfactory
de-inking of printed waste has also been accomplished (42) based on
tests performed by an independent paper testing la bora tory . To our
knowledge commerica 1 tria ls and use with the K & M inks have not
been publicized.
22
-------
A July 1971 trade publication (43) announced the availability of Inmont
Corporation's new low-solvent heat-reactive inks (XL-37) "designed
to eliminate a ir polluting characteristics from printing ink solvents. "
The ink, is however, not catalytic, but a low-solvent (28 to 32 percent)
heatset ink that may be dried at 250-2800F (44). The solvent content
is comprised of two "deodorized solvents which are exempt under Los
Angeles Rule 66". The XL-37 series, as well as a newer LTD (low-
solvent low temperature) series (30 to 35 percent solvent and 2000F
drying temperature), are said to offer advantages over a conventional
heatset web offset ink (containing 40 to 45 percent solvent) incJuding
better gloss, outstanding resistance to scratch, rub and body oils,
better drying, reduction or elimination of condensate in the dryer and
50 percent lower level of effluent. As recently as May, a representa-
tive of the company said that it would be premature to discuss their
experience in the area of the "high solids heat-reactive" systems
they have developed, except to say that some serious drawbacks have
been recognized (44). Inmont also conducted 1971 trials at Rochester
Institute of Technology (RIT).
Richardson Ink Company.s SOLIDs tate inks were introduced in 1970
after five years of development work (38). There are single component
cata lytic (heat-reactive) inks for both web offset and web letterpress.
SOLIDstate inks conta in "no hydrocarbon oils or petroleum products II.
Successful production runs were made at severa 1 large printing plants.
High quality products were obtained using standard process colors,
on both heatset letterpress and offset presses at speeds up to 1100
feet per minute. Shelf life is specified to be approximately 60 days.
A late 1971 news release stated that this ink "produces a slight odor
at the fountain, but is neither offensive nor harmful.. .enables the
printer to meet new clean air regulations easily... if used exclusively,
it is not necessary to install or operate costly afterburners to oxidize
hydrocarbon emissions. There are a bsolutely no hydrocarbon air
effluent pollutants in the formulation." Hydrocarbon emissions in
stack tests were reported to be zero. Patents for these inks are pend-
ing. A successful de-inking process involving only minor changes in
the trad itiona I method has a Iso been publicized by Richardson (45).
However, commercial acceptability of any modified de-inking procedure
by paper mills is yet to come.
Unfortunately there has been a tendency in the graphic arts industry
to refer to all the various commercial heat-reactive catalyzed inks
as "solid-state inks". This is improper reference, however, since
SOLIDstate is the property of the Richardson Ink Company.
Roberts & Porter, Inc. introduced in 1970 (34) a IIcompletely solvent-
free, non-polluting heatset ink" for web offset usable with conventional
drying ovens. No additional publicity has been noted but field tests
in printing pIa nts are known to have been performed in recent months.
23
-------
Sinclair 0: Valentine's solventless heat-reactive catalytic web offset
inks announced in 1970 (34) reached the commercialization stage in
January 1971 (17). As with the other heat-reactive inks, they are com-
patible with conventiona 1 equ ipment includ ing dryers. There is no odor
and no problem in repulping paper (11). Systems (two-component) are
available for both offset and letterpress. At least one field test was
performed as part of the cooperative project mentioned earlier at RIT.
It is reasonable to assume that S c'\ V is sharing the present market.
The Genera 1 Printing Ink Divis ion of Sun Chemica 1 Corporation developed
Thermofast, said to be the first (early 1970) of the crosslinked type of
solventless inks announced (29,33). Their innovative inks have re-
sulted from basic research initiated in 1965 (7). The single-component
system contains a liquid resin and a catalyst which is effectively
blocked at room temperature and becomes active only when the ink is
heated to elevated temperatures in the area of 300 to 3500F. No sol-
vents are emitted upon drying and only minor amounts of non-toxic
reaction byproducts (46). Thermofast "represents the first step in cre-
ating a new generation of inks that will have better performance char-
acteristics than conventional inks, plus assisting in protecting the
environment, " said an executive of the company in the announcement.
The ink may be used with present press equipment, although drying
ovens can be smaller and maintenance costs less (33). The usual
desirable high print quality features are obtainable. Improvements in
recent months have made possible drying temperatures almost as low
as those of conventional heatset inks, stability of 90 days or better,
high gloss and scratch resistance (47). Dozens of commercial trials
throughout the country have indicated uniformly good ink properties.
Braden-Sutphin Ink Company of Cleveland and Superior Printing Ink Co.,
Inc. of New York City have related that they also have developed heat-
reactive inks.
A small item appeared in a trade publication (48) that Stanford Research
Institute had developed solventless inks especially for McCall Corp.
From the limited information available, these presumably are thermally
catalyzed heat-reactive inks, since the "paper is heated well below
the scorching point." Work on them is still in the development stage.
In May 1972 an industry/association cooperative test took place at a
web offset facility under the sponsorship of the Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation and a local trade association. The project was initiated
to assess the character and quantity of effluent using three heat-
reactive (thermally catalyzed) inks and one conventional heatset ink
on a commercial four-color production run of 150,000 to 180,000 im-
press ions. Three ink manufacturers (included in the group above) and
two paper companies furnis hed materia Is for the comparative test per-
formed with representatives of the local regulatory agency present.
24
-------
The press utilized was a five-unit one equipped with a direct-flame
hot air dryer with its own exhaust, and the stack configuration was
ideal for sampling. To eliminate one variable, paper from only one
company was used, a 50-pound web offset type, 34 inches wide.
The three heat-reactive inks - A, Band
percent volatiles, respectively. Ink D,
tained 35 to 40 percent volatiles.
C - contained 15,10 and 0
coiwentiona 1 heatset, con-
Before any printing took place, samples were taken of the dryer at the
operating temperature and then with paper only, running at 12,000 im-
pressions per hour through the dryer. No odor or visible emission was
noted. The inks were run in the sequence: D, A, B, C, D.
Inks A and C were run for two to three hours, during which time no
visible emission or odor was noted with either ink and the quality of
product was judged acceptable by both plant and GATr personnel. An
offensive plant odor (similar to aldehyde) was noticeable while
Ink C was running and clean-up difficulty was experienced with C
possibly because some reaction had occurred on the plates and in the
ink fountains. The possibility exists, however, that improper wash-
up solvent wa s employed.
Ink B proved to be incompatible with the type of plate dampening system
on the press and the quality of the printed product was unacceptable.
The ink company representative said that this problem is soluble.
However, samples were taken as with A and C during the one-hour run.
No visible emission or odor was detectable.
The conventional ink (D) was run before and after the three others.
Effluent samples were taken during both runs. A slight odor was de-
tectable in the sampling area and a Ringlemann No.3 was noted during
a 12 to 18-minute press equilibration period. Thereafter, a Ringle-
mann number approximately 1.5 was visible. The web temperature
measured during the runs with Ink D wa s 2 800r, and with Inks A, Band
C the temperature ranged from 320 to 3400r.
The general attitude of all personnel was one of optimism and enthusi-
asm for a possible solution to the air pollution problem without sacri-
ficing product quality, especially gloss. Also, as mentioned previously,
the thermally-catalyzed heat-reactive inks require no equipment modi-
fications a s do the UV inks.
1.22 Photo-reactive (UV) Inks
Three ink companies have advanced at least to the stage of press trials
with UV inks (7). Two are Sun Chemical and Inmont. Sinclair s.< Valen-
tine may be the third, but this could not be confirmed.
25
-------
Patents issued to Sun in 1970 and 1971 (49-54) are the result of ten
years I research. During 1970, drying with ultraviolet energy wa s
demonstrated to a selected group of web printers at a press manufac-
turers I pia nt (17) and subsequently received controlled commerc ia I
exposure using six "Suncure" ink systems. The company also has
developed its own curing unit for drying Suncure inks (55, 56) said to
be about 10 percent of the cost of a printing press (57).
Two large printing firms in the Midwes t are known to have had thi s
equipment installed in the past year (58-60), Jensen Printing, a sub-
sidiary of Holden Industries, in Minneapolis and 1.S. Berlin in Chicago.
Sun anticipates having six to eight web offset installations completed
by the end of 1972. Interestingly, only one-third of the installations
to date have been based on the ability of the system to provide solu-
tions to emiss ion problems. Specia I film properties that the inks are
capable of providing prompted the others. According to the executive
officer of Sun Chemical, the Suncure drying system will afford no
profit to the company for two years (61).
Initial reaction of the first few months of use at Jensen is generally
cautiously enthusiastic (62-64), with the economics in long-range
perspective undetermined, constant attention to employee safety must
be ume lenting and vigilant, a nd qua lity of prod uct "commerc ia lly
a ccepta ble" ra therthan excellent. The la tter necessarily affects cus-
tomer acceptance. Ink costs per pound are more expens ive with mile-
age not yet known; actual energy consumption and life of tubes in the
energy source is undetermined; the extent of actual paper waste
(which is not de-inkable) is not known but E;!xpected to be less; and
press make-ready times, potentially reducible, have not yet been es-
tablished as routine. 1.S. Berlin has not issued any comments yet.
This installation was made more recently.
In late 1971 the largest financial printing operation in the country,
Bowne & Company of New York, announced the installation of a UV-ink
curing system for a new web press. This drying unit was obtained
from Thermogenics of New York, Inc. (68-70), but the ink supplier
wa s not identified. It may have been Inmont.
According to a Bowne executive, had UV inks and the drying (curing)
system not been available, the web press, although desperately
needed, would not have been purchased because of their location (in
New York City on the eleventh floor of a 17-story office buildi.ng),
the need for unusually large quantities of duct work, and costly after-
burners requiring additional fuel already in short supply. In addition,
the company wished to avoid the possibility of production shutdown
as during an air pollution emergency episode. Their economic health,
they said, depends on rapid turnout and a high degree of efficiency,
especially because of their liaison with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in Washington.
26
-------
After several months I use, Bowne spokesmen cited some of the eco-
nomic advantages as: 1) savings in press costs since downtime is
reduced for such purposes as washups or other interruptions, partially
due to 2) ink stability which eliminates spraying ink rollers during
shutdowns to avoid ink drying on rollers, with subsequent running of
paper (causing waste) to render the rollers once more operable; 3) no
change in properties of the paper web such as moisture content and
thereby size and/or tensile; 4) reducing the number of web breaks
caused by moisture loss or scorch; 5) the feasibility of running lighter
weights of paper; and 6) elimination of many bindery problems caused
by cracking a long folds.
Among the disadvantages Bowne cited are the cost of UV inks, not
necessarily justifiable unless faced with pollution control expendi-
ture, the inability to print on polyurethane, the unavailability of UV-
curable metallic inks, and the difficulty with de-inking of waste.
Except for the necessity to properly train operators, Thermogenics
states that there is no phys ica 1 danger involved with the UV drying
system since all the necessary safety consideration such as guards
and interlocks are built into the system (68).
An estimate of comparable equipment costs (no energy) by Thermogenics
for a one-web four-color press was $22,500 using ultraviolet energy
and $73,500 using gas. The latter included dryer ($28,500), chill
rolls ($17,000), cooling system/tower ($18,000) and afterburner
($20,000).
Inmont Corporation (formerly Interchemical Corp.) was issued its first
patent for the drying of specia I inks by ultrav iolet rad iation in 1946
(39, 65) and patent applications have been filed on their new UV-curable
ink compositions (66). The first web offset commercial installation was
scheduled for 1971.
Inmont has developed two UV drying systems - UV-cure and UV-set
(66). With the UV-cure system, printing is by the conventiona l manner
and dried completely by exposure to ultraviolet light. The UV-set ink
sys tern, developed for sheet-fed work, conta ins enough photopolymer
in the mixture to polymerize the film to a tack-free print quickly by
exposure to ultraviolet energy, and to later completely dry by oxidation.
The principal advantage of the latter system is that the inks cost less
than conventional inks, only five to ten percent more according to one
source (67). However, the system requires more energy than the UV-
cure system.
Commercial application of UV curing of ink films on plastic containers
ha s been mentioned briefly in the trade press (71). A demonstration
at the A MA Packaging Expos ition in April 1972 showed a dry offset
press using multi-color UV-inks and UV-cure at speeds as high as
27
-------
1.3
1.4
300 containers a minute. Dry offset is a variation of the letterpress
process that employs a letterpress plate, transfer of the ink to a
blanket mounted on an intermediate cylinder and thence to the substrate.
Ink Reformulation
The use of highly refined and deodorized solvents to reformulate
heatset inks was inaugurated several years ago, primarily to improve
the esthetic qua lities of the printed product. More recently, refor-
mulation to reduce the quantity of solvent is being studied, as
indicated previously by Inmont.
Many of the new state and local regulations (applicable in 1973 and
later) restricting hydrocarbon emissions exempt, or are less stringent
toward, the use of materials containing no more than 20 percent of
volatile organic solvents provided that no additional volatiles
except water are present and that the volatile content is not photo-
chemically reactive. Most of the heatset ink solvents are sufficiently
low in aromatic and olefinic content to be classified as photochem-
ically unreactive. Accordingly, resins or resin combinations possess-
ing increased solubility in these solvents would be desirable. The
degree of success in this area throughout the ink industry is not
known, but at least some ink manufacturers involved in this pursuit
are optimistic.
Misce lla neous Materia ls Mod ification
In 1971, the Lithium Corporation of America introduced a new liquid
polybutad iene-a lpha methyls tyrene copolymer res in for solvent-free
manufacture of printing inks and coatings (72). Trademarked as
Lithene Y, the resin series, available in both low and high molecular
weights eliminates the need for solvents because of their low vis-
cosity as 100 percent solids. Publicity indicated that the materials
would be marketed to manufacturers of coatings and intermed iates.
No information regarding use has been noted.
Recently, Richardson Ink Company announced the development of an
ink system that eliminates the need for overprint lacquer when print-
ing a luminum beverage cans (73). The inks, carrying the trademark
Duralum Mark V, have excellent mobility and reduce misting at the
press, and produce a hard finish with high gloss. "Because they
are 83 to 93 percent solids there is less hydrocarbon effluent during
printing, reducing air pollution." (Lacquer systems normally used
in metal decorating contain 75 to 85 percent solvent.) No additional
information is available at this writing, except that IIDuralum is
finding wide use in the beverage industry. II
28
-------
1.5
In addition to the effort being expended by all facets of the industry to
the effluent problems of the web printer and meta 1 decorator, much
attention is being directed toward the other major printing processes.
Water-base inks, solventless inks and high gloss coatings which dry
(or cure) at room temperature are the major area s of study.
Although the study reported here pursued the problems of other pro-
cesses, awareness of technological developments throughout the indus-
try has been maintained and several pertinent references are included
in the bibliography.
Trends
It is evident from the preceding paragraphs that a variety of possible
options exist, in various stages of development, to pursue reduction
of pollutants through the materials charged to process, principally the
inks and coatings. In rea lity, each company or plant must make its
own choice, and each evaluation must be made in relation to its locale,
economic hea lth of the plant (whether a single plant or multi-facility
company), existing regulations and the likelihood for their becoming
more restrictive, availability and cost of energy, and available invest-
ment capital. The economics of the printing industry are such that
printers can accept only modest increases in cost. It is unlikely that
one approach more than another will characterize the industry's
decisions regarding control of air pollution during the next five years.
A few generalizations can be made, but each will have exceptions, for
management attitude is personal and cannot be assessed with any
degree of pred icta bility.
Sma 11 to medium- size companies generally will choose reformulation,
if possible, where immediate action is neces sary. New materia Is that
will allow them to achieve compliance with a minimum of process pro-
cedure change, at least initially, and the least economic effect on the
status quo will be utilized.
For the most part, the large companies are the leaders in ga ining accept-
ance for innovations. And so it is they who become the pace- setters.
The initiative of three large web offset printers was mentioned on page
26. Early in 1973, Continental Can Company, a major metal decorator
announced the installation of the world's first commercial system for
UV curing of printing on metal. The new process is designed for
lithographing on flat metal sheets used for three-piece cans, but is
adaptable to two-piece cans. An annual capacity of six billion cans
is expected to be realized by the end of 1973, and more than half of
their total capacity by 1975. Although the inks are more expensive,
large ovens that used substantial quantities of natural gas are unneces-
sary, and the length of the production line is reduced substantially.
An executive officer of the company stated that the new system "will
allow us to conserve 85 percent of our present energy requirements" (73a).
29
-------
In addition to intra-corporate considerations, large companies also
form the nucleus of industry-wide activity. Late in 1972, the Environ-
mental Conservation Board of the Graphic Communications Industries,
Inc., composed of executives of major companies and associations,
was established for a cooperative industry approach to help the several
industry segments that face problems involving air and water pollution
as well as in-plant safety and health.
While the organization was still incomplete, GATF organized an Ad Hoc
Web Heatset Committee, and developed a cooperative program, with
the evaluation of new inks and drying systems having highest priority.
The first effort of this group is reported on pages 24 and 25. The tests
are continuing. There is genera 1 agreement in the industry that bring-
ing together, literally, all elements concerned in the process to the
problem is expedient and mutually beneficial. Printers of all sizes are
offering their facilities, dryer manufacturers their expertise, and paper
and ink companies their supplies. All are furnishing personnel and
time.
The a utonomous group expects their effort will achieve not only compli-
ance for our industry but hasten acceptance by printers of new pro-
cedures. Part of the proposed activity of the parent Environmenta 1
Conservation Board is to sponsor research and development in areas
not yet specified. The ink companies, of course, are continuing their
corporate research and development. It follows that accomplishments
and improvements within these companies will be made public at
appropriate times in the conventiona 1 manner.
~o
-------
2.0
2.1
PROCESS MODIFICATION/CONTROL EQUIPMENT
In add ition to the extensive investigation in mod ifying the inr.s to
reduce or eliminate their potential for organic emissions, some pro-
gress has been realized in process variation, mostly in the area of
press speed and dryer operation, with and without control. Air flow
rates in the dryer have been reduced in certain instances without sacri-
ficing efficiency (74). The extent to which industry can eliminate the
practice of emitting all the air from the web presses directly to the at-
mosphere is being investigated. If higher organic loadings of the gas
stream can be controlled satisfactorily so as to operate at a high per-
centage of the LEL, cleaning the gas stream would be somewhat simpli-
fied and a smaller portion of the overall gas flow could be emitted and
a larger part recycled.
Additional considerations, experimentation and experiences are included
in the following sections.
Inc inera tion
Both catalytic and thermal incineration continue to be established and
effi.cient means to convert solvents and fumes to carbon dioxide and
water under properly controlled conditions. In fact, this route has
been that followed by almost all of the heatset web printing and metal
decorating plants which have installed emission control equipment.
High capital investment, operating and maintenance costs have been
offset partia lly by heat recovery. Designers and manufacturers are
continually improving both dryer and afterburner equipment, so as to
better serve industry's needs. The following are examples.
A modular ink drying and emission control system has been developed
(75-77) that may be installed as a unit or as separate components.
The dryer is designed to fit all web presses and the afterburner can
be used wi th existing dryers. (Mechanica 1 features of the dryer per-
mit conversion to UV-cure.) The system features a sinusoid wave
web control that provides improved drying capability with stable web
behavior at lower web temperatures. Heated air applied from alter-
nately separated nozzles, above and below the web, causes the web
to travel through the dryer in the sine wave pattern rather than a
straight line. Drying effi.ciency is increased at lower temperatures
through the complete range of ink coverages, web speeds and web
weights. The afterburner may be placed directly on top of the dryer
or at a remote location.
Also in mid-1971, the "first one-piece high velocity dryer ever built"
was announced (78) offering the advantages of compact size, fast
and less costly installation and add-on capability. Other various
features of the standard model were retained including sine wave
:31
-------
2.11
positioning, easy internal access, low exhaust rates and cool external
surface temperature, among others. In 1972, the same company re-
leased news of an afterburner and "element for odorless discharge
with up to 95 percent hydrocarbon cleanup at exhaust temperatures
as low as 1200oF" (79,80). No preheating is required and the equip-
ment is "guaranteed to combust hydrocarbon materia L fumes and
odors to meet air pollution authority requirement." Applications
specified for the unit include printing and metal decorating.
Energy Shortage
Much of the dryer and incineration technology and equipment refine-
ments have been the result of limited fuel supplies as well as the
traditional goal of efficient and economical operation.
Those who have investigated the use of incineration to control organic
effluent are acutely aware that the shortage of natural gas is serious
(81). Even the most ca sua 1 reader of the da ily newspaper knows of
the fuel and power crisis, and the shortage becomes quite personal
when the homebuilder is faced with the possibility of curtailment.
Reams of paper have been filled with discussion of the subject, and
55 studies on the national energy crisis have been conducted in the
pa s t few years accord ing to the federa 1 Office of Science and Technol-
ogy. The Federal Power Commission (FPC) said that the U.S. gas
industry reached a turning point in 1971 - the end of that industry's
growth period unhampered by supply considerations. The head of
FPC's natural gas bureau said that never again will there be enough
gas to meet all demands. By 1990 the deficit will have increased by
17 trillion cubic feet. Ironically, efforts to alleviate the energy
crisis by increasing capacities and sources for generating other forms
of power, e.g"l electricity, cause environmental problems, and it is
to restore the environment that a portion of the add itiona 1 fuel is
needed. Unfortunately, but inevitably, the areas in greatest need of
pollution control are the same areas where fuel and power needs, and
shortages, for people and industry are also the greatest.
The dilemma of printing management attempting to comply by incinera-
ting is obvious. Many areas of the country do not and will not have
ava ilable the add itiona 1 quantities of gas required. Afterburners
have been adapted in some cases to utilize other fuels such as oil
(whic h may pose add itiona 1 problems) and liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) representing substantially higher fuel costs. Definite differ-
ences of opinion exist among members of the industry as to the utility
of fue ls other tha n gas. Manufacturers' representatives, however,
have indicated that new types of burners are capable of utilizing fuel
32
-------
2.2
2.3
oil and that the principal problem may be one of adequate supply with
limited sulfur content. At least three installations using fuel oil are
now operating with hydrocarbon reduction in the area of 98 percent,
according to a representative of an incineration equipment manufacturer.
The plants were not identified.
Carbon Adsorption
Adsorption of organic effluent has not been recommended for heatset
ink systems because organic degradation products in the exhaust can
render the carbon ineffective within a few cycles and are difficult to
remove from the activated carbon when regenerated with steam. Also,
the utility of the material recovered is questionable. Several years
ago, charcoal adsorption was tried on a pilot plant scale in a metal
decorat ing plant in Los Angeles (82). Because of the degradation
products of resins and drying oils, as well as the complexity of sol-
vents involved, the material recovered was so contaminated that,
even after rather sophisticated fractional distillation, the company's
quality control department would not recommend it even for wash-up
purposes.
However, a web offset printer on the West Coast has adopted this
approach for emission control. Since patent possibilities are being
pursued, no details are available. To our knowledge, the adsorp-
tion principle is not now being investigated for control in meta 1 decor-
ating.
Scrubbing
There has been no report, public or private, of an attempt to use
scrubbing in the industry as the sole means to control air emissions
from printing processes. Much discussion has taken place between
companies and consultants of the poss ibility of effective perform-
ance, but to our knowledge no one has been willing to assume the
necessary risks involved. All the unknown quantities set forth in
our first report (1) including that of possibly creating water pollution
problems rema in unresolved. One ins tance is known where a Venturi-
type scrubber was evaluated for a web offset installation with nega-
tive results. Scrubbing (with a suitable liquid) is included as a
possible means of control for organic solvent emissions in the litera-
ture (83). However, it is acknowledged that if the solvent concen-
tration in the gas stream is low and/or the solvent is not recoverable,
scrubbing, as well as the alternate of condensation, may not be
economically feasible.
However, in operations with allowable quantities of solvent emissions
but faced with solving an odor problem, the use of potassium perman-
ganate in an aqueous scrubbing medium, provides a possible solution
to some odor problems.
33
-------
2.4
A 1971 survey on air pollution research problems (84) cites odor
control as a continuing difficult and complex problem, especially in
the treatment of large volumes of air contaminated by traces of odor-
caus ing organics.
The technical coordinating committee on particulates of the Air Pollu-
tion Control Association recently published a report that represents
the "best thinking of the Association" on wet scrubbing (85). The
paper is not a state of the art report, but a guide with its ma in pur-
pose "to provide information required for (a) the selection and speci-
fication of equipment by the prospective suppliers, (b) the evaluation
of competitive bids by the prospective user, and (c) the evaluation of
equipment performance under actua 1 operating cond itions by both user
and supplier." The applicability of the process as well as economic,
environmental and engineering factors involved in selection are dis-
cussed in detail. This report is recommended especially to any
facility considering scrubbing a s a means of control for liquid particu-
la te ma tter .
Ozone Treatment
Odor problems can exist where emission limitations of organic material
are not exceeded or where such regulations do not exist, as in Priority
III areas of Air Quality Regions. Odor and nuisance regulations have
uniform applicability.
Ozone could have possible applicability in odor control in web offset
emissions if two major problems were solved. Ozone will react with
oxid izable organic materia 1 provided that an adequate concentration
of ozone and adequate residence time, up to ten seconds, is allowed.
The production of ozone is relatively economical and several compan-
ies have commercia lly ava ila ble systems to generate the ga s. How-
ever, ozone as a photochemical oxidant may not be emitted from the
stack and the usual press and dryer systems have much shorter resi-
dence times than ten seconds.
Concerning the first problem, there is relatively little danger that
ozone would be emitted since its lifetime at elevated temperatures
is extremely limited, but the possibility would exist. However, the
second problem would require that some provision be made for a
longer holdup of the gas stream within the system if odor control
were to be achieved, and the effect of ozone on the composition of
materials used in the exhaust system would require investigation.
To hold exhaust in the dryer for a longer period of time, as by recycl-
ing, would cause some risk of maximum buildup of organic vapors in
the air stream which is normally limited to a percentage of the LEL.
New and serious problems become obvious.
34
-------
2.5
2.6
At least two printers were reported to have tested the effectiveness of
injecting ozone into the stack for odor control, but neither could be
confirmed.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has recently pro-
posed (86) limitations on the level of ozone that may be emitted from
a device, either by des ign or a s an incidenta 1 byproduct. Such a
device will be cons idered adulterated and/or misbranded if "it is
used or intended for use to produce and emit ozone into the atmos-
phere and does not ind icate in its la be ling the maximum acceptable
concentration of ozone which may be emitted (not to exceed 0.05
part per million by volume of air circulating through the device)...
and the smallest area in which such device can be used as not to
produce an ozone accumulation in excess of 0.05 part per million."
This proposed amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
(now in the 60-day period allowed for comment) would affect the
use of ozone as mentioned above, but probably not inhibit it. The
quantity of ozone (if any) in the effluent would have to be deter-
mined, and possibly monitored.
Coating Process for Web Offset
Some experimenta 1 stud ies have been in progress for severa 1 months
in the Midwest involving the use of a coater for applying a quick-
drying coating to an oxidative-drying ink film in a high speed web
operation. Low concentrations of a polymeric ester (Eastman Chemi-
cal's ALcohol-Soluble Propionate) in 95 percent ethanol solution can
be applied,as one example, with a flexo coater to protect the slow-
drying (conventional) ink film from setoff (transfer) while the oxida-
tive drying proceeds under the coating applied at speeds up to 1600
feet per minute. The protective film is dried in a warm (l40-1500F)
atmosphere with ethanol and water the only solvents evolved and
emitted from the proces s. The company expected to have set up
this summer a web press so equipped for an adequate commercial
evaluation of a variety of ink, paper and coating combinations.
Eventually, they will be willing to make the information generally
available to the industry.
This approach would not, strictly speaking, eliminate "liquid organ-
ic material" from a plant's effluent. However, being a photochemi-
ca lly unreactive low molecular weig ht a liphatic a lcohol, vaporized
below its boiling point, would seem to allow the emission and the
process to require little or no control. In addition, the opportunity
for visible emission and nuisance odor is virtually eliminated.
Electrostatic Precipitation
Electrostatic precipitation for smoke control has been proposed for
35
-------
at least one large plant in an "urban-suburban" location. The approach
suggested is to inject an oil mist into the gas stream, before the pre-
cipitator, to absorb organics from the gas stream. Although the parti-
cles certainly would be collected with this type of system, the plant
engineer believes that it undoubtedly would introduce some pre-cooling
and premature precipitation in areas where this would be undesirable.
It is doubtful that this approach will be pursued.
36
-------
3.0
INSTRUMENTATION AND C'ONTROL EQUIPMENT
Characterization, preservation and restoration of the atmosphere rely
heavily on the technology afforded by instrumentation, in both the
broad and narrow concepts of the word. Indeed, current technology
is not yet sufficient to define all of today's pollution problems, much
less solve them. If it were sufficient, an unadulterated environment
could be achieved entirely by mora land financia 1 commitments.
It seems practical and expedient here to minimize discussion of this
facet of the entire experience of the study and direct the reader to
the references in the bibliography that comprise recent trends, atti-
tudes and emerging technology.
Most industries have some problems in common, but as each investi-
gates its own, many problems defined are peculiar to a given indus-
try. Few are able to control emissions by duplicating procedures
found suitable to others. Even the applicability of existing instru-
ments - to measure and identify pollutants - cannot be pred icted.
Only after experimentation that defines accurately the problem, is
the solution indicated and fina lly prescribed.
Some of the new developments in instrumentation and equipment for
use of the printing industry in pursuit of its responsibility toward
the environment have been included in the foregoing discussions.
An economica 1 measurement system for hydrocarbon emiss ions cap-
able of monitoring or making analyses on site would be a valuable
contribution to the web printer and metal decorator.
Strictly defined standards are imposed and the degree of accuracy
required in measurement is not available in a 11 situations. A whole
new market for instruments and equipment now exists, and so essen-
tia lly a new industry is born. A $500 million figure ha s been projected
as the probable size of the market in the period 1970-1980, for instru-
mentation (86a-86d). Sophisticated sensors, e.g., solid state, that
have sensitivity, specificity and reliability are urgently needed.
Applications for patents on inventions which might curb environmen-
tal abuses have been receiving priority treatment since early 1970.
Processing of applications requires six to eight months rather than
the usua 1 average of th:-ee years.
Monitoring emissions is implicit, and in some cases explicit, as a
means of air quality control. Recent (state and local) regulations
require continuous source monitoring while operating under a vari-
ance. The states themselves must set up ambient air monitoring
systems to comply with the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. However,
governments a nd regulatory bod ies have been monitoring, some for
37
-------
many years, for data on which to base rules. Pennsylvania has in-
stalled, and in partial operation, a $2.3 million air monitoring system
reputed to be the most efficient of any state. Continuous read ings
of one per minute from 17 remote units on levels of 13 parameters,
including measurement of the six pollutants for which standards have
been established, are transmitted to a central station. Since the
system was financed primarily by EPA, the design is available to
other state and local agencies.
Ind ividua 1 monitoring by companies of their sources ha s become
neces sary only recently to avoid citations. In source monitoring by
individuals, one major obstacle, in addition to in-house trained per-
sonnel, is the lack of instruments to measure (and record) econom-
ically and accurately specific pollutants in the presence of known
and unknown interfering substances. Much remains to be accom-
plished in this area.
Partia Lly because a 11 these cons iderations represent cons idera ble
expenditure without definite utility, and partly because it is typical
of American business enterprise, renting and leasing of instruments
and equipment, as well as services, is becoming popular.
Various annua 1 pollution control directories to products and services
are being published. The December issue of the "Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, a Fa 11 issue (usua lly October) of
"Environmenta 1 Science and Technology", a publication of the
AmericanChemical Society,"and theDeskbook Issueof "Chemical
Engineering, " published by McGraw-Hill are typical. In addition,
the books, periodicals, monographs and conferences of the Instru-
ment Society of America are valuable contributions to the subject.
The Env ironmenta 1 Protection Agency published reference methods and
ava ilable instruments a s append ices to the announcement of Nationa 1
Primary and Secondary Ambient A ir Qua lity Standard s in the Federa 1
Register on April 30, 1971 (36, 8186). Each reference method de-
scribes a procedure for evaluating the ambient concentration of a
pollutant. Append ix E, perta ining to hydrocarbons, includes a biblio-
graphy of several references. Instrumentation of several companies
is cited: Beckman, Bend ix, Byron, Mine Safety, Monsanto, Union
Carbide and Tracor.
38
-------
4.0
4. 1
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STACK EFFLUENT FOR GRAPHIC ARTS
PROCESSES
Introd uc tion
Originally in Phase I, air pollution control instrument manufacturers
and printing and metal decorating companies with appreciable air
pollution experience were contacted, and provided va lua ble practica 1
information to aid in evaluating various methods of emission sampling
equipment and analysis, and to develop procedures sufficiently accur-
ate, reliable and simple to engage in subsequent project activity.
Much field trip data were gathered from printers, metal decorators
and suppliers to the industry, and represented background information
for activity in sampling, ana Lys is, mea surement of emiss ions, and
characterization of the industry's air poLLution problems.
To assist in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the service
of the Phys ica 1 Measurements La bora tory of Carnegie-Me llon Univers ity
(C MUPML) was engaged. Their tasks were to review methods for
mea suring emiss ions a nd to ma ke a ppropriate recommendations as to
a method to be employed in printing press/metal decorating effluent
measurements. Approximately seven methods of sampling and analy-
sis of effluents from printing and metal decorating operations as well
as those described in published literature were obtained from field
trips. The information was forwarded to CMUPML personnel for their
evaluation and use. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix C) outline the various
sa mpling and ana lys is techniques reviewed, and includes a summary
of the salient features of each method used.
Upon review of these methods of sampling and analysis, CMUPML
a long with GATF, during the Pha se I contract period, recommended
methods using appropriate sampling and measuring equipment and
acceptable analytical technique. Further work under Phase I en-
tailed preliminary evaluations of various methods of sampling and
analysis. It became increasingly apparent that before standards of
control to govern pollutants were established, devices and procedures
to measure these pollutants had to be developed.
Also under the Phase I contract, an overview of the industry's air
pollution problems was gained, and reliable methods for measuring
emissions, both qua litative ly and quantitatively, were eva luated.
Information was collected on control equipment and on various pro-
cess modifications that might serve to mitigate the quantity or char-
acter of effluents. This Phase I study considered the various types
of printing processes including metal decorating. The degree that the
graphic arts industry was involved technically in pollution, the
problem of defining materials, processes, and available emission
control a Iternatives were explored a long with development of a
39
-------
sampling and analytical procedure capable of measuring emissions from
various graphic arts ind ustry.
Following the Phase I contract commitments, a major task of Phase II
was the development of a reliable source sampling and analytical
method that could preferably be universally applied. To this end
printers and meta 1 decorators were a sked to contribute the use of
their physical resources. Certain plants were selected because they
were ideal sampling locations, and they were requested to assist in
GATF's air pollution activities. The long-range objective was to use
a method of measuring emissions explored in Phase I to characterize
effluents with respect to process and product, and then to establish
a basis for reasonably predicting the types and quantities of emissions
a cc ord ing to proces sand throug hputs .
The effectiveness of air pollution control equipment presently in use
were determined by emiss ion mea surements. Ana lytica 1 procedures
developed in the Phase I effort were applied in Phase II to determine
the capability of control techniques for existing equipment and for
evaluating new control processes, material modifications, and equip-
ment. Here too, GATF industry members presently utilizing air pollu-
tion control equipment, as revea led by a recent survey and various
field visitations, were requested to permit field sampling.
4.11 Sampling
It should be noted that two sampling principles, grab and continuous
as well as modifications thereof, have been generally used in graphic
arts processes. A "grab sample" is a sample taken at a particular
time within a very short defined time interval. A "continuous sample"
is a sample taken from an effluent stream over a relatively long
period of time. Gra b sa mpling techniques can be mod ified to ta ke
a continuous sample within a restricted time period by the utilization
of a device to indicate and regulate the sampling flow rate.
After reviewing various sampling methods and taking into consideration
that the pollution in graphic arts processes is gaseous in nature, gener-
ally steady in output over time intervals, and can be usually found rela-
tively uniform in distribution across some particular location of a stack's
cross section, and that flow velocity, dependent upon exhaust fan opera-
tion, is normally steady, it was decided that a sampling technique appro-
priate to the study would be a mod ified "gra b" method by which a true
representation of pollutant concentration should be obta ina ble. There is
seldom a sampling situation, in the graphic arts industry, in which a
steady and uniform process variable (e. g. pollutant concentration,
pollutant exhaust flow rate, etc.) location cannot be found.
A common collection technique used in gra b sampling, shown d iagra-
matically in Figure 3, (Appendix B) is the use of evacuated con-
tainers of glass or metal. A sampling train designed for specific
situations encountered in the various printing processes includes a
40
-------
probe inserted into the duct, a cold trap that functions to coll8~~1 th8
condensible portion of the sample, heating tape on the probe to main-
tain its temperature above the dew point of the gas stream being
sampled, and a precision needle valve to provide a repeatable sampling
rate. When this valve is opened, sample is admitted to the evacuated
cylinder over a definite time interval.
Upon review of established and field-tested grab sampling techniques,
a prototype field sampling apparatus was assembled by personnel of
the Physical Measurement Laboratory of Carnegie Mellon University
and field-tested by GATF. The apparatus (schematica lly shown in
Figure 4 (Appendix B) and photographically shown in Figure 5 (Appen-
dix B) consists of a 300-ml stainless steel cylinder with a threaded
opening at both ends. A vacuum gage is attached to the lower open-
ing when held in a vertical position. The upper opening connects to
a union, a needle valve, a second union, and a fabricated double-
tee fitting connected to the U-shaped trap. After the trap, another
union is used to attach the sample probe. When the trap is detached,
each end is capped with a fitting before removing from the dry ice
bath. Both trap and probe are 1/8" stainless steel tubing, and the
probe length chosen was two feet. This length could be changed de-
pending on stack width and sampling location. The trap was 14 inches
long with approximately 12 inches immersed in the dry ice trap.
The volume of ga s sa mple needed for ana lys is depended primarily on
the sensitivity of the analytical method used, and the concentrations
of given components in the gas stream. This last consideration was
also the basis for selection of particular sampling equipment and
analytical methods to be employed.
Two factors were considered in selecting the dimensions of the gas
sa mpler:
1.
Since the trap and probe initially contains normal air which
is swept into the cylinder during sampling, a correction
factor must be applied to determine the actual sample volume.
2.
A 11 of the condens ibles mus t be injected at once into the
chromatograph for analysis; consequently, the size of the
cylinder must be such as to insure collection of an appro-
priate quantity of condensible material.
A 300-ml sample cylinder and 1/8" G.D., 38" long (probe and trap),
24-gage tubing necessitated a correction for air of only 2.5 percent
to the cylinder volume. Assuming a maximum concentration of con-
dens ibles on the order of 1000 ppm, the trap could conta in a bout 1 mg
of sample for injection into the chromatograph.
41
-------
Several modifications were possible with this sampling equipment.
The trap length could be increased from 14 to 24 inches or longer if
the tubing was further coiled, and column packing or a glass wool
plug could be added to the trap which, due to the increased surface
area provided, could help catch condensible material. Provisions
could also easily be made to plug both ends of the probe after samp-
ling if condensible material was being collected in the probe.
4.12 Analysis
Once a sample has been obtained, it must be analyzed either on-site
at the field location or in a laboratory. Pollutant identity and con-
centration is vital to the establishment of the nature and extent of
a ir pollution problems and the effectiveness of control techniques
being used. Assuming va I id samples are obta ined and proper ana ly-
tica 1 procedures employed, the ana lytica 1 results become the vita 1
link in the measurement-evaluation cycle.
Several analytical methods having potential applicability in the
graphic arts industry were reviewed in the final report for Phase I.
Two techniques were particularly suited to the objectives of Phase II.
Figure 6 (Appendix B) is a schematic diagram of the Cal-Colonial
Chemsolve chromatographic flame ionization technique. If a sample
had been collected into a container wi.thout a cold trap in the samp-
ling train, it is first separated by means of a cold trap into con-
densible and non-condensible portions. Each portion is then
oxidized to carbon dioxide (C02) and subsequently reduced to
methane (CH4)' Therefore, the only organic introduced into
the detector is methane, a fact which insures linearity of response.
Results are reportable in parts per million methane, carbon monox-
ide (CO), carbon dioxide and total carbon.
An alternate method (Los Angeles APCD) is schematica lly shown in
Figure 7 (Appendix B). Here, both condensible and non-condensible
portions of the sqmple are catalytically oxidized to C02 and de-
tected by infrared ana lys is. The results are similar to those.out-
lined in the Cal-Colonial analytical method.
It had been noted in the Phase I final report that the Cal-Colonial
method ha s three features which commended its use in the Pha se II
study. First, the scale of the sample size is compatible with con-
ventiona 1 ga s chromatographic components; second, the hydrogen
flame detector is not flow dependent as is the non-dispersive
infrared detector; and third, the prior reduction of all sample com-
ponents to methane could provide a true carbon content analysis.
42
-------
It was found, however, expedient to develop a somewhat modlfled
ana lytica 1 method involving the simultaneous use of a therma 1 con-
ductivity and a hydrogen flame detector. With this technlque, two
injections are needed for cylinder content analysis (non-condensibles).
Trap condensibles are analyzed separately using a flame ionization
detector. One aliquot from the cylinder is separated on a 5R sieve
and detected by thermal conductivity. The other aliquot from the
cylinder is resolved ona PoropakQcolumn, and the effluent is passed
through both a thermal conductivity and hydrogen flame detector.
Carbon d loxide a nd carbon monoxide are determined by therma l con-
ductivity, and the organics by flame ionization.
The major accomplishment of the Phase II work, again, was the ulti-
mate development of a simple and reliable field-tested, EPA-approved
method of sampling and analysis of emissions from graphic arts pro-
cesses and control equipment. Also, research activity was conducted
with the purpose of defining problems, and provided a consistent
means of evaluating the effectiveness of the different types of pollu-
tion control measures utilized by the graphic arts industry. Activity
in this area was an integral part of the Phase II contract work.
4.2
Sampling and Analytical Technique
4.21 Summary
Early development of the sampling and analytical procedures to be
used in the study of organic emissions were previously discussed.
Subsequent field experience dictated certa in mod ifications in sampler
design and sampling technique sufficient to bring the method within
acceptable limits of accuracy and precision.
As field work progressed during the months of January through April,
1971, it became apparent that the prototype integrated grab sampler
designed in Phase I (Figures 4 and 5, Appendix B) lacked the
efficiency neces sary to condense and reta in organics in the 1/8"
diameter stainless steel trap. A sizeable percentage of organics
was being swept into the cylinder where it could not be detected
using the analytical techniques of CMUPML. Over a four-month
period (January through April 1971) the following modifications
were evolved to insure that all condensibles would be caught in
the 1/8" stainless steel trap tube.
1.
The probe and trap were combined into a single, easily
handled unit, and the trap was lengthened to provide a
longer low temperature path for the sample.
2.
Glass wool was inserted in the trap just prior to the cylinder
43
-------
in order to prevent the loss of any condens ible organics that
may not have condensed or been captured in the trap.
3. The dry ice wa s replaced by a slurry of dry ice and trichloro-
ethylene to promote more effective cooling.
4. A 20-minute sampling period, using an initial flow rate of
20 cc/min, was selected as being optimum to adequately cool
and catch sample in the trap.
A schematic representation of the modified sampling apparatus with
material components is shown in Figure 8 (Appendix B). The final
integrated grab sampler which was used during Phase II on commer-
cial printing plants is schematically shown in Figure 9 (Appendix B)
along with all material component parts.
In the analytical procedure, by virtue of the collection process
described above, the organic portions of the samples are divided
spontaneously into non-condens ibles and condensibles. Conden-
sibles are collected in the 1/8" diameter stainless steel probe-trap
assembly.
Non-condensibles are contained in the cylinder and are analyzed by
a modified Perkin-Elmer Gas Chromatograph, u8ing two separate
injections. One aliquot is passed through a SA molecular sieve.
The packed column effects separation of oxygen, nitrogen, methane
(CH4) and carbon monoxide. Concentrations of CO are determined
using therma 1 conductivity. Another a liquot is eluted with helium
through a Poropak Q column, a thermal conductivity detector, and
a hydrogen flame detector. Methane is first determined with the
hydrogen flame detector activated, then (C02) is measured by thermal
conductivity. Immediately after elution of the C02 peak, column flow
through the Poropak Q column is reversed, and the organics content
is determined by flame ionization.
The high C02 content characteristic of samples taken downstream
from an afterburner required the use of a reduced size aliquot in a
separate ana lysis. Norma 1 dryer sa mples do not require the use of
this reduced size aliquot in a separate analysis.
The trap, which contains the condensibles, is immersed in dry ice
and connected through Swagelok fittings to an Aerograph G. C. equipped
with a flame ionization detector. No column is used. The trap sample
is allowed to warm to room temperature and vaporize at a rate which
permits controlled attenuation of the electrometer signal. After the
low-boiling organics have been measured, the trap is heated to 2500C
at a controlled rate to vaporize high-boiling materials. An integrator
with d igita 1 output is used to determine peak area.
44
-------
4.22 Summary of Stack Gas Sampler Design Considerations
The stack gas sampler was originally patterned from a design of the
Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (87). The unit
illustrated in Figure 9 (Appendix B) can be considered a modified
grap sampler, and consists of a stack probe, a dry ice-trichloroethylene
refrigerated trap,. and an evacuable cylinder with a valve between the
trap and cylinder. The valve should be of good quality in order to
maintain the high vacuum in the cylinder during transport from the
laboratory to the sampling site and the sample in the cylinder when
returning back to the laboratory. It should also be sufficiently sensi-
tive to permit time-averaging of the sample over a 15-20 minute
interva 1. A low cost Bourdon vacuum gage attached to the cylinder
is helpful in controlling the sampling rate.
The size of the cylinder is dictated by the method which is used for
the analysis of the trap sample. It is not practical to take aliquots
of the trap sample, and thus its quantity is limited by the capacity
of the analyzer. A cylinder of 300 ml capacity was selected for our
use because the average range of organic compounds likely to be
encountered for ana lys is is 10-10, 000 ppm (88). A s hydrocarbons this
corresponds to about (0.01-10mg)/300 ml of sample, which is a con-
venient range for introduction into a gas chromatograph.
As a further consideration, the internal volume of the sampler between
the end of the probe and .the valve of the cylinder should be as small
as convenient. At the start of the test it will be filled with atmos-
pheric air which is swept into the cylinder as a diluent of the sample.
For the present sampler, assuming an approximate average trap-probe
length of 60 inches, the air dilution in the cylinder is estimated to
be 12 ml or 4 percent of the nominal volume, and is not included in
any concentration ca lculations.
4.23 Stack Gas Sampler (Figure 9, Appendix B)
Cylinders. The basic member is a stainless steel Whitey cylinder,
HDF4- 3 00- 3 04, with a nomina 1 capacity of 300 ml. The lower end
of the cylinder is fitted with a 2-1/2 inch Bourdon vacuum gauge,
and a sensitive needle valve is mounted in the upper end. The side
of the valve is fitted for attachment of the trap with the latter
extend ing horizonta lly.
Since the interior volume of the sample cylinder must be known,
each individual cylinder is calibrated using helium or nitrogen in a
precision gas manipulating system.
Traps. The first devices which were constructed for condensing
higher boiling components from stack gases consisted of two parts:
45
-------
4.24
a double loop of stainless steel tubing (14 inches long) approximately
12 inches of which was immersed in the refrigerant, and a straight
varia ble length of tubing (length dependent on stack d i mens ions) which
entered the stack. The two pieces were joined by a silver soldered
coupling. This design was then changed to a single piece of tubing
having the same conformation as the two-piece assembly but without
the coupling. The contents of the two-piece probe-trap required two
analyses, since during sampling the silver soldered coupling and
adjacent probe acted as a cold spot area which condensed high-boiling
compounds. By simply combining the two pieces, the analytical effort
was reduced by one-half and the elimination of the silver soldered
coupling reduced significantly the error caused by this type of fitting.
Generally, the redesign of the trap as a single piece construction
proved to be very successful, and is easier to manipulate in the field.
The traps are constructed from a 1/8" Q.D., 25-gauge 304 stainless
steel tubing. At 3-1/2 inches from the cylinder end of the tubing,
three flattened loops each 5-1/2 inches deep and 1-3/4 inches wide
are formed by bend ing the tubing. The loops extend be low the hori-
zontal run of the tubing. The remaining 24 inches of tubing, except
for a small semi-loop (see 3, Figure 9), formed to prevent contact
of the Swagelok cap and slurry, continues the horizontal line from
the cyl inder and functions a s the s tack probe.
The result is a triple U-shaped loop centered 4-1/2 inches from the
point of attachment to the cylinder, with a probe 20-24 inches long
for insertion through the stack wall.
A sma 11 length of gla ss fiber is inserted into the cylinder end of the
tubing to reta in aerosols. Both ends of the traps are fitted with
seals which prevent loss of sample during transport.
Sa mpling Procedure
A. Fully evacuate the cylinders of the sampling units before trans-
porting to the sampling site. Check for leaks.
B. Locate a sampling site that is as free as possible from distortion
or non-uniformity of flow. Normally, the sampling site should
be at least eight stack diameters downstream from any bend,
expansion, contraction or visible flame in the stack or flue,
and at least two diameters upstream from any bend and/or
obstruction (89).
C. Perform velocity and temperature traverses to determine gas flow
rate and temperature variation across the stack at the sampling
site. [If flow or temperature at this site is uniform (less than
10 percent variation) then proceed; if not, locate new samptingsite.]
46
-------
4.25
D.
Check again for possible cylinder leaks. Prepare sampler for
testing by removing a 11 packing plugs (Swagelok cap body hex
and Swagelok male connector nut-hex) and attach probe-trap
assembly to cylinder.
E.
Place trap in steel glass-lined Dewar flask and surround with
slurry of crushed dry ice and tricholoroethylene. Caution
should be exercised so that no packing caps (Swagelok cap nut
hex) contact the slurry in the flask.
Fe
Insert probe into stack, locating probe tip at center of stack.
Seal space around the probe with asbestos tape or other suit-
able material. If duplicate testing is being performed, locate
samplers at a 90-degree angle to each other.
G.
Open need le va lve to approximate an initia 1 flow rate of 20
cc/min.
H.
Employ a 20-minute sampling period or sampling period of not
less than 15 minutes unless otherwise restricted. Note
sample interruptions, if any. In the event of process difficul-
ties, shut sampler off immediately and resume sampling once
process is on stream.
1.
At completion of sampling period, close needle valve securely
and withdraw probe. Plug both ends of probe-trap assembly tightly,
making sure again that no packing caps or plugs contact the
slurry in the Dewar fla s k.
J.
Secure probe-trap assembly by tape or other means to sample
cylinder for transportation to laboratory for analysis.
K.
Repeat procedure for additional samples.
Total Sample Volume
The contents of both the cylinder sample and trap sample must be
quantitatively related to the total volume of gas which constitutes
the sa mple., The latter volume will vary with preva ding temperature
and barometric pressure at the time the sample is taken. The geo-
metric volume of each sample cylinder is known since it is measured
before the cylinder is placed into service.
The chromatograph used for the gas phase analyses is equipped
with a sample injection system in which the sample is introduced
into an evacuated space equipped with a pressure gauge. The
volume of the connection t:) the cylinder valve is variable.
47
-------
The volume of the sample under standard conditions can be conven-
iently obtained by a double expansion from the sample cylinder into
the evacuated sampling system of the chromatograph. The steps
involved are:
1.
The cylinder containing the sample is attached to the samp-
ling system, and the sampling system is evacuated.
2.
The cylinder valve is opened to the sampling system and
the pressure, PI' is read from the sampling system gauge.
3.
The cylinder valve is closed, and the sampling system is
aga in evacuated.
4.
The cyLinder valve is opened again, and the pressure,P2'
is read from the gauge.
S.
The volume of the sa mp ling system, VGC' is obta ined from
the known volume of the sample cyLinder, VC' and the two
pres sure read ings:
IpI - P2_\
VGC = \ P2 1 Vc
The tota 1 quantity of ga s origina lly conta ined in the
sa mple cyL inder is then:
(273.2'
Vstd = (VC + VGC) (PI) T J
6.
where T is the absolute temperature in degrees (oK) of the
sa mple in the room
T(OK) = TRoom in degrees Centigrade (OC) + 273.2 at
the time PI (in atmospheres) is read.
7.
NotethatVc and VGC are geometric volumes, whereas Vstd
is a quantity of gas expressed as the volume of the gas
under standard cond it ions .
4.26
Analysis of the Cylinder Sample
A.
Gas Chromatograph
The chromatograph employed for the analysis of the cylinder
sample is a Perkin-Elmer IS4-C which has been modified to
adapt it to the efficient analysis of gas phase samples. A
flow diagram of the instrument is shown in Figure 10,
(Appendix B).
48
-------
The carrier gas system is manifolded to permit rapid change from
helium to argon (the latter is necessary for samples containing
hydrogen). The inlet pressure is controlled by a sensitive
pressure reducing valve. The absolute flow rate is controlled
by a regulator (Moore, Model 63BU-L) referenced by an up-
stream adjustable impedance (Foxboro). A flow impedance
(laboratory constructed) with a by-pass valve is employed to
damp the small flow oscillations induced by the regulators.
Within the instrument, the carrier gas flows first through the
reference side of the thermal conductivity detector and then
through the sampling valve (shown in the sample injection posi-
tion). From the sampling valve, the carrier gas passes to two
va lves either of which can route the carrier through an attached
chromatographic column. The second column position includes
a third valve which may be used to reverse the carrier flow
direction. From the outlet of the second column position, the
carrier gas flows through the sample detection side of the
therma 1 conductivity detector. Fina lly, from this point, it
flows to a hydrogen flame detector. The latter also requires
hydrogen and compressed air service.
Introduction of a sa mple begins with the va Lve plunger in the
pos itiO:1 a lternate to that in the drawing (i. e., moved to the
right). The two carrier gas lines are then directly cOl'mected
within a single "compartment" of the valve and the sample inlet
line, pressure gauge (the valve to the pressure gauge is normally
open), sample loop and vacuum line (the valve to the vacuum
pump is normally closed) are interconnected. The sample holder
is attached, and the vacuum valve is opened until the gauge
ind icates full pump-d own. The vacuum va lve is closed. Sample
is introduced under the control of the valve on the sample
hold er.
The sa mple is injected by mov ing the s ix-port va lve to the left
position (as shown in Figure 10, Appendix B). The carrier gas
thereupon sweeps the sa mpLe into the chromatograph.
The volume of the sample loop and the two associated valve
compartments have been ca librated (a group of sa mple loops
with effective volumes from 0.250 to 5.000 cc is available).
Since the geometric volume, pressure and temperature (ambient)
of the sample are known, the volume of the sample under stan-
dard cond itions can be ca lculated.
After the sample has been injected into the carrier gas, it is
swept through whichever column has been valved into the flow
49
-------
pattern. The components of the sample elute from the column,
separated according to specific retardations that the column
effects.
The column effluent next passes through the sample side of the
therma 1 conductivity detector (Perkin-Elmer No. 154-1009). This
detector employs thermistors as the sensing elements. It has
been mounted in a very stable thermostat held at 320C. At this
temperature the sensitivity is excellent (circa 2 x 104 mv-ml/mg).
Power for the thermal conductivity bridge circuit is provided by
a Video Instruments Company, Inc. voltage regulated supply
Model SR-200 EM to which has been added an external LC filter.
The thermistors of the therma 1 conductivity detector are two legs
of a simple, conventiona 1 bridge which includes ba lanc ing
potentiometers.
The signal from the thermal conductivity detector is fed to an
Infotronics Model GRS-11 AB/HS Integrator with d igita 1 output.
From the integra tor, the signa 1 is returned to a Leed sand
Northrup 1 mv full scale recorder with a binary attenuator.
After passing through the TC detector, the carrier gas and sample
components are led through a surge-damping va lve to a Perkin-
Elmer Model 154-0410 hydrogen flame ionization detector. The
signal from this detector is conducted first to its electrometer,
then to the Infotronics integrator and fina lly to the recorder.
In general, the print-out of the integrator is used for quantita-
tive ana lyses. The recorder trace is used primarily to follow
the course of the analyses while they are in progress.
B.
Cyl inder Contents
The cylinder contains the components of the stack gas which at
their particular partial pressures are not condensed at dry ice
temperature. These include the nitrogen, oxygen, argon and
trace gases of the atmosphere, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon
dioxide (C02) and methane. It will also contain vapors of
organic compounds which were not condensed by the cold trap.
The Los Angeles APCD requires analysis for the carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, methane and "organics" which are present in
the cylinder gas.
50
-------
C.
Ana lytica 1 Procedure
When earlier work was done, the least satisfactory of the pro-
cedures developed for analyzing stack gas samples was for the
organics in the cylinder samples. The ana lys is requires a revers-
al of the direction in which the carrier gas flows through the
chromatographic column. If the revers a 1 is omitted there can be
no assurance that detection is complete. However, intolerable
base-line displacements frequently occurred when the column
in use was reversed. A satisfactory analysis was achieved by
a change in column geometry. The 19-1/2 feet x 1/4 inch column
packed with Poropak Q which is specified in the Los Angeles
APCD procedure (87) was shortened to 6 feet. This was possible
since the determination of carbon monoxide (CO) is now being
made in the laboratory by a separate injection on a 5 Angstrom
unit (R) molecular sieve column. Reversal of the shorter Poropak
Q column induces a base-line disturbance which is acceptable.
For the analysis of the cylinder sample, two columns are mounted
on the chromatograph. At position No. I, a 4 feet x 1/4 inch
stainless steel column packed with 19.7 g. 40/50 mesh sf?
molecular sieve adjusted to 3 w/w percent water content is
attached. At position No.2, a 6 feet x 1/4 inch stainless steel
column containing 14 g. 80/100 mesh Poropak Q which has been
degassed under vacuum at 1600C is attached. Both columns are
operated at ambient temperature.
The separation on the Poropak Q column is carried out first.
This column is valved into the carrier gas flow with the molecu-
lar sieve column by-passed. The sample which remains in the
4 ml sample loop after the determination of tota l sample volume
(see section 4.25 on "Total Sample Volume") is injected into the
chromatograph. With the hydrogen flame detector activated, the
methane peak is the first to be detected and integrated. This
peak is incompletely separated from CO but the latter elicits no
response from the flame detector.
Detection is then shifted to the thermal conductivity detector
for the elution of the C02 peak. For samples taken downstream
from an afterburner, which contain high C02 content, a separate
analysis is made using a smaller sample.
The direction of carrier gas flow through the Poropa k Q column
is reversed immediately after the C02 has eluted, and detection
is shifted back to the hydrogen fla me detector. This configura-
tion is maintained throughout the elution of "organics" and until
the recorder has returned to base-line.
51
-------
4.27
CO is measured by a separate analysis in which the molecular
sieve column is valved into the carrier flow path and the Poropak
Q column is by-passed. The CO is detected with the therma 1
cond uctivity detector.
Calibration of the hydrogen flame detector is made with methane
and of the thermal conductivity detector with CO and C02 respec-
tively.
Analysis of the Trap Sample
A.
Instrumentation
The measurement of the trap contents is executed with an Aero-
graph Model 204-1B gas chromatograph with an Infotronics
Model CRS-11 AB/HS integrator interfaced between the electro-
meter a nd the recorder. This instrument provid es a grea ter
dynamic range of operation plus added convenience in accommo-
dating trap length than a chromatograph originally used in GATF's
stud y.
Only one of the dual hydrogen flame detectors is used for the
ana lyses (there is no column "bleed" which requires ba lancing).
The trap is mounted external to the oven of the chromatograph.
A short length of 1/8 inch stainless steel tubing is connected
at the norma 1 inlet to the detector and I by appropriate bend ing,
brought out of the oven to one side. The short horizonta 1 run
of the trap is attached to it with a tubing union. Helium at
20 ml/min from the flow control system of the chromatograph is
introduced at the end of the long horizontal run of the trap by
means of 0.070 inchO.D. Teflon tubing.
The trap is heated by low voltage-high amperage current passed
directly through the 1/8 inch stainless steel tubing from which
the trap is constructed. The current is supplied from a 0.55 kw
110:17 stepdown transformer which is powered from a 2 kva
varia ble a utotra nsformer.
B.
Analytical Procedure
The procedure for an analysis starts with immersion of the coiled
section of the trap in dry ice-trichloroethylene until the sample
is fully condensed. Without withdrawing the trap from the
refrigerant, the two caps are removed from the trap and it is
"spliced" into the helium flow pattern. The temperature of the
trap is then increased step-wise, first by exchange of the dry
ice for ord inary ice a nd then by ra is ing the e lectrica 1 power
52
-------
4.28
input. The rate of vaporization must not exceed a Linear detec-
tion rate.
For ca 1 ibration of the detector, 10 microliters (.i-1.1) of n- heptane
is placed in a trap and frozen with dry ice. It is injected into
the chromatograph in the same manner as a sample except that
the trap temperature is not raised above -160C (initially OOC,
see Addendum, PML 71-40 and 72-229, Appendix F). The delivery
from the syringe has been tested gravimetrically and is better
than + 2 percent. The 10 microliter injection of n-heptane is
equiva lent to 10.65 ml C02. The integrated output from the
hydrogen flame detector is about 35,000 Kilo counts/ml equiva-
lent C02.
C.
Trap Contents
In reporting the trap analyses, an arbitrary distinction is made
between "low boilers" and" high boilers". The "low boilers"
consist of the total integrated signal obtained while the trap
temperature is allowed to rise to ambient temperature (refriger-
ated in dry ice first, followed by ordinary ice, and finally warmed
to ambient temperature). The "high boilers" cons ist of the tota 1
integrated signal obtained during the electrical heating of the
trap above ambient to approximately 2500C.
Cylinder and Probe-Trap Maintenance
A method for cleaning and general maintenance of the GATF stack
samples prior to re-use is as follows:
A.
Cylinders
1. Evacuate cylinders on a high vacuum system.
2. Flush cylinders with three volumes of dry air.
3. Heat cylinders with a hot air gun (Heat-Blo Model 750X)
while flus hing with three volumes of dry air.
4. Evacuate cylinders until a maximum pressure of 0.1 micron
is obta ined in the vacuum sys tem manifold.
C lose the need le va Ives of the cylinders.
Record the read ings of the cylinder vacuum ga uge read ings.
Compare the vacuum gauge readings after 48 hours with
the recorded read ings to determine if lea kage is occurring.
5.
6.
7.
B.
Stack Probe-Trap (or probes)
1. Rinse the probes with 50 ml of perchloroethylene in a venti-
la ted hood.
2. Pass nitrogen through the probes at the rate of 70 ml/min
unt il dry.
53
-------
4.29
3.
Continue the nitrogen flow, and heat the probes by passing
a low voltage-high amperage current (other heating methods
can be used) directly through them, increasing the voltage
to yield, approximately, 800C temperature rise increments
within at least ten minute time interva ls until a fina 1 tempera-
ture of 2500C is reached.
Rinse the probe's body hex capping sections three times
with perchloroethylene in a ventilated hood, and then dry at
120oC.
4.
Cylinder leakage usually occurs at threaded connections or from
scored needle valves. A "Comco" teflon pipe thread seal (available
from Commercial Plastics, 2022 Chateau Street, Pittsburgh, Pa.
15233, $1.65 per 1/2 in x 540 in roll) has been found very effective
in eliminating thread connection leaks. Other commercially avail-
able thread sealing means (i.e., silver solder, etc.) can also be
used.
The probe's end-seals (Swagelok caps) must be inspected after each
use. Due to over tightening of the probe's Swagelok caps, "crimping"
or "necking" of the 1/8 inch stainless steel probe tubing directly
ahead or under the front ferrule of the Swagelok cap, or stretching
and splitting of the Swagelok cap's body hex may occur,and leakage
of probe-trap contents during or after sampling can result.
Another organic solvent, depend ing upon the stack probed and materia 1
sampled, may be substituted in the probe-trap rinsing process. If
available, ultrasonic cleaning of the probe-trap can also be used.
The cleaned sampler units, probe-traps and cylinders, should be
subjected to periodic instrumental analysis to check for possible
contamination. The frequency of analysis would, of course, depend
upon the total sampling time involvement, sampling environment,
and material sampled. In our studies, sampling units are checked
every fourth or fifth cleaning.
The stack probes and cylinders are always identified by a numbered
tag, and a service record for each sampler unit component part is
ma inta ined.
Cost Analysis
Representative cost data for both the GATF sampling equipment and
analytical time and instrumentation are presented in this section.
A sampler unit (or "unit") is defined here as a sampler cylinder with
fittings plus the probe-trap assembly. Where possible, equipment
suppliers are indicated.
54
-------
TA BLE 3
Component Cost of GATF Sampling and Support Apparatus
A
Part
1. Angle type needle
va Ive (Idea 1)
2. Swage lok, ma le
connector, brass
3. Swagelok Caps (2),
bra s s
4. Whitey cylinder, type
304-SS (300 cc)
5. 1/4 in-1/8 in Hex re-
ducing nipple
6. U.S. Vacuum Gauge
(0-30 in) 2-1/2 in
dia. 1/4 in male NPT
7. Stainless steel seam-
less tubing, 1/8 in O. D.
0.020 wall (25 ga),
1 piece 60 in long
Tota l
B
1. Support stand apparatus
2 . C ha in c la mp
3. C la mp holder
4. Clamp versatile
5. Flask (thermos, steel
Dewar), pint capacity
T ota l
*Rounded off to nearest dollar
Cost/Unit*
Supplier
7.00
Dietrich and Associate
90 C la irton Bou leva rd
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15236
1. 00
Pittsburgh Valve and Fitting Co.
49 Mead Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15202 (Bellevue)
1. 00
Pittsburgh Valve and Fitting Co.
49 Mead Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15202 (Bellevue)
22.00
Pittsburgh Valve and Fitting Co.
49 Meade Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15202 (Bellevue)
1. 00
Pittsburgh Valve and Fitting Co.
49 Meade Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15202 (Bellevue)
4.00
Lappe Supply Company
855 - 24th Street
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15203
4.00
Williams & Company
901 Pennsylvania Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15233
40.00
4.00
Fisher Scientific Company
A Ipha Drive
Pit t s burg h, P a . 15 2 3 8
5.00
1. 00
3.00
18.00
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
31. 00
55
-------
A.
The Sa mpler
The component cost of the GATF field sampling unit as described
in thi.s report is shown in Table 3A. Table 3B shows the cost of
the total sampler unit support apparatus. The procurement of the
components and their assembly was undertaken by GATF. The
construction time for one sampler unit is approximately 0.5 man-
hours.
B.
Sa mple Ana lyses
The cost of cylinder calibration and leak-testing is shown for
four sets of cylinders in Table 4, contingent upon the fact that
appropriate vacuum equipment for surface area determinations
was available for use.
TABLE 4
Cost of Cylinder Calibration and Leak Test
Average Time Average Cost
Cyl inder per per
in set Cylinder Cylinder
(N 0 .) (hrs) ($)
6 1. 75 30.80
2 2.5 44.00
10 1. 45 25.52
8 1. 38 24.29
Average/cylinder 1. 58 27.78
The cost of analysis for a single stack sample has varied over
a range of about 25 percent. For the analysis of stack gas
samples, the set-up time including instrument calibration is
significant. Sets of seven to eight samples tend to a minimum
since they can be analyzed with a single set-up and instrument
calibration. The total organic content of the traps is a time
controlling factor since the hydrogen flame detector has an
upper concentration limit for linear response. The separation
of the trap contents into high and low boilers extends the
analytical time. The time for cylinder and trap maintenance
prior to reuse has also varied somewhat depending upon the
na ture of the previous stack sa mples.
Average costs for web offset sample analyses are listed in
Table 5. Each entry shows the average cost of analysis and the
average cost of an analysis plus the maintenance of the trap
and cylinder.
56
-------
The bas ic laboratory rate was found to be $11. 00 per man- hour plus
60 percent overhead, or a total of $17.60 per man-hour.
TABLE 5
Average Costs for Web Offset Sample Analyses
Hours per Cost per
Sa mpler Unit Sampler Unit
($)
Uncontrolled Web Offset
Analysis 2.60 45.76
Analysis and maintenance 3.31 58.26
Uncontrolled Web Offset
Analysis 3.18 55.97
Ana lys is and maintenance 3.83 67.41
Controlled Web Offset
Ana lys is 3.55 62.48
Ana lys is and ma intenance 4.11 72.34
Controlled Web Offset
Ana lys is 3.37 59.31
Ana lys is and ma intenance 3.89 68.46
Average: Uncontrolled Web Offset
Analysis 2.89
,Analysis and maintenance 3.57
50.86
62.83
Average: Controlled Web Offset
Analysis 3.46
Analysis and maintenance 4.00
60.90
70.40
Note:
The uncontrolled web offset trap samples were not
separated into high and low boilers (estimated additional
analytical time about one man-hour at an additional cost
of -$17. 60) wherea s the controlled tra p sa mp les were.
C.
Gas Chromatography
The two chromatographs which have been used for analysis of
the stack samples are fully described in the previous sections.
As this report indicates, the two commercial instruments have
been sign ifica n tly mod ified .
57
-------
4.3
4.4
The present cos t of commerc ia 1 chromatographs ra nge from a bout
$3,000 to $12,000. In generaL ancillary equipment will be
required. A chemist experienced in gas chromatography ca n
probably set up a facility to duplicate the procedures we are using
at a cost of $20,000 + $5,000.
D.
Summary
The average sampler unit cost including all component sampling
equipment and analyses and maintenance time is $136.00. This
figure does not represent GATF component procurement and sampler
construction time nor the sampler unit support apparatus.
Appraisal and Summary
The field sampling equipment is not cumbersome and is very rugged.
It avoids the hazard always present with evacuated glassware. The
stainless steel gas cylinder and the tube fittings, although expensive,
are justified by the reduced labor cost of assembly (0.5 man-hours).
The time for analysis of sampler content is relatively short (3 to 4 man-
hours) and compares favorably to other methods. The response of the
hydrogen flame detector is more affected by chemical composition
than is an infrared detector. However, the flame detector is insen-
sitive to moderate flow rate changes whereas the response of the
infrared detector is inverse ly proportiona 1 to flow rate.
Experimenta 1
4.41 Introduction and Summary
A laboratory test was performed to insure proper operation of the grab
samplers and to eva luate the accuracy of the method. Known hydrocarbon
concentrations were found to be in excellent agreements with experi-
menta lly mea sured va lues. Under laboratory conditions the sampling
and analytical techniques were shown to be accurate. It was deter-
mined that a twenty-minute sampling period using an initial flow rate
of 20 cc/min was suitable in providing adequate trap sample cooling
time.
EPA personnel conducted isokinetic sampling at a web offset plant,
attempting to determine if the exhaust stream contained significant
amounts of particulates (condensed organics) which would invalidate
the use of grab sampling techniques. (Isokinetic sampling occurs when
the gas stream velocity entering the sampling nozzle equals the stack
gas velocity immediately surrounding the nozzle.) If the stack exhaust
contained sizable particulates or condensed matter, isokinetic sampling
58
-------
would be necessary to obtain a representative sample. Problems
incurred during this test with non-uniform velocity profiles and an or-
ganics concentration gradient along with problems in the ana lytica 1
work, make specific conclusions difficult. However, results from this
test along with the repeatability of grab samples, lack of condensation
on probes inserted into the stacks, and duplicate samples obtained with
probe oriented in various directions, indicate that particulates (if
present) are not large or numerous enough to rule out grab sampling
methods. At the same time, the limited study conducted under this
program, suggests that the use of presently available isokinetic samp-
ling tra in in the graphic arts industry requires further investigation.
The GATF grab sampling and analytical methods previously described
were used to conduct a large number of field tests from web offset
and meta 1 decorating plants. A Ithough flow rates and emissions from
these operations are relatively constant for a given job, considerable
variation existed between dryers, ovens, and jobs. Table 6 summar-
izes the ranges of data obtained during the study.
TABLE 6
Range of Analytical Results from Samples of
Web Offset and Meta l Decorating Processes
Range of Values
T ota l
Operation Flow Rate Organics CO C02 CH4
(scfm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Web Offset* 14 00- 9300 2- 2 641 n.d.-711 2105-42453 1-246
Meta 1 Decorating** 9 00- 74 00 1-21684 n.d.-1259 321-43629 7-1733
*Includes samples from the operation of the dryer only, and from
paper, coated and uncoated, passing through the dryer without
printing.
**Includes samples from the operation of the oven only.
4.42
Preliminary Studies
A.
fiLLing of Cylinders
A flowmeter capable of measuring rates between 0 and 90 cc/min
was used to monitor the fiLLing of sample cylinders under vacuum.
The object was to determine the initial rate necessary to provide
a filling time of 15 and 20 minutes. It was found that with an
initial flowmeter reading of 36.75 cc/min aLL cylinders tested
fiLLed within 15 minutes, and with an initia l flowmeter read ing
of 20 cc/min, the cyl inders tested filled in 20 minutes. Va lve
settings were notched on the cylinders for reference in the field.
59
-------
Figures 11 and 12 (Appendix B) show the relationship between
gauge pressure and time,and were used in the field to monitor
filling.
A plot of flow rate versus time, (Figures 13 and 14, Appendix B)
made for a IS-minute sampling period, showed that 49 percent
of the sample was collected during the first five minutes, 35.9
percent during the next five, and 15.1 percent during the last
five minutes. When a 20-minute sampling time was used, 56
percent was collected during the first seven minutes, 33 percent
during the next seven minutes, and 11 percent during the last
six minutes.
For four samplers, pressure and flow rate readings were taken
after eight minutes filling time. The results are tabulated below
(Table 7):
TABLE 7
Pressure and Flow Rate Reading for Four Samplers
After Eight- Minutes Filling Time
Cylinder
No.
:r
2
3
4
Filling Gage
Time Pres sure Flowmeter
(min) (in) (cc/min)
8 6.2 4.0
8 6.5 4.0
8 6.5 4.0
8 6.2 4.0
It can be seen that for the cylinders tested, filling character-
istics are essentia lly constant.
B.
Temperature of Probe
In the initial sampling method, it was necessary to heat that
section of the probe which was not inserted into the stack (see
Figure 3, Appendix B) in order to preclude condensation of
vapors. The exposed length of probe was wrapped with a flexi-
heating tape and controlled by a variable transformer (Variac).
The Variac was calibrated by plotting dial setting (volts)
aga inst a ir temperature ins ide the probe. Temperatures were
measured with a chromel-alumel thermocouple. A plot of
Variac setting versus temperature is given in Figure 15
(A ppend ix B).
During the initial course of this study, since condensible material
was found collecting in the probe despite the use of the heating
tape during sampling, the use of the heating tape was discontinued
and the stack probe and trap were constructed from a single piece
of tubing a llowing the simultaneous ana lysis of both the trap and
probe.
60
-------
4.5
Preliminary Field Studies
A.
Plant Test Code No. MD-P-l
On January 19, 1971 the first sample was obtained under the
Phase II contra9t. This, in conjunction with planned future
samples, were to be used to assess the effectiv~ness of our
chromatographic technique as applied to metal decorating
emiss ions. Sufficient plant data to cha racterize the process
under study was obtained. This is given in Appendix E, MD-P-l.
A sample of exhaust from the coating line was collected at
about 2:00 pm. The sampling unit was mounted in a ring stand
and secured with clamps. The entire assembly was then posi-
tioned on the equipment carrying case such that the probe lined
up with an existing hole in the stack. This sampling site was
free of any flow distortion and appeared to follow good sampling
location principles.
The probe was inserted so that the tip was situated approximately
in the center of the stack. The heating tape, which surrounded
that section of the probe exposed to the air, was heated for ten
minutes at 5000F, prior to drawing the sample. As an expedient
mea sure, the trap wa s immersed in dry ice. It wa s noted that
dry ice should be taken into the field when there is any doubt
as to its availability near the site.
Ambient temperature at the testing site was OOF with a 15-mile
per hour wind effectively producing a wind-chill factor on the
order of -10 to -200F.
Because of a brief interruption in the coating operation, it was
necessary to collect the sample in two stages, of three and
seven minutes duration respectively, two minutes between the
two periods. Thus, the 10-minute sampling time consumed
twelve minutes.
Sample MD-P-l was analyzed by gas chromatography for CH4'
CO, C02 and tota 1 organics. The results are a 1so given in
Appendix E, MD-P-l. It should be noted that an error in an
equation used by CMUPML in calculating results has decreased
the reported calculated total sample volume and increased cal-
culated organic content presented on the data sheets in Appendix
E (see PML-72-24, Appendix F, for extent of change).
B.
Plant Test Code No. I-MD
In order to gain familiarity with the original testing equipment
and to insure the adequacy of sampling and analyticaL procedures,
61
-------
preliminary field tests were conducted at a metal decorating
plant. Information was obtained on coating thickness, solvent
composition, production rate, emission velocities and tempera-
tures, etc. Five samples were collected and analyzed for CO,
CH4' C02' and total organics. For two of the three coating
processes studied, flow rates were calculated in actual cubic
feet per minute and then standard ized.
Duplicate sets of samples were obtained from the metal decor-
ating plant. One set was sent to Cal-Colonial Laboratories in
California for analysis and the other set was analyzed by
Carnegie-Mellon Institute Physical Measurements Laboratory
(CMUPML) in Pittsburgh, Pa. Comparisons were made between
the reported results of the samples from these two laboratories.
Certain difficulties were encountered in the sampling procedure,
and some mod ifications appeared warranted at that time. Although
it was tentatively concluded that the analytical technique em-
ployed by CMUPML could give precise results, further testing
was necessary.
The results of this source test, along with background informa-
tion on the plant and process, including the original report from
Ca l-Colonia 1 and C MUPML, are given in Append ix E (refer to
Plant Code No. 1-MD). Again, an error in the equation used by
CMUPML in calculating results has decreased reported sample
volume and increa sed ca lculated organic content (see PML-
72-24, Appendix F for extent of change).
The data on Sheets #3-ECD-A and B (Appendix E) suggest that
certa in unexpected complications are present in the sa mpling
method, at least for metal decorating emissions. These merit
some discussion.
MD-P-2 and MD-P-3 were collected simultaneously using a
single probe. The probe was securely wound with heating tape,
o
and was heated to a temperature of 215 C as measured under
static laboratory conditions (see Figure 15, AppendixB). Con-
sidering the solvents used in this process, it was expected
that the temperature would be sufficient to preclude condensa-
tion of vapor in the probe. Examination of the results of
MD- P- 2 a ndMD- P- 3 , however, showed that a total of 1414
ppm organics condensed in the probe. It was, ther~fore, con-
cluded that it would be necessary to include the probe in all
future sample concentration determinations.
MD-P-3 gave a much higher trap analysis than did MD-P-2.
This wa s attributed to a bia s in the sampling configuration,
62
-------
favoring MD- P- 3. A schematic of the two sa mples, a ttached to
a common probe through a modified "T" is shown in Figure 16,
Appendix B. It was decided that any additional duplicate samples
would be collected us ing separate probes.
In both sets of duplicate samples, Cal-Colonial reported con-
s idera bly higher cylinder concentrations than C MUPML. Com-
pare, for example, a cylinder organic concentration of 278 in
MD-P-4 with one of 7.0 ppm in MD-P-3. Since the practice at
Cal-Colonial Laboratories is to heat the cylinder prior to injec-
tion of sample into the gas chromatograph, it appeared that the
low va lues obta ined cy C MUPML resulted from fa ilure to vapor-
ize the condensate. The discrepancy between the two analyses
meant that all of the high boiling components were not being
caught in the trap. To remedy this, it would have been necessary
to resort either to a longer trap or to a trap which ha s been packed
with high surface area material, or to C1 lower trap temperature.
It is known that a sample rich in oxygenated compounds, when
subjected to analysis via flame ionization detection, tends to
give low results unless put through oxidation (C02) and reduc-
tion (CH4) stages prior to detection. It seemed likely, therefore,
that analyses obtained from CMUPML would be lower (although
perhaps not significantly so) than those obtained from Cal-
Colonial. Comparison of trap samples for MD-P-4 and MD-P-5
shows that this was not the case. Tentatively, then, it was
concluded that the analytical method employed by CMUPML was
sufficiently accurate to warrant its continued use.
C.
Plant Test Code No. 1-WO
A preliminary field test was conducted at a web offset plant to gain
familiarity with the web offset process and to insure the adequacy
of sampling and analytical procedures as applied to this process.
Ten samples were collected and analyzed for CO, CH4' C02' and
total organics. The results of this test are given in Appendix D,
1-WO, along with background information about the plant and about
the specific graphic operations involved. (Please note error in
reported total sample volume and calculated organic contents,
PML 72-24, AppendixF-)
Samples No. 11 and No. 12 (see Data Sheet #3-ECD-A, Appendix D)
were collected a s duplicates and sent to different laboratories.
Of interest here is the discrepancy between the two analyses.
For the cylinder concentration, CMUPML reports 4 ppm, Cal-
Colonial reports 120 ppm. The difference, as previously sug-
gested, is apparently due to the fact that Cal-Colonial heats
the cylinder prior to ana lys is wherea s C MUPML does not. It
was also stated that a solution to this problem was the use of a
63
-------
more efficient packed condensible collection trap to insure
against carry-over of condensibles into the cylinder.
Trap concentrations reported by the two laboratories are compar-
able but a wide d iscrepa ncy exists between probe concentrations.
The va lue obta ined by C MUPML is seven times greater tha n the
Cal-Colonial results. One possible explanation for this differ-
ence was that although the probe itself was heated to an esti-
mated 2500C in the Cal-Colonial analytical method, a short
section of capillary connecting the probe to the chromatograph
was maintained at a considerably lower temperature. It seems
likely that the high boilers in the probe condense out on this
relatively low temperature surface and are, therefore, not de-
tected by the Cal-Colonial method.
Samples Nos. 9 and 10 were also collected as duplicates and
sent to different la boratories. The results and conc Ius ions are
comparable to those given above.
Samples Nos. 7 and 8,collected over a 5-second and 5-minute
intervaL respectively, and Nos. 6 and 3, collected over a 0.5-
minute and 1.0- minute time interva I, respective ly, ind icated
that sampling time may be a factor in reported results. Varia-
tion in tota 1 organics with time could be attributed to increased
carry-over of undetected condens ibles into the cylinder at faster
sampling rates. This could be remedied by using a more effi-
ciently pa cked condens ible collection trap.
In samples Nos. 4 and 5, only paper was flowing through the
press. As expected, organic values were low. In sample No.4,
both C02 and organic (trap) concentrations appeared anoma lous.
The anomaly was explained by the presence of a leak detected in
the soldered joint of the sampler.
Samples Nos. 3 and 6 were taken with the oven on and no paper
flowing. Organic values are the lowest of any of the tests con-
d ucted.
Based upon the preceding discussion, conclusions, and results
from MD-P-l, 1-MD and 1-WO field tests, and considering the
carry-over of condensible portions of the gas sample into the
sampling cylinder, several possible corrective actions were
decided upon. First, trap length then set at 24 inches could be
lengthened to 36 inches; the trap tube diameter of 1/8 inch could
be increased to accommodate 1/4 inch tubing; packing of the
trap could be employed if needed; the trap could be immersed
in dry ice-Methyl Cellosolve or trichloroethylene as opposed to
64
-------
just crushed dry ice, and finally, the probe could be considered
as part of the trap during analysis.
It was decided to pack the 1/8 inch trap with glass wool and
ceramic beading and to consider the trap and probe as a single
unit for analysis since condensible material was collecting in
the probe despite the use of a heating tape during sampLing. The
use of the heating tape was discontinued, and by following this
recommended procedure, the need to analyze the probe and trap
separately was eLiminated.
With regards to the relative comparability of analytical resul,ts
from the two independent la boratories (C MUPML, Ca l-Coloma 1),
assuming both received similar samples and assuming that samp-
ling procedures employed were as uniform and consistent as
possible, it could be expected that reasonable agreement would
occur between laboratories for measured quantities of gases in
excess of 100 ppm and that sma ller quantities (in the range of
30 ppm) might show significant deviation. However, considering
the type of analysis required in this study and the fact that no
established standards existed upon which to base the analysis,
no conclus ions could be determined.
D.
Plant Test Code No. 2-WO
Modifications developing from previous preliminary plant tests
were employed, and plant tests conducted under code No. 2-WO
were used to explore the effects of these mod ifications on the
sampling results. Twelve samples were collected from two web
offset presses having direct flame drying on April 12, 13, 14, 15,
1971. The samples were analyzed for CO, CH4, C02 and total
organics. The results of this test are presented in Appendix D,
2-WO. (Please note error in reported total sample volume and
calculated organic contents, PML 72-24, Appendix F.)
The following samples were collected in duplicate: Nos. 1 and
13; 3 and 12; 2 and 14; 6 and 10. The data for No.2 is invali-
dated by the fact that the glass-lined Dewar flask containing dry
ice and the sampler trap wa s found broken. The low va lue is
probably due to organic carry-over into the cylinder.
Samples Nos. 4 and 8 were collected simultaneously. In No.4
the front of the probe was oriented perpendicular to the gas
stream, and in No.3, it was parallel (e.g., the circular cross-
section of the probe was parallel and perpendicular, respectively,
to the effluent gas stream lines). Since the difference between
results are no greater than those differences already reported,
and taking into consideration gas stream turbulence possibilities,
65
-------
various sampling biases that may result from different probe
orientations, and general efficiency of field sampling procedures,
it was decided that a straight probe (perpendicular to the gas
stream) would be preferable to a bent configuration (parallel to
the gas stream). Later conversations with Dr. J. D. Carruthers
of Ambassador College Press, Pasadena, California, further sub-
stantiated this final decision on probe configuration.
Samples taken from the operation of the dryer only (Nos. 14 and
15) did not show significant reduction in emission rate. This
was particularly true in the case of No. 14 which should be com-
pared with Nos. 3 and 12. It seemed possible that the results
were due to a high residual concentration of condensed organics
on the walls of the stack. It should be noted that methane
values for Press A are lower than Press B, suggesting that in the
Press A dryer more efficient mixing of air and fuel resulted in
better combustion.
Samples Nos. 6 and 10 had glass beads in their traps along with
the glass wool normally used, and the analytical results indi-
cated that the traps packed with glass wool functioned as effi-
ciently as those packed with the additional glass beads.
4.6
Stack Simulator Study
A stack simulator experiment wa s performed inclus ive of a complete
mass balance to ascertain the effectiveness of our sampling and ana-
lytica 1 methods. This experiment is described in deta il in Append ix F,
reports dated July 27,1971 and May 1, 1972, investigation No.PML-
71-17.
Genera lly, in the pre liminary experiment a large volume of astatic
mixed gas sample was prepared containing known volumes of air,
methane, butane, and cyclohexane at atmospheric pressure and
a mbient temperature. The air, methane and butane concentrations
were determined in advance. The methane concentration approximated
that encountered in previously sampled web offset printing operations
utilizing heatset inks. The cyclohexane concentration corresponded
to the equilibrium vapor concentrations at the ambient conditions. In
later studies water pumped nitrogen was substituted for the air,
methane, butane carrier gas. Samples of the emission were collected
at various filling rates using the same GATF apparatus as employed in
the fie ld .
The overall objectives of the tests were to determine: (1) the effi-
ciency of the trap using sampling periods ranging from five to thrity
minutes, and (2) the accuracy of the analytical method.
66
-------
Analysis of the trap samples from the first stack simulator tests indi-
cated that during the two-hour sampling period the concentration of
cyclohexane in the gas stream was increasing as a function of time.
Since the s imula tor wa s obvious ly not functioning properly these
initial trap results were invalidated and more experimental data was
needed.
Several other tests were run to establish that the measured quantity
of cyclohexane in the trap actually equaled that delivered. However,
it was not until a modification in design was introduced that a cyclo-
hexa ne ba la nce c ou ld be obta ined .
In the finally utilized test analysis, the average total hydrocarbon
content as C02 of the sampling apparatus, 0.5210 + 0.0032 V/V%,
was compared with the calculated hydrocarbon content, 0.535 + 0.016
V/V%; and it was found to be within a standard deviation of th~ cal-
culated hydrocarbon content of the flow in the stack simulator.
4.7
Comparison of Isokinetic Sampling With GATF Integrated Grab Sampling
4.71 Introd uction
In order to further substantiate that the GATF integrated grab sampling
technique was reliable and to determine if possibly the exhaust stream
contained significant amounts of particulates (condensed organics)
which would invalidate the use of grab sampling techniques, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that.GATF conduct an experi-
ment to compare GATF' s method of sampling with the widely-used and
commonly accepted method of isokinetic sampling. Isokinetic samp-
ling is recommended (proportiona 1 sampling is required) when the gas
flow rate and pollution output rate is not steady, and required when
the gas stream contains particulates or condensed matter (e.g. hydro-
carbons in either a solid or liquid state). Isokinetic sampling is a
sampling condition established when the velocity of the gas stream
entering the sampling probe or nozzle equals the stack gas velocity
immediately surrounding the probe or nozzle.
EPA 's emis sion testing branch wa s of the opinion that isokinetic
sampling might be necessary for the graphic arts industry, and there-
fore, was desirous of evaluating the method. A comparison test was
planned in which both integrated grab samples and isokinetic samples
would be collected from a web offset emission source. Therefore, two
samples were taken isokinetically in the field at one source with a
modified impinger train to 1) see if the results from those samples and
ones obtained concurrently with the GATF method were of the same
order of maqnitude, and to: 2) try to determine if the results indicated
that any organics were being emitted in the form of particulates at
that particular source under the particular set of operating conditions
in effect at the time of sampling.
67
-------
4.72 Experimenta 1
A.
Sampling and Analysis of a Web Offset Emission Using the
Isokinetic Method (by EPA Personnel)
On June 23, two samples were collected isokinetically at a web
offset plant by three representatives of the Emissions Source
Testing Division of EPA. The objective, again, was to determine
whether or not isokinetically collected samples yielded results
comparable to those obtained using the GATF procedure, a constant
volume controlled variable rate method, and whether, perhaps,
any organics were being emitted as particulates (solid or condensed
liquid) at the source and under the process conditions being evalu-
ated. Each isokinetic sampling apparatus consisted essentially of
three components: (1) a probe with a 1/8" button- hook probe tip,
(2) a series of four Greenburg-Smith impingers immersed in a dry
ice-trichloroethylene slurry, (3) a GATF gas sampler (placed in
series after the fourth impinger) to gauge efficiency of collection
of the impingers.
For the two isokinetic sa mples, three equa 1 area s were utilized
in the 32-inch diameter stack, and samples were collected at six
points from two locations 90 degrees to each in the duct. The
samples, therefore, covered 12 collection points each of five-
minutes duration, or a total 50-minutes sampling time.
The components were delivered to CMUPML immediately after
collection. It should be noted that there were at least five
interruptions during collection of the first isokinetic sample due
to web breaks, bearing failure, and register problems. The
second sample was collected in one hour without interruption.
Upon delivery of the samples to CMUPML, the condensed phase
was transferred by passing nitrogen through the impingers over
a trap immersed into liquid nitrogen. Although most of the con-
densed phase was transferred into the trap, an oily residue
rema ined in the impingers. This was eventua lly removed us ing
a volatile organic solvent, and then analyzed.
The ana lytica 1 method used in determining organic content of
these isokinetic samples was reported by CMUPML and is pre-
sented in Appendix F (PML-71-23) along with an analysis report
of the GATF samples ta ken at the exit port of the isokinetic
sampling train (PML-71-223). EPA data and calculation sheets
are a Iso included in Append ix F. A summary of the results is
presented in Ta ble 8.
B.
Sampling and Analvsis of Web Offset Emission Using the GATF
Method
While isokinetic sampling was in progress on June 23, 1971,
three samples were obtained using the GATF method. Each
58
-------
sample was collected over a 30-minute period, using an initial
flow rate of 15 cc/min. In all cases, the probe was positioned
accurately at the center of the stack perpendicular to the gas
flow. The trap was immersed in a slurry of dry ice-trichloroethy-
lene to insure adequate cooling.
TABLE 8
Analytical Results (Isokinetic Sampling)
Cylinder No.
Date Collected
1
6/23
2
6/23
GATF Cylinder Content
CO
C02
CH4
(ppm as C02)
0.00 0.00
5093 4879
16 16
9 12
204 72
821* 1287*
1034 1371
Organics
GATF Trap Organics (ppm)
EPA Trap Organics (ppm)
Tota 1 Organics
*Calculated assuming that the reported organics had an average molecu-
lar weight equal to n-heptane, and therefore, C7H16 + 11 02 =
7C02 + 8 H20. Total volume of dry gas sample No.1 is 18.57 scf
(standard cubic feet) and of dry gas sample No.2 is 22.01 scf [both
at 700F (21oC) and 29.92 in Hg (latm pressure)] .
On the following day, June 24, 1971, duplicate samples were
collected under conditions identical with those above. A total of
five sa mples were obtained on the process under study.
A report on the analysis of the five stack gas samples are presented
in Appendix F (PML-71-222), and is summarized in Table 9.
The precision of the method based upon four samples (one sample
was invalidated due to a power failure at time of the sampling)
seemed adequate for determinations of total organics in web offset
emission studies. Organic concentrations in the cylinder were
low, and indicated that essentially all of the condensible organics
were being retained in the trap.
The amount of organic material collected during this test was
higher than samples collected at this same location by GATF per-
sonnel in March 1971 (see 1-WO, Section 4.5, C and Appendix D).
The March 1971 samples were taken at a location downstream from
the present GATF-EPA sampling location where the flow pattern
was relatively uniform across the stack's cross-section (see
Data Sheet #5-ECD, Appendix D, 1-WO). The March 1971
C MUPML total orqanics (ppm) results were similar to the present
isokinetic total organics (ppm) results (see Section 4.72, A).
Although actual ink usage figures were not available, plant
69
-------
4.73
personnel roughly estimated that the percentage of ink usage was
greater on the June sampling date than on the March testing date
(approximately 19 lb/hr, June and 14.5 lb/hr, March).
TABLE 9
Aoalytical Results (GAT'F)
Cylioder 1\Jo. 1 5 7 11 18
Date C'ollected 6/24 6/23 6/23 6/23 6/24
C ooteot (ppm as C02)
CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C02 4198 4906 2848 4587 4993
CH4 15 17 9 17 18
Organics (cylinder) 11 10 7 15 12
Tra ps 2194 2012 2641 1429 2692
Total Organics 2205 2022 2648 1444 2704
The trap data for Sample \To. 11 must be suspected due to a
series of electrLcal power failures during the analysis.
Of the four valid analyses, the average total organic content
is 2395 + 334 ppm (staodard deviation expressed as a percentage
= 13.9 percent). Samples Nos. 1 and 18 were collected as duplicates.
Discussion of Test Results
1n summary, using the GATF sampler, four 300 cc samples were
collected from the dryer exhaust of a commercial web offset high
ink coverage press run (five-color, perfecting). In all ca ses the
probe was positioned at the center of the duct approximately 15
feet downstream from the dryer. The average concentration of
organics in the exhaust as sampled by GATF and determined by gas
chromatography was 2395 ppm. Duplicate isokinetic samples were
also collected using standard procedures. A train consisting of
four Greenburg-Smith impingers immersed in a dry ice and trichloro-
ethylene slurry was used to trap the condensate. A GATF sampler
was attached to the fourth impinger (five collectors in series) to
ga uge effic iency. An average tota 1 orga nic concentra Hon of on ly
1203 ppm was obtained, including the contents of the GATF trap,
for the isokinetic sa mples.
Two poss ibil ities for the discrepancy between method s were
cons idered.
1.
The procedure required for quantitatively recovering the
condensate in the impingers and measuring it gravimet-
rica lly was ted ious and subject to error through evapora-
tion. It was concluded that the isokinetic results were
mos t proba bly low.
70
-------
4.8
2.
The four values obtained using the GATF method, while
Ln good agreement with one another, appeared to be high
compared with expected results based on knowledge of
the process under study. The question arose a s to
whether there might not be a concentration grad ient in the
duct, having a maximum va lue in the center a nd fa II ing
off near the wa lls .
If a concentration gradient existed, it would not affect the
isokinetic values since portions of the sample would be
taken and weighted at various points in the duct, and,
therefore, would constitute an approximate average sample.
In contrast, the GATF method of sampling at a single point
in the center of duct, where concentrations would most
likely be highest, would tend to give high results.
Grad ient Stud ies
In order to resolve the possibility that a concentration gradient
existed across the stack cross-section used in the test comparison
of the GATF sampling technique with the isokinetic sampling tech-
nique, and to further substantiate the fact that the GATF sampling
method would provide representative samples when emission flows
and temperatures are found uniform across a stack cross-section,
two gradient studies were conducted.
In the first study, grab samples were to be taken at the same plant
and duct location the GATF-isokinetic samples were taken. On
October 11, 1971, after experiencing some delay in conducting the
test due to a problem of scheduling a high ink coverage process job
that would closely parallel or duplicate the original experimental
conditions, GATF testing personnel completed the additional samp-
ling at the original isokinetic testing site. Flow and process data is
shown in Appendix F, Data Sheet #5-ECD along with the C MUPML-
72-232 describing the analytical results for these samples. The
results are also summarized in Table 10 below.
Duplicate samples were collected at three points in the stack, and
ana lyzed for tota 1 organics. One sa mpling point wa s located
within each of three concentric equa I areas of the stack as
required in conducting a velocity traverse. The recorded gas velocity
head and subsequently calculated gas velocity suggested the
possible presence of some bend, impediment, or other structural
restriction in the stack. There was no noticeable temperature varia-
tion across the stack's cross-section, and the calculated flow rate
was very nearly equal to the flow rate recorded during the June 23,
1971 isokinetic test.
71
-------
TABLE 10
Grad ient Study at a Site With Irregular Flow
Equal Distance of Probe Tip Tota 1 Po in t
Area From Stack Wa 11 Organics No.
(in) (ppm as C02)
1 1-7/8 26 B-1
(near wa ll) 1-7/8 153 A-I
4-11/16 848 B-2
2 4-11/16 972 A-2
3 16 897 B-4
(center) 16 903 A-4
The data showed that in the equa 1 area nearest the wa 11 of the
duct, the organic concentration was considerably lower than in
the other two-equal areas, thus establishing the existence of a
grad ient and accounting for the high va lues obta ined in the isokinetic
sampling-GATF -sampling comparison test.
Upon further investigation, a structural impediment, (a damper), was
located only a few feet upstream from the point of sampling. The im-
ped iment was undoubted ly respons ible for the highly irregular flow
pattern indicated by the pitot tube velocity survey. It should be also
noted that, since the sampled stack is under negative pressure, there
is a distinct possibility that the concentraqon gradient could have been
caused by air in-leakage into the stack at the sampling location.
In a second gradient experiment an ideal sampling site was chosen,
approximately 40 feet downstream of a dryer where no irregularities
in the duct work existed. As expected, a regular flow pattern (steady and
uniform) was observed. Duplica te sa mples were collected at two
points in the duct and analyzed for total organics. One sampling
point wa s located within each of two concentric equa 1 areas of
the duct a s required.
This sa mpling site was located in plant coded No. 3- WO. The
background data and analytical results for the sampling performed
at this plant are shown in Appendix D, 3-WO. Samples Nos. 17
and 18 (see Data Sheet #3-ECD-A, 3-WO, Appendix D) were
collected by inserting the probe four inches into the stack. Samples
Nos. 19 and 20 were collected from the same process line and job
with the probe inserted 12 inches into the stack. The same pattern
of sampling was used for samples Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24. Samples
Nos. 20 and 22 were discarded.
Table 11 shown below, summarizes the results of these samples
taken at the two points across the stack's diameter. The organic
72
-------
values given are average values for the samples taken in duplicate
at the previous ly mentioned sampling points.
TABLE 11
Gradient Study at a Site with Regular Flow
Test Distance of Probe Tip Tota 1
No. From Stack Wall Orqanics
(in) (ppm)
1 4 617
1 12 605
2 4 1111
2 12 916
From this additional experiment, it was concluded that the organic
values within the experimental error, were relatively uniform across
the duct and that no concentration gradient existed.
Two conclusions were drawn or reinforced from the gradient studies:
1.
It seems that isokinetic sampling, because of the length of
time involved in the collection procedure, the lack of particulates
in the gas stream, the general presence of uniform flow rates
and uniform emission and emission's physical characteristics
across a stack's cross-section somewhere in a stack's length,
and the demanding error-prone nature of organic wet analysis,
in the form used in this study, is not adequate for the study of
organics from commercial presses. However, since only two
isokinetic samples were taken during this study more extensive
investigations would be required to evaluate the necessity for
and usefulness of ioskinetic techniques for the graphic arts
industry.
2.
Grab samples are most representative of the process when
taken from a well-mixed uniform flow rate gas stream.
In the absence of concentration gradients, integrated grab sampling is
a simple and effective technique for determining the tota 1 organic con-
tent of an emission. In the presence of concentration gradients, multi-
ple grab samples should be collected in a pre-determined number of
equal areas in order to assure represent'ative sampling of the process.
Sampling at locations where structural impediments produce a distorted
73
-------
4.9
velocity profile or where infiltrated air creates a concentration gradient
should be avoided. It should be noted here that the presence of an
uneven velocity profile will mean that the concentrations obtained at
the various sampling points will have to be weighted with respect to
the measured relative velocity at each sampling point so as to be able
to calculate a true average exhaust pollutant mass emission rate.
Sampling should be conducted only at a point of uniform flow and good
mixing so as to allow a greater assurance that the sample obtained
will be representative of the process under evaluation.
Efficiency of Trap
An attempt was made to determine the degree of efficiency for collec-
tion of organics by the trap used in the GATF sampler. This deter-
mination involved looking over all the data collected from both web
offset and metal decorating samples, stack simulator experimental
results (as reported previously in section 4.6 and in Appendix F,
PML-71-17),and a test for condensates in GATF sample cylinders,
(PML-72-230, Appendix F).
The variables that could affect efficiency of organics entrapment are
shown for web offset in Table 12 (Appendix C), and metal decorating
in Table 13 (Appendix C), arranged against calculated trap efficiencies.
Trap efficiency as defined in these tables and other tables in this
report is determined by the following equation (a):
[ cylinder orqanics (ppm~
(a) Trap Efficiency (%)::. 1- tota 1 organics (ppm) J x 100
= ( trap orqanics\ x 100
tota 1 orga nics)
,
Outlet samples from emission control units are also noted by asterisks
in Tables 12 and 13.
Those factors affecting entrapment are total organics present in the
sample, percentage of high and low boilers (see section 4.27, C,
for definition of high and low boilers) making up the sampled
organics, and sampling time.
Sampling time was chosen after many field sampling trips to be
most optimum at 20 minutes (20 cc/min). The time values on
both Table 12 and Table 13 do not indicate a concrete dependence
of efficiency of organics entrapment and length of sampUng time
period. However, it has been determined from field experience
that a too fast sampling rate may cause rapid build-up of organics
in specific areas of the trap with resultant "clogging" of the trap
and subsequent prevention of sa mpling.
There seems to be a definite dependency of trap efficiency to both
total organics and the percentage of high-boilers present in the
74
-------
sample. Generally, the higher the high-boiler percentage and the
higher the total organic$ sampled, the higher the sampling trap organ-
ics collection efficiency (and vice versa). It should be noted that
outlet samples from emission controlled units (i. e., incinerators)
have the lower percentages of high boilers and the highest percentage
of low boilers. It should also be noted, especially in Table 13 for
metal decorating samples, that there seems to be an independence
of high-boiler percentages and the concentration level of total organ-
ics sampled upon the efficiency of organics entrapment. There appears
to be a point when, even though the trap sample contains a low per-
centage of high-boilers, the presence of certain concentration levels
of total organics will yield a high level of trap organics collection
efficiency.
The previously discussed stack simulator experiment (see section
4.6 and Appendix F, PML-71-17) showed a high trap collection
efficiency for organics under laboratory conditions. Another labora-
tory study, "Test for Condensates in GATF Sample Cylinders ",
PML 72-230, Appendix F, indicated that high-boiling organics were
not passing through the trap into the cylinder portion of the GATF
stack sampling apparatus. As shown on page 3 of PML-72-230,
there was a high-boiling residue present in tested cylinders which
was also present in cylinders never previously used for sampling
purposes. It was concluded that the high-boiling organics or
residue in the cylinder has a low vapor pressure at ambient tempera-
ture, and would not contribute to previous values reported for
cylinder analysis. The residue is probably present in all cylinders,
used and unused, and is contributed by materials and the methods
used to manufacture the cylinders.
In conclusion, GATF's sampler (trap and cylinder) and method of
sampling was found to be very adequate for sampling both condensi-
ble and non-condensible organics from web offset and metal decor-
ating processes during the Phase II contract period. The efficiency
of the sampler trap in collecting condensible organics was, for most
cases,very high.
75
-------
76
-------
5.0
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5.31
TREATMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL SAMPLING DATA
Introd uction
In order to comprehensively review and digest the field data for
both the web offset lithographic and metal decorating processes, an
understanding of the manner in which the data for the above men-
tioned proces ses wa s recorded, ta bulated, ca lculated a nd reported
is essential. Previous sections of this report have dealt with a
description of the sampling apparatus, the procedure involved in
sampling as well as a complete description of the analytical pro-
cedures utilized in the program.
Data Sheets (Forms)
Data sheets were designed and developed throughout the program
to record test data meaningful to the conduct of the source sampling
program. Spec ifica lly, these data sheets were numbered 1-ECD
through 5-ECD and were as follows:
Data Sheet #l-ECD - Source Location and Sample Background Data
Data Sheet #2-ECD - Physical and Operational Plant Data
Data Sheet #3-ECD - Effluent Sampling Data
Data Sheet #4-ECD - Visible Emissions Evaluation
Data Sheet #5-ECD - Gas Velocity Data
Sample forms of the above mentioned data sheets can be found in
Figures 17 through 21 in Appendix B. As work proceeded, several
forms underwent revision and the evolution is presented. For example,
18a, 18b, and 18c (Appendix B) represent revisions of Data Sheet
#2-ECD (Figure 18, Appendix B). Additionally, Figure 19a repre-
sents a revision of the form shown in Figure 19 (Data Sheet #3-ECD);
Figure 21a, a revis ion of the form as illustrated by Figure 2 L
(Append ix B).
Da ta Sheets (Description)
Data Sheet #l-ECD (Source Location and Sample Background Data)
This data sheet provided information on the process to be sampled,
type of equipment utilized, stack geometry and any additional data
that would be pertinent to understanding the process under evalua-
tion. All data pertaining to a specific plant was included with the
plant code number assigned (item 4 of this and subsequent data
sheets). The numbering process utilized was simple and direct.
Each web offset plant was numbered consecutively as tests were
performed. Thus, 1-WO signified the first web offset plant in the
study. In all, nine web offset plants were evaluated. Similarly,
77
-------
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
metal decorating operations were coded I-MD, etc. In all, seven
metal decorating plants were evaluated. A copy of this data sheet
can be found in Figure 17 (Appendix B).
Data Sheet #2-ECD (Physical and Operational Plant Data)
This data sheet provided information of physica 1 mea s urements
(temperature, pressure, etc.) as well as the operational data on
the process. For web offset, operational data consisted of speed,
type of paper and percent ink coverage, the type of data necessary
to adequately correlate emissions to process parameters. The data
sheet was des igned a lso to accommodate the opera tiona 1 data for
metal decorating, thus satisfying a two-fold function. The nature
of the data being generated necessitated that this data sheet under-
go several revisions as illustrated by Figures 18a, 18b, and 18c
(Append ix B).
Data Sheet #3-ECD (Effluent Sampling Data)
This data sheet contains specifcs on the collection of the sample:
the time over which the sample was collected, probe length and
depth of insertion, and description of collection point. With the
abandonment of the heating tape and variac and the subsequent
refinement of the sampling procedure, the data sheet was revised
to include observed smoke density and odor as well as any special
notes such as interruptions in the sampling period. A copy of this
data sheet can be found in Figure 19a (Appendix B).
Data Sheet #4-ECD (Visible Emissions Evaluation)
This form recorded smoke density readings and is typical of those
used by control agencies for visible emission evaluation. When
the form is properly utilized, the operation of a particular piece
of equipment (press oven, dryer, etc.) can be effectively evaluated
for visible emissions. Included in this visible emission evaluation
bes ides that of smoke (s hades of gray expressed a s Ringe lmann
numbers) is equiva lent opacity (a ny colored emis s ion). These
readings are recorded as percentages (No.1 equivalent to 20 per-
cent, No.2 equivalent to 40 percent, etc., and correspond to
appropriate Ringelmann numbers). A copy of this data sheet can
be found in Figure 20 (Append ix B).
Data Sheet #5-ECD (Gas Velocity Data)
On this data sheet were recorded velocity head readings during a
velocity traverse, gas temperature and atmospheric pressure for
subsequent use in flow equa tions as shown in the lower left hand
78
-------
5.4
corner of the form. An average actual gas velocity is calculated and
converted to standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). A copy of this
data sheet can be found in Figure 21 (Appendix B).
Arrangement of Data
Append ices D and E conta i.n data recorded accord ingly for the web
offset lithographic plant studies as well as metal decorating. Appen-
dix D is arranged in a numerical coded sequence utilizing the plant
code number for web offset studies; i.e., l-WO, 2-WO, 3-WO, etc.
Similarly, Appendix E is arranged in a numerical coded sequence
utilizing the plant code number for metal decorating operations; i.e.,
I-MD, 2-MD, 3-MD, etc.
The number of data sheets utilized per plant test varies significantly.
As a minimum, each plant test will conta in Data Sheets Nos. l-ECD,
2-ECD, 3-ECD and 5-ECD. Each may also contain three additional
data sheets, Nos. 3-ECD-A, 3-ECD-B and 3-ECD-C, summaries of
analytical results, and in tabular form other calculated data as
appropriate. For each plant evaluated there is the laboratory report
on the analysis of all samples taken at that plant.
In certain cases, those with air pollution control equipment, addi-
tional tabulated data (Data Sheet #3-ECD-D) will appear. This
data sheet tabulates the calculated hydrocarbon conversion effi.:..
ciency at various incineration temperatures.
At some of the plants evaluated in this program, additional sampling
was performed with detector tubes from a Universal Testing Kit.
These measurements are tabulated on Data Sheet #3-ECD-E.
Also appearing in several test data packages is an evaluation of
moisture as determined in the effluent stream. This data, however,
was confined to a limited number of plants and, therefore, its occur-
rence throughout the various numbered tests will be minimal.
On limited occa s ions and where cond it ions permitted, smoke dens ity
read ings were ta ken. These read ings were recorded on Data Sheet
#4-ECD and may be found in several of the plant tests.
In summary, all plant tests have been coded for easy reference.
The plant code number will be 'utilized throughout the discuss ion
in this report. As can be noted, the data is voluminous, however,
every attempt has been made to simplify, reduce and report the
significant find ings of these various tests.
79
-------
5.5
5.51
5.52
Development of a Test Program
So as to be able to conduct a systematic, pre-planned program for
the evaluation of the various process variables associated with
web offset and the metal decorating operations, test programs were
established prior to the conduct of on-site field studies.
Web Offset Publication Printing Test Program
A test program was developed for web offset publication printing
(see Table 14, Appendix C) which considered the important variables
in a web offset operation. It was decided that information should
be obtained on the effect of press speed, ink coverage, paper quality
and combustion products of the dryer; any of these factors may have
an effect on the nature and extent of the emission. In addition,
studies would be conducted of the web offset operation which util-
ized thermal incineration and catalytic incineration equipment in
control of this proces s.
A summary of the tests run and the number of samples obta ined for
each set of conditions is shown in Table 14 (Appendix C). In all,
five web offset plants (Plant Code Nos. 3-WO to 7-WO, inclusive
(Appendix D) were utilized in the test program for web offset.
Specifically, Plant Code No. 3-WO (Appendix D) covers the evalua-
tion of direct flame hot air drying system, while Plant Code No.
4-WO (Appendix D) covers the high velocity hot air drying system.
These two plants comprised the work performed under the section
entitled "Uncontrolled Source", Table 14 (Appendix C) of the test
program. Plant Code Nos. 5-WO and 6-WO (Appendix D) constituted
the test of therma 1 incineration in control of the web offset opera-
tion. Plant Code No. 7-WO constitutes the test of catalytic incin-
eration in control of web offset operations. These latter plants
comprised the work performed under the section entitled "Controlled
Source", Table 14 (Appendix C) of the test program.
Metal Decorating Test Program
Similar to that for web offset, a test program was developed for
meta 1 decorating (Table 15, Append ix C) which cons idered the im-
portant variables in this operation.
It was decided that information should be obtained on the effect
of combustion products of the oven, ink coverage and more impor-
tantly, the various weights of coatings utilized; any of these
factors which may have an effect on the nature and extent of the
emission. Generally, the types of coating materials in use by the
metal decorating industry consist of: vinyls, acrylics, alkyds,
80
-------
5.6
5.61
oleoresinous and phenolic lacquers. An attempt was made to evalu-
ate as many of these coating materials as consistent with the limita-
tions of the progra m.
A summary of the tests run and the number of samples obtained for
each set of conditions is shown in Table IS (Appendix C). Four
metal decorating plants (Code Nos. 2-MD to s-MD, inclusive
(Appendix E) were utilized in the test program. Specifically, Plant
Code Nos. 2- MD and 3- MD (A ppend ix E) cover the eva luation of
the process with particular emphasis on evaluating types of coat-
ings applied. These two plants comprised the work performed under
the section entitled "Uncontrolled Source, Table IS, (Appendix C)
of the test program. Plant Code No. 4-MD (Appendix E) relates to
the evaluation of a thermal incineration system in control of the
metal decorating operation. Plant Code No. s-MD (Appendix E)
relates to the evaluation of catalytic incineration in control of the
metal decorating operation. These latter two plants comprised the
work performed under the section entitled "Controlled Source",
Table IS (Appendix C) of the test program.
Bas is for Ca lculations
The following sections deal with the many calculations performed
in this study. It should be emphasized that several of the equa-
tions developed have limited applicability to the particular pro-
cess under consideration and thus, should be considered in that
manner. Further, it should be noted that these equations are solely
ba sed upon find ings and determinations made by the environmenta 1
field testing staff in the conduct and evaluation of the field studies
and thus, should be utilized with this understanding.
It remains, therefore, that in order to obtain an understanding of
the results as presented in several subsequent sections of this
report, the reader must generally grasp how those results were
obta ined. This section will attempt to outline the ca lculationa 1
methods used and to define significant terms used in discussing
the data.
Ca lculation of Observed Emiss ions
Two major factors enter into the calculation of the observed emission
rate referred to throughout this report as Eobs, namely, the efflu-
ent gas flow rate (expressed a s standard cubic feet per minute at
600F and 29.92 "Rg) and the organic concentration of the gas
stream (expressed from laboratory analysis as a volume to volume
percentage as carbon dioxide, V/V% as C02). The measurement
of the effluent gas flow rate and the subsequent calculation of the
81
-------
flow rate have been discussed in the prior Phase I Final Report (1),
a calculation of which appears on Data Sheet #5-ECD as previously
stated. Therefore, no further description will be presented. Like-
wise, the method for determining the organic content of the
gas stream has been thoroughly covered in Section 4.0 of this report.
The above referenced material is suggested as background for those
genera lly not familiar with the procedures of sampling and ana lys is.
The goal of the sample calculation that follows below is to develop
an equation which relates the organic emission rate (expressed
in pounds carbon per hour) to the flow rate of the gas stream and to
its organic content.
Assume the following operational data:
1.
Total organics expressed as a volume to volume percent-
age as carbon dioxide (V/v% as C02) equals 0.2135 percent.
Flow rate of effluent ga s equa Is 3.6 x 103 standard cubic feet
per minute (scfm).
2.
Ca lculation:
( 1)
0.2135 V/v% as C02 is converted to ppm as C02
.2135 - X
102 - 106
X = ppm = 2135 microliters per liter
1 IJ. L = 10- 6 L
ti~
(2) The flow rate in standard cubic cubic feet per minute is con-
verted to liters per minute.
3.6x 103 ft3 x 28.2 L3 = 1.02 x 105l
min ft min
(3) Since there are 2135 ppm* (llt) organics (as C02)in the
gas stream),this amounts to an hourly emission of:
1.02 x 105 ~ x 60 min x 2135 p.L = 1.31x 1010 flL
mm nr L hr
= 1. 31 x 104 ~
(4) At standard conditions [1 atm, 15.5 degrees Centigrade (OC)] ,
the number of grams (g) of C02 is:
(C ° ) = M. W. x P x V = 44 x 1 x 1. 31 x 104 = 2. 43 x 104 g m/hf
g 2 RT .082 x 288.7
*lppm is equal to a microliter of organics per liter of sample.
82
-------
where
M.W.
P
V
R
= molecular weight of C02 = 44
= pressure in atmospheres (atm)
= volume in liters
= universal gas constant = 0.082
(L) (atm)
(degree) (mole)
T = absolute temperature degrees
Kelvin (oK)
oK = 0c + 2 7 3 . 2
(5)
Since the M.W. of carbon is 12, the above relationship can
be expressed as:
11 x 2.43 x 104 = 6.64 x 103 gm carbon/hr
44
3 1
6.64 x 10 x 4549..!!!.
lb
= 14.7 lb carbon/hr emitted as
organics
(6)
The ca lculation for the observed emiss ion ra te can be s impli-
fied by combining a 11 of the convers ion factors and multiplying
by the determined scfm and ppm:
(a)
Eobs = 1.90 x 10-6 x scfm x ppm
where Eobs is the observed emission rate in pounds carbon
per hour (lb C/hr)
Having developed equation (a), this now affords a simple means
of calculating various emission rates, and more importantly, of
converting the data to a common workable denominator.
Alternate Solvent Emission Calculation:
It may be necessary due to state or local regulations that a basis of
calculation be chosen other than the pound carbon approach that has
been taken in this report. It is certainly felt that expression of the
results in a common denominator such as pound carbon per hour (# C/hr)
would be more meaningful to regulatory bodies throughout the country
and every attempt should be made to express to them the usage of this
expres s ion of da ta. If, however, in the interpreta tion of the law, the
authorities desire that the findings be expressed as pound hydrocarbon
solvent per hour, a molecular structure or carbon (C) and hydrogen (H)
content will have to be determined or assumed for the solvent.
To illustrate the conversion from pounds of carbon per hour to pounds
of hydrocarbon solvent per hour, the following sample calculation
is provided:
83
-------
The solvent is assumed to be paraffinic with a general formula
CnH2n+2' The ratio of solvent weight to carbon content is as follows:
n(C) + (2n + 2) (H)
n(C)
C = carbon molecular weight = 12
H = hydrogen molecular weight = 1
Thus, the ratio can be expressed as follows:
12n + 2n + 2 - 14n + 2 ,,-v 1.17
12n 12n
Since n values generally will be greater than eight for hydrocarbon
heatset solvents, and the assumed paraffinic structure provides the
maximum solvent-carbon ratio, the constant value of 1.17 can be
assumed with an error of less than two percent. Thus, heatset
hydrocarbon solvent emissions can be determined by multiplying
the carbon emission rate by L 17.
Brief consideration should be given at this point to the matter of
significant figures utilized throughout calculations in this study.
In any computation involving approximate numbers, the position of
the decimal point as well as the number of significant digits (or
significant figures) is important. The reader should take note that
the calculated flow rate (recorded as sefm) is expressed as two
significant digits with an estimated third digit. This is based on
the fact that the least number of significant digits, in this case
two, occurs in the measurement of the velocity head (manometer
reading) in the performance of the velocity traverse and subs,equent
ca lculation of flow.
However, the organic content of the gas stream (recorded as a volume
to volume percentage as carbon dioxide) is expressed as four signifi-
cant digits. When approximate numbers are multiplied or divided as
in equation (a), Section 5.61, the result is expressed with the number
of significant digits identica I to that of the least accurate number. In
this report, the number of digits used for every value reflects the
accuracy. Thus, the number of significant digits in the emission
rate reflects the limiting measurement of the velocity head. Thus, the
84
-------
5.62
observed as well as calculated emission rates, expressed through-
out the report as "lb carbon per hour" will appear as two significant
digits with an estimated third.
Ca lculation of Materia 1 Inputs
So as to be able to compare organic outputs with inputs, thus, estab-
lishing an approximate material balance for the process under evalua-
tion, it was found desirable to develop a relationship which would
permit the calculation of the pounds of organic material actually intro-
duced into a given process. Ideally, such a relationship would involve
a minimum of process parameters whose magnitude could be readily
or ea s ity determined.
Thus, two equations were developed - one for web offset publica-
tion printing, the other for meta 1 decorating - both of which satis-
fy the criterion stated above.
A.
Web Offset Publication Printing (Calculated Emission Rate)
The calculated emission rate for web offset expressed through-
out this report as Ecalc can be stated as follows by equation (b):
(b)
Eca lc = Sf (I x P) + R
The terms utilized in equation (b) have the following signifi-
cance:
Sf = The fractional solvent concentration of the ink. Generally,
this value ranges from 0.3 to 0.4, or 30 percent to 40
percent by weight of the ink taken as solvent. Calculations
utilized throughout this report are based on a 40 percent
solvent (by weight) unless otherwise stated.
I = The ink usage rate (coverage) expressed in pounds per
impression. An impression is defined as a completely
inked sheet or folded booklet, depend ing on prod uct;
coverage is that ca lculated va lue relating the tota 1 quan-
tity of ink used for the total impressions run. Therefore,
the calculated coverage value as utilized by this study is
inclusive of all printing units utilized whether the job is
two-color or four-color perfecting or non-perfecting.
P = The press speed expressed as impressions per hour.
R = The residual organics emission exhaust observed, expressed
as'lb carbon/hour, which is present during the operation of
the dryer with unprinted paper, coated or uncoated, passing
85
-------
through it. Samplings conducted throughout this progrurn
indicate this background emission may range from 0.5 to
3.5 lb carbon per hour.
Sf (1 x p) = pounds solvent per hour """pounds carbon per hour
Equation (b) permits the calculation of the rate of organics
emission (expressed as lb carbon/hour) which wou ld be present
if all the solvents passed unchanged through the dryer without
loss; i.e., Ecalc represents the maximum possible organics
emission rate.
B.
Metal Decorating (Calculated Emission Rate)
The calculated emission rate for metal decorating operations
expressed throughout this report as Ecalc can be stated as
follows by equation (c):
Eca lc = Sf [~o;o ~ ~5t3. 6 O-Sf)]
The terms utilized in equation (c) have the following s ignifi-
(c)
+ R
cance:
Sf = The solvent fraction (by weight) in coating
D = The sheet area expressed in square inches (sq in)" per
sheet
s = The coater speed (sheets/hr). This speed has been
calculated on the following basis:
s = sheets/min x 60 min/hr x 0.95,
where
0.95 is a factor determined from operationa 1
experience to allow for time necessary to change
skid s .
t =The essentially dry film weight applied expressed as
milligram per square inch (mg/sq in).
1000 = Convers ion factor 0000 mg = 1 gra m)
45 3 . 6 = Con v e r s ion fa c t or (45 3 . 6 g m = 1 1 b)
I-Sf = The solids fraction (by weight) in the coating
R = The residual organics observed and derived from the
oven operation expressed "as lb carbon/hour. Samplings
conducted throughout this program indicate this
86
-------
5.63
background emission due to the oven may range from
0.2 to 1.0 Ib carbon per hour.
Sf [~ O~Os XX 4t53. 6 X (l-S J = pounds solvent per hour
f """pounds carbon per hour
Equation (c) permits the calculation of the rate of organic emission
(expressed as Ib carbon/hr) which would be present if a 11 the solvents
passed unchanged through the oven without loss; i.e., Ecalc repre-
sents the maximum possible organic emission rate assuming that all
solvents are hydrocarbons. Since it is recognized that oxygenated
solvents are widely employed, it should be noted that equation (c)
will overestimate the pounds of carbon emitted per hour. Since
the coating solvents always consist of mixed solvent systems no
explicit corrections factor is practical.
Significance of the Material Balance
Equation (a) as discussed in Section 5.61 permits the calculation
(for both the web offset and meta 1 decorating operations) of the
actual or observed emission rate expressed in pounds carbon per
hour. Equations (b) and (c) (Section 5.62), depending on the pro-
cess, provide the means for determining the maximum possible
emission rate also expressed in pounds carbon per hour.
Having developed these relationships of the material inputs and
outputs of the process, it is possible to present and define a
term which will be of considerable utility in later discussions in
this report. This is the so-called "c" factor and is defined as
the ratio of the observed emission rate (material output) to the
calculated emission rate (material input) and is expressed as
follows as equation (d):
Eobs
(d) *C = Eca lc
"c" now becomes that fraction of the tota 1 organics used in the pro-
cess and actually emitted to the atmosphere. Conversely, "l-C"
becomes that fraction of organics which can be assumed to be converted
in the dryer or oven to carbon dioxide and water and/or retained in the
paper as residual solvent, and/or in some other manner held unaccount-
able. Thus, the organic conversion factor for a particular drying system
or for that matter a particular process material input (various coatings,
etc.) becomes "l-C". This latter term "l-C" will be referred to in the
report as the conversion factor. Its utility wilt lie in the fact that it
can be used to assess the effectiveness of dryers and ovens in combust-
ing/converting organics. This relationship will be encountered fre-
quently in the ensuing discussions.
*The "C" value is based on the ratio of an experimentally deter-
mined number (Eobs) and an approximate ca lcula ted number
(Eca lc). The interpretation of the accuracy of the "C" va lue
should reflect the significant digits of the measurements. (See
Section 5.61, p. 84.)
87
-------
5.7
5.8
Calculation of Control Equipment Orqanic Conversion Efficiency
In those web offset and metal decorating processes operating with
emission controls, the efficiency of the control equipment was deter-
mined. By sampling both the gas entering and leaving the control
equipment simultaneously, and dividing the outlet organic concentration
(expressed in ppm), by the inlet organic concentration (also express in
ppm), the percent residual (unconverted organics) is calculated. This
value subtracted from 100, equals the percent conversion efficiency.
It should be noted herA tha t convers ion efficiency refers to percent
organic material converted to C02 and H20; this term should not be
confused with "combustion efficiency'~ The formula that wa s utilized
to calculate the various incinerator efficiencies is as follows
[equation (e)]:
(e)
outlet Concppm x 100
% efficiency = 100-
inlet C oncppm
Sa mple Ca lculations
Sample calculations are presented for a web offset field test, a
meta 1 decorating field test,and a ca lculation of the efficiency for
a given piece of control equipment.
A.
Web Offset Field Test - Sample Calculation
The following data was selected from Plant Code No. 3-WO
(Appendix D) for this calculation:
Cylinder
No.
Tota 1 Flow Organic
Organics Rate Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
1589 3900 11.7
1747 3900 12.9
7
8
The above samples were taken from press No.1 of a 4-color,
I-web process job on coated stock, at a press speed of
18,000 imp/hr and with a coverage of 0.0024 lb/imp. Solvent
content of the ink (by weig ht) = 0.40.
Eobs = 11.7 + 12.9 = 12.3 lb carbon/hour
2
Ecalc = Sf (I x p) + R= 0.40 (0.0024 x 18,000) + 2.0
= O. 40 (43. 2) + 2. ,0 = 1 7 . 3 + 2. 0
= 19.3 lb carbon/hr
C= Eobs = 12.3 = 0.63
Eca lc 19. 3
l-C (fraction of organic converted) = 1.00 -
0.63=0.37
88
-------
B.
Metal Decorating Field Test - Sample Calculation
The following data was selected from Plant Code No. 2-MD
(Appendix E) for this calculation:
Cylinder
No.
10
13
Tota 1 Flow Organic
Organics Rate Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
4917 2300 21.6
4949 2300 21.8
The above samples were taken from a white alkyd coating line,
9.6 mg/sq in (41 percent solvent content) on a sheet size of
869.4 sq in and a coater speed of 68 sheets/minute.
21.6+21.8
Eobs = 2 = 21.7 lb carbon/hour
Ecalc = Sf l~o~oS x\tS3. 6 x (I-Sf)] + R
r869.4 x (68 x 60 x 0.95) x 9'6J
=0.41l 1000x453.6xO.59 +1.2
(869.4 x 3876 x 9.6)
=0.41 1000x4536xO.59 +1.2
= 50.0 + 1. 2 = 51. 2 lb carbon/hour
Eobs 21. 7
C = Eca lc - 51. 2 = O. 42
Effectiveness of the oven in converting organics becomes
1- C or 1. 00 - O. 4 2 = O. 58 .
C.
Calculation of Percent Efficiency for Incineration Studies
The following data was taken from code No. 5-WO (Appendix D)
for this sample calculation:
Cylinder
No.
1
2
Tota 1
Organics
Process Description
Inlet to control equipment
4-color, I-web, coated stock,
press speed of 14, 000 iph
Outlet of control equipment at
T = 13000F
1919
1920
7
8
14
23
89
-------
[outlet cone ppm]
% Efficiency = 100 - inlet cone ppm
= 100 - [l~~rl x 100
=100- 0.73=*99.27%
x 100
5.9
Discussion of Error
As with any testing program, there is some degree of error which is
incorporated into final results. The final test results obtained in
the Phase II study, pounds carbon per hour, are dependent upon
two variables [see Section 5.61, equation (a)]. These variables
are the effluent gas flow rate (expressed as standard cubic feet per
minute, scfm, at 600F and 29.92 in. Hg) and the organic con-
centration of the gas stream (expressed in laboratory analysis
reports as a volume to volume percentage as carbon dioxide (V/V%
as C02' or more commonly as parts per million parts, ppm). A
discuss ion of the effect of errors in these two factors on the fina 1
error in the test results is in order.
5.91
Effluent Gas Flow Rate
The velocity of a gas stream is generally determined by using a
standard pitot tube with an inclined manometer. The pitot tube
equation can be expressed as:
(f)
T .1P
P(M.W.)
V=K
P
where,
V = velocity of the gas stream (ft/sec)
T = absolute temperature (OR = 460 + oF)
P = absolute pressure (in. Hg) of the gas in the approach
system
M.W. = molecular weight of the duct gas
.1P = velocity pressure (in. H20), or velocity head
Kp = constant (84.63 for the standard type pitot tube),
derived empirically from the basic velocity flow relation-
ship, V = cpf2g'h, where, in addition to terms defined
above, Cp = pitot tube coefficient (empirically determined
as 0.99 for a s ta ndard pitot tube).
*Only one sample was utilized for this calculation. Generally an
efficiency has been calculated per each individual sample. For
cylinder No.8, the efficiency becomes 98.80 percent.
90
-------
Taking this pitot tube equation as presented and performing a differen-
tialanalysis, assuming Kp and M.W. are constant, we have:
(g) V=V(T, P,~P)
(h) (~~)2 = f. dV)2 . (~~)2 + ( dV)2 (~PJ2 +(~)2 . [~(AP)]2
V \ d T V d P . V d(~P) V2
(~vy~ t~:~~r t~TY + (~:~~r wr +(~:~~6P>Y [~(;pT
- C)(~TY+(- ~Y(~Py +or [~(;p)r
(i) ~v = + 1+ [(~TY + (6pPY + (~y] 11/2
Knowing the error in the temperature,AT, the error in the pressure,
~P, the error in the velocity pressure (velocity head), ~(AP), the
error in velocity, ~V, can be determined.
The gas flow rate (scfm) can be expressed as:
(j)
scfm = (Kp) (A)
f.p) (TAP ) 1/2
\ T P (M. W.)
(p A P , 1/2
= (Kp) (A) T (M.W.)}
where, in addition to the terms defined for the velocity equation (f),
this section,
A = cross-sectional area of a stack volume that is being sampled.
Assuming an error in all the terms of the above gas flow rate
equa tion, then:
(k) (A(Scfm))2 = (d In sCfm\2 (AKP) 2 + (dln scfm)2 (AA) 2
scfm a(ln Kp)) Kp d(lnA) ~ A
+ ( aln scfm)2 (At.) 2 + ( a In scfm) 2 ( ~(AP))2
d(ln p) ~ P a In (AP) ~ P
+ (a In sCfm)2 (~T \~ (dln scfm )2 ( AM. W. \ 2
aln T ~ T J ~ dln (M. W . ) r M. w. J
91
-------
= ~ y + ~~A)2 + a-r . (~pY + (; r
+(-;Y ( ~TY + (- ~y ( ~~~~-y
. [~~6P)J 2
0)
+{(;pKP Y + ( :A ~2 + ~ hpY + +t:~P)J2
+ ~ (~TY + t H~~:/ f/2
Calculations
A sefm
sefm
A.
It has been previously determined by numerous source sampling
tests by both industrial and fp,deral government personnel that
there exists a standard deviation, expressed as a percentage
error, attributable to each term specified in the gas flow rate
equation (j), as shown in the following Table 16.
TABLE 16
Standard Deviation, As Percentage Error,
Flow Rate Equation Terms
Term
Des ignation
* Error
(%)
Constant
Temperature (abs.)
Ve] oci ty pres sure
Pressure (abs.)
Molecular weight
Cross-sectional area
Kp
T
~P
P
M.W.
A
+ 1
+ 1
+ 20
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1
Utilizing the various percentage errors listed in Table 16 in
equation 0), the standard deviation, expressed as a percent,
for the gas flow rate (sefm) becomes:
[ ]1~
% Error (sefm) = + (1) + (1) + (i) + (~) (20)2 + ({) + (i)
=+10%
Therefore, 10 percent is the standard deviation expressed as a per-
centage error in calculated gas flow rates utilizing the above Table 16
parameters even though "excellent" measurements and determinations
are made for the factors of the gas flow rate equation (j). The most
significant contributory error to this percentage expression of standard
deviation for sefm error is the measurement error of AP or velocity head.
*For a further reference on this percentage error estimation, refer to
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., New York, 1967.
92
-------
5.92
OrGanic Concentration
The following equation (m) is generally utilized in the laboratory
determinations of sample organic concentration.
(m) organic concentration (V Iv % a s C02) =
[ (megacounts)]
100 -
( ) (K) (volume)
= (l oo{(meqaco~nts;volume~
where,
V Iv % = volume to volume percentage as C02
megacounts = integrated signal output from the hydorgen flame
detector used in analysis
volume = volume of sa mple
K = ca libration factor = megacounts/volume C02
This equation (m) has the form U = X, where U is an ind irectly
measured quantity which is a functitn of X and Y, directly measured
independent variables or quantities. In equation (m) V = organic
concentration, X = megacounts/volume, and Y = K.
We can determine the precision index or standard deviation, expressed
as a percentage error, of the indirectly determined quantity, V, in
terms of X and y, and their error indexes, by utilizing the following
equation (p) (91).
~ ~ y ~ ( ;x f + ( ~y or,
(~y ~ (p~ y + (1-Y
(n)
where,
qU, qX, qY = independ~t.2tandC!Eddeviations of single observa-
tions for U, X and Y.
- -
pU , pX , pY = independe!!.t Q!:obable errors of single measure-
ments forU, X, Y.
This same equation (n) can be used if U = (X) (Y) (91). As shown
in equations (h), (i) and (1) this section, the numerators of the
various fraction terms in equation (n) can be any expression of
error or precision index as long as the same precision index is util-
ized in all terms of the equation.
In equation (m), this section, the fina 1 organic concentration is
affected by both random errors of sampling and analysis and con-
stant errors or biases. An average va lue of the ca libration factor, K,
03
-------
is used in equation (m) determinations. This K value contains an
error of calibration for the set of analysis calculations it is used for.
The volume used for total sample volume in equation (m) contains a
relatively constant error of about 4 percent caused by the inclusion
of the initial air enclosed by the GATF's trap-probe in the final
express ion of tota 1 sample volume. The mega counts per volume varia-
tion in a sampling and analysis set reflects random errors. Utilizing
equation (n), all of these errors can be combined to yield a final state-
ment of organic concentration in the following way:
(0)
organic concentration = (cc COZ/cc sample) + (4%) (cc COZ/cc
sample) + (total standard deviation),
where,
cc COZ/cc sample = V/V% or ppm organic concentr.ation
expressed a s CO z,
4% = constant error caused by the trap-probe air dilution of
tota 1 sa mple volume,
2:. (total standard deviation) = the error in sampling and the
analytical manipulations, including the measurement of
sample volume, plus the error of the calibration factor, K.
The ~ tota 1 standard deviation) in equation (0) can
by rearranging equation (n) and expressing it as:
(p) 'u = .(~~ = yX [( "~)2 + ("t)2] 1/2
where, uu = u( x)= total standard deviation of the organic
Y concentration,
X = (megacounts,Nolume) in equation (m) = (organic
- c oncen tra t ion) (k),
Y = K in equation (m).
be determined
It should be noted that k is the averag.e calibration constant used in
the analytical calculations, whereas K is an independent variable
with precision index uK.
With equation (n) rearranged as equation (p), and substituting some
actua 1 numbers given in the stack simulator II report (PML-71-17,
Appendix F, Errata II, pp. 509-510; also described in Section 4.6)
the following total random error of sampling and analysis can be
determined:
94
-------
. - - (X )- r(volume C02/volume sa mple) (k) ]
uU - u y - l K .
=
[(f1(megacounts/volUme)) 2+ (UK)2] 1/2
(mega counts/volume) K
[0.005209 (volume CO? \1.[ 45.57 (mega counts
7 volume sampl~}J volume C02
45.57 mega counts/volume C02
J.
l ]la
[( 0 . 0000 IOn) (k) ] 2 + ( O. 2 7 ) 2
(0 . 0 0 5 2 09 7) (k) 4 5 . 5 7
= 0.5210 + 0.0032 V/V% as C02
Please note again that X = (mega counts/volume) = k (organic
concentration), and therefore uX = k [ d (organic concentration)].
Organic emission in pounds carbon per hour is given by equation
(a), this section, which states that Eobs (in pounds carbon per hour) =
(1.9 xJ-O-6) (ppm) (sefm). This equation has the form IT = (X) (Y),
where U = the organic emission in pounds carbon per hour,
X = ppm, and Y = sefm. Equation tn), this section, can be used to
determine the total precision index or standard deviation (or standard
deviation expressed as a percentage error) of the ind irectly determined
quantity Eobs (or IT) in equation (a), if the ppm error as determined by
the utilization of equations (n), (0) and (p), this section, and the
sefm error as determined by equation (1), this section, have been
calculated. This final error evaluation of organic emission in
lb carbon per hour can be expressed as follows:
organic emission (lb carbon per hour) = (Ib carbon/hr)
+ (4% lb carbon/hour).:!: (tota 1 standard deviation)
where,
4% lb carbon/hour = constant error caused by the trap-probe
air dilution of the tota 1 sa mple volume,
(q)
+ (total standard deviation) = the error in sampling and
analytical manipulations, including the measurement of
sample volume, plus the error of the calibration factor, K.
This method of error calculation was utilized in determining a final
statement of the error contained in the lb carbon per hour organic
emission values reported in this Phase II study for metal
decorating and web offset sa mples,and is next described in this 5.9
Section.
95
-------
5.93
Orqanic Emission Error Calculations
A.
\fIleb Offset Samples
Table 16a is a tabulation of duplicate samples collected from
web offset plan.t emissions. A working plot, Graph 1, was
made of sample concentrations (x axis values) versus deviation
from the average of each duplicate sample set (y axis va lues).
For example, duplicate values determined for a plant's emission,
1077 ppm and 1050 ppm (both expressed as C02) would be
plotted versus the deviation of the duplicate values (14 ppm)
from their average (1064 ppm). Any suspected duplicate sample
values (e.g., because of probe contamination, etc.) were not
included in Graph 1 or any organics emissions error ca Iculations.
When all the points were graphed, the resulting plot appeared
as a scatter diagram which depicted no obvious dependence of
the de'viations from average to sample concentration va lues. A
null hypothesis was proposed that there was indeed no signifi-
cant dependence of the graphed X and Y values, and was tested
by computer fitting the data to a linear curve utilizing the least
squares formulas for fitting a straight line to a series of points (92).
The best straight line, as shown in Graph 1, for the plotted points
had a y-intercept of 27.69 ppm (standard deviation = + 7.06),
and a slope of 2.32 x 10-2 (standard deviation = + 6.48 x 10-3),
or
(r)
Y= (27.69~ 7.06) + (2.32 x 10-2 + 6.48 x 10-3) X
where
Y = deviation from the average of duplicate samples,
X = individual sample concentrations (ppm) of duplicate
samples.
At-test (92) was used to determine whether the slope and y-inter-
cept of the line in Graph 1 differed significantly more from zero
than could be accounted for by the analytical and sampling errors.
I O. 0 - (2. 32 x 10- 2) I
t(slope) = 6.48 x 10-3 = 3.58
t(y- intercept) =
I 0.0- 27.69/ = 3 92
7.06 .
The values of t calculated utilizing the slope value (2.32 x 10-2)
a nd the y- intercept va lue (27. 69 ppm), a nd the va lue of the
standard deviation of the slope (+ 6. 48 x 10-3) and the standard
96
-------
TABLE 16a
Duplicates, Web Offset Samples
Organics
Total (x) Deviation from Average (y)
(ppm) (ppm)
1077.0 14.0
l050.0 ~D .
1346.0 131.0
.1688.0 131.0
1589.0 79.0
1747.0 -19.0
353.0 75.0
203.0 75.0
783.0 79.0
624.0 79.0
327.0 41.0
409.0 41.0
524.0 93.0
110.0 93.0
686.0 47.0
J80.0 47.0
354.0 32.0
418.0 32.0
86.0 20.0
47.0 20.0
433.0 109.0
.6 50 . 0 1 0 9 . 0
180.0 2.0
183.0 2.0
759.0 5.0
748.0 5.0
19.0 13.0
~5.0 13.0
2410.0 216.0
1904.0 216.0
2241.0 17.0
2275.0 17.0
1919.'0 0.0
1920.0 0.0
Organics
Tota 1 (x) Deviation from Average (y)
(ppm) (ppm)
57.0 47.0
151.0 47.0
14.0 5.0
23.0 5.0
18.0 15.0
48.0 15.0
297.0 55.0
187.0 55.0
98.0 46.0
6.0 46.0
284.0 6.0
297.0 6.0
226.0 6.0
215.0 6.0
4.0 3.0
9.0 3.0
15.0 2.0
18.0 2.0
246.0 4.0
255.0 4.0
2085.0 68.0
2221.0 68.0
117.0 48.0
21 .0 48.0
29.0 3.0
36.0 3.0
95.0 10.0
t16.!O.. 10.Q
2608.0 17.0
2641.0 .17.0
2332.0 100.0
2532.0 100.0
455.0 97.0
261.0 97.0
y-intercept = 27.69 (standard deviation = + 7.06)
slope = 2.32 x 10-2 (standard deviation = + 6.477 x 10-3)
97
-------
220
200
180
1/1
Q)
Q.
E 160
~
(/)
Q)
-
~
CJ 140
Q.
~
0
- 120
o
-
E
.0 Q.
co Q.
- 100
Q)
C)
~
..
Q)
> 80
c:t
E
0
..
-
c 60
o
:;
~
'S;
Q)
0 40
20
Graph I - Organic Emission, Web Offset Sample
.
0
. .
. .
. '
. .
-- ~
. . . V--
. ----
---- ~ . 0
~ -
. '
~ ---
.8 . ... .:.-:
-----:- --
~ .
.. .
. . '0
. .
. .
~;: .. .. ..
..
o
o
1000
1600
1800
2200
2400
2600
2800
600
800
1200 1400
2000
200
400
Sample Concentrations (ppm)
-------
deviation of the y- intercept ~ 7.06 ppm) was compared to the
tabular t values, entering the table with 66 (number of points - 2)
degrees of freedom (93). Since the ca lculated t va lues exceeded
the tabular t value at the 99 percent confidence level, it was con-
cluded that the s lope and y- intercept of the line in Graph 1 both
differed significantly from zero, which indicated that the error,
or deviation from the average values, of duplicate samples is
dependent upon the individual sample's organics concentration,
thus d is prov ing the hypothes is that no dependency exis ted.
The deviation from the average value of duplicate samples, one
of which, supposedly, has an organics concentration of 2000
ppm (as C02) would be given by:
Deviation from average = 27.7 + (2.32 x 10-2) (2.0 x 103)
=27.7+46.4
=74.1ppm
This can then be converted to the standard deviation for the
individual organic sample values of the duplicate sample
va lues set:
r(74 .1)2+ (74.1)2] 1/2
(individual sample value) = L 2 - 1
=~'104.79 ppm
Expressed as a percentage error for the 2000 ppm sample value,
the standard deviation can be represented b":
Standard Deviation (as percentage error) =, (.::: 104.79) (l00)
2000
=+5.24%
Standard Deviation
Assuming that calibration factor, K, used in the determination
of the organic sample value (ppm as C02) using equation (m)
has a maximum standard deviation, expressed as a percentage,
of 1.0 percent, the following total random error of sampling and
analysis for the 2000 ppm sample value can be determined by
employing equation (p):
Total random error, ppm, 1/2
(or total standard deviation, = (2000 ppm)[(O. 0524)2 + (0.01)2]
individual sample values)
= + 106.80 ppm
Total random error, %, (+ 106.80)
(or tota 1 standard devia- = -2000 (l00) = .::: 5.34 %
tion, a s a percentage)
The final organic value (ppm, as C02)' including the 4 percent
99
-------
error caused by the trap-probe air dilution of the total sample
volume, expressed as in equation (0) is:
2000 ppm + (4%) (2000 ppm) + 106.80 ppm,
= 2000 ppm + (80 ppm) + 106.80 ppm
The combined ppm error could be expressed as:
(80+ 106.80)
(100) 2000 = 9.34%, at this 2000 ppm level.
The effective error range, combining all ppm deviation possi-
bilities due to both constant and random errors involved, could
be expressed as:
[100 ~~~~ 106.80} , 100 ~8g0~ 106.80)] . (2000 ppm)
= ~- 1. 34% to + 9.34%) (2000 ppm)]
= - 26.80 to + 186.80 ppm.
It should be emphasized that the 4 percent constant error of probe-
trap air dilution of the total sample volume could be easily elimin-
ated by subtracting the dilution volume from the total calculated
sample volume in the initial analytical calculations.
The organic emission value of this 2000 ppm sample, in
pounds carbon per hour, assuming a gas flow rate of 5000 scfm,
is (see equation (a) this section):
lb carbon per hour = (1.9 x 10- 6) (ppm) (scfm)
= (1. 9 x 1 0- 6) ( 2 0 0 0) ( 5 0 0 0 )
= 19 lb carbon/hr
The total precision index or standard deviation (or standard
deviation expressed as a percentage error) of the lb carbon per
hour can be determined by using the scfm error determined pre-
viously in Section 5.91, A (Le., + 10%, using equation (l),
this section), and the tota I random ppm error determined for the
2000 ppm organics sample value [utilizing equations (n), (0),
and Jp), this section] in equation (n) with U = lb e/hr, X = ppm,
and Y = scfm:
[q(lb e/hr)]2 = (o'(ppm)~ + (O"scfm)2
(lb e/hr) ppm ) scfm
a(lb C/hr) ~ (lb C/hr) [e::mm j+ (a:~:::: y ] 1/2
= (19) [( . 0534) 2 + (. 10) 2] 1/2
= + 2.15 lb e/hr
100
-------
Tota 1 standard deviation, =(2.15) (100) = + 11. 32%
as a percentage 19 -
The final error evaluation of the organic emission in lb carbQn/
hour can be expressed as in equation (q), this section:
19 lbC/hr + (4%) (19 lbC/hr) + 2.15 lbC/hr = 19 lbC/hr + (0.76 lb
C /hr) + 2. 15 1 b C /hr .
The combined (lb C/hr) error could be expressed as:
[0.76 + 2.15]
(100) [ 19 = 15.32%
The effective error range combining all (lb C/hr) deviation possi-
bilities due to both constant and random errors involved could be
expressed as:
[ (1 00) (0;: 6 - 2. 1.5) , i!.QQ2 (~~ 76 + 2 . 15 ~(l9 1 b C /hr)
= [-7.32%to+ 15.32%](19lbC/hr)
= -1.39 to + 2.91 (lb C/hr)
Aga in, it should be noted that the 4 percent cons tant error of
the probe-trap air dilution of total sample volume could be
easily eliminated by subtracting the dilution volume from the
total sample volume in the initial analytical calculations.
B.
Metal Decorating Samples
Table 16b is a tabulation of duplicate samples collected from
metal decorating plant emissions. The same method of data
analysis performed in Section 5.93, A, was employed in this
section B, and it was determined that the graphed points should
be linearily fitted utilizing the least squares formulas for fitting
a straight line to a series of points. The best straight line, as
shown in Graph 2, for the plotted points had a y-intercept of
68.27 ppm (standard deviation = + 21. 82 ppm), and a s lope of
1.46 x 10-2 (sta~dard deviation;;; + 3.21 x 10-3), or
(s) Y= (68.27+ 21.82) + (1.46x10-2 + 3.21x10-3) X
where Y = deviation from the average of duplicate samples,
X = ind ividua 1 sa mple concentrations (ppm) of duplicate
samples.
Again, a t-test was used, as in Section 5.93; A,to determine
whether the slope and y-intercept of the line in Graph 2 differed
significantly more from zero than could be accounted for by the
analytical and sampling errors.
101
-------
TABLE 16b
Duplicates, Metal Decorating Samples
Organics
Total ~ Deviation from Average (y)
(ppm) (ppm)
Organics
Total ~ Deviation from Average (y)
(ppm) (ppm)
9124.0 474.0 440.0 104.0
8177.0 1&71.1.0 232.0 104.0
162.0 16.0 5780.0 12.0
130.0 16.0 5756.0 1~.0
4917.0 16.0 884.0 7.0
4949.0 16.,0 898.0 7.0
2750.0 471.0 1357La.0 126.0
1808.0 471.0 13323.0 _t2_6..Q-
4206.0 41.0 77.0 35.0
4288.0 41.0 7.0 35.0
6997.0 451.0 5.0 1.0
6195.0 451.0 7.0 1.0
55.0 21.0 12282.0 633.0
96.0 21.0 13~47.0 633.0
6052.0 367.0 126.0 34.0
6785.0 367.0 56.0 34.0
64.0 2.0 15574.0 556.0
67.0 2.0 14462.0 556.0
2140.0 29.0 112.0 18.0
2082.0 29.0 147.0 18.0
133.0 23.0 151.0 27.0
87.0 23.0 205.0 27.0
2185.0 172.0 175.0 47.0
1442.0 1 72. 0 81.0 47.0
1769.0 123.0 149.0 3.0
1524.0 123.0 156.0 3.0
20045.0 82.0 230.0 30.0
21684.0 82.0 171.0 30. Q-
5573.0 63.0 30.0 7.0
5447.0 63.0 44.0 7.0
20363.0 52.0 3474.0 290.0
21405.0 52.0 2894.0 290.0
8295.0 421.0 46.0 13.0
9137.0 421.0 20.0 1 ~..O
5.0 2.0 25.0 5.0
1.0 2.0 ._,~5_.~ .5.0
3076.0 108.0 188.0 43.0
2860.0 108.0 JQ2.0 43.0
57.0 21.0
15~..q 21.0
y- intercept = 68.27 (standard deviation = + 21.82)
slope = 1.46 x 10-2 (standard deviation = + 3.21 x 10-3)
102
-------
I-'
o
w
III
CD
'ii 440
E
co
f/)
CD 400
-
co
.!:!
'ii 360
:J
c
-
~ 320
E
Q.
~ 280
CD
0)
co
~ 240
>
oCt
g 200
..
-
c
o
:0: 1 60
co
.;
CD
c 120
Graph 2 - Organic Emission, Metal Decorating Sample
560
. .
. . . .
. .
. .
. .-"
~ ~
--
~ ...-
~
. .
~ ~
~
~ ".....-
.-"""
~ ~
. . -'
~ --
~
..
~ -:-
..
~
".....-
..
.. .
..
'l ..
I . -
.
520
480
80
40
o
o
~ ~
~
~
~
~ <2 & ,; ,;
~ i:b 'b 0 ,;
<:/ <:/ <:/ 'Q 'Q
~ ~
Sample Concentrations (ppm)
,;
F
'0
~ 'd>
'0 'Q
~ ~
~ ~
'0 'Q
~
~ ~
'Q '0
~ ~
~
'0
~
~
'Q
~
,;
-------
t(s lope) =
10.0- (1. 46 x 10-2) I
3 . 2 1 x 1 0- 3 = 4. 55
\0.0-68.271
21.82 = 3.13
t(y- intercept) =
The values of t calculated utilizing the slope value (1.46 x 10-2)
and the y-intercept value (68.27 ppm), and the value of the
standard deviation of the slope (+ 3.21 x 10-3) and the standard
deviation of the y- intercept (+ 21.82 ppm) was compared to the
tabular t values, entering the table with 76 (number of points - 2)
degrees of freedom. Since the ca lculated t va lues exceeded the
tabular t value at the 99 percent confidence level, it was con-
cluded that the s lope and y- intercept of the line in Graph 2 both
differed significantly from zero which demonstrated again, as
in Section 5.93 A, that the error, or deviation from the average
values, of duplicate samples is dependent upon the individual
sample's organics concentration.
The deviation from the average value of duplicate samples, one
of which, supposed ly, ha s an organic concentration of
10,000 ppm (as C02) would be given by:
Deviation from average = 68.27 + (1.46x 10-2) (100 x 102)
= 68.27 + 146.00
= 214.27 ppm
This can then be converted to the standard deviation for the
individual organic sample values of the duplicate sample
va lue set:
Standard deviation (individual sample volume) =
[(214.27)2+ (214.27)2] 1/2
2-1
=+303.02ppm
Expressed as a percentage error for this 10,000 ppm sample value,
the standaJd deviation can be represented by:
Standard deviation (a s percentage error) =
(.! 303.02) (l00) = + 3.03 %
10,000 -
Assuming that the calibration factor, K, used in the determination
of the organic sample va lue (ppm as C02) using equation (m)
has a maximum standard deviation, expressed as a percentage,
of 1.0%, the following total random error of sampling and analysis
for the 10,000 ppm sample value can be determined by employing
equation (p):
104
-------
total random error, ppm, (or total standard deviation, individual
sample values) =
(10,000 ppm) [(0.0303)2 + (0.01)2] 1/2 =+ 319.08 ppm
total random error, %, (or total standard deviation, as a
percentage) =
(.:: 319.08) (100) = + 3.19 %
10,000 -
The final organic v...alue (ppm, as C02) including the 4 percent
error caused by the trap-probe air dilution of the total sample
volume, expressed as in equation (0) is:
10,000 ppm + (4%) (10,000 ppm) + 319.08 ppm,
= 10,000 ppm+ 400 ppm + 319.08 ppm
The combined ppm error could be expressed as:
( 400 + 3 19 . 08)
(100) \ 10,000 = 7.19%, at this 10,000 ppm level.
The effective error range, combining all ppm deviation possi-
bilities due to both constant and random errors involved could
be expressed as:
f100 (400- 319.08)
l 10,000 '
100 (400+ 319. 08)] . (10 000 ppm)
10,000 '
= [(+0.81% to + 7.19%) (10,000 ppm)]
= + 81 to + 719 ppm
It should aga in be empha sized that the 4 percent consta nt error
of probe-trap air dilution of the total sample volume could be
easily eliminated by subtracting the dilution volume from the
total calculated sample volume in the initial analytical calcula-
tions .
The organic emission value of this 10." 000 ppm sample, in
pounds carbon per hour, assuming a gas flow rate of 3000 scfm
is (see equation (a), this section):
lb carbon per hour = (1. 9 x 10- 6) (ppm) (scfm)
= (1.9 x 10-6) (10,000) (3000)
= 57 lb carbon/hr
The total precision index or standard deviation (or standard
deviation expressed a s a percentage error) of the lb carbon per
hour can be determined by using the scfm error determined pre-
viously inSection5.91,A, (i.e. + 10 percent, uSing equation (1),
this section), and the total random ppm error determined for
the 10,000 ppm organics sample value (utilizing equations (n),
10), and (p), this section) in equation (n) with U = ib C/hr,
X = ppm, and Y = scfm:
105
-------
[
-------
5.94
Summarv of Error, Organics Emission Calculations
A. Web Offset Samples
1. The error, or deviation from average values, for duplicate samples
is dependent upon the individual sample's organics concentra-
tion level (see pp. 96-99).
2. For an average web offset printing operation from which duplicate
organics concentration samples have been taken from a fairly
uniform exhaust gas flow sampling point (exhaust gas flow rate=
5000 sefm) and analyzed to yield an organics concentration of
2000 ppm (expressed as C02) for one of the duplicate samples:
a. The tota l..2.Q!!l random ~ of sampling and ana lysis
for the 2000 ppm sample value, expressed as total standard
deviation, as a percentage, is + 5.34 percent (seepp. 99-100).
b. The organics emission value of this 2000 ppm sample, in
pounds carbon per hour, is 19 lb carbon/hr; the total precision
index or standard deviation, expressed as a percentage error,
of this lb carbon per hour value is + 11.32 percent (see
pp. 100- 101) .
B. Metal Decorating Samples
1. The error, or deviation from average values, for duplicate samples
is dependent upon the individual sample's organics concentration
level (see pp.101-104).
2. For an average metal decorating operation from which duplicate
organics concentration samples have been taken from a fairly
uniform exhaust gas flow sampling point (exhaust gas flow
rate = 3000 sefm) and analyzed to yield an organics concentra-
tion of 10,000 ppm (expressed as C02) for one of the duplicate
sa mples:
a. The total.£Q!!!..random error of sampling and analysis for the
10,000 ppm sample value, expressed as total standard devia-
tion, as a percentage, is.2: 3.19 percent (seepp. 104-105).
b. The organics emission value of this 10,000 ppm sample, in
pounds carbon per hour, is 57 lb carbon/hr; the total pre-
cision index or standard deviation, expressed as a percent-
age error, of this lb carbon per hour va lue is + 10.49 percent
(see pp.105-106).
107
-------
108
-------
6.0
6. 1
6.2
WEB OFFSET FIELD STUDIES
Introduction
The third task of the Phase II program effort was directed at assess-
ing emissions from both controlled and uncontrolled web offset
presses. The effects of press speed, ink coverage, method of dry-
ing, and type of control equipment (if any) on the quantity of emitted
hydrocarbon were determined. The contributions of paper and of
dryer exhaust to tota 1 organic content of the stream were also eva luated.
Uncontrolled Sources
6.21 Web Offset Press Using Direct Flame Hot Air Drying
The results from this test are contained in Plant Code No. 3-WO,
(Appendix D). For ease of reference, the data used in calculating
materia 1 inputs and outputs is collected in Table 17. For a more com-
prehensive review of test results, see Tables 31and32, Section 6.4.
Since the format of Table 17 will be used severa 1 times in this section,
a brief explanation of column headings is in order. Column one gives
the number of the sa mple cylinder employed in the fie ld. Since
samples were obtained in duplicate (unless otherwise stated) they
are shown in groupings of two in the ta ble.
Column two gives a brief description of the process, that is, the
number of colors being printed, the type of paper stock and the num-
ber of webs utilized.
Columns three and four list press speed and ink coverage - the two
parameters required in the calculation of material inputs.
Columns five and six give the total organic concentration (in ppm)
and the gas flow rate (in standard cubic feet per minute). Multiplica-
tion of these two factors by the constant 1.90 x 10-6 (see Equation (a),
Section 5.61) gives the organic emission rate in pounds of carbon
per hour. These va lues are listed in column seven in the ta ble.
An attempt was made to correlate total organic emissions with the
rate of ink consumption for a web offset press employing direct flame
hot air drying. The ink consumption rate was determined by multiply-
ing the press speed (expressed as impressions per hour) by the cal-
culated coverage (expressed as pounds of ink per impression) as
below in equation (a).
(a)
ink consumZ~~~n : '-~~~~ess~~~~~\ c:v(er~g~ound~ -\
\hrJ \ hr J Impress ton J
109
-------
TABLE 17
Uncontrolled Source: Direct Flame Hot Air Drying System (3-\NO)
Sample Press Ink Tota 1 Gas Flow Organics
No. Operation Sampled S peed Coverage Organics Rate Emission
(iph) (lb/imp) (ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
1 2- color, 2-web, uncoated 18000 .0017 1646 2320 7.26*
3 1077 2320 4.75*
4 2-color, 2-web, uncoa ted 12000 .0017 1050 2320 4.64*
5 4-color, I-web, coated 24000 .0024 1346 3900 9.97*
6 1638 3900 12.50*
9 No printing, paper only 18000 353 3900 2.62*
10 203 3900 1 . 50*
......
...... 194 3900 1. 43
a 11 No printing, no paper,
12 0 inva lid 3900
dryer at 420 F
13 No printing, paper only 12000 783 2320 3.46*
14 624 2320 2.75*
15 No printing, no paper, 327 2320 1. 45
16 dryer at 3750F 409 2320 1. 75
17 .0027 524 5600 5.57*
18 2-color, I-web, coated 15000 710 5600 7.55*
19 2-color, I-web, coated 15000 .0027 605 5600 6.44*
20 inva lid 5600
21 1111 3900 8 . 2 0*
22 4-color, I-web, coated 18000 .0027 inva lid 3900
23 18,000 .0027 916 3900 6.79*
24 4-color, I-web, coated 811 3900 6 . 00*
*Plotted data point on Figure 22
-------
In equation (a) an impression is defined as a completely inked sheet
or folded booklet, depend ing on product, coverage is that ca lculated
value relating the total quantity of ink used for the total impressions
run. Therefore, the calculated coverage value is inclusive of all
printing units utilized whether the job is two-color or four-color per-
fecting or non-perfecting. For a given job, ink consumption varied
according to press speed, resulting in a considerable range of values.
All were plotted against total organic emissions.
Figure 22 is a plot of ink cons umption vers us em is s ion ra te (expres sed
as lb carbon/hr) for printing on both coated and uncoated stock. The
values which have been plotted are those with an asterisk in Table 17.
Background values obtained for the dryer only operation are not in-
cluded in the graph.
A least squares linear equation was determined for the data points
plotted in Figure 22 and asterisked in Table 17 with the following
res ult:
Y-intercept = 2.445 + 0.655
slope = 0.124.:!: 0.018
Figure 22 suggests that an approximate linear relationship exists
between ink consumption and emission rate; it further indicates that
the type of paper used, that is, coated or uncoated, has little or no
effect on the total organic emission.
The values shown for zero ink consumption (Samples Nos. 9,10,13,
14) are those obtained where paper only (no printing) was passed
through the dryer. These residual organic values represent the sum
of contributions from paper, dryer exhaust and desorbed organics.
A separate test on the dryer exhaust alone showed that at least 50
percent of the residual organics were derived from the dryer exhaust
and from remova 1 of organics from the wa 11s of the stack (see
Samples Nos. 11, 15, 16).
In Section 5.63 equation (d) of this report, the factor "C" was de-
fined as the ratio of the observed to the calculated emission, i.e.,
Eobs
C = Ecalc
Therefore,
Eobs = Ecalc . C
Substituting Ecalc = Sf (I x p) + R
(b)
Eo b s = [ Sf (I x P) + R] C
111
-------
- 10
..:
.c
""-
c:
.8 8
..
III
U
.Q
::::. 6
Q)
-
III
a:
,2 4
III
III
'E
w 2
- 10
..:
.c
""-
c:
.8 8
..
III
U
.Q
- 6
Q)
-
III
a:
g 4
'iij
III
E
w 2
12
<:) Coated Stock
EI Uncoated Stock
o
o
16
32
8
24
40
48
56
64
70
Ink Consumption (lb/hr)
Figure 22 - Variation of Emission Rate With Ink Consumption for a Web
Offset Press Using Direct Flame Hot Air Drying
12
/
/
EI ~&
/ V
EI /
v: 0 Coated Stock
EI Uncoated Stock
~/ <:)
~
o
o
56
64
24 32 40 48
Ink Consumption (lb/hr)
Figure 23 - Variation of Emission Rate With Ink Consumption for a Web
Offset Press Using High Velocity Hot Air Drying
16
70
8
112
-------
The terms of equation (b) have been defined previous ly (see Section
5.62,5.63). However, it should be noted that this particular form of
the equation renders explicit the relationship between the observed
emission and the ink consumption. That is, a plot of Eobs versus
(I x p) should give a straight line with a slope (S x C) and an inter-
cept(CxR).
A comparison between observed and calculated emission rates is pre-
sented in Table 18. Ca lculated va lues were determined using equation
(b) as previously developed in the data treatment (Section 5.62).
Eca lc = Sf (I x p) + R
where the value 0.4 was assumed for Sf on the basis of known ink
formulations, and R is the residual from paper and dryer, the value of
which was determined from Samples Nos. 13 and 14. The "c" factors
in Table 18 are seen to fall within a rather narrow range, 0.36 to
0.45 with a calculated average being 0.40.
Samples Nos. 11, 15 and 16 were taken on the dryer only, that is no
paper or ink were being fed through the system. The results suggest
that after the press has been shut down, organics are being generated
from the operation of the dryer. It seems likely that this organic
materia 1 from the dryer only operation contributes to the organic va lues
obtained for the paper only test (see Samples Nos. 13 and 14). The
value used for R- the residual organics, is thus comprised of con-
tributions from paper and from the operation of dryer. It can further
be seen that the operation of a dryer with poorly controlled combustion
can be the source of organic emission. Proper combustion practice
in the operation of the dryer should be emphasized.
Table 18
"c" Factors for Direct Flame Hot Air Drying System (3-WO)
Press Cylinder Emiss ion Emission (C Factor)*
No. No. (ca lculated) (observed) Eobs/Eca lc
1 5 & 6 25.06 11. 24 .45
1 21, 23, 24 19.40 7.00 .36
2 1 16.0 7.26 .45
2 3 & 4 11.75 4.69 .39
*The average conversion factor for the direct flame hot air
dryer is 1-C or 1-0.40 = 0.60. It should be emphasized
that the "l-C" factor represents that portion of the ca lcu-
lated organic emission which may be: converted to C02
and water in the dryer, and/or retained in the ink film on
the paper, and/or otherwise unaccounted for.
For calculation purposes, R was taken as the value obtained when paper
only was passing through the dryer.
113
-------
6.22
Web Offset Press Using High Velocity Hot Air Drying
The test conducted on a high velocity hot air drying system was similar
in both its execution and intent to the tes t just described.
Duplicate samples were again collected under a variety of conditions
and the results were used to correlate emission rate with various inputs.
The results of this test are contained in Plant Code No. 4-WO (Appendix
D). For ease of reference, the results are presented in Table 19 under
the same column headings as described earlier in Section 6.21. For a
more comprehensive rev iew of test res ults, see Ta bles 31 and 33, Section 6.4.
The calculated emission rate (expressed as lb carbon/hr) was plotted
against ink consumption and is shown in Figure 23. Once again, the
data are roughly linear.
A least squares linear equation was determined for the data points
plotted in Figure 23 and asterisked in Table 19 with the following result:
Y-intercept = 0.344 + 0.664
slope = 0.201 + 0.025
The "C" factors calculated from Eobs!Ecalc expressioIT' are presented
in Table 20. The "C" factors as shown in Table 20 tend to fall within
a range of 0.50 to 0.70 with a calculated average of approximately
0.60. The values are somewhat higher than those obtained from the
direct flame dryer. Since (I-C) is assumed to be a measure of the
conversion ability of the dryer in converting organics to C02 and
water, it can be seen that the direct flame dryer serves, to some
degree, a s a better converter of organic solvents than the high
velocity type. The assumption in this comparison of dryers is that
the solvent retained by the ink film and paper and solvent losses
through other means are independent of the dryer type. Previous
studies reported in the Phase I final report (1) have shown that as
much as 40 percent of the initial solvent may be retained in the product.
It will be noted in Figure 23 that the line through the data points inter-
sects the ordinate at approximately zero, whereas the line in Figure 22
intersects at 2.3 lb/hr. This suggests that considerably fewer organics
are derived from paper passing through a hot air dryer than from paper
passing through a flame type dryer. Another possibility exists for this
phenomenon and that is the effect of the web upon burner performance
since the direct flame hot air dryer burners are located near the web to
achieve direct fla me drying.
Four samples were collected to determine whether or not dryer emission
(no printing, no paper) decrea sed with time (Ta ble 21). It wa s found
that the total organic content of the stream remained relativ'ely constant
over a 60-minute period, thus further substantiating the fact that
114
-------
TABLE 19
Uncontrolled Source: High Velocity Hot Air Drying System (4-WO)
Sample Press Ink Total Gas Flow Organic
No. Operation Sampled ~ Coverage Organics Rate Emission
(iph) (lb/imp) (PPM) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
1 4-color, I-web, uncoated 15000 .0022 686 5800 7.55*
2 780 5800 8.58*
3 4-color, I-web, uncoated 7000 .0022 354 5800 3.89*
4 418 5800 4.60*
5 Paper only, no printing 86 5800 0.95 *
6 (uncoated) 47 5800 0.52*
8 4-color, I-web, coated 15000 .0022 433 5800 4.76*
9 650 5800 7.15*
......
......
U1 10 4-color, I-web, coated 7000 .0022 183 5800 2.01*
11 180 5800 1.98*
13 68 5800 0.75
14 Dryer only, no printing 51 5800 0.56
15 Dryer only, no printing 114 5800 1. 25
16 88 5800 0.77
17 4-color, I-web, coated 7000 .0057 759 6000 8.65*
18 748 6000 8.53*
20 4-color, I-web, coated 12000 .0057 2295 6000 26.16
21 868 6000 9.89
25 4-color, I-web, coated 15000 .0057 2410 6000 27.47
26 1904 6000 21.70
27 4-color, I-web, coated 15000 .0057 2241 6000 25.54
28 2275 6000 25.93
*Plotted data point on Figure 23
-------
TABLE 20
"C" Factors for High Velocity Hot Air Drying Systems (4-WO)
Cylinder Press Type Emission Emission C Factor*
No. Ink Coveraqe Speed Paper Stock (calculated) (observed) Eobs . /Eca lc.
(lb/imp) (iph)
1 $: 2 0.0022 15000 uncoa ted 13.95 8.07 0.58
3 & 4 0.0022 7000 uncoated 6.81 4.25 0.62
8 5. 9 0.0022 15000 coated 13.95 5.96 0.43
10 S 11 0.0022 7000 coated 6.81 2.00 0.28
17 & 18 0.0057 7000 c oa ted 16.71 8.59 0.51
20 & 21 0.0057 12000 coated 28.11 18.03 0.64
2 5 J;. 2 6 0.0057 15000 coated 34.95 24.59 0.70
......
~
en
*The average conversion factor for the high velocity hot air dryer is
l-C, or 1-0.60 = 0.40. It should be emphasized that the "l-C"
factor represents that portion of the calculated organic emission
which may be: converted to C02 and water in the dryer, and/or
reta ined in the ink film on the paper, and/or otherwise unaccounted
for.
-------
6.23
organics are being generated from the operation of the dryer only. It
is further believed that the gas supply to the burners of the dryer is
responsible for nearly all the non-methane organics as measured.
Organics formed by the combustion process itself would be a possible
contributor.
It is of note here that these va lues are not significantly different
from those obtained for paper only (see Samples Nos. 5 and 6). This
suggests, in contrast to the conclusion drawn from the direct flame
study, that paper, when put through a hot air dryer, is not a measur-
able contributor to total organics emission.
TABLE 21
Emission from Dryer Operation Only (4-WO)
(Effect of Time)
Sample
No.
Time
(min)
Tota 1 Organics
(ib carbon/hr)
13
14
15
16
Field Observations
0-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
0.75
0.56
1. 25
0.77
During the conduct of the field sampling of both the direct flame hot
air and high velocity hot air drying systems, f~eld testing personnel
were able to make field observations in several areas. At the initial
start-up of the process and until a steady-state condition was reached
visible emissions appeared to be at their greatest. Generally, this
start-up period did not exceed 30 minutes, but the density of the
visible emission may have been of such magnitude as to constitute
a violation of the visible emission standards of the locality in which
the plant test occurred. Furthermore, on the processes as eva lu-
ated in this segment of the program, the smoke emission potential
appeared greater for the high velocity dryer than for the direct flame.
The fact is recognized that this observation was limited to the
physica 1 number of loca tions sa mpled and willcerta inly vary accord ing
to each individual plant. The type of paper, condition of the drying
equipment and prevailing atmospheric conditions all will affect this
observation. Nonetheless, this observation was made for the par-
ticular d,rying systems as eva luated in the progra m.
The area of odor evaluation continued to be a difficult one for the
field testing crew to assess. Again, within defined limitations and
capabilities of the test crew, the direct flame hot air type dryer
appeared to emit a more odorous type emis s ion when compared to
the high velocity type dryer. Due to the length of stay and
117
-------
6.3
6.31
6.32
prolonged saturation of the testing crew in the near vicinity of the stack
emissions, distinguishing of levels of odors became virtually impossible.
If it is found desirable to rate the intensity of the odor and compare this
with known or predetermined levels, an odor panel should then be formed.
Much of the observations made by the testing crew have been incorpor-
ated into Section 6.5 of this report, primarily those where testing data
is available to substantiate the recommendation or conclusion. The object
of this particular section of the report has been to relate certain observa-
tions for which scientific data are limited or non-existent and to impart
to the reader some additional insight which does not appear in the more
forma 1 sections of this report.
Controlled Sources
Introduction
In order to determine the effectiveness of air pollution control units
in converting organic emissions to carbon dioxide and water, the
following dryer-incinerator combinations were evaluated.
1.
Thermal incinerator with high velocity hot air dryer [refer
to Plant Code No. 5-WO (Appendix D)].
2.
Therma 1 incinera tor wi th direct fla me hot a ir dryer [refer to
Plant Code No. 6-WO (Appendix D)].
3.
Catalytic incinerator (I-bed) with direct flame hot air
dryer [refer to Plant Code No. 7-WQ (Appendix D)] .
4.
Catalytic incinerator (2-bed) with direct flame hot air
dryer [refer to Plant Code No. 7-WO (Appendix D)].
The practice of 'obtaining inlet (prior to the incinerator) and outlet
(after the incinerator) samples was followed for all tests so as to
permit the calculation of incinerator efficiency. The equation utilized
for this ca lculation can be found in Section 5. 7. Incinera tor efficiency
values were determined over a range of operating temperatures. Measure-
ments were also conducted on the concentration of carbon dioxide (C02)'
and carbon monoxide, and where applicable the nitrogen oxides (NOx)-
three products commonly a ssociated with the combustion process.
Thermal Incineration with High Velocity Hot Air Dryer
The results from this test are contained in Plant Code No. 5-WO,
Appendix D. For ease of reference, the data used in calculating
material inputs and outputs for this test are summarized in Table 22.
For a more comprehensive review of test results, see Table 34,
Section 6.4.
118
-------
TABLE 22
Controlled Source: Thermal Incineration With High Velocity Hot Air Dryer (5-WO)
(4-color, I-web perfecting press)
Sample Pres s Incinerator Tota 1 Ga s Flow Organic
No. Sa mpling Location Speed Temperature Organics Rate Emission
(iph) (OF) (ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
1 Inlet to control equipment 14000 1919 6350 22.80
2 II 1920 22.80
3 II 1000 102 II 1. 20
*4 Outlet of control equipment II 1000 inva 1 id II
5 II 1200 57 II 0.68
6 Outlet of control equipment 11 1200 151 11 1. 81
I-'
I-'
c.o
7 11 1300 14 11 0.17
8 Outlet of control equipment 11 1300 23 11 0.28
9 11 1350 18 II 0.22
10 Outlet of control equipment II 1350 28 II 0.48
** 11 II in va 1 id II
Inlet to control equipment
**12 II inva lid II
*Sample result invalidated; possible contact with trichloroethylene slurry
**Sample invalidated due to press operational difficulty
-------
Samples Nos. 1 through 12 consecutively were taken on a web
offset press with a high velocity hot air type dryer and controlled by
a thermal incinerator. Duplicate Samples Nos. 1, 2,11 and 12 were
taken at the outset and the conclusion to the test series/respectively.
These samples were taken with the intention of establishing the
emission level prior to entry into the air pollution control unit. Un-
known to the testing crew, a press stoppage occurred during the
sampling period and was so recorded on Data Sheet #3-ECD in the
field after the discovery was made. After review of the analytical
results, Samples Nos. 11 and 12 were thus invalidated based on
this occurrence. In order to establish the efficiency of the control
equipment, samples were collected at the outlet. However, due to
the inaccessibility of the control equipment, outlet samples were
collected sequentially and on an individual basis. Physical size
(height) of the control unit and selected sampling location would not
permit simultaneous collection of samples in duplicate as was the
ca se on the inlet.
Samples Nos. 3 through 10 consecutively were taken at the outlet
of the control equ ipment over a range of operationa 1 temperatures.
The incineration temperature of the thermal control unit was ob-
ta ined by means of a read- out from a temperature controller having
a thermocouple inserted into the center of the cha mber of the control
unit. Two sequential and individual samples were taken at each of
four temperature settings, 10000F, 12000F, 13000F, and 13500F
with an apparent increase in organic conversion efficiency being
noted with a corresponding increase in incineration temperature.
Concurrent with each sampling, nitrogen oxides (more commonly
referred to as NOx) readings were taken using a Universal Testing
Kit, Model No.2, No. 83498, manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance.
These read ings a long with the respective organic read ing in ppm
are shown in Table 23.
Figure 24 represents a plot of orga nics and NOx read ings (ta ken at
incinerator outlet) versus incineration temperature of the control
unit. Also included in Figure 24 is a plot of C02 values versus the
corresponding incineration temperature for the high velocity hot
air (h.v.h.a.) drying system.
An increase in incineration temperature is accompanied by an appar-
ent decrease in organic values while indicating an increase in both
the NOx and C02 va lues. The oxides of nitrogen are due to the
reaction of nitrogen and oxygen at elevated temperatures of incin-
eration. Carbon dioxide increase, of course, reflects the increased
oxida tion of organics.
The data recorded on the NOx values (although measured in low levels,
20-25 ppm) tend to substantiate the fact that thermally controlled processes
120
-------
TABLE 23
Comparison of Organic and NO Values
x
with Incineration Temperatures (5-\11/0)
Incineration
Temperature Tota 1 Orga nics ]\TO x
Outlet Outlet 0 utlet Efficie'lcy*
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
1000 102 10 94.61
1200 57 & 151 14 97.01 f,. 92.14
1300 23 & 14 20 98.80 & 99.86
1350 18 f.: 48 30 9 9 . 1 0 f\. 9 7 . 4 9
*For purposes of calculation of efficiency of the thermal
incineration unit studied, each individual sample was
utilized and the corresponding efficiency is 50 noted
in the table. Equation util.ized in efficiency calculation
can be found in Section 5.7 of this report.
Utilizing the data in Table 23, Figure 24 was constructed.
. (151) . Organics
140 . NOx
.. CO2
120
--
E 100 . 34
Q.
Q.
>C
0 80 ..
z 32
iii ...
(,) .to I
'c 0
....
IU 60 30 )(
C1
... N
o . 0
o
40 28 E
Q.
Q.
20 26
. .
..
0 24
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Incineration Temp. (OF)
Figure 24 - Web Offset Emissions: Organics, NOx, CO2.
(Thermal Incinerator - h.v.h.a. dryer)
121
-------
6.33
(those units utilizing flame type afterburners) have a potential for cre-
ating NOx emissions, which are generally accepted as an established
contributor to photochemica 1 smog.
An organic conversion efficiency of the 95 percent level was reached at
operational incineration temperatures between 1100 to 1200oF. In-
creased incineration temperature above 12000F is being accompanied
by an increase in the level of NOx emission as well as the carbon
monoxide levels and should be avoided. It should be emphas ized that
increasing amounts of CO (carbon monoxide) indicates incomplete com-
bustion of organic material.
A comparison between the observed and calculated emission rates and
the corresponding tIC II factor of 0.73 compares favorably with the
calculated average "c" value of 0.60 as presented in the uncontrolled
discussion of this section of the report for the high velocity hot air
type dryers (see Section 6.22).
Thermal Incineration With Direct Flame Hot Air Dryer
The results from this test are contained in Plant Code No. 6-WO,
(Appendix D). For ease of reference, the data used in calculating
materia 1 inputs and outputs for this test are summarized in Table 24.
For a more comprehensive review of test results, see Table 35,
Section 6.4.
Samples Nos. 13 to 22 consecutively, were taken on a web offset
press with a direct flame hot air (multi-stage) type dryer utilizing
therma 1 incineration type control equipment. Sa mples Nos. 15, 16,
20 and 21 were taken at the inlet to the control equipment in order
to characterize the emissions from the process and to establish the
inlet load ings for efficiency ca lculations. During the period in
which Samples Nos. 20 and 21 were being taken, a press shutdown
occurred which was unknown to the testing crew at that time and
not discovered until completion of the tests. This fact was so re-
corded on Data Sheet #3-ECD. After review of the ana lytica 1 results,
Sa mples Nos. 20 and 21 were thus inva lidated ba sed on this occur-
rence. In order to establish the efficiency of the control equipment,
samples were collected at the outlet. However, due to the inaccessi-
bility of the control equipment outlet, samples were collected sequen-
tially and on an individual basis. Physical size (height) of the
control unit and selected sampling location would not permit simul-
taneous collection of samples in duplicate as was the case on the
inlet.
122
-------
TABLE 24
Controlled Source: Thermal Incineration With Direct Flame ~-Iot Air Dryer (6-WO)
(4-color, I-web perfecting press)
Sample Pres s Incinerator Tota I Gas Flow Organic
No. Sampling Location Speed Temperature Organics Rate Emission
(iph) (oF) (ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
13 9000 1300 invalid* 5100 *
14 Outlet of control equipment II 1300 O. 00* * II **
15 II 297 II 2.88
16 Inlet to control equipment II 187 II 1. 78
17 II 1200 2.0 II 0.019
18 Outlet of control equipment II 1200 0.00** II **
I-'
N
0.) 19 II 1000 18 II O. 17
22 Outlet of control equipment II 1000 29 II 0.28
20 II inva lid*** II ***
21 Inlet to control equipment II inva I id*** II ***
*Result suspect; possible contamination from tricholorethylene
during sampling.
**Not detectable within experimental error.
***Result invalidated due to press operational difficulty.
slurry
-------
e-
o.
0.
-
>C
o
z 16
III
u
'c
III
en
...
o
TABLE 25
Comparison of Organic and NOx Values
with Incineration Temperatures (6-WO)
Incinera tion
Tempera ture Total Organics NOx
Outlet Outtet Outlet
(oF) (ppm) (ppm)
1000 18 & 29 1
1200 2-& 0.0 2
1300 0.0 4
Efficiency*
(%)
92.50 & 87.90
97.17 & 100.00
100.00
*For purposes of ca lculation of efficiency of the therma 1
incineration unit studied, each individual sample was
utilized and the corresponding efficiency is so noted in
the ta ble. Equation utilized in efficiency ca lculation
can be found in Section 5.7 of this report.
Utilizing the data in Table 25, Figure 25 was constructed.
. (29)
24
34
I . Organics
. . NOx
1 . cO2
32
8
1400
30 PI
I
o
'r""
>C
N
28 0
u
E
26 ~
24
o
22
1000
1200
Incinerator Temp. (OF)
1100
Figure 25 - Web Offset Emissions: Organics, NOx, CO2
(Thermal Incinerator - d.f.h.a. Dryer)
124
-------
6.34
Samples Nos. 13,14,17,18,19 and 22 were taken at the outlet of
the control equipment over a range of operationa l temperatures. In-
cineration temperature was determined by direct reading from the
thermocouple (of the temperature control device) inserted midway
into the chamber of the control unit. Two sequential and individual
samples were taken at each of the three temperature settings, 10000F,
12000F and 1300°F, with an apparent increase in organic conversion
efficiency being noted with an increase in incineration temperature.
Concurrent with ea'ch sampling, nitrogen oxide readings were taken
using the instrument described in the previous test (Section 6.32).
These read ings a long with the respective orga nic outlet read ings in
ppm are shown in Table 25.
Figure 25 represents a plot of organics and NOx readings (taken at
incinerator outlet) versus the incineration tempoerature of the control
unit. Also included in Figure 25 is a plot of C02 values versus the
corresponding incineration temperature for the direct flame hot air
(d.f.h.a.) drying system. An increase in incineration temperature
is accompanied by a pronounced decrease in organic values while
indicating an increase in NOx values.
Similar to Figure 24, Figure 25 indicates an increase of NOx emissions
with increased temperature. Furthermore, Figure 25 indicates an organic
conversion efficiency of 95 percent being reached at operationa 1 incin-
eration temperatures between 11 00 and 12 OOoF. The formation of NOx
and CO is also at a minimum at this temperature (I100-12000F).
A comparison between the observed and calculated emission rates,
expressed as the "C" factor of 0.40 compares very favorably with
the calculated average range of "C" value of 0.40 as presented in
the uncontrolled discuss ion of this section of the report for direct
flame hot air type dryers (see Section 6.21).
Catalytic Incineration (I-bed) With Direct Flame Hot Air_Dryer
The results from this test are contained in Plant Code No. 7-WO
(Appendix D). For ease of reference, the data used in calculating
monitored inputs and outputs are summarized in Ta ble 26. For a
more comprehensive review of test results, see Table 36, Section6.4.
Samples Nos. 1 through 12 consecutively were taken on a web offset
press with a direct flame hot air dryer and controlled by a single-
bed catalytic incinerator. Duplicate samples, Nos. 9,10,11, and
12 were taken with the intention of establishing the emission level
125
-------
TABLE 26
Controlled Source: Cata lytic Inc inerator (1- bed) With Direct Flame Hot Air Dryer (7-WO)
(2-web, I-color perfecting press)
Sample Press I nc inera tor Tota l Gas Flow Organic
No. Sa mpling Location S peed Temperature Organics Rate Emission
(iph) (OF) (ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
9 15500 284 5000 2.69
10 Inlet to control equipment " 297 " 2.81
11 15500 226 " 2. 15
12 Inlet to control equipment " 215 " 2.05
2 15500 950 849 " 4.62
..... 4 Outlet of control equipment " 950 4 " 0.038
N
CJ)
1 15500 850 98 " 0.93
3 0 utlet of control equipment " 850 6 " 0.057
5 15500 750 544 " 2.96
7 Outlet of control equipment " 750 6 " 0.057
6 15500 650 905 " 4.93
8 Outlet of control equipment " 650 135 " 1. 28
-------
of the process prior to entry into the air pollution control unit. In
order to establish the efficiency of the control equipment, duplicate
samples Nos. 1 through 8 were collected at the outlet of the control
equipment.
Samples Nos. 1 through 8 consecutively were taken at the outlet of
the control equipment over a range of operationa 1 temperatures. The
incineration temperature of the catalytic control unit was obtained
by means of a read-out from a temperature controller having thermo-
couples inserted just prior to and immediately after the catalytic bed.
In this case, the temperature of incineration was recorded as that
measured just prior to the bed, although a comparison check of the
temperature after the bed showed little or no variation between
the two.
For some unknown reason duplicate samples were not in agreement
and at three temperature settings, 650oF, 7500F and 950oF. At these
incineration temperatures the organic values of one of the duplicates
exceeded the established value for the process input. Upon further
investigation it was found that the catalytic unit was built and de-
signed to handle 3000 scfm of effluent, while recorded gas flow rates
performed during the test series indicated the unit was handling flow
rates on the order of 5000 scfm (approximately 1.5 times the design
capability). While the velocity profile for the system provides no
indication of irregular flow patterns or obstructions, it cannot be
dismissed as pure conjecture that a build-up pf organic material on
the material on the catalyst bed could conceivably account for the
unusua lly high organic va lues. Another poss ibility that must be
considered is that the catalytic incinerator has not undergone major
maintenance (i. e., removal and inspection of the catalyst bed for
contamination) throughout its entire two years of operation. Analytical
results of samples taken at the various temperature settings may
tend to support this requirement for maintenance. The data appear
to support the claims of air pollution regulatory officials that cataly-
tic units - if not properly ma inta ined - may fa il to achieve the
efficiency levels atta ined by therma 1 type afterburners. This.tends
to explain the apparent reluctance on the part of officials to approve
installation permits for this type of equipment. There is also a
greater tendency to place considerable reliability on the samples
obtained of the process only, irrespective of the control equipment,
since these orqanic values tend to be in agreement with a material
balance of the system. The (I-C) value for this type of drying system
(0.62) is in agreement with the average range of va lues reported from
previous tests on direct flame hot air type dryers, namely 0.60.
Concurrent with each sa mpling, an attempt was made utilizing a
Universa 1 Testing Kit to obtain read ings of nitrogen oxides. Results
127
-------
proved negative ind icating the apparent lack of nitrogen oxide gen-
erated from catalytic incineration. Previous tests of a thermal incin-
erator ind icated the presence of NOx' however, it should be empha-
sized that the temperatures a t which this phenomenon occurred wa s
considerably higher than that of catalytic incineration. The normal
operating temperatures for thermal units range from 10000F to 1400oF.
Utiliz ing the organic read ings obta ined wi th each correspond ing incin-
eration temperature, Table 27 was developed.
Figure 26 represents a plot of organics and corresponding C02 read-
ings (at incineration outlet) versus incineration temperature of the
control unit. Generally, with an increase in incineration temperature,
an apparent decrease in organic values occurs while the C02 readings
tend to increase to reflect the incineration of organic matter to C02
and water. This fact is not readily apparent in the figure and sug-
gests further investigation.
TABLE 27
Comparison of Organic and C02 Va lues
with Incineration Temperatures (7-WO)
Incineration Tota 1 Organics* C02
Temperature Outlet Outlet Efficiency**
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
650 135 & 905 16159 53.45
750 6 & 544 16378 97.93
850 98 & 6 16669 62.21 & 97.93
950 4 & 849 17535 98.62
*For purposes of table, all data are shown, however, certain
samples are suspect since results indicate the organic outlet
loading greater than that of the inlet.
**For purposes of ca lculation of efficiency of the cata lytic
incineration unit as studied, each individual sample was
utilized and the corresponding efficiency is noted in the
table. Equation utilized in efficiency calculation can be
found in Section 5.7 of this report.
Utilizing the data in Table 27, Figure 26 was constructed.
128
-------
140
.
.
120 ~ 18
. - Organics
.& - C02
100 .
(/I
.~ M
I
.1: 80 . . 16 0
III ....
CI >C
... N
o 0
E 60 u
Q. . E
Q. Q.
Q.
---
40 . -- 14
--
---
20
.
I
. . .
0 12
650 750 850 950 1050
Incineration Temp. (oF)
Figure 26 - Web Offset Emissions: Organics, CO2.
(1-Bed Catalytic Incinerator - d.f.h.a. dryer)
6.35 Catalytic Incineration (2-bed) With Direct FLame Hot Air Dryer
The results from this test are contained in Plant Code No. 7-WO
(Appendix D). For ease of reference, the data used in calculating
material inputs and outputs for this test are summarized in Table 28.
For a more comprehens ive review of tests results, see Ta ble 36,
Section 6.4.
Samples Nos. 13 through 24 consecutively were taken on a web off-
set press with a direct flame hot air dryer and controlled by a double
bed catalytic incinerator.
Two sets of duplicate samples, Nos. 21, 22, and 23, 24 were taken
at the conclusion to the test series. These samples were taken with
the intention of establishing the emission level of the process prior
to entry into the air pollution control unit. In order to establish the
efficiency of the control equipment, duplicate Samples Nos. 13
through 20 were collected at the outlet of the control equipment.
Samples Nos. 13 through 20 consecutively were taken at the outlet
of the control equipment over a range of operationa 1 temperatures.
The incineration temperature of the catalytic control unit was ob-
tained by means of a read-out from a temperature controller having
a thermocouple inserted just prior to and immediately after the cat-
alytic bed. In this case, the temperature of incineration was
129
-------
TABLE 28
Controlled Source: Catalytic InciBerator (2-bed) With Direct FLame Dryer (7-WO)
(I-web, 2-color perfecting press)
Sa mple Pres s I nc inera tor Tota l Gas FLow Organic
No. Sampling Location Speed Te mpera ture Organics Rate Emission
(iph) (OF) (ppm) (scfm) (lb carbon/hr)
13 Outlet of control equipment 17500 900 4 9300 0.070
14 II II 9 II 0.16
15 II 800 7 II 0.12
16 Outlet of control equipment II II inva lid II
17 II 700 15 II 0.26
18 Outlet of control equ ipment II II 18 II 0.32
I-'
w 19 II 625 30 II 0.53
<:) Outlet of control equipment
20 II II inva lid II
21 II 89 II 1.57
22 Inlet to control equipment II 309 II 5.45
23 II 246 II 4.33
24 Inlet to control equipment II 255 II 4.50
-------
recorded as that temperature just prior to the bed. A check of temp-
eratures indicated Little or no variation between the before-and-
after read ings. Duplicate and simultaneous samples were ta ken at
each of four temperature settings, 6250r, 700oF, 8000F and 9000F
with an apparent increase in organic conversion efficiency being
noted with a corresponding increase in incineration temperature.
Again, as was the case in the previous test (see Section 6.34),
duplicate samples were not in agreement at two temperature settings,
6250F and 800oF, and in all such cases the organic values of one
of the duplicates exceeded the established value of the process in-
put and were thus invalidated. In this case, however, the rated
capacity of the catalytic unit (12,000 scfm) was larger than the
recorded flow rate of effluent (9300 scfm) as measured during the
te st.
The velocity profile gave no indication of irregular flow patterns
existing in the unit that might poss ibly account for the unusua lly
high organic values. This catalytic unit along with the other unit
previous ly described in Section 6.34 has not undergone major ma in-
tenance and thus, analytical results of the samples taken may tend
to support this requirement for maintenance. Again, there is a
greater tendency to place reliability on the samples obtained of the
process only, irrespective of the control equipment since these
organic values tend to be in agreement with a material balance of
the system. Also, the degree of hydrocarbon conversion for this
type of drying system (0.64) is in agreement with the average range
of values reported from previous tests on direct flame hot air dryers,
namely 0.60.
Concurrent with each sampling, an attempt was made utilizing a
Universal Testing Kit to obtain readings of nitrogen oxides. Results
proved negative indicating the apparent lack of nitrogen oxide gen-
eration from cata lytic incineration.
Utilizing the organic read ings obta ined with each correspond ing
incineration temperature, Table 29 was developed.
Figure 27 represents a plot of organics and C02 values (from
incinerator outlet) versus incineration temperature of the control
unit. An increase in incineration temperature is accompanied by a
decrease in organic values while indicating an increase in C02
values.
An organic conversion efficiency at a 95 percent level was deter-
mined at an operational incineration temperature between 7000F to
800oF.
131
-------
In 20
.2
c
IV
CI
~ 16
o
E
Q,
Q, 12
TABLE 29
Comparison of Organic and C02 Values
With Incineration Temperatures
Incineration
Temperature Tota l Organics* C02
Outlet Outlet Outlet Efficiency**
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
625 30 & 284 12006 88.00
700 15 & 18 13614 94.00 & 92.80
800 7 & 426 15017 97.20
900 4 & 9 17641 98.40 & 96.40
*For purposes of table, all data are shown, however, certain
samples are suspect since results indicate the organic outlet
loading greater than that of the inlet.
**For purposes of calculation of efficiency of the catalytic incin-
eration unit as studied, each individual sample was utilized
and the corresponding efficiency is noted in the table. Equation
utilized in efficiency calculation can be found in Section 5.7
of this report.
32
28
1000
24
.
. Organics
. CO2
.
8
4
.
o
700
800
Incineration Temp. (OF)
900
Figure 27 - Web Offset Emissions: Organics, CO2.
(2-Bed Catalytic Incinerator - d.f.h.a. dryer)
132
20
18
PI
I
o
,...
>C
16 0
o
E
Q,
Q,
14
12
-------
6.36
Field Observations
Throughout the conduct of field sampling of air pollution control units
in control of the web offset process, field testing personnel were
a bLe to ma ke certa in fie ld observa tions. In the control of smoke and
odor both types of control equipment, thermal and catalytic,
appeared to function equally welt. At operational temperatures of
7000F to 8000F for catalysis and llOOoF to 12000F for thermal type
units, no vis ible emiss ion could be detected. Odor, on the other
hand, was not as easily discernible, although determinations
were made at various incineration temperature settings. It appeared
that at lower incineration temperatures than those stated above
odor was prevalent to some degree. This would suggest that certain
minimum incineration temperatures be achieved to keep the odor
problem to a minimum.
As a result of field samplings and knowledge obtained on the formation
of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and the overall reduction of
organic materiaL local control agencies would do well to thoroughly
eva luate a 11 data before recommending or imposing high temperatures
of incineration for various types of control equipment in order to elim-
inate odor. While the ability to achieve a high degree of organic con-
version efficiency is certain feasible, the possible formation of addi-
tional contaminants should be noted. Proper operational and main-
tenance programs for afterburners should be stressed. Section 6.5
of this report attempts to recommend for consideration certain opera-
tional aspects in the usage of control equipment for both the graphic
arts industry as well as pertinent regulatory bodies.
133
-------
6.4
Summary of Web Offset Test Results
Summary tables for aU web offset plants utilized in Task 3 field
work, namely Plant Code Nos. 3-WO through 7-WO (excluding 1-WO
and 2-WO which were primarily used to evaluate, improve and
further develop GATF's method of sa mpling a nd ana lys is) are pre-
sented in this section. These summary tables include ranges of
ana lytica l resu lts, organic convers ion efficiencies of various types
of a ir pollution equipment and operationa l characteristics of the
various types of meta l decorating graphic proces ses. In add ition,
a summary ta ble ind icating percentage low boilers from the various
web offset plant tests is presented.
An error in an equation used by CMUPML in calculating results has
decreased the reported calculated total sample volume and in-
creased calculated organic contents for plant test data from
1-WO through 7-WO (see PML 72-24, Appendix F, for extent of
change). In addition, an error introduced by a change in ca libra-
tion factors (see PML 71-40 and PML 72-229, Appendix F) indicates
that all trap sample results taken from field tests 1-WO through
7- WO may be high by an average va lue of 24.9 percent. No attempt
was made to recalculate the data as presented due to the amount of
data and the subsequent treatment of it.
(Summary Tables 30 through 41, inclusive, are shown on the
following pages.)
134
-------
Plant Identification
3-WO
4-WO
5-WO
6-WO
7-WO
2-color, I-web line
I-color, 2~web line
8-WO (BC)
9-WO (BC)
TABLE 30
Web Offset Plant Descriptions
Plant Description
Offen (Job No. 643B), d.f.h.a. dryer; fuel gas not metered separately;
more current dryer design.
Offen (Job No. 6273), h.v.h.a. dryer; 5.78 x 106 Btu/hr; fuel gas is
not separately metered; approximately 50% recirculation utilized for
process printing.
TEC Systems, Inc.. h.v.h.a.. 2-pass dryer (Model No. LAl3. Serial
#206); modern drying system utilizing latest engineering design.
Emission controlled by Skinner Engineering Co., Model S-50 Smoke
Abator; rated at 5000 scfm; I-year, 6-months old; capital cost = $14000;
installation co"st = $6000; fuel cost = $1000 per month.
Offen (No. 6454) d.f.h.a. dryer.
Emission controlled by B. Offen thermal incinerator; rated at 12000 scfm;
I-year; 6-months old; capital cost = $15000; installation cost = $6000;
fuel cost = $1200 per month.
Offen-Air (No. 6456) d.f.h.a. dryer; fuel- natural gas, not separately
metered; modern design.
Emission controlled by Oxy-Catalyst catalytic incinerator (TL-120-H-720);
2-bed unit; rated at 12000 scfm; fuel consumption = 8000-9500 cu ft/hr.
9 x 106 Btu/hr; I-year, 6-months old; capital cost = $29000; installation
cost = $6000; fuel cost $1500-1800 per month.
Offen. multistage, d.f.h.a. dryer; fuel- natural gas, not separately
metered; older type Offen dryer.
Emission controlled by Oxy-Catalyst catalytic incinerator (TL-45-H-400);
I-bed unit; rated at 3000 scfm; fuel consumption = 2500-2700 cu ft/hr,
3 x 106 Btu/hr; 2-years old; capital cost = $17000; installation cost =
$6000; fuel cost = $600 per month.
WPE (Web Press Engineering) d. f. h. a. combination dryer; 1. 2 x 106 Btu/hr;
older design that is no longer manufactured.
Emission controlled by a TEC Systems, Inc. "Turbo- Mix" thermal incinera-
tor (prototype unit, Model No. R-314); rated at 2500 scfm at maximum
designed operating temperature of 1500oF; fuel usage = 2800 cu ft/hr.
2 x 106 Btu/hr; I-year old; capital cost = $12000; installation cost =
$2500; fuel cost = $6870 per year based upon 2-shift. 5-1/2 day operation
week.
TEC Systems, Inc.. h.v.h.a. dryer (Model LA-12); modern in design; is
new installation; fuel consumption = 4400 cfh (rated), 2700cfh.(operational).
Emisslon controlled by TEC-H-40 MC (Job No. 305) thermal/catalytic
(dual function) lncinerator; rated at 4000 scfm at maximum designed
temperature (thermal - 1600oF, catalytic - 8000F); catalytic unit set-up
has I-bed; gas consumption = 1520 cfh for 8000r, 7.8 x 106 Btu/hr;
I-year old, capltal cost = $23000; installation cost = $4000; fuel cost
= $650 per month based upon 5-day, 2-shift operational week.
135
-------
[.1! '~:
(;fupl.l~ Pr ,rt:~& 'I,)! I" ,I,.:, 1"
Plant
Code Type of Operation
Ink
U saQO
(cyl. no.) (lb/llnp)
~ J\,,(.t,t
Press IldC'I')f.o.I:
- SpcerL__- -.i...:~f.:.!l'-
(c,,'I. t.').) 111:11) /. r) (I '.':r'lq':t)
fJt', ':1 I q. I !,~,r','
.- II I :','; -. ~ d' ';1 ' ,',
C;;f~ ' ~~~ .
. .
.!.~ .,'
.. .
{o'";.','
,.
3-WO
Operation of dryer only n. u. n.a. 11. 1, i.1:
I~. l' 2'4',
Paper passing through dryer 4 'J= 'j I ~Js.!. :.1'. ..t,~..
without printing. 9. 10 24000 n.a. n. a. 9, }(J ~ 1 ~ r~. 1 rJ)
(coated. cyls. no. 9. 10. 13. 14 18000 13. 14 ~4', 12= ~',-,::I- ~(:'l:~r,~.".'
uncoated, cyls. no. 13,14) rn. 14)
I .,."," .,~" 5.6 24000 0.40 n.a. n.a. 5.6.7.8 215 40= 91"55 rJlaoen :J!e:it:. r'Y.
II. C. 7.8)
4-color. I-web coated 21.22.23.240.0027 7.8.21 50= stod:.qlo::is
22.23.24 18000 n. a. .0. a. 21.22.23.24 240 (21.22.23.24) bLe. ~'cll~"I.'
2-color. I-web coated a II 0.0027 all 15000 0.40 n.a. n.a. all 230 70= stocl-:., hrilltcr,t b:ock.nrcc~.
2-color. 2-web uncoated all 0.0017 1.2 18000 0.40 n. a. a II 240 32= st?c% nc'::spr n: :..li:lci:. bl~c
3.4 12000 n.t).
4-WO 2000-10000 550-560 all 300
Operation of dryer only
Paper (uncoated) passing -- all 15000 2000-10000 550-560 all 300 60~
through dryer without printing
I all 0.0057 8.9.23.24 15000 0.40 2000-10000 550-560 8.9. I 0.11 300 40~
25.26.27.28
4-color. I-web coated 17.18.20.21 yellow, red
20.21 12000 22.23.24.25 315 40# black. blue
all 0.0057 0.40 2000-10000 550-560
10.11.17.18 7000 26.27.28
1.2 15000 0.40 2000-10000 550-560 all 300 60# yellow,rod
4-color. I-web uncoated a II 0.0022
3.4 7000 black. bluc
5-WO
4-color. I-web coated. all 0.0054 all 14000 0.40 n.a. n.a. all 240 50#: consotidated n.o.
perfecting
6-WO
4-color. I-web coated. all 0.0015 all 9000 0.40 n.a. n.a. all 210 50# offset stock n.a.
perfecting
7-WO
2-color, I-web uncoated, all 0.0020 all 17500 0.40 n.a. n.a. all 172 60# n. a.
perfecting
I-color, 2-web uncoated, all 0.0013 all 15500 0.40 n.a. n.8. all 240 33# n.8.
perfecting
8-WO (6(')
5-color. I-web coated, all 0.00325 all 16000 0.40 2400 340 all 340 100# n.8.
perfecting
9-WO (6(')
S-cotor, I-web coated, all 0.0025 all 27000 0.40 ** 5 2 00 600 all 390 50# n.a.
perfecting
.Rated or calculated
"5200 cfm at web temperature of GOOor
136
-------
TABLE 32
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 3-WO]
Cylinder Flow Organics Effie iency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers* CO S.Q2 CH4 Eobserved/Eca lculated of Trap
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
11 3900 194 n.d. 4126 54 1. 43/ -- 98
12 3900 2360 n.d. 3018 37 17.50/ -- 100
Operation of dryer only 15 2320 327 trace 4726 61 1. 45/ -- 97
16 2320 409 trace 5305 64 1. 75/ -- 98
Paper passing through dryer 9 3900 353 33 trace 3573 58 2.62/ -- 99
without printing 10 3900 203 n.d. 3397 55 1. 50/ -- 98
Cyls. No.9, 10-coated paper 13 2320 783 n.d. 3526 37 3.46/ -- 100
Cyls. No. 13,14- uncoated 14 2320 624 trace 4240 45 2.75/ -- 99
5 3900 1346 trace 2809 62 9.97/25.06 0.40 99
...... 6 3900 1688 21 tra ce 2349 48 12.50/25.06 0.50 99
eN 7 3900 1589 trace 3378 65 11. 75/19. 26 0.61 98
'-3 8 3900 1747 trace 4079 69 12.90/19.26 0.67 98
4-color, I-web coated
21 3900 1111 trace 3780 62 8.20/19.40 0.42 99
22 3900 2822 15 trace 4320 73 20.8/ 99
**23 3900 916 n.d. 122 6 6.79/19.40 0.35 100
***24 3900 811 n.d. 278 6 6.00/19.40 0.31 100
1 2320 1646 16 7590 39 7.26/16.0 0.45 97
2 2320 5977 trace 8848 49 26.3/ 99
2-color. 2-web uncoated 3 2320 1077 tra ce 4529 49 4.75/11. 75 0.40 99
4 2320 1050 n.d. 4330 55 4.64/11. 75 0.39 99
17 5600 524 n.d. 3731 23 5.57/ -- 98
18 5600 710 n.d. 3955 25 7.55/ -- 99
2-color, I-web coated 19 5600 605 n.d. 2105 17 6.44/ -- 100
20 5600 4767 n.d. 2146 16 47.9/ 100
*Only traps used with cylinders Nos. 2, 6, 9, 22 were evaluated for low boilers - high boilers composition.
**Sample suspect, cylinder lost vacuum from time of packing to time of use.
***Sample suspect, found loose fitting next to valve.
-------
TABLE 33
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 4-WOJ
Cylinder Flow Organics Effie iency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers* CO C02 CH4 Eobserved,IEca lculated of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
13 5800 68 27 7945 74 0.75/ -- 91
14 5800 51 trace 7673 68 0.56/ -- 94
Operation of dryer only 15 5800 114 3 trace 7948 61 1.25/ -- 96
16 5800 88 3 trace 7767 58 0.7-7/ -- 93
Paper (uncoated) passing 5 5800 86 4 6328 65 0.95/ -- 93
through dryer without printing 6 5800 47 trace 6545 69 0.52/ -- 85
1 5800 686 trace 4562 48 7.55/13.95 0.54 99
2 5800 780 trace 5949 64 8.58/13.95 0.62 99
4-color perfecting, I-web, 3 5800 354 trace 6126 64 3.89/ 6.81 0.57 98
........ uncoated 5800 418 4.60/ 6.81 0.68
UJ 4 2 6269 67 99
co
4-color perfecting, I-web, 8 5800 433 trace 5760 60 4.76/13.95 0.34 98
coated 9 5800 650 6 6221 67 7.15/13.95 0.51 99
10 5800 183 trace 6280 55 2.01/ 6.81 0.30 97
11 5800 180 trace 5866 57 1.98/6.81 0.29 97
17 6000 759 7 5810 , 49 8.65/16.71 0.52 99
18 6000 748 trace 5503 4B 8.53/16.71 0.51 99
20 6000 2295 4 trace 5660 48 26.16/28.11 0.93 99
21 6000 868 3 6305 39 9.89/28.11 0.35 99
23** 6000 19 n.d. 314 8 0.22/ -- 95
24** 6000 45 n.d. 332 11 0.51/ -- 98
25 6000 2410 trace 5848 50 27.47/34.95 0.79 99
26 6000 1904 trace 5533 47 21.70/34.95 0.62 99
27 6000 2241 14 7007 61 25.54/ -- 100
28 6000 2275 10 6956 62 25.93/ -- 99
*Only traps used with Cylinders Nos. 15, 16, 20 were evaluated for low boilers - high boilers composition.
**Sample results suspect, possible press shutdown during sampling.
-------
TABLE 34
Summary of Ana lytica l Res ults
[Plant Code No. 5-WOJ
Cylinder Flow Organics Effic iency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO CO CH1 EObserved/Eca lculated of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppmf (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
1 6350 1919 15 trace 5013 7 22.80/30.99 0.74 98
4-color perfecting, I-web 2 6350 1920 7 trace 5102 7 22.80/30.99 0.74 99
coa ted *11 6350 1402 5 tra ce 4926 7 * / -- 98
*12 6350 558 21 n.d. 2680 4 * / -- 97
4-color perfecting, I-web 6350 1. 20/
coated. outlet of control 3 102 98 191 24699 13 -- 22
equipment, T = 10000F(t.i.) ** 4 6350 10127 255 255 24452 14 ** / **
4-color perfecting, I-web 0.68/
coated, outlet of control 5 6350 57 96 89 29918 11 -- 9
equipment, T = 12000F (t. i.) 6 6350 151 80 118 29031 11 1.81/ -- 93
.......
w
tD 4-color perfecting, I-web
coated, outlet of control 7 6350 14 100 4 29881 6 0.17/ -- 0
equipment, T = 13000F (t. i.) 8 6350 23 100 45 32646 6 0.28/ -- 0
4-color perfecting, I-web 0.22/
coated. outlet of control 9 6350 18 89 III 32202 6 -- 11
equipment, T = 13500F (t. i.) 10 6350 48 100 163 31257 7 0.58/ -- 0
*Samples suspect; press shutdown occurred at unknown time during sampli.ng period.
**Sample result suspect; possible contact with trichloroethylene slurry during
sampli.ng period.
-------
TABLE 35
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 6-WO]
Cylinder Flow Organics Efficiency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO ...£Q2 CH4 EobservedJEca lculated of Trap
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
15 5100 297 41 n.d. 3420 8 2.88/5.85 0.49 99
4-color, I-web coated 16 5100 187 56 n.d. 3335 7 1.78/5.85 0.30 95
*20 5100 2 0 n.d. 1215 2 * 100
*21 5100 121 24 n.d. 2943 7 * 96
4-color, I-web coated, 23 0.17/ 0
outlet of control equipment, 19 5100 18 10Q 3S 22655 --
T = 10000r (t. i.) 22 5100 29 83 24 21643 20 0.28/ -- 21
4-color, I-web coated, 17 5100 2 100 trace 19 0.019/ n 0
outlet of control equipment, 26644
....... 18 5100 0 0 tra ce 24093 9 0.000/ --
.!:>o T = 12000r (t. i.)
a
4-color, I-web coated, **13 5100 2321 IOu n.d. 32419 1 ** 10C
-outlet of control equipment 14 5100 0 0 n.d. 32157 2 0.000/ --
T = 13000r (t.i.)
*Samples suspect; press shutdown occurred at unknown time during sampling period.
**Sa mple result suspect; poss ible contact with trichloroethylene slurry during sampling period.
-------
TABLE 36
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 7-WOJ
Cylinder Flow Organics Effic iency
Type of Operation ~ Rate Total Low Boilers CO CO~ CHi! E-bbserved/Eca lcula ted of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
9 5000 284 6 trace 5510 14 2.69/7.32 0.37 97
i-color perfecting, 2-web 10 5000 297 16 trace 5465 15 2. 81/7 . 32 0.38 98
uncoated 11 5000 226 16 trace 2880 7 2.15/ -- 99
12 5000 215 6 trace 2956 7 2.05/ -- 99
i-color perfecting, 2-web "2 5000 849 1 trace 18904 7 4.62/ -- 100
uncoated, outlet of control
equipment, T = 9500F (c. i.) 4 5000 4 75 trace 16066 3 0.038/ -- 100
i-color perfecting, 2-web 1 5000 0.93/
uncoated, outlet of control 98 28 trace 2072 3 10 -- 88
equipment, T = 8500F (c. i.) 3 5000 6 83 tra ce 12597 3 0.057/ -- 67
i-color perfecting, 2-web *5 5000 544 3 trace 14737 8 2.96/ -- 100
uncoated, outlet of control 7 5000 6 50 trace 15908 7 0.057/ -- 83
equipment, T = 7500F (c.i.)
I-'
~ i-color perfecting, 2-web *6 5000 905 0 trace 14246 7 4.93/ -- 100
I-' uncoated, outlet of control
equipment, T = 6500F (c. i.) 8 5000 135 7 trace 18072 6 1. 28/ -- 98
**-21 9300 89 12 tra ce 2459 57 1.57/ -- 91
2-color perfecting, i-web 22 9300 309 10 tra ce 3034 89 5.45/ -- 96
uncoated 23 9300 246 13 trace 3149 46 4.33/12.25 0.35 96
24 9300 255 11 trace 2982 46 4.50/12.25 0.37 97
2-color perfecting, i-web 13 9300 4 50 nAd. 17592 17 0.070/
uncoated, outlet of control -- 75
equipment, T = 9000F (c. i.) 14 9300 9 89 trace 17690 32 0.16/ -- 33
2-color perfecting, i-web 15 9300 100 n.d. 15017 0.12/ 29
uncoa ted, outlet of control 7. 38 --
equipment, T = 8000F (c. i.) *16 9300 426 0 trace 15559 17 7.54/ -- 100
2- color perfecting, i-web 17 9300 15 20 0.26/
uncoated, outlet of control n.d. 13465 18 -- 93
eqQ1pment, T = 7000F (c. i.) 18 9300 18 6 n.d. 13763 18 0.32/ -- 100
2-color perfecting, -i-web 19 9300 30 27 tra ce 12006 19 0.53/ -- 97
uncoated, outlet of control
equipment, T = 6250F (c. i.) *20 9300 284 2 tra ce 11268 18 5.02/ -- 99
*Sample suspect: results show organic outlet loading greater than inlet loading.
**;Pressure gauge on sample cylinder indicated loss of vacuum prior to sampling, thus results are suspect.
-------
TABLE 37
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 8-WO (BC)]
Cylinder Flow Organics Effic ienc;y
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO ~ CH4 EobservedlEca lculated of Trap
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ra tio) (%)
5-color perfecting, I-web 18 1400 2085 29 145 8606 241 5.58/16.80 0.33 96
coated, inlet to control 19 1400 2221 37 144 8714 246 5.92/16.80 0.35 96
equipment *23 1400 2166 50 67 8081 261 5.76/ -- 75
*24 1400 1341 33 46 6167 208 3.58/ -- 96
5-color perfecting, I-web 21 1400 117 100 711 34289 56 0.48/ 3
coated, outlet of control --
~, 22 1400 21 100 n.d. 34582 52 0.05/ 5
oJ:>. equipment, T = 11 OOoF (t. i.) --
l'V
5- color perfecting, I-web 42453 0.08/ 0
coa ted, outlet of control 25 1400 29 100 trace --
equipment, T = 13000F(t.i.) 26 1400 36 100 trace 42327 0.09/ -- 0
*Sample results suspect.
-------
TABLE 38
Summary of Ana Iytica I Results
[Plant Code No. 9-WO (BC))
Cylinder Flow Organics Efficiency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO C02 CH4 Eobs erved/Eca Icu la ted of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
27 3000 2608 13 60 8202 13 14.87/29.50 0.50 97
5-color perfecting, I-web 28 3000 2641 18 43 8136 13 15.05/29.50 0.51 98
coated, inlet to control 31 3000 2332 15 18 7512 17 13.28/29.50 0.45 99
equipment 33 3000 2532 14 35 7043 17 14.42/29.50 0.49 98
5-color perfecting, I-web 34 3000 455 19 121 18110 18 2.56/ 82
coated, outlet to control --
equipment, T = 7500r(c.i.) 38 3000 261 46 272 18518 17 1.48/ -- 59
>-'
..c:.
w 5-color perfecting, I-web 20826 17 0.54/ 19
coated, outlet of control 29 3000 95 86 103 --
equipment, T = 8000r (c. i.) 30 3000 116 66 141 21335 19 0.66/ -- 40
-------
TABLE 39
Average Low Boiling Percentages for
Various Web Offset Operations
Operational Sample Organics Dryer
C haracteris tics Temp. Tota 1 Low Boiler Low Boiler Temp.
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (OF)
d.f.h.a., coated paper 210-340 8420 3211 38 340-400
Therma 1 incineration
(outlet samples) 1000 47 42 89
1100 138 138 100
1200 2 2 100
1300 2386 2386 100
d.f.h.a. uncoated.
pa per 172-240 1921 216 11 5 5 0- 6 00
Catalytic incineration
(outlet sa mples) 625 314 13 4
650 1040 11 1
700 33 4 12
750 550 18 3
800 433 8 2
850 104 32 31
900 13 10 77
950 851 8 1
h.v.h.a., coated
.pa per 2 4 0- 3 9 0 15912 2150 14 450
Catalytic incineration
(outlet sa mples) 750 716 206 29
800 211 159 75
Therma 1 incineration
(outlet sa mples) 1000 10229 10191 100
1200 208 176 85
1300 37 37 100
1350 66 64 97
144
-------
TABLE 40
Summary of Organics Conversion Efficiency Ranges for Web Offset Industry
[Plants coded 5-WO, 6-WO, 7-WO, 8-WO (BC), 9-WO (BC)]
I nc inera tion Inlet Outlet C02*
Type of Operation [Plant Code] Temperature Concentration Concentration Outlet Efficiency
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
min. max. min. max. min. max. min. max.
Therma I Incineration
[5-COIOr perfecting, I-web coated, J
d.f.h.a. [8-WO (BC)]
4-color perfecting, I-web coated,
h.v.h.a., d.f.h.a. [5-WO, 6-WO]
I-'
,r::.
CJ1
Range, thermal incineration
[5-WO, 6-WO, 8-WO (BC)]
Catalytic Incineration
IS-color perfecting, I-web coated, ]
h.v.h.a. [9-WO (BC)]
2-color perfecting, I-web Jincoated,
d.f.h.a. [7-WO]
I-color perfecting, 2-web uncoated,
d.f.h.a. [7-WO]
Range, catalytic incineration
[7-WO, 9-WO (BC)]
*Includes inlet C02
1000
1100
1200
1300
1350
187 - 1920
2085 - 2221
187 - 1920
187 - 2221
1919 - 1920
1000 - 1350
187 - 2221
625
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
246 - 309
215-297
246 - 309
215 - 2641
246 - 2641
215-297
246 - 309
215-297
625 - 950
215 - 2641
18 - 102 21643 - 24699 87.90-94.61
21-117 34289 - 34582 94.57-99.02
0- 151 24093 - 29918 92.14 - 100.00
0- 36 29881 - 42453 98.34 - 100.00
18 - 48 31257 - 32202 97.49-99.10
0- 151 21643 - 42453 87.90 - 100.00
Average Efficiency, thermal incineration
30
135
15 - 18
6 - 455
7 - 116
6 - 98
4 - 9
4
4 - 455
11268 - 12006
14246 - 18072
13465 - 13763
14737 - 18518
15017 - 21335
12597 - 20723
17592 - 17690
16066 - 18904
11268 - 21335
96%
88.00
53.45
92.80-94.00
82.17 - 97.93
95.45- 97.20
62.21 - 97.93
96.40-98.40
98.62
Average Efficiency, catalytic incineration 89%
53.45 - 98.62
-------
TABLE 41
Range of Analytical Results for Web Offset Industry
Flow Organics Efficiency*
Type of 0 pera ticn Rate* Total. Low Bollers* CO. £9.2* ~. E{)bS~Ived)Eca leu la ted * ...£!..ill.P-
lPlant Code] (sefm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (da,a) (ratio) W)
5-color perfecting.
I-web coated, 13.28.15.05/29.50
h.v. h.a. 3000 2332.2641 13. 18 18. 60 7043. 8202 13. 17 0.45.0.51 97. 99
[9-WO (BC)]
5-cotor perfecting,
I-web cooted 1400 2085. 2221 29. 37
d. f. h.a. 144, 145 8606, 8714 241,246 5.58, 5.92/16.80 0.33, 0.35 96
[8-WO (BC)]
4-color perfecting,
I-web coated, 5800. 6350 180. 2410 4, 15 n.d., 1<4 5013, 7007 7. 67 1.98. 27.47/6.81. 34.95 0.29. 0.93
h.v. h.e. 97. 100
~4-WO. 5-WO]
4-color perfecting,
i-web coated, 1.78,12.90/5.85,25.06
d. f. h.a. 3900,5100 187, 1747 21, 56 n.d., trace 2349. 4079 7,69 0.30. 0.67 95, 99
[3-WO. 6-WO]
4-cotor perfecting,
I-web uncoated.
h.v. h.e. 5800 354. 780 trace, 2 4562, 6269 48, 67 3.89, 8.58/6.81. 13.95 0.54,0.68 98. 99
l4-WO]
2-cotor, I-web
coated,
d.f. h.a. 5600 524. 710 n.d. 2105,3955 17. 25 5.57,7.55/18.20 0.31. 0.42 98. 100
[3-WO]
2-color, 2-web
uncoated 2320 1050. 1646 n.d.. 16 4330. 7590 39, 55 4.64,7.26/11.75.16.0 0.39, 0.45 97. 99
d. r. h.a.
l3-WO]
2-color perfecting,
I-web uncoated, 5.45/12.25
d .f. h.a. 9300 246. 309 10. 13 trace 2982.3149 46. 89 4.33, 0,28.0.37 96.97
[7-WO]
I-color perfecting,
2-web uncoated 2.81/ 7.32 0.28.0.38 97. 99
d. f. h.a. 5000 215. 297 6, 16 trace 2880,5510 7. 15 2.05.
[7-WO]
Operation of dryer
only, 2320. 3900 194.409 n.d" trace 4126.5305 54. 64 1. 43, 1. 75/ 97.98
d. f. h.a.
l3-WO]
Operation of dryer
only, 5800 51. 114 -. 3 trace, 27 7673,7948 58. 74 .56. 1. 25/ 91. 96
h.v. h.a.
[4-WO]
Paper (coated. uncoated)
passing through dryer n.d" 3397. 6545 37. 69 .52, 3.46/ 85, 100
without printing. 2320. 5800 47. 783 -.33 4
l3-WO. 4-WOJ
*Values represent minlmum, maxlmum.
146
-------
Table 41 continued
Range of Analytical Results for Web Offset Industry
ORGANICS EMISSION CONTROL
Type of Operation Flow Organics Efficiency
[Plant Code] Rate* Total* Low Boilers* CO* £Q2* CH4* EObserved/Eca lcula ted* ~
(sefm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
Thermal Incineration
5-color perfecting,
1-web coated.
d. f. h.a. 1400 21. 117 100 n.d" 711 34289, 42453 1. 56 O. OS, 0.48/ 0, 5
T = 1I00-l3000r
[8-WO (BC))
4-color perfecting.
I-web coa tee!.
d.1. h.a. 5100 2, 29 O. 100 n.d.. 35 21643,32157 2, 23 0.00,0.28/ 0, 21
T = 1000-1300°1'
[6-WOJ
4-color perfecting,
I-web coated.
h.v. h.a. 6350 14, 151 80, 100 4, 191 24699, 32646 6, 13 0.17,1.81/ 0, 93
T = 1000°-1350°1'
[5-WOJ
Range, thermal incineration [S-WO, 6-WO, B-WO (BC)]
1400, 6350 2,151 0, 100 n.d., 711 21643,42453 1, 56 0.00, 1. 81/ 0, 93
Catalytic Incineration
S-color perfecting,
I-web coated,
h.v. h. a. 3000 95, 455 19, 86 103,272 18110, 21335 17, 19 0.54,2.56/ 19, 82
T = 750-800°1'
[9-WO (BC))
2-color perfecting,
I-web uncoated
d. f. h.a. 9300 4, 30 6. 100 n.d., trace 12006,17690 17, 38 0.070,0.53/ 29, 100
T = 625-900°1'
[7-WOJ
1-color perfecting.
2-web uncoated
d. I. h.a. 5000 4, 135 7, 83 trace 12597,20723 3, 10 .038, 1. 28/
T = 650-95001'
[7-WO]
Range. catalytic incineration [7-WO, 9-WC (BC)]
. 3000,9300 4.455
12006,21335
3, 38
0.07, 2.56/
6, 100
n.d., 272
SUMMARY
Range. dryers, all printing operations [3-WO, 4-WO, S-WO. 6-WO, 7-WO, a-wo (BC), 9-WO (BC)]
1400,9300 180,2641 4,56 n.d" 145 ,105,8714 3.246 1. 78,27.47/5.85,34.95
Range, all dryers [3-WO, 4-WO, 5-WO, 6-WO, 7-WO, 8-WO (8C), 9-WO (BC))
1400,9300 47,2641 3,56 n.d" 145 2105,8714
7,246 0.52,27.47/5.85,34.95
Range. organics emission control operations [S-WO. 6-WO, 7-WO. B-WO (BC), 9-WO (BC))
1400,9300 2,455 0, 100 n.d" 711 12006,42453 1,56
0.00, 2.56/
Range, all web offset operations [3-WO, 4-WO, 5-WO, 6-WO, 7-WO, 8-WO (BC), 9-WO (BC»)
1400,9300 2,2641 0,100 n.d.,711 2105,42453 1,246 0.00,27.47/5.85,34.95
*Values represent minimum, maximum
'( .
147
67. 100
19, 100
0.28, 0.93
95, 100
0.28,0.93
85, 100
0, 100
0.28,0.93
0, 100
-------
6.5
Recommendations/Conclusions Based on Web Offset Field Studies
The six tests conducted on web offset presses (controlled and un-
controlled sources) have led to a number of conclusions concerning
the factors involved in emission sampling, amount of emission
generated and control of organic emissions by corrective equipment.
These are summarized below:
1.
The two major variables determining the quantity of organic
emission are press speed and ink coverage. Reduction of
either of these reduces the emission rate. If both factors
are known for a given process, an estimate of the emission
rate can be made via equation (d), Section 5.63, by substitut-
ing for C the appropria te va lue depending on dryer type as
illus tra ted be low:
E (d. f. h. a .) = [S f (I x P) + R] ( 0 . 4 0)
E (h. v. h. a . ) = [S f (I x P) + R] (0.60)
Here, the contributions from paper and dryer have been in-
cluded in the residual (R). It should be understood that the
ca lculated va lue is a gross es timate and should not be
considered as a substitute for a thorough field test.
2.
The type of paper used (coated or uncoated) has no effect
(within experimental error) on the quantity of emission.
However, it may affect the quality - that is, the kinds of
organic molecules produced - and this may be crucial in
determining whether'or not a smoke or odor problem exists.
3.
Based on calculated C values, it appears that the direct flame
hot air dryer serves to some degree as a more effective oxidizer
of solvents than the high velocity hot air dryer. This conclu-
sion assumes that the solvent retention in the ink film and
paper is independent of dryer type.
4.
The proper operation of the dryer in an emission reduction
role should be thoroughly considered in a future emissions
study. There rema ins a serious need to study dryer emis-
s ions as a function of combustion control settings and
extent of recirculation. Unfortunately, due to the
148
-------
limited time allotted to a study of the two drying systems, direct
flame hot air and high velocity hot air, the degree of emission
reduction achievable through the operation of the dryer was not
fully evaluated. The extent of recirculation of the gas stream
within the various drying systems was not evaluated in the
progra m.
In all cases the testing was conducted on equipment running per
normal operation. No advance preparation in the form of dryer
tune-ups, etc. was made. It remains conceivable that greater
amounts of organic material could be oxidized in the dryer to
C02 and H20 than reported in this study, which further indicates
the need for regular dryer maintenance or tune-up programs.
5.
Based on the systems studied, thermal and catalytic incinerators
are effective in reducing organics. (In all cases, at 1100-
12000F for thermal incineration and 700-8000F for catalytic
incineration, control units were able to achieve a 95 percent
level of organic conversion at the stated incineration tempera-
t ure . )
6.
Based on the emission sampling of both uncontrolled and con-
trolled web offset processes, it appears that sampling in quad-
ruplicate, that is, two sets of duplicate samples may be
necessary. The wide range of emission values obtained in
several of the duplicate sample sets as sampled coupled with
frequent press interruption tend to support this recommendation.
Furthermore, there exists a greater assurance of reliability of
the sampling results if based on four determinations as. opposed
to two. Familiarity with the sampling procedure as well as the
process under evaluation may tend to reduce this requirement
with repeated samplings. Initially, however, it is recommended
that a minimum of four samples be collected for the process
variable to be eva luated.
7.
In the absence of concentration gradients, integrated grab
sampling is a simple and effective technique for determining
the total organic content of an emission. In the presence of
concentration gradients, multiple grab samples should be
collected in a pre-determined number of equal areas in order
to assure representative sampling of the process. It cannot
be over-emphasized that sampling should be conducted only at
a point of uniform flow and good mixing so as to provide a
greater assurance that the sample obtained will be representa-
tive of the process under evaluation.
8.
In the conduct of evaluating selective process variables (i. e.,
reduced solvent ink systems) the mea surement of the
149
-------
10.
contribution of paper and dryer exhaust to the total organ.ic con-
tent of the effluent stream cannot be overlooked. Establishment
of an adequate background emission level is necessary if one is
to be able to distinguish, identify and report on various process
modifications as to their effect on the quantity of emitted
organics. While it ha s been demonstrated in the field sampling
conducted in this progra m that the contribution from both paper
and dryer exhaust are of a minor nature, they should not be over-
looked if a detailed evaluation of the process is desired.
9.
The work of Carruthers (74) ha s shown that the percentage of
low-boiling compounds in a web offset emission is higher for
direct flame drying than for high velocity type drying, and
higher for coated stock than for uncoated. The observation
suggest the involvement of a thermal cracking of the hydro-
carbons (which produces small, low boiling molecules) would
be favored by a coated sheet (where adsorbed molecules would
tend to be more exposed than on an uncoated sheet) under high
temperatures. Since it is believed that low boilers (74) con-
tribute to the odor problem in web offset printing, the per-
centage of these compounds in the emission assumes
considerable importance.
In Table 39 (see Section 6.4) data is presented which agrees
with the observations of Carruthers. For coated stock passing
throug had irect fla me hot a ir dryer, the percentage of low
boilers is 38; this should be compared with 11 percent for un-
coated stock. Data from the high velocity hot air dryer (coated
paper) showed only 14 percent low boilers - considerably less
than the direct flame hot air dryer.
Table 39 (see Section 6.4) also gives percentage low boilers
derived from thermal and catalytic incinerators. As might be
expected, the thermal incinerator, with its higher operating
temperature, gave a higher percentage of low boi lers.
As a recommendation for further study, we suggest that the
organic conversion efficiency of a given air pollution control
unit be determined as a function of gas cost, that is, that a
plot of efficiency versus cost/hour of press time be made.
In the studies conducted in this program an assessment of
efficiency in terms of temperature wa s determined. In view
of reported fuel shortages throughout the country and in view
of the understanda ble interest of printers in the economics of
this control equipment, it would be of extreme value to relate
whether an efficiency increment, say from 95 to 97 percent
would be worth the additiona 1 cost and resource burdens.
150
-------
In the sampling conducted at the various plants, no single plant
metered natural gas separately to the dryer and to the control
equipment. It would seem necessary that one be able to measure
the input of gas into the system so as to be able to relate it to
efficient operation. If a cost versus efficiency study can be con-
ducted it should also include an afterburner unit which supplies
a majority of the heat for the dryer through a heat exchanger.
The feasibility of field application of this type of system at the
present time appears remote.
11.
A recent study (94) by J. D. Carruthers, Ambassador College
Press, Pasadena, California, has indicated that isopropyl alcohol
from Dahlgren type dampening systems may be a contributor to a
heatset dryer organic emission. More extensive studies are
warranted by these disclosures in terms of in depth eva Luation of
the contribution of organic products from alcohol dampening
systems to the total observed organic emission from a printing
press.
151
-------
152
-------
7.0
7. 1
7.2
7.21
METAL DECORATING FIELD TESTS
I ntrod uction
The fourth task of the Phase II program effort was directed toward
the assessment of emissions from both uncontrolled and controlled
metal decorating coating and lithographic operations including the
operation of ovens conta ining no processed meta llic sheets. The
completed task included a study of the individual and net effect
of the various oven combustion products, ink coverage, and the
different coating weights and solvent percentages upon the ex-
hausted emiss ions.
Experimental Results - Uncontrolled Plants
Plant Test No. 2-MD (Appendix E)
Field studies were conducted at a metal decorating plant which
utilized no air pollution control equipment. This testing followed
the sampling program outlined in Table 15, Appendix C.
The sampling procedure previously described in Section 4.0 was
followed in the field. Tv-renty-six samples were collected from a
variety of meta 1 decorating operations and were ana lyzed. All
data collected at this plant were coded and assigned an appropri-
ate code No. 2-MD, and can be located in Appendix E. Press oper-
ating cond itions at the time of sa mpl ing were recorded. Sheet
sizes, milligram weights of coatings, and press speeds were ob-
tained for each process line studied. In addition, information was
obtained from plant personnel on the percent solvent (by weight)
for both coatings and inks utilized during the test.
The results of the tests are presented in Data Sheets Nos. 1 through
5, Appendix E, and in summary Table 42, this section. An error in
an equation used by CMUPML in calculating results has decreased
the reported ca lculated tota 1 sa mple volume and increased the ca 1-
culated hydrocarbon content presented on these data sheets (see
PML-72-24, Appendix F, for extent of change).
The twenty- s ix sa mples were collected in an attempt to define and
evaluate the various levels of emission from specific metal decor-
ating operations. Four samples (numbered 3 through 6 consecu-
tive ly) were collected to determine whether or not emis s ions from
only the heated oven decreased with time (see Table 43, this sec-
tion). It was found that the total organic content of the stream
remained relatively constant over a 40-minute period. Additionally,
two samples Nos. 27 and 28, were taken from only a heated coat-
ing oven over a 30- minute period with similar res ults. The
153
-------
possibility exists that the gas supply to the oven is responsible
for nearly all the non-methane hydrocarbons measured. However,
further studies will have to be conducted on the effect of an oven1s
specific operational, structural,or mechanical characteristic upon
emitted oven pollution before any conclusive statement can be
made.
TABLE 43
Emission from Heated Oven Only
(Effect of Time)
Press
3
4
5
6
Tota 1 Tota 1
Time Hydrocarbon Orga nics
(min) (ppm) (lb C/hr)
0-10 394 0.68
11-20 553 0.93
21-30 445 0.75
31-40 232 0.39
0-15 55 0.24
16- 3 0 96 0.42
Oven Type
Sample
No.
C oa ting
27
28
Two samples, Nos. 7 and 8, were taken of a one-color lithography
with no application of varnish. The level of organics emitted was
within the level of background organic emission from only the heated
oven. A considerable rise in the level of organic emission was noted
for two additional samples, Nos. 1 and 2, taken from the same one-
color lithography operation with the inclus ion of a tra iL ing varnis h
coating application. It was concluded that the emission due to
metal decorating lithography (printing) with no trailing varnish
application is insignificant when compared to emission from subse-
quently applied varnish, lacquer, or pigmented coatings.
In metal decorating graphic processes, an operation termed IIsizingll
enta iLs the placement of a thin film of coating on the ba se meta 1 to
insure adherence of additional coating materials to the metallic
sheets. Four samples, Nos. 14 through 17, were used to determine
the level of emission from this operation.
Four coatings were evaluated (shown on Data Sheet 3-ECD-A, 2-MD,
Appendix E). The organic emission rate of the various coating oper-
ations in this metal decorating plant tended to fall within certain
defined ranges for uncontrolled plants as shown in Table 60,
Section 7.4.
154
-------
An attempt was made to calculate the amount of coating material
applied to a metal sheet and to relate this calculated value to an
actual usage rate. Plant personnel determined that the amount of
coating materia 1 consumed for a white a lkyd coating application
(Samples Nos. 10 and 13 were taken during this period), over a
specified period of time, was equiva lent to a rate of 15 ga llons per
hour. For the same period and using known coating process para-
meters, a calculation, shown below, yielded a result of 12.4
gallons of coating per hour which compared favorably to the
estimated usage rate.
1.
Sample Calculation: Finding the Amount of Coating
Material Applied to a Metal Sheet.
Known quantities:
Sheet size:
Press speed:
Coating thickness
(film wt.):
Solvent/solids ratio:
Density of material:
26-3/4" X 32-1/2" or 869.375 sq in
68 sheets/min or 4080 sheets/hr
38.4 mg/4 sq in (essentially dry)
41/59
10.2lb/gal
(a)
(~)
869.375 sheet
x 4080
(sheets) (~)
hr = 3, 5 4 7, 02 9 . 6 0 hr
converted to units of four (4) sq in per hour this becomes
3547029.60
4
= 886,757.4
c ~~ in )
(b)
886, 575.4
(4 ~; in)
x 38.4 (4 s~gin ) /1000 mg per gm
= 34, 051.48 (g~S)
34,051.48/453.6 lb/hr = 75.07 lbcoating (dry)
hr
(c)
convert to lb/hr:
(d)
75.07
solids content of coating = 0.59; 0.59
lb
= 127. 2 ~ (wet
basis, including coating solids plus solvent)
127.211:> coating/hr (wet basis) - /
10.21b/gal - 12.4 gal hr
Equations were developed in Section 5.61 through 5.63 relating
those factors affecting organic emission rate from various metal
decorating coating, lacquering, varnishing, and sizing operations
155
-------
TABLE 42
Summary of Ana lytica I Results
[Plant Code No. 2-MD)
Cylinder Flow Organics Efficiency
Type of 0 pera tion. No. Rate Total Low Boi lers CO C02 CH4 Eobserved/Eca lcula ted of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
3 900 394 91 37 7069 1705 0.68/ -- 69
Press oven only, (no lithogra phy, 4 900 553 44 20 7394 1657 0.93/ -- 78
no processed metal sheets) 5 900 445 94 21 7159 1733 0.75/ -- 73
6 900 232 94 33 7973 1733 0.39/ -- 48
Coating oven only, (no coating 27 2300 55 64 n.d. 4579 115 0.24/ -- 87
applications, no processed 28 2300 96 96 tra ce 4680 118 0.42/ -- 92
metal sheets)
I-color lithography, 7 925 162 94 26 7572 1361 0.27/ -- 41
(no trailing varnish) 8 925 130 83 31 7284 1387 0.22/ -- 24
...... I-color lithography, 1 900 9124 94 68 8515 1707 15.47/39.41 0.39 98
CJ1 (with tra iling varnish) 2 900 8177 96 77 8064 1562 13.94/39.41 0.35 98
(j)
14 2300 1944 99 tra ce 6978 325 8.36/44.50 0.19 99
Sizing 15 2300 1491 97 trace 7183 328 6.60/44.50 0.15 98
16 2300 2750 98 tra ce 7050 292 11.88/44.50 0.27 99
17 2300 1808 100 tra ce 6752 305 7.92/44.50 0.18 99
18 2300 4600 99 tra ce 6663 88 20.24/56.07 0.36 100
Gold lacquer coating 19 2300 65 77 trace 373 3 0.28/56.07 0.01 100
22 2300 4206 98 tra ce 6408 84 18.48/56.07 0.33 100
24 2300 4288 98 tra ce 7038 92 18.92/56.07 0.34 100
White alkyd coating 10 2300 4917 96 tra ce 5785 45 21.56/51.14 0.42 100
13 2300 4949 92 trace 5820 54 21.78/51.14 0.43 100
29 2300 3871 92 trace 5514 228 17.02/49.02 0.35 100
Beige a lkyd coating 30 2300 3244 93 trace 5926 210 14.25/49.02 0.29 100
31 2300 2773 93 n.d. 5794 164 12.18/49.02 0.25 100
32 2300 61 72 tra ce 5422 195 0.27/49.02 0.01 80
White vinyl coating 25 2300 6997 99 trace 6729 331 30.80/76.00 0.41 100
26 2300 6095 97 trace 6728 312 26.84/76.00 0.35 100
-------
exclud ing lithography or printing. The terms of the equations have
been defined previously and will not be discussed further in this
section.
A comparison between observed (Eobs) and ca lcula ted (Eca lc) emis-
sion rates are presented in summary Table 42, this section. Plant
data are shown on Data Sheet 3-ECD-C, 3-MD, Appendix E.
Representatives of the metal decorating industry have historically
questioned the validity of single grab samples being representative
of the organic emissions from its graphic operations over extended
time periods. Therefore, a controlled experiment was conducted to
show the relationship between organic emission levels from a coat-
ing process and time. Samples Nos. 29 through 32 were ta ken from
a beige alkyd coating operation during definite time intervals as
shown in Table 44. One skid of metal sheets was coated for this
test. The press speed, monitored throughout the test period, re-
mained constant at 44 sheets per minute, and the full sheet capacity
of the oven was 1080 sheets. Table 44 relates the tota L number of
sheets coated and the number of sheets in the oven (fill level) with
elapsed time of the test.
TABLE 44
Oven Capacity With Time
Elapsed Time
(min)
No. of Sheets in Oven
Fill Leve 1 of Oven
1
12
24.5
36
49.0
44
520
1080
540
o
Essentia lly empty
Approximately 1/2 full
Full
1/2 ha lf empty
Empty
Table 45 lists the amount of organic emission sampled during pro-
gressive time intervals of the test at various fill levels of the oven.
Figure 28 (Appendix B) is a graphical correlation of the variables in
Table 45.
The distribution of the measured organic emission in Figure 28 is
out of phase with the rise and fall of the number of metal sheets in
the oven.
Figure 28 represents an ideal run where one skid of metallic sheets
passes entirely through the oven before a second skid is introduced.
In actuality, skids are introduced consecutively into an oven with
a three- to five-minute time interval between skids. Assuming new
157
-------
TABLE 46
Summary of Ana lytica l Results
[Plant Code No. 3-MDJ
Cylinder Flow Operations Efficiency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO C02 CH4 EobservedjEca lcu la te~ of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
I-Color litho 9 3700 64 84 trace 10085 314 0.45 69
(no trailing varnish) 10 3700 67 67 tra c e 10299 284 0.47 73
2-Color litho 5 1700 133 76 26 5306 798 0.27 58
(no tra iling varnish) 6 1700' 87 89 37 4960 687 0.42 43
I-Color litho 7 1700 2140 77 14 11522 425 6.78/32.14 0.21 98
(with trailing varnish) 8 1700 2082 77 trace 11238 393 6.72/32.14 0.21 98
2-Color litho 11 1700 2185 83 8 10010 229 7.04/ 27.97 0.25 99
(with trailing varnish) 12 1700 1442 77 5 10384 217 4.65/ 27.97 0.17 98
I-'
Ul
co Sizing 17. 3000 5573 96 27 6959 459 31.35/ 46.25 0.68 99
18 3000 5447 96 23 7032 479 30.78/ 46.25 0.67 99
Clear lacquer coating 19 3000 20363 99 17 9411 540 115.71/169.79 0.68 100
20 3000 21405 99 18 9387 547 121. 98/169.79 0.72 100
Gold lacquer coating 1 4200 6052 94 trace 3919 124 48.40/ 73.22 0.66 100
2 4200 6785 96 trace 4493 135 54.24/ 73.22 0.74 100
Modified phenolic 13 1700 1769 69 tra ce 9041 11 5.71/43.13 0.13 99
varnis h 14 1700 1524 61 14 9375 11 4.91/43.13 0.11 99
Enamel buff coating 15 2400 20045 97 8 3825 9 91.20/145.72 0.63 100
16 2400 21684 99 43 3755 9 98.49/145.72 0.68 100
P'asticized white 21 4200 8295 99 23 4648 408 66.32/133.15 0.50 100
coating 22 4200 9137 99 13 4468 390 73.04/133.15 0.55 100
Vinyl white coating 3 3950 7408 97 trace 3706 76 56.24/156.45 0.36 100
4 3950 13773 98 24 5669 116 104.12/156.45 0.67 100
-------
7.22
skids entered the oven every thirty minutes in an actual coating pro-
cess, emission levels could be depicted as in Figure 29 (Appendix B),
assuming a constant air dilution of emission or constant sefm.
Figure 29 represents the curve in Figure 28 repeated over a four-hour
period, and depicts high organic emission intervals when the emission
from coated metallic sheets from two skids in the oven at the same
time were added together. Although organic emission levels fluctu-
ated with time, the tota 1 emitted organics over an extended time
period could be represented by a graphical average.
TABLE 45
Oven Organics Loading With Time
Sample
No.
Organic Load ing
(ppm) (lb C/hr)
Time Interva 1
(m i n)
Fill Leve 1 of Oven
29
30
31
32
2-12
13-23
24- 3 3
34- 44
3871
3244
2773
61
17.02
14.25
12.18
0.27
o to one- ha lf full
one- ha lf to full
full to one-half empty
one- ha If empty to
empty
Plant Test No. 3-MD (Appendix E)
Field studies were again conducted at a metal decorating plant which
utilized no air pollution control equipment in an attempt to further
eva luate meta 1 decorating operations which were not included in the
previous plant test (Plant Code No. 2- MD). Twenty-two sa mples
were collected and analyzed for a variety of metal decorating opera-
tions. All data collected at this plant were coded appropriately
No.3-MD. Press operating conditions at the time of sampling were
recorded. Sheet size, milligram weight of coating, and coater speed
were obtained for each process line studied. In addition, information
was obtained on the percent solvent (by weight) for both coatings and
inks during the test from plant personnel.
The results of the tests are presented in Data Sheets Nos. 1 through
5, 3-MD, Appendix E, and summary Table 46, this section.
All sample sets taken were in duplicate. Two samples, Nos. 5 and 6,
were taken of one-color lithography with no application of varnish,
and two samples, Nos. 9 and 10, were taken of two-color lithography
with no application of varnish. Genera lly, the level of organic
emission determined by analysis (less than 1.0 lb carbon per hour)
wa s within previous ly determined background emis s ion leve ls from
a heated oven (see 2-MD, section 7.21).
159
-------
7.23
Four additional samples (Nos. 7 and 8; Nos. 11 and 12) taken of the
emission from the same one-color and two-color lithography, respec-
tively, with the application of a trailing varnish, produced a con-
s idera ble rise in the output leve 1 of organic emiss ion (e. g. 4.0 to
7.0 lb carbon per hour). It was aga in concluded that the organic
emissions due to lithography (printing) in a metal decorating graphics
operation,with no trailing varnish a pplica tioOt was insignificant when
compared to the measured levels of emission after applying varnish,
lacquer, or pigmented coatings.
In addition to duplicate samples of the sizing operation, samples
Nos. 17 and 18, six different coating operations were used for evalu-
ating levels of organic emission. Table 47 shows dry film thickness
or weight and percentage of solvent for the various coatings used.
The emission from these coatings tend to fall within certain ranges
for uncontrolled plants as shown in Table 60, Section 7.4.
TABLE 47
Various C oa ting Varia bles
Cylinder
No.
Film
Thickness
(mg/4 sq in)
Solvent
(%)
Type of Coating
1 and 2
13 a nd 14
1 9 and 2 0
2 1 and 2 2
3 and 4
15 a nd 1 6
85.23
70.93
84.64
60.62
62.66
67.54
Gold lacquer
Mod ified phenolic varnis h
Clear lacquer
Plasticized white
Vinyl white
Ena me 1 buff
5.5
8.5
16.0
37.5
41.5
47.0
A comparison between observed (Eobs) and ca lcula ted (Eca lc) emiss ion
rates is presented in the summary Table 46, this section. Plant data
are shown on Data Sheet 3-ECD-C, 3-MD, Appendix E.
Field Observations
As was the case with the web offset field testing, certain field observa-
tions were made by tes ting pers onne 1 during the sa mp ling of the various
metal decorating operations. Little, if any visible emission was de-
tected for the lithographic operation, and also when varnish was applied
to the printed sheet by means of a trailing coater. However, an odor
was detected with the application of varnish, but little, if any, odor
was detected from the printing (lithographic) step. Generally, visible
emission could be detected for most coatings evaluated, although
rarely would the emission level observed be classified as a violation
of a visible emission standard.
160
-------
7.3
7.31
It seemed that a smoky condition resulted when an oven of rather
old vintage was being employed by the plant. One would suspect
that an oven not periodically subjected to tests for oven flame com-
bustion efficiency, could have a condition of incomplete or inefficient
oven flame combustion occurring with a resultant higher level of
emitted pollution and visible emission. This fact was substantiated
by field observations (see Section 7.5, D) when the age and main-
tenance record of the oven was available to GATF sampling personnel.
On at least two occasions, a comparison was made of the visible
emis s ion from identica lly proces sed meta I sheets in different ovens
at different plant locations. It was noted that the plant which em-
ployed a regularly scheduled maintenance program was able to contain
the level of visible emission within acceptable standards, whereas
the plant utilizing an older, unmaintained oven had a higher level of
visible emission. This observation led to a tentative conclusion
that a properly balanced and maintained oven can yield a lower level
of visible emission.
Odor evaluations of the various coatings employed in the metal decor-
ating process proved a difficult area to assess. Due to prolonged
periods of exposure at or near the exit vicinity of stack emission, the
ability of sampling personnel to effectively distinguish various odors
and levels of concentrations for the various odors was found to be vir-
tually impossible. As was expected, there were distinct odors present
when a heavy coverage milligram weight coating with a high percentage
of solvent wa s being run throug h a n oven. As in the web offset stud ies, if it
is found desirable to rate various coatings for odor potential, stan-
dard methods of odor evaluation should be initiated and employed
(e.g. panel of individuals can be formed to evaluate the various
odors) .
Several of the more pertinent observations made by the testing crew
have been recorded on data sheets found in Appendix D, and listed
in Section 7.4 and 7.5, a long with pertinent conclus ions and
recommendations based upon available test data. Again, it is hoped
that these observa tions will impart some add itiona I ins ight which
does not appear in the other sections of this report.
Experimental Results - Controlled Plants
Plant Test No. 4-MD (Appendix E)
Field studies were conducted at a metal decorating plant that con-
trolled its organic emission by using thermal incineration. Testing
followed the "controlled source" sampling program outlined in
Table 15, Appendix C, and included two different process coating
lines.
i61
-------
Twenty- s ix sa mples were collected at various incineration tempera-
tures. All data collected were coded No. 4-MD, and the sampling
and plant evaluation results are presented in Data Sheets Nos. 1
through 5, 4-MD, Appendix E, and summary Table 48, this section.
Cylinders Nos. 1 through 12 were samples of emission resulting from
the vinyl phenolic lacquer coating operation. The results of the dupli-
cate samples, Nos. 1 and 2, and Nos. 9 and la, represented the
emission level of the coating process prior to thermal incineration,
and an average value of organic emission for these four samples were
utilized in calculations later described in this section. Samples
Nos. 3 through 8 and Sa mples Nos. 11 and 12, represent emiss ion
levels at the outlet of the control equipment over a range of incinera-
tion temperatures (9000r, 10000r, 12000r and 14000r) set by plant
personnel using an indicating temperature controller having a thermo-
couple inserted into the upper quadrant of the control unit chamber.
Concurrent determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOx) were attempted,
however, the thickness of the incinerator wall (in excess of 8 inches)
prevented the full insertion of the 6-inch detector tube previously
used in this type of field evaluation and samples could not be taken.
Table 49 lists incinerator inlet and outlet organic emission levels
and C02 incinerator outlet emission levels along with corresponding
organics conversion efficiencies and temperatures of incineration.
rigure 30, shows the change of organic and C02 emission levels
at the incinerator outlet w:th changes in incinerator temperatures
for the vinyl phenolic lacquer coating operation. An increase in
incineration temperature is accompanied by a marked decrease in
organic emission levels with a correspondinq increase in the level
of C02 emission. The organics conversion efficiency reached the
95 percent level at an operational incineration temperature range of
1100 to 12000r.
The overall combustion efficiency of the incinerator (indicated by
the amount of CO present in the incinerator outlet exhaust) also
increases with increased incineration temperatures (see summary
Table 48, this section). The average percentage of the CO outlet
value to the average inlet organic loading value, expressed as ppm
C02' at 9000r wa s 25 percent; at 1 oooor, 2 a percent; and at
12 OO°F, 1. 5 percent. No outlet CO wa s detected at 14000r. It
should be noted that an incinerator operating inefficiently because
of faulty maintenance or improper temperature settings can exhaust
partia lly oxid ized a ir pollutants (e. g. CO, NOx)'
162
-------
TABLE 48
Summary of AnalyticaL Results
[Plant Code No. 4- MD]
Cylinder Flow Organics Efficiency
Type of 0 pera tion ~ Rate Total Low Boilers CO C02 CH4 Eobserved/Eca lculated of Trap
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ra tio) (%)
1 4500 3076 73 10 6388 107 26.35/93.16 0.28 100
VinyL phenolic lacquer, 2 4500 2860 73 6 6652 7 24.65/93.16 0.26 100
inlet to control equipment 9 4500 5780 97 16 7205 103 49.30/93.16 0.53 100
10 4500 5756 97 11 7021 101 48.45/93.16 0.52 100
Vinyl phenolic lacquer, 11 4500 884 95 1015 26472 95 7.65/ -- 77
outlet of control equipment, 12 4500 898 34 1063 26847 96 7.65/ -- 73
T ~ 9000F (t. i.)
Vinyl phenolic lacquer, 7 4500 440 96 630 26078 91 3.74/ -- 60
outlet of control equipment, 8 4500 232 94 1169 26594 93 1. 95/ -- 28
T ~ lOOOoF (t.i.)
Vinyl phenolic Lacquer, 5 4500 57 88 85 32113 67 0.48/ -- 18
outlet of control equipment, 6 4500 15 100 17 31437 74 0.12/ -- 0
T ~ 12000F (t. i.)
Vinyl phenolic lacquer, 3 4500 5 100 n.d. 39082 13 0.04/ -- 0
I-' outlet of control equ ipment,
0) T ~ 14000F (t. i.) 4 4500 1 0 n.d. 40104 14 0.01/ -- 100
W
15 4600 13574 9B trace 4350 81 118.06/152.15 0.78 100
16 4600 13323 98 trace 409B 71 115.8B/152.15 0.76 100
White vinyl coating, * 21 4600 12282 97 trace 37B2 94 107.01/152.15 0.70 100
inlet to control equipment * 22 4600 13547 98 4 3912 B4 117.79/152.15 0.77 100
31 4600 15574 9B 5 4079 60 135.46/152.15 0.89 100
32 4600 14462 99 10 4012 57 125.80/152.15 0.83 100
White vinyl coating, 23 4600 126 87 1259 38190 3B 1.04/ -- 45
outlet of control equipment,
T ~ 9000F (t. i.) 24 4600 58 90 BB2 39B46 27 0.50/ -- 12
White vinyl coating, 19 4600 5 100 n.d. 37790 27 0.04/ -- 100
outlet of control equipment, 20 4600 7 100 trace 39015 21 0.06/ -- 0
T ~ 10000F (t. i.)
White vinyl coating, 17 4600 77 4 43629 0.67/
outlet of control equipment, trace 12 -- 96
T ~ 12000F (t.i.) 18 4600 7 0 n.d. 42059 13 0.06/ -- 100
White vinyl coating, **13 4600 4 0 n.d.
outlet of control equipment, 754 3 0.03/ -- 100
T ~ 14000F (t. i.) **14 4600 15 0 n.d. 17004 3 0.13/ -- 100
*Samples suspect, coater shutdown occurred at unknown time during sampling period.
**Sample results suspect, possibLe cyLinder leakage.
-------
TABLE 49
Comparison of Organic and C02 Values With
Incineration Temperature
Incineration
Temperature Total Organics C02 Effic iencyd
Outlet Inleta Outletb OutletC
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
900 4368 898 & 884 26659 79.44 &. 79.76
1000 4368 440 &. 232 26336 89.93 & 94.69
1200 4368 57 & 15 31775 98.70 & 99.66
1400 4368 5 & 1 39593 99.89 & 99.98
a. Average value of all duplicate inlet samples.
b. Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
c. Includes inlet C02. . ...
d. ror purposes of ca lculating organic convers 10n efftclencles,
each individual outlet sample was utilized and the corres-
ponding efficiency so noted. The equation utilized in the
efficiency ca lculation can be found in Section 5.7.
Cylinders Nos. 15 through 24, and samples Nos. 31 and 32, were
used in determining the levels of emission from the white vinyl
coating opera tion controlled, a lso,by therma 1 incinera tion. Dupli-
cate cylinders, Nos. 15 and 16, Nos. 21 and 22, and Nos. 31 and
32 were used to sample the inlet emission levels to the control unit.
During the period samples Nos. 21 and 22 were being collected, a
process shutdown occurred unknown to sampling personne 1, and an
additional set of cylinders, Nos. 31 and 32, were used to sample
the inlet emission level to the control unit. Analytical results for
the inlet samples shown in Data Sheet 3-ECD-A, 4-MD, Appendix E,
tended to validate the results for samples Nos. 21 and 22. For pur-
poses of organics conversion efficiency calculations, an average
value of the inlet sample results were used.
Samples Nos. 13 and 14, Nos. 17 and 18, Nos. 19 and 20, and Nos.
23 and 24 were ta ken from the outlet of the control equipment over
a range of incinerator operationa 1 tempera tures (9000r, 1 oooor,
12000F and 14000r) set and recorded by plant personnel using a
thermocouple ind icating tempera ture controller.
164
-------
900
800
700
- 600
E
Q.
Q.
-
1/1 500
.~
c
C'CI
CI
...
0 400
300
200
100
0
900 1000
8- Organics
A - CO2
40
38
36 <"I
I
o
...
>C
34 ..
o
o
E
32 ~
30
28
26
24
1100
1200
1300
1400
Incineration Temp. (OF)
Figure 30 - Metal Decorating Emissions: Organics, CO2 (Vinyl Phenolic
Lacquer - Thermal Incineration)
Inlet and outlet organic emission levels, and C02 outlet emission
levels and corresponding organics conversion efficiencies for
various incineration temperatures are listed in Table 50. Concurrent
determinations for nitrogen oxides again proved futile because the
wall thickness of the incinerator (in excess of 8 inches) prevented
insertion of the sampling tube.
Utilizing the data developed in Table 50, Figure 31 was constructed,
representing a plot of organic and C02 emission levels taken at the
control incinerator outlet versus the incineration temperature of
the control unit for the white vinyl coating operation. Again, an
increase in incineration ter.1perature is accompanied by a decrease
in organic emission values and an increase in C02 emission level.
165
-------
Between the operational incineration temperature range of 1000 to
12000F, the organics conversion efficiency reached a level that is
generally greater than 99 percent. The overall combustion efficiency
of this control unit, indicated by the amount of CO exhausted, was
good for all incineration temperatures except 9000F. Trace to no CO
was detected at 1 OOOoF, 12000F and 14 OOoF. The average percentage
of the outlet CO emission level to average inlet organic emission
level, expressed in ppm C02' at 9000F is at most 10 percent.
TABLE 50
Comparison of Organic and C02 Values With
Incineration Temperatures
Incineration
Temperature Tota 1 Organics C02
Outlet Inleta 0 u tletb OutletC Effic iencyd
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
900 13794 126 & 58 39018 99.09 & 99.58
1000 13794 7 &, 5 38402 99.95 & 99.96
1200 13794 77 & 7 42844 99.43 & 99.95
1400 13794 15 6, 4 8879 99.89 & 99.97
a. Average value of all duplicate inlet samples.
b. Individual sample results as taken from lab
ana lys is report.
c. Inc ludes inlet C02'
d. For purposes of ca lcu lating organic convers ion
efficiencies for the thermal incineration unit studied,
each individua 1 outlet sample wa s utilized and the
corresponding efficiency so noted in the table. The
equation utilized in the efficiency calculation can be
found in Section 5.7.
The emission level of the various operations sampled at this plant
have values that fall within certain ranges as shown in Table 60,
Section 7.4. The two operations evaluated, namely a vinyl phenolic
lacquer and a white vinyl coating, fall within the emission range
indicated under "coatings."
A comparison between observed (Eobs) and ca lcula ted (Eca lc)
emission rates are presented in the summaryTi:ible 48, this section.
Plant data are recorded on Data Sheet 3-ECD-D, 4-MD, Appendix E.
166
-------
140
/
/
/
8- Organics
..- CO2
III 80
.~
c
(II
C)
<5 60
120
44
42 '1
o
,..
)(
..
40 0
o
E
Q.
38 Q.
40
36
20
34
o
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Incineration Temp. (OF)
Figure 31 - Metal Decorating Emissions: Organics, C02 (White Vinyl
Coating - Thermal Incineration)
7.32
Plant Test No. 5- MD (Append ix E)
Field studies were conducted at a metal decorating plant utilizing
catalytic control incineration. Due to operational difficulties, one
process line was utilized in conducting this test,although two lines
were originally scheduled for evaluation.
All data collected at this plant had an appropriate code 5-MD
assigned. Coating operational conditions at the time of sampling
were recorded. The results of the tests are presented in Data
Sheets Nos. 1 through 5, 5-MD, Appendix E, and in summary
Table 51, this section.
Duplicate samples Nos. 1 and 2, and Nos. 5 and 6, were taken of
the emission from the high solids vinyl coating process prior to
entering the catalytic incinerator. For purposes of calculations
(e.g. control unit organics conversion efficiency) an average value
167
-------
TABLE 51
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 5-MD]
Cylinder Flow Organics Efficiency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO C02 CH4 EobservedjEca Iculated of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
1 4000 2669 87 n.d. 328 15 20.52/88.75 0.23 100
High solids vinyl. inlet to control 2 4000 801 44 n.d. 326 14 6.08/88.75 0.07 100
equipment 5 4000 920 61 n.d. 336 12 6.99/88.75 0.08 100
6 4000 3436 90 n.d. 321 11 25.84/88.75 0.29 100
High solids vinyl. outlet of control 11 4000 179 77 124 10419 15 1.37/ -- 27
equipment, T = 600°F (c. i.) 12 4000 924 90 97 9714 15 6.99/ -- 91
High solids vinyl.. outlet of control 9 4000 175 53 240 13364 16 1. 34/ -- 47
........ equipment, T = 700°F (c. i.) 10 4000 81 96 285 13823 17 0.61/ -- 4
m
0) High solids vinyl, outlet of control 7 4000 151 91 295 14496 19 1. 14/ -- 10
equipment, T = 800°F (c. i.) 8 4000 205 97 258 15729 20 1. 56/ -- 9
High solids vinyl, 'Jutlet of control 17 4000 230 97 258 16418 22 1. 75/ -- 25
equipment, T = 850°F (c. i.) 18 4000 171 100 250 17363 20 1. 30/ -- 0
High solids vinyl. outlet of control 3 4000 112 96 351 15906 24 0.85/ -- 4
equipment, T = 900°F (c. i.) 4 4000 147 89 237 15374 23 1.11/ -- 14
High solids vinyl. outlet of contro~ 15 4000 32 100 n.d. 17023 26 0.24/ -- 3
equipment, T = 950°F (c. i.) 16 4000 174 55 176 16892 34 1. 32/ -- 58
High solids vinyl. outlet of control 13 4000 149 90 216 16444 30 1. 13/ -- 34
equipment, T = 10000F (c. i.) 14 4000 156 60 156 17600 33 1. 18/ -- 49
-------
for these four samples was utilized although results of duplicate
sets of inlet samples indicated a considerable spread of organic
emission values (e.g. 801 to 3436 ppm). The values for the non-
condens ibles (i. e. range of methane emis s ion level - 11 to 15 ppm;
range of C02 emission level - 321 to 336 ppm) for these samples
tended to validate the fact that they were duplicate samples.
Samples Nos. 3 and 4, and 7 through 18, were taken consecutively
at the outlet of the control equipment over a wide range of incinera-
tor operationa 1 temperatures (600oF, 7 OOoF, 800°r, 900oF, 950°F)
monitored and controlled by plant personnel using an indicating
temperature controller with a thermocouple inserted into the duct
immediately after the catalyst bed. The calculated efficiencies
tended to fall within a range of 89 to 95 percent. Prior studies by
various control agencies have shown similar convers ion efficiencies
to range from 80 to 95 percent for this type of catalytic control
equipment.
Shown in Table 52 are the organics and C02 emission values and
control unit organics convers ion efficiencies for various incinera-
tion temperatures. Utilizing the data for the high solids vinyl coat-
ing operation in Table 52, Figure 32 was constructed, representing
the change of organic and C02 emission values (taken at incinerator
outlet) with change in incineration temperatures of the control unit.
An increase in incineration temperature is accompanied by a decrease
in organic emission values with a corresponding increase in the
emission level of C02.
At around a 154 ppm outlet emission level, there is a corresponding
organics conversion incineration efficiency of 92 percent between
900 to 10000F for this particular control unit. The CO output from
the control unit, an indication of the overall control unit's combustion
efficiency, remained fairly constant over the range of incinerator
temperatures, and averaged about 15 percent of the inlet organics
loading expressed as ppm C02. The average exhaust CO values for
the control unit were lower for the 600oF, 9500F and 10000F incinera-
tion temperatures.
Concurrent with each sampling, readings for nitrogen oxides (NOx)
were made using a Universal Testing Kit with negative results.
Previous samples taken from web offset thermal incinerators (see
Sections 6.32 and 6.33) operating at temperatures from 1000 to
1400oF, ind icated the presence of NOx' and from web offset
catalytic incinerators (see Sections 6.34 and 6.35) operating at
temperatures from 625 to 9500F indicated no presence of NOx.
169
-------
TABLE 52
Comparison of Organic and C02 With
Incineration Temperatures
Incineration
Temperature
Outlet
(oF)
Total Organics
Inleta Outletb
(ppm) (ppm)
600
700
800
850
900
950
1000
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
924 & 179
175 & 81
205 & 151
230 & 171
147 & 112
174 8,32
156 & 149
C02
OutletC
(ppm)
10066
13593
15112
16890
15640
16957
17022
Efficiencyd
(%)
52.79 & 90.86
91.06 (;, 95.86
89.53 E,( 92.29
88.25 & 91. 26
92.45 & 94.28
91.12 & 98.37
92.03 & 92.39
a. Average value of all duplicate inlet samples.
b. Individual sample results as taken from lab
ana lys is report.
c. Includes inlet C02
d. For purposes of calculating the organics conversion
efficiencies of the catalytic incineration unit studied,
each individual outlet sample was utilized and the
corresponding efficiency so noted in the table. The
equation utilized in the efficiency calculation can
be found on Data Sheet 3-ECD-C, 5-MD, Appendix E.
The meta 1 decorating operations eva luated at this plant yie lded
organic emission values that fall within ranges shown under "coating"
in Table 60, Section 7.4. A comparison between observed (Eobs)
and calculated (Ecalc) emission rates is presented in the summary
Table 51, this section. Plant data are recorded on Data Sheet
3-ECD-D, 5-MD, Appendix E.
The "C" factor, Eobs!Ecalc, for this 5-MD oven is unusually low
(0.17), and confirms an on-site observation by field testing personnel
that the oven was not performing satisfactorily. It was noted while
sampling that a visible emission, estimated Ringelmann range from
Nos. 2 to 3, was being exhausted from the "cooling" section of the
oven. An imbalance was obviously occurring in the oven so that part
of the solvent-laden exhaust stream was exiting from the exhaust stack
for the "cooling" section of the oven. Due to this phenomenon occurr-
ing, previous or future statements relative to optimum operational
incineration temperatures for this incinerator at this plant should be
accepted with caution. It is readily apparent from the test results
that organics conversion efficiency remained relatively constant over
the incineration range of temperatures eva luated.
170
-------
280
260
240
.
220
200
E
a.
a.
- 180
!II
u
'c
III
'"
... 160
o
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
924
. - Organics
"'-C02
.
.
600
700
800 900
Incineration Temp. (OF)
1000
-18
'"
I
(;)
~
17 Ie
N
o
to)
E
_16 a.
a.
15
-14
13
-12
11
-10
_9
1100
Figure 32 - Metal Decorating Emissions: Organics, CO2 (High Solids
Vinyl - Catalytic Incineration)
171
-------
7.33
7.4
CMUPML analytical results indicated that the cold trap on the samp-
ling unit may not have been functioning properly because of the
amount of low-boiling materia 1 detected in the cylinders. The type
of material under evaluation, namely a high solids vinyl, could have
been responsible for these high cylinder organics values. Since all
traps were cooled according to standard GATF methods and this phe-
nomenon had not occurred on previous sampling trips, there was no
reason to suspect the efficiency of the trap in sampling metal decor-
ating operations.
Field Observations
In field evaluations of thermal and catalytic incinerators utilized on
meta 1 decorating processes, both types of control units controlled
smoke and odor emission equally well. At operational temperatures
of 7S0-800oF for catalysis, and llOO-1200oF for thermal type units,
no visible emiss ion could be detected.
Odor, on the other hand, was not as easily identifiable, although
determinations were conducted at various incineration temperature
settings. Genera lly, it appeared that at lower incineration tempera-
tures than those stated above, odor was prevalent to some degree.
This would suggest that there is a level to which incineration temp-
eratures can be reduced and still effectively eliminate odorous emissions.
Local regulatory agencies should thoroughly evaluate odor emission
levels at various incineration temperatures before recommending or
imposing high temperatures of incineration to eliminate odor.
While the ability to achieve a high degree of organics conversion
efficiency with both cata lytic and therma 1 incineration units is
certainly feasible, the possibility of introducing additional con-
taminants generated as a result of achieving the high degree of
organics cleanup cannot be minimized. An attempt has been made
throughout this report to recommend for consideration realistic
operational standards when using emission control equipment.
Summary Tables
Summary tables for all metal decorating plants utilized in this
Phase II study exclud ing plants MD-P-1 and MD-l, which were
primarily used to evaluate, improve and further develop GATF's
method of sampling and analysis, are presented in this section.
These summary tables include ranges of analytical results,
organics conversion efficiencies of air pollution equipment,
and operational characteristics of the various types of metal
decorating graphic processes.
172
-------
TABLE 53
Summary of Analytical Results
[Plant Code No. 6-MD(BC)]
Cylinder Flow Organics Efficiency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO C02 CH Eobserved/Eca lculated of Trap
(sefm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppC:) (data) (ratio) (%)
1 7400 16534 16 trace 7160 72 222.41/271. 25 0.82 100
Acrylic white coating, (inlet 2 7400 8326 97 trace 6188 50 116.98/271.25 0.43 100
to control equipment) 3 7400 5164 96 38 8984 11 72.55/271.25 0.27 100
4 7400 10347 98 trace 8507 33 145.38/271.25 0.54 100
Acrylic white coating, (outlet of 5 7400 30 100 42 17569 41 0.42/ -- 0
control equ ipment, T = 70e°F) (c. i.) 6 7400 44 100 56 16876 45 0.62/ -- 20
I-'
-...] Acrylic white coating, (outlet of 8 7400 100 140 28314 33 0.62/ 19
w 43 --
control equ ipment, T = 8000F) (c. i.) 9 7400 180 96 164 27619 31 2.53/ -- 69
-------
TABLE 54
Summary of Ana Iytica I Results
[Plant Code No. 7-MD (BC)]
Cylinder Flow Organics Effie iency
Type of Operation No. Rate Total Low Boilers CO CO? CH4 Eobserved/Eca Icula ted of Tra p
(scfm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
Oleoresinous enamel coating, 10 5725 3474 82 143 8926 71 37.82/55.29 0.68 99
inlet to control equipment 11 5n5 2894 95 181 9030 68 31.61/55. 29 0.57 99
Oleoresinous enamel coating, 16 5725 188 96 548 28570 210 2.04/ -- 9
outlet of control equipment,
T = 11000r (t.i.) 17 5n5 102 100 349 30146 198 1.11 2
~ Oleoresinous enamel coating, 14 5n5 25 100 tra ce 36964 109 0.27/ -- 0
-....J outlet of control equipment,
~ T = 13000r (t.i.) 15 5725 35 100 127 36827 120 0.38 0
Oleoresinous enamel coating, 12 5725 46 98 877 37700 107 0.50/ -- 4
outlet of control equipment,
T = 14800r (t.i.) 13 5n5 20 100 702 38977 60 0.21/ -'-- 0
-------
TABLE 55
Metal Decorating Plant Descriptions
Plant Identification
2-MD
Plant Description
Wagner press and coating, d.f.h.a., circulating oven, 5 x 106 Btu/hr;
no separate metering of gas, continuous monitoring and regulation of
temperature in oven zones.
3-MD
Wagner, Young Brothers oven, 5 x 106 Btu/hr; no separate metering
of gas; ovens old; continuous monitoring, recording and regulation
of various oven zones.
4-MD
Vinyl Phenolic Lacquer Wagner direct flame; recirculatory oven, 5 x 106 Btu/hr; no separate
line metering of gas, continuous monitoring and regulation of temperatures
in oven zones.
Emission controlled by Model 480-AH-0 (Combustion Heat and Power,
Inc.) utilizing an eclipse burner rated at 5000 scfm; 8000-9000 cu ft/hr,
9 x 106 Btu/hr; two-years old; capital cost = $10000; installation cost
= $8000; fuel cost = $850 per month based upon two shifts, five-day
opera tion.
White Vinyl Coating
line
Wagner direct flame, circulating oven, 5 x 106 Btu/hr; no separate
metering of gas, continuous monitoring and regulation of temperatures
in oven zones.
Emission controlled by Model 480 (Combustion Heat and Power, Inc.)
utilizing an eclipse burner, rated at 5000 scfm; 7000-8000 cu ft/hr;
9 x 106 Btu/hr; I-year old; capital cost = $15000; installation cost
= $7000; fuel cost $850 per month based upon two shifts, five-day
operation.
5-MD
J. O. Ross oven, 5 x 106 Btu/hr: oven is relatively old and appears
to need considerable maintenance and proper balancing.
Emission controlled by Oxy-r:atalyst; Inc. catalytic incinerator,
oxidation model No. TL-50-H-400 (serial No. 702461001). rated at
5000 scfm; I-bed unit: burner capacity = 5 x 106 Btu/hr: gas
consumption = 1640 cu ft/hr; I-year old; capital cost = $17500;
installation cost = $7750: fuel cost = $9300 per year.
6-MD (BC)
FECO-Young8ros.oven, model No. 6914; 5 x 106 Btu/hr; oven is
older design.
Emission controlled by VOP catalytic incinerator, model No. NRC-I0-
D3, with new E.I. duPont catalytic bed; rated at 9000 scfm; maximum
designed catalysis temperature = 900oF; gas consumption = 1600 cu ft/hr;
unit 2-years old, catalytic bed, I-year old; capital cost = $21000;
installation cost = $4000; fuel cost $700 per month.
7-MD (BC)
Wagner, direct flame, circulating oven; no separate metering of gas;
temperature of oven zones continuously monitored and regulated.
Emission controlled by Combustion Heat and Power Co. thermo-direct,
gas-fired, fume incinerator, model No. 120-AH-DP: rated at 6000 scfm;
designed for 0.5 second dwell time for temperature of 800-1600°F,
capacity of burner unit = 1.2 x 106 Btu/hr; gas consumption = 1500 cu ft/hr;
6-months old; capital cost = $24000; installation cost $4550; fuel cost
= $8500 per year based upon a two-shift, five-day week operation.
175
-------
TABLE 56
Graphic Process Variables for Metal Decorating Industry
Plant Solvent;Solid Sheet Coater Applied Film Wt., Oven Equipment Flue Gas or
Code Type of Operation Ratio by Weiqht Area Speed Dry Coatinqs Printinq Air Flow* Bake Temp. Exhaust Temp.
(sq in) (s h/hr) (mg/ sq in) (lb/sh) (scfm) (OF) (oF)
2-MD
Press oven only, (no lithography, 900 360 - 390 210
no processed metal sheets)
Coating oven only, (no coatingappli- 360 - 390 250
cation, no processed metal sheets 2300
I-color (pink) litho, no trailing .15/.85 360 - 390
varnish 852.2 3420 0.00075 925 210
I-color (black) li-tho, with .635/.365 852.2 3420 3.5 0.00075 900 360 - 390 210
tra iling varnis h
Sizing .82/.18 790.2 3990 1.2 2300 360 - 390 270
Gold lacquer coating .75/.25 901. 3 3705 2.6 2300 360 - 390 250
White a lkyd coating .41/.59 869.4 3876 9.6 2300 360 - 390 250
...... Beige a lkyd coating .4.-3/.57 748.1 2508 13.0 2300 360 - 390 250
" White vinyl coating .60/.40 951.7 3990 8. 1 2300 360 - 390 270
0)
3-MD
I-color (red) litho, no trailing .15/.85 827.2 3762 0.00075 3700 290 - 390 170
varn is h
2-color (black & Blue) litho, .15/.85 645.7 3705 0.0010 1700 290 - 390 170
no trailing varnish
I-color (red) litho, .618/.382 714.9 3705 2.75 0.00075 1700 290 - 390 170
with trailing varnish
2-color (black & blue) litho, .539/.461 0.0010
with tra iling varnis h 645.7 3705 2.75 1700 290 - 390 170
Sizing .825/.175 675.9 4674 1.0 3000 290 - 390 150
Gold lacquer coating .852/.148 876.0 4674 1. 375 4200 290 - 390 160
Clear lacquer coating .825/.175 700.0 4674 4.0 3000 290 - 390 150
Modified phenolic varnish .709/.291 867.8 4218 2.125 1700 290 - 390 260
Enamel Buff coating .675/.325 867.8 4218 11. 75 2400 290 - 390 130
White vinyl coating .626/.374 876.0 4674 10.375 3950 290 - 390 160
Plasticized white coating .606/.394 645.7 4674 9.375 4200 290 - 390 160
*Rated or calculated
-------
Table 56 continued
Graphic Process Variables for Metal Decorating Industry
Plant Solvent/Solid Sheet Coater Applied Film Wt., Oven Equipment Flue Gas or
Code Type of Operation Ratio by Weiqht Area Speed Dry Coatinqs Printinq Air Flow* Bake Temp. Exhaust Temp.
(sq in) (sh/hr) (mg/sq in) (lb/sh) (scfm) (OF) (OF)
4-MD
Vinyl phenolic lacquer .781/.217 1162.7 1990 2.25 4500 375 250
White vinyl coating .527/.471 1072.8 1705 11.25 4600 150 250
5-MD
Hlgh solids vinyl .15/.65 915.2 1420 24.75 4000 360 100
6-MD (BC)
I-' Acrylic white coating .10/.70 1445.5 4845 12.25 7400 100 105
-....J
-....J
7- MD (BC)
Oleoresinous enamel coating .54/.46 688.8 5071 1.1 ** 7400 160 320
*Rated or calculated
**7400 cfm at 1700F discharge temperature
-------
TABLE 57
Average Low-Boiling Percentages for
Various Metal Decorating Operations
Sample Organics Low Bake
Type of Operation Temperature(s) Total Low Boilers Boilers Tempera ture (s)
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (oF)
Press oven only (no lithography,
no processed metal sheet) 210 1624 1237 76 360-390
Coating oven only (no coating appli-
cation, no processed metal sheet) 250 151 127 84 360-390
1- or 2-color litho (no varnish) 170-210 643 538 84 290-390
1- or 2-color litho (with varnish) 170-210 25150 22582 90 290-390
Sizing 150-270 19013 18512 97 290- 39 0
Coatinq
A. Lacquers
clear 150 41768 41352 99 290- 39 0
gold 160-250 25996 25106 97 290- 39 0
vinyl phenolic 250 17472 15530 89 370
Outlet samples, thermal 900 1782 1146 64 370
incinerator (vinyl phenolic 1000 672 642 96 370
lacquer) 1200 72 65 90 370
1400 6 5 83 370
B. Varn is hes
Modified phenolic varnish 260 3293 2151 65 290-390
C. Other Coatings
beige alkyd 250 9949 9184 92 360-390
white alkyd 250 9866 9313 94 360- 390
Buff enamel 130 41729 40916 98 290-390
Oleoresinous enamel 320 6368 5597 88 360
Outlet samples, thermal 1100 290 282 97 360
incinerator (oleores inous 1300 60 61 100 360
enamel) 1480 66 65 98 360
High soLids vinyl 300 7826 6330 81 360
600 1103 986 89 360
700 256 170 66 360
Outlet samples, cata lytic 800 356 337 95 360
incinerator (high solids 850 401 395 99 360
vinyl) 900 259 238 92 360
950 206 128 62 360
1000 305 227 74 36.0
White vinyl 160-270 11 7035 114626 98 290-390
900 184 161 88 290- 39 0
Outlet samples, thermal 1000 12 12 100 290-390
incineration (white vinyl) 1200 84 3 4 290- 3 90
1400 19 0 0 290- 3 90
Acrylic white 305 40371 25746 64 300
Outlet samples, catalytic 700 74 74 100 300
incineration (acrylic white) 800 223 215 96 300
Plasticized white 160 17432 17264 99 290-390
Average
Low Boilers
(%)
Total, all oven stack samples 385686 356111 92
Total, outlet to control equipment 6430 5212 81*
Therma 1 incineration 75
Ca ta lytic incineration 87
*Coatings only
178
-------
Type of Operation [Plant Code]
Therma l Incinera tion
[Oleoresinous enamel coating]
[7-MD (BC)]
Vinyl phenolic lacquer
[4-MD]
White vlnyl coating
[4-MD]
I-'
-....:J
co
Range, thermal incineration
[4-MD, 7-MD (BC)]
Catalytic Incineration
[Acrylic white coating]
[6-MD (BC)]
High solids vinyl
[ 5- MD]
Range, catalytic incineration
[5-MD, 6-MD (BC)]
*Includes inlet C02
TABLE 58
Summary of Organics Conversion Efficiency Ranges for Metal Decorating Industry
[Plants coded 4-MD, 5-MD, 6-MD (BC), 7-MD (BC)]
Incineration Inlet Outlet C02*
Tempera ture Concentration Concentration Outlet
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
min. max. min. max. min. max.
Efficiency
(%)
min.
max.
900 2860 - 15574 58 - 898 26472 - 39846 79.44-99.58
1000 2860 - 15574 5 - 440 26078 - 39015 89.93 - 99.96
1100 2894 - 3474 102 - 188 28570 - 30146 94.10-96.80
1200 2860 - 15574 7 - 77 31437 - 43629 98.70 - 99.95
1300 2894 - 3474 25 - 35 36827 - 36964 98.90 - 99.20
1400 2860 - 15574 1 - 15 39082 - 40104 99.89-99.98
1480 2894 - 3474 20 - 46 37700 - 38977 98.56 - 99.38
900 - 1480 2860 - 15574 , 1 - 898 26078 - 43629 79.44 - 99.98
Average Effic iency, therma l inc inera tion 97%
600 801 - 3436 179 - 924 9714 - 10419 52.79 - 90.86
700 801 - 16534 30 - 175 13364 - 17569 91. 06 - 99.70
800 801 - 16534 43 - 205 14496 - 28314 89.53 - 99.56
850 801 - 3436 171 - 230 16418 - 17363 88.25 - 91.26
900 801 - 3436 112 - 147 15374 - 15906 92.45 - 94.28
950 801 - 3436 32 - 174 16892 - 17023 91.12 - 98.37
1000 801 - 3436 149 - 156 16444 - 17600 92.03 - 92.39
600 - 1000 801 - 3436 30 - 924 9714 - 28314 52.79 - 99.70
Average Efficiency, catalytic incineration 90%
-------
TABLE 59
C Value (Eobs/Ecalc) Ranges for
General Metal Decorating Graphic Processes
Pla nt Code
Coating or Operation No. Eobs/Eca lc % Solvent
(min) (max) (min) (max)
I-color litho with tra iling 2-MDJ
varnish 3-MD 0.17 0.39 53.9 63.5
2-color litho with trailing 3-MD
varnish
Sizing 2-MDI 0.15 0.68 82 82.5
3-MD
Clear lacquer 3- MD}
Gold lacquer 3-MD and 2-MD 0.26 0.74 75 85.2
Vinyl phenolic lacquer 4 -MD
Mod ified phenolic varnis h 3-MD O.ll 0.13 70.9
Beige a lkyd coating 2- MDJ 0.25 0.43 41 43
White a lkyd coating 2-MD
Enamel buff coating 3-MD 0.63 0.68 67.5
0 leores inous enamel coating 7- MD (BC) 0.57 0.68 54
High solids vinyl coating 5-MD 0.07 0.29 35
White vinyl coating 2- MD~
White v inyl coating 3-MDj 0.35 0.89 52.7 62.6
White vinyl coating 4-MD
Acrylic white coating 6- MD (BC) 0.27 0.82 30
Plasticized white coating 3-MD 0.50 0.55 60.6
180
-------
, flin.I. GO
Hunge of Anulyticul RC:>l!lu; fm '.l';IL11 U<: :r.)/'ltl:'1 r '. ",
Flow Crganics
Type of Operation Rate* Total* Low Boilers* cO* i..:.£:.2* .!..:.1..!A* ----_C'J ',"r:!':'J/'E.;~-_:!..:~~.-
[Plant Code] (sclm) (ppm) (7) (;p;;) (ppm) (ppm) ('juf,,) 'r.,' ',J ----~
(,)
Press oven only. (no
lithography. no pro- 900 232. 553 44. 94 20. J7 70f-,9.7(J7"i [(,,7. l7n fJ."), fJ.
-------
Table 60 continued
Range of Analytical Results for Metal Decorating Industry
Flow Organics Efflc1ency
Tvpe of Operation Rate* Total* Low Bolters* CO. CO . CH4* Eobserved;'Eca leu lated* ~
[Plant Code] (sclm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm~ (ppm) (data) (ratio) (%)
Other CoatinQs continued
High solids vinyl coating 4000 801. 3436 44, 90 n.d. 321, 336 11. 15 6.08,25.84/88.75 0.07,0.29 100
[5-MD]
White vinyl coating 2300, 4600 6095. 15574 97, 99 trace. 24 3706, 6729 57. 331 26.84.135.46/76.00.156.45 0.35.0.89 100
[2-MD, 3-MD, 4-MD]
Range, vinyl coatings [2-MD. 3-MD. 4-MD, 5-MD]
2300, 4600 801. 15574 44, 99 n.d.. 24 321. 6729 II. 331 6.08.135.46/76.00,156.45 0.07.0.89 100
Acrylic white coating 7400 5164, 16534 16, 98 trace. 38 6188, 8984 11. 72 72.55.222.41/271.25 0.27.0.82 100
[6- MD (BC)]
Plasticized white coating 4200 8295, 9137 99 13, 23 4468, 4648 390. 408 66.32.73.04/133.15 0.50.0.55 100
[3-MD]
Range, other coati og s [2-MD. 3-MD, 4-MD, 5-MD. 6-MD (8C), 7-MD (8C)]
2300, 7400 801, 21684 16, 99 n.d.. 181 321, 9030 9, 408 6.08.222.41/49.02.271.25 0.07.0.89 80, 100
ORGANICS EMISSION CONTROL
A.. Thermal Incineration
Vlnyi phenolic lacquer
. T = 900-HOOor
[4-MD]
4500
1. 898 O. 100 n.d., 1169 26078,40104 13, 96 0.01. 7.65/
20, 188 96. 100 trace, 677 28570, 38977 60, 210 0.21. 2.04/
O. 100
Oleoreslnous enamel coating
T = 1I0D-1480or 5725
[7- MD (8C)]
O. 9
Whlte vinyl coating
T = 900-1400Dr
[4-MD]
4600
5. 126
O. 100 n.d.. 1259 37790, 43629 12, 38 0.04. I. 04/
0, 100 n.d.. 1259 26078, 43629 12, 210 0.01. 7.65/
O. 100
Range. thermaL inclneration [4-MD. 7-MD (BC»
4500. 5725 1. 898
0, 100
B. Catalytic Incineration
Acryltc white coating
T'= 70D-800or 7400 30, 180 96. 100 42. 164 16876.28314 31. 45 0.42.2.53/ O. 69
[6-MD (BC)]
High soUds vinyl coating
T = 600-1000Dr 4000 32, 924 53. 100 n.d., 351 9714, 17600 15, 34 0.24.6.99/ 0, 91
E5-MD]
Range. catalytic incineration [S-MD. 6-MD (BC)
4000, 7400 30, 924 53. 100 n.d., 351 9714,28314 15, 45 0.24.6.99/ O. 91
SUMMARY
Range, all coating operations [2-MD, 3-MD, 4-MD. 5-MD, 6-MD (BC), 7-MD (BC)]
1700,7400 801,21684 16.99 n.d..181 321.9411
7, 547
4.91".222.41/43.13.271.25 0.07.0.89
77, 100
Range, all organics emiss ion control operations [4- MD. 5- MD. 6- MD (BC), 7- MD (BC)]
4000, 7400 I, 924 O. 100 n.d.. 1259 9714, 43629
12, 210
0.01. 7.65/
0, 100
Renge, all metal decorating operations [2-MD, 3-MD, 4-MD, 5-MD, 6-MD (BC), 7-MD (BC)]
900,7400 1. 21684 0,100 n.d.. 1259 321,43629
7. 1733
0.01,222.41/27.97,271.25 0.07,0,89
0, 100
*Vatues represent minimum, maximum.
182
-------
7.5
C onclus ions/Recommendations on Meta L Decorating Fie ld Stud ies
The six plant tests conducted on metal decorating processes (con-
trolled and uncontrolled sources) during the Phase 1I study have led
to a number of conclusions concerning the factors involved in
emission sampling, amount of emission generated, and control of
organic emissions by corrective equipment. These are summarized
be low.
A.
The speculation that little organics emission was attributable
to the high solids ink was verified by results from collected
data. Most organics emission is from varnishes, Lacquers,
sizing and other coating materials which dry by solvent release.
B.
The major variables affecting the organics emission from metal
decorating coating operations are the solvent fraction in the
coating, coated sheet area, applied film or coating weight
(e.g. dry weight, mg per four square inches), and coater speed
or sheets coated per hour. All these factors have been corre-
lated in a previously derived equation (see Section 5.62, B, and
5.63). This equation can be used to determine expected organics
emission rate (Eobs), in lbs carbon per hour, from metal decor-
ating ovens for specific coating operations if the C values
(EobsjEca lc) for those ovens are known. It should be noted that
if expected organics emission from air pollution control equip-
ment is also to be determined, the organics conversion efficiency
or range of organics conversion efficiency for the control unit
would likewise have to be known (see Table 58, Section 7.4).
c.
Summary of analytical results Tables 42, Section 7.21; 46,
Section 7.22; 48, Section 7.31; 51, Section 7.32; 53, Section
7.4; and 54, Section 7.4, list the specific C values for the
different coating operations at the various plants studied during
the Phase II contract period. Table 60, Section 7.4, lists the
combined C value ranges for each coating studied, and Table 59
further combines the ranges in Table 60 for general coating cate-
gories. Collectively, the C values ranged from 0.01 to 0.89 for
all coatings studied. Because of the limited number of emission
sa mples from the different variety of coatings and ovens, no
conclusive statements can be made regarding definite C value
trends for specific process variables or combinations of process
variables.
A plot of the change of observed organic emission (Eobs) with
ca lcula ted organic emiss ion (Eca lc) from new and old ovens
sampled during this Phase II study, as shown in Figure 33 and
34 (Append ix B), ind ica ted that the relative age of an oven may
affect the observed to calculated emission ratio (C value) or
slopes of the plotted curves in Figure 33 and Figure 34,
(Append ix B).
D.
183
-------
A least squares linear equation was determined for the data points
representing the emission from both newer and older ovens with the
the following results:
1.
N ewer ovens
Y-intercept =-6.63+5.76
slope (Eobs/Ecalc) = 0.481 "+ 0.093
2.
° lder ovens
Y-intercept = -2.23 + 10.9
slope (Eobs/Ecalc)= 0.560 + 0.072
The observed emission rate values (Eobs) were derived from
average recorded va lues for specifica lly ca lculated organic
emission rates (Ecalc) as shown in Tables 42, 46, 48, 51, 53,
and 54. Figure 33 represents older ovens, and Figure 34 repre-
sents the newer ones. A higher slope value indicated higher
sampled or observed organic emission values for various calcu-
lated organic emission values. One possible explanation for this
occurrence is that a certain portion of the volatilized organics
from the coated metallic sheets are incinerated in the oven. The
efficiency of this incineration proces s could be greater in newer
ovens.
E.
It should be noted that another source of difference between
Eobs and Ecale is the fact that decorated metal sheets leaving
the oven, although assumed to be essentially 100 percent dry,
have been found, through independent investigations of par-
ticular coating operations, to hold 7 to 10 percent solvent
after 3000F baking (95).
Further stud ies are definite ly needed to determine the actua 1
extent that an oven's operational, structural and mechanical
characteristics can affect the level of pollution ultimately emitted
from the oven. These studies could compare the variation of
emitted pollutants versus various oven burner's flame control
settings, degree and mode that an oven's air is recirculated
through the oven before actually being exhausted to an
exit stack, or the extent of vapor incineration that is occurring
in the oven itself as possibly indicated by the amount the oven
dilution air is recirculated through the oven burners and deter-
mined by the possible variation of the level of C02 exhausted
from the oven and sampled from the exit stack with various oven
flame levels, oven air recirculation levels,or other variations of
an oven's operationa 1, structura 1 or mecha n ica 1 characteristics.
With regard to this last suggested observation and oven incinera-
tion determination via observation of emitted C02 levels, the
oven burner contribution to emitted C02 would have to be calcu-
lated utilizing the methods of combustion engineering.
F.
184
-------
G.
Table 58 is a summary table of organics conversion efficiencies
of incineration for air pollution control equipment sampled in
this metal decorating Phase II study. For catalytic incineration,
the percentages of organics conversion efficiencies ranged from
52.79 percent to 99.70 percent and averaged 90 percent. For
therma I incineration, the va lues of the percentages of organics
conversion efficiencies were within a range of 79.44 to 99.98
percent and averaged 97 percent.
From previous ly described curves depicting the change of
organics sampled at the outlet of control equipment with change
of incineration temperature (see Figures 30 and 31, Section 7.31,
and Figure 32, Section 7.32), it became apparent that the
organics conversion efficiency of thermal and catalytic incinera-
tion increased with increased incineration temperatures. Thermal
incineration could be brough very close to a 100 percent cleanup
of the inlet organics pollution if temperatures were increa sed to
around 14000F. However, it became obvious that incineration
temperatures used and subsequent quantity of heat used in the
incineration process should depend on the degree of organics
conversion efficiency or cleanup desired and the overall com-
bustion efficiency of the incinerator at the temperature chosen.
For example, in Figure 30, Section 7.31 (thermal incineration
of vinyl phenolic lacquer, 4- MD) a 90 percent organics conver-
sion incineration efficiency (or pollution cleanup) could be
obtained around 9700F incineration temperature, 95 percent
organics conversion incineration efficiency could be obtained
around 10400F, and a 99 percent organics conversion incinera-
tion efficiency could be obta ined around 11600F.
In Figure 31, Section 7.31 (thermal incineration of white vinyl
coating I 4- MD) a situation arose where a lthough the emitted
organics decreased with increased incineration temperature,
the organics conversion incineration efficiency remained around
99 percent. Nine hundred degrees (F) or 14000F produced the
same high conversion incineration efficiency. For this speci-
fic coating operation at this specific plant, temperatures lower
than 9000F could be used to produce lower conversion efficiency
values if the higher efficiency values were not necessary.
In Figure 32, Section 7.32 (Catalytic Incineration of High Solids
Vinyl, 5-MD) the change of outlet organic emissions with
change in incineration temperatures seemed to level off around
a 154 ppm outlet emission level, corresponding to an organics
conversion incineration efficiency of 92 percent between 900
to 1000°r. However, 7500F could be used if only a 90 percent
organic emission cleanup was specified as necessary.
185
-------
H.
In regards to this aspect of organics conversion efficiency, an
important co-determinant in choosing incineration temperature
for organic pollution cleanup,as previously mentioned, is the
fact that an incinerator operating inefficiently because of faulty
maintenance or improper temperature setting can exhaust par-
tially oxidized air pollutants (e.g. CO, NO ) that could have
x
a worse environmental affect than exhausted organics. For all
the therma 1 incinerators stud ied, the average percentages of
the CO outlet va lues to the average inlet organic load ing va lues
(an indication of the overall combustion efficiency of the incin-
erator) expressed as ppm C02 were 10 percent (4-MD), 25 per-
cent (4-MD) at 900oF; 0 percent (4-MD), 20 percent (4-MD) at
1000oF; 15 percent [7- MD (BC)] at 1l00oF; 0 percent (4- MD),
1.5 percent (4-MD) at 1200oF; 2 percent [7-MD (BC)] at 1300oF;
o percent (4-MD), 0 percent (4-MD), at 1400oF; and 25 percent
[7-MD (BC)] at 1480oF. For all catalytic incineration units
studied, the ratio percentage for CO outlet values to organics
inlet va lues were about 15 percent at temperatures of 600, 700, 800,
850, 900, 950 and 10000F for results from plant 5-MD, and
were 0.5 percent at 7000F and 1.5 percent at 8000F for results
from Plant 6-MD (BC). The ratio values indicated a variety
of incineration efficiencies for the two types of inci.nerators
studied. Generally, a temperature could be reached with the
therma 1 inc inerators (around 12000F and above) when exha usted
CO is at a zero to trace leve 1. However, 7- MD (Be) is an
exception, and obviously has incinerator inefficiency problems
indicated by the levels of outlet CO exhausted and the high
outlet exhaust methane (CH4) levels when compared to inlet
CH4 levels for the various incinerator temperatures studied
(see summary Table 54, Section 7.4). Most of the other plants I
thermal incinerator outlet exhaust CH4 levels were lower than
the inlet levels, and decreased with increased incineration
temperatures. For the 7-MD (BC) incinerator, the outlet
exhaust methane level was higher than the inlet level, and
remained higher than the inlet level even though the value did
decrease with incineration temperature. The older catalytic
control unit studied had a fairly constant output of CO over a
range of set incinerator temperatures revealing a steady level
of inefficiency for its incineration combustion process. How-
ever, the newer catalytic unit [6-MD (BC)] had a low level of
exhaust CO at temperatures samples were taken (700oF and 8000F),
demonstrating good combustion incineration efficiency.
In reporting trap analyses in this study, an arbitrary distinction
was made between "low boilers" and "high boiters" (see Section
4.27, C). The "low boilers" consisted of the total organic con-
centration reported when the temperature of the trap in analysis
wa s a llowed to rise to room temperature (OOC in earlier work).
I.
186
-------
The" high boilers" consisted of the tota I organic concentration
reported when the trap was heated from room (ambient) tempera-
ture to approximately 250oC.
Representative organic solvents indigenous to metal decorating
include solvents that are primarily of the mineral spirits type
(Naphtha or Stoddard Solvent), xylol (xylene), toluol (toluene)
or higher homologs, ketones [such as isophorone, methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), or di-
isobutyl ketone], n-butanol,some propanol, various acetates
(esters) including Cellosolve acetate, dimethyl formamide,
and various others excluding chlorinated solvents or ni.tro-
paraffins. In typica 1 web offset operations the solvents being
used as ink thinners and diluents are primarily alphatic hydro-
carbons and glycols and, to a lesser extent, aromatic hydro-
carbons, alcohols, esters, ketones and glycol ethers. Gener-
ally speaking, the solvents used in metal decorating ink
formulations have significantly lower average boiling point
ranges than web offset heatset ink solvents.
Table 57 lists total organic emission values and corresponding
low boiling fractions for a II meta 1 decorating coatings sa mpled,
individual coatings being grouped according to the approximate
temperature of the sampled emission (i.e. outlet samples from
pollution control units were segregated from oven stack
samples). The average "low boilers" p~rcentage of the com-
bined total of organic emission sampled from various ovens
for metal decorating operations is 92 percent. For all the
organic emission sampled from control equipment outlets, the
"low boilers" represented 81 percent, or more specifically,
75 percent for thermal incineration and 87 percent for catalytic
inc inera t ion.
It should be noted that if the percentage of "low boilers" before
incineration is greater than the percentage of "low boilers" after
incineration, the possibility existed that the percentage of "low
boilers" incinerated is greater than the percentage of "high boilers"
incinerated, or the percentage of "low boilers" and "high boilers"
incinerated is the same, and "high boilers" were formed in the
inc ineration proces s. The opposite conclus ions could be noted
if the percentage of "low boilers" before incineration was less
than the percentage of "low boilers" after incineration (i.e., the
percentage of "high boilers" incinerated is greater than the percent-
age of "low boilers" incinerated, or the percentage of "low boilers"
and "high boilers" incinerated are the same, and "low boilers"
were formed in the incineration process). Of course, factors or
a combination of factors affecting the percentage of "low boilers"
incinerated or the formation of compounds could be reactivity,
temperature, res idence time at certa in temperatures, concentration,
187
-------
distribution, design and condition of the combustion chamber of
incinerator. The percentage of "low boilers" from meta 1 decora t-
ing ovens is much greater than "low boiler" percentages from web
offset dryers (see Table 39, Section 6.4). The average sampled
meta 1 decorating oven "low boilers" percentage is higher than the
average "low boiler" percentage after incineration occurred.
Aga in, because of the limited number of sa mples ta ken and genera 1
nature of the "low boiling" - "high boiling" separa tion, no further
definite conclusions or generalizations can be made at this time.
J.
In the earlier sampling of the web offset lithographic process
emissions under Task 3 of this Phase II contract work, it be-
came readily apparent that the process was a batch process
where individual jobs were of a semi-continuous nature. A
web of paper for a particular job passing through a varied num-
ber of inking units, a nd, in turn, be ing s ubj ected to one of two
drying mechanisms constituted, for sampling purposes, a
continuous steady-state type operation,(assuming no press
mechanical failures). Certain equations were developed relat-
ing known job process parameters to the extent and level of
the emission. Generally, duplicate samples obtained at a
sampling point where uniform flow and good mixing prevailed,
provided a reasonable assurance that the sample obtained
would be representative of the job under evaluation.
Contrasting this earlier work with the evaluation of the metal
decorating operations, it was found metallic sheets are fed by
press equipment for application of various materia ls (referred
to as coatings) by coaters through long tubular type dryers.
The operation is not web type (continuous) but rather sheet-fed.
Generally, a skid of material (usually on the order of 1120
sheets) is fed into the dryer by a series of wickets. There
exists, as in any sheet-fed operation, a need for reloading. A
new skid of material must be replaced after the completion of
the previous skid, and sufficient time must also be allowed
for stacking the completely dried metallic sheets at the dis-
charge end of the dryer.
This constitutes from a sampling point of view, a non-continuous
or unsteady type process for a particular job, since there" exists
periods between skid changes when sheets are not being intro-
duced into the oven. In the controlled experiment previous ly dis-
cussed (Section 7.21) I it wa s shown that sa mpling must be
conducted at specific periods of time during the process operation,
and it appears that several grab samples taken at various time
interva ls during a proces s operation will be required in order to
provide a reasonable assurance that the levels of organic emissions
sampled are truly representative of the process under evaluation
over extended periods of time. There is the possibility that one
188
-------
large volume of sample could be taken over an extended time
period so that the bias that would exist from grab sampling at
periods of high or low organic emission levels could be eliminated.
However, additiona 1 errors could be .introduced into sa mple results
when the large volume of sample collected is subjected to the
limitations of instrumenta 1 ana lysis and to additiona 1 errors ca used
by the analyst himself due to increased sample handled.
K.
It should finally be noted that background oven samples should
always be included in a job-process operation evaluation because
of the strong possibility that various background organic pollution
levels are present in the oven.
189
-------
190
-------
8.0
8.1
8.2
TESTING OF BEST CONTROLLED INSTALLATIONS
Introd uct ion
Contained in the federal Clean Air Amendments of 1970 is a provision
for establishing standards of performance for new stationary sources
for a group of 30 to 35 industries which includes the graphic arts.
Inherent in the regulations for state plans to implement the accom-
plishment of ambient standards as set forth by the above legislation,
is the requirement that new industrial plants achieve a standard of
emiss ion performance based on the latest availab~e control technol-
ogy, processes, operating methods and other alternatives. These
performance standards would reflect the degree of emission limita-
tion achievable through the application of the best system of emis-
sion reduction taking into account the cost of achieving such a
reduction.
Since standards of performance for new stationary sources may be re-
quired for new sources in the graphic arts industry, logically acquiring
the data necessary to develop these standards was included in the
current contract activity and may be used in the ultimate development
of standards. Task 5 entitled "Source Testing of Best Controlled Pro-
cesses" was one of the modifications added to the original contract.
For a complete description of the contract work conducted under Task 5
refer to the Introduction (p. 8) to this report.
Objectives
Work conducted under Task 5 had as its primary goal to provide data
so as to reflect a degree of emission limitation achievable through
the application of the best system of emission reduction taking into
consideration the cost of such control equipment for both the web
offset lithographic process utilizing heatset inks and the metal
decorating process which employs coatings.
Although primarily aimed at developing data on air pollution control
technology already in use by the industry, thermal and catalytic
incineration, this contract work did not overlook the changes being
investigated in raw materials as well as process modification with
new drying systems occurring within the graphic arts industry.
These new concepts conta in potentia l solutions to the environmenta l
problems being faced by the industry, and current awareness, a
fundamental element of the program (Sections 1 to 3), indicated
that it would be timely to include these approaches in Task 1 of the
contract effort. An assumption was made at the outset of Task 5
work that these new process variations, whether inks or drying
systems, would not be available for testing within the specified
contract period.
191
-------
8.3
Background for Conduct of Tests
Sections 6 and 7 report studies conducted of thermal and catalytic
incineration equipment for the web offset lithographic process and
metal decorating process. Sources were chosen by random selec-
tion, and at least one thermal and one catalytic incineration installa-
tion was examined for each process.
In order to further characterize the effectiveness of incineration
equipment in both the web offset and metal decorating operations,
four add itiona 1 sources, chosen as the most recent control insta lla-
tions were studied. These are presented as follows in Table 61.
TABLE 61
Sources Evaluated and Locations in Text
Type of Source
Code No. *
Locations in Text
Web offset process with
thermal incineration
8-WO (BC)
AppendixD and
Section 6.4
Web offset process with
catalytic incineration
9-WO (BC)
Append ix D and
Section 6.4
Meta 1 decorating proces s with
cata lytic incineration
6-MD (BC)
Append ix E and
Section 7.4
Meta 1 decorating proces s with
thermal incineration
7- MD (BC)
Appendix E and
Section 7.4
*Refer to description in data treatment section of report.
(BC) accompanying code number ind icates a best
controlled process.
This additional field sampling and analysis added two months pro-
ject time to the contract and was conducted late in the program.
Because of time limitations, these controlled sources were not
evaluated as extensively as those conducted under Tasks 3 and 4
(Sections 6 and 7).
An extensive preliminary effort at contacting and screening plants
was conducted and four plants selected as a result. Several factors
were cons idered in the choice of these plants. Primary empha s is
was placed on the a.ge of the control equipment and attention to
maintenance by the plant. In all four plants chosen, the control
equipment was between six months and one year old. A secondary
lq2
-------
8.4
8.41
consideration was geographic location since restrictions in transport-
ing testing equipment limited the testing crew to vehicular travel.
Thus, a II plants utilized in this section of the progra m were within
reasonable driving distance of the Foundation.
A minimum amount of process operational data was recorded at each
plant with primary emphasis being accorded the control equipment,
its capital, installation and operational costs as well as general
operational data of the unit. Within limitations placed by the num-
ber of samples taken (at each plant eight samples were collected)
at least one process variable was sampled. In all cases, samples
were collected in duplicate at both the inlet and outlet of the control
equipment. As a minimum, at least two incineration operational
tempera tures were eva luated for hydrocarbon convers ion effic iency.
The sampling and analytical procedure employed was the same as
that presented in Section 4. O.
Having cons idered the background for this particula r section of the
program, the basic objectives of the testing and the manner in which
the tests were performed, a review of the results of each of the four
plants tested will be presented.
Test Results
Web Offset With Thermal Incineration [8-WO (BC) Appendix DJ
All data collected at this plant had Code No. 8-WO (BC) assigned.
Press operational conditions at the time of sampling were recorded.
Press speed, ink coverage, type of paper stock were obtained for
the process line studied. In addition, information was obtained on
the percent solvent (by weight) for the ink utilized during the test.
Temperature and pressure readings were taken in the field at the
time of sampling and actual as well as corrected gas flow rates
were recorded. The results of the tests are presented in Data Sheets
Nos. 1 through 5 which appear in the appropriate section of
Append ix D.
Eight samples (Nos. 18, 19, 21 through 26 consecutively) were taken
on a web offset press with a combination direct flame hot air (d.f.h.a.)
dryer and controlled by a TEC "Turbo- Mix" prototype therma 1 after-
burner. Two duplicate sample sets (a set being two samples) were
taken of the inlet to the air pollution control unit for purposes of
establishing the emission level of the process prior to entry into the
control unit. Two duplicate sample sets were taken at the outlet of
the control equipment at two different incineration operationa 1 tempera-
tures, 1l000F and 13000[. In all cases, duplicate inlet and outlet
samples were collected simultaneously (refer to Data Sheet #3-ECD,
Appendix D). A temperature check of the incineration temperatures
193
-------
wa s cond ucted by te sting pers onne l with only a 300 difference from
that temperature as recorded by plant monitors. Thus, the incinera-
tion temperature as reported by the plant was accepted as being repre-
sentative. Utilizing the organic and C02 content values in the effluent
gas stream taken at each corresponding incineration temperature,
Table 62 was developed.
TABLE 62
Organic and C02 Va lues Vers us Incineration Tempera tures
Incineration
Temperature Organic C02
Outlet In l e ta Outletb Outlet EfficiencyC
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
1100 2153 21 & 117 34435 99.02 & 94.57
1300 2153 29 & 36 42390 98.65 & 98.34
a. Average value of two samples (Nos. 18 and 19).
b. Individual sample results as taken from lab analysis report.
c. For calculation of efficiency, each individual outlet sample
was utilized and the corresponding efficiency so noted.
The equation utilized in the efficiency ca lculation can be
found on Data Sheet No. 3-ECD-D.
.- Organics
A- C02
20
44
120
100
42
1/1
.~
C
IV 60
CI
...
o
...
I
o
40 ,..
)(
N
o
o
38 E
Q.
Q.
E
~ 80
-
40
36
1000
1100
1200
1300
32
1400
o
Incineration Temp. (oF)
Figure 35 - Web Offset Emissions: Organics, CO2 (Thermal Incinerator-
d.f.h.a. Dryer) A Best Controlled Source
194
-------
Utilizing the data as presented in Table 63, Figure 36 was constructed,
representing a plot of the organic and C02 emission values (at incinera-
tor outlet) versus the incineration temperature of the control unit for the
process evaluated. An increase in incineration temperature is accom-
panied by a decrease in organic values with a corresponding increase
in the level of C02. At an operational incineration temperature of 7500r-
8 OooF, a 95 percent organic convers ion efficiency wa s noted.
TABLE 63
Organic and C02 Values Versus Incineration Temperatures
I nc inera t ion
Temperature
Outlet
(oF)
Organic
Inleta Outletb
(ppm) (ppm)
C02
Outlet
(ppm)
750
800
2552
2552
261 & 455
95 & 116
18314
21085
EfficiencyC
(%)
89.806: 82.17
96.28 & 95.45
a. Average value of all duplicate inlet samples.
b. Individual sample result taken from lab analysis report.
c. For calculation of efficiency, each individual outlet
sample was utilized and the corresponding efficiency
so noted. The equation utilized in the efficiency
calculation can be found on Data Sheet #3-ECD-D.
300
250
E
~ 200
II)
u
.~ 150
CI
...
o
100
50
o
700
750 800
Incineration Temp. (OF)
. - Organics
. - CO2
22
21
'"'
20 ~
)(
..
o
19 <:
E
Q,
Q,
18
17
850
16
900
Figure 36 - Web Offset Emissions: Organics, CO2 (Catalytic Incinera-
tor - h.v.h.a. Dryer) A Best Controlled Source
195
-------
8.42
Utilizing the data as presented in Table 62, Figure 35 was constructed,
representing a plot of the organic and C02 emission values (at incin-
erator outlet) versus the incineration temperature of the control unit
for the process evaluated. An increase in incineration temperature is
accompanied by a decrease in organic values with a corresponding
increase in the level of C02' At an operational incineration tempera-
ture of between 11 OOoF and 12 OOoF, a 95 percent organic conversion
efficiency was noted. The phys ica 1 arrangement of the sa mpling
location precluded sampling of NOx type emiss ions.
Data Sheet #3-ECD-C gives a comparison of the calculated and
observed emission rates for samples taken from this printing line
which employed a direct flame hot air dryer. In this case, the "C"
factor (Eobs/Ecalc) of 0.35 compares very favorably with the range
of 0.36 to 0.45 reported in previous studies (Section 6.21). For a
complete description of the "C" factor see Section 5.63. These data
tend to substantiate further that a direct flame hot air dryer serves to
some degree as an incinerator of organic solvent.
Web Offset With Cata lytic Inc ineration [9- WO (BC) Append ix D]
All data collected at this plant had Code No. 9-WO (BC) assigned.
Press operationa 1 cond itions at the time of sampling were recorded.
Press speed, ink coverage, type of paper stock were obtained for
the process line evaluated. In addition, information was obtained
on the percent solvent (by weight) for the ink utilized during the
test. Temperature and pressure readings were taken in the field at
the time of sampling and actual as well as corrected gas flow rates
were recorded. The results of the tests are presented in Data Sheets
Nos. 1 through 5 which appear in the appropriate section of AppendixD.
Eight samples (Nos. 27 through 31, 33, 34 and 38) were taken on a
web offset press with a high velocity hot a ir dryer (h. v. h. a.),
and controlled by a TEC Systems combined therma land cata lytic unit
(catalytic unit in use during test). Two duplicate sample sets (a set
being two samples) were taken of the inlet to the unit to establish
the emission level prior to entry. Two duplicate sample sets were
also taken at the outlet of the control equipment at two operational
temperatures, 7500F and 800°r. A temperature check was made by
testing personnel with a 200 to 300 difference being noted in read-
ings. Thus, the incineration temperature was accepted as that being
recorded by plant monitoring equipment. Utilizing the organic ana lysis
obtained with each corresponding incineration temperature, Table 63
was developed as follows.
196
-------
8.43
Data Sheet #3-ECD-C gives a comparison of the calculated and
observed emission rates for samples taken from this printing line
which employed a high velocity hot air dryer. In this case, the "C"
factor (Eobs/Ecalc) of 0.50 compares very favorably with the range
of 0.50 to 0.70 reported in previous studies (Section 6.22). These
data tend to further substantiate the fact that a dryer regardless of
type serves to some degree as an incinerator of organic solvent.
Metal Decorating With Catalytic Incineration [6-MD'(BC) AppendixE]
All data collected at this plant had Code No. 6-MD (BC) assigned.
Coating operational conditions at the time of sampling were recorded.
Sheet size, milligram weight of coating, and coater speed were ob-
tained for the process line studied. In addition, information was
obtained on the percent solvent (by weight) for the coating utilized
during the tests. Temperature and pressure readings were taken in
the field at the time of sampling and actual as well as corrected gas
flow rates were recorded. The results of the tests are presented in
Data Sheets Nos. 1 through 5, which appear in the appropriate section
of Append ix E.
Eight samples (Nos. 1 through 6,8 and 9) were taken of the applica-
tion of a white acrylic coating to a metal sheet with control of
emissions by a catalytic incinerator. Two duplicate sample sets
(a set being two samples) were taken of the inlet to the control unit
to determine the emission level of the process prior to entry into
the control unit. A considerable spread in the range of organics
as analyzed (from 5164 to 16534 ppm) results from samples taken
at the inlet to the control equipment. Much of this deviation is the
direct result of a relatively short duct length leading to the control
equipment, resulting in a non-representative and non-uniform samp-
ling site. There existed no alternative sampling location other than
the one actua lly sampled. For purposes of the efficiency determina-
tion of the control unit, a II four inlet samples were averaged. Two
duplicate sample sets were taken at the outlet of the control equip-
ment at two separate operationa 1 temperatures, 7000F and 8 OOoF.
A temperature check was made by testing personnel with no signifi-
cant difference being noted in read ings. Thus, the incineration
temperature a s recorded by the plant monitoring equipment wa s accept-
able. Utilizing the organic readings obtained with each correspond-
ing incineration temperature, Table 64 was developed.
197
-------
TABLE 64
Organic and C02 Va lues Versus Incineration Temperature
Incineration
Temperature
Outlet
(oF)
Organic
Inleta Ou tletb
(ppm) (ppm)
C02
Outlet
(ppm)
EfficiencyC
(%)
700
800
10093
10093
30 & 44
43 (Y. 180
17223
27967
99.70 & 99.56
99.560: 98.22
a. Average value of all duplicate inlet samples.
b. Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
c. For calculation of efficiency, each individual outlet sample
was utilized and the corresponding efficiency so noted.
The equation utilized in the efficiency calculation can be
found on Data Sheet No. 3-ECD-C.
o
e- Organics (180)
... - CO2
120
100
-
E
Q, 80
Q,
-
1/1
U
c 60
a:s
CI
...
0
40 '
--
28
26
M
.
Q
24 ,...
)(
..
o
o
22 E
Q,
Q,
20
20
18
16
650
700
750
800
Incineration Temp. (OF)
Figure 37 - Metal Decorating Emissions: Organics, CO2 (Acrylic White
Coating - Catalytic Incinerator) A Best Controlled Source
198
-------
8.44
Utilizing the data as presented in Table 64, Figure 37 was constructed,
representing a plot of the organic and C02 emission values (taken at
incinerator outlet) vers us the incinera tion tempera ture of the control
unit for the process eva luated. An increa se in incineration tempera-
ture is not accompanied by the usual decrease in organic values
although with increased incineration temperature an increase in the
level of C02 is noted. The range of all four outlet data points, how-
ever, is within the range of the sampling method accuracy. As
illustrated in Table 64, the organic conversion efficiency exceeded
98 percent when high inlet concentration entered the incinerator. The
data point indicating 180 ppm at an incineration temperature of 8000F
must be an outlier and if this is the case, then the efficiency of the
incinerator remains fairly constant between 700 and 8000F.
A comparison between observed and calculated emission rates is pre-
sented on Data Sheet #3-ECD-E. (Plant data necessary for perform-
ing the calculation of the various emission rates are shown on Data
Sheet #3-ECD-D.) Calculated values were determined using the
appropriate equation(s) as shown in Section 5000
Meta I Decorating With Therma I Incineration [7- MD (BC) Append ix E]
All data collected at this plant had Code No. 7-MD (BC) assigned.
Coating operational conditions at the time of sampling were recorded.
Sheet size, milligram weight of coating and coater speed were ob-
tained for the process line studied. In addition, information was
obtained on the percent solvent (by weight) for the coating utilized
during the tests. Temperature and pressure readings were taken in
the field at the time of sampling and actual as well as c.orrected gas
flow rates were recorded.
The results of the tests are presented in Data Sheets Nos. 1 through
5, which appear in the appropriate section of Appendix E.
Eight sa'mples (Nos. 10 through 17) were taken of the application of
an oleoresinous enamel coating to a metal sheet controlled by a
thermal incinerator. A duplicate set (a set being two samples) was
taken of the inlet to the air pollution control unit for purposes of
establishing the emission level of the process prior to entry into
the control unit. Three duplicate sample sets were taken at the
outlet of the control equipment at three separate operationa 1 tempera-
tures. One set was taken at an incineration temperature of 1l000F
and another at 13000F and the final set at 14800F (the maximum
attainable temperature of the unit). Temperature, as monitored by
testing personnel varied only 100 from temperatures recorded by
the plant. Utilizing the organic loadings obtained with each
corresponding incineration temperature, Table 65 was developed.
199
-------
TABLE 65
Organic and C02 Va lues Versus Incineration Temperatures
Incineration
Te mpera ture
Outlet
(OF)
Organic
Inleta Outletb
(ppm) (ppm)
C02
Outlet
(ppm)
Effic iencyC
(%)
1100
1300
1480
3184
3184
3184
102 & 188
25 & 35
20 & 46
29358
36895
38338
96.80&94.10
99.20 & 98.90
99.38 & 98.56
a. Average value of all duplicate inlet samples.
b. Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
c. For calculation of efficiency, each individual outlet sample
was utilized and the corresponding efficiency so noted. The
equation utilized in the efficiency calculation can be found
on Data Sheet #3-ECD-C.
40
. - Organics
A- CO2
1100
1200
1300
40
38
...
I
o
36 ,..
>C
N
o
()
34 E~
Q,
Q,
.
32
30
28
1400 1500
120
100
E
~ 80
-
1/1
.~
r::
~ 60
..
o
20
o
Incineration Temp. (OF)
Figure 38 - Metal Decorating Emissions: Organics, CO2 (Oleoresinous
Enamel Coating - Thermal Incinerator) A Best Controlled Source
200
-------
8.5
Utilizing the data as presented in Table 65, Figure 38 was constructed,
representing a plot of the organic and C02 emission values (taken at
incinerator outlet) versus the incineration temperature of the control
unit for the process evaluated. An increase in incineration tempera-
ture is accompanied by a decrea se in organic va lues with a corres-
ponding increase in the level of C02. At an operational incineration
temperature between 1l00oF to 1200oF, a 95 percent organic conver-
sion efficiency was noted.
A comparison between observed and calculated emission rates is pre-
sented on Data Sheet #3-ECD-E. (Plant data necessary for perform-
ing the calculation of the various emission rates are shown on Data
Sheet #3-ECD-D.) Calculated values were obtained using the appro-
priate equation(s) as shown in Section 5.0.
Discussion of Test Results
The primary goal of this segment of the program was to collect data
to determine the degree of cleanup achievable through the applica-
tion of the best system(s) of emission reduction and to compare this
effectiveness to the cost of such control equipment. Results of the
previously discussed field tests (Section 8.4) have provided an
initial insight into the degree of emission control achievable.
Shown in Table 66, is a consolidation of much of the data pertinent
to relating the cost of such equipment to its effectiveness. Based
on the analytical results of the samples taken, the sources tested
can be considered as "best controlled processes." For a further dis-
cussion as to why and how these plants were chosen, the reader
should refer back to Section 8.3.
There remain, however, many variables that cannot be fully pre-
sented within the lim.its of the tabular form. For instance, the
amount of effluent treated (generally expressed in standard cubic
feet per minute) will have a bearing on the capital cost of the equip-
ment. Whether heat recycle is utilized or not will certainly affect
the operational costs of the unit. None of the units tested, however,
utilized heat recovery, thus, precluding this variable as input to
these data. Insta llation costs of units vary widely depending upon
the degree of structural support required, primarily the layout of the
building (height, age, etc.). Operational costs will vary widely
depending on size of the control unit and the actual temperatures at
which inc inera tion is carried out.
It becomes readily apparent from a review of the test results that
an organic conversion efficiency of 95 percent is achieva ble from
the units sampled at an incineration temperature of 1l00oF to 12000F
201
-------
TABLE 66
Cost Versus Effectiveness for Units Evaluated as Part of Task 5
I nc inera tor Rated
Plant Code Operationa 1 C orres pond ing scfm of Co s 1 of Equipment
No. Proces s Temperaturea Effic iencyb Unit Capita 1 c Installationd Operationa le
(OF) (%) ($) ($) (S)
8-WO(BC) Web offset/therma 1 1100 96 2500 12000 2500 6870
inc inera tion
9-WO(BC) Web offset/catalytic 800 95 4000 23000 4000 7200
inc inera tion
7-MD(BC) Meta 1 decorating/ 1100 95 6000 24000 4550 8500
therma 1 incinera tion
6-MD(BC) Meta 1 decorating/ 700 99 9000 28000 4000 7200
N catalytic incineration
a
N
a.
Based on an evaluation of data collected from field tests as sampled.
Reflects percentage efficiency at stated temperature.
Cost as obta ined from plant management (dependent on capacity of unit).
Includes a s a minimum, structura 1 sl;lpport, electrica 1 and ga s piping,
necessary ductwork and labor. Costs as obtained from estimates made
by plant management.
Based on 'a 5-day, 2-shift work week (yearly amount). Reflects opera-
tional temperature shown in preceding column. Costs as obtained from
estimates received from plant management.
b.
c.
d.
e.
-------
8.6
for thermal, and 7500F to 8500F for catalytic. Realistically the
standards of performance, if esta bUshed, should reflect an opera tiona 1
temperature range for a given piece of control equipment in addition
to the percent organic conversion achievable. Data developed from
these field studies could serve very well as that basis. Of note is
the fact that in all four plants sampled, the operational cost of the
unit (gas consumption) was based upon the operational temperature
as shown in Table 66. There remains, therefore, no means by which
to evaluate operational costs versus degree of emission reduction
(effectiveness) for incineration temperatures other than the incinera-
tion temperature as found on Table 66. One should also note that the
cost information provided in this segment of the program by various
plant managements can be considered as IIbest available estimates."
In no ca ses were plant management personnel able to provide exact
cost figures relating to the capital, installation and operational costs
of the control equipment as evaluated.
For example, no plant sampled meters natura 1 ga s to the control
equipment separately. Therefore, such cost data become merely one
part of the tota 1 fuel opera tional cost of the plant. In one particular
plant, the cata lytic unit had undergone maintenance by severa 1 con-
tractors and no reportable cost data for such maintenance was made
available to testing personnel.
Cost Versus Effectiveness
While it ha s been clearly demonstrated that a high level of hydro-
carbon cleanup is achievable (95 percent or greater) with the control
units evaluated in this program, a comparison of cost versus effec-
tiveness between the various catalytic and thermal incineration units
as evaluated is not as easily demonstrable. As noted in Table 66,
the rated sefm of the control unit will affect the capita 1 cost of the
equipment somewhat. Installation costs of these units did not vary
greatly for in most cases the physical layouts of the plants were
similar (one-story buildings, in general). Operational costs of the
four units evaluated were amazingly similar despite the dissimilarity
of the control units. Thus, any direct relationship of the cost of
operation and the efficiency at various incineration temperatures or
comparison of catalytic versus thermal is limited due to the small
number of units (four) evaluated in this program.
There are in the literature, however, several specific references to
comparative costs of control equipment.
203
-------
Mueller (96) compares in detail the cost of the.rmal control equip-
ment versus the fuel cost for such and further describes this system,
inc lus ive of heat recovery (therma 1 regenera tive system). The au thor,
however, has chosen as his basis for calculation a 16, 000 sefm con-
trol unit which generally does not apply for the graphic arts industry.
Rarely does the exhaust of a dryer or oven from the web offset and
metal decorating process approach the above mentioned flow rate.
Turk, et al (97) present in detail the variOLls control devices as well
as systems in use for odor control. Cata lyzed a ir oxidation equipment
costs, expressed as system cost (capital plus 1000 operating hours),
ha s been plotted aga ins t vary ing ga s ra tes (expres sed in sefm).
Povey (98) discusses in deta it cata lytic incineration systems appli-
ca ble to meta 1 decorating and compares them with various other
incinerating systems.
Yocum, et a 1 (99) present a comprehens ive discuss ion re lating com-
parative costs for catalytic and flame afterburners to include item-
ized costs as well as extent of waste heat recovered. A table is
presented in which a comparison is made of the total costs for
installing and operating both catalytic and direct flame afterburners,
assuming different heating values for the incoming gas stream along
with different levels of heat recovery.
Thomaides (100) presents a detailed cost comparison of thermal and
catalytic incinerators assuming a process gas volume of 6000 sefm
which is realistic for metal decorating. An interesting feature of
this article is a table which provides a comparison of temperatures
required to convert combustibles to carbon dioxide and water.
Skinner, etal (101) describe the application of incineration to the
emis s ions discharged from the "web" dryers. A complete cost
breakdown of incineration equipment is included along with its
operational expense.
In reviewing the a bove mentioned references, ranges of operating
temperatures for the two methods of incineration complete with costs
are possible. Table 67 represents a brief synopsis of these data.
2 04
-------
TABLE 67
Ranges of Values for Incinerating Waste Gases
Type of
Incineration
Operating Equipment Annua I Ga s
Temperature Cost Cost
(OF) ($/scfm) (8/1000 scfm)
1000-1500 1.75-10.0 2 . Q- 7 . 5 0
600-900 1.75-7.50 2.0-4.50
Therma 1
Cata lytic
Eng ineering economics, prima rily a ir pollution control economics are
extremely complex and dependent upon several variables. The amount
and type of pollution present, the difficulties involved in controll ing
the specific pollutants and the level of control dictated by local air
quality requirements (EPA guidelines to states on hydrocarbon emission
called for a 90 percent reduction) will affect the total cost of a par-
ticular industrial air pollution control system.
There is genera I agreement that the reportable average brea kdown of
operating expenses for pollution control equipment is as follows:
Power, fuel and water 43%
Materials and parts 11%
Maintenance labor 15%
Disposal of collected wastes 31%
Tota I 100%
Overall, annual operating costs are said to run about a third of the
system's capital cost. This appeared to be the case for several of
the systems evaluated in this program. In addition to these direct
out-of-pocket operating expenses, there usually results some
capital-related fixed costs, such as property taxes, insurance and
interest. Many legis lative bod ies, indud ing the federa 1 govern-
ment, are offering special tax amortization for installations of
pollution control equipment. These show up as credits against
operating costs.
8.7
Cone lus ion
In relating cost versus effectiveness for a particular system, each
parameter that can affect the cost must be evaluated. A great dea I
of effort has been expended by a ir pollution control equipment manu-
facturers (particularly thermal and catalytic) to develop data outlin-
ing a least expensive operation. The fact remains, however, that
each particular system application must be evaluated within the
specific parameters for which it is being applied. Many process par-
ameters will influence the decision to select one piece of equipment over
205
-------
another. A complete description of the various economic cons ideru-
tions involved in the selection of control systems was included in
Section 7.0 (Control Techniques) of the Phase I Report (1).
Regardless of how pollution control costs are accounted for, they
eventually must show up as increased costs of production, and
therefore, reflect a higher selling price. Industry's reluctance to
initiate extensive air pollution control programs, therefore, lies in
the competitive cost advantage for those companies who do not
employ comparable control techniques. An unfair profit squeeze
results for those firms unable to recover pollution control costs
through price increa ses. Air pollution control, therefore, in order to
be fair, should be applied equally to all companies involved.
206
-------
10.
11.
12.
13.
BIBLIOGRAPH"Y
1.
Gadomski, R. R. et at. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technolo-
- -
gies in the Graphic Arts Industries. Final Technical Report prepared
under contract CPA- 69-72 for NAPCA. Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation,
Pittsburgh, Pa., 1970. (NTIS PB 195 770)
2.
u. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Ind ustria 1 Outlook 1972, with
Projections to 1980. Government Printing Office, 1972, Chapter 7.
3.
ibid, Chapter 6.
4.
"$8,480 Million in 1980 for Metal Cans," Modern Lithography,
Vol. 40, No.3, March 1972, p. 10.
Anon.
5.
. "Bruno Forecasts the Future of Commercial Printing." Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 42, Nov. 2, 1971, p. 8-9.
6.
David, Mary P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation Conference on Air Quality Control in the Printing Industry,
Chicago, Nov. 18-19,1970. Pittsburgh, Pa., GATF, 1971, p. 92.
7.
Surgeon, Walter R. "2 New Ink Systems, " Graphic Arts Monthly,
Vol. 43, No.9, Sept. 1971, p. 42-44.
8.
Bassemir, Robert W. "Avoiding Solvent Emissions - Solventless Inks."
Paper presented atAIChE Meeting, August 29-Sept. 1, 1971, Paper 48e.
(Abstracted inAir Pollution Abstracts, Vol. 3, No.4, April 1972,
APTIC No. 36124.)
9.
Burachins ky, Bohdan V. "Litho Inks a nd A ir Qua lity, " Modern Lithography,
Vol. 38, No. 11, Nov. 1970, p. 56-57.
James A. Wold, Richardson Ink Company, personal communication,
Ju 1 y 1971.
Anon. "New Trends in Inks and Drying, " Canadian Printer (~ Publisher,
Vol. 80, No.6, June 1971, p. 46, 48, 52.
Carlick, Daniel J. "Dry Off the Press, II American Ink Maker,
Vol. 49, No. 12, Dec. 1971, p. 20-22.
Bock, Ralph F., "Novel Methods for Drying Inks, " GATF Research
Progress No. 86. Pittsburgh, Pa., Graphic Arts Technical Foundation,
1970.
207
-------
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Bock, Ralph F. and Rosenberg, Stan:f:ord H., "Models for Economic
Evaluation of UV Ink Drying Systems," GATF Research Progress No. 89.
Pittsburgh, Pa., Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation, 1972.
Young, John. "Lately It Was the Computers, Now Inks are Big Research
News," Canadian Printer and Publisher, Vol. 80, No.7, July 1971,
p. 25-26.
Ed itoria 1.
"Solvent-Free Inks," American Ink Maker, Feb. 1971, p. 21.
Anon. "Inks for Web Offset," Modern Lithography, Vol. 39, No.4,
April 1971, p. 28-29.
Woods, D. H. and Hartshorn, 1. "Microwave Drying of Inks, "
American Ink Maker, Vol. 48, No. 12, Dec. 1970, p. 39-40, 42, 44, 59-61.
Gerling, John E. "Microwave Drying" [in Japan], American Ink Maker,
Vol. 4 8, No.4, A pr ill 9 7 0 , p. 4 1.
Editorial. "New Methods of Drying Ink," American Ink Maker, Vol. 46,
No. 10, October 1968, p. 29.
Federal Register, May 22 and October 6, 1970.
Woods, Derek and Hartshorn, Ian. "Microwave Drying for Flexo and
Gravure Inks," Converter, Vol. 7, No.9, Sept. 1970, p. 23-26,28.
Macey, Kenneth, et a 1. "Web Offset Drying: Revolution and Evolution, "
Modern Lithography, Vol. 38, No.4, April 1970, p. 29-30,33,50,52-54.
Johnston, D. R. "Drying of Ink by Radiation," Australian Lithographer,
Vol. 5, No. 30, July/Aug. 1970, p. 23.
Trembley, J. F. and Loring, C. M., Jr. "Drying Printing Inks and
Coatings by Radio Frequency, " Tappi, Vol. 52, No. 10, 1969, p. 1847.
Loret, H. C. "Cata lyzed Inks: Headache or Cure, " American Ink
Maker, Vol. 47, No.8, August 1969, p. 24-26, 56-57.
News note. "Bowers Describes New Inks," American Ink Maker,
Vol. 48, No.!' Ja n. 1970, p. 40.
'''Smog-Free' Offset Ink Developed, " Safety Newsletter, Printing and
Publishing Section, National Safety Council, April 1970, p. 4.
News note. "Another Smog-Free Ink Is On The Market, " Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 3, No.5, Feb. 3, 1970, p. 12.
208
-------
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
News note. "GPI Develops Thermofast Solventless Ink, " American Ink
Maker, Vol. 48, No.6, June 1970, p. 47.
Anon. "Solventless Ink to Cut Pollution Announced by GPT, " Printing
News, Vol. 84, No. 23, June 13, 1970, p. 35.
"Inks that Do More Than Just Print, " Printing Production, Vol. 100,
No. 10, July 1970, p. 23-24.
News note. "New Ink Cuts Air Pollution," Printer's Digest, Vol. 11,
No.3, August 1970, p. 10.
Anon. "What's New In Inks, " Modern Lithography, Vol. 38, No. 11,
N ov. 1970, p. 58- 5 9 .
Sitterly, Eugene F. "The Air Pollution Battle: What It Can Mean To
Printers, " Inland Printer/American Lithographer, Vol. 165, No.5,
August 1970, p. 80, 84.
Anon. "Technical View of Solventless Inks Given By Speaker at the
Litho Club," Printing News, Vol. 85, No. 19, Nov. 7, 1970, p. 12,14.
Sun Chemical Corp./General Printing Ink Division.
Offset Ink." Northlake, Ill., May 1970.
"Thermofast Web
News note. "A Smog-Free, Smudge-Free Ink Is Announced By
Richardson, " Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 4, No.3, Jan. 19,
1971, p. 5.
Anon. "Inmont Demonstrates UV Curing Ink System, " Modern Lith-
ography, Vol. 39, No.4, April 1971, p. 27,34.
News notes.
"GARC Tests New Inks," Graphic Arts Progress, Vol. 18,
No.2, Feb. 1971, p. 7.
"Fantastic Four-Color Driography With Solventless Inks, "
Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 24,
June 15, 1971, p. 3.
News release. Kohl and Madden Printing Ink Co., 1971.
News note. "New Heat Reactive Inks, " American Ink Maker, Vol. 49,
No.7, Ju l y 1971, p. 39.
"Printing Inks and A ir Pollution, " Graphic Communica tions Weekly,
Vol. 5, No. 22, June 6, 1972, p. 3.
209
-------
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
News note. "Develops De-Inking Process," American Ink Maker,
Vol. 50, No.3, March 1972, p. 42.
Nass, Gerald. "Solventless Printing Inks," American Ink Maker,
Vol. 4 9, No. 1, Ja n. 19 71, p. 2 5 , 63.
News note. "GPI Improves Thermofast, " American Ink Maker, Vol. 49,
No.7, Ju 1 y 1971, p. 39.
"SRI Develops Solventless Non-Polluting Ink~' Graphic Communications
Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 36, Sept. 21, 1971, p. 11.
Robert W. Bassemir et at,
Curable Compositions."
U. S. Patent 3,551, 235 (1970), "Radiation-
Gerald 1. Nass et at, U. S. Patent 3,558,387 (1971), "Photopolymer-
iza ble Vehicles. "
Robert W. Bassemir et at, U. S. Patent 3,558,387 (1971), "Radiation-
Cura ble Compos itions. "
Sun Chemical Corp. British Patent 1,198,259 (1970), "Photopolymer-
izable Vehicles. "
Robert W. Bassemir et al, U. S. Patent 3,551, 246 (1970), "Radiation-
Cura ble Compos itions. "
Sun's GPI Division Gets Patents for Solventless Ink Line, " Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 4, No.2, Jan. 12, 1971, p. 5.
Sun Chemical Corp./Suncure Division.
Carlstadt, N. J., no date, 4 p.
"The Suncure System. "
"Sun Scales Up Suncure, " American Ink Maker, Vol. 49, No. 10,
Oct. 1971, p. 129.
Anon. "New Inks Cure Printers' Air Pollution Problems," Chemical
Week, Vol. 110, No. 10, March 8, 1972, p. 44.
News note. "Chicago Printer Purchases Sun's UV Drying System,"
Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 4, 1972, p. 10.
Anon.
"First Suncure System for Web Offset Printi.ng, " Modern
Lithography, Vol. 39, No. 10, Oct. 1971, p. 44.
"Holden Heralds UV Ink As Major Development, " Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 11, March 14, 1972,
p. 12.
210
-------
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
News note. "Suncure UV System Not To Profit for Two Years," Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 16, April 18, 1972, p. 6.
Anon.
"UV Ink Drying Given Major Test, " Printing Management, Vol. 102,
No.7, April 1972, p. 39.
"Web Offset Printing and UV Curing Under Production Conditions,
Modern Lithography, Vol. 40, No.6, June 1972, p. 14-15.
"Ultraviolet Ink Curing Setting New Trends, " Graphic News,
Vol. 11, No.3, March 1972, p. 12, 31.
Paul Whyzmuzis and Harry Linkletter, U. S. Patent 2,406,878 (1946).
Inmont Corp. "UV Cure Systems for Packaging Applications" and "UV
Cure Ink Systems." Clifton, N. J., 1971.
Bruno, M. H. "UV Inks," What's New(s) in Graphic Arts,
No. 1, A pr il 1972, p. 2.
Vol. 1,
Burns, James F., Jr. "Web's New Pollution Solution, " Printing Impres-
s ions, Vol. 14 , No.7, De c. 19 7 1, p . 1 OA - lOB, 1 0 D .
"Pilot Installation of UV.. .in New York," Printing News, Vol. 88,
No. 1, Ja n. 8, 1972, p. 5.
News note. "Ultra-Violet Ink Curing System Reduces Air Pollution, "
Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 12, March 21, 1972, p.ll.
Bruno, M. H. "UV Curing for Plastic Containers," What's New(s)
in Graphic Arts, Vol.!, No.2, June 1972, p. 7.
News notes.
"New Solvent-Free Resin, " American Ink Maker, Vol. 49,
No.6, June 1971, p. 50.
"No-lacquer Ink," American Ink Maker, Vol. 50, No.6,
June 1972, p. 40.
73a. Printing Management, Vol. 103, No.5, February 1973, p. 33.
74. Carruthers, J. D. "Web Offset Press Air Pollution: How Serious Is It?",
Inland Printer/American Lithographer, Vol. 167, No.!, April 1971,
p. 50- 5 1.
73.
75.
76.
News notes.
"Sun Shines Light on Web Dryer/Emission System, "
Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 4, No.28,
July 13, 1971, p. 7.
"New Web Drying System, " Amer.ican Ink Maker, Vol. 49,
No.8, A ug us t 1971, p. 50.
211
-------
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
News note.
no date.
Sun Graphic Systems. Trade Literature, Addison, Ill.,
News releases.
N ov. 5, 1971.
TEC Systems Ine., DePere, Wis., May 27 and
News note. "TEC Afterburner Features Turbomix, II Gra phic Communi-
cations Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 13, March, 1972, p. 14.
News release. TEC Systems Inc., DePere, Wis., June 5, 1972.
Schuster, James H. "Gas Curtailment Affects Web Offset Field, "
Printing Management, Vol. 102, No. 10, July 1972, p. 35-37.
Reference 6, p. 103.
Anon.
IISolvent Vapors Under Fire," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 5, No. 11, Nov. 1971, p. 1086-1087.
Calvert, Seymour. "Air Pollution Research Problems, TR-1 Research
Committee Survey Report No.1" [Air Pollution Control Association],
J. Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 21, No. 11, Nov. 1971,
p. 694-701.
Krockta, H. and Lucas, R. L. "Information Required for the Selection
and Performance Evaluation of Wet Scrubbers," J. Air Pollution
Control Association, Vol. 22, No.6, June 1972, p. 459-462.
86. Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 124, June 27, 1972, p. 12644.
86 a. -d. See page 213.
87.
88.
89.
90.
MacPhee, R. D. and Kuramoto, M. "Recommended Test Methods
for Organic Solvents and Vapors (Rule 66)". Air Pollution Control
District, County of Los Angeles, April 1968.
Devorkin, H. "Sampling for Compliance with Rule 66". Paper
No. 69-49, presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting, Air Pollution
Control Association, New York, June 1969, p. 1-30.
Gadomski, R. R., Gimbrone, A. V., and Green, W. J., "Sampling
Methodology and Data Treatment, II Sampling and Analysis ..Q!. Stack
Effluent for Graphic Arts Processes, Part I, GATF Research Progress
Report No. 93, Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1972.
Gadomski, Raymond R., Green, William J. and David, Mary P.
IIEnvironmental Control Program," GATF Research Department
Report of Progress, 1971. Pittsburgh, Pa., Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation, 1972, p. 35-40; p. 41-45.
212
-------
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
Worthing, Archie G. and Geffner, Joseph, Treatment of Experimenta L
Data, New York, N. Y., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1943, p. 205-214;
and Shoemaker, David P., and Garland, Carl W., Experiments in
Physical Chemistry, New York, N. '(., McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1962, pp. 30- 34.
Youden, w. J., S tatistica l Methods for Chemists, New York, N. Y.,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951, Chapter 5.
ibid, p. 13-20, 24-29, Chapter 5.
Carruthers, J. D., "Our Experience with A ir Pollution Control i.l1 Los
Angeles, Part II", PAR-lance No. 123, Printing Indu~tries of America,
Inc., February 1973.
Hays, D.R. Official Digest, Vol. 36, No. 473, 1963, p. 605-624.
Mueller, James H., "Cost Comparison for Burning Fumes and Odors, "
Pollution Engineering, Vol. 3, No.6, Nov./Dec. 1971, p. 18-20.
Turk, A., Haring, R.D. and Okey, R. W. "Odor Control Technol-
ogy, " Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 6, No.7, July
1972, p. 602-607.
Povey, J. H., "Catalytic Incineration Cuts Metal Lithography Air
Pollution, " Inland Printer/American Lithographer, Vol. 168, No.2,
N ov . 19 71, p. 5 0- 5 3 .
Yocum, J. E. and Duffee, R. A., "Controlling Industrial Odors, "
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 77, No. 13, June 15, 1970, p. 164-182.
Thoma ides, Lazarus, "Why Cata lytic Inc ineration ? " , Pollution
Engineering, Vol. 3, No.3, May/June 1971, p. 32-33.
Skinner, C.F. and Downham, R. E., "Analyzing the Air Pollution
Problems of the Printing Industry," Technical News Bulletin of
Environmental Pollution Control Systems, Oakbrook, Ill.
May 4, 1971
86a. Anon. "$500-MillionMarketforAir Monitors", Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 4, No.8, August 1970, pp. 639-640.
b. Heylin, Michael. "Pollution Control Ins trumentation", Chemica 1 0:
Engineering News, Vol. 49, No.7, Feb. 15, 1971, pp. 78-81.
c. Maugh, Thomas H., II. "Air Pollution Instrumentation: A Trend
Toward Physical Methods", Science, Vol. 177, No. 4050, August 25,
1972, pp.685-687.
d. Clean Air and Water News, Vol. 4, No. 26, June 30, 1972, p. 422,
reporting on a Frost ,Sc Sullivan survey, "The Air Pollution Control
Market" .
213
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Ackerman, Joseph F. "Inks That Cure By Ultraviolet Light, " Modern Litho-
graphy, Vol. 40, No.3, March 1972, p. 18-20.
Ada ms, Dona ld F., ed itor I "A ir Pollution Ins trumentation. "
Pa., Instrument Society of America, 1966.
Pittsburgh,
Adams, M. L. "Quantitative Mixed Solvent Analysis by Infrared Spectro-
photometry." U.S. Army Coating and Chemical Laboratory, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland, May 1969, CFST! Pub. No. AD 688 588.
Air Pollution Control Field Operations Manual, Public Health Service Publi-
cation No. 937, Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, 1962.
Air Quality Instrumentation, Vol. I. Instrument Society of America, Pittsburgh,
Pa., 1972.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "Air Sampling
Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants, " 4th edition,
C inc innati, ACGIH, 1972.
American Industria 1 Hygiene Association, "Air Pollution Manua l: Part 2.
Control Equipment." Detroit, AlHA, 1968.
Anon. "Odor Panel Smells Trouble, " Modern Manufacturing, Vol. 1, No.7,
December 1968, p. 164.
Atmospheric Sampling Traininq Course Manual, U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, NAPCA, Research Triangle Park, N. C., 1969.
Bassemir, R. W. "New Technology and the Ink Industry," American Ink
Maker, Vol. 3, No. 49, March 1971, p. 24-25, 70.
Bassemir, Robert. "Status of Ink: An Overview of What to Expect in
Tomorrow's Technology, " Printing Magazine, Vol. 95, No.5, May 1971,
p. 5 0- 5 1, 86.
Carlick, Daniel J.
p. 168-170.
"The Suncure System, " Penrose Annual, Vol. 64, 1971,
C ha pman, Robert L., ed., "Environmenta 1 Pollut ion Instrumentation. "
Pittsburgh, Pa., Instrument Society of America, 1969.
Cooper, Ha 1 B. H. and Ros sano, A ugus t T., "Source Tes ting for A ir Pollu-
tion Control." Stamford, Conn., Environmental Science Services, 1970.
214
-------
Cross, Frank L. "Handbook on Incineration: Guide to Theory, Design,
Operation, and Maintenance." Westport, Conn., Technomic Publishing,
1972.
de Seversky, Alexander P. U.S. Patent 3,315,445 (1967), "Integrated
Mechanical Filter and E ectrostatic Precipitator System for Broad Spectrum
Purification. "
Devorkin, H., Chass, R.L., Fudurich, A.P., and Kanter, C.V. Source
Testing Manual, Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, 1965.
Editorial. "Printing Inks and the Environment," American Ink Maker,
Vol. 49, No.3, March 1971, p. 23.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Standards of Performance for New Sta-
tionary Sources, " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, ]2.,
No. 159, p. 15704-15722, August 17, 1971.
Gadomski, Raymond R. and David, MaryP. "Air Pollution Control Program, "
GATF Research Department of Progress, 1969. Graphic Arts Technica 1
Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pa. p. 183-196.
Gadomski, Raymond R., Green, William J., and David, Mary P. "Environ-
menta 1 Control Program, " GATF Research Department Report of Progress,
1970. Pittsburgh, Pa., Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, p. 77-103.
Haaland, Harold, H., editor. Methods for Determination of Velocity,
Volume, Dust and Mist Content of Gases, 7th ed., Bulletin WP50. Western
Precipitation Division/Joy Manufacturing Co., Calif. 1968.
Hall, H. J. et al. "Research and Development Needs for Air Pollution
Instrumentation, " Journal Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 20, No. 12,
December 1970, p. 804-807.
Ha nkin, J. W. et a 1. "Microwaver Pa per Drying Experience and Ana lys is, "
Tappi, Vol. 53, No.6, June 1970, p. 1063-1070.
Hard ison, Les lie C. U. S. Patent 3,632,304 (1972), "Cata lytic Oxidation
of Waste Ga s Streams with Fluid iza ble Subd ivided Particles. "
Hedin, Michael. "Pollution Control Instrumentation, " Chemical and
Engineering News, Vol. 49, No.7, Feb. 15, 1971, p. 78-81.
Hodgman, C. D., editor. The Handbook QiChemistry and Physics, The
Chemical Rubber Publlshing Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 44th ed., 1962.
Jenkins, H. N. "Odor Measurement," Field Enforcement Aspects of Air
Pollution Tr::aining Manual, U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, NAPCA, Research Triangle Park, N. C. 1968
215
-------
Johnson, K.E. "Coatings, Adhesives, Ecology," Modern LithogriJphy, 'f0l.
40, No.3, March 1972, p. 12-13.
Kaminski, R. K. "Instrumentation for Rent and Lease, " Instrumentation
Technology, Vol. 19, No.7, July 1972, p. 59-64.
Karlson, E. L. "Ozone, Friend or Foe?", Pollution Engineering, Vol. 4,
No.3, Ma y /June 1972, p. 32- 3 3 .
King, William H. "The Monitoring of Hydrogen, Methane, and Hydrocarbons
in the Atmosphere, " Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 12,
December 1970, p. 1136-41.
Kreuger, L. B. et ale "Air Pollution: Sensitive Detection of Ten Pollutant
Gases by Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide Lasers," Science, Vol. 177,
No. 4046, July 28, 1972, p. 347-349.
Krotosynski, B. K., and Dravnieks, A. "Systematization of Analytical and
Odor Control Data on Odorous Air." IIT Research Institute, Internal Report
(undated). 37 p.
Kudlak, Rudolf. Ringelmann Smoke Chart. Information Circular No. 8333,
U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. May 1967.
MacPhee, R. D. and Kuramoto, M. "Methods of Organic Solvent Analyses
Used in Los Angeles," Journal of thp. Air Pollution Control Association,
Vol. 19, No.6, June 1969, p. 443-446.
Ma ida, S. Michael. "GTA Probes Gravure Technology, " American Ink Ma ker,
Vol. 50, No.6, June 1972, p. 22,24,28.
Ma ker, T. P. "Semi-Quantitative Ana lysis of Hydrocarbon Mixtures by
Gas Chromatography Without Complete Separation of Components, "
Journal of Gas Chromatography, Vol. 14, No. 10, October 1966.
McCann, Roger B. "Note on the Construction of an Hydrocarbon Inducer, "
Journal Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 21, No.8, August 1971,
p. 502.
McInnes, Alan. "Pre-Pol - The Revolution of Catalyzed Systems, "
Australian Lithographer, Vol. 7, No. 37, Sept./Oct. 1971, p. 28-31.
Midd leton, John T. "What Government Expects of Industry, " Modern
Lithography, Vol. 40, No.5, May 1972, p. 8-10,46.
Morgan, George B. et ale "Air Pollution Surveillance Systems," Science,
Vol. 170, No. 3955, Oct. 16, 1970, p. 289-296.
216
-------
Morrow, N. L. et al "Sampling and Analyzing Air Pollution Sources, "
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 79, No.2, January 24, 1972, p. 84-98.
Nemoto, Yuhei. "New Solventless Fast-Drying Inks," Graphic Arts Japan,
Vol. 13, 1971-72, p. 38-41.
Nilsen, Joan M. "Next Pollution Problem: How to Monitor Emissions, "
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 78, No. 12, May 31, 1971, p. 30-32.
o 'Connor, A. John. "D V Curing - System of the 70' s, " Austra ilian Lith-
ographer, Vol. 7, No. 37, Sept./Oct. 1971, p. 23-27.
Perry, J. H., editor. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,
N ew York, 195 0 .
Preston, Mark D. "Is Dielectric Drying for Coating?", Modern Converter
Vol. 15, No. 1, Jan." 1971, p. 39-41.
Ritchie, Roy.
p. 193-196.
"Microwave Drying, " Penrose Annua L Vol. 63, 1970,
Ritchie, Roy and McFarlane, John. "Microwave Drying of Sheet Work, "
Printing Trades JournaL No. 1006, December 1970, p. 36-37.
Ruch, Walter E., editor. "Chemical Detection of Gaseous Pollutants: An
Annotated Bibliography." Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1966.
Ruch, Walter, "Quantitative Analysis of Gaseous Pollutants." Ann Arbor,
Arbor Science Publishers, 1970.
Saltzman, B. E. "Standardization of Methods for Measurement of Air
Pollutants, " Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 18,
No.5, Ma y 1968, p. 326- 329 .
Sharp, T.K.R. "Ink and Man's Environment," Color Engineering, Vol. 9,
No.4, July/August 1971, p. 22-23.
Stamulis, Aristides, et al. "The C02 Pulse Technique for Determining the
Condition of Adsorbent Charcoal Beds, " Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Vol. 21, No. 11, Nov. 1971, p. 709-712.
Strahan, Robert. "Gravure Inks, Key to Efficient Printing, " American Ink
Maker, Vol. 49, No.8, August 1971, p. 25-26, 28.
Souka, A. "New Regenerative Afterburner Design," Pollution Engineering,
Vol. 4, No.3, May/June 1972, p. 45.
Stern, Arthur C., editor. "Air Pollution" (3 vols.) Vol. 1 "Air Pollution
and Its Effects; " Vol. 2 "Analysis, Monitoring and Surveying; " Vot. 3
"Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control." New York, Academic Press, 1968.
217
-------
Thompson, Hugh. "Ozone, Antidote for Water Pollution," Pollution
Engineering, Vol. 4, No.3, May/June 1972, p. 34-36.
Tyrrell, John J., U. S. Patent 3,470,054 (1969).
Printing with Water-Base Inks."
"Method of Process Color
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, "Hydrocarbons and Air
Pollution: An Annotated Bibliography." NAPCA Pub. No. AP-75. Washington, D.C.
Government Printing Office, 1970.
U. S. Department of Health, Edcuation and Welfare, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Research Triangle Park, N. C. Source Sampling
Training Course Manual, 1970. This manual has been specially prepared
for trainees attending a course and is not generally available.
Wartburg, A. Fo, Pate, J. B. and Lodge, J. P., Jr. "An Improved Gas
Sampler for Air Pollutant Analysis," Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 3, No.8, August 1967, p. 767-768.
Wilks, Pau l A., Jr. "Infrared Ana lys is of Proces sEmis s ions," Chemica l
Engineering, Vol. 78, No. 28, December 13, 1971, p. 120,122,124.
Anon. "A Printer's Commitment to a Better Environment," Printing Manage-
ment, Vol. 102, No.4, January 1972, p. 30-33.
"Better Inks and Papers for Web Offset Predicted, " Graphic Communi:
cations Weekly, Vol. 3, No.7, April 28, 1970, p. 7.
"Instrument Leasing, Rental Expand," Chemical and Engineering
News, Vol. 49, No. 13, March 29, 1971, p. 37-38.
"Pollution: Lasers Analyze Air, " Chemical and Engineering News,
Vol. 49, No. 28, July 12, 1971, p. 12.
"Pollution Mea surements Lack Standards, " Chemica 1 and Engineering
News, Vol. 49, No. 19, May 10, 1971, p. 52-53.
"Researchers Seek Pollution-Free Gravure Ink, " Gravure, Vol. 17,
No.9, September 1971, p. 10, 12, 30.
"Solventless Inks: What They Are And How They Work, " Applied
Graphics, Vol. 10, No.3, March 1971, p. 10.
"UK Debut for UV System, "British Printer, Vol. 84, No.8, August
1971, p. 49, 51.
"Water-Based Gravure Ink Formulated to Fight Air Pollution, " Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 5, No.2!, May 23, 1972, p. 14.
218
-------
News notes.
"In-line Gloss Coating on Flexo and Gravure Presses, " Graphic
Communications Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 50, December 28, 1971,
p. 7.
"New S & V Inks Lock-In To Celcon and Other Plastics, "
Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 3, No. 37, September
29, 1970, p. 14.
"Priority Processing Granted 660 Anti-Pollution Inventions, "
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 22,
No.5, May 1972, p. 400.
"Qual Analysis: New Pyrolysis Method," Chemical and
Engineering News, Vol. 48, No. 49, November 23, 1970, p. 11.
"Richardson Reveals New Products: Plastic, Zinc, and Ink,"
Graphic Communications Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 10, March 7,
1972, p. 9.
219
-------
220
-------
APPENDIX A
A ir Pollution Control Advisory Committee
221
-------
222
-------
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Anthony J. Allegretti
Vice Pres ident Engineering
W. F. Ha II Printing Company
4600 Diversey Street
Chicago, Illinois 60639
Fred Boc k
Facilities Manager
Milprint, Inc.
Milwa ukee, Wiscons in
53201
G era ld L. Brewer
UOP A ir Correction Division
Rokeneke Road
Darien, Connecticut 06820
Geoffrey Buckwa lter
Graphic Arts Research
Cities Service Company
Drawer 4
Cranbury, New Jersey 05812
Harvey A. Buntrock
Basic Control Systems, Inc.
146 E. Washington
Lombard, Illinois 60148
Bohdan Burachinsky
Vice Pres ident
Tnmont Corporation
Centra 1 Research La boratories
1255 Broad Stteet
Clifton, New Jersey 07015
O. B. Burns, Jr.
Ad minis tra tor
Water S Air Conservation
Westvaco Corporation
299 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
Daniel J. C'arlick, Manager of
Technology and Marketing
Sun Chemica 1 Corporation
135 West Lake Street
Northlake, Illinois 60164
Charles W. Cook
Vice President
The Fawcett Printing Corpora tion
1900 Chapman Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20852
David A. Cutler
Triangle Publications, Inc.
400 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19101
Warren R. Daum
Executive Vice Pres ident
Gravure Technical Association
60 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Mr. Robert G. Flagg
Sun Graphic Systems
Div. of Sun Chemical Corporation
59 Industrial Road
Addison, Illinois 60101
Ke ith Fry
Ass't. of the Vice President
Internationa 1 Paper Company
220 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
B. L. Gamble, Director
Corporate Technical Development
S: Services
Continental Can Company
1200 West 76th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60620
223
-------
Peter Giammanco, Jr.
Vice Pres ident
Centra 1 Can Company, Inc.
3200 South Kilbourn Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60623
Mohamad Hassibi
Plant Superintendent
Herbick & He ld Printing Co.
1117 Wolfendale Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15233
Urban Hirsch
Bowers Printing Ink Company
of Ca lifornia
12727 South Van Ness Avenue
Hawthorne, California 90250
George Holme
Research Engineer
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
2223 Martin Luther King Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60616
Alfred Ja s ser
Pres ident
Anchor Chemical Co., Inc.
500 West John Street
Hicksville, New York 11801
Charles Kennedy
Director of Deve lopment
The Colonial Press, Inc.
Clinton, Massachusetts 01510
James S. Livingston
Charles T. Main, Inc.
441 Stuart Street
Boston, Massachusetts
02116
vVilliam A. Magie, Jr.
Pres ident
Magie Bros. Oil Company
9101 Fu llerton A venue
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131
George Mattson
Web Offset Section
Printing Industries of America, Inc.
1730 N. Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Keith Nickoley
Executive Vice President
Roberts & Porter, Inc.
4140 W. Victoria Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60646
George J. Parisi
Executive Secretary
Flexographic Technical Association
1415 Avenue M
Brooklyn, New York 11230
Winslow Parker, Jr.
President
Parker Metal Decorating Company
Howard & Ostend Streets
Ba ltimore, Maryland 21230
Joseph H. Povey
Product Specialist
Matthey Bishop, Inc.
Apparatus System Division
Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
James X. Ryan
General Manager
Printing Industry of Illinois
12 East Grand Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Elgin D. Sallee, Corporate Director
Environmenta 1 Sciences
American Can Company
American Lane
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
E. W. Starke
Shell Oil Company
One Shell Plaza, Room 1567
P.O. Box 2463
Houston, Texas 77001
John C. Wurst
Vice President
Henry Wurst, Inc.
1331 Saline Street
N. Kansas City, Missouri
64116
224
-------
APPENDIX B
Figures
725
-------
226
-------
Project
Months 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Task 1 - Maintain Perspective and Current Awareness
Task 2
Familiarization with Field Testing Equipment
t'.)
t'.)
-...J
1
Task 3
I Web Offset Source Tests/Evaluation
Meta 1 Decorating Source Tests/Eva luation
Task 4
Fina 1 Report
D
Figure 1 - GATF-EPA Phase II Program (as originally approved by EPA)
-------
*Project
Months . '
2
I
3
. . I
4
I
8
I
9
10
6
I
5
I
7
I
1
I
11
12
15
13
14
Task 1 - Ma intain Perspective and Current Awareness
.... . QJ.... QJ....
QJ ""'QJ. ""'QJ
- U 10 - 0 10- .
0.«J :::I 0. . :::I 0.'0
E . -E~ - E .
10 1010 IOIOE
Cf.) u ~(/] ~(/]
Task 2 - Familiarization with field testing equipment
~
.
. 10 10 . .
0. ' . .. . u . u
o o..c:: 0 0
«J ..c:: . '
' . . . ' ..... . .....
. ~ ..... ~ ::> ~ . ~ .
10 . . u .....
'0 ..c::
Task 3 - Web offset source tests evaluation
N
N
Q)
Task 4 - Metal decorating sourc
tests eva luation
. QJ(/] QJ(/]
..... 0> .........
0. . 10 c: '10 QJ
«J :::I ..... '0:::1 :::I
.---~ .".......tr
. '"' 10 10 EIO U
IOS::;::>O ::>10
~ U ~-
.
. U
'0.
. .....
E .
U
Leqend
w.o. Web Offset Process
m.d. Meta 1 Decorating Process
c. & c. Construction and Ca libration
a. & p. Assessment and Planning
d.f.h.a. Direct Flame Hot Air Dryer
h.v.h.a. High Velocity Hot Air Dryer
c.i.c. Catalytic Incineration Control
t.i.c. Thermal Incineration Control
*Progress Reports Due Each Month
.
. U
'0 .
. .....
E .
.....
Task 5 - Source testing of <5 u u . u u
best controlled ~.j;; s.j j
processes
~Jan 1 Mar 41
I -~
Final D
Report
. .1
Mar 4 - Apr 4, 1972
Figure 2 - GATF-EPA Phase II Study (Inclusive of Contract Modifications I to 5).
-------
S ta c k
=
N
N
<.D
I
I
, ,
I !
I I
I I
I I
I I
L-J
r-o..
\
'-"
Probe
---.."
...........
,-...,,,
'--"
Heating Tape
I Direction of Flow
i
I
II
L -I ,i - /- / 7 - -r
I' ~ ~ '/ / < /1
'/ '/ ,/
,,/ / /
V / /./1 //>
I / / ,
~~ / '~;I 1>/1
, / I 1/ / /11 / / / !
// I//J ,,/1
, I / '
// /// //1
,. , ' / !
, I / / I, /,
. :; :/1 ~ ~ /,11 :/ ~I
, ~ / "" ,/ / I
/ / / I
///'//// /1
,/////// //1
,. /..1/ "" //,'
,. ",/ / ", / / " ,
Metering Va lve
Cold Trap
Vacuum Gauge
Figure 3 - Grab Sample Train Using Evacuated Container
Technique Principle of Collection
II
~
I
I
! Evacuated
, Cylinder
I
I i
~~
6
-------
12
Sampler Components Key
1. Stack probe, 1/8" 24 ga. type 304 S.s. tubing,
length variable.
2. Swagelok, union tee, 200-3.
3. 1/8" s.s. rod, silver soldered between 2 and 4.
4. Swagelok male run tee, 200-3TMT.
5. Swagelok, female connector, 400-7-2.
6. Swagelok, male adapter tube to pipe, 401-A-2.
7. Ideal, needle valve, 21-RS-4.
8. Swagelok, male elbow, 400-2-4.
9. Swagelok, male adapter tube to pipe, 400-A-4.
10. Whitey cylinder, HDF4-300-304. Type 304 s.s.
11. Ashcropt, 2-1/2" dia., 1/4" NPT male, 0-30"
vacuum.
12. Trap, 1/8" 24 ga. s.s. tubing, length variable.
Figure 4 - Schematic Representation of Prototype Field Sampling Apparatus
230
-------
'"
I
I
,~.
./
--=
'.
Figure 5 - Prototype Field Sampling Apparatus
231
-------
CAL-COLONIAL CHEMSOLVE
CHROMA TOGRAPHIC
FLAME IONIZATION ANALYSIS
COLLECTION OF
SAMPLE
,
N
W
N
I
CONDENSIBLES
(C 8 & i9he,)
OXIDIZING
SECTION
.
T
REDUCING
SECTION
LCH4
DETECTION BY
FLAME IONIZATION
T
RESULTS- (ppm CO, C02, CH 4' TOTAL CARBON)
)
(
Figure 6
t
NON-CONDENSIBLES
I
CH ROMA TOG RAPHIC
SEPARATION
I
CO, CO 2, CH 4
l
REDUCING
SECTION
l
T
I
REMAINING
C2-C7
OXlDtlNG
SECTION
ct2
I
REDUCING
SECTION
{ I
CH4
-------
LOS ANGELES A.P.C.D.
CHROMATOGRAPHY - COMBUSTION - INFRARED ANALYSIS
(TOTAL COMBUSTION ANALYSIS)
N
W
W
I
CONDENSIBLES
I
CATALYTIC COMBUSTION
I
C02
I
COLLECTION OF
SAMPLE
,
)
INFRARED
ANAfS'S
'(
I
NON-CONDENSIBLES
I
CHROMATOGRAPHIC
SEPARATION
t
CO, C02, CH4
t
CATALYTIC COMBUSTION
t
CO 2
I
RESULTS - (ppm CO, CO 2' CH 4' TOTAL CARBON)
Figure 7
-------
Sampler Components Key
1. Swagelok, cap, brass, 200-C, capping section removed
during sampling.
2. Stack probe-trap assembly, Va" 25 ga. type 304 s.s.
tubing, probe length variable depending on stack dimen-
sions; trap length in Dewar flask, 30".
3. Glass wool plug approximately 6" in length.
4. Swagelok, male connector, brass, 200-1-2; capping
section removed during sampling.
5. Needle valve. Ideal, #52-2-11, straight type. Va"
pipe size. 1/16" orifice.
6. Swagelok. male elbow, brass, 400-2-2.
7. Swagelok. male adapter. tube-to-pipe. brass, 401-A-4.
8. Whitey cylinder. HDF 4-300-304. type 304 s.s.
9. Ashcropt. 2V2" dia.. V4" NPT male. 0-30" vacuum.
10. Steel Dewar flask (glass-lined) containing dry ice-
trichloroethylene slurry.
Figure 8 - Modified Hydrocarbon Sampling Apparatus
234
-------
Sampler Components Key
1. Swagelok, cap(s), brass, 200-C, body hex (1 a) capping
sections removed during sampling.
2. Stack probe-trap assembly, 1/8" 25 ga. type 304 s.s.
tubing, probe length variable depending on stack dimen-
sions; trap length in Dewar flask 30".
3. Semi-loop in stack probe to prevent contact of Swagelok cap
nut hex (Ib) and slurry.
4. Glass wool plug approximately 6" in length.
5. Swagelok male connector, brass 200-1-2 nut-hex section
removed during sampling.
6. Needle valve, Ideal No. 52-2-12, angle type, 1/8" pipe size,
1/16" orifice.
7. Cajon, Hex Reducing Nipple, No. 4-HRN-2, 1/8"-NPT to
1/4"-NPT brass.
8. Whitey cylinder, HDF 4-300-304, type 304 S.s.
9. Ashcropt, 2-1/2" dia., 1/4" NPT male, 0-30" vacuum.
10. Steel Dewar Flask (glass-lined) containing dry ice-
trichloroethylene slurry.
C\/
8
Figure 9 - Final Integrated Grab Sampling Apparatus
235
-------
N
W
Q)
Flow
Impedances
:b}_~~,E'ectrom.ter
. : 0 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I :
H2
I I
I I
Ln - -_-.J
Hydrogen
Flame
Detector
He
To Bridge
Ci rcuit
~
~Vacuum
1....+-.+-+_.+---1I Six Port
U -- Sampling
""'-- Val ve
Calibrated
Sample
Loop
TC
Detector
,)
Sample
Holder
Co!. 2
Col 1
uu
- Electric Wiring
- Tubing
Figure 10 - Flow Diagram of a Modified Chromatographic Instrument
-------
30
28
26
24
22
- 20
E
~
~
()
«I 18
>
CI
:I:
c
16
CI
c
'C
«I 14
Q)
ex:
Q)
CI
«I
~ 12
10
I !
.
\ I
I
\ : i
I
I
\
\ I I
1\ '
\
\
1\
\
\
\.
"
l '"
~ ........
8
6
4
2
o
8
10
16
18
20
2
6
12
14
4
Time (minutes)
Figure 11 - Filling Curve for an Evacuated Cylinder Over a 15-Minute
Sampling Period
237
-------
30
28
26
24
22
20
-
E
::J
::J 18
u
C'CI
>
CI
J: 16
c
CI
c 14
"0
C'CI
Q)
0::
Q) 12
CI
C'CI
~
10
8
6
4
2
\
'T
\
\.
\
\
\
\ I
\
\
~ '-
~ ~
'" ~
a.......-.
-........ ~
~
o
2
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
4
20
Time (minutes)
Figure 12 - Filling Curve for an Evacuated Cylinder Over a 20-Minute
Sampling Period
238
-------
50
45
40
35
.5
E
-- 30
(J
(J
Q)
-
cu
a: 25
~
o
u:
20
15
10
5
t,
'"
-...
" ,
'\
\
\
\.
\
~.
"
,
-
o
6
8
10
12
16
20
14
18
2
4
Time (minutes)
Figure 13 - Change in Flow Rate Over a 15-Minute Sampling Period
239
-------
20
18
16
14
C
E
--
CJ 12
CJ
ai
-
ca
a: 10
~
o
u:
8
6
4
2
-- ~
~
"
."
~
... "
~
I\.
\
\
" \.
\
o
2
6
10
20
8
12
14
16
18
4
Time (minutes)
Figure 14 - Change in Flow Rate Over a 20-Minute Sampling Period
240
-------
90
80
70
60
C>
tV :a
,!::. Gi
....... III 50
o
.!!!
(ij
>
40
30
20
10
~ """.,
--
~ ~
~
--
V 5"
~
--
~ ~
~
--""
~ .-
~
-----
~ ~
~
~ -
I
I
I
,
,
,
j
,
o
50
60
80
70
90
100
110
120
130
140 150
Temp. (0C)
160
170
180
200
210
220
230
240
190
Figure 15 - Probe Temperature (OC) Versus Variac Setting (Static Room
Conditions)
-------
MD-P-3
To Stack
MD-P-2
Figure 16 - Schematic Representation of Two Samples Collected Simul-
taneously Using a Single Probe
242
-------
Data Sheet #1-ECD
(February 1, 1971)
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s} Contacted:
4.
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Backqround Data
5.
6.
Date(s} of Test(s):
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates):
7.
8.
Product(s}:
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates:
B. Inks and Solvents:
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model:
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.:
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption:
D. Comment:
9.
10.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded)
B. Cross-sectional area:
C. Height above roof:
D. Approx. running length:
E. Comment:
11.
APC Equipment (if any)
12.
Genera 1 Comments:
*Restricted use only.
Figure 17 - Source and Sample Background Data Form
243
-------
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
(February 1, 1971)
Test Date:
Conditions:
'fest No.:
Plar.t Code No.:
Physical"9nd Operational Plant Data
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press
Temperature
Relative Humidity
Wind Speed
Ambient Temp.
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack s ta c k
Flue Gas a) sampl. pt.. b) exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Ba ke Temp.
Static Press Stack "H20 (AH)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press Drop APC Fan
Press Operating Speed/
Web width/sheet dim
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl.
# Colors per side/coat thickness
-
Type of Paper/Sheet
Grade
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating
Ink consumption (% coverage)
Dura tion of Run
Color of Ink/Coating
Passes thru Drier
Gas Meter Start
Read ing to Drier End
Fan (H.P.)
Solvent/Coating Usage Rate
Figure 18 - Physical and Operational Plant Data Form
244
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Data Sheet #2-ECD (Rev.)
(July 1, 1971)
Test No.:
Plant Code No.:
Test Date:
Conditions:
Test Readings Comments
Atmospheric Press
Te mpera ture
Relative Humidity
Wind Speed
Ambient Temp.
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
a) stack
Flue Gas samp!. pt., b) exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Bake Temp.
Static Press Stack "H20 (~H)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press Drop APC Fan
Press Operating Speed/
Web width/sheet dim
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl.
# Colors per side/coat thickness
Type of Paper/Sheet
Grade
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating
Ink consumption (% coverage)
Dura tion of Run
Color of Ink/Coating
Passes thru Drier
Gas Meter Start
Read ing to Drier End
Fan (H. P.)
Solvent/Coating Usage Rate
Figure 18a - Revised Form (July I, 1971)
245
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD (Rev.)
(November 1, 1971)
Test Date:_-
Conditions
Test No.
Plant Code No.
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
Atmospheric pressure
Tempera ture
Relative humidity
Wind speed
Temperatures (0
Ambient
d b/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
Static press stack "H20
A tmos pheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(.A H)
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
Miscellaneous Data
Figure lab - Revised Form (November I, 1971)
246
-------
Test No.
Graphic Arts Technica l Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Da ta Sheet :\F2- ECD (Rev.)
(May 1, 1972)
Test Date:
Conditions:
Reading/Comments
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point temp.
b) stack exit temp.
APC - Inlet temp.
APC - Outlet temp.
Web temp.
Chill exhaust temp.
Oven/Dryer (specify) - ba ke temp.
Static press stack "H20 (.dH)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coating thickness
Est. coating/ink usage rate
Type of paper/sheet
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
Control Equipment Data
Figure 18c - Revised Form (May I, 1972)
247
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
(February 1, 1971)
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
Date:
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Collection Probe Variac
Point Length Setting
Figure 19 - Effluent Sampling Data Form
248
-------
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet -#=3-ECD (Rev)
(July 1, 1971)
Plant Code No.
Date:
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample -#= Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
Figure 19a - Revised Form (July I, 1971)
249
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Data Sheet #4-ECD
(February 1, 1971)
Date:
Time Period:
Plant Code No.:
Observer:
Vis ible Emis s ions Eva lua tion
Observation Point 0 15 30 45 0 15 bo 45
o 30
Stack - Distance From_Height 1 31
Wind - Speed Direction 2 32
Sky Condition 3 33
4 34
Fuel 5 35
Observation began_Ended 6 36
Density Smoke Tabulation 7 37
#Units (UnitNo.)=Equiv. #1 Units 8 38
Units No. 0 9 39
Units No. 1/2 11(\ 40
Units No. 1 11 41
Units No. 1-1/2 12 42
Units No. 2 13 43
Units No. 2-1/2 14 44
Units No. 3 15 45
Units No. 3-1/2 16 46
Units No. 4 17 47
Units No. 4-1/2 18 48
Units No. 5 19 49
20 50
Units Equiv. Units 21 51
Equiv. Units x 20% = 22 52
Units 23 53
%Smoke Desnity 24 54
Remarks: 25 55
26 56
27 57
8 ;R
9 59
Figure 20 - Visible Emissions Evaluation Data Form
250
-------
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #5- Len
(February 1, 1971)
Test No.:
Plant Code No.:
Sampling Location
Date:
GATF Personnel:
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: Time:
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
Av.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (i.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor{if any)
Gas density factory{ref. to air)
Corrected velocity Bx C x D x E ft/sec
Area of flue, sq. ft.
Av. flue temp. of
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps =
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P~ ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
~
~
1.D.
J.
K.
Static (~H) "H20 =
P g = - ~ H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg = .
Ps = Patm - Pg =
Figure 21- Gas Velocity Data Form
251
-------
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #5-ECD (Rev.)
(May I, 1972)
Date:
GATF Personnel:
Test No.:
Plant Code No.:
Sampling Location
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: Point Time:
No. Vel. Head Temp- Velocitj No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity
n. H?O (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
Av. Av.
X
A. Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
C. Flue factor A/B
D. Pitot Tube correction factor{if any) 5
E. Gas density factory{ref. to air) 7 6 5. 3 2
F. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec Reference
Point
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 3
H. Av. flue temp. of 2
I. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
F x G x 60, aefm ~ I.D. ~
J. Ps =
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (~H) "H20 =
Flow rate = 520 x I x Pi': P g = ~ H/13 . 6 =
, scfm
(H + 460) x 29.92 Patm "Hg =
P s = P a tm - P g =
Figure 21 a - Revised Form (May I, 1972)
252
-------
4000
3000
E
Q.
Q.
-
tV
U1
eN
.~ 2000
r:::
cu
CI
..
o
.
I -Indicates sampling interval
-Indicates weighted center of
sampling period
1000
o
4
(176)
8
12
(528)
16
20 24 28 32
(880) (1066) (1032) (714)
36
44 48.
( /V 0) **
40
(362)
*Elapsed Time (Minutes)
** No. of Sheets in Oven
Figure 28 - Organics Emission with Time and No. of Sheets in Oven
-------
I
~ ~ J J. J. I ! J. J.
,
I~ h !, !I !I !I I~ !I
" " , . 1 . -I . I II II . ,
'1 . I . I 1 1 . I I . '1 I 1 : I
n I " . ' . ~ . \ I J 1 . . . 1 I
I \ I \ I \ .\ I ' I '
I , I, 1\ I \ " I' . \ .\ .\
I \ I \ " I \ 1 \ I \ I \ . ,
I ' I \ I \ 1 \ I \ . \ I \ I \ I \
. \ I \ . \ \ \ . \ 1 \ : \. \
. \ I \. 1 \ I! \. : \ I. \ I \ I \ ~ \
. , . \ I \ , \. \. \ \ II \: \ . \
1 I
I \ \ I \ I . I ~ 1 ~ I \. \ ,
I , ~ . . 1 , . . 1 I I I ~ .
, ~ i I . I .
I I I I I
I 1 ,
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I ,
I ,
I
I ,
I
i
,
,
,
,
~
5000
4000
- 3000
E
Q.
Q.
-
1/1
(,)
'2
IU
CI
...
N 0 2000
CJ1
,.t:.
1000
o
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Time (Minutes)
Figure 29 - Projected Organic Emission Rate for Extended Period of Time
-------
130
120
110
100
90
~ 80
C
0
.c
i; 70
u
en
N g
CJ1 '"
<.T1 .c 60
O
w
50
40
30
20
10
4
~
. ./ ,/
~ /
./ ./
V -
./
./ "ii'
I. ~
./ v
~
V ~
.
V v
./ /7 .
V ;/ . . .
o
40
60
70
90
100
120
150
160
200
180
190
140
130
170
110
10
20
30
50
80
E calc (lbs. carbon/hr.)
Figure 33 - Variation of Observed Emission Rate (E obs) with Calculated
Emission Rate (E calc) from Older Metal Decorating Ovens
-------
130
120
110
100
90
- 80
~
e
0
.Q
Oi 70
u
N I/) 60
.Q
O
w
50
40
30
20
10
~
~ ~
~
V ".......,-
~
~ io"""""
~
~ ",,-
. ~
~ ~
...........
/ V .
a
~ ,- .
~
o
110
160
170
180
190
200
10
20
40
60
70
90
120
130
140
30
50
80
100
150
E calc (Ibs. carbon/hr.)
Figure 34 - Variation of Observed Emission Rate (E obs) with Calculated
Emission Rate (E calc) from Newer Metal Decorating Ovens
-------
APPENDIX C
Ta bles
257
-------
258
-------
TABLE 1
SA MPLINC' METHODS FOR EFFLUENTS FROM PRI1\JTI "-JG .f:. METAL DECORATI\TG PLANTS
d
d
b
S
1
M
N
CJ1
<.D
Metho Perio Pro e Trap amp er eter Requ ator Pump
(min) I !
L.A. 20 I (ta pe- s.s., coiled U 12-1 flask needle valve
: s. s. vac. gage I vac.
I heated) dry ice-Methyl g la s s I (trap - flask)
APCD i monitor
I rate
Cellosolve evac.
Cal- 1 s. s. dry ice gas vac. gage needle valve vac.
Colonia 1 (125 mt) 0/8" x 12") bottle monitor
w/fittings (125 ml) rate
Poly- 30 s. s. (tape- scrubber 4-250 ml dry gas flow meter vac.
technic heated) (particulates) I I scrubbers meter &
ice in series I in CC 14 ' vac. gage
Phoenix 1 0- 3 0 1 none 1100 ml none flow meter vac.
Chern. I " I tube
Lab. i I (Teflon
I I s top- i
c oc k s )
20- 4 5 I U-tube I dry flow meter I air
Illinois Apiezon L- vac. gage
I 1 I Teflon (0.5-0.75 blower
Inst. I ! II j ice
, l/sec) (rever-
Tech. I powder
i I
I I I ~luidized sible)
i I bed)
, ,
'T'ruesda it 20 I double U I ga s bottle vac. gage need le va lve vac.
II dry ice- (s td. vol)
I
I isopropanol
S.F.B.A. 15 I I silica gel s . s. tank I vac. gage flow meter vac.
IS. s. or
j g la s s t 0 . 5 dm
APCD ! (2-cartridges) ! (5 ga 1)
I 1 i
. j
s.s.- stainless steel
-------
TA BLE 2
INSTRUMENTAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS CURRENTLY IN USE THROUGHOUT
THE GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRY
Method Used By
1. Los Ange les APCD
2. Honeywe 111 Inc.
3. Truesdail Labs.
4. Ca l-C olonia 1 Chemsolve
ON 5. Continenta 1 Can Co. 1 Inc.
(j)
o
6. Polytechnic, Inc.
7. Hirt Combustion Engineers
8. IIT Research Institute
9. San Francisco Bay Area APCD
10.
Ambassador College Press
Primary Instrument(s)
Gas chromatograph w/non-dispersive infrared analyzer
Similar to L.A. APCD
Similar to L.A. APCD
Gas chromatograph w/flame ionization detector cell
Tota 1 hydrocarbon ana lyzer
IR spectrophotometer
Tota 1 combustibles ana lyzer
Gas chromatograph w/sample injection system
Cas chromatograph w/flame ionization and
thermal conductivity cells
Ga s chroma togra ph
Auxiliaries
NDIR instrument
U ltra- violet ana lyzer
IR Spectrophotometer
Hot-wire detector
Mass integral detectoJ
-------
TABLE 12
Variables Affecting Efficiency of GATT's Trap,
Organics Collection, Web Offset Samples
Trap Organics Tota 1 Sampling
Collection Efficiency Organics Low Boilers High Boilers Time
(%) (ppm) (%) (%) (min)
a 2* 100 a 20
a 14* 100 a 15
a 18* 100 a 15
a 23* 100 a 15
a 29* 100 a 15
a 36* 100 a 15
a 48* 100 a 15
3 117* 100 a 15
9 57* 96 4 15
11 18* 89 11 15
12 58* 90 10 15
18 57* 88 12 15
19 95* 86 14 15
21 29* 83 17 15
22 102* 98 2 15
29 7* 100 a 20
33 9* 89 11 20
40 116* 66 34 15
59 261* 55 45 20
67 6* 83 17 20
75 4* 50 50 20
83 6* 50 50 20
85 47 15
88 98'" 28 72 20
82 455* 19 81 20
91 68 10
93 15* 20 80 20
93 86 15
93 88 3 97 10
93 151 ,,< 80 20 15
94 51 10
95 19 20
95 187 56 44 20
96 114 3 97 10
96 246 13 87 20
96 309 10 90 20
97 30 27 73 20
97 180 15
261
-------
Table 12 continued
Trap Organics Tota 1 Sampling
Collection Efficiency Organics Low Boilers Hiqh Boilers Time
(%) (ppm) (%) (%) (min)
97 183 15
97 255 11 89 20
97 284 6 94 20
97 327 20
97 1646 22
97 2608 13 87 15
98 45 20
98 135* 7 93 20
98 194 20
98 203 20
98 297 16 84 20
98 354 20
98 409 20
98 433 20
98 524 30
98 1589 20
98 1747 20
98 1919 15 85 20
98 2332 15 85 20
98 2532 14 86 20
98 2641 18 82 15
99 215 6 94 20
99 226 16 84 20
99 297 41 59 20
99 353 33 67 20
99 418 20
99 624 20
99 650 20
99 686 15
99 710 30
99 748 15
99 759 15
99 780 15
99 868 20
99 1050 23
99 1077 23
99 1111 30
99 1346 20
99 1904 20
99 1920 7 93 20
99 2275 15 85 15
262
-------
Table 12 continued
Trap Organics Tota 1 Sampling
Collection Efficiency Organics Low Bo i lers High Boilers Time
(%) (ppm) (%) (%) (min)
99 2410 20
99 2822 30
99 5977 1 99 22
100 4* 75 25 20
100 18* 6 94 20
100 605 30
luO 783 20
100 811 30
100 916 30
100 2360 20
100 4767 30
*Outlet to emission control units
263
-------
TABLE 13
Variables Affecting Efficiency of GATF's Trap,
Organics Collection, Meta l Decorating Sa mples
Trap Organics Tota l Sampling
Collection Efficiency Orqanics Low Boi lers High Boilers Time
(%) (ppm) (%) (%) (m i n)
o 5* 100 0 15
o 7* 100 0 20
o 15* 100 0 15
o 20* 100 0 20
o 25* 100 0 20
o 30* 100 0 20
o 35* 100 0 20
o 171* 100 0 20
2 102* 100 0 20
3 32* 100 0 20
4 46* 98 2 20
4 81* 96 4 20
4 112* 96 4 20
9 188* 96 4 20
9 205* 97 3 20
10 151* 91 9 20
14 147* 89 11 20
19 4 3>~ 100 0 20
20 44* 100 0 20
24 130* 83 17 15
25 230* 97 3 20
27 179* 77 23 20
28 232* 94 6 15
34 149* 90 10 20
41 162 94 6 15
43 87 89 11 15
45 126* 87 13 15
47 175>~ 53 47 20
48 32 94 6 10
49 156* 60 40 20
58 133 76 24 15
58 174* 55 45 20
60 440* 96 4 15
69 64 84 16 15
69 180* 96 4 20
69 394 91 9 10
73 97 67 33 15
264
-------
Table 13 continued
Trap Organics Tota l Sampling
Collection Efficiency Orga nics Low Baiters High Baiters Time
(%) (ppm) (ex) (%) (m i n)
73 445 94 6 10
73 898* 34 66 15
77 884* 95 5 15
78 553 44 56 10
80 61 72 28 11
87 55 64 36 15
91 924* 90 10 20
92 96 96 4 15
96 77* 4 96 15
98 1442 77 23 15
98 1491 97 3 15
98 2082 77 23 15
98 2140 77 23 15
98 8177 96 4 15
98 9124 94 6 15
99 1524 61 39 15
99 1769 69 31 15
99 1808 100 a 15
99 1944 99 1 15
99 2185 83 17 15
99 2750 98 2 15
99 2894 95 5 15
99 3474 82 18 15
99 5447 96 4 15
99 5573 96 4 15
100 1* a 100 15
100 5* 100 a 20
100 7* a 100 15
100 65 77 23 15
100 801 44 56 20
100 920 61 39 20
100 2669 87 13 20
100 2773 93 7 10
100 2860 73 27 15
100 3076 73 27 15
100 3244 93 7 11
100 3436 90 10 20
100 3871 92 8 10
100 4206 98 2 15
100 4288 98 2 15
265
-------
Table 13 continued
Trap Organics T ota L SampLing
Collection Effic iency Organ ics Low Boilers High Bol Lers Time
(%) (ppm) (%) (%) (min)
100 4600 99 1 15
100 4917 96 4 15
100 4949 92 8 15
100 5164 96 4 20
100 5756 97 3 15
100 5780 97 3 15
100 6052 94 6 15
100 6095 97 3 15
100 6785 96 4 15
100 6997 99 1 15
100 7408 97 3 15
100 8295 99 1 .15
100 8326 97 3 20
100 9137 99 1 15
100 10347 98 2 20
100 13323 98 2 20
100 13574 98 2 20
100 13773 98 2 15
100 14462 99 1 20
100 15574 98 2 20
100 16534 16 84 20
100 20045 97 3 15
100 20363 99 1 15
100 21405 99 1 15
100 21684 99 1 15
*Outlet to emission control units
266
-------
Process variable to
be evaluated
TABLE 14
Test Program for Web Offset Publication Printing
to be Performed Under Task 3 of Contract No. 68-02-0001
*Un-Controlled Source
No. of Samples Comment
**Controlled Source
No. of Samples Comment
1.
Dryer only
2. Paper only 4
(no printing)
~
(j)
'I
3. Ink Usage Rate 4
2-color process
4-color process
4.
Press speed
4
Two sets of samples to
obtain background
emission due to dryer
operation only.
(A set shall be defined as
2 samples.)
None
Two sets of samples to
determine paper con-
tribu tion.
One set for coated and
one set for uncoated
paper stock.
None
One set of samples for each
type of paper stock studied.
8
4
One set of samples for each
type of paper stock studied.
8
8
One set of samples could be
obtained for each press speed
(i. e., 400, 600, 800, 1000) or
assuming only two press speeds
then 1 set of samples could be
obtained for each type of paper
stock.
*Inclusive of two drying systems to be evaluated, namely direct flame hot air and
high velocity hot air.
**Inclusive of two control systems to be evaluated, namely thermal (direct flame) and
catalytic incineration.
If necessary, samples
could be obtained,
however, none are
anticipated.
Dependent on outcome as
we 11 as obta inment of
samples, experimentation
due to paper could be
conducted I however I no
samples are anticipated.
Inlet and outlet sets taken
to determine control
system efficiency for
each type of paper
stock studied.
Same as above.
Depending on need to
sample process variable
such as dryer only and
paper only; four samples
(1 set on inlet and 1 on
the outlet) could be ob-
tained for selected press
speed and paper stock.
-------
TABLE 15
Test Program for Metal Decorating to be Performed
Under Task 4 of Contract No. 68-02-0001
Process Variable to
be evaluated
*Uncontrolled Source
No. of Samples Comment
**Controlled Source
No. of Samples Comment
1.
Oven only
4
Two sets '.Jf sa:nples
to obta in background
emission due to oven
operation only. (A set
shall be defined as
2 samples.)
2.
Lithography only
(no coatings applied)
8
Two sets of samples to
determine printing
contribution (one or two-
color work). Two sets
of samples to deter-
mine printing and subse-
quent trailing coater
(varn is h a ppl ica tion).
N
(j)
ex>
3.
Coating weights
A. Light
(2-10 mg/4 sq in)
4
Two sets of samples to
determine emission due
to this type of coating
application.
B.
Medium
(10-30 mg/4 sq in)
Two sets of samples to
determine emission due
to this type of coating
application.
4
C. Heavy
(30-50 mg/4 sq in)
4
Two sets of samples to
determine emission due
to th is type of coa ting
application.
None
None
8
8
8
*Inclusive of two plants so as to be able to evaluate as many process
variables as possible.
**Inclusive of two control systems to be evaluaterl, namely thermal (direct flame)
If necessary, samples
could be obtained,
however, none are
anticipated.
Unless determined other-
wise, efficiency samples
will not be conducted on
the lithography phase of
meta 1 decora ting.
Inlet and outlet sets taken
to determine control system
efficiency for each type of
coating weight studied
(not to exceed 2 types).
Inlet and out'et sets taken to
determine control system
efficiency for each type of
coating weight studied
(not to exceed 2 types).
Inlet and outlet sets taken to
determine control system
efficiency for each type of
coating weight stud ied
(not to exceed 2 types).
and catdlytic incineration.
-------
APPENDIX D
Data Sheets
Web Offset Plants
269
-------
270
-------
Data Sheet #1-ECD
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative{s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
I-W.O.
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date{s) of Test{s): March 16, 17, 18, 1971
Process{es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates):
6-unit web offset American Type Foundry press, perfecting type,
17,000 impressions per hour, 580 ft/min., uses a hot air (thermo air jet)
B. Offen dryer
Product{s): Advertisina circulars
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Westvaco. Marva web qloss C25 white 55# wt.
B. Inks and Solvents: 4 to 5 Ib ink/hr (5 color)
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: B. Offen & Co. Thermo Air Tet
B. Air Flows (rated). Temp.: N/A, temp. approx. 3700F
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Natural qas
"-
D. Comm~nt: No separate qas meterinq
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Sinqle stack - 30" diameter
B. Cross-sectional area: 4.9sqft
C. Height above roof: 4 ft
D. Approx. running length: 25 ft
E. Comment: Stack extends straiqht UP from dryer through roof,
over to horizontal for 20 H, vertical discharge
APC Equipment (if any) None
bends
12.
General Comments: Samplinq position is ideal considering configuration
of dryer exha ust ducting.
*Restricted use only.
271
-------
Date Sheet #2-ECD
'fest No.: 1
Plant Code No.:
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: March 16, 1971
Conditions: S-color
I-Web
l-W.O.
Physical'~nd Operational Plant Data perfecting
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press Plant area 29.20 1:00 pm Overca st
Temperature " naP Intermittent
Relative Humidity " 50% snow flurries
Wind Speed Westerly 15-20 mp
Ambient Temp. 410p 1:40pm
d b/wb ambient 50/40
db/wb stack stack 91/76
Flue Gas a) sampl. pt.. b) exit 2 5 0- 2 75
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet
Web 3150p
Chill Exhaust 650p
Oven/Dryer (specify)- Bake Temp. 3750p
Static Press Stack "H20 (~H) 5.0
Atmospheric "Hg 28.40
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed 580 ft/min, 17,000 iph
Web width/sheet dim 28" (l web)
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. 5 (perfecting)
# Colors per side/coat thickness 5 per side
Type of Paper/Sheet Coated
Grade Gloss white
Wt. of Paper 55#
Ink consumption (% coverage) 4-5 lb;hr (approx.)
Dura tion of Run Continuous, several da\ s
Color of Ink 5 colors (see att. sheet
Pa sses thru Drier One
Gas Meter Start -
Read ing to Drier End -
Fan (H.P.) -
272
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: March 17, 1971
Conditions: 5-color
I-web perfecting
'I'estNo.: 2
Plant Code No.: I-W.O.
Physica l"and Operationa I Plant Data
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press Plant area 29.75 9:00 arr Overcast
Temperature nOF intermittent
Relative Humidity 50% snow flurries
Wind Speed Westerly 10-15 mph
Ambient Temp. 35°F 10:20
db/wb ambient 88/78
db/wb stack stack 91/84
Flue Gas a) sampl. pt.. b) exit 240°F
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web 315°F
Chill Exhaust 61°F
Oven/Dryer (specify) 370°F
Static Press Stack "H20 (11 H) 5.0
Atmospheric "Hg 29.12
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed 80 ft/min, 17, 000 ipn
Web width/sheet dim. 28" (1 web)
#" Printing Units/#" Plate cyl. 5 units (perfecting)
#" Colors per side/coat thickness 5 color per side
Type of Paper/Sheet coated
Grade Gloss white
Wt. of Paper 55#
Ink consumption (% coverage) 4-5 lb/hr
Duration of Run Continuous
Color of Ink 5 colors
Passes thru Drier One
Gas Meter Start -
Read ing to Drier End -
Fan (H.P.) -
273
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
'I'estNo.: 3
Plant Code No.:
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania lS213
Test Date: March 18, 1971
Conditions: S-color
I-web perfecting
1 W.O.
Physical' nd Operational Plant Data
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press 29.28 10:15 a n Sunny, little wind
Temperature nOF
Relative Humidity 55%
Wind Speed 0- S mnh
Ambient Temp. 4SoF
db/wb ambient -
db/wb stack -
stack
Flue Ga s a) sampl. pt.. b) exit Sample point - 2000F
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web 250°F
Chill Exhaust 5SoF
Oven/Dryer (specify) 270°F
Static Press Stack "H20 (AH) 29.05
Atmospheric "Hg 5.5
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed 300 ft/min
Web width/sheet dim
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. No printing, oven on,
# Colors per side/coat thickness pa per throug h
Type of Paper/Sheet Coated
Grade Gloss
Wt. of Paper 55#
Ink consumption (% coverage) -
Duration of Run -
Color of Ink -
Passes thru Drier -
Gas Meter Start -
Read ing to Drier End -
Fan (H.P.) -
274
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
I-W.O.
Date: 3/16-17-18, 1971
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Collection Probe Variac
Point Length Setting
March 16, 1 71
#11 2:12-24 12 min At traverse point 12" 80"
#12 2:37-49 12 min 12" 80"
March 17, 1 71
*#9 11: 15-27 12 min At point of 12" 80"
*#10 11: 15-27 12 min traverse, point 12" 80"
3" from
*(Sample taken at san e time,
Sample 10 downstre m of #9)
#7 1: 15 5 sec At traverse poin 5" 80"
#8 1:25-30 5 min At traverse poin 4.5-5" 80"
March 18, 1 71
#6 11:20 o. 5 min At traverse point 12" 80"
#3 11:25-26 1 . 0 min At traverse point 12" 80"
Note: Sam les #6 and #3 tak n with oven on
no p inting or paper He w
#5 12:51-1:03 12 min At traverse poin 12" 80"
#4 12:51-1:03 12 min 12" 80"
Note: Sam les #5 and 4 take with paper on v
pas~ ng through oven c varying press.
speE of between 100 . to 300 ft/min
resp ctively.
275
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Analytical results in ppm)
Organics
Sample No. Coatinq Laboratory* CO ~ ~ Cylinder Trap Probe
12 5-color M;r. Nil 26 4859 4 134 769
11 5-color C.C. 13 Nil 5880 120 149 102
10 5-color M.L Nil 23 4470 4 III 1396
9 5-color C.C. 26 13 6780 69 140 305
8 5-color M.I. Nil 24 3845 6 62 1268
7 5-color M.I. Nil 24 4827 11 24 1132
N
-...J 6 Nil 11 1082 Nil Nil 5
Q) Oven on M.L
No printing or
paper flow
5 Paper only M.I. Nil 9 670 Nil Nil 9
4 Paper only M.r. Nil 3 2228 Nil 441 10
3 Oven on M.I. Nil 10 2175 Nil Nil 3
No printing or
paper flow
*C.C. - Ca l-Colonia 1
M.I. - Mellon Institute
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
* Organic
Sample No. Total Organic Flow Rate Emiss ion
(scfm) (lb c/hr)
12 907 6290 10.8
11 371 6290 4.4
lQ 1511 6445 18.5
9 514 6445 6.3
3 1336 6445 16.4
7 1167 6445 14.3
6 5 6375 .061
5 9 .109
4 441 5.35
3 3 6375 .036
*Calculated on the following basis:
lb/carbon/hr = 1.90 x 10-6 x scfm x ppm
277
-------
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: I-W.O.
Sampling Location
Horizontal run of duct
A pprox. 10 it lenqth
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date:March 16, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 11:00 am Time: 11:15 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of it/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-.l .10 250 24.4 .12 ?t;n ?/,;.7
A-2 .12. 250 26.7 .12 250 26.7
A-3. ._..._.14 250 29.0 .14 250 2 9_~-
A-4 .15 250 29.9 .14 250 29.0
J.=.L __-!..19---, _.25Q. :1-0. R .17 250 32.0
A-6 .19 250 33.6 .18 2S0 31..8
./>.-=.1- ~., .21 250 3<;.4 .1R 1.SO ~? R
A-8 .22 250 36.2 .21 250 35.4
._------------"-- .-.-. ','..__-"n ..- -.-.-- .. ... .-
A-9 ..___.!.n._.- ~!?'Q_.. .. 35.4_- .24 250 37.8
.-------
A-:-I0. .---"-,-J.B-__... --2..5.0.. ...- ._-~- .-.. _..18 2S0 32~
Av. 250 31.4 250 31.6
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (..raverse) ft/sec 31.5
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec 31.4
Flue factor A/B 1.0
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocityBxCxDxE ft/sec 31.4
Area of flue, sq. ft. 4.9
Av. flue temp. of 250
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = ?R.OO
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; scfm 6290
H + 460 x 29.92'
5
7 6 58 3 2
Reference
Point
3
2
1
~ LD. 30" ~
G.
H.
1.
q?SO
J.
K.
Static (.~H) "H20 = 5.0
P = - AH/13. 6 = 4
Pg "H
atm g= 28.40
P = P t - P = 28.40-.40=28.00
sam g
278
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: I-W.O.
Sampling Location
Horizontal run of duct
Same as Test #1
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: March 17, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
!Point Time: 1 (.;lE:; "'m Time:
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I .16 240 30.7
A-c2_- ----1" ?;In ':!n 7
A-3 - - - - - 17 ?an ':! 1 ':!
----
A-4 .17 240 31.3
-----=---- --- -
_8:: L __~_11__- __~40 --- _JJ...3 ---
A:-6 .17 240 31.3
.~--
A-7 --- .17 240 31.3
---------- -
A-8 - -- ---,_1.Z_----- ..24!L- n ..JLl_- --- --- -- - ---. ".' ---
A-9 .. ___._ll__- -- _-1~-Q-_..- 31.3 ._--------~
A-I0 - __......!..l~ m- 240 -_J~~-
- -... -_.. ..-
Av. 240 31.3
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:_raverse) ft/sec 31. 3
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec ~ 1 .~
Flue factor A/B 1.0
Pitot Tube correction factor{if any) 1. 0
Gas density factory{ref. to air) 1. n
Corrected velocityBxCxDxE ft/sec 31.3
Area of flue, sq. ft. 4.9
Av. flue temp. of 240
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm
Ps = 28.72
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; sefm 6445
H + 460 x 29.92'
G.
H.
1.
~
1.D.-
30" ~
9204
J.
K.
Static (41H) "H20 =
P = - 41 H/13 . 6 =
Pg "
atmHg= 2Ql?
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.12-.40=28.72
5.0
4
279
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 3
Plant Code No.: I-W.O.
Sampling Location
Same as Test #1 & #2
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date:
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. T. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 10:30 am Time:
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-1 .14 200 28.2
A-:'J._- .14 200 28.2
A-3 - - __.~ll- ?OO 28.2 ___n-
A-4 .14 200 28.2
---_.~ ----- -------
_11.,.5- -- - --_..L4...._-- -_200___- 1-_.2.R~? ---
1\:- 6 .14 200 28.2
--.-
A-7 --- .14 200 28.2
-- ---- -- -----
A-8 --____..14 __h- -.. 20(L- __2.fL...f_____- ---._----.,"--- ..-----.. .__..
A-9 __._14.. . ..--- _2.Q 0 -- - ~.J_--- ..----...---- --
.------ -.-..- .---------- ._- ---
Av. 200 28.2
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:_raverse) ft/sec 28.2
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec 28.2
Flue factor A/B 1.0
Pitot Tube correction fa ctor(if any) 1.0
Ga s dens i ty fa ctory (ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocityBxCxDxE ft/sec 28.2
Area of flue, sq. ft. 4.9
Av. flue temp. of 200
Flow rate @ stack cond.
Fx G x 60, acfm
Ps = 28.65
Corrected to std. cond.
5
7 6 58 3 2
Reference
Point
3
2
1
~ I.D. 30" ~
G.
H.
1.
8280
J.
K.
5.5
.40
Static (6H) "H20 =
P = - 6 H/13 . 6 =
P~tm"Hg= 29.05
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.05-4()=28.65
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; , scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
6375
280
-------
APproved~
~TF
CARNEGIE-M ELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
MAY '( - I~/I
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. W. Green
Gra phic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. #3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 71-205 (l-WO)
NATURE 1
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
April 30, 1971
xx
The eight stack gas samples which you submitted have been analyzed
by the procedure described in a previous report dated October 2, 1970.
data are tabulated in the attached table.
The
ltiv./~~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
281
-------
Tab 1e I
Stack Sample Analyses
(l-WO)
Cylinder No. 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12
Sample Volume, cc NTP 279.1 289.9 283.4 293.4 288.5 291.3 298.7 287.8
Content, V/V % as C02
Hydrogen Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide 0.2175 0.2228 0.0670 0.1082 0.4827 0.3845 0.4470 0.4859
N Methane 0.0010 0.0003 0.0009 0.0011 0.0024 0.0024 0.0023 0.0026
00
N
Organics 0.0011 0.0006 0.0004 0.0004
Trap, Low Boilers 0.0035 0.0069 0.0050
Trap, High Boilers O. 0441 0.0024 0 . 002 7 O. 0042 0.0084
Probe, Low Boilers 0.0240 0.0224 0.08£.0 0.0698
Probe, High Boilers 0.0003 0.0010 0.0009 0.0005 O. 08 92 0.1044 0.0536 O. 0081
-------
CAL-COLONIAL CHEMSOLVE
LA HABRA. CALIFORNIA 90631
APR 2 - 19J1
GATF:
CONSULTING AND RESEARCH LABORATORIES
871 EAST LAMBERT
1714> TR 9-6057
(213) OW 1.4848
March 30, 1971.
Mr. W.J. Green,
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation,
4615 Forbes Ave.,
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213
(l-WO)
Re: P.O. #07816; analysis ot two gas samples with trap & probe
,. for CO, CHI., and CO~d residual or~anics
Each ot the samples was analyzed using a combination ot gas chroma-
tographic separation and oxidation and reduction techniques. '!be
concentration of organics found in the trap and probe of each sample
was based on the reported volume ot the sample bottle.
Results:
Residual
sIN CO ~ C02 Organics Trap Probe
9 26 13,2 6780 69 l40 305
11 13 Nil 5880 12:) 149 102
Ref': Gal-Colonial 52:)87 A
Respectfully submitted,
{{t~
W.R. Hodson,
CAL-COLONIAL CHEMSOLVE.
283
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative{s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
Plant Code No.:
2-W.O.
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date{s) of Test{s): April 12, 13, 14, 15, 1971
Process{es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Lithoqraphic
web offset, 5 Levey Four-color, two web presses, 3 presses equipped
with Levey Model G-I070 direct flame hot air dryers, 2 presses equipped
with Overly, hot air high velocity dryers.
Product{s): Publication printing
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Not applicable
B. Inks and Solvents: Not applicable
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Levey Model G-I070
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: 3830 dm @ 4450F (rated)
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: 2220 ft~ /hr
D. Comment: Exhaust volumes as well as gas consumption rates have
been performed by dryer manufacturers.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single stack per dryer
B. Cross-sectional area: Dryer A - 1.44 sq H, Dryer B - 0.34 sq ft.
C. Height above roof: 4 ft in case of both stacks
D. Approx. running length: 10 to 20 H from dryer
E. Comment: Chill exhaust is exhausted through separate stack.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
APC Equipment (if any) None, one stack tested utilized rain cap with
considerable down-wash of effluent
Genera 1 Comments: Sampling points were idea lly located within
recommended practice.
*Restricted use only.
284
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: 4/13/71
Conditions: 2-color,2-web
d . f. h. a. dryer
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 2-W.0.
Physical"9nd Operational Plant Data
Test Press Press
A Readinq B Time Comments
Atmospheric Press (Plant) 29.00 12:30 Sunny and mild, winds
Temperature (Plant) 72°F to variable S/SW
Relative Humidity (Plant) 55% Idea 1 weather for
Wind Speed Ambient 10-15 mph 4:00pn sampling
Ambient Temp. (tes t site) 840p
db/wb ambient -
db/wb stack 860p /740p 930p /82°1
Flue Gas a) sampl. stack 3800p 2300p
pt., b) exit
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web -
Chill Exhaust 700p
Oven/Dryer (specify) -
Static Press Stack "H20 (~H) 0.40 2.7
Atmospheric "Hg 28.92 28.92
Press Drop APC Fan - -
Press Operating Speed 1200 wfm 500 wfm wfm = web feet per min.
Web width/sheet dim (37, 000 iph) iph = impressions
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. 4 4 per hour
# Colors per side/coat thickness *2-color * 2-color
-
Type of Paper/Sheet Newsprint Newsprint Press A
Grade Great Northern Paper
68" roll, finish '0 'Eng.
Wt. of Paper
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: 4/14/71
Conditions: 2-color, 2-web
d. f. h. a. dryer
'I'estNo.: 2
Plant Code No.:
2-W.O.
Physica 1 >~nd Operationa 1 Plant Data
Pres s Press
Test A ,. R Time Comments
Atmospheric Press (Plant) 28.86 9:00an Cool and windy over-
Temperature (Plant) 700F cast conditions
Relative Humidity (Plant) 60% to prevailed
Wind Speed Ambient 10-20 mph 12: 30 pr
Ambient Temp. (test site) 45°F
db/wb ambient -
db/wb stack -
a) sampl. stack 250°F
Flue Gas pt.. b) exit 440°F
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web -
Chill Exhaust 73°F
Oven/Dryer (specify) (bake temp. -
Static Press Stack "H20 (A H) 0.40 2.7
Atmospheric "Hg 28.96 28.96
Press Drop APC Fan - -
Press Operating Speed Same as Test No.1
Web width/sheet dim
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl.
# Colors per side/coat thickness
Type of Paper/Sheet Same as Test No. 1
Grade
Wt. of Paper
Ink consumption (% coverage) Same as Test No.1
Duration of Run
Color of Ink
Pa sses thru Drier
Gas Meter Start
Read ing to Drier End
Fan (H.P.)
Solvent/Coating Usage Rate
286
-------
Da ta Sheet #3- ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 2-W.O.
Date:
4/13/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample * Time Period Collection Probe Variac
Point Length Setting
5 1:08-1:23 pn 15 min. Exhaust from I Standard 12" Sample *5 taken
Press A taken at from 2-color, 2-web
15 1:28-1:31 3 min. point of tra vers e job; sample #15 was
with paper only
(no printing).
o 2:30-2:45 15 min. Exhaust from Standard 12" Duplicate sa mpling.
Press B taken at Samples taken at
13 2: 3 0- 2 : 45 15 min. point of traverse right angles to
each other from
2-color, 2-web
job.
287
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
2-W.Q.
Date:
4/14/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Collection Probe Comments
Point Length
12 9: 00-9: 15 an: 15 min. Exhaust from Standard 12" Duplicate samples
Press B taken at of dryer effluent
3 9:00-9:15 point of traverse from 2-color, 2-
web process.
Samplers at right
angles.
2 10:27-10:32 5 min. Exhaust from Standard 12" Dryer exhaust only,
Press B taken at no printing, no
14 10:27-10:32 5 min point of tra verse paper through dryer.
Duplicate samples.
10 10:50-11:05 15 min. Exhaust from Standard 12" Duplicate samples of
Press A taken at of dryer effluent
6 10:50-11:05 15 min. point of traverse from 2-color, 2-web
process.
Traps on samplers
packed with glass
beads and glass
wool.
4 2: 12-2: 17 pm 15 min. Exhaust from Standard 12" Samples taken of
Press A taken at dryer effluent from
8 2:12-2:17 15 min. point of traverse 2-color, 2-web
proces s.
Sampler #4: probe
inserted perpendic-
ular to flow.
Sampler #8: probe
inserted in d irec-
tion of flow
(norma I pra ctice) .
288
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
Tota 1 Flow Organic
Date Line Sample No. Organics Rate *Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
4/13 A 5 4228 2871 23.1
4/13 A 15 1847 2871 10.1
4/13 B 1 3518 1772 11.8
4/13 B 13 5230 1772 17.6
4/14 B 3 4095 1772 13.8
4/14 B 12 4868 1772 16.4
4/14 A 4 4919 2871 26.8
4/14 A 8 3438 2871 18.7
4/14 A 6 5463 2871 29.8
4/14 A 10 7336 2871 40.0
4/14 B 2 2173 1772 6.96
4/14 B 14 3776 1772 12.7
*calculated on the following basis:
lb C/hr = 1. 90 x 10-6 (scfm) (ppm)
289
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(All Values Given in ppm)
Organics
Date Line Sample No. CO CH1 C02 Cylinder Trap-Probe C ommen ts
4/13 A 5 47 55 16050 40 4188 2 color, 2 web
4/13 A 15 19 87 18979 12 1835 Paper only
4/13 B 1 13 375 10836 68 3450 Duplicate samples,
2 color, 2 web
4/13 B 13 41 377 11167 67 5163
4/14 B 3 6 450 10231 81 4014 Duplicate samples,
2 color, 2 web
4/14 B 3 24 439 9906 65 4303
N Collected J. to stream
<..0 4/14 A 4 6 62 11857 19 4900
o
4/14 A 8 4 65 12180 17 3421 Collected II to stream
4/14 A 6 101 88 16300 45 5418 Duplicates using
glassbeads in trap
4/14 A 10 10 88 15845 41 7295
4/14 B 2 25 294 13417 23 2150 Dryer only, no paper,
no printing
4/14 B 14 19 199 16951 19 8757
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Date:
A pri 1 13, 197 1
Code:
2-W.O.
Operation:
Press A, 2-color, 2-web, uncoated paper
(32# stock) @ 37,000 iph
Stack samples were obtained from the stack of Press No. A with a
Mine Safety Appliance, Universal Testing Kit, Model #2, No. 83498.
Standardized operation procedures were followed to accurately con-
trol both the volume of air sampled and the rate of air flow during the
test.
The measurement of gases was conducted through the use of selected
gas detector tubes with the following results:
Compound
C oncen tra tion
(ppm)
Aceta ldehyde
Toluene
Xylene
U nsa tura ted Hydrocarbons
NO
x
50
50-100
100-200
200-400
None
291
-------
Data Sheet it5-ECD
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 2-W.O
Sampling Location
Press Line A
Point of Traverse
31" a bove roof leve 1
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: 4/13-4/14/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Rectangular stack 16" x 13"
Gas Velocity Data
lPoint Time: 12:30 pm, 4/13/71 Time: 10:00 am, 4/14/71
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I .47 380 57.4 .41 440 56.0
A-2 .46 380 56.8 .44 440 58.0
.----
A-3 .42 380 54.5 .45 440 5_? ~L---
.. . - - -.
----- --
B-1 ---~ 4!L- 380 n_~~' 3 .45 440 58.3 ----
_. -
B-2 .53 380 60.9 .44 440 58.0
.. ----
B-3 f---.- .50 380 59.4 .43 440 57.3
... -.~--.-..- ----- --- .-.. ---. n ------- --".-----.-- -._----- ...
C-l .46 380 56.8 .45 440 58.3
. - __-n- ..-..-...- --'._--- ---." ..--_._-_._._--
C-2 .46 380 56.8 .42 440 56.6
- ------ .---. .-_. ..---- '. -.
C-3 .42 380 54.5 .41 440 56.0
Av. 380 57.3
440 57.4
A. Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec 57.3
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
C. Flue factor A/B
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 5. 3 2
F. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 57.3 Reference
Point
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 1. 44
H. Av. flue temp. of 410
1. Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm 4950 ~ I.D. ~
J. Ps = 28.92 13"
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (~H) "H20 = .40
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps 2871 P = - ~ H/13 . 6 = .03
, sefm pg "
H + 460 x 29.92 a tm Hg = 28.92-28.96
P s = P a tm - P g = 28.92
292
-------
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 2-W.O.
Sampling Location
Press Line B
Point of Traverse
31" above roof level
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 4/13-4/14/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. T. Green
circular stack 8" dia.
Point Time: 1: 00 Dm - 4/13/71 Time: 2:00 Dm - 4/141' 1
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of it/see in. H20 (h) of it/see
A-I 2.8 230 127.6 2.5 250 121.8
A-2 3.0 230 131.4 2.5 250 121,8
A-3 . - ... 3.2 230 136.3 2.3 250 1 ~9...&_-
A-4 2.8 230 127.6 2.0 250 110.2
_:"~
_--h._._. ------ -.. ... ~- ~-~ "'-
B-1 2.1 230 110.2 2.8 250 128.5
B-2 1-. 2.4 230 118.6 3.0 250 133.4
.. ----"':-
B-3 2.5 230 120.3 3.0 250 133.4
- - --.---.- --------.--- .....u ..--..... .. '_"h_- ----_ .- - .. -
B-4 1.9 230 100.7 2.5 250 121. 8
.. -.-_'.--__n__'- ----..--- .. .-..----.
-"--------- . --.-.-- . ... uu ----- ---- .--
Av. 230 121.4 250 123.4
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (;.raverse) it/see
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) it/see
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
1.0
122.4
G.
H.
1.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocityBxCxDxE it/see 122.4
Area of flue, sq. ft. 0.34
Av. flue temp. of 240
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 28.74
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
2496
J.
K.
1772
293
5
7 6 58 3 2
Reference
Point
3
2
1
~ I.D. ~
8"
Static (~H) "H20 = 2.70
P g = - ~ H/13 . 6 = . 20
Patm"Hg= 28.92-28.96
Ps = Patm - Pg = 28.94 - .20 =
28.74
-------
Approved ~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. W. Green
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. fF3l04
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No. PML 71-2l0-(2-WO)
Date of Report
May 5. 1971
NATURE i
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
xx
The twelve samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a previous report
dated October 2, 1970.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
-li2f~4-
Paul R. Eisaman
Fe How
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
294
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
(2-W.O~) 4-
.. ~
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 13 14 15
Sample Volume, cc NTP 259.3 251.0 268.1 276.1 248.9 288.0 275.0 268.2 275.8 262.2 271.2 278.4
Content, V/V % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0013 0.0025 0.0006 0.0011 0.004 7 0.0101 0.0004 0.0079 0.0024 O. 0041 O. 002 7 0.0019
Carbon Dioxide(a) 1.0836 1. 3417 1. 0231 1.1857 1.6050 1.6300 1.2180 1.5845 0.9906 1.1167 1.6951 1.8979
Methane 0.0375 O. 0294 0.0450 0.0062 0.0055 0.0088 0.0065 0.0088 0.0439 O. 03 77 0.0199 0 . 0087
Organics (a) 0.0068 0.0023 0.0081 0.0019 0.0040 0.0045 0.0017 0.0041 0.0065 O. 0067 0.0019 0.0012
N Traps, Low BOi1ing(b) 0.0098 0.0037 0.008 0 0.0049 0.0078 O. 0112 0.0011 0.0071 0.0118 0.0084 0.0049 0.0028
'..0 Traps, High BOi1in£b)
en 0.3352 0.2113 0.3934 0.4851 0.4110 0.5306 0.3410 0.7224 0.4685 0.5079 0.~708 0.1807
(a) To shorten the time for an analysis, the Poropak Q column was shortened from 19' 6" to' 6'.
The separation by the shorter column was satisfactory.
(b) These traps contained a glass wool plug near their connection to the cylinders. The objective
was to intercept any aerosol which may have formed. In traps Nos. 6 and 10, Pyrex glass spheres were
used with the same objective.
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
Plant Code No.:
3-W.O
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): August 24, 25, 26, 1971
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): 3 press lines -
#1 - 5-unit Harris-Cottrell M1000 web offset press w/Offen 10 ft direct
flame hot air dryer; #2 - 4- unit ATF press w/Offen 6 ft multi-staqe
dryer; #3 - 5-unit ATF press w/Offen air iet 10 ft direct flame hot air dryer.
Product(s): Publication and Advertisement Printinq
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Coated & uncoated paper stocks
B. Inks and Solvents: Heatset type inks (1 to 4 color work)
Dryer or Oven Equipment: #1 ~Offen Job No. 6438~, #2 (multi-stage)
A. Type, manufacturer, model: *3 ()ffAn Joh No. fi?OO
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: Not availahle
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Not separately meterAd
D. Comment: Drver #2 of old desian, #1 reflects more current dAsign
in drvinq systems as does #3 line,
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Each dryer exhausts to separate stack
B. Cross-sectional area: #1 - 3.14 Sq ft, #2 - 4.90, #3 - 5.58
C. Height above roof: 8-14 ft dependina on Dress line
D. Approx. running length: 50ft (each stack)
E. Comment: Excellent stack confiquration for source samplinq
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
APC Equipment (if any)
None
12.
Genera I Comments: Variability of iobs (2-color, 4-color process on
various types of paper) coupled with stack confiquration presents a qood
site at which to field test.
*Restricted use only.
296
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
3-W.O.
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15213
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Test Date: 8/24/71
Conditions: recorded for
2 stack studies
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.:
Test I Pro"" -II-? Reading1>r..<:<: ~1 Comments
Atmospheric Press 29.30 29.30 Conditions f vorable
Tempera ture 780F 830F for conduc of test.
Sunny, wanr winds
Relative Humidity 60% 60% variable, r ortherly
Wind Speed 5-15 mph 5-15 mph 5-15 mph.
Ambient Temp. 80°F 81°F
db/wb ambient - -
db/wb stack 94/79 95/80
Flue Gas a) s ta c k
sampl. pt. I b) exit 240 215
APC - Inlet - -
APC - Outlet - -
Web - -
Chill Exhaust 70 70
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Sa ke Temp. 375 420
Static Press Stack "H20 (£\ H) 0.03 0.12
Atmospheric "Hg 28.94 28.94
Press Drop APC Fan - -
Press Operating Speed/ 12-18000iph 18-24000iph Press speed varied
Web width/sheet dim (# webs) 2 web 1 web depending pn test
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. 2 units 4 units run.
# Colors per side/coat thickness 2-color 4-color
--
Type of Paper/Sheet uncoated coo ted
Grade 32# stock 40# gloss
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating Newsprint blade
Ink consumption (% coverage) 1560 # black 315# black
66# blue 256# red
245# blue
for 345# yellow
951,000 for
impres sions 490,000
or impressions
. 0017 #;1m~ or
.0024 #;1mp
297
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Test Date: 8/25/71
Conditions: Recorded for
2 stack studies
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 3-W.O.
Test Press #2 Readings Press #3 Comments
-,
Atmospheric Press 30.10 30.10 Conditions f vora ble
Tempera ture 630F 860F for conduc of te s t
Sunny, wam winds
Relative Humidity 50% 50% variable, r prthwest-
Wind Speed 5-15 mph 5-15 mph erlv 5-15 n lph
Ambient Temp. 68 88
db/wb ambient - -
db/wb stack - 94/79
Flue Gas a) sampl. stack 240 230
pt., b) exit
APC - Inlet - -
APC - Outlet - -
Web - -
Chill Exhaust 70 70
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Ba ke Temp. 375 350
Static Press Stack "H20 (~H) 0.03 0.03
Atmospheric "Hg 30.00 30.00
Press Drop APC Fan - -
Press Operating Speed/ 12,000 iph 15,000 iph
Web width/sheet dim (#Webs) 2 web 1 web
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. - 2 un its
# Colors per side/coat thickness - 2 color
-
Type of Paper/Sheet uncoated coated
Grade 32# st-:)ck 70# stock
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating Newsprint Brilliant
Ink consumption (% coverage) None 164# black
(Dryer and 17# green
paper for
stud ies only 72,000 imp
.0027 #/imp
298
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
3 W.O.
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1')213
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Test Date: 8/26/71
Conditions: Data on
one stack only
Test No.: 3
Plant Code No.:
Test Press #1 Readings Comments
Atmospheric Press 31.10 Conditions avorable,
Tempera ture 750F sunny, pa tly cloudy
wi th incre sing wind
Relative Humidity 75% speed
Wind Speed 10-25 mph
Ambient Temp. 72
db/wb ambient -
db/wb stack 95/80
Flue Gas a) stack
sampl. pt.. b) exit 215
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web -
C hill Exhaust 70
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Ba ke Temp. 420
Static Press Stack "H20 (~H) 0.12
Atmospheric "Hg 30.92
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed/ 18,000 iph
Web width/sheet dim (# webs) 1 web
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. 4 units
# Colors per side/coat thickness 4 color
-
Type of Paper/Sheet coated
Grade 50# stock
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating gloss, w. o.
Ink consumption (% coverage) Blk-85#
Blue-65#
Red-70#
Ye llow- 5 0#
for
100,000 imp ~ssions
or
.0027 #/imp
299
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh,. Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
3 w.o.
Date:
8/24/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#1 and #2 22 min. 11:25 am Perpend icular Press #2, 2 color, 2 web, uncoated stock
to and inserted at press speed of 18,000 iph
11:47 am to center of
stack diam.
#3 and #4 23 min 12: 12 pm perpend icular Press #2, 2 color, 2 web, uncoated stock
to and inserted at press speed of 12,000 iph
12:35 pm to center of
stack diam.
#5 and #6 20 min. *12:56-1:00 pm perpendicular Press #1, 4 color, 1 web, coated stock
1: 14- 1: 3 0 pn: a nd inserted at press speed of 24,000 iph
*web brea k to center of
interrupted stack diam.
sampling
#7 and #8 20 min. 1:40 pm perpend icu lar Press #1, 4 color, 1 web, coated stock
to same as #5 at press speed of 18,000 iph
2: 00 pm and #6
#9 and #10 20 min 5: 13 pm same as Press #1, no printing, paper only
to previous press speed of 18,000 iph
5:33 pm samples
#11 and #12 20 min. 6:53 pm same as Press #1, no printing, no paper
to previous only dryer on at operating temperature
7: 13 pm samples of 420oF.
300
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
3-W.Q.
Date:
8/25/71
8/2b/ll
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#13 and #14 20 min. 8: 00 pm perpendicular Press #2, no printing, paper only,
to and inserted press speed of 12,000 iph
8:20 pm to center of
stack diam.
#15 and #16 20 min. 11:20 am same as abovE Press #2, no printing, no paper,
to only dryer on at operating
11:40 am temperature of 3750F
# 1 7 and # 18 30 min. 1: 00 pm perpend icular Press #3, 2 color, 1 web, coated stock
1: 3 0 pm a nd ins erted at press speed of 15,000 iph
4" into duct
#19 and #20 30 min. 1:50 pm perpend icular Pres s #3, 2 color, 1 web, coated stock
to and inserted at press speed of 15,000 iph
2:20 pm 12" into duct
Auaust 26, 1 71
#21 and #22 30 min. 9:30 am perpendicular Press #1, 4 color, 1 web, coated stock,
to and inserted at press speed of 18,000 iph
10:00 am 4" into duct
#23 and #24 30 min. 11:00 am perpend icular Press #1, 4 color, 1 web, coated stock,
to and inserted at press speed of 18,000 iph
11:30 am 12" into duct
Note: Samp e #23 lost va uum from
time f packing unt 1 usage;
samp e #24 had 100 e fitting
next o valve.
301
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(analytical results in ppm)
Press Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
1 8/24/71 4-color, I-web 5 1346 trace 62 2809
coated, press speed
= 24,000 iph 6 1688 trace 48 2349
4-color, I-web 7 1589 trace 65 3378
coated, 18000 iph 8 1747 tra ce 69 4079
Paper only 9 353 trace 58 3573
10 203 nil 55 3397
Dryer only 11 194 nil 54 4126
12 2360 nil 37 3018
1 8/26/71 4-color, I-web 21 1111 trace 62 3780
coated, 18000 iph 22 2822 trace 73 4320
23 916 nil 6 122
24 811 nil 6 278
2 8/24/71 2-color, 2-web 1 1646 16 39 7590
uncoated, 18000 iph 2 5977 trace 49 8848
2-color, 2-web 3 1077 trace 49 4529
uncoated, 12000 iph 4 1050 nil 55 4330
8/25/71 No printing, pa per 13 783 nil 37 3526
only 14 624 trace 45 4240
8/25/71 Dryer only 15 327 trace 61 4746
16 409 trace 64 5305
3 8/26/71 2-color, I-web 17 524 nil 23 3731
coated, 15000 iph 18 710 nil 25 3955
19 605 nil 17 2105
20 4767 nil 16 2146
302
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(calculated emission rates)
* Organic
Press Cylinder T ota 1 Flow Emission
No. No. Organics Rate (lb/hr)
1 5 1346 3900 9.97
6 1688 12.50
7 1589 " 11.75
8 1747 12.90
9 353 2.62
10 203 1. 50
11 194 1. 43
12 2360 17.50
21 1111 8.20
22 2822 20.8
23 916 6.79
24 811 6.00
2 1 1646 2320 7.26
2 5977 26.3
3 1077 4.75
4 1050 4.64
13 783 3.46
14 624 2.75
15 327 1. 45
16 409 " 1. 75
3 17 524 5600 5.57
18 710 7.55
19 605 6.44
20 4767 47.9
*Calculated on the following basis:
lb C/hr = 1. 90 x 10-6 (scfm) (ppm)
303
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Comparison Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Cylinder(l) Emission(2) Emission(3) (Conversion(4)
Press Factor)
No. No. (calculated) (observed) Eobs . /Eca lc.
1 5 & 6 25.06 11.24 .45
1 7 & 8 19.26 12.32 .63
1 21, 23, 24 19.40 7.00 .36
2 1 16.0 7.26 .454
2 3 & 4 11.75 4.69 .398
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
(2) Calculated emission rate inclusive of paper contribution as
determined in previous test series.
(3) Based on recorded press data as obtained during test.
(4) Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in the dryer.
304
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
MOISTURE DETERMINATION CALCULATION
A wet- and dry-bulb method for determining the proportion of water
vapor in the duct gas for press #1 was conducted by drawing duct gas
through flexible tubing by a pump for determination by a psychrometer
at a point removed from the duct. The wet- and dry-bulb thermometers
utilized were similar.
Several readings were taken; for purposes of this calculation the dry-
bulb reading was 950F and the wet-bulb reading 80oF.
The moisture content was calculated from the following equations:
(a)
e =
A
e 01-0.000367 P (t - t ) (l + tW-32)
a d w 1571
80- 32
eA = 1.032-0.000367 (30.9201Hg) (95-80) (1+l57l)
e A = 1.032-0.171 = 0.861
(b)
Bw (moisture content) = eA = 0.861
Pa 30.92
= 2.4%
0.024
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Date:
August 26, 1971
Code:
3-W.O.
Operation:
Press #1, 4-color, I-web, coated paper
(50# stock) @ 18,000 iph
Stack samples were obtained from the stack of Press No.1
with a Mine Safety Appliance, Universal Testing Kit, Model #2,
No. 83498. Standardized operating procedures were followed to
accurately control both the volume of air sampled and the rate
of air flow during the test.
The measurement of gases was conducted through the use of
selected gas detector tubes with the following results:
Compound
Concentration (ppm)
Acetaldehyde
Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
e.g. Xylene
Carbon Monoxide
25
50-100
Present
305
-------
Graphic Arts Technical foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Data Sheet #4-ECD
Date: August 24, 1971
Time Period: 10 minutes
Observer: R. R. Gadomski
4-color, 1 web, coated stock
Press #1
Plant Code No.:
3 W.O.
Vis ible Emis sions Eva luation
Observation Point ?O' frnm ~tr1r.k 0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45
Perpendicular to plume 0 - 3 2-1). 3 30
Stack - Distance From~HeightI2' 1 2-].1 2 2 2 31
Wind - Speed 5mph Direction NW 2 .2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 2 . 5 32
-
Sky Condition Sunny & clear 3 3 2.5 2.5 3 33
4 2.5 _2 2 2.5 34 --
.-.. '. __40
Fuel Natura I qas drver 5 3 3 3 3 35
9:10 a'1; - -.
Observation began- nded 9:20 am 6 2.5 2.5 ~.5 .5 36
-
Density Smoke Tabulation 7 3 3 2.5 2' 37
.- . .~- ..
No Units x Equiv. No. 1 Units 8 2.5 2 ?.5 2 38
. .. ...
- Units No. 0 - 9 3 3 3 3 39
- >--- ---. -..-- .".- -
- Units No. 1/2 - 10 3 - - - 40
"
- Units No. 1 - 11 41
-- -
- Units No. 1-1/2 - 12 42
- -. .. ._. - --.- -
8 Units No. 2 16 q.- 43.-
-- '-"-" .--- . ...- - -_.
17 Units No. 2-1/2 42.5 14 44
-.. .-.-- .-- .. ,.- ..--- - --.... -' - -." .. --
15 Units No. 3 45 15 45
----0 __..0 ...-.--. ... -- "'-
- Units No. 3-1/2 - 16 ...iL
'- .-- __n ---. .---
- Units No. 4 - 17 47
.. --. -_. ~_.- ._-_.
- Units No. 4-1/2 - 18 48
.. .-. ----- -... . - --
- Units No. 5 - 19 49
---. -
- - 20 50
-'- -- ..- -. . ~..
40 Units63.5 Equiv. Units 21 51
.- -,--
Equiv. Units x 20% = 63.5 x 20% 22 52
Units 40 "M"" --'"." - -
23 53
---- .-_n." .. ." ---- ...- -'- _.... -..-
32 %Smoke Desnity 24 54
Remarks: Readinqs are reduced to 25 55
- _. .----- -- -- - '-" -
total equivalent of No. 1 smoke as 26 56
a standard, i. e, percent greater tha ~7 ...
57
20% indicates smoke violation. .- f-_. -. -... -._..
28 &.
.-- -. --
9 59
'~ 0 r,
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Data Sheet #4-ECD
Date: August 24, 1971
Plant Code No.:
3 W.O.
Time Period:
10 minutes
Observer: R. R. Gadomski
2-color, 2-web, uncoated stock
Press #2
Vis ible Emis s ions Eva lua tion
Observation Point 20' from stack 0 15 30 45 0 15 ~O 45
Peroendicular to olume 0 - I!? 1/~ 1/ 30
Stack - Distance From~Height 10' 1 1 1 1 1 31
Wind - Speed5-10 h Direction N/W 2 1/2 1/2 0 0 32
mp -
Sky Condition Sunny and clear 3 1/2 0 1/2 1 33
4_- ~ W. 0 1/2 34 -_u - --'.
--
Fuel Natural aas drver 5 I? ] I? 1 I? 11 I? 35
Observation beg~h50 a"Ended 10:00 am - -.
6 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 36
--
Density Smoke Tabulation 7 1 1 1 1 37
.- - .0.- ..
No Units x Equiv. No.1 Units 8 /2 1/2 1/2 1/2 38
t--- ..
9 Units No. 0 0 9 0 0 1/2 0 39
- ----. --- -..-
22 Units No. 1/2 11 110 0 - - - 40
9 Units No. 1 9 11 41
- Units No. 1-1/2 - 12 42
--- -- --.. -..- .. -
- Units No. 2 - 13 43_-
...-- .-. -- . ..-- ..-.- - -_.
- Units No. 2-1/2 - 14 44
u --.,. ---- .- u_-- .- +u - --.. .. --
- Units No. 3 - 15 45
----. -- ,- -..-.--- ... . ---. ..-
- U nits No. 3-1/2 - 16 ..i2....
'- -- --.. -. .,--
- Units No. 4 - 17 47
-- -f--- --. --- .--
- Units No. 4-1/2 - 18 48
.- ..-.-- .. --
- Units No. 5 - 19 49
-.,. ..-
- 20 50
-.-- .,--- -- '--
40 Units 20 Equiv. Units 21 51
.-
Equiv. Units x 20% = 20 x 20% 22 52
Units 40 .. ....- --.'-' .- t---
23 53
.- -.-. - ,---.- .n- -.-. n. _.--
10 %Smoke Desnity 24 54
Remarks: Readings are reduced to 25 55
- - ..- - -.- 0--' t--- .- '-
total equivalent of No. 1 smoke as 26 56
standard.. Press is operating within -
27 57
..- --. ---- t-... --
visible standards of law 28 &.
.--
9 59
307
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Data Sheet #4-ECD
Date:
August 25, 1971
Plant Code No.: 3 W.O.
Time Period:
10 minutes
Observer: R. R. Gadomski
2 color, 1 web, coated stock
Press #3
Vis ible Emis s ions Eva lua tion
Observation Point 20' from stack 0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45
Perpendicular to plume 0 - 1/2 1/2 1/2 30
Stack - Distance Fro~HeightI5' 1 1/2 1 1 1 31
Wind - Speed 5-10 Direction NW 2 1 1 1 1 32
mph -
Sky Condition Sunny & clear 3 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 33
4_- W 1/2 1/2 1/2 34 .._~... -- _.__.
Fuel Natural cras dryer 5 1 1 1 1 35
1:;$:' - -.
Observation began~Ended 1:45 om 6 1 1 1 1 36
-
Density Smoke Tabulation 7 1 1 1 -~ 37
" - ..- -
No Units x Equiv. No. 1 Units 8 1__--. 1 1 1 38
~ - ~_. - ..
- Units No. 0 - 9 /2 1/2 1/2 1/~ 39
~- ----. -.-- .--.- ..
16 Units No. 1/2 8 110 /2 - - - 40
24 Units No. 1 24 11 41
-- -
- Units No. 1-1/2 - 12 42
.- - _n- --..- .. .- -
- Units No. 2 - JJ.- 43.-
"'- .....- . - -._- ---
- Units No. 2-1/2 - 14 44
...'.-..- --.- . .-- ..--- -- ".-..". .- - .-.-.. .. .-
- Units No. 3 - 15 45
"- .-._- f---_... ...-..--. ...... -.-- -----
- Units No. 3-1/2 - 16 ~
. I--- ---- f----- _. h_.-
- Units No. 4 - 17 47
--- --. --_. .--
- Units No. 4-1/2 - 18 48
- -. -..--- .. --
- Units No. 5 - 19 49
--.. ..-
20 50
.-. '-- --- -._. . -..
40 Units 32 Equiv. Units 21 51
,.--
Equiv. Units x 20% =.ll x 20% 22 52
_.n_'''''' --."- - "- -
Units 40 23 53
.-...- ..-. .. --.- ..-- --. .- 1---- 1--,-- .-..
16 %Smoke Desnity 24 54
Remarks: Press is operating in 25 55
- -. "--.- ~ -. f---- --- ...-
compliance with visible emission 26 56
. ..
regulations of city. 27 57
-- -- ---.. .-.-.. --.
28 ~
b9 .--
59
308
-------
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Data Sheet #4-ECD
Date:
August 26, 1971
Plant Code No.:
3 W.O.
Time Period: 10 minutes
Observer: R. R. Gadomski
4 color, 1 web, coated stock
Press #1
Vis ible Emis sions Eva lua tion
Observation Point 20' from stack 0 15 30 45 0 15 0 45
Perpendicular to plume 0 - 1/2 1/2 1 30
1.-
Stack - Distance Fro~Heightl2' 1 1 1.5 1.5 ~ 31
Wind - Speedl0 mph Direction NW 2 1 1/~ 1/2 1/' 32
~ -
Sky Condition Sunnv, s lia ht overca s t 3 1/' 1/2 1/2 1/2 33
4 -~ 0 0 1/2 34
- .-.. -- -- .
Fuel Natural gas dryer 5 1/2 1 1 1/2 35
- -.
Observation began_Ended 6 0 0 1/2 1/2 36
-
Density Smoke Tabulation 7 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 37
.:- .- ~. -- -
No Units x Equiv. No. 1 Units 8 1 1 1 1 38
1--- ~-_.... '-- --- -
5 Units No. 0 0 9 1 1 1 1 39
- - ----. --- -~.- --
18 Units No. 1/2 9 :, n , - - - 40
15 Units No. 1 15 11 41
-- ~
2 Units No. 1-1/2 3 12 42
- _.~ -.. -"- ' - -- -
- Units No. 2 - !~.- 43
...- .--. - . ~._- . --.- - .
- Units No. 2-1/2 - 14 44
.-. .-.. ---- ... .- ..--- .-..'. ..'-0 -'-' _. --
- Units No. 3 - 15 45
___0- -- '. --.-.--. ..'. -"-- .-
- Units No. 3-1/2 - 16 ~
-. - --- --.- _. .--
- Units No. 4 - 17 47
- 1---. -_. ---- . ---
- Units No. 4-1/2 - 18 48
.- ----. - .- ._-
- Units No. 5 - 19 49
-. .-
- 20 50
-- -. -- ..-- -"0 . . _A.
40 Units 27 Equiv. Units 21 51
-"- ~--
Equiv. Units x 20% = 27 x 20 22 52
Units .., ...- --."- '- I--
40 23 53
.'...- --- . ----.- .--- ~._. _n. ---
13. 5%Smoke Desnity 24 54
Remarks: Press is operating in 25 55
.-- - '--- - '- '-
compliance with vis ible emiss ion 26 56
-_.
regulations of city. 27 57
--- '--. ---- -..- --
28 ~
--- -.- - -
9 59
-.-
309
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 3 W .0.
Sampling Location
Press #1
4-color, 1 web,
coated stock
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: August 24, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. T. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 9:20 - 9:45 am Time: 10' 00 - 10'40 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.13 215 24.0 B-1 0.13 215 24.0
A-2 0.15 215 29.3 B-2 0.14 215 27.8
---.--.
A-3 0.16 215 29.5 B-3 0.15 215 29.3
,. . - .... ---'-
A-4 __Il~~ 215 29.5 B-4 0.15 215 29.3
.....--'-- -
)~:::5... - - _Q..l£.- --. 215__- ~_..?9.5 B-5 0.15 215 29.~.-
A:--6.. 0.15 215 29.3 B-6 0.14 215 2.Z..-8.-
A-7 0.13 215 24.0 B-7 0.14 215 27.8
. .---.- -.'
A-8 ........Q....1L--.- ..... 21.~. .. u... 24..Q.- J3.:~JLJh1L - .-..ill..--.. .2..4.0 -
.' --'... ...--.._..,-.~-~ ----" .--. .- -"..u..-.--. ..........._---
.- . ----- .----- ..----- ... ...
Av. 215 27.4 215 27.4
A. Av. velocity (;.raverse) ft/sec 27.4
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A
C. Flue factor A/B N/A
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) None 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 5. 3 2
F. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 27.4 Reference
Point
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 3.14 3
H. Av. flue temp. of 215 2
I. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
Fx G x 60, acfm 5160 ~ B ~
I.D.
J. Ps = 28.94 24"
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (~H) "H20 = 0.12
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!': 3900 P = - ~ H/13 . 6 = 0.09
, scfm pg "H
H + 460 x 29.92 atm g = 28.94
Ps=Patm-Pg= 28.93
310
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 3W.O.
Sampling Location
Press #2
2-color, 2 web,
uncoated stock
Graphic Arts Technica l Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: 8/24/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 10: 5 0 - 11: 00 am Time: 11: 05 - 11:15 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.01 240 7.66 B-1 0.02 240 10.85
A-2 0.01 240 7.66 B-2 0.02 240 10.85
-----
A-3 .. - .9.015 240 8.24 B-3 0.02 240 10.85
-. .--.-
8:-L __0. 02- 2 4-9__- 10.85 B-4 0.02 240 10.85
_r:.-: 5_.- - - ..Q_. .Q~_._- .~- . 240 10.85 B-5 0.02 240 12.14
r"'"'' "'-
A..,.F. n n?c; 240 12.14 B-6 0.03 240 13.30
A-7 --' 0.03 240 13.30 B-7 0.02 240 10.85
.._u....- ---
A-8 0.02 240 10.85 B-8 0.015 240 8.24
. -. ---.- h. .__0." -....---- -"----.- --. --., - -
A-9 . _.9. .Q.?_.-.--. 240 10.85 B-9 0.01 240 7.66
-...-- .-.- ---.- -.--------
A-I0 - --~.!..Q.1.Q_. -- ~.~O . ._.l3~!- B-I0 0.01 240 7.66
Av. 540 10.06 240 10.32
A. Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec 10.19
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A
C. Flue factor A/B N/A
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) None
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0
F. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 10.19
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 4.90
H. Av. flue temp. of 240
I. Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm 3000
J. Ps = 28.94
K. Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P~ ,scfm 2320
H + 460 x 29.92
I.D.
30'"
Static (~H) "H20 =
P g = - ~ H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg = 28.94
Ps=Patm-Pg= 28.94
0.03
.0008
311
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 3
Plant Code No.: 3 W .0.
Sampling Location
Press #3
2-color, 1 web
coated stock
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Departme.1t
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15213
Date: August 25, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 12:10 - 12: 20 pm Time: 12:30 - 12:40 1 m
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in.H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.06 230 18.5 B-1 0.08 230 21.5
A-2 0.08 230 21.5 B-2 0.09 230 22.~-
A-3 0.09 230 22.9 B-3 0.09 230 ~~----
. -
A-4 0.10 230 24.0 B-4 0.09 230 22.9
-'~ --
_.8-= 5- - -.. __0..-1.0_- -- - 230 ._.._.2A.O B-5 0.10 ?3n 24.Q.-
A..r:. fI lf1 ?':!fI 24.0 B-6 0.10 230 24.0
A-7 --' 0.10 230 24.0 B-7 0.09 230 22.9_-
.----
A-8 ____D_._Q~L__- .... - 2.3..0... ..q~~ _B.:::1LJh..O.9- _._-~-- _4.2.9
A-9 . --Q.Q8._- __23G - ~lL5- ~-:_9~ 08 230 21.5
A-I0 _.-D..Jl6___.. .. 230 . ._JlL.5.- .8-10 O. OR ?10 ? L-5--
Av. 230 22.2 230 22.7
A. Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec 22.5
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A
C. Flue factor A/B N/A
D. Pitot Tube correction fa ctor{if any) None 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 5. 3 2
F. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 22.5 Reference
Point
G. Area of flue. sq. ft. 5.58 3
H. Av. flue temp. of 230 2
1. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
F x G x 60, acfm 7500 ~ B
I.D.
J. Ps = 30.00 32"
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (AH) "H20 =
Flow rate = 520 x I x P~ 5600 P = - AH/13. 6 =
. scfm pg "H
H + 460 x 29.92 atm g =
Ps=Patm-Pg=
A
~
0.03
0.0008
30.00
30.00
312
-------
OCT:5 - I~/I
GATF:
APproved~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS LABORATORY (7615-2)
(2 )
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P. O. 1t3104
Fellow
Dr. William Green
Air Pollution Program
PML 71-228-'3.-W.O.
Preliminary
Progress
Final
NATURE j
OF
REPORT
Investigation
Investigation No.
Date of Report
September 21, 1971
x
Form 111
The twenty-four samples of stack gas effluent, which you submitted,
October 2, 1970.
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a previous report dated
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
PRE: jdf
R&T: 9/29/71
t!() ~(A~""u~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
313
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
(3-WO)
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample Volume, cc NTP 284 268 266 277 270 287 280 281 274 279 284 268
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0016 trace trace ND trace trace trace trace trace ND ND ND
Carbon Dioxide 0.7540 0.8848 0.4529 0.4330 0.2809 0.2349 0.3378 0.4079 0.3573 0.3397 0.4126 0.3018
Methane 0.0039 0.0049 0 . 004 9 0.0055 0.0062 O. 0048 0.0065 O. 0069 0.0058 0.0055 0.0054 0.0037
Organics 0.0042 0.0055 0.0011 0.0011 0.0013 0.0015 O. 002 7 O. 002 9 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0005
Traps 0.1604 0.5922 0.1066 O. 1039 0.1333 0.1673 0.1562 O. 1718 0.0348 0.0198 0.0190 0.2360
w Cylinder No. 14 15 16
I-' 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
.!:>.
Sample Volume, cc NTP 281 289 281 280 266 270 265 278 286 276 256 272
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide ND trace trace trace ND ND ND ND trace trace ND ND
Carbon Dioxide 0.3526 0.4240 0.4746 0.5305 0.3731 0.3955 0.2105 0.2146 0.3780 0.4320 0.0122 0.0278
Methane 0.0037 0.0045 0 . 0061 0.0064 0.0023 O. 0025 0.0017 0.0016 0.0062 0.0073 O. 0006 0.0006
Organics O. 0003 0.0006 0.0011 0.0008 0.0008 0.0007 0.0001 0.0003 O. 0012 0.0015 0.00008 O. 00002
Traps 0.0780 0.0618 0.0316 0.0401 0.0516 0.0703 0.0604 0.4767 0.1099 0.2822 0.0916 0.0811
ND = Not Detected.
-------
\\uv 2 91971
'GAT-E
Approved
~
,
CARNEGIE-M ELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William Green
Graphic Arts
Account No, Technical Foundation
P.O. ff3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No,
PML 71-228 (3- W.O.)
NATURE !
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
November 23, 1971
x
An arbitrary selection of four traps was made for recalculation of
the analytical data. An effort was made to determine the quantity of the
high and low boiling material in these traps. The low boilers were assigned
to that material which gave a hydrogen flame response at ambient temperature.
Once heating of the traps commenced, the hydrogen flame response was assigned
to the high boiling material.
table.
The results are tabulated in the following
Table I
Traps, Low Boilers
Traps, High Boilers
Cylinder No.
v/v % as C02
Content, '70
v/v % as C02
Content, %
33.0
14.7
0.4744
0.1327
0.0233
0.2408
99.5
79.3
67.0
85.3
2
6
9
22
0.0024
0.0347
0.0115
0.0414
0.5
20.7
~" /) ~
£b/cC?A~?~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
315
-------
Data Sheet #1-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Na me:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
Plant Code No.: 4-.W.O.
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): September 28, 29, 30, 1971
process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Company operates
several web offset presses utilizing several drying variations. Test was
conducted on 5-unit Harris-Cottrell press with Offen high velocity dryer.
7.
8.
9.
Product(s): Magazine, 4-color advertisement printing
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Both coated and uncoated paper stocks.
B. Inks and Solvents: Estimated at 650,000# ink per year usaqe.
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Hiqh velocity, Offen, Tob No. 6273
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: 2000-10,000 scfm@ 550-600oF air temp.
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: 5,780,000 Btu/hr.
D. Comment: Gas is not metered separately, approximately 50%
recirculation is utilized for process printing.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single
B. Cross-sectional area: Diam. = 32", A = 5.30 sq ft
C. Height above roof: 20 ft.
D. Approx. running length: 35 it from dryer exit
E. Comment: Stack configuration and point of sa mpling were idea 1 for
conducting test series
APC Equipment (if any) None
10.
11.
12.
Genera 1 Comments: Process coupled with high velocity drying presented
ideal sampling for purposes of sampling program.
*Restricted use only.
316
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
4W.O.
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Test Date: Sept. 2S, 1971
Conditions: 4-color
I-web,
perfecting
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.:
Test Readings Comments
Atmospheric Press (ambient) 29.72 Sunny and w rm, wind
Temperature (a mbient) 750F variable. N )rth-
Relative Humidity (ambient) 50% north weste ly
direction
Wind Speed (ambient) 5-10 mph va iable
Ambient Temp. (ambient) SOoF
db/wb ambient (a mbient) -
db/wb stack SI of/73°F
Flue Gas a) sampl. stack @300oF
pt., b) exit
APC - Inlet None
APC - Outlet None
Web (a ir dryer temp.) 560°F
Chill Exhaust SOoF
Oven/Dryer (specify)- Bake Temp. -
Static Press Stack "H20 (11 H) 0.05
Atmospheric "Hg 29.36
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed/ 7000-15000 iph dependir 9' on tes requirement
Web width/sheet dim -
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. S
# Colors per side/coat thickness 4 colors
-
Type of Paper/Sheet uncoated/co ted
Grade -
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating 60#/40#
Ink consumption (% coverage) 140# yellow
100# red
129# black
100# blue
469# for
214,000 imI essions
or
O. 0022#/im ressions
317
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
4 W.O.
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania IS213
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Test Date: Sept. 29, 1971
Conditions: 4-color
I-web,
perfecting
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.:
Test Readings Comments
Atmospheric Press (a mbient) 30.00 Sunny & wa m. Winds
Tempera ture (a mbient) nOF variable. twesterly
Relative Humidity (ambient) SO% direction.
Wind Speed (ambient) S-10 mph
Ambient Temp. (at site) 80°F
db/wb ambient -
db/wb stack 81°F /730F
a) sampl. s ta ck 31SoF
Flue Ga s pt., b) exit
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web (a ir dryer temp.) S600F
Chill Exhaust 800F
Oven/Dryer (specify)- Bake Temp. -
Static Press Stack "H20 (.:1 H) O.OS
Atmospheric "Hg 29.76
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed/ 7000-1S000 iph depend ng on te t require men s
Web width/sheet dim -
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. 8
# Colors per side/coat thickness 4 colors
-
Type of Paper/Sheet coated
Grade -
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating 40#
Ink consumption (% coverage) 1297# yellov
928# red
1246# black
1 02S# blue
4496# for
786,300 im pressions
or
. 00S7Vimp.
318
-------
Plant Code No.4 W.O.
Sample #
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
Time
11: 15-11:30 * 15
1: 15-1:35
1:45-2: 00
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Period
min.
Date: 9/28/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Probe
Configuration
Perpendicular
inserted to
center of
stack d ia.
*Sample time shortened due
to web brea on press.
20 min.
15 min.
Perpend icular
inserted to
center of
stack dia.
Perpendicular
inserted to
center of
stack d ia.
319
Comments
Duplicate samples taken at 900 to each
other.
4-color, I-web, uncoated stock at press
speed of 15,000 iph (900 ft/min).
Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web,
uncoated stock at press speed of
7000 iph (400 ft/min).
Duplicate samples of uncoated paper
stock at press speed of 7000 iph with
no printing. Dryer conditions same
as Samples #1-4.
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.4 W.O.
Date:
9/29/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#8 9:52-10:12 am 20 min. Perpendicular Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#9 inserted to coated stock at press speed of
center of 15,000 iph.
s ta c k d ia. *Identical ink coverage (same job)
as that sampled on 9/28/71; only
exception being coated stock.
#10 10: 19-10:34 an 15 min. Perpend icular Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#11 inserted to coated stock at press speed of
center of 7000 iph. Same ink coverage as
stack dia. Samples #8 and #9.
#13 11 :20-11:30 an 1 0 min. Perpendicular Individua I samples of dryer only, no
#14 11:40-11:50 an 10 min. inserted to printing. Dryer temp. same as that
#15 12:00-12:10pn 10 min. center of for 4-color process printing.
#16 12: 10-12:20 pn 10m in. stack dia. Sample #13 taken 5 minutes after
process was completed, remainder
of samples staggered over time period.
#17 3:15-3:30pm 15 min Perpend icular Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#18 inserted to coated stock (different ink coverage)
center of at press speed of 7000 iph
stack dia. (400 ft/min.)
#20 4:20-4:40pm 20m in. Perpendicular Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#21 inserted to coated stock at press speed of
center of 12,000 iph.
stack dia.
320
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 4-W.O.
Date: 9/30/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#23 8: 3 0- 8: 5 0 a m 20 min. Perpendicular Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#24 inserted to coated stock at press speed of
center of 15,000 iph .(900 ft/min.)
stack dia.
#25 3:30-3:50 pm 20 min. Same Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#26 as coated stock at press speed of
above 15,000 iph. (900 ft/min.)
#27 4:50-5:05 pm 15 min. Same Duplicate samples of 4-color, I-web
#28 as coated stock at press speed of
above 15,000 iph; all inks used were
reported as solid state type.
321
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(ana lytica 1 resu lts in ppm)
Press Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date Process No. Organics CO CH4 -D22-
1 9/28/71 4-color, I-web 1 686 trace 48 4562
uncoated, press
speed = 15,000 iph 2 780 trace 64 5949
9/28/71 4-color, I-web 3 354 trace 64 6126
uncoated, press
speed = 7,000 iph 4 418 2 67 6269
9/28/71 Paper only (uncoated 5 86 4 65 6328
stock) no printing 6 47 trace 69 6545
w
N 9/29/71 4-color, I-web 8 433 60 5760
N tra ce
coated, press
speed = 15,000 iph 9 650 6 67 6221
9/29/71 4-color, I-web 10 183 tra ce 55 6280
coated stock, press
speed = 7,000 iph 11 180 trace 57 5866
9/29/71 Dryer only 13 68 27 74 7945
(no printing) 14 51 tra c e 68 7673
15 114 trace 61 7948
16 88 trace 58 7767
9/29/71 4-color, I-web 17 759 7 49 5810
coated stock, press
speed = 7,000 iph 18 748 trace 48 5503
9/29/71 4-color, I-web 20 2295 trace 48 5660
coated stock, press
speed = 12,000 iph 21 868 3 39 6305
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD-A continued
Press Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date Process No. Organics CO C04 CO?
1 9/30/71 4-color, I-web 23 19 8 314
coated stock, press
speed = 15,000 iph 24 45 11 332
9/30/71 4-color, I-web 25 2410 trace 50 5848
coated stock, press
speed = 15,000 iph 26 1904 trace 47 5533
U,) 9/30/71 4-color, I-web 27 2241 14 61 7007
N
U,) coated stock, press
speed = 15,000 iph 28 2275 10 62 6956
(a 11 four-proces s c olors-
solid state)
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(ca lculated emission rates)
Pres s Cylinder Tota 1 Organic Emission
~ No. Organics Flow Rate (lb/hr)
(ppm) (scfm)
1 1 686 5800 7.55
2 780 II 8.58
3 354 II 3.89
4 418 II 4.60
5 86 II 0.95
6 47 II 0.52
8 433 II 4.76
9 650 II 7.15
10 183 II 2.01
11 180 II 1. 98
13 68 II 0.75
w 14 51 II 0.56
tv
~ 15 114 II 1.25
16 88 II 0.77
17 759 6000 8.65
18 748 II 8.53
20 2295 II 26.16
21 868 II 9.89
23 19 II 0.22
24 45 0.51
25 2410 II 27.47
26 1904 II 21.70
27 2241 25.54
28 2275 II 25.93
Jon
*Calculated on the following basis:
/ -6
lb C hr = 1. 90 x 10 (scfm) (ppm)
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Comparison Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Cylinder(1) Ink Coverage Press Speed Type of Emission(2) Emis s iorl3) C onvers ion Factor( 4)
No. lb/imp iph Paper Stock (ca lculated) (observed) Eobs. /Eca lc.
1 & 2 0.0022 15,000 uncoated 13.95 8.07 0.58
3 & 4 0.0022 7,000 uncoated 6.81 4.25 0.62
8 & 9 0.0022 15,000 coated 13.95 5.96 0.43
10 & 11 0.0022 7,000 coated 6.81 2.00 0.28
17 & 18 0.0057 7,000 coated 16.71 8.59 0.51
20 & 21 0.0057 12,000 coated 28.11 18.03 0.64
w 25 & 26 0.0057 15,000 coated 34.95 24.59 0.70
N
CJ1
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
(2) Calculated emission rate inclusive of paper contribution as
determined in previous test series.
(3) Based on recorded press data as obtained during test.
(4) Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in the dryer.
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECIrD
Moisture Determination Calculation
A wet-and-dry bulb method for determining the proportion of water
vapor in the duct gas for the press-dryer combination studied was
conducted by drawing gas through flexible tubing by a pump for
determination by a psychrometer at a point removed from the duct.
The wet-and-dry bulb thermometers utilized were similar.
The dry-bulb reading was 810F and the wet-bulb reading 730F.
The moisture content was calculated from the following equations:
(a)
~ t -32
t'A =~" - 0.000367 Pa (td - tw) (1 +-TITI-)
eA = 0.8183 - 0.000367 (29.76) (81-73) (l + 71~-/12
eA = 0.8183 - 0.0880 = 0.7303
(b)
Bw (mois ture content) = A = 0.7303 = 0.024
PA 29.76
= 2.4%
326
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Stack samples were taken from the stack of the press dryer combination studies with a Mine
Safety Appliance, Universal Testing Kit, Model No.2, No. 83498. Standardized operating
procedures were followed to accurately control both the volume of air samples and the rate
of air flow during the test.
The measurement of gases was conducted through the use of selected gas detector tubes with
the following results:
W
N
'-J
4-color, I-web
coated stock
0.0022 #/imp.
9/29/71 - 9:15 am
Concentration
(ppm)
9
200
50
25
Compound
Forma ld e hyd e
Aroma tic Hydrocarbons
Unsaturated Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
4-color, I-web
coated stock
0.0057 #/imp.
9/30/71 - 3: 00 pm
C oncentra tion
(ppm)
30
1100
150
50
* II Solid State II Test
9/30/71 - 4:30 pm
Concentration
(ppm)
30
1200
150
50
*Questionable designation, ink analysis indicates a reformulation using refined solvents.
-------
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 4-W.O.
Sampling Location
4-color, I-web.
oerfectinc;;
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 9/28/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. r. Green
Point Time: 10: 15-10:30 am Time: 10:45-11:00 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.11 300 26.4 B-1 0.10 300 24.6
A-2 0.12 300 27.0 B-2 0.11 .300 26.4
. --=- -
A-3 0.13 300 28.4 B-:-3 0.13 300 2A.4
A-4 n 11 1nn ?A.4 R-4 n. 11 1nn ?Q .1
A-5 - - .9_~ ~3__.- 300 28.4 B-5 0.13 300 28.4
1-----'-0--
A-6 0.12 300 27.0 B-6 0.12 300 27.0
A-7 -. 0.11 300 26.4 B-7 0.11 300 26.4
. - --'-
A-.S. ..--i).._ll- .-'.- -__.:iOJL_- ... 2_9.....1...- B=Lo-o.-"-L~ _. 300 '- .. 2.1..9.. .-
- ~~--'-- ._-_.~_.- --.---. "-"_._.__."
. -. .. +.-- -- - ------ .. ----.... --.-.---.- 1---- - -
Av. 300 27.3 300 26.8
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. veLocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
27.0
N/A
N/A
None
G.
H.
1.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 27.0
Area of flue, sq. ft. 5.30
Av. flue temp. of 300
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm
Ps = ?CJ.36
Corrected to std. cond.
8580
J.
K.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P~ sefm 5800
H + 460 x 29.92'
328
LD.
32"
Static (.:1H) "H20 =
P = - .:1 H/13 . 6 =
Pg "H
atm g =
P s = P atm - P g =
0.05"
0.004
29.36
29.36
-------
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 4-W.O.
Sampling Location
4-color, I-web,
perfectinq
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 9/29/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. T. Green
Point Time: 3:45-3:50 pm Time: 3:55-4:05 pm
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.13 315 28.4 B-1 0.12 315 27.0
A-_~- _-.0... 13 315. ?f!.4 J:\-? 0.12 315 27.0
A-3- ___0.13 315 2R.4 R-3 0.12 315 27.0
A-4 0.14 315 29.6 B-4 0.12 315 27.0
~7: 5.. - - 0,.1.3__- ___31.5- ?f! 4 R-S 0 l? 315 27.0
- A-h 0.13 315 28.4 B-6 0.12 315 27.0
- _A-=-7- __0.13 315 28.4 B-7 0.12 315 27.0
A-8- --.-.1)->_1.3_-. __n- _____3Jd.___- -- u- 28.!..4-- ~h_Q.!-~__- 315 2Xd!-_-
- ". .
. --_.... ._--_.- --..-- -
- - - "--- . - ._--- --... - - _u_---- -
Av. 315 28.5 315 27.0
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:_raverse) tt/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
27.8
N/A
N/A
None
J.
K.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 27.8
Area of flue, sq. ft. 5.30
Av. flue temp. of 315
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm
Ps = 29.76
Corrected to std. condo
Flow rate = 520 x I x p!; ,sefm
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
8820
6000
329
LD.
32"
Static (.1H) "H20 =
P g = - .1 H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg =
Ps = Patm - Pg =
0.05"
0.004
29.76
29.76
-------
Approved~
NOV 2 -1971
GA7F
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES.
~ysical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William Green
(2 )
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. #3104
Investigation
Air Pollution ProRram
Investigation No.
PML 71-233 (4-VVO)
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date or Report
October 25. 1971
x
The twenty-four samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted.
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a previous report dated
October 2. 1970.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
-/2f~~~
Paul R.Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE:jdf
R6cT: 10/29/71
Foma 111
330
-------
Tab Ie I
Stack Gas Samples
(4-WQ)
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 14
Sample Volume, cc NTP 207 220 261 269 247 263 275 274 271 275 250 262
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace O. 0002 O. 0004 trace trace O. 0006 trace trace 0.002 7 trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.4562 0.5949 0.6126 0.6269 0.6328 0.6545 0.5760 0.6221 0.6280 0.5866 0.7945 0.7673
Methane 0.0048 0.0064 0.0064 0.0067 0.0065 O. 006 9 0.0060 0.0067 0.0055 0.0057 0.0068 0.0065
Organics 0.0006 0.0011 0.0008 o. 0006 o. 0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 o. 0006 o. 0006 0.0006 O. 0003
Traps 0.0680 0.0769 0.0346 O. 0412 0.0080 0.0040 0.0426 0.0643 0.0177 0.0174 0.0062 O. 0048
w
w
........
Cylinder No. 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28
Sample Volume, cc NTP 263 265 261 270 277 263 244 277 266 263 264 267
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace 0.0007 trace trace 0.0003 trace trace 0.0014 0.0010
Carbon Dioxide 0.7948 0.7767 0.5810 0.5503 0.5660 0.6305 0.0314 0.0332 0.5848 0.5533 O. 7007 0.6956
Methane 0.0061 0.0058 0.0049 0.0048 O. 0048 O. 0039 O. 0008 0.0011 o. 0050 o. 004 7 O. 0061 0.0062
Organics 0.0004 O. 0006 O. 0006 0.0008 0.0012 0.0013 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018 0.0020 0.0011 0.0020
Traps 0.0110 0.0082 0.0753 0.0740 0.2283 0.0855 0.0018 0.0044 0.2392 0.1884 0.2230 0.2255
-------
Approvcd~
NO\} 29197\
GATF:
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William Green
Account No.
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.O. #3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 71-233 (4-W.O.)
NATURE !
OF .
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
November 23, 1971
x
The following data illustrates the quantity of high and low boiling
components collected in the trap portion of the stack-gas sampling
apparatus. The low boiling portion is defined as that fraction of material
which is eluted from the trap at ambient temperature. The high boiling
portion is that material which elutes above ambient temperature. The
results are tabulated in the following table.
Tab Ie I
Traps , Low Boiling Traps, High Boiling
v/v% as C02 Content, % v/v% as C02 Content, '7.
0.0004 3.18 0.0107 96.82
0.0003 3.52 0.0079 96.48
O. 0084 3.70 0.2199 96.30
Cylinder No.
15
16
20
~,/,;~~
U4{'/Y~~p:.~u.--
Paul R. Eisaman, Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
332
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
5-W.O.
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): October 19, 1971
process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): One web offset
4-unit perfecting (8-color) Hantscho press with TEC Systems high
velocity hot air dryer.
7.
8.
9.
product(s): Publication printing
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Utilize both coated and uncoated stock
B. Inks and Solvents: Company formulated inks (1- to 4-color process work),
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: High velocity hot air, TEC Systems, Inc.
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: Model #LA 13, Serial #206, 2 pass
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Not known
D. Comment: Modern drying system utilizing latest engineering design
10.
11.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded). Single
B. Cross-sectional area: (2' x 3') 6 sq it
C. Height above roof: 4 feet
D. Approx. running length: 30 feet to roof top
E. Comment: Stack gas exits vertically to roof level, then makes 900
bend and horizontally enters air pollution control equipment.
APC Equipment (if any) Model S-50 smoke abator, manufactured by Skinner
Engineering Co., rated at 5000 scfm, about 1-1/2 yrs old.
Genera 1 Comments: Process studied reflected current engineering
practice and presented good conditions for sampling.
*Restricted use only.
12.
333
-------
Test No.1
Plant Code No. 5-W.0.
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 10/19/71
Conditions 4-color,
I-web perfecting
printing
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Re latlve humid ity
Wind speed
29.98
840F
50%
10-20 mph
Excellent day for testing,
winds southerly and
variable sunny and warm.
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
C hill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
800F
2400F
2400F
1000-1350oF-depending on test conditions
Static press stack "H20
A tmos pheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(A H)
5.0
29.98
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
14000 iph
46-3/8"
4 units
4 colors per side (perfecting)
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
coated
50# (consolidated)
Ink Consumption
*Capital cost of control equipment
*Installation cost (incl. ducting and
site preparations)
*Operational cost (gas consumption only)
0.0054 #/impression
$14,000 (unit only)
$ 6,000
$ I, OOJO per month
*Above figures obtained from plant management personnel and
represent best estimates avaIlable. Operational cost does not reflect mainten-
ance performed on unit (i. e. , new linings, etc.)
334
-------
5-W.O.
Plant Code No.
Sample #
1
and
2
-- -------
3
and
4
-- -------
5
and
6
---------
7
and
8
---------
9
and
10
---------
*11
and
12
---------
Time
10:25-10:45
------------
11: 00-11: 15
11:15-11:30
------------
1: 15- 1: 1: 3 0
1:35-1:50
------------
2:20-2:35
2:40-2:55
------------
3: 10-3:25
3: 3 0- 3: 4 5
------------
4: 00-4: 2 0
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date:
10/19/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Period
20 min.
-----------
15 min.
15 min.
-----------
15 min.
15 min.
-----------
15 min.
15 min.
-----------
15 min.
15 min.
-----------
20 min.
------------ -----------
Probe
Configuration
Comments
Straight per- Duplicate samples taken at inlet to
pendicular tc control equipment of 4-color, I-web
duct (perfecting), press control speed of
14,000 iph (at outset of test series).
-------------~--------------------------------
Same
Same
------------
Same
Same
------------
Same
Same
------------
Same
Same
------------
Same
------------
*Samples No. 11 and 12 ma be suspect;
press shutdc Nn occurred a unknown time
during samp ng period.
335
Sample taken at outlet of control
equipment at temp. of 1000oF.
Same as Sample No.3.
--------------------------------
Sample taken at outlet of control
equipment at temp. of 12 OOoF.
Same as Sample No.5
--------------------------------
Sample taken at outlet of control
equipment at temp. of 13 OOoF.
Same as Sample No.7.
---------------------------------
Sample taken at outlet of control
equipment at temp. of 1350oF.
Same as Sample No.9.
---------------------------------
Duplicate samples taken at inlet to
control equipment of 4-color, I-web
(perfecting) at press speed of 14,000
iph (at conclusion of test series).
----------------------------------
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(ana lytica 1 res ults in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
5-W.O. 10/19/71 4-color, I-web 1 1919 trace 7 5013
coated stock, 2 1920 trace 7 5102
press speed =
14,000 iph
10/19/71 4-color, I-web **11 1402 trace 7 4926
coated stock, **12 558 not detected 4 2680
press speed =
14,000 iph
w 10/19/71 Outlet of control 3 102 191 13 24699
w equipment @ *4 10,127 255 14 24452
Cj) T = 10000p
10/19/71 Outlet of control 5 57 89 11 29918
equipment @ 6 151 118 11 29031
T = 12000p
10/19/71 Outlet of control 7 14 4 6 29881
equipment @ 8 23 45 6 32646
T = 13000p
10/19/71 Outlet of control 9 18 111 6 32202
equipment @ 10 48 163 7 31257
T = 13500p
Sample result suspect; possible contact with trichloroethylene slurry during sampling
period.
**Samples suspect, press shutdown occurred at unknown time during sampling period.
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Ca lculated Emission Rates)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota l
No. No. Organics Flow Rate Organic Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (Lb/hr)
5-W.O. 1 1919 6350 22.80
2 1920 " 22.80
3 102 " 1. 20
4 * " *
5 57 " 0.68
6 IS 1 " 1. 81
7 14 " 0.17
8 23 0.28
9 18 " 0.22
10 48 " 0.58
11 ** " **
12 ** " **
*Sample invalidated.
**Sample result suspect due to press operational difficulty.
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Plant Code Type of Cylinder(l) Emission(2) Emission(3) C Value(4)
No. Dryer No. (calc.) (obs.) EObs/Eca lc
5-W.O. High Velocity 1 & 2 30.99 22.80 0.73
Hot Air
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
Calculated emission rate inclusive of paper contribution as determined
in prev ious test series.
Based on -recorded press data as obtained during test.
Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in the dryer.
337
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Calculated Organics Conv"erslon at Various Incineration Temperature
(Expressed as % Efficiency)
Plant Code Incineration Inlet(l) Outlet (2)
No. Temp. Concentration Concentration % EfficlenCy(3)
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (calc.)
5-W.O. 1000 1919 102 94.61
1200 1919 57 & 151 97.01 & 92.14
1300 1919 14 & 23 99.27 & 98.80
1350 1919 18 & 98 99.10&97.49
(l) Average value of duplicate samples utilized to establish inlet
concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
% efficiency = 100 - outlet C ppm x 100
inlet C ppm
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Stack samples were taken from the stacks of the press-dryer-incinerator
combination studies with a Mine Safety Appliance, Universal Testing
Kit, Model No. 21, No. 83498. Standard operation procedures were
followed to accurately control both the volume of air samples and the
rate of air flow during the test.
The measurement of gases was conducted through the use of a selected
gas detector tube for N02 (nitrogen dioxide) with the following results:
Plant Code Incinerator NOZ
No. C ond i tions Temp. Concentration
(Or) (ppm)
5-W.O. 4-color, I-web 1000 10
(10/19/71) coated stock 1200 14
0.0054 #/imp 1300 20
high velocity 1350 30
hot a ir dryer
338
-------
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 5-W .0.
Sampling Location
1nlet to control
equipment
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion .
Environmental Control Division
Research Depart~ent
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #S-ECD
Date: Oct. 19, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 9:00-9:15 am Time: 9: 15-9:30 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.09 240 23.2 3-1 0.10 240 24.0
-
A-2 0.09 240 23.2 3-2 0.10 240 24.0
-- - --
A-3 0.10 240 24.0 3-3 0.11 240 25.2
'-...' -
A-4 0.11 240 25.2 3-4 0.12 240 26.4
A-5 __9.!.g__- 240 26.4 3-5 0.12 240 26.4
_0._..-
A-6 0.11 240 25.2 ~-6 0.11 240 25.2
---- -..
.. -..--..--..-..- .---- .--- ---_.-.- n - ....-.---.- -_. .. '.' .. ------. . .--
. .' --.... .----- ~_.
. - '" ..-., -- ---- .-. ____.0.. - .. . .--------- -
Av. 240 24.4 240 25.2
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (..raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
24.8
N/A
N/A
None
G.
H.
I.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 24.8
Area of flue, sq. ft. 6.00
Av. flue temp. of 240
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.68
Corrected to s td. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm 6350
H+460x29.92
8900
J.
K.
339
J.D.
Static (4H) "H20 =
P g = - 4 H/13 . 6 =
Petm "Hg =
Ps = Patm - Pg =
4.0
,jO
29.98
29.68
-------
Approved
fi1R
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
NOV 2 91971
GATE
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William Green
Account No.
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P. O. 1;3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 71-234 (5-W .O)/(6-W.0.)
NATURE I
OF
November 23, 1971 REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
x
The twenty-two samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a previous report dated
October 2, 1970.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
~ eL::~/4-
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
340
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
(5-WO)/(6-WO)
Cylinder No. 1 2 11 12 15 16 20 21 3 4 5 6
Sample Volume, cc NTP 265 256 257 269 280 277 281 284 258 265 238 269
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace ND ND ND ND ND 0.0191 0.0255 O. 0089 0.0118
Carbon Dioxide 0.5013 0.5102 0.4926 0.2680 0.3420 0.3335 0.1215 0.2943 2.4699 2.4452 2 .9918 2 . 9031
Methane 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 O. 0004 0.0008 0.0007 0.0002 0.0007 0.0013 0.0014 0.0011 O. 0011
Organics 0.0032 0.0023 0.0033 0.0016 0.0004 0.0009 ND 0.0005 0.0090 0.0078 0.0052 0.0118
Traps, Low Boilers O. 0248 0.0115 0.0031 0.0102 0.0119 0.0095 0.0000 0.0024 0.0010 1.0013 O. 0003 0.0003
Traps, High Boilers 0.1639 0.1782 0.1338 0.0440 0.0174 0.0080 0.0002 0.0092 0.0002 O. 0036 0.0002 O. 0030
w
..b.
......
Cylinder No. 7 8 9 10 13 14 17 18 19 22
Sample Vo1lUne, cc NTP 259 261 257 257 278 267 271 264 269 284
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide O. 0004 0.0045 0.0111 0.0163 ND ND trace trace 0.0035 0.0024
Carbon DiE>xide 2.9881 3.2646 3.2202 3 . 1257 3.2419 3.2157 2.6644 2.4093 2.2655 2 . 1643
Methane 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0001 0.0002 0.0019 0.0009 0.0023 0 . 0020
Organics O. C014 0.0023 0.0016 0.0048 ND ND 0.0002 ND 0.0018 O. 0023
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Traps, High Boilers 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005
ND = Not Detected.
N
-------
Data Sheet #l-I:CD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
6-W.O.
Plant Code No.:
5.
6.
II. Source and Sample Background Data
Date(s) of Test(s): October 20, 1971
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Hantscho
4-unit perfecting, web offset press with Offen multi-stage (direct-Harne
hot air) dryer.
7.
8.
9.
Product(s): Publication, advertisement
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Offset or enameled grade
B. Inks and Solvents: 1- to 4-color printing
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model:
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.:
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption:
D. Comment: None
Direct flame, hot air, Offen No. 6454
None available
None available
10.
11.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded). Single
B. Cross-sectional area: 24" duct, 3.14 sq ft
C. Height above roof: 4 to 6 feet
D. Approx. running length: 20 to 30 feet
E. Comment: Stack gas exits vertically to roof level then makes
a 900 bend and horizontally enters air pollution control equipmenf.
APC Equipment (if any) B. Offen designed afterburner; about 1-1/2 yrs old;
capac.ity to 12,000 scfm.
Genera 1 Comments: Physical arrangement of control equipment on roof
presented a difficult sampling assignment.
*Restricted use only.
12.
342
-------
Test No.2
Plant Code No. 6-W.0.
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 10/20/71
Conditions 4-color,
I-web pertectmg
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind speed
29.97
78°F
70%
10-15 mph
Excellent conditions for
sampling, winds variable,
south, south westerly,
sunny and warm.
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Plue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
750p
2100p
2 lOoP
1000op-1300oF-depending on test
conditions
Static press stack "H20
Atmospheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(A H)
4.0
29.97
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
9000 iph
4-units
4 colors per s.ide
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
offset stock
coated
50#
Ink Consumption
*Capital cost of control equipment
*Installation cost (incl. ducting, site
preparation and supporting structures)
*Operational cost (gas consumption only)
0.0015 lb/impression
$15,000 (unit only)
$ 6,000
$1,200 per month
*Above figures,obtained from plant management personnel and represents best
estimate available. Operational cost does not reflect maintenance performed
on unit (i. e. new linings, etc.)
343
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 6-W.O.
Date:
10/20/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
13 11:45-12:00 15 min. Perpend icular Samples taken at outlet of control
and and inserted equipment at temp. of 1300oF. (Due
14 12: 15-12: 30 15 min. into control to difficult sampling location, samples
equipment were taken individually.)
outlet.
------- ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------------------------------
15 Perpend icu lar Samples taken at inlet to control equip-
and 11:55-12:15 20 min. a nd ins erted ment of 4-color, I-web perfecting,
16 to center of at press speed of 9000 iph.
stack inlet
-------. ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------------------------------
17 12:35-12:50 15 min. Perpend icular Samples taken at outlet of control equip-
and and inserted ment at temp. of 1200oF.
18 12:55-1:10 15 min. into control Same as Sample No. 17
equipment.
------- ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------------------------------
19 2:40-2:55 15 min. Perpend icular Sample taken at outlet of control
and inserted equipment at temp. of 1000Op.
and into control
equipment
22 2:20-2:35 15 min. outlet. Same as Sample No. 19
------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------------------------------
*20 Perpendicular Samples taken of inlet to control equip-
and 3: 10-3:30 2 0 min. and inserted ment of 4-color, I-web perfecting
to center of press at press speed of 9000 iph.
*21 stack inlet.
*Samples No 20 and 21 m y be suspect: eb break occurred at
unknown tiI: e during samI ling period.
344
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(analytical results in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Total
No. Date Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
6- W .0. 10/20/71 4-color, I-web 15 297 not detected 8 3420
offset stock 16 187 not detected 7 3335
(coated) press
speed = 9000 Iph
10/20/71 4-color, I-web **20 2 not detected 2 1215
offset stock **21 121 not detected 7 2943
(coated) press
speed = 9000 iph
w 10/20/71 0 utlet of control 19 18 35 23 22655
~ equipment @ 22 29 24 20 21643
<.n T = 10000r
10/20/71 Outlet of control 17 2 trace 19 26644
equipment @ 18 0 tra ce 9 24093
T = 12000r
10/20/71 Outlet of control *13 2321 not detected 1 32419
equipment @ 14 0 not detected 2 32157
T = 13000r
*Sample result suspect; possible contact with trichloroethylene slurry
during sampling period.
**Samples suspect; press s.hutdown occurred at unknown time during
sampling period.
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
Plant Code
No.
Cylinder
No.
Tota I
Organics Flow Rate
(ppm) (scfm)
* 5100
0.00*** II
297 II
184 II
2 II
0.00*** II
18 II
** II
** II
29
Organic Emission
(lb/hr)
6-W.O.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
*
***
2.88
1. 78
0.019
***
0.17
**
**
0.28
*Sa mple inva lidated .
**Sample result suspect due to press operational difficulty.
***Not detectable within experimental error.
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Plant Code Type of Cylinder(1) Emission(2) Emission(3) C Value(4)
No. Dryer No. ( ca lc .) (obs.) Eobs/Eca lc
6- W .0. Direct Flame 15 & 16 5.85 2.33 0.40
Hot Air
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
(2) Calculated emission rate inclusive of paper contribution as determined
in previous test series.
(3) Based on recorded press data as obtained during test.
(4) Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in the dryer.
346
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Calculated Organics Conversion at Various Incineration Temperature
(Expressed as % Efficiency)
Plant Code Incineration Inlet(l) Outlet(2) % Efficiency(3)
No. Temp. Concentration Concentration
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (ca lc .)
6-W.O. 1000 240 18 & 29 92.50 & 87.90
1200 240 2 & 0.0 99.17 & 100.00
1300 240 0.0 100.00
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized to establish inlet
concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as foLLows:
% efficiency = 100 - outlet C ppm x 100
inlet C ppm
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Stack samples were taken from the stacks of the press-dryer-incinerator
combination studies with a Mine Safety Appliance, Universal Testing
Kit, Model No.2!, No. 83498. Standard operating procedures were
foLLowed to accurately control both the volume of air samples and the
rate of air flow during the test.
The measurement of gases was conducted through the use of a selected
gas detector tube for N02 (nitrogen dioxide) with the foLLowing results:
Plant Code
No.
C ond i tions
Incinerator
Temp.
(oF)
N02
C oncen tra tion
(ppm)
6-W.O.
(10/20/71)
4-color, I-web off-
set stock (coated)
0.0015 #/imp
direct flame
hot a ir dryer
1000
1200
1300
1350
1
2
4
(no read ing ta ken
at this temp.)
347
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 6-W .0.
Sampling Location
Inlet to control
equipment
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control pivision
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1.5213
Date: Oct. 20, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. T. Green
Gas Velocity Data
!Point Time: 10: 2 0- 1 0: 3 0 am Time: 10'3 -10'40 am
No. VeL. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I .19 210 34.8 8-1 .19 210 34.8
A-2 - .19 210 34.8 8:'2 .19 210 34.R
..~
A-3 .20 210 36.2 8-3 .20 210 36.2
.. - .'-"'-
A-4 .20 210 36.2 8-4 .20 210 36.2
A-5 .19 210 34.8 8-5 .19 210 34.8
---="u.-
- A-6 .19 210 34.8 8-6 .19 210 34.8
.-.
.. ..- .----..-----..-.--- ------'-' - - ...... - .. ...---.--'-----
.-.. .... .- ---'--.----
. - .--.--- ---.- -----.--. .-. . - . ------
Av. 210 35.3 210 35.3
A. Av. velocity (i:raverse) ft/sec 35.3
8. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A
C. Flue factor A/8 N/A
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) None 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 58 3 2
F. Corrected velocity 8xCxDxE ft/sec Reference
Point
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 3,14 3
H. Av. flue temp. of 210 2
1.. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
F x G x 60, acfm 6650 I.D.
J. Ps = 29.67
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (~H) "H20 = 4.0
Flow rate = 520 x I x P~ 5100 P = - ~ H/13 . 6 = 0.30
, scfm pg " 29.97
H + 460 x 29.92 atm Hg = .
Ps=Patm-Pg= 29.57
348
-------
Approved
fi1R
l\lUV 2 ~ l~/l
.GATE
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William Green
Account No.
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P. O. 1/3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PM!. 71-234 (S-WO)/(6-WO)
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
November 23, 1971
x
The twenty-two samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a previous report dated
October 2, 1970.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
-£?I~u,-
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
349
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
(5-WO)/{6-WO)
Cylinder No. 1 2 11 12 15 16 20 21 3 4 5 6
Sample Volume, cc NTP 265 256 257 269 280 277 281 284 258 26:; 238 269
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace ND ND ND ND ND O. 0191 O. 0255 0.0089 0.0118
Carbon Dioxide 0.5013 0.5102 0.4926 0.2680 0.3420 0.3335 0.1215 0.2943 2.4699 2.4452 2.9918 2 .9031
Methane 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0004 0.0008 0.0007 O. 0002 0.0007 0.0013 0.0014 0.0011 O. 0011
Organics 0.0032 0.0023 0.0033 0.0016 O. 0004 0.0009 ND 0.0005 0.0090 0.0078 0.0052 0.0118
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0248 0.0115 0.0031 0.0102 0.0119 0.0095 0.0000 0.0024 0.0010 1.0013 0.0003 O. 0003
Traps, High Boilers 0.1639 0.1782 0.1338 0.0440 0.0174 0.0080 0.0002 0.0092 0.0002 0.0036 0.0002 0.0030
w
(J1
a Cylinder No. 7 8 9 10 13 14 17 18 19 22
Sample Volume, cc NTP 259 261 257 257 278 267 271 264 269 284
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide O. 0004 0.0045 0.0111 0.0163 ND ND trace trace O. 0035 0.0024
Carbon Dioxide 2.9881 3.2646 3.2202 3 . 1257 3.2419 3.2157 2.6644 2.4093 2.2655 2.1643
Methane O. 0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0001 0.0002 0.0019 0.0009 0.0023 0.0020
Organics 0.0014 0.0023 0.0016 0.0048 ND ND O. 0002 ND 0.0018 0.0023
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.23?1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Traps, High Boilers 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005
ND = Not Detected.
-------
Data Sheet #1-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
Plant Code No.:
7-W.0.
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): November 9, 10, 11
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Two press lines,
Press #1 ATF 4-unit, perfectinq web offset with Offen multi-staqe dryer,
Press #2 Goss 5-unit, perfectinq web offset Offenair Tet Dryer.
7.
8.
Product(s): Publication and advertisement printing
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Coated and uncoated stocks
B. Inks and Solvents: 1- to 4-color process work
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Press #1-multistage (Offen),#2 Offenair #6456
B. Air Flows (rated) I Temp.: None available
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Natural gas, no separate metering
D. Comment: Press line #1 utilizes old type Offen dryer system,
Press #2 reflects modern generation of Offen dryers.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Each press individually exhausts to single stack.
B. Cross-sectional area: Press #1-7.11 sq ft; Press #2-14.00 sq ft.
C. Height above roof: 50 to IdO ft depending on stack in consideration
D. Approx. running length: 30- 50 ft.
E. Comment: Presses are located on sub-level floor, stacks run for
some length before leaving press area.
APC Equipment (if any) Press #1 utilizes 3000 scfm Oxy Cat. unit (I-bed).
Press #2 utilizes 12,000 scfm Oxy Cat. unit (2-bed).
Genera 1 Comments: This type of control equipment is not in wide
use throughout the web offset industry.
*Restricted use only.
9.
10.
11.
12.
351
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica l Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: 11/9/71
Conditions
2-web, I-color
perfecting
Test No.1
Plant Code No. 7-W.0.
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
A tmos pheric pres sure
Tempera ture
Relative humidity
Wind speed
(at test site)
(at test site)
(at test site)
29.30
75°F
50%
Not applicable
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
C hill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
Not applicable
Not applicable
81 of/73°F
a) 240°F
650°F-950°F depending on test condo
650°F-950°F depending on test cond.
400°F
Static press stack "H20
Atmospheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(~H)
0.15
29.30
8" H20
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
15,500 iph
35"
2
1
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
uncoa ted
33#
Ink Consumption 0.0013#/imp.
Control equipment data - TL-45-H-400, (I-bed Oxy Cat. unit), rated 3000 scfm
Gas consumption - 2500-2700 cu ft per hour, 3,000,000 BTU
Age of uni t: 2 years
Capita 1 cost of equipment - $17, 000.00
Installation cost of equipment $6,000.00
Running cost of unit (depending on press usage) approx. $600 per month
*Maintenance cost (actually incurred) $1200.00 per year.
*Unit has not undergone major maintenance since installation, thus accounting
for the low ma intena nce figure.
352
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 11/10/71
Conditions
I-web, 2-color
perfecting
Test No.2
Plant Code No. 7-W.0.
Physical and Operational Plant Data
A tmos pheric pres sure
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind speed
(at test site)
(at test site)
(at test site)
Reading/Comments
29.30
75°F
50%
Not applicable
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
C hill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
Not applicable
Not applicable
a) InoF
625°F-900°F depend ing on test cond.
6000F-875°F depending on test condo
Static press stack "H20
Atmospheric "Hg
Pressure drop APC Fan
(A H)
450°F
1. 30
29.30
15" H20
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
17,500 iph (580 ft/min)
35"
2
2
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
uncoated
60#
Ink consumption
Control equipment (data)
Gas consumption
Age of unit
Capita 1 cost of equipment
Installation cost of equipment
Operational cost of equip. (dep. on press usage)
*Maintenance cost (actually incurred)
*Unit has not undergone major maintenance,
could be $3000-$4000 per bed.
0.0020 #/imp.
TL-120-H-720 (2-bed Oxy Cat unit)
Rated at 12000 scfm
8000- 95 00 cu ft/hr, 9, 000, 000 BTU
1-1/2 years
$29,000
$6000
approx. $1500-$1800 per month
$1200 per year
i.e., bed change, est. cost
353
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
7-W.O.
Date: 11/9/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe C ommen ts
Configuration
Perpendicular I-color, 2-web, perfecting, press speed
10: 55- 11: 15 20 min. & inserted to of 15,500 iph, duplicate samples taken
2 and 4 center of at outlet of control equipment at temp.
duct dia. of 950oF.
Note: All Samples taken utilized
one common sampling port.
I-color, 2-web, perfecting, press speed
1 and 3 12:30-12:50 2 0 min. Same of 15,500 iph, duplicate samples taken
at outlet of control equipment at temp.
of 850°r.
I-color, 2-web, perfecting, press speed
5 and 7 1:35-1:55 2 0 min. Same of 15,500 iph, duplicate samples taken
at outlet of control equipment at temp.
of 750oF.
I-color, 2-web, perfecting, press speed
6 and 8 2: 3 0- 2 : 5 0 20 min. Same of 15,500 iph, duplicate samples taken
at outlet of control equipment at temp.
of 650oF.
Duplicate samples of inlet to control
9 and 10 3:50-4:10 2 0 min. Same equipment taken of I-color, 2-web
process job at press speed of 15,500 iph
11 and 12 4:20-4:40 20 min. Same Same as Samples 9 and 10.
354
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
7-W.O.
Date:
11/10/71
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
Perpendicular 2-color, I-web perfecting, press speed
13 and 14 10: 5 0- 11: 1 0 20 min. & inserted to of 17,500 iph, duplicate samples taken
center of duc at outlet of control equipment at temp.
d ia meter. of 9000F.
Duplicate samples, same job as outlined
15 and 16 11:15-11:35 20 min. Same above, taken at outlet of control equip-
o
ment at temp. 800 F.
Duplicate samples" same job as outl-ined
1 7 and 18 11: 40-12: 00 20 min. Same above, taken at outlet of control
equipment at temp. of 7000F.
Duplicate samples, same job as outlined
19 and 20 1:15-1:35 20 min. Same above, taken at outlet of control
equipment at temp. of 625Oy.
Duplicate samples of inlet to control
21 and 22 2:00-2:20 2 0 min. Same equipment taken of 2-color, I-web
perfecting, process job at press
speed of 17,500iph.
Note: Sampl No. 21 indic ted apparent
los s 0 vacuum prio to usage.
23 and 24 2:25-2:45 20 min. Same Same as Samples 21 and 22.
355
-------
DATA SHEET #3- ECD-A
(Analytical Results in ppm)
Press Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 CO?
1 11/9/71 2-web, I-color perfecting, 9 284 trace 14 5510
3: 5 0- 4: 10 uncoated stock, press 10 297 tra c e 15 5465
speed 15,500 iph at inlet
to control equipment
11/9/71 2-web, 1- co lor perfecting, 11 226 trace 7 2880
4:20-4:40 uncoated stock, press 12 215 trace 7 2956
speed 15,500 iph at inlet
to control equipment
11/9/71 Outlet of control equipment *2 849 trace 7 18904
w 10:55-11:15 temp. 9500F 4 4 trace 3 16066
C.J1
m
11/9/71 Outlet of control equipment 1 98 trace 10 2072 3
12:30-12:50 temp. 8500F 3 6 trace 3 12597
11/9/71 Outlet of control equipment *5 544 trace 8 14737
1: 35-1: 55 temp. 7500F 7 6 trace 7 15908
11/9/71 Outlet of control equipment *6 905 trace 7 14246
2:30-2:50 temp. 6500F 8 135 trace 6 18072
2 11/10/71 I-web, 2-color perfecting, **21 89 trace 57 2459
2: 00- 2 : 2 0 uncoated stock, press 22 309 trace 89 3034
speed 17,500 iph at inlet
to control equipment
11/10/71 I-web, 2- color perfecting, 23 246 trace 46 3149
2: 25-2: 45 uncoated stock, press 24 255 trace 46 2982
speed 17,500 iph at inlet
to control equipment
-------
continued DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Ana lytiba 1 Resu its in ppm)
Pres s Cylinder Tota 1
~ 122te/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
2 11/10/71 Outlet of control equipment 13 4 not detected 17 17592
10: 50-11: 10 temp. 9000F 14 9 trace 32 17690
11/10/71 Outlet of control equipment 15 7 not detected 38 15017
11: 15-11: 35 temp. 800°F *16 426 trace 17 15559
11/10/71 Outlet of control equipment 17 15 not detected 18 13465
11: 40-12: 00 temp. 700°F 18 18 not detected 18 13763
11/10/71 Outlet of control equipment 19 30 trace 19 12006
1:15-1:35 ° *20 284 18 11268
temp. 625 F trace
w
(Jl
-...J
*Sample suspect, results show organic outlet loading greater than inlet loading.
**Pressure gauge on sample cylinder indicated 10s5 of vacuum prior to sampling,
thus results are suspect.
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
Press Cylinder Tota I
No. No. Organics Flow Rate Organic Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
1 1 98 5000 0.93
2 *849 II 4.62
3 6 II 0.057
4 4 II 0.038
5 *544 II 2.96
6 *905 II 4.93
7 6 II 0.057
8 135 II 1. 28
9 284 II 2.69
10 297 II 2.81
w 11 226 II 2.15
CJ1 12 215 II 2.05
OJ
2 13 4 9300 0.070
14 9 II 0.16
15 7 II 0.12
16 *426 II 7.54
17 15 II 0.26
18 18 II 0.32
19 30 0.53
20 *284 II 5.02
21 **89 II 1.57
22 309 II 5.45
23 246 II 4.33
24 255 II 4.50
*Sample results suspect
**Sample invlaidated
-------
DATA SHEET #=3- ECD-C
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Cylinder(l) Ink Type
No. Coveraqe Press Speed Paper Stock Emission(2) Emission(3) C value(4)
(lb/imp) (iph) (ca lculated) (observed) Eobs . /Eca lc .
9 & 10 .0013 15,500 Uncoated 7.32 2.75 0.38
23 & 24 .0020 17,500 Uncoated 12.25 4.42 0.36
w
CJ1
<.D
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
(2) Calculated emission rate inclusive of paper contribution as
determined in previous test series. Solvent content of ink = 0.35.
(3) Based on calculated gas velocity and reported analytical results
(See Data Sheet #=3-ECD-B).
(4) Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in the dryer.
-------
w
(j)
o
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Calculated Organic Conversion at Various Incineration Temperatures
(Expressed as % Efficiency)
Press Inc inera tion Inlet(l) Outled2) % Efficiency(3)
~ Temperature Concentration Concentration
(ppm) (ppm) (ca lc . )
1 650 290 135 53.45
750 290 6 97.93
850 290 98 & 6 62.21 & 97.93
950 290 4 98.62
2 625 250 30 88.00
700 250 15 & 18 94.00 & 92.80
800 250 7 97.20
900 250 4 & 9 98.40 & 96.40
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized to establish inlet concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
% efficiency = 100 - outlet Cppm
inlet Cppm
x 100
-------
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 7-W.O.
Sampling Location
Outlet of control
equipment
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 11/9/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 2:30-2:40 pm Time: 3:45-4:00 pm
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.05 240 17.4 0.05 240 17.4
A-:- 'L.- .-.0. os 240 17.4 0.05 240 17.4
A-3 0.05 240 17.4 0.05 240 17.4
.. . -., .~.
A-4 0.06 240 18.8 0.05 240 17.4
A-5 ----Q_.j)~-- -_..? 1_0 17.4 0.04 240 15.4
~_..-
.-. A-6 0.04 240 15.4 0.04 240 15.4
.It:::L -.' 0.04 240 15.4 0.04 240 15.4
-- - -. ----- ------. ---.- --- ------. - -. ..--------- -.. -- -. - ...n____.- -'-
- -. --"... .._--- --..
- -" . ..---.-- .---..- ----.-. ..- . -------- -
Av. 240 17.0 240 16.6
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (i.raverse) ft/sec 16.8
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
Flue factor A/B None
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) None
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 16.8
Area of flue, sq. ft. 7.11
Av. flue temp. of 240
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.30
Corrected to s td. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm 5,000
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
~
7167
~
J.
K.
Static (4H) "H20 =
P g = - 4 H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg =
Ps=Patm-Pg=
0.15
0.00
29.30
29.30
361
-------
Test No.: 2
Plant Cooe No.: 7-W .0.
Sampling Location
Outlet of control
equipment
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sh(~e( #5-r:r:n
Date: 11/10/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Point Time: 1:55-2:00 pm Time: 2:50-2:55 pm
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) or tt/sec
A-I o. 040 172 14.5 0.040 172 14.5
A-2 0.040 172 14.5 0.040 172 14.5
.. -'--
A-3 0.040 172 14.5 0.040 172 14.5
A-4 0.040 172 14.5 0.040 172 14.5
A-5 -_Q.~_040 172 14.5 0.040 172 14.5
--=-=-..-
A-6 0.025 172 11.2 0.025 172 11.2
A-7 _.0.025 172 11.2 0.025 172 11.2
.. .---...--....--- --- -----.. .. -""'--- ---. - .~ - .-."--'.. .--
. ---.--- .---- .-
- -. --..-- --- m .--_.... u .. . --------
Av. 172 13.6 172 13.6
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (;:raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
13.6
n/a
None
None
J.
K.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 13.6
Area of flue, sq. ft. 14.00
Av. flue temp. of 172
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.21
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm 9300
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
I.
11,325
362
I.D.
Static (.:1H) "H20 =
P g = - .:1H/13. 6 =
Petm "Hg =
P s = P atm - P g =
1.3
0.09
29.30
29.21
-------
APproved~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
(2)
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. 113104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 71-234-7-W.O.
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
December 23, 1971
x
The twenty-four samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
fi7~~-
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
R&T:
1/4/72
G~ "'(r
.' - \,.j/l.
t .\ ~..\ \)
-..' f
v' ~1'.Y
=--
Form 111
363
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Plant Code No.7-W.O.
Cylinder No. 9 10 11 12 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4
Sample Vo1wne, c.c NTP 272 271 274 268 289 272 246 265 265 255 263 272
Content, v /v '7. as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace trace trace trace trace trace trace trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.5510 0.5465 0.2880 0.2956 0.2459 0.3034 0.3149 0.2982 2.0723 1.8904 1.2597 1.6066
Methane 0.0014 0.0015 0..0007 0.0007 0.0057 0.0089 0.0046 O. 0046 0.0010 0.0007 0.0003 O. 0003
Organics 0.0008 0.0007 0.0003 O. 0002 O. 0008 0.0012 0.0009 0.0008 0.0012 0 . 0002 0.0002 0.0000
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0009 0.0040 0.0033 0.0011 0.0003 0 . 002 0 0.0024 0.0019 0.0015 O. 0003 0.0003 O. 0003
Traps, High Boilers 0.0267 0.0250 0.0190 0.0202 0.0078 0 . 02 77 O. 0213 0.0228 0.0071 o. 0844 0.0001 0.0001
w
Q)
J:>.
Cylinder No. 5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sample Vo1wne, cc NTP 246 271 276 273 244 239 144 236 261 226 262 260
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace trace trace trace trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 1.4737 1.4246 1.5908 1.8072 1. 7592 1.7690 1.5017 1.5559 1.3465 1.3763 1. 2 006 1.1268
Methane o. 0008 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0017 0.0032 0.0038 0.0017 0.0018 0.0018 0.0019 0.0018
Organics 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0 . 0003 0.0001 0.0006 0.0005 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 O. 0002
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0014 0.0001 O. 0002 0.0007 0.0001 O. 0002 0 . 0002 0.0001 O. 0002 0.0001 0.0007 0.0003
Traps, High Boilers 0.0529 0.0904 0.0003 0.0125 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0425 0.0012 0.0017 0.0022 O. 02 79
-------
Data Sheet il-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
Plant Code No.: 8-WO (BC)
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): June 13, 1972
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): 5-unit, Hanscho
Mark II web offset perfecting press with WPE combination direct flame
and hot air dryer utilizing 3-6 ft dryer boxes and controlled by a TEC Systems
therma I afterburner.
Product(s): Publication Printing
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Not applicable
B. Inks and Solvents: Not applicable
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer. model: WPE combination type
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: 2400 scfm @ discharge temp. 3400r
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: 1,200,00 Btu/hr
D. Comment: Dryer represents old type design and is no longer
commercially manufactured.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single. manifolded) Single
B. Cross-sectiona I area: 1. 0 sq ft
C. Height above roof: 9 feet
D. Approx. running length: 16 feet
E. Comment: Ideal sampling location and configuration
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
APC Equipment (if any) TEC "Turbo-Mix" pilot thermal afterburner, for
specific deta its see Data Sheet included.
Genera 1 Comments: Sampling sites as well as layout of baste equipment
provided a good overall sampling test.
*Restricted use only.
12.
365
-------
Test No. .....1..-
Plant Code No.8-W.O.
(BC)
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Divtsion
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Da ta Sheet #2- ECD
Test Date: 6/13/72
Conditions: Excellent
for samplinq
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point temp.
b) stack exit temp.
APC - inlet temp.
APC - outlet temp.
Web temp.
Chill exhaust temp.
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temp.
Static press stack "H20 ( H)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coating thickness
Est. coating/ink usage rate
Type of paper/sheet
Weight of paper/weight of coating
Read inq/C omments
85°F
Not applicable
Not applicable
a) 340°F
b) not applicable
340°F
1l000F to 13000F dependent on test requirements
300°F
nOF
Not applicable
2.2
29.98
16,000 iph
36"
Five
Five
0.00325 #/imp (based on 40% solvent)
coo ted
100 lb
1. Description of unit:
2. Gas consumption:
3. Age of unit:
4. Capital cost of equip:
5. Installation cost:
6. *Fuel cost:
Control Equipment Data
TEC Systems, Inc. "Turbo-Mix" thermal incinerator
prototype unit, Model No. R-314, rated at 2500 scfm
at max. designed operating temp. (continuous) of 15000F.
Rated at 2800 cu ft/hr (2,000,000 Btu/hr necessary
for burner).
1 year
$12,000
$2500 (includes structural support, electrical and
gas piping, labor, etc.
$6870 per year (based on 7. 2 <::/therm gas cost,
approx. $1. 50/hr, two shift, 5-1/2 day work week)
*Unit has not undergone maintenance, therefore, no maintenance cost
available.
7. Miscellaneous Data:
Typical operating condition for afterburner is one dryer.
Unit is operated at a temp. of 1l000F. Dwell time for
unit (design) is 0.5 sec at 15000F. Efficiency studies
have been conducted at various linear distances from
burner down combustion chamber. (These range from
95% to 99%.)
366
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I l'oundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 8-WO (BC)
Date: 6/13/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe C ommen ts
Configuration
Perpend icular Duplicate samples of inlet to afterburner
18, 19 11: 15-11:30 15 min. and inserted ,for 5-color, I-web process. Press
am to center of speed of 16,000 iph, ink coverage of
in let duct 0.0725 #/imp. on coated (l00#) stock.
Perpend icular Sa mples ta ken of outlet of afterburner
21, 22 1: 15-11:30 15 min. and inserted at incineration temp. of 1100op.
am into combus- (check of this temp. at point of sampling
tion chamber indicated temp. as 1130°F.)
*12:0~12:02 Same Duplicate samples of inlet to afterburner.
23, 24 15 min. as samples Same operational data as samples 18 & 19.
12:08-12:20 18 & 19
pm
Samples taken of outlet of afterburner at
Ii< 12: 0~12: 02 Same incineration temp. of 1300oP.
25, 26 15 min. as samples (check of this temp. at point of sampling
12:0~12:20 21 & 22 indicated temp. as 1330oP.)
pm
*Web break occurred duri g sampling pe od.
367
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(analytical results in ppm)
Press Cylinder Tota l
~ Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 CO?
1 6/13/72 I-web, 5-color perfecting 18 2085 145 241 8606
11:15-11:30 coated (100#) stock, press 19 2221 144 246 8714
speed of 16,000 iph, ink
coverage of 0.00325 #/imp
at inlet to control equip.
6/13/72 Same as above 23 2166 67 261 8081
12: 00- 12: 2 0 24 1341 46 208 6167
w 6/13/72 Outlet of control equipment 21 117 711 56 34289
Q) 11: 15-11: 30 at T = 11000r 22 21 52 34582
(X)
6/13/72 Outlet of control equipment 25 29 tra ce 1 42453
12:00-12:20 at T = 13000r 26 36 trace 1 42327
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
Press Cylinder Tota 1
No. No. Organics Flow Rate ** Organic Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
1 18 2085 1400 5.58
19 2221 5.92
*23 2166 II 5.76
* 24 1341 II 3.58
21 117 0.48
22 21 II 0.05
25 29 II 0.08
w
(j) 26 36 II 0.09
lD
*Sample results suspect
**Calculated on the following basis:
lb carbon/hour = 1. 90 x 10- 6 (scfm) (ppm)
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Cylinder(l) Ink Type E . . (2) Emission(3) C Value(4)
No. Coverage Pres s Speed Paper Stock miSSion
(lb/imp) (iph) (calc) (obs) EObs/Eca lc
18, 19 0.00325 16,000 coated 16.80 5.75 0.35
W
'..J
o
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
(2) Calculated emission rate inclusive of background contribution
due to dryer and paper. Solvent content of ink - 0.40.
(3) Based on calculated gas velocity and reported analytical
results (see Data Sheet #3-ECD-B).
(4) Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in
the dryer.
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Calculated Organic Conversion at Various Incineration Temperatures
(Expressed as % Efficiency)
Press Inc inera tion Inlet Outlet
No. Temperature Concentration(l) Concentration (2) % Efficiency(3)
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (calc)
1 1100 2153 21 & 117 99.02 & 94.57
1300 2153 29 & 36 98.65 & 98.34
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized to establish inlet concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
o .. - outlet C ppm
% efficiency - 100 - . I t C x 100
in e ppm
-------
Di1ta Sheet ¥5- r('f)
'[ (;.31 No.: 1
f'1:lllt Caue No.: 8-WO (8C)
Fumpling l.ocation
Inlet to control
equipment
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: 6/13/72
GATf Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 9:30-9:40 am Point Time: 9'40-(j'4S am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.15 340 31.9 8-1 0.25 340 38.5
A-2 0.15 340 31.9 8-2 0.20 340 37.7
A-3 0.14 340 30.4 8-3 0.18 340 35.4
A-4 0.13 340 28.7 8-4 0.15 340 31.9
A-5 0.12 340 28.1 8-5 0.12 340 28.1
A-6 0.10 340 27.1 8-6 0.10 340 27.1
Av.
%m' )\,- "X
,,./\'.,~ 340
. "',' .\.'
29.7
Av.
~&~"
.. . /
(." .. \/.
340
33.1
A. Av. velocity (:raverse) ft/sec 31.4 A
,
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A '
I
C. rlue factor A/B None I)
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 5. 3 ;;: 8 12"
r. Corrected velocity Bx C x D x E ft/sec 31.4 Re ference I
!
Point I
G. Area of flue, sq. ft.(l' x I') 1.0 3 I
H. Avo flue temp. of 340 2 '~
1. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
F x G x 60, acfm 1900 I.D. ~
J. Ps = 29.82 12"
K. Corrected to s td. condo Static (I1H) "H20 = 2.2
Flow rate = 520 x I x P~ 1400 Pg = I1H/13.6 = 0.16
, scfm Patm "Hg = 29.98
(H + 460) x 29.92
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.82
371
-------
Approved
~~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Account No.
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.O. # 3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-221 (8-WO) (Be)
July 14, 1972
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
x
The eight samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted have
been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated December 17,
1971.
The results are tabulated in the attached table.
£If;&::
...b1/l..
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
372
-------
Table t
Stack Gas Samples
Code 8-W.0. -BC
Cylinder No. 18 19 23 24 21 22 25 26
Sample Volume, cc NTP 270 268 249 258 278 261 260 254
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0145 0.0144 0.0067 0.0046 0.0711 trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.8606 0.8714 0.8081 0.6167 3.4289 3.4582 4.2453 4.2327
Methane 0.0241 0.0246 0.0261 0 . 02 08 0.0056 0.0052 0.0001 0.0001
Organics 0.0082 0.0086 0.0545 0.0056 0.0113 0.0020 O. 002 9 O. 0036
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0517 0.0739 0.0542 0.0388 O. 0004 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Traps, High Boilers 0.1486 0.1396 0.1079 0.0897 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
373
-------
Data Sheet #1-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
Plant Code No.: 9-WO (BC)
II. Source and Sample Backqround Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): June 27, 1972
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughpu.t rates): Harris-Cottrell,
MI000, 5-unit web offset press with TEC Systems high velocity hot air
dryer controlled by cata lytic combustion unit.
7.
8.
Product(s): Circulars, advertisement printing
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates:
B. Inks and Solvents:
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: TEC Systems, Inc. Model LA-12
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: 5200 cfm (a) web temp. - 6000p
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption:4400 cfh (rated). 2700 cfh (operational)
D. Comment: System represents more modern concept of drying insta lla-
tion relatively new.
Stack Ge'ometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single
B. Cross-sectional area: 1.55 sq it
C. Height above roof: 2 it
D. Approx. running length: 18 it
E. Comment: Stack extends straight up from dryer then makes 900 bend
prior to entry into afterburner.
APC Equipment (if any) TEC Systems combined thermal & catalytic unit,
Model TEC-H-40 MC (Cat. unit in use during field tests)
General Comments: Sampling was conducted within recommended practice.
Not ava ila ble
Not available
9.
10.
11.
12.
*Restricted use only.
374
-------
Test No.
1
Plant Code No. 9-WO (BC)
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. IS213
Ambient tempera ture
Flue gas - a) sampling point temp.
b) stack exit temp.
APC - Inlet temp.
APC - Outlet temp.
Web temp.
Chill exhaust temp.
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temp.
Static press stack "H20 ( H)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coating thickness
Est. coating/ink usage rate
Type of paper/sheet
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: Tune 27, 1972
Conditions: excellent
for sampling
Read ing/C ommen ts
7SoF
a) 390°F
b) not applicable
390°F
700-8000F dependent on test requirements
300°F
7SoF
4S00F (dryer temp.)
2.3" H20
29.98
27, 000 imp/hr
33"
4
4
0.0025 #/imp
C oa ted
50#
1. Description of unit:
2. Age of unit:
3. Gas consumption:
4. Capital equip. cost:
5. Installation cost:
6. Operational cost:
7. Maintenance cost:
8. Miscellaneous data:
Control Equipment Data
Model TEC-H-40MC (Job No. 305) thermal/catalytic com-
bustion unit, rated at 4000 scfm. Maximum designed
temp. thermal (l6000F), catalytic (8000F) I-bed unit.
Approximately 1 year
1520 cfh for 800°F operation, 7,800,000 Btu required for burner.
$23,000
$4000 (includes gas piping, necessary ductwork, structural
support and labor).
$600 per month, (based on 5-day, 2-shift work week),
gas cost $0.88 per thermo
N one (unit has not undergone ma intenance).
Unit is a combined thermal and catalytic unit. Dwell time
in the catalytic cell is 0.048 sec @ 800°F. Resident time
in combustion chamber is 0.5 sec @ 1600°r.
375
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foun~ation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 9-WQ (BC)
Date:June 27, 1972
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample Time Period Probe Comments
No. Configuration
Perpend icular Sa mples of outlet of control equipment
29, 30 10:35-10:50 15 min. and inserted at T :::: 8000F.
am to outlet of (Thmperature check at pOint of sampling
control equip was recorded at T :::: 8200F)
Perpend icular Duplicate samples of inlet to control
a nd ins erted equipment of I-web, 4-color process,
27, 28 10:35-10:50 15 min. to center of press speed of 27, 000 iph, ink
am inlet duct to coverage of 0.0025 #/imp.
control equip
Perpend icu lar Duplicate samples of inlet to control
a nd inserted equipment (same operational condi-
31, 33 11: 07-11:27 20 min. to center of tions as samples 27 and 28.)
am inlet duct to
control equip
Perpend icular Samples of outlet of control equipment
a nd inserted at T:::: 7500F.
34, 38 11: 07-11: 2 7 20 min. to outlet duct (Temperature check at point of sampling
am of control was recorded at T :::: 7800F)
equipment
376
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Ana lytica I Resu Its in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota I
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
9-WO (BC) 6/27/72 I-web, 5-color per- 27 2608 60 13 8202
10: 35- 10: 5 0 am fecting coated (50#) 28 2641 43 13 8136
stock, press speed
27, 000 iph, ink
coverage 0.0025 #/imp
at inlet to control
equipment.
w 6/27/72 Same as above 31 2332 18 17 7512
'-I 11:07-11:27am 33 2532 35 17 7043
'-I
6/27/72 Outlet of control equip. 34 455 121 18 18110
11: 07-11: 27 am at T = 7500r 38 261 272 17 18518
6/27/72 Outlet of control equip. 29 95 103 17 2082G
10: 35- 10: 50 am at T = 8000r 30 116 141 19 21335
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. No. Organics Flow Rate Organic Emission
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
9-WO (BC) 27 2608 3000 14.87
28 2641 II 15.05
31 2332 II 13.28
33 2532 II 14.42
w 34 455 II 2.56
'-.J 38 261 II 1. 48
00
29 95 II 0.54
30 116 II 0.66
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Cylinder(l) Ink Type
No. Coverage Press Speed Paper Stock Emission(2) Emission(3) C Va lue(4)
(lb/imp) (iph) (ealc) ( obs) (Eobs/Eca lc)
27 & 28 0.0005 27,000 coated 29.50 14.96 0.50
31 & 33 0.0005 27,000 coated 29.50 13.85 0.47
W
'-J
c.D
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized in calculation.
(2) Calculated emission rate inclusive of background contribution
due to dryer and paper. Solvent content of ink - 0.40.
(3) Based on calculated gas velocity and reported analytical
results (see Data Sheet #3-ECD-S).
(4) Fraction of organics not converted to C02 and H20 in
the dryer.
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Calculated Organics Conversion at Various Incineration Temperatures
(Expressed as % Efficiency)
Plant Code I nc inera tion Inlet Outlet
No. Temperature Concentration (1) Concentration (2) % EfficienCy(3)
(OF) (ppm) (ppm) (ca lc)
9-WO (BC) 750 2552 261 & 455 89.80 & 82.17
800 2552 95 & 116 96.28 & 9545
w
OJ
o
(1) Average value of duplicate samples utilized to establish inlet concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
01 ff" - 100 outlet C ppm x 100
10 e lC lency - -. 1 C
to et ppm
-------
Data Sheet ,jt5- Frn
TC5tNo.: 1
Plant Code No.: 9-WO (BC)
Sumpling Location
Inlet to afterburner
Graphic Arts Technica l Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date:June 27, 1972
GATf Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 1 0: 2 5- 10: 30 am Point Time: 10: 30-10: 35 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity
'n. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.35 390 50.2 B-1 0.35 390 50.2
A-2 0.40 390 53.1 B-2 0.40 390 53.1
A-3 0.42 390 54.2 B-3 0.42 390 54.2
A-4 0.43 ::!qO SS.4 R-4 I) 4::! ::!ql) 55.4
A-5 0.40 390 53.1 B-5 0.40 390 53.1
A-6 0.35 390 50.2 R-h 0.3S ::!91) 50.2
)C~m' ,)\,- ",,'
Av. Xx: /\-,
~.',. ,V'
390
52.7
Av.
'v".... X 'XYX~, ,'~
./):. X)( x '
,.- """. 390
~""
52.7
A. Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec 52.7 .-
N/A '
R. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec I
I
C. flue factor A/B None 6 'J,
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 5. 3 2
f. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 52.7 Reference I
I
G. 1. 55 Point I
Area of flue, sq. ft. 3 '1
H. Av. flue temp. OF 390 2
1. Flow rate@stnckcond . I
F x G x 60, acfm 4900 ~
I.D.
J. Ps = 29.81 15"
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (~H) "H20 = 2.3
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; 3000 P g = ~ H/13 . 6 = 0.17
(H + 460) x 29.92 scfm Patm "Hg = 29.98
P s = P atm - P g = 29.81
381
-------
APproved~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Account No.
J,- ~ 5 ;S;,l
I3A TF:
GVIj>l1ic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.O. 1t31U4
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-222 (9-WO) (BC)
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
July 20, 1972
x
The eight samples of stack gas effluents which you submitted have
been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The results are tabulated in the attached table.
/2t&£~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
382
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Code 9-W.0.-BC
Cylinder No. 27 28 31 33 2~ 30 34 38
Sample Volume, cc NTP 249 274 258 264 266 267 274 266
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0060 O. 0043 0.0018 O. 0035 0.0103 0.0141 0.0121 O. 0272
Carbon Dioxide 0.8202 0.8136 0.7512 0.7043 2.0826 2.1335 1.8110 1.8518
Methane 0.0013 0.0013 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0019 0.0018 0.0017
Organics 0.0073 0.0057 0.0048 O. 0046 O. 0077 0.0070 0.0080 0.0106
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0267 0.0428 O. 0311 0.0320 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.0013
Tra ps, High Boilers 0.2268 0.2156 0.1973 0.2166 0.0013 O. 003 9 0.0368 0.0142
383
-------
384
-------
APPENDIX E
Data Sheets
Meta 1 Decorating Plants
385
-------
386
-------
Date of Test:
DATA SHEET MD-P-l
January 19, 1971
MD-P-l (Metal Decorating, Preliminary, 1st Sample)
Sample No.:
Bas ic Equipment (description):
Process Variables (at time of test)
Sheet Dimension:
Rate:
Coating weight thickness:
Product dryness:
Density:
Product:
Dryer data (description):
Stack configuration:
Company operates 5 lines, 3 of which
are tandem coating lines and the other
2 are press lines.
25-1/6" X 34-5/8" (70# weight)
74 sheets/min
Varnish - 10 mg/4 sq in
Enamel (buff) - 48 mg/4 sq in
essentially assumed to be complete;
plant study revealed retention of solvent
in coating of 2.5% (thus 97.5% dry).
(solvent mixture is essentially a two-
component system. Information of this
solvent mixture will be forwarded to the
Foundation to enable calculation of
density of the solvent mixture.)
food conta iner lids
Tandem coating lines employ two dryers,
one approximately 70 ft long; the other 120 ft.
The smalldryer handles lacquer and varnish
sizing, the larger the pigmented coatings.
The 120-ft dryer is an 8-zone dryer (equa 1
lengths) with peak heat of product achieved
for 10 minutes at temperature of 375°F. The
8-zone temperature profile of the process line
sampled is as follows: Zone #1 - 259°F,
#2 - 345°F, #3 - 330°r, #4 - 500°F,
#5 - 395°F, #6 - 3750F, #7 - 320°F,
#8 - 290°F.
Each 120-ft dryer has three (3) stacks;
each stack discharges effluent independently
from particular sections of the dryer. Major
emission discharge is through the rear stack
of each dryer since exhaust is pulled in this
direction. Cooling stack discharge (the
front two stacks) would be insigficant when
compared to the exhaust from the hot zone
(rear exhaust).
387
-------
Data Sheet MD-P-1 continued
Control equipment:
None
Actual field site statistics
(obtained from plant engineer):
Stack diameter:
Stack area (sq ft)
Oven temperature
Discharge air temperature
S ta c k s ta tic pre s sure
Average manometer reading
(vel. traverse)
Velocity
Actual flow rate of gas (acfm)
15.5"
1.3
375°F
270°F
0.5" watar
O. 185" wa ter
2075 to 2175 ft/min
2600 to 2800 ft3/min
RESULTS - MD-P-1
Compound .:e£!!!...
Cylinder CO 0
C02 346
CHA 0
Organics 0
Trap High boilers 130
Low boi leis 0
Probe High boilers 6
Low boilers 0.2
388
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Na me:
Address:
Representative(s} Contacted:
Phone
4.
1-MD
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Backqround Data
5.
6.
Date(s} of Test(s}: Tanuarv 19. 1971, Feb. 22, 23, 24, 1971
Process(es} and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): 5 lines
3 Tandem coatinq lines: 2 printinq lines
2 ovens per coatinq line, liqhter wt. coatinqs applied on front oven.,
piqmented heavier coatinqs in rear
Product(s): closures
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Not applicable
B. Inks and Solvents: See Data Sh~~,t .#2-ECD
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Waqner, Younq Bros.
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: See data sheets #2 & #5
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Est. 5 x 106 btu/hr per oven
D. Comment: No separate metering of gas, ovens are old, only temp.
of oven zones continuous ly recorded
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) 2 stacks per oven
B. Cross-sectional area: C - L~O Sq ft. D - 1.75 Sq ft. E - 1.70 sq. ft.
C. Height above roof: Each stack extends 10 ft above roof level
D. Approx. running length: 20 it from top of oven
E. Comment: Front stack on oven used as exhaust for cooling sections,
rear stack is main exhaust of effluent
APC Equipment (if any) None, each stack tested utilized rain caps: considerable
down-wash of effluent
Genera 1 Comments: Samplinq points were idea lly located within recommended
pra ctice .
*Restricted use only.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
389
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
1-MD
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: Feb. 22, 1971
Conditions: Piqmented
white vinly coating line
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.:
Physical'9nd Operational Plant Data
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press (Plant) 28.80 1:00 pm Wind speed provided
Temperature (Plant) 580F d ifficu It sa mpling
Relative Humidity (Plant) 50% to
Wind Speed (Ambient) Variable 15-45 mph 6:00 pm
Ambient Temp. Test Site 470F 4:00 pm
db/wb ambient 73/58
db/wb stack s ta c k 66/47
Flue Ga s a) sampl. pt., b) exit -
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web -
Chill Exhaust -
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Bake Temp. 3650F
Static Press Stack "H20 (A H) 0.40
Atmospheric "Hg Test Site 28.73
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed/ 72 sh/min
Web width/sheet dim -
#" Printing Units/# Plate cyl. -
#" Colors per side/coat thickness 45.5 mg/4 sq in
-
Type of Paper/Sheet 90# wt.
Grade -
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating 9.478 -lb/gal, 40.26% so ids
Ink consumption (% coverage) -
Duration of Run Approx. 8 hrs.
Color of Ink/Coating White vinyl
Passes thru Drier One
Ga s Meter Start -
Read ing to Drier End -
Fa n (H. P .) -
Solvent (Coating)Usage Rate 19.2 gal/hr (calc.)
390
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
1-MD
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: Feb. 23, 1971
Conditions: Gold lacauer
coating line
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.:
Physical nd Operationa I Plant Data
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press (p la nt) 28.58 1:00 pm High winds, precipita-
Temperature (Plant) 52°F tion in form of snow
Relative Humidity (Plant) 47%. to throughout test
Wind Speed (Ambient) Variable 10-20 mph 6: 00 pm
Ambient Temp. 35°F
db/wb ambient 63/540F
db/wb stack stack 57/430F
Flue Gas a) sampl. pt., b) exit 275°F
APC - Inlet -
APC - Outlet -
Web -
Chill Exhaust -
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Sa ke Temp. 375°F
Static Press Stack "H20 (A H) 0.40 4:00 pm
Atmospheric "Hg 28.90
Press Drop APC Fan
Press Operating Speed/ 80 sh/min
Web width/sheet dim -
# Printing Units/# Plate cyl. -
# Colors per side/coat thickness 5 mg/4 sq in
_.
Type of Paper/Sheet 75# wt.
Grade -
Wt. of Paper/VVt. of Coating 7.95 lb/aal (14.77% so1' s)
Ink consumption (% coverage) -
Duration of Run Approx. 8 hr.
Color of Ink/Coating Gold lacquer
Passes thru Drier One
Ga s Meter Start -
Read ing to Drier End -
Fan (H. P.) -
Solvent(Coating) Usage Rate 9.44 gal/hr
391
-------
[.)]'(.-) '~:.;..::!. -J L
:,. .
1-MD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Foundd tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test DC1te:.f ~~b. 23~)i.l-
Conditions: Skim coat
white I/i.w;l co,)ti(,(~
Test No.: 3
Plant Code No.:
Physica 1 '~nd Operationa l Plant Data line
Test Reading Time Comments
Atmospheric Press (P la nt) 28.58 3:00 pIT High winds, rain, sleet.
Temperature (Plant) 52°F to snow prevailed through-
Relative Humidity (P la nt) 75% out test
Wind Speed 20 mph 6: 00 pIT
Ambient Temp. 350F
db/wb ambient 60/50oF
db/wb stack stack *42/41oF *Extreme amount of
Flue Gas a) sampl. pt., b) exit - moisture condensed
APC - Inlet out in bulb
-
APC - Outlet -
Web -
Chill Exhaust -
Oven/Dryer (specify) - Ba ke Temp. 365 of
Static Press Stack "H20 (~H) 0.42 4: 00 pIT
Atmospheric "Hg 28.90
Press Drop APC Fan -
Press Operating Speed/ 70 sh/min
Web width/sheet dim
# Printing Units/# Plate cyJ.
# Colors per side/coat thickness 21 mg/4 sq in
-
Type of Paper/Sheet 75# wt
Grade
Wt. of Paper/Wt. of Coating 9.38 #/gal (40.24c solids)
Ink consumption (% coverage) -
Duration of Run A pprox. 8 hrs.
Color of Ink/Coating white vinyl skim
Passes thru Drier One
Gas Meter Start -
Read ing to Drier End -
Fa n (H. P .) - *Actualon-site
Solvent (Coating)Usage Rate *13.5-14.0 gal/hr measurement
9.2 ga l/hr (ca lc.)
392
-------
Data Sheet 4f3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
1-MD
Date:
Feb. 22, 23,1971
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample 4f Time Period Collection Probe Variac
Point Length Setting
Feb. 22 971
MD- P- 2 5:01-5: 15 14 min Coating line D 9" in stack 80
Same as vel. tra .9" heated
No flow obstruc-
tion
MD- P- 3 5:01-5:15 14 min Same 80
Feb. 23. 1971
MD-P-4 15:07-5:21 14 min Coating line D 9" in stack 80
Same as 2 & 5 9" heated
MD- P- 5 ~:07-5:21 14 min Same Same 80
MD-P-6 17:55-3:07 12 min Coating line E 9" in stack 80
Existing hole in 9" heated
stack. Good loc
393
-------
DA TA SHEET #3- ECD-A
(Ana lytica 1 results in ppm)
Organics
Sample # Coating Laboratory* CO CHi C02 (cylinder) ( tra p) (probe)
MD-P-2 Pigmented C.C. 92.5 57.5 3500 95 480 707
White vinyl
45.5mg/4sqin
MD-P-3 Same M.l. 28 42 5627 7.0 3083 707
w MD- P- 4 Skim white C.C. 52 75 6720 278 1100
to
~ vinyl
21 mg/4 sq in
MD-P-5 Same M.l. 48.0 44 5861 1 1250
MD-P-6 Gold lacquer M.l. 107 296 13416 34 372
5 mg/4 sq in
*C.C. - Cal-Colonial
M.l. - Mellon Institute
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Solvent usage and calculated emission dates)
* Organic
Flow Rate Emission
Sample No. Total Organics (scfm) (lb c/hr)
MD-P-2 1282 3625 8.89
MD- P- 3 3797 3625 25.99
MD-P-4 1378 3475 9.10
MD-P-5 1251 3475 8.26
MD- P- 6 406
*See Data Sheet #3-ECD-C for basis of calculation
395
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Sample Calculation
(pounds carbon per hour)
The flow rate in standard cubic feet per minute is converted to liters per minute.
Taking the average data for MD-P-2 and MD-P-2 and MD-P-3 as an example
(see Data Sheet #3-ECD-B), this gives:
(1)
3.62 x 103
ft3
min
x 28.2 ~ = 1.02 x 105.l..
ft3 min
Since there are 2135 ppm ~t- organics
amounts to an hourly emissio'n of
(as C02)
in the ga s stream, this
(2)
1.02+- x 60min x2135~~ =1 31x1010,.,1-=131x1041....
mm"'"'Fir L' hr' hr
At standard conditions (1 atm, 15. 50C), the number of grams of C02 is:
M.W.xPxV 44x1x1.31x104 4
g(C02) = RT = .082 x 288.15 = 2.43 x 10 gm/hr
(3)
This is equal to:
(4)
12 4 3
4i3x2.43x10 =6.64x10 gmcarbon/hr
or
(5)
6.64 x
1
454
= 14.7 lb carbon/hr emitted as organics
The calculation can be simplified by combining all of the conversion factors
and multiplying by the determined scfm and ppm
/ -6
lb carbon hr = 1.90 x 10 x scfm x ppm
396
-------
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: I-MD
Sampling Location
4.5 ft above roof
Level (Traverse at
right angles)
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: Feb. 22, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Line D
Point Time: 4:30 PM Time: 4:45 PM
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I .28 170 38.4 B-1 .22 170 34.2
A-2 .42 170 47.0 B-2 .31 170 40.4
._--~
A-3 .35 170 43.0 B-3 .34 170 42.5
.. - . - .,'. -----
A-4 .33 170 41.8 B-4 .43 170 47.6
_.-
-A=- 5.- ___..3R .- 170. 4.1...8 B-5 .55 170 54.0 ..--
lI-fi 42 170 47.0 B-6 .51 170 52.0
. .A.-:J.- f--' ':!? 170 41.2 B-7 .36 170 43.7
A-B. .___--..2.1._.__---. .-. _.17 JL._.- .. .~.~.3_- - B-8 .~L .- 170 - 3~_~,~ -
-. ---'.---.---- ---.-- .- .---.----
-------_.. . .----.-. . -- --- --- --
Av. 170 42.06 170 43.75
Gas Velocity Data
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (;.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor{if any)
42.90
44.7
.96
1.0
G.
H.
1.
Gas density factory{ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 42.91
Area of flue, sq. ft. 1. 76
Av. flue temp. of 1700F
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 28.70
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x p!; scfm 3625
H + 460 x 29.92'
4531. 3
J.
K.
520 x 4531.3 x 28.70
630x29.92
= 4531.3 x .83 x .96
397
~
5
6 5. 3
Reference
Point
3
2
1
A
LD..
~
Static (~H) "H20 = 0.40
P = - ~ H/13 . 6 = O. 03
Pg "
atm Hg= 28.73
Ps = Patm - Pg =28.73-.03=28.70
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 3
Plant Code No.: I-MD
Sampling Location
Same as Test No.1
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: Feb. 24, 1971
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Static (~H) "H20 = .42
Pg = - ~H/13.6 = 0.03
Patm "Hg = 28.90
Ps = Patm - Pg = 28.90-.03=28.87
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 4'00 PM Time: ,4.1 C; PM
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. HZ 0 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I .375 180 45.0 B-1 .155 180 28.8
A-2 .45 180 49.2 B-2 .245 180 36.2
A-3.. .._. ..- .43 180 48.2 B-3 325 180 41. 7_-
A-4 .41 180 46.8 B-4 .43 180 48.2
_.
A-5 .47 .J80. 50.2 B-5 .50 180 51.7
--.:.- .. --_. -
.t\-6 .44 180 47.7 B-6 .485 180 51.0
A-7 --' .31 180 40.1 B-7 .300 180 40.0
"---
A-8. ____---2JL..___. __._18.0...- n -- ..~3-? A R- f! 16 180 .2.9_.7. -
- -.
.. ---~--_.._- . ..
------- . --..-.---.- --.- ---- _.. ._-
Av. 180 45.0 180 40.9
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue fa ctor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
42.85
47.50
.90
1.0
5
7 6 58 3 2
Reference
Point
3
2
1
J.D.
G.
H.
1.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity Bx C x D x E ft/sec 42.75
Area of flue, sq. ft. 1. 76
Av. flue temp. of 180
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 28.87
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
4514.4
J.
K.
3475
4514 4 x520 x 28.87 = 4514.4 x .81 x .96
. 640 29.92
398
-------
APproved~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-1)
Fellow
Dr. W. Green
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. IF3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PM!. 71-203- (1 M.D.)
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
April 14, 1971
xx
The four cylinders which you submitted have been analyzed by the procedure
described in a previous report dated October 2, 1970.
The data are tabulated
in Tab 1e 1.
Table I
Content, V/V % as C02
Probe, Low Boilers
Probe, High Boilers
*This value is one-half
fill both cylinders #2
MD-P-1 IF3 IF4 IF5
313.5 287.9 292 .0 269.5
Trace Trace Trace .Trace
0.0048 0.0107 0.0028
O. 0346 0.5861 1.3416 0.5627
0.0044 0 . 0296 0 . 0042
0.0001 0.0034 0.0007
0.1140 0.2908
0.0130 0.0110 O. 0372 0.0175
0.00002 0.0619*
0.0006 0.0088*
of the analytical total, since this probe was used to
and IF5. ~~u--
Paul R. Eisaman, Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
Cylinder Identification
Cylinder Volume, CC NIP
Hydrogen
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Organics
Trap, LOW Boilers
Trap, High Boilers
PRE:jdf
APR \ 0 \'-3"' \
'GA. -.rf
~ -
Form 111
399
-------
CAL-COLONIAL CHEMSOLVE
CONSULTING AND RESEARCH LABORATORIES
871 EAST LAM8ERT
LA HABRA. CALIFORNIA 90631
1714' TR 9.6057
,213) OW 1.4848
Harch '1, 1:1'11
Hr. ~'lilliam J. Green,
Envirorunenc.al Control
Research Department,
Graphic '{rts Tech.'1ical
,+615 Forbes Ave.,
PittsburGh, Pa. 15213
Division,
i'AAR 1 2 1971
GA"fP:
Foundation,
Re: P. 0. .107735; Analysis of two Gas samples and "traps" for C02'
-- CO, CH~d remainl-n,~ hydrocarbons
Each of the sarnples viaS analyzed using a combination of gas chr'Jr.J.at.o-
f,raphic tech.'1iques coupled with an oxidation reduction secti'Jn. The
results are reported in parts per million (Vol.) based on standard C02'
It was assumed the condensate in the trap was from the entire 'olwne
in the corresponding sample bottle.
Results:
~ Vol. CO CH.!,. ~-
MD-P-4 305 52 75 6720
MD-P-2 313
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
l.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
2-M.D.
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): January 25-26, 1972
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): 5-lines,
3-c oating lines: 2-printinQ with tandem coatArs. I-coating line
controlled by therma 1 incinerator.
7.
8.
Product(s): Metal lithography, signs and displays, sign banks
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Not applicable
B. Inks and Solvents: See data sheet #2-ECD
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Wagner, direct flame, circulating
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: See Data Sheet #5-ECD
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Est. 5 x 106 Btu/hr per oven
D. Comment: No separate metering of gas, temp. of oven zones
continuous ly monitored and regulated.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) 2 stacks per oven (l used for ventilation)
B. Cross-sectional area:#l= 1.38', #2=4.90', #3= 1.38', #4= 1.76'
C. Height above roof: 10 to 20 it depending on particular line
D. Approx. running length: 20ft from top of oven to roof level
E. Comment: Front stack on oven is main exhaust of of effluent while.
rear stack is only used for cooling and ventilation
APC Equipment (if any) One line controlled, remaining are uncontrolled.
9.
10.
11.
12.
General Comments: Sampling points were ideally located within
recommended practice.
*Restricted use only.
401
-------
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test No. 1 Throuqh 4
Plant Code No.2-M.D.
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: 1/25/72
Conditions See
appropriate effluent
sampling data sheet
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind speed
(at sampling location)
Readinq/Comments
29.90
320F
35%
10-20 mph (gusting to 50 mph)
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
C hill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
260F
91-77oF
208-270 depending on test conditions
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
360-390oF depending on material processed
Static press stack "H20
Atmospheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(AH)
0.03-0.30 depending on line as measured
29.90
not applicable
Pres s opera ting speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
44-70 sheets/min depending on process
(23-13/16-28-5/8") x (30-3/4-34-1/2")
one
one
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
S tee I
finished
(see below)
Ink Consumption - For printing (lithography aspect of operation) consumption was
estimated at 0.75# per 1000 sheets.
For coating operation consumption is expressed in various
coating thicknesses as noted:
A. Sizing - 4.8 mg/4 sq in.
B. Lacquer - 10.4 mg/4 sq in.
C. Varnish - 14.0 mg/4 sq in.
D. Pigmented coatings (range
from 32.4-52.0 mg/4 sq in.
Definitions appropriate to metal decorating:
I-package = 112 sheets; I-skid = 1120 sheets (or 10 packages)
402
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 2-MD
Date:
1/25/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#1 11: 2 0- 11: 35 15 min Perpendicular Samples ta ken of I-color (black)
#2 and centered Lithography with tra iLing varnis h
on stack coating application. Press speed of 60
d ia meter sht/min; sheet size-26-7/8"x31-7/8"
(25# basic wt).
Varnish-VDG505-2 (63.5% solvent)
14.0mg/4sqin
Ink-black-D-15722 (40% solvent)
consumption (est.) .75# per 1000 shts.
Press Line #1
------ --------- -------- --------- -----------------------
#3 11:50-12:00 10 min Samples staggered over 40 minute
#4 12: 00- 12: 1 0 10 min S a me as period to obtain background emissions
#5 12: 1 0- 12 : 2 0 10 min above of press oven only.
#6 12: 2 0- 12: 3 0 10 min Press Line #1
------ --------- -------- --------- -----------------------
#7 1:55-2: 10 15 min Same as Samples taken of I-color (pink)
#8 above Lithography with no trailing varnish
coating operation. Press speed of 60
shts/min. Ink consumption (est.)
at 0.7541 per 1000 shts.
Sheet s ize-26-7 /8" x 31-7/8"
Press Line #3
------ ...-------- -------- --------- -----------------------
#10 2:15-2:30 15 min Same as Samples taken of white (12183) alkyd
#13 above coating ~ Press speed of 68 sh/min;
sheet size-26-3/4" x 32-1/2"; 80#
ba s ic wt. 38.4 mg/4 sq in; (41%
solvent) density of 10.2#/gal.
*Actual usage rate of material deter-
mined on location as 15 gaL/hr.
Coating Line #4
------ -------- -------- --------- -----------------------
403
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 2- MD
Date:
1/25/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#14 2: 50-3: 05 15 min Perpend icular Samples taken of sizing (8463-002).
#15 and centered Press speed of 70 sh/min; sheet
on stack size 25-3/8" x 30-3/4"; 80# basic wt.
d ia meter 4.8 mg/4 sq in; (82% solvent),
density of 7.38#/gal.
Coating Line #2
- - - - --------- -------- --------- --------------------------
#16 3: 10-3:25 15 min Same as Same as samples #14 & 15
#17 above C oa ting Line #2
404
-------
Plant Code No.
2-M.D.
Sample #
Time
#18
#19
8:55-9:10
-----
---------
#22
#24
9: 12-9:27
-----
---------
#25
#26
10:02-10:17
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Period
15 min
--------
15 min
--------
15 min
Date: 1/26/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Probe
Configura ti on
Perpend icular
and inserted
to center of
stack
d ia meter
---------
Same as
above
---------
Same as
above
----- --------- -------- ---------
#27 11:35-11: 50 15 min Same as
#28 11: 50-12: 05 above
----- --------- -------- ---------
# 29 2:45-2:55 10 min Same as
#30 2:55-3:06 11 min above
#31 3: 07-3: 17 10 min
#32 3: 18-3:29 11 min
405
Comments
Samples taken of gold lacquer (17923).
Press speed of 65 sh/min; sheet size
26-1/8"x34-1/2"; 80# basic wt.
10.4 mg/4 sq in(75% solvent), density
of 7 . S 2 # / gal.
Coating Line #4
-------------------------
Same as Samples #1S & #19
Coating Line #4
-------------------------
Samples taken of white (3420) vinyl
coating, press speed of 70 sh/min,
sheet size-2S-5/S" x 33-1/4" basic wt.
32.4 mg/4 sq in (60% solvent) density
of 9.45#/gal.
C oa ting Line #2
-------------------------
Samples taken to obtain background
emissions of coating oven only.
C oa ting Line #4
-------------------------
Samples taken of a beige (formula
coating 340) alkyd coating, press
speed of 44 shts/min, sheet size
23-13/16"x 31-9/16", basic wt. 80#,
52.0 mg/4 sq in (43% solvent) density
of 9.S#/gal.
C oa ting Line #4
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Ana lytica 1 Results in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
2-MD 1/25/72 Press oven only (no litho- 3 394 37 1705 7069
11: 50-12: 3 0 pm graphy) application. 4 553 20 1657 7394
5 445 21 1733 7159
6 232 33 1733 7973
1/26/72 Coating oven only 27 55 not d etecta ble 115 4579
11:35-12:05 pm (no coating application) 28 96 trace 118 4680
1/25/72 I-color (pink) lithography 7 162 26 1361 7572
1:55-'2: 10 pm no trailing varnish appli- 8 130 31 1387 7284
cation. Ink coverage -
.0075 #/sheet.
A
0 1/25/72
m I-color (blk) lithography 1 9124 68 1707 8515
11: 2 0-11: 35 am w/trailing varnish appli- 2 8177 77 1562 8064
cation. 14 . 0 mg /4 s q in
(63.5% solvent). Ink coverage
.0075 #/sheet; coating
coverage. 0066 #/sheet
1/25/72 Sizing, 4.8 mg/4 sq in 14 1944 trace 325 6978
2: 50-3: 25 pm (82% solvent) coverage 15 1491 trace 328 7183
of .0021 #/sheet 16 2750 trace 292 7050
17 1808 trace 305 6752
1/26/72 Gold lacquer coating, 18 4600 trace 88 6663
8:55-9:27 am 10.4 mg/4 sq in (75% 19 65 trace 3 373
solvent) coverage of 22 4206 trace 84 6408
.0052 #/sheet 24 4288 trace 92 7038
1/25/72 White alkyd coating 10 4917 trace 45 5785
2: 15-2: 30 pm 38.4 mg/4 sq in (41% 13 4949 trace 54 5820
solvent), coverage of
.018 #/sheet
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD-A continued
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 C02
2-MD 1/26/72 White vinyl coating 32.4 mg/4 sq 25 6997 trace 331 6729
10: 02-10: 17 am in (60% solvent), coverage of 26 6095 trace 312 6728
.017 #/sheet
1/26/72 Beige a lkyd coating 52.0 mg/4 sq 29 3871 trace 228 5514
2:45-3:29 pm in (43% solvent), coverage of 30 3244 tra c e 210 5926
.021 #/sheet 31 2773 not detecta ble 164 5794
32 61 trace 195 5422
J:>,.
o
"-J
-------
DATA SHEET 'lf3-ECD-B
Press;toating Cylinder Tota 1
No. No. Organics Flow Rate * Organic Emiss ions
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
Press Line #1 1 9124 900 15.47
2 8177 900 13.94
3 394 900 0.68
4 553 900 0.93
5 445 900 0.75
6 232 900 0.39
Coating Line #2 14 1944 2300 8.36
15 1491 2300 6.60
16 2750 2300 11 ..8 8
17 1808 2300 7.92
25 6997 2300 30.80
~ 26 6095 2300 26.84
a
CD
Press Line #3 7 162 925 0.27
8 130 925 0.22
Coating Line #4 10 4917 2300 21.56
13 4949 2300 21.78
18 4600 2300 20.24
19 65 2300 0.28
22 4206 2300 18.48
24 4288 2300 18.92
27 55 2300 0.24
28 96 2300 0.42
29 3871 2300 17.02
30 3244 2300 14.25
31 2773 2300 12.18
32 61 2300 0.27
*Calculated on the following basis:
IbC/hr= 1.90x 10-6 (scfm) (ppm)
-------
DATA SHEET 3-ECD-C
Compilation of Operational Data from Plant Test for Use
in Determining Calculated Emission Rate
Plant Code No. 2-MD
Sheet Film
Type of Operation Size Coater Speed Thickness Solvent/Solids
(sq in) Sh/min S h/hr (mg/sq in)
I-color litho only 852.2 60 3420 * 15/85
I-color w/varnish 852.2 60 3420 3.5 63.5/36.5
Sizing 790.2 70 3990 1.2 82/18
Gold lacquer 901. 3 65 3705 2.8 75/25
White alkyd 869.4 68 3876 9.6 41/59
Beige alkyd 748.1 44 2508 13.0 43/57
White vinyl 951.7 70 3990 8.1 60/40
*Printing only, no film thickness, estimated usage rate of 0.0075 #/sheet
for one color; ).0010 #/sheet for two-color work.
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Plant Code No. 2-MD
obs.
Organic Emissiona
ca lc.
b
Eobs/Eca lc
Type of Operation
I-color w/varnish
Sizing
Gold lacquer
White alkyd
Beige alkyd
White vinyl
14.72
8.69
21. 01
21. 67
15.63
28.82
39.41
44.50
56.07
51. 14
49.02
76.00
0.39
0.20
0.37
0.42
0.32
0.25
a. Expressed as lb carbon/hr
b. C as in Equation (4) data treatment
section of report
409
-------
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test No.:
Plant Code No.: 2-M.D.
Sampling Location
Press Line #1
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 1/25/72
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. T. Green
Point Time: 9: 15-9:30 am Time: 9:30-9:40 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in.H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
,
1 .22 210 12.2 .24 210 12.8
- n-
2 .24 210 12.8 .30 210 14.2
. - --- --
3 -- --.' 30 210 14.2 .32 210 14_.2-_-
4 ..~ 210 14.7 "1? ?In 1i1 7
f-_._- 5_- .30 -.--- 210 14.2 .30 210 14"?
- .--.. ------- --
6 .24 210 12.8 .24 210 12_~-
---
_.-- n_- --"--- -
... -.--... - - ".- - .- d- .-.-_. - ----. -- .....--.-.-- --... '-., ..- - -
--.- '_h.._.__- --.-- ..-.-----.
-- .- ..- -- h ~"-'--'--- 1---- - -
Av. 210 13.5 210 13.9
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:_raverse) ft/sec 13.7
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
Flue factor A/B n/a
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 13.7
Area of flue, sq. ft. 1. 38
Av. flue temp. of 210
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm
Ps = 29.90
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,sefm
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
1150
J.
K.
900
410
1- I.D.
~ 16"
A
Static (~H) "H20 =
P = - ~ H/13 . 6 =
Pg "
atm Hg = 29.90
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.90
~
0.03
-------
Gra phic Arts Technica I Founda tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test No.:
Plant Code No.: 2-MD
Sampling Location
roatinq T,ine :11:2
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 1/25/72
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
!Point Time: 9'50-10:00 am Time: 10' 05-10'15 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in.H20 (h) of ft/ see in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 .10 270 8.6 .12 270 9.3
'
2 .15 270 10.4 .20 270 12.3
-u. --- '-
3 .20 270 12.3 .17 270 11.2
u, ..'
4 .17 270 11.2 .20 ?70 17 ':!
_...5_- - -_..! £.L- _n..Z 7. 0 . 12.3 .17 ?7n 11 7
6 .17 270 11. 2 .15 270 10 4
----.- _.' -
-.' ~.-.. --..-..- ----- .--.-. ------.-. ... .. -.---.--- -.... .-. .-.. '.-- - --
--... .-..---- ---- ..---.
. -. .- .,- ------. ----,.-... "--.------ ---
Av. 270 11.0 270 11.1
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (;.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
11.0
n/a
n/a
1.0
J.
K.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/secll.O
Area of flue, sq. ft. 4.90
Av. flue temp. of 270
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.87
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
I.
3250
2300
411
5
7 6 58 3 2 B
Reference
Point
3
2
1
~ A ~
I.D.
30"
Static (.1H) "H20 =
P g = - .1 H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg =
P s = P a tm - P g =
0.30
0.03
29.90
29.87
-------
TestNo.:
Plant Code No. :--1-MD
Sampling Location
Press Line #3
D(Jtij ~)::(~f::t.
:: .~ - ~: ( . : ,
Gra phic Arts Technica I Founda tion
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Da te:__1/2 .Sj72 -- --'-
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
~l. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 12:45-1:00 pm Time: 1:0'-1'15 pm
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
. 1 .22 210 12.2 .22 210 12.2
..-.
2 .30 210 14.2 .30 210 14.2 --
.. -
3 .38 210 15.8 .34 210 15. 1
.. ".'--
-L- ----' 38 210 15.8 .38 210 15.8
_..5 -- - -........3.1__- ----- 21n .IS.1 .34 ?lO 15.1-
6 .22 210 12.2 .24 210 12.8
.----
---.--- -.'--. -- - ..
... - ---. -. .... - .- ..- .-.-_. "-------- .0_____.---- -....-- . - ,..- .-
-- -. --.".--.--- .-- ---'----_. 1----.....- --.
.. --."'. .. -.-.---."--- -----
Av. 210 14.2 210 14.2
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:raverse) ft/sec 14.2
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
Flue factor A/B n/a
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 14.2
Area of flue, sq. ft. 1.38
Av. flue temp. of 210
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.94
Corrected to s td. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
~
1200
~
J.
K.
16"
Static (~H) "H20 = 0.04
P = - ~H/13.6 =
Pg "
at m Hg = 2 9 . 94
Ps=Patm-Pg= 29.94
925
412
-------
Data Sheet #S-ECD
Test No.:
Plant Code No.: 2- MD
Sampling Location
Coatinq Line #4
Gra phic Arts Technica I Founda tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: 1/25/72
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 1:25-1:35 pm Time: 1,41-1.4<; nm
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 1.0 250 26.7 1.0 250 26.7
-
2 _.. - 1.0 250 26.7 1.0 250 26.7
--
3 h .."- 1.5 250 32.7 1.5 250 32.7
.---
4 1.5 250 32.7 1.5 250 32.7
---
--~ -- 1.5 250 32.7 1.0 250 26.7
- --... ---_._- - ---
6 1.0 250 26.7 1.0 250 26.7
-..--.- f---
..- - '_n. - - ".- - .- --- . --. -- - ----- -- . - ..._._----- -... .. .--. .-
-..- --...--.--- -_._.. ----.--
.- .. -- .---.- - n - .._.._-"--- ---
Av. 250 29.7 250 28.7
A. Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec 29.2
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
C. Flue factor A/B nla
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0 5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 5. 3 2
F. Corrected velocity B x C x D x E ft/sec ?q.? Reference
Point
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 1. 76 3
H. Av. flue temp. of 2S0 2
1. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
F x G x 60, aefm 3100 ~ ~
J. Ps = 29.94 18"
K. Corrected to std. cond. Static (.1H) "H20 = 0.03
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps 2300 P = - .1H/13.6 =
, sefm pg "
H + 460 x 29.92 stm Hg = 29.94
Ps=Patm-Pg= 29.94
413
-------
r;--,/J. z r0
Approvcd Y-{I,"" .
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Ph~sical_Measurem~g!~~~QQr~!2ry (7615-2)
FEB 281972
GATF
Fellow
11r. Ray Gadomski (2)
Graphic Arts
Account No.~chnical F£undation
P.O. 113104
Invcgtigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-201 (2-MD)
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Datc of RcporL- February 18, 1972
x
The twenty-six samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
~?/t&:~~~~
-Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE:jdf
R&T: 2/23/72
Fonn 111
414
-------
Table I
Stack Gas S.1mp1es
Code 2 - ~!. D.
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sample Volume, cc NTP 297 265 292 289 293 293
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0068 0.0077 O. 0037 O. 0020 0.0021 0.0033
Carbon Dioxide 0.8515 0.8064 O. 706 9 0.7394 0.7159 0.7973
Methane 0.17 07 0.1562 0.1705 0.1657 0.1733 0.1733
Organics 0.0141 0.0123 0.0121 0.0120 0.0122 0.0120
Tra ps, Low Boilers 0.8457 0.7694 0 . 023 7 0.0123 0.0295 0.0099
Traps, High Boilers 0.0526 0.0360 0.0036 0.0310 0.0028 0.0013
Cylinder No. 7 8 10 13 14 15
Sample Volume, cc NTP 292 300 305 288 293 289
Content, v /v 10 as CO"
Carbon Monoxide O. 0026 O. 0031 trace trace trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.7572 0.7284 0.5785 0.5820 0.6978 0.7183
Methane 0.1361 0.1387 0.0045 0.0054 O. 0325 0.0328
Organics 0.0096 0.0099 0.0006 0.0004 O. 0027 0.0029
Traps, Lo,,, Boilers O. 0057 0.0009 0.4731 0.4572 O. 1898 0.1424
Traps, High Boilers 0.0009 0.0022 0.0180 0.0373 0.0019 0.0038
Cylinder No. 16 17 18 19 22 24
Sample Volume, cc NTP 291 293 311 308 305 303
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Nonoxide trace trace trace trace trace trace
Carbon Dioxide O. 7050 0.6752 0.6663 O. 03 73 0.6408 0.7038
Methane 0.0292 0.0305 0.0088 0.0003 0.0084 0.0092
Organics 0.0021 0.0023 0.0007 0.0000 0.0006 0.0007
Traps, Low Boilers 0.2683 0.1784 0.4524 0.0050 0.4111 0.4206
Traps, High Boilers 0.0046 0.0001 0.0069 0.0015 0 . 008 9 0.0075
415
-------
Table I (continued)
Cylinder ~o. 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sample Volume, cc NTP 310 304 293 298 284 275
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.6729 0.6728 0.4579 0.4680 0.5514 o. 5 92 6
Methane 0.0331 o. 0312 0.0115 0.0118 0.0228 0.0210
Organics 0.0025 0.0025 0.0007 0.0008 0.0016 0.0015
Traps, Low Boilers 0.6912 0.5912 0.0028 0.0084 0.3540 0.2996
Traps, High Boilers 0.0060 0.0158 0.0020 0.0004 0.0315 0.0233
J::>
f-'
(j)
Cylinder No. 31 32
Sample Volume, cc NTP 277 290
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.5794 0.5422
Methane 0.0164 0.0195
Organics 0.0011 0.0012
Traps, Low Boilers 0.2562 0.0032
Tra ps, High Boilers O. 0200 0.0017
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
Plant Code No.:
3-MD
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): February 21, 22, 23, 1972
process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): 5-process lines,
3-coating lines, 2-printing lines w/trailing coater, 2 ovens per coating
line, 1 or 2-color lithography, generally lighter weight materials applied
on front oven; heavier coatings in rear ovens.
Produ'ct(s): closures
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: variable
B. Inks and Solvents: See Data Sheets No.2 and No. 3-ECD
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Wagner, Young Bros.
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: See Data Sheets No. 5-ECD
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Est. 5 x lOb Btu/hr per oven
D. Comment: No separate metering of gas, ovens are old, only temp.
of various oven zones continuously recorded.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single exhaust system per oven
B. Cross-sectional area: See Data Sheets No. 5-ECD
C. Height above roof: Each stack extends 20 ft above roof level
D . A pprox. running length: 30 it from top of oven
E. Comment: Several ovens utilize two-stack system, one exhaust
for cooling and make up air, the other for exhaust of effluent
APC Equipment (if any) None, no rain cap arrangement on any stacks
tested.
General Comments: Sampling points were ideally located within recommended
sampling practice.
*Restricted use only.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
417
-------
Graphic Arts Technica L Foundation
EnvironmentaL Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 2/22-23/72
Conditions See appro-
priate Data Sheet
No. 3-ECD
Test No.
Plant Code No. 3-MD
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind speed
(test site)
(test site)
(test site)
Ambient
29 . 87" Hg.
10-200F (variable)
75%
Variable 5-30 mph (west & north westerly)
(test site)
10-200F (depending on time of day)
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - OutLet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
Static press stack "H20
Atmospheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(~H)
67/490F
See individua I reading on Data
Sheet No. 5-ECD
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Bake temperature ranged from 2900F to
~900F inn nn . II
See specific Data Sheet No. 5-ECD
29 . 87" Hg
Not applicable
Pres s opera ting speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cyLinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
65 to 82 sheets per minute
See Data Sheet No. 3-ECD
1 or 2
1
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
Steel
not applicable
See Specific Data Sheet No. 3-ECD
I
Ink Consumption:
0.5- 0.75 #/1000 sheets/color
Coating Consumption:
Gold and clear lacquer - 350 sheets/gal
Vinyl white - 150 sheets/gal
Varnish - 325 sheets/gal
Enamel buff - 150 sheets/gal
Sizing - 350 sheets/gal
PLasticized white - 150 sheets/gal
418
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
3-MD
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
Effluent Sampling Data
Sa mple # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#1 9: 30-9: 45 15 min Perpend icular Duplicate samples of a gold lacquer,
#2 and inserted filmwt. 5.5 mg/4 sq in (85.23%)
to center of solvent.
stack Press speed - 82 sheets/min
d ia meter Sheet size - 876.02 sq in
Oven cap. - 800 sheets
Line No. E
#3 10: 30-1 0: 45 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of a vinyl white
#4 above coating, filmwt. 41.5 mg/4 sq(62.66%)
Press speed - 82 sheets/min
Sheet Dimensions - same as above
Oven cap. - 1200 sheets
Line No. F
#9 11':00-11:15 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of a I-color (red)
#10 above lithography (15%) with no varnish
application.
Press speed - 66 sheets/min
Sheet dimensions - 827.22 sq in
Oven cap. - 1700 sheets
Line No. B
#7 11:30-11:45 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of a I-color (red)
#8 above lithography w/varnish application.
Film wt. 11. 0 mg/4 sq in (61. 76%)
Press speed - 65 sheets/min
Sheet dimen. - 714.91 sq in
Line No. A
#5 1:45-2: 00 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of a 2-color
#6 above (black & blue) lithography (15%) wino
varnish application
Press speed - 65 sheets/min
Sheet dimen. - 645.72 sq in
Line No. A
419
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
3-MD
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#11 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of a 2-color (black &
#12 2:25-2: 40 above blue) lithographing with varnish appl.
Film wt. 11.0 mg/4 sq in (53.94%)
Press speed & sheet dim. - same as
samples #5 and #6.
Line No. A
#13 3:45-4:00 15 min Perpendicular Duplicate samples of a mod ified phenol ic
#14 and inserted varnish
to center of Filmwt. - 8.5 mg/4 sq in (70.93%solv.)
stack dia. Press speed - 74 sheets/min
Oven cap. - 800 sheets
Line No. C
#15 4:05-4:20 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of an enamel buff
#16 above coating
Film wt. 47.0 mg/4 sq in (67.54%)
Press speed and sheet dimension same
as Samples #13 and #14
Oven cap. - 1200 sheets
Line No. D
420
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
3-MD
Date:Feb. 23, 1972
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
#17 9:35-9:50 15 min Perpendicular Duplicate samples of sizing
#18 and inserted Film wt. of 4.0 mg/4 sq in (82.50% solv.)
to center of Press speed - 82 sheets/min
stack dia. Sheet dimen. - 675.91 sq in
Oven cap.- 800 sheets
Line No. G
#19 11:05-11:20 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of clear lacquer,
#20 above Film wt. - 16.0 mg/4 sq in (84.64%)
Press speed - 82 sheets/min
Sheet dimen. - 700.06 sq in
Oven cap. - 800 sheets
Line No. G
#21 12:45-1: 00 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of a plasticized
#22 above white coating
Film wt. - 37.5 mg/4 sq in (60.62%)
Press speed - 82 sheets/min
Sheet dimen. - 645.72 sq in
Oven cap. - 800 sheets
Line No. E.
421
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Ana lytica l Results in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota l
No. Date/Time Proces s No. Organics CO CH4 CO
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppml
3-MD 2/22/72 I-color (red) lithography, no 9 64 trace 314 10085
11: 00- 11: 15 am trailing varnish application. 10 67 tra c e 284 10299
Ink coverage 0.00075 #/sheet
(15% solvent content)
2/22/72 I-color (red) lithography w/ 7 2140 14 425 11522
11:30-11:45 am trailing varnish application 8 2082 trace 393 11238
11. 0 mg/4 sq in (61. 76%
solvent). Ink coverage
0.00075 #/sheet; coating
coverage 0.0043 #/sheet
J::,.
N 2/22/72 2-color (blk & blue) litho- 5 133 26 798 5306
N
1:45-2:00 pm graphy, no trailing varnish 6 87 37 687 4960
application. Ink coverage
0.00050 #/sheet/color
(15% solvent content)
2/22/72 2-color (blk & blue) litho- 11 2185 8 229 10010
2:25-2:40 pm graphy w/trailing varnish 12 1442 5 217 10384
application 11. 0 mg/4 sq in
(53.94% solvent). Ink carerage
0.00050 #/sheet/color
coating coverage-0.0039 #/sheet
2/23/72 Sizing, 4.0 mg/4 sq in 17 5573 27 459 6959
9:35-9:50 am (82.50% solvent) coverage 18 5447 23 479 7032
of 0.0015 #/sheet
2/22/72 Gold lacquer coating, 5.5 mg/ 1 6052 tra c e 124 3919
9: 30-9: 45 am 4 sq in (85.23% solvent) 2 6785 trace 135 4493
coverage of 0.0027 #/sheet
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD-A continued
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH CO
(ppm) (ppm) (pp~) (ppm~
3-MD 2/22/72 Modified phenolic varnish 13 1769 trace 11 9041
3:45-4: 00 pm 8.5 mg/4 sq in (70.93% 14 1524 14 11 9375
solvent) coverage of 0.0041
#/sheet
2/23/72 Clear lacquer coating, 16.0 19 20363 17 540 9411
11:05-11:20 pm mg/4 sq in (84.64 % solvent) 20 21405 18 547 9387
coverage of 0.0062 #/sheet
2/23/72 Plasticized white coating, 21 8295 23 408 4648
12:45-1:00 pm 37.5 mg/4 sq in (60.62% 22 9137 13 390 4468
.t:. solvent) coverage of
N
w 0.014 #/sheet
2/22/72 Vinyl white coating 3 7408 trace 76 3706
10:30-10:45 am 4 L 5 mg /4 s q in (62. 55% 4 13773 24 116 5669
solvent) coverage of
0.020 #/sheet
2/22/72 Enamel buff coating 47.0 15 20045 8 9 3825
4:05-4:20 pm mg/4 sq in (62.54% solvent) 16 21684 43 9 3755
coverage of 0.022 #/sheet
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(ca lculated emission rates)
Press/Coating Cylinder Tota 1
Line No. No. Organics Flow Rate * Organic Emissions
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
5 133 1700 0.27
6 87 1700 0.42
A 7 2140 1700 6.78
8 2082 1700 6.72
11 2185 1700 7.04
12 1442 1700 4.65
9 64 3700 0.45
B 10 67 3700 0.47
13 1769 1700 5.71
C 14 1524 1700 4.91
D 15 20045 2400 91.20
16 21684 2400 98.49
1 6052 4200 48.40
2 6785 4200 54.24
E 21 8295 4200 66.32
22 9137 4200 73.04
F 3 7408 3950 56.24
4 13773 3950 104.12
17 5573 3000 31.35
G 18 5447 3000 30.78
19 20363 3000 115.71
20 21405 3000 121.98
*calculated on the following basis:
lb carbon/hr = 1.90 x 10-6 x scfm x ppm
424
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Compilation of Operational Data from Plant Test for Use
in Determining Calculated Emission Rate
Plant Code No. 3-MD
Sheet Film
Type of Operation Size Coater Speed Thickness Solvent/Solids
(sq in) s h/min s h/hr (mg/sq in)
I-color litho only 827.2 65 3762 * 15/85
2-color litho 645.7 65 3705 * 15/85
I-color w/varnish 714.9 65 3705 2.75 61.8/38.2
2-color w/varnish 645.7 65 3705 2.75 53.9/46.1
Sizing 675.9 82 4674 1.0 82.5/17.5
Phenolic varnish 867.8 74 4218 2.125 70.9/29.1
Clear lacquer 700.0 82 4674 4.0 82.5/17.5
Gold lacquer 876.0 82 4674 1. 375 85.2/14.8
White vinyl 876.0 82 4674 10.375 62.6/37.4
Plasticized white 645.7 82 4674 9.375 60.6/39.4
Enamel buff 867.8 74 4218 11. 75 67.5/32.5
*Printing only, no film thickness, estimated usage rate of 0.00075 #/sheet
for one color; 0.0010 #/sheet for two-color work.
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Type of Operation
I-color w/varnish
2-color w/varnish
Sizing
Phenolic varnish
Clear lacquer
Gold lacquer
White vinyl
Plasticized white
Enamel buff
Plant Code No. 3-MD
Organic Emiss iona
obs. calc.
EObs. /Eca lc-.b
6.75
5.84
31. 07
5.31
U8.84
51.32
80.18
69.68
94.85
32.14
27.97
46.25
43.13
169.79
73.22
156.45
133.15
145.72
0.21
0.21
0.67
0.12
0.70
0.70
0.48
0.52
0.52
a. Expressed as lb carbon/hr
b. C as in Equation (4) data treament section
of th is report.
425
-------
Data Sheet #S-ECD
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 3-MD
Sa mpling Location
Line A
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbron~
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 11: 00-11: 15 Time: 12' D 0- 12' 15
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of it/see in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 .08 170 20.9 .10 170 22.9
--
2 .10 170 22.9 .12 170 24.7
- --
3 ..! 12 170 24.7 .14 170 27..L_-
_4..- ---.....l.L 17~ 24.7 . 14 17n 27 n
-. 5 .-- - u- ,'. U_---- _.. 17.0 24.7 .12 170 24.7
£.. .10 170 22.9 .10 170 2 2 ~..L._-
--.. .-- ~---- - -.
.u - "'" -- - -- n- .----- -----. -- .----.-".- _..-. - --
-. . ._...-- --- --..----- -.-.-..--.--
.. .-" .. - ------- 1---- - -
Av. 170 23.5 170 24.9
1.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec 24.2
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
Flue factor A/B n/a
Pitot Tube correction factor{if any) none
Gas density factory{ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected ve loc i ty B x C x D x E it/see
Area of flue. sq. ft.
Av. flue temp. of
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.87
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
24.2
1. 38
170
G.
H.
2100
LD.
16"
J.
K.
Corrected to s td. cond.
flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; . scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
Static (.:1H) "H20 = 0.02
P = - .:1 H/13 . 6 = 0
P~tm "Hg = 29.87
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.87
1700
426
-------
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 3-MD
Sampling Location
Line B
Data Sheet ~S-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica I Founda tion
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: Feb. 22. lCJn
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 10:50-11:00 Time: 11: 05-11: 15
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 .08 170 20.9 . nA 17n ?n Q
..
2 .10 170 22.9 .10 170 22.9
.. ----- .-- .-
3 .12 170 24.7 .12 170 74..L__-
-~- .14 170 27.0 .12 170 24.7
-----
-.. 5 .-- - - ... .~ l2___- ~- -. 170 .-24.7 ..12 17n 74 7
6 .10 170 22.9 .10 170 22.._.9._.- -
--.- --- -.-- -- ---
-..- -- - .- n- .'..-- -----.-- . -- _u_-...-- --"..-.- - ..
-. ._...h -.-- --. -.------ --.-.- -...----.
.- ---.. u - --.-."-.-- ~---- -.
Av. 170 23.9 170 23.5
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
B
23.7
n/a
n/a
none
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 23.7
G.
H.
1.
Area of flue, sq. ft.
Av. flue temp. of
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.87
Corrected to std. cond.
flow rate == 520 x I x Ps ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
3.14
170
4464
1.D.
24"
J.
K.
Static (~H) "H20 =
P = - ~H/13. 6 =
Pg "
a tm Hg =
P s = P a tm - P g =
0.05
o
29.87
29.87
3700
427
-------
Test No.: 3
Plant Code No.:
Sampling Location
Line C
Graphic Arts Technica L Foundation
Environmenta I ControL Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
3-MD
Gas VeLocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Point Time: 3:00-3: 15 Time: 3:45-4:00
No. Vel. Head Temp VeLocity VeL. Head Temp VeLocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
- 1 0.05 260 17.4 0.05 260 17.4
2 ___!h.Q5 260 17.4 0.05 260 17.4
.-
3 _.0...11 s nn 1 7 .1 n.ns ?hn 17.-4-__-
_1- --- 0.05 260 17.4 0.05 260 17.4
5 - _..O~O_~._- 260 17.4 0.05 260 17.4
-. --- -.
_6- 0.0.<; 260 17.4 0.05 ?hn -12..A_._.-
M 4"- _.- f--. --- -
Moo - ... - UM - .- ._.- .n ... ----.. -- --- -.-..-- -..--- - -. .-
--. - "_h-_- ---- ---'-"--- _-"4-._.__---.
--." - ------- ----- -.
Av. 260 17.4 260 17.4
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. veLocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
none
17.4
n/a
n/a
J.
K.
Gas dens ity factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 17.4
Area of flue, sq. ft. 2.17
Av. flue temp. of 260
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.87
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
2275
1700
428
5
7 6 58 3 2 B
Reference
Point
3
2
1
~ Lt. ~
20"
Static (.1H) "H20 = 0.05
P = - .1H/13.6 = 0
Pg "
at m Hg = 29 . 87
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.87
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 4
Plant Code No.: 3-MD
Sampling Location
Line D
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 4:05-4:15 Time: 4:25-4:35
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in.H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 0.25 130 25.4 0.25 130 25.4
-
2 0.30 130 38.6 0.30 130 38.6
-- - - --
3 0.30 130 38.6 0.30 130 38.6
u . .'~ ----
4 0.30 130 38.6 0.30 130 38.6
__5- 0.25 130 25.4 0.30 130 38.6
---_u- ------ --_.. _. u
6 0.25 130 25.4 0.25 130 25_.4
------- f----
-'--'_"__n- - .-.-- .0_._- ----_.-- .-------.--- -""- -- .-_. ---
. ---- "--...-.- --.-- ..-.--.
- - - --- - ----.-. .--.. -"-"----- ----
Av. 130 31.1 130 34.2
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:_raverse) ft/sec 32.7
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
Flue factor A/B n/a
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)----.::one
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity Bx C x D x E ft/sec 32.7
Area of flue, sq. ft. 1.38
Av. flue temp. of 130
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.85
G.
H.
1.
6
5
6 5. 3
Reference
Point
3
2
1
A
LD.
16"
~
2710
~
J.
K.
0.35
0.02
29.87
29.85
2400
Static (~H) "H20 =
P = - ~ H/13 . 6 =
Pg "
atm Hg =
P s = P a tm - P g =
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x P!'; ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
429
-------
Test No.: 5
Plant Code No.: 3-MD
Sampling Location
Line E
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15213
Gas Velocit'/ Data
Data Sheet 4t5-ECD
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
lPoint Time: 9:00-9:15 Time: 9:15-9:30
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) or ft/see
1 .40 160 46.4 .40 160 46.4
2 .45 160 48.2 .45 160 48.2
._--- -,
3 ,...1).0. lhO <:;0 7 4S lhO 48.2_-
__4.- .50 160 50.7 .50 160 50.7
---------
-. 5 -- ._.- . ~ 4..~--. -- ,- 160 ...48.2 .45 160 48.2
_6. .40 _)60 - 46.4 .40 160 46.4
. . . -.. -- '--- ----..
-.... . _.... .. ... .--., -- - u_-.--. '- --- -
-. -."--.- .-.. ----..-- -- -..-.-- .-,---.
-- - -.. ..-- ---. -- -
Av. 160 48.4 160 48.0
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
none
48.2
n/a
n/a
G.
H.
1.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 48.2
Area ot flue, sq. ft. 1. 76
Av. flue temp. of 160
Flow rate @ stack cond.
r x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.83
Corrected to std. cond.
flow rate = 520 x I x Ps . scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
5100
J.
K.
4200
430
11
8
I.D.
18"
:1
~
Static (~H) "H20 =
P = - ~ H/13 . 6 =
Pg "
atm Hg =
Ps =Patm- Pg =
0.55
0.04
29.87
29.83
-------
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Test No.: 6
Plant Code No.:
Sampling Location
Line F
Graphic Arts Technica L Foundation
Environmenta L Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: Feb. 22, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
3-MD
Gas VeLocity Data
!Point Time: 9:30-9:45 Time: 9:45-10:00
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 0.30 160 40.0 0.40 160 46.4
2 __~35 t6Q 42.0 0.40 160 46.4 -
3 ._, 0.40 160 46.4 0.40 160 46.4
-----
.A- --,-_O_~ 1 hQ.- 4f) 4 0.4S 1hO 48.2
"-
5 0.40 160 46.4 0.40 160 46.4
-. .-- -- ,. -- --',._- .- - -- --.-.
6 0.35 160 42.0 0.40 160 46.4
-.- ----"- ~
~. . - - f-- - -- --, ..
-..- ... n- - --.. - ,_u_- ____m -. ------...- -..--- .,
--- '_...0- -..-- "--- -------. -.....-.-.
.. -. - -_.---- 1-----.---.
Av. 160 43.9 160 45.1
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction fa ctor(if any)
B
44.5
nla
nla
11
none
5
6 5. 3
Reference
Point
3
2
1
A
1.D.
18"
~
Gas density factory(ref. to air)
Corrected velocity Bx C x D x E ft/sec
Area of flue, sq. ft.
Av. flue temp. of
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.85
Corrected to std. cond.
flow rate = 520 x I x Ps ,scfm
H + 460 x 29.92
1.0
44.5
1. 76
G.
H.
1.
160
~
4700
J.
K.
Static (A H) "H20 =
P 9 = - A H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg =
P s = P atm - P g =
0.25
0.02
29.87
29.85
3950
431
-------
Data Sheet ¥:S-ECD
Test No.: 7
Plant Code No.: 3-MD
Sampling Location
Line G
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date:Feb. 22, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V . Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 5:30-5:40 Time: 5:45-6:.00
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in.H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
1 .06 150 17.8 .06 150 17.8
2 .06 150 17.8 .07 150 18.9
~---~ -- -
3 .07 150 18.9 .07 150 1~.~__.
""
4 . 07 150 18.9 .07 150 18.9
-- -----
-- 5 --- _.- _...QL_- - - 150 ..LA. q .07 ISO 1 R. q
6 .06 150 17.8 .06 150 17.8
.-- ..--..--
--- - ..- ---. r-.----
~.. -. . ... - .- -.- .---... ----- -- "-..-.-..- -',-- .
_. - "'..-- ---- .--....--- __-_-0__._"
.- -- - -- - ------ -----.
Av. 150 18.4 150 18.6
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:raverse) ft/sec 18.5
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec n/a
Flue factor A/B n/a
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) none
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec18.5
Area of flue, sq. ft. 3.14
Av. flue temp. of 150
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.87
5
7 6 5. 3 2
Reference
Point
3
2
1
~ A ~
I.D.
G.
H.
1.
3485
J.
K.
Corrected to s td. cond.
flow rate = 520 x I x Ps scfm 3000
H + 460 x 29.92'
Static (~H) "H20 =
P = - ~H/13.6 =
Pg "
a tm Hg =
Ps=Patm-Pg=
0.03
o
29.87
29.87
432
-------
a~'~
Approved ,. -'-
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Account No.
Gra phic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.O. 113104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-206(3 MD)
Date of Report
March 30, 1972
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
The twenty-two samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
-f;?t:~Ch~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
433
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Code 3-M.D.
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Sample Vo1wne, cc NTP 286 301 296 300 286 311 293 305 299 295 307
Content, v/v% as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace trace 0.0024 0.0026 0.0037 0.0014 trace trace trace 0.0008
Carbon Dioxide 0.3919 0.4493 0.3706 0.5669 0.5306 0 . 4 96 0 1.1522 1.1238 1.0085 1. 02 99 1. 0010
Methane 0.0124 0.0135 0.0076 0.0116 'J.0198 O. 068 7 0.0425 0.0393 0.0314 0.0284 O. 0229
Organics 0.0011 0.0012 0.0011 0.0018 ::1.0056 o. 0050 O. 0039 O. 0040 0.0020 0.0018 0.0032
Tr a ps, Low Boilers 0.5683 0.6489 o. 7144 1.3435 0.0045 O. 0027 0.1616 0.1559 O. 0034 0 . 002 7 0.1775
A
W Traps, High Boilers 0.0358 0.0284 0.0253 0.0320 0.0032 0.0010 0.0485 0.0483 0.0010 0.0032 0.0378
A
Cylinder No. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Sample Vo1wne, cc NTP 302 298 300 296 305 304 302 290 298 301 301
Content, v/v% as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0005 trace 0.0014 0.0008 0.0043 O. 0027 0.0023 0.0017 0.0018 0.0023 0.0013
Carbon Dioxide 1.0384 0.9041 0.9375 0.3825 0.3755 0.6959 0.7032 O. 9411 0.9387 0.4648 0.4468
Methane 0.0217 0.0011 O. 0011 0.0009 0.0009 0.0459 0.0479 0.0540 0.0547 0.0408 0.0390
Organics 0.0032 0.0023 0 . 0022 0.0015 0.0017 O. 0041 0.0039' 0.0042 O. 0043 0 . 003 1 0 . 002 9
Traps, Low Boilers 0.1074 0.1203 0.0903 1.9468 1.1416 0.5341 0.5202 2.0107 2.1160 0.8169 0.9035
Traps, High Boilers 0.0336 0.0543 0.0599 0.0562 0.0251 0.0191 O. 02 06 O. 0214 O. 02 02 '0.0095 0.0073
-------
Data Sheet #1-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica 1 Founda tion
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
4-MD
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): March 14, 15, 1972
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Company
operates three coatinq lines and three press lines. Press lines have
trailinq coaters. All lines are controlled utilizinq thermal type incineration.
7.
8.
product(s): Closures, Cans, Tubes, etc.
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates:
B. Inks and Solvents:
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Waqner, direct flame, circulatinq
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: See Data Sheet No. 5-ECD
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: 5,000,000 Btu/hr
D. Comment: No separate metering of gas. Temperature of oven
zones continuous ly monitored and requlated.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single Stack Per Line
B. Cross-sectional area: Coating Line #1-3.14; #2-3.14 sq ft
C. Height above roof: 10 - 20 it depending on particular line
D. Approx. running length: 20ft from top of oven to roof leve 1
E. Comment: None
not applicable
not applicable
9.
10.
11.
12.
APC Equipment (if any) All lines controlled by thermal incineration.
One therma l afterburner for each process line
General Comments: Samplinq points were ideally located within
recommended practice.
*Restricted use only.
435
-------
Test No.1
Plant Code No.4-M.D.
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Divis ion
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 3/14/72
Conditions Vinyl
Phenolic Lacquer
Coating. Coating
Line #1
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind speed
(at plant site)
(in-plant)
(in-plant)
(ambient)
30.25
72 of
50%
10-25 mph
Heavy precipitation pre-
vailed throughout sampling
program. Winds north and
north westerly (variable)
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
C hill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
350F
a)250oF
b)individually recorded
800-1400oF depending on test conditions
Not applicable
Not applicable
3750F
Static press stack "H20
Atmospheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(A H)
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
0.50
30.25
Not applicable
70 sheets/min
33-13/16" x 34-1/4"
One
9.0 mg/4 sq in (78.3% solvent)
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
1
S tee 1 (meta lic)
Not applicable
9.0 mg/4 sq in (7.65 #/gal)
Lacquer and Thinner consumption: Estimated usage rate 233 sheets/gal
Control equipment: Model 480-AH-O (Combustion Heat & Power, Inc.)
utilizing and Eclipse burner, rated at 5000 sefm.
8000-9000 cu ft/hr: 9,000,000 Btu/hr
2-years
$10,000
$8000
$850 per month [based on 16-hr (2-shifts)
5-day operation] . Gas rate est. at 90? per thermo
*Above figures obtained from plant management personnel and represents best
estimate available.
**Operational cost does not reflect maintenance performed on unit.
Gas consumption:
Age of unit:
*Capital cost of equipment:
*Insta llation cost of equipment:
**Operational cost of equipment:
436
-------
r":'(jtCJ Si!~.:~;:r. ;.:/.. - :.'. .,
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmenta I Control Divis ion
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Test Date: '3/1S/72.
Condition:;~;~t~it~=- -
vinyl c(Jating,
Coating Line #2
Test No.2
Plant Code No. 4-M.D.
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Readinq/Comments
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Relative humid ity
Wind speed
(at plant site)
(in-plant)
(in-plant)
(a mbient)
30.15
70
65%
5-15 mph (variable)
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temperature
380F
a) 250°F
b) individually recorded
8 00-1650oF depend ing
not applicable
not applicable
3500F
on test conditions
Static press stack "H20
A tmos pheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
(~H)
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coat thickness
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
0.65
30.15
not applicable
65 sheets/minute
33-1/8" x 34-3/8"
one
45 mg/4 sq in (52.7% solvent)
-----..-----. - ~~'. ...-- .
.-..-..---
Steel
Finished
45 mg/4 sq in (10.0 #/gal)
Estimated usage rate 125 sheets/gal.
Model 480 (Combustion Heat & Power, Inc.)
utilizing an Eclipse burner, rated 5000 scfm
7000-8000 cu ft/hr or 9,000,000 8tu/hr
1- yea r
$15,000
$7000
$850 per month [based on 16-l1r (2-shifts)
5-day operation]. Gas rate est. at 90? per thermo
*Above figures obtained from plant management personnel and represents best
estimate available.
**Operationa I cost does not reflect ma intenance performed on unit.
Coating Consumption:
Control equipment:
Gas consumption:
Age of unit:
*Capital cost of equipment:
*Installation cost of equipment:
**Operational cost of equipment:
437
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 4-M.D.
Coating Line #1
Date:
3/14/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
3 8: 10-8:35 am 15 min IPerpend icular buplicate samples of incinerator operat-
4 and inserted ing at T=14000F. (Check of incineration
to center of temp. at point of sampling was 14100F.)
inc inera tor No odor detectable.
chamber
1 8: 2 0- 8: 35 15 min Perpend icular Duplicate samples of inlet to control
2 a nd ins erted equipment of vinyl phenolic lacquer,
to center of 9.0 mg/4 sq in (78.3% solvent), press
duct inlet to speed of 70 sheets/min, sheet size
incinerator 33-13/16" x 34-1/4" (1162.7 sq in).
5 10:05-10:20 Same as Iouplicate samples of incinerator
6 15 min Samples 3 & 4 operating at T=12000F (check of
incineration temp. at point of sampling
was 1210°F). Slight amount of odor
detectable.
7 11:05-11:20 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of incinerator operating
8 Samples 3 & 4 at T=10000F (check of incineration temp.
at point of sampling was 950°F). Odor
was definitely noticeable at this
temperature setting.
9 ~ 1: 20- 11: 35 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of inlet to control
10 Samples 1 & 2 equipment (press operational data
remained same as Samples 1 & 2).
11 1: 50-12: 05 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of incinerator operating
12 Samples 3 & 4 at T=9000F (check of incineration temp.
at point of sampling was 875°F). Odor
was definitely noticeable at this temp.
of incineration.
438
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
4-M.D.
Date:
3/15/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
15 7: 5 0- 8: 10 20 min Perpendicular Duplicate samples of inlet to control
16 a nd ins erted equipment of white vinyl coating,
to duct in let 45 mg/4 sq in (52.7% solvent), press
to incinerator speed of 65 sheets/min, sheet size
33-1/8" x 34-3/8" (1072.8 sq in)
13 7:55-8: 15 20 min Perpendicular Duplicate samples of incinerator
14 arid inserted operating at T=14000F.
in center of
incinerator
chamber
17 8:45-9:00 Same as Duplicate samples of incinerator
18 15 min Samples 13 & operating at T=12000F.
14
19 9:25-9:45 20 min Same as Duplicate samples of incinerator
20 Samples 13 & operating at T=1 OOOoF.
14
*21 9:45-10:00 15 min Same as Duplicate samples of inlet to control
* 22 Samples 15 & equ ipment (pres s opera tiona I da ta
16 same as for Samples 15 & 161
*Sample reSt ts may be su pect, pres s
shutdown ° curred at unk own time in
sa mpling pe iod.
23 11 : 00- 11: 15 15 min S a me as Duplicate samples of incinerator
24 Samples 13 & operating at T=9000F.
14
31 11:05-11:20 20 min Same as Duplicate samples of inlet to control
32 Samples 15 & equipment (press operational data
16 same as samples 15 & 16). These
samples taken in the event sample
results from #21 & 22 are invalidated.
439
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(analytical results in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Da te/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 CO?
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
4-M.D. 3/14/72 Inlet to control equipment, 1 3076 10 107 6388
8:20-8:35 am vinyl phenolic lacquer 2 2860 6 7 6652
9.0 mg/4 sq in (78.3%
solvent) coverage of
0.0059 #/sheet
3/14/72 Inlet to control equipment, 9 5780 16 103 7205
11 : 2 0- 11: 3 5 am same operational data 10 5756 11 101 7021
as above
~ 3/14/72 Outlet of control equipment, 11 884 1015 95 26472
~
0 11:50-12:05 pm @ T=900oF 12 898 1063 96 26847
3/14/72 Outlet of control equipment, 7 440 630 91 26078
11:05-1:20 pm @ T=1000oF 8 232 1169 93 26594
3/14/72 Outlet of control equipment, 5 57 85 67 32113
10:05-10:20 am @T=1200oF 6 15 17 74 31437
3/14/72 Outlet of control equipment, 3 5 13 39082
8: 10-8:25 am @T-1400oF 4 1 14 40104
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD-A continued
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 CO?
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
4-M.D 3/15/72 Inlet to control equipment, 15 13574 tra c e 81 4350
7:50-8:10 am white vinyl coating, 16 13323 trace 71 4098
45 mg/4 sq in (52.7%
solvent) coverage of
0.0052 #/sheet
3/15/72 Inlet to control equipment, *21 12282 tra c e 94 3782
9:45-10: 00 am same operationa 1 data as *22 13547 4 84 3912
above
3/15/72 Inlet to control equipment, 31 15574 5 60 4079
.t:. 11:05-11:20 am same operational data 32 14462 10 57 4012
.t:.
>-'
3/15/72 Outlet of control equipment, 23 126 1259 38 38190
11:00-11:15 am @ T= 900°F 24 58 882 27 39846
3/15/72 Outlet of control equipment, 19 5 27 37790
9: 25-9:45 am @T=1000oF 20 7 trace 21 39015
3/15/72 0 utlet of control equipment, 17 77 trace 12 43629
8:45-9: 00 am @ T=1200oF 18 7 13 42059
3/15/72 Outlet of control equipment **13 4 3 754
7:55-8:15 am @ T=1400oF **14 15 3 17004
*Samples suspect, coater shutdown occurred at unknown time during sampling period.
**Sample results suspect, possible cylinder leakage.
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(calculated emission rates)
Coating Line Cylinder T ota 1
No. No. Organics Flow Rate * Organic Emissions
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
1 1 3076 4500 26.35
2 2860 4500 24.65
9 5780 4500 49.30
10 5756 4500 48.45
11 884 4500 7.65
12 898 4500 7.65
7 440 4500 3.74
8 232 4500 1. 95
5 57 4500 0.48
6 15 4500 0.12
3 5 4500 0.04
4 1 4500 0.01
2 15 13574 4600 118.06
16 13323 4600 115.88
21 **12282 4600 **107.01
22 **13547 4600 **117.79
31 15574 4600 135.46
32 14462 4600 125.80
23 126 4600 1. 04
24 58 4600 0.50
19 5 4600 0.04
20 7 4600 0.06
17 77 4600 0.67
18 7 4600 0.06
13 4 4600 0.03
14 15 4600 0.13
*calculated on the following basis:
lb/carbon/hr = 1. 90 x 10-6 x scfm x ppm
**Sample result suspect due to press operational difficulty
442
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Calculated Organic Convers ion at Various Incineration Temperatures
(expressed as % efficiency)
Plant Code Coating Line Incineration (l)Inlet (2)Outlet (3) 0 Eff' ,
No. No. Temperature Concentration Concentration ;Jb lClency
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (calc.)
4-MD 1 900 4368 898 & 884 79.44 & 79.76
1000 4368 440 & 232 89.93 & 94.69
1200 4368 57 & 15 98.70 & 99.66
1400 4368 5 & 1 99.89 & 99.98
2 900 13794 126 & 58 99.09 & 99.58
1000 13794 7 & 5 99.95 & 99.96
1200 13794 77 & 7 99.43 & 99.95
1400 13794 15 & 4 99.89 & 99.97
.b
.b
W
(1) Average value of duplicate sets of samples utilized to establish inlet concentration.
(2) Ind ividua 1 sample result as taken from lab ana lysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
% ff' , 100 outlet Cppm x 100
o e lClency = - inlet C ppm
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Compilation of Operational Data for Usage in Determining
Calculated Emission Rates
Plant Code Sheet Coater Speed Film
No. Type of Operation Size S heet/min Sheet/hr Thickness Solvent/Solids
(sq in) (mg/sq in)
4-MD Vinyl Phenolic Lacquer 1162.7 70 3990 2.25 .783/.217
4-MD White Vinyl 1072.8 65 3705 11.25 .600/.400
~
~
~
*Coater speed calculated as follows: sheets/min x 60 x 0.95
(0.95 is factor determined from operational experience to allow
for a time necessary to change skids).
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Plant Code No. 4-MD
Type of Operation
Organic Emissiona
obs. ca lc .
Eobs . /Eca lc . b
Vinyl phenolic lacquer
White vinyl
37.19
120.00
93.16
152.15
0.40
0.78
a. Expressed as lb carbon/hr
b. C as in equation (4) data treatment section
of this report
-------
Test No.: 1
Plant Code No.: 4-MD
Sampling Location
Inlet of incinerator
Coating Line #1
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: March 14, 1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
!Point Time: 8: 00-8: 05 am Time: 8'05-8'15 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in.H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.10 250 24.6 0.10 250 24.6
.
A-2 0.15 250 29.9 0.20 250 34.8
..-- --
A-3 0.15 250 29.9 0.25 250 37.6
A-4 0.20 250 34.8 0.30 250 42.3
A-5 f-~~2 5 250 37.6 0.20 250 34.8
-=...-
A-6 0.20 250 34.8 0.10 250 24.6
._._-- f--.'
.. .... "'---"---'---- ----"-- -. - ... . ---..... --._-
... - -----------
. -. ---...-- ---- -----_.. . --------
Av. 250 31.9 250 32.9
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
None
1.0
32.4
N/A
J.
K.
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1. 0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 32.4
Area of flue, sq. ft. 3.14
Av. flue temp. of 250
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 30.21
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps ,scfm
(H + 460)x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
6100
4500
445
LD.
24"
Static (4H) "H20 =
P = - 4 H/13 . 6 =
Pg "
atm Hg =
P s = P a tm - P g =
0.50
0.04
30.25
30.21
-------
'est No.: 2
'lant Code No.: 4-MD
,ampling Location
Inlet of Incinerator
Coating Line #2
Graphic Arts Technica l Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Gas Velocity Data
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: . March IS, 1972
GATF Personnel:
W. r. Green
A. V. Gimbrone
Point Time: 7:30 - 7:35 am Time: 7:'- 0 - 7:45 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.10 250 24.6 0.15 250 29.9
A-2 0.10 250 24.6 n.?n 250 34.8
u_,. --
A-3 0.15 250 29.9 0.30 250 42.3
... - . -,.- .-
A-4 0.20 250 34.8 0.25 250 37.6
A-5 _~_~~5_- _..~-~Q 37.6 0.20 250 34.8
~._-
1I.-h n.?s ?sn :17.6 0.15 250 29.9
---- --. -
.- -.- .-.--------.------ -------..- .... 0- -. - -------. -- .--
.n - ----..- ----
I- .. --_. -- ---_... ------_.. -.-. ._- . - -----
Av. 250 31.5 250 34.9
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:_raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
33.2
N/A
None
1.0
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 33.2
Area of flue, sq. ft. 3.14
Av. flue temp. of 250
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 30.10
Corrected to s td. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps , scfm
(H + 460)x 29.92
G.
H.
1.
6250
J.
K.
4600
446
1.D.-
24"
Static (.1H) "H20 =
P 9 = - .1H/13. 6 =
Patm "Hg =
P s = P a tm - P 9 =
0.65
0.05
30.15
30.10
-------
Approved
ff1/Q
. .......
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.o. 1/3T04
Account No.
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-211 (4-MD)
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
April 12, 1972
x
Form 111
The twenty-six samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
~/Ii~:"~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fe 11 ow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
447
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Code 4 - M.D.
Cylinder No. 1 2 9 10 15 16
Sample Volume, cc NTP 279 308 300 302 269 300
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0010 0.0006 0.0016 0.0011 trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.6388 0.6652 O. 72 05 0.7021 0.4350 0.4098
Methane 0.0107 0.0007 0.0103 0.0101 O. 0081 0.0071
Organics 0.0012 0.0013 0.0018 0.0017 0.0015 0.0010
Traps, Low Boilers 0.2247 0.2063 0.5609 0.5551 1. 32 78 1. 3 03 9
Traps, High Boilers 0.0817 0.0784 0.0153 0.0188 0.0281 0.0274
Cylinder No. 21 22 31 32 3 4
Sample Volume, cc NTP 314 303 292 297 296 295
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace 0.0004 0.0005 0.0010
Carbon Dioxide 0.3782 0.3912 0.4079 0.4012 3.9082 4.0104
Methane 0.0094 0.0084 0.0060 0.0057 0.0013 0.0014
Organics 0.0011 0.0013 0.0012 O. 0013 0.0005 0.0000
Tra ps, Low Boilers 1.1924 1.3261 1. 52 7 0 1.4298 0.0000 0.0000
Traps, High Boilers 0.0347 0.0273 O. 0292 0.0151 0.0000 0.0001
Cylinder No. 5 6 7 8 11 12
Sample Volume, cc NTP 283 304 296 293 301 288
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0085 0.0017 0.0630 0.1169 0.1015 0.1063
Carbon Dioxide 3 .2113 3 . 1437 2.6078 2.6594 2.6472 2.6847
Methane O. 0067 0.0074 0.0091 0.0093 0.0095 0.0096
Organics 0.0047 0.0015 0.0175 0.0167 0 . 02 04 0.0246
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0003 0.0000 0.0248 0.0052 0.0639 0.0057
Traps, High Boilers 0.0007 0.0000 0.0017 0.0013 0.0041 0.0595
448
-------
Table I (continued)
Cylinder No. 13 14 17 18 19 20
Sample Volume, cc NTP 300 296 286 299 289 286
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace
Carbon Dioxide 0.0754 1. 7004 4.3629 4.2059 3.7790 3.9015
Methane O. 0003 O. 0003 0.0012 0.0013 O. 002 7 0.0021
Organics 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000
Traps, High Boilers 0.0004 0.0015 0.0074 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
Cylinder No. 23 24
Sample Volume, cc NTP 281 280
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.1259 0.0882
Carbon Dioxide 3.8190 3.9846
Methane 0.0038 0.0027
Organics O. 0069 O. 0051
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0040 0.0001
Traps, High Boilers 0.0017 0.0006
449
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
Phone
4.
5-MD
Plant Code No.:
II. Source and Sample Backqround Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): April 18-19, 1972
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Company
operates two (2) coating lines and three (3) printing lines. Test con-
ducted on a coating line with an R. Hoe press coupled with a Ross oven.
7.
8.
9.
Product(s): Closures
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Metal
B. Inks and Solvents: See Data Sheet #2-ECD
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: r. O. Ross Engineering Corp. (Air Systems)
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: 3-zone oven, zone #1-440uF, zone #2 & 3-360oF
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Est. 5 x lOb Btu/hr
D. Comment:. Oven is relatively old and appeared to be in need of
considerable maintenance and proper balancing.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single
B. Cross-sectional area: 3.14 sq ft
C. Height above roof: approximately 30 ft
D. Approx. running length: 20ft to roof level
E. Comment: Stack considerations were excellent for sampling
10.
11.
12.
APC Equipment (if any) Ox -Catal st, Inc. oxidation unit, Model TL-SO-H-400
utilizing a Barber-Coleman solid state indicating temperature contro er
Genera I Comments: Sampling was conducted within genera I recommended
practice.
*Restricted use only.
450
-------
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 4/18/72
Conditions High
solids vinyl run
Test No.1
Plant Code No.
5-MD
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature
Relative humidity
Wind speed
Tempera tures (OF)
Readinq/Comments
29.98
65°F
50%
southerly 2-7 mph
55-75 (depending on time of day)
not applicable
not applicable
a) 3000F
b) 500-11 OooF depend ing on test cond itions
300°F
500-11 OOoF
not applicable
not applicable
360°F - bake
1. 10" H20
29.98
1 0- 12" H? 0
60 sheets/min
26-3/4" x 34-1/2" (915.20 sq in)
not applicable
24.75m sin
Tin plate steel
not applicable
not applicable
100 sheets/gal coating
Control equipment data
Oxy Catalyst, Inc. oxidation Model #TL-SO-H-400
(serial #702461001) rated at 5000 scfm (l':"bed unit),
burner capac ity 5 x 106 8tu/hr
2. Gas consumption Average operational usage determined as 1640 cu ft/hr
3. Age of unit 1 year
4. Capital cost of equip. $17,300
5. Installation cost of equip. $7700 (includes structural support, elec., gas piping, etc.)
6. Fuel cost $9300 per year (approx. $750) monthly
Note: Unit has not undergone maintenance, therefore, no maintenance cost available.
Ambient
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point
b) stack exit
APC. - Inlet
APC - Outlet
Web
Chill Exhaust
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temp.
Static press stack "H20 (6H)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press drop APC fan
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/no. plate cylinders
No. colors er side coat thickness
Type of paper/sheet
Grade
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
Coating usage rate (approx.)
1. Description of unit
451
-------
Ddt;j ~~h;.J~1t =~-!:(':
Graphic Arts Tecflnica I FoundiJtion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No.
5-MD
Date:
Effluent Sampling Data
4/18/72
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
Perpendicular nlet samp~es of high solids vinyl 60
1 9:40-10:00 20 min and inserted sheets/min, 915.20 sq in film thickness
2 am to center of of 24.75 mg/sq in (35% solvent)
stack diamete coverage of 0.049 #/s heets
3 9: 4 0- 1 0: 00 20 min Same as above Jutlet of catalytic incinerator at operating
4 temperature of T = 900°F.
7 butlet of catalytic incinerator at operating
8 10: 2 0-1 0: 4 0 20 min Same as above temperature of T = 8000F
5 11: 00-11: 2 0 20 min Same as above nlet samples of high solids vinyl (same
6 operational data as samples #1 & #2)
9 11: 00- 11: 2 0 20 min Same as above Outlet of ca ta lytic incinerator at opera ting
10 temperature of T = 7000F
11 Outlet of catalytic incinerator at operating
12 12: 00- 12: 2 0 20 min ,ame as above temperature of T = 6000F
452
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date:
4/19/72
Plant Code No. 5-MD
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
Perpendicular Outlet of catalytic incinerator at operating
13 10: 2 0-1 0: 40 20 min and inserted temperature of T = 10000F
14 am to center of
stack diamete
15 11: 1 0- 11: 3 0 20 min .Same as above Outlet of cata lytic incinerator at operating
16 temperature of T = 9500F
17 11:45-12: 05 20 min Same as above Outlet of catalytic incinerator at operating
18 temperature of T = 8500F
453
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(analytical results in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 CO?
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
5-MD 4/18/72 Inlet to control equipment, 1 2669 15 328
9:40-10:00 am high solids vinyl, 24.75 2 801 14 326
mg/sq in (35% solvent)
coverage of 0.049 #/sheet
4/18/72 Inlet to control equipment, 5 920 12 336
11: 00-11:20 am same operational data as 6 3436 11 321
above
.l::> 4/18/72 Outlet of control equipment, 11 179 124 15 10419
CJ1 12:00-12:20 pm at T = 600°F 12 924 97 15 9714
.l::>
4/18/72 Outlet of control equipment, 9 175 240 16 13364
11: 00-11:20 am at T = 700°F 10 81 285 17 13823
4/18/72 Outlet of control equipment, 7 151 295 19 14496
10: 2 0-1 0:40 am at T = 800°F 8 205 258 20 15729
4/19/62 Outlet of control equipment, 17 230 258 22 16418
11:45-12:05 pm at T = 8500F 18 171 250 20 17363
4/18/72 Outlet of control equipment, 3 112 351 24 15906
9:40-10:00 am at T = 900°F 4 147 237 23 15374
4/19/72 Outlet of control equipment, 15 32 26 17023
11 : 2 0- 11: 3 0 at T = 950°F 16 174 176 34 16892
4/19/72 Outlet of control equipment, 13 149 216 30 16444
10:20-10:40 am at T = 10000F 14 156 156 33 17600
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(calculated emission rates)
Coating Line Cylinder Tota 1
No. No. Organics FLow Rate * Organic Emis s ions
(ppm) (scfm) (lb/hr)
5-MD 1 2669 4000 20.52
2 801 " 6.08
5 920 " 6.99
6 3436 II 25.84
11 179 " 1. 37
12 924 " 6.99
9 175 1. 34
10 81 " 0.61
7 151 " 1.14
8 205 II 1. 56
17 230 " 1. 75
18 171 1. 30
3 112 " 0.85
4 147 " 1.11
15 32 " 0.24
16 174 " 1. 32
13 149 " 1.13
14 156 " 1.18
*calculated on the following basis:
lb carbon/hr = 1. 90 x 10-6 x scfm x ppm
455
-------
Plant Code
No.
5-MD
DATA SHEET-#3-ECD-C
Calculated Organic Conversion at Various Incineration Temperatures
Incineration
Temperature
(OF)
(1)Inlet
Concentration
(ppm)
(2)Outlet
Concentration
(ppm)
(3)% Efficiency
(ca lc . )
600
700
800
850
900
950
1000
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
924 & 179
175 & 81
205 & 151
230 & 171
147 & 112
174 & "32
156 & 149
52.79 & 90.86
91.06 & 95.86
89.53 & 92.29
88.25 & 91.26
92.45 & 94.28
91. 12 & 98.37
92.03 & 92.39
(1) Average value of duplicate set of samples utilized to establish inlet
concentra tion
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
% efficiency = 100 - outlet Cppm x 100
inlet Cppm
456
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Compilation of Operational Data for Usage in Determining
Ca lculated Emission Rates
Plant Code Sheet *Coater Speed Film
No. Type of Operation Size Sheet/min Sheet/hr Thickness Solvent/Solids
(sq in) (mg/sq in)
5-MD Bigh solids vinyl 915.2 60 3420 24.75 .35/.65
*Coater speed calculated as follows: sheets/min x 60 x 0.95
(0.95 is factor determined from operational experience to
allow for a time necessary to change skids)
A
U1
'-J
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Plant Code No. 5-MD
Type of Operation
Organic Emissiona
obs . ca lc .
Eobs. /Eca Lc ~
High solids vinyl
14.83
88.75
0.17
a. Expressed as Lb carbon/hr
b. C as in Equation (4) data treatment of
this report
-------
Delta Sheet jJ-S-frf)
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: 4/18/72
GAT!' Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
TC3tNo.: 1
P[:Jnt Cocie No.: 5-MD
Sumpling Location
Inlet to afterburner
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 8:00-8:10am Point Time: 8:20 - 8:30 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h). of ft/sec
A-I 0.15 300 30.4 B-1 0.15 300 30.4
A-2 0.16 300 31.3 B-2 0.15 300 30.4
A-3 0.18 300 34.0 B-3 0.16 300 31.3
A-4 0.18 300 34.0 B-4 0.16 300 31.3
A-5 0.17 300 33.1 B-5 0.15 300 30.4
A-6 0.16 300 31.3 B-6 0.15 300 30.4
..,.~.- 'V "".' . ,"
A v . Xx: . ';.,,' "<.
~.,.~:
%"'< x. '..Yx':~.
..' x:x . x";X..' 300
.. ;x.. x.J\.. \.'
.,.'-,~~""'I .."
Av.
300
32.4
30.7
/" .
R.
Av. velocity ( raverse) ft/sec 31.5
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A
rlue factor A/B 1.0
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) None
Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 31.5
Area of flue, sq. ft. 3.14
Av. flue temp. of 300
Flow rate @ stock cond.
l' x G x 60, acfm
Ps = 29.90
C.
D.
E.
r.
5
6 5. 3
Reference
Point
3
2
1
A
J.D.
24"
G.
H.
1.
5745
~
J.
K.
Corrected to std. cond.
flow rate = 520 x I x Ps
(H + 460) x 29.92
Static (.:1 H) "H20 =
P 9 = .:1 H/13 . 6 =
Patm "Hg =
Ps=Patm-Pg=
1.1
0.08
29.98
29.90
scfm 4000
,
.
f
.
B
I
,
'1
~
458
-------
APproved~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
MAY:} 01972
~Tf;
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. 113104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PMT. 72-211 (S-MD)
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
May ~ 'i, 1 q72
x
The eighteen samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted
have been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
-£:I~u~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
459
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Code 5-M.D.
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sample Volume, cc NTP 257 291 272 266 271 260 270 268 280
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0351 0.0237 0.0295 0.0258 0.0240
Carbon Dioxide 0.0328 0.0326 1.5906 1.5374 0.0336 0.0321 1 . 4496 1.5729 1.3364
Methane 0.0015 0.0014 0.0024 O. 0023 0.0012 0.0011 0.0019 0.0020 0.0016
Organics 0.0001 0.0001 0.0107 0.0127 0.0001 0.0001 0.0136 0.0187 0.0092
Traps, Low Boilers 0.2321 0.0355 0.0000 0.0004 0.0564 0.3086 0.0002 0.0012 0.0000
J:::. Traps, High Boilers o. 0347 0.0445 0.0005 0.0016 0.0355 0.0349 0.0013 O. 0006 0.0083
Q")
o
Cylinder No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Sample Volume, cc NTP 278 274 269 276 265 255 273 261 268
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0285 0.0124 0.0097 0.0216 0.0156 0.0176 0.0258 0.0250
Carbon Dioxide 1.3823 1.0419 0.9714 1.6444 1. 7600 1. 7 023 1.6892 1.6418 1.7363
Methane 0.0017 0.0015 0.0015 0.0030 0.0033 0.0026 0.0034 0.0022 0 . 002 0
Organics 0.0078 0.0131 0.0083 0.0098 O. 0080 0.0031 0.0073 0.0172 0.0171
Traps, Low Boilers 0.0000 0.0026 0.0746 0.0036 0.0013 0.0001 0.0023 0.0052 0.0000
Tra ps, High Boilers 0.0003 0.0022 0.0095 0.0015 0.0063 0.0000 0.0078 0.0006 0.0000
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmenta I Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
Plant Code No.: 6-MD (BC)
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): June 6, 1972
Process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates):
Coating line: Young Bros. Oven (FECO) Model #6914; controlled by
a UOP (7-1/2 yrs old) -D-3 (Model #NRC-10-D3) catalytic combustion
incinerator redesigned and outfited with E.I.DuPont Cat. beds.
Product(s): Decorated sheet metal
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates: Not applicable
B. Inks and Solvents: Not applicable
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Young Bros. Oven (FECO) Model #6914
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: Not available
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: Est. as 5 x lOb Btu/hr
D. Comment: Oven of older design
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single
B. Cross-sectional area: 7.06 sq ft (36" duct)
C. Height above roof: 12 ft.
D. Approx. running length: 18 ft.
E. Comment: Control equipment located immed iately on top of oven
with good exhaust stack system.
APC Equipment (if any)UOP Model #NRC-10-D3 with new E.!. duPont
catalytic bed and redesigned interior.
General Comments: Relative short length of inlet to control equipment
provided for difficult sampling.
*Restricted use only.
12.
461
-------
Test No. 1
Plant Code 6-MD (BC)
Gra phic Arts Tec hn ica 1 Founda tion
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #2-ECD
Test Date: 6/6/72
Conditions: excellent
for samplinq
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Reading/Comments
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point temp.
b) stack exit temp.
APC - InLet temp.
APC - Outlet temp.
Web temp.
Chill exhaust temp.
Oven/Dryer (specify) - bake temp.
Static press stack "H20 (AH)
Atmospheric "Hg
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimensions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coating thickness
Es t. coa ting/ink usage ra te
Type of paper/sheet
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
70 to 75°F
Not applicable
Not applicable
a) 305°F
b) Not applica ble
305°F
700°F & 8000F dependent on test requirements
Not applicable
Not applicable
300°F (bake)
0.5
29.92
85 sheets/min
34-1/2" x 41-7/8 (144.5 sq in)
One
49 mg/4 sq in
250 sheets/gallon
Metal sheet (90# basic wt.)
10.82 lbs/gal (30% solvent)
1. Description of unit:
2. Age of unit:
3. Gas consumption
4. Capital equipment cost:
5. Ins ta llation cost:
6. 0 pera tiona 1 cos t:
7. Maintenance cost:
8. Miscellaneous Data:
Control Equipment Data
UOP catalytic incinerator, Model NRC-I0-D3
with new E.I. duPont catalytic bed, rated at
9000 scfm. Maximum designed temp. catalytic
(900°F), I-bed unit.
Approximately 1 year for catalyst bed, unit,however,
is over 2 years old.
1600 cu ft/hr for 900°F operation.
$28,000
$4,000 (includes gas piping, necessary ductwork,
structura 1 support and labor).
$700 per month (based on 5-day, 2-shift work week).
Not ava ita ble.
Efficiency studies have been conducted and ranged
from 97-99%.
462
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 6-MD (BC)
Date: 6/6/72
Effluent Sampling Data
Sa mple # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
Perpend icu lar Inlet samples of acrylic white coating,
1, 2 1:30-1:50pm 20 min. and inserted 85 sheets/min (1445.5 sq in), film
to center of thickness of 12.25 mg/sq in, (30%
stack dia. solvent content) coverage of 0.039 #/sheet.
3, 4 3:30-3:50 pm 20 min. Same as above InLet sampLes of process as stated above.
5, 6 1:30-1:50 pm 20 min. Same as above OutLet sampLes of cataLytic incinerator at
operating temperature of T = 700oF.
8, 9 3:30-3:50pm 20 min. Same as above Outlet sampLes of cata Lytic incinerator at
operating temperature of T = 800or.
463
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Ana lytica 1 Resu lts in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Total
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CH4 CO
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm1
6- MD (BC) 6/6/72 Inlet to control equipment, 1 16534 tra c e 72 7160
1:30-1:50pm acrylic white, 12.25 mg/ 2 8326 trace 50 6188
sq in (30% solvent)
coverage of 0.039 #/sheet
6/6/72 Same as above, 3 5164 38 11 8984
3:30-3:50pm 4 10347 trace 33 8507
6/6/72 Outlet of control equip- 5 30 42 41 17569
~ 1l:30-1:50pm ment at T == 7000r 6 56 45 16876
(j) 44
~
6/6/72 Outlet of control equip- 8 43 140 33 28314
3:30-3:50pm ment at T == 8000r 9 180 164 31 27619
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota 1
No. No. Organics
(ppm)
6- MD (BC) 1 16534
2 8326
3 5164
4 10347
5 30
6 44
8 43
A 9 180
m
CJ1
Flow Rate
(scfm)
7400
II
II
II
II
II
*Ca lculated on the following ba sis:
-6
lb/carbon/hr = 1. 90 x 10 x scfm x ppm
-
*
Organic Emissions
(lb/hr)
222.41
116.98
72.55
145.38
0.42
0.62
0.62
2.53
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Calculated Organic Conversion at Various Incineration Temperatures
Plant Code Incineration Inlet(1) Outlet(2)
No. Temgerature Concentration Concentration % EfficienCy(3)
( F) (ppm) (ppm) (calc)
6- MD (BC) 700 10093 30 & 44 97.70 & 99.56
800 10093 43 & 180 99.56 & 98.22
A
(j)
(j)
(1) Average value of duplicate set of samples utilized to
establish inlet concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
% efficiency = 100 - outlet C ppm x 100
inlet C ppm
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Compilation of Operational Data for Usage in Determining
Calculated Emission Rates
Plant Code Sheet *Coater Speed Film
No. Type of Operation Size Sh/min S h/hr Thickness Solvent/Solids
(mg/sq in)
6-MD (BC) Acrylic white 1445.5 85 4845 12.25 30/70
*Coater speed calculated as follows:
sheets/min x 60 x 0.95 (0.95 is
factor determined from operational
experience to a 11 ow for time
necessary to change skids)
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Comparison of Ca LcuLated and Observed Emiss ion Rates
PLant Code No. 6- MD (BC)
obs.
Organic Emissiona
caLc.
EObs/Eca Lc b
Type of Operation
Acrylic white
139.44
271. 25
0.47
a. Expressed as Lb carbon/hr
b. C as in equation (4) data treatment of this
report
467
-------
Data Sheet #5-FrD
TC3lNo.: 1
Pli1nt Corie No.: 6-MD (BC)
Sl1mpling Location
Outlet of control
equipment
Gra phic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Da te: 6/6/72
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 12:45-1:00 pm Point Time: 2:00-2:15 Dm
No. Vel. Head Temp I Velocit\ No. Vel. Head Temp Veloc ity
in. H20 (h) or ft/sec in. H20 (h) or ft/sec
A-I 0.10 305 24.6 B-1 0.10 305 24.6
A-2 0.10 305 24.6 B-2 0.12 305 26.3
A-3 0.15 305 30.1 B-3 0.12 305 26.3
A-4 0.15 305 30.1 B-4 0.10 305. 24.6
A-5 0.10 305 24.6 B-5 0.10 305 24.6
A-6 0.10 305 24.6 B-6 0.10 305 24.6
~m ~ ~
Av. ...:~"" ~'" 305 26.4 Av. 305 25.2
."" :"...". , '(.'
A. Av. velocity ( raverse) ft/sec 25.8 .-
R. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec .
N/A .
,
C. Flue factor A/B None
D. Pi tot Tu be correction fa ctor(i f any) 1.0
5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 58 3 2
F. Corrected velocityBxCxDxE ft/sec 25.8 Reference I
I
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. Point I
7.06 3 I
H. Av. flue temp. or 305 2 '~
1. Flow rate @ stock cond. 1
F x G x 60, acfm 10,925 ~ A ~
1.D.
J. Ps = 29.92 36"
K. Corrected to s td. cond. Static (~H) "H20 = 0.50
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps 7400 Pg = ~H/13.6 = 0.00
, scfm 29.92
(H + 460) x 29.92 Patm "Hg =
Ps =Patm- Pg = 29.92
468
-------
Fellow
Investigation
Investigation No.
Date of Report
Approved
~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.O. 4t3104
Account No.
Air Pollution Program
PML 72-219 (6-MD) (BC)
Preliminary
Progress
Final
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
July 14, 1972
x
Form 111
The eight samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted have
been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
The data are tabulated in the attached table.
December 17, 1971.
PRE:jdf
f;2t~~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
469
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Code 6-M.D.-BC
Cylinder No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9
Sample Volume, cc NTP 264 286 273 276 269 285 273 279
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide trace trace 0.0038 trace O. 0042 0.0056 0.0140 0.0164
Carbon Dioxide 0.7160 0.6188 0.8984 0.8507 1. 7569 1. 68 76 2 .8314 2.7619
Methane 0.0072 o. 0050 0.0011 0.0033 0.0041 0.0045 0.0033 0.0031
Organics 0.0016 0.0013 0.0019 0.0013 0.0030 0.0035 0.0035 0.0055
Traps, Low Boilers 0.2588 0.8055 0.4922 1. 0120 0.0000 0.0009 o. 0008 0.0117
Traps, High Boilers 1. 3 93 0 0.0258 0.0223 O. 0214 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0008
470
-------
Data Sheet #l-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
I. *Source Location Data
1.
2.
3.
Phone
Firm Name:
Address:
Representative(s) Contacted:
4.
Plant Code No.: 7-MD (BC)
II. Source and Sample Background Data
5.
6.
Date(s) of Test(s): June 7, 1972
process(es) and Basic Equipment (incl. throughput rates): Coatina line
utilizing a Wagner oven, 1/6 direct externally fired, 5/6 rotary air
conveyor type oven controlled by a thermal incinerator.
7.
8.
9.
product(s): Metal signs and displays
Amounts Consumed (Monthly Av.)
A. Paper or other substrates:
B. Inks and Solvents:
Dryer or Oven Equipment:
A. Type, manufacturer, model: Wagner, direct flame, circulatina
B. Air Flows (rated), Temp.: rated at 7400 cfm @? 1700F discharQe temp.
C. Fuel or Heat Consumption: 4,050,000 Btu/Hr
D. Comment: No separate metering of gas. Temp. of oven zones
continuous ly monitored and regulated.
Stack Geometry:
A. No. (Single, manifolded) Single exhaust stack
B. Cross-sectional area: 7.06 sq it
C. Height above roof: 4 foot
D. Approx. running length: 20 foot
E. Comment: Oven utilizes two exhaust system, one exhaust is primary
exhaust of effluent, other is ventilation only.
APC Equipment (if any) Thermo direct gas fired fume incinerator Model
#120-AH-DP manufactured by Combustion Heat & Power Co. .
General Comments: Sampling points were ideally located within recommended
practice
*Restricted use only.
Not applicable
See Data Sheet #2-ECD
10.
11.
12.
471
-------
Test No.
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
7-MD (BC) Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data #2-ECD
Plant Code No.
Test Date: 6/7/72
Conditions: Excellent
for sampling
Physical and Operational Plant Data
Read ing/C omments
Ambient temperature
db/wb ambient
db/wb stack
Flue gas - a) sampling point temp.
b) stack exit temp.
APC - Inlet temp.
Web temp.
Chill exhaust temp.
Oven/dryer (specify - bake temp.
Static press stack "H20 ( H)
Atmospheric "HG
Press operating speed
Web width/sheet dimens ions
No. printing units/No. plate cylinders
No. colors per side/coating thickness
Est. coating/ink usage rate
Type of paper/sheet
Wt. of paper/wt. of coating
800F
Not applicable
Not applica ble
a) 3200F -
b) Not applicable
1l00oF - 14800F depend. on test requirements
Not applicable
Not applica ble
3600F (bake)
0.55
29.98
89 sheets/min
26-1/8" x 26-5/16" (688.8 sq in)
one
13.2 mg/4 sq in
560 sheets per ga lion
Metal sheet (90#)
7.3 #/ga I (54% solvent)
1. Description of unit
Control Equipment Data
Combustion Heat & Power Co. thermo direct gas fired
fume incinerator, Model #120-AH-DP, rated at 6000 sefm.
Designed for 0.5 sec dwell time for temp. 800-16000f,
Rated at 1500 cu ft/hr (1,200,000 Btu/hr capacity of
burner unit).
6 months
2. Gas consumption:
3. Age of unit:
4. Capital cost of equipment:
5. Installation cost of equip:
$24,000.00
$4,550.00 (includes structural support, electrical & gas
piping, duct work and labor).
$8,500..00 per year (based on 2-shift, 5-day week)
Typical operating condition for afterburner is for one dryer.
Unit is operated at a temp. of 8000F to eliminate visible
emission. Overall dimension of the unit is 17'-8";
actua I residence chamber length is 53" (includes 4-1/2" of
insulation); effective diameter of chamber 44". No blue-
prints available for unit.
6. *Fuel cost (operational):
7. Miscellaneous data:
*Unit has not undergone maintenance, therefore, no maintenance cost
available.
472
-------
Data Sheet #3-ECD
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Plant Code No. 7-MD (BC)
Date: June 7, 1972
Effluent Sampling Data
Sample # Time Period Probe Comments
Configuration
Perpend icular Duplicate samples of inlet to afterburner
10, 11 11: 35-11:50 15 min. a nd ins erted for a oleoresinous enamel coating, 89
am to center of sheets/min (688.8 sq in) film thickness
inlet duct of 3.3 mg/sq in (54% solvent content)
coverage of 0.005 #/sheet.
Perpend icular Sa mples ta ken of outlet of afterburner
12,13 11:35-11: 55 20 min. a nd ins erted at incineration temp. of 14800F (maximum
am into com- temp. attainable)
bustion (check of this temp. at point of sampling
chamber indicated temp. as 1470oF)
Same as Samples taken of outlet of afterburner
14,15 1: 15- 1: 3 5 20 min. samples 12 at incineration temp. of 1300or.
pm a nd 13 (check of this temp. at point of sampling
indicated temp. as 1310°F)
Same as Samples taken at outlet of afterburner
16,17 1:55-2: 15 pm 20 min. samples 12 at incineration temp. of 1100or.
a nd 13 (check of this temp. at point of sampling
indicated temp. as 11100r)
473
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-A
(Ana lytica I Res u Its in ppm)
Plant Code Cylinder Tota I
No. Date/Time Process No. Organics CO CRA CO?
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
7-MD (BC) 6/7/72 Inlet to control equip. 10 3474 143 71 8926
11: 35- 11: 5 0 am oleoresinous enamel, 11 2894 181 68 9030
3.3 mg/sq in (54 %
solvent) coverage of
0.005 #/sheet
6/7/72 Outlet of control equip. 16 188 548 210 28570
1: 55-2: 15 pm at T = 11000r 17 102 349 198 30146
.J:::.
'-I
.J:::. 6/7/72 Outlet of control equip. 14 25 trace 109 36964
1:15-1:35pm at T = 13000r 15 35 127 120 36827
6/7/72 Outlet of control equip. 12 46 877 107 37700
11: 35-11: 5 5 am at T = 14800r 13 20 702 60 38977
-------
Plant Code
No.
7-MD (BC)
A
-...J
CJ1
Cylinder
No.
10
11
16
17
14
15
12
13
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-B
(Calculated Emission Rates)
Tota 1
Organics Flow Rate * Organic Emissions
(ppm) (scfm) Ob/hr)
3474 5725 37.82
2894 II 31. 61
188 II 2.04
102 II 1.11
25 II 0.27
35 n 0.38
46 II 0.50
20 II 0.21
*Calculated on the following basis:
lb carbon/hr = 1. 90 x 10-6 x scfm x ppm
-------
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-C
Calculated Organic Conversion at Various Incineration Temperatures
Plant Code Incineration Inlet Outlet
No. Temperature Concentration (1) Concentration (2) % Efficiency(3)
(oF) (ppm) (ppm) (ca lc)
7- MD (BC) 1100 3184 102 & 188 96.80 & 94.10
1300 " 25 & 35 99.20 & 98.90
1480 " 20 & 46 99.38 & 98.56
(1) Average value of duplicate set of samples utilized to
establish inlet concentration.
(2) Individual sample result as taken from lab analysis report.
(3) Equation utilized for computing % efficiency as follows:
% efficiency = 100 - outlet C ppm x 100
inlet C ppm
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-D
Compilation of Operational Data for Usage in Determining
Calculated Emission Rates
Plant Code Sheet *Coater Speed Film
No. Type of Operation Size Sh/min S h/hr Thickness Solvent/Solids
(sq in) (mg/sq i.n)
7- MD (BC) Oleoresinous Enamel 688.8 89 5073 3.3 .54/.46
*Coater Speed calculated as follows:
sheets/min x 60 x 0.95 (0.95 is
fa ctor determined from opera tiona 1
experience to a llow for time
necessary to change skids).
DATA SHEET #3-ECD-E
Comparison of Calculated and Observed Emission Rates
Plant Code No. 7-MD (BC)
Type of Operation
a
Organic Emiss ion
obs. calc.
EObs/Eca lc b
Oleoresinous enamel
34.71
55.29
0.63
a. Expressed as lb carbon/hr
b. C as in Equation (4) data treatment of
this report
476
-------
Data Sheet tr')-rr'fJ
Test No.: 2
Plant Code No.: 7-MD (BC)
Sampling Location
Inlet to control
equipment
Graphic Arts Technica I Foundation
Environmental Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Date: June 7,1972
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
A. V. Gimbrone
Gas Velocity Data
Point Time: 10:00-10:15 am Point Time: 10: 20-10: 30 am
No. VeL. Head Temp Velocity No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity
'n. H20 (h) of ft/sec in. H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I 0.06 320 20.6 B-1 0.05 320 18.0
A-2 0.07 320 21.5 B-2 0.06 320 20.6
A-3 0.07 320 21.5 B-3 0.07 320 21.5
A-4 0.08 320 22.9 B-4 0.07 320 21.5
A-5 0.07 320 21.5 B-5 0.07 320 21.5
A-6 0.06 320 20.6 B-6 0.06 320 20.6
Av. ~m 320 21.4 Av. 'Q0x X Ix>-.' 320 20.6
vx~. . 9\)< ')< ~/X
)(Y,Y.,.><.' . ,''.
A. Av. velocity ( raverse) ft/sec 21.0 .-
B. Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec N/A
C. Flue factor A/B N/A
D. Pitot Tube correction factor(if any) 1.0
5
E. Gas density factory(ref. to air) 1.0 7 6 58 3 2 B
F. Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec 21.0 Reference '
Point
G. Area of flue, sq. ft. 7.06 3 :1
H. Av. flue temp. OF 320 2
1. Flow rate @ stack cond. 1
F x G x 60, acfm 8800 1.D. ~
J. Ps = 29.94 36"
K. C arrected to s td. cond. Static (.:1H) "H20 = 0.55
Flow rate = 520 x I x PI': 5725 P g = .:1 H/13 . 6 = 0.04
, scfm
(H + 460) x 29.92 Petro "Hg = 29.98
Ps=Patm-Pg= 29.94
477
-------
APproved~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski (2)
Graphic Arts
Account No.Technical Foundation
P.O. fP3104
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-220 (7-MD) (BC)
Date of Report
July 14, 1972
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
:x
The eight samples of stack gas effluent which you submitted have
been analyzed by the procedure described in a recent report dated
December 17, 1971.
The results are tabulated in the attached table.
£J~"--
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE:jdf
Form 111
478
.;
-------
Table I
Stack Gas Samples
Code 7-M.D.-BC
Cylinder No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sample Volume, cc NTP 271 286 279 277 274 267 277 273
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon Monoxide 0.0143 0.0181 0.0877 0.0702 trace 0.0127 0.0548 0.0349
Carbon Dioxide 0.8926 0.9030 3.7700 3.8977 3.6964 3.6827 2.8570 3.0146
Methane O. 0071 0.0068 0.0107 0.0060 0.0109 0.0120 0.0210 0.0198
Organics O. 0022 0.0023 O. 0044 O. 0020 0.0025 0.0035 0.0171 0.0100
Traps, Low Boilers 0.2832 0.2720 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0009 0.0002
Traps, High Boilers 0.0620 0.0151 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000
479
-------
480
-------
APPENDIX F
Carnegie Me llon Univers ity
Mellon Institute
Phys ica l Mea surements Laboratory
Reports
481
-------
482
-------
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
AW~rf4-
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technica 1 Foundat ion
P.O. #3104
Investigation
GATF Air Pollution Program 11:
Addendum
Investigation No.
PML 71-40
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
August 17, 1972
x
1.
Introduction
A report titled "GATF Air Pollution Program II" was issued
December 17, 1971.
It described in detail the instrumentation and procedures
which have been developed for the collection and analysis of stack gas
samples pertinent to the printing industry.
Continuing experience with the procedure has disclosed a source of
error described below.
Corrective measures were taken following the
sample set designated Plant Code 7-W.0., and reported as PML 72-236,
December 23, 1971.
2.
Detector Overloading
That part of the stack gas samples which is collected in the dry-ice
is
cooled trawanalyzed by a gas chromatograph equipped with a hydrogen flame
detector.
The flame detector has the advantage of linear response through
seven orders of magnitude.
However, the response undergoes minor day to day
variations caused by small changes in gas flow rates and by changes in
electrical leakage through carbon deposits at the flame head.
Form 111
483
-------
2.
To compensate for these variations, the practice in this laboratory
was to calibrate the detector before and after each series of analyses.
The procedure of the calibration was to place l~ 1. n-heptane in a trap
chilled to QOC., and to permit the n-heptane to be carried into the
detector with the controlled helium flow of the chromatograph.
During the experiments with a stack simulator (see "Stack Simulator
II; PML 71-17; May 1, 1972) inconsistent data for calibrations with
cyclohexane and n-heptane were obtained.
These were found to be the result
of detector overloading by too rapid entry of the hydrocarbons.
Studies indicated that n-heptane must be maintained at or below
-16°C. during its evaporation into the detector in order to maintain the
response of the detector within its linear range.
(The vapor pressure of
n-heptane at QOC. is 11.37 rom. Hg, and at -16°C. is 3.89 rom Hg.).
~) Re~
Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
RJR: jdf
484
-------
APproved-$
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Account No.
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
P.O. fFJlu4
Investigation
GATF Air Pollution Program
Investigation No.
PML 72-229
Date of Report
August 14, 1972
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
Mr. Gimbrone has requested an effort be made to determine the
magnitude of the error in the analyses of the sample traps and sample
trap-probes during the time the calibration bath was maintained at zero
degrees centigrade.
This includes all trap analyses through Plant Code
No. 7-W.D., PML 72-236, December 23, 1971.
Assuming that present conditions (sensitivity, gas flows, non-linear
response, etc.) are identical to the past work, a set of data was taken to
determine the difference between the calibration factors by alternating a
calibration at DOC. and -16°C.
The average value as calculated from this data indicates the trap,
trap-probe values are too high by 24.gro.
/7 ~/;J ~
Ie;;:}' (~~~C~
Paul R. Eisaman, Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
PRE: jdf
Form 111
4F\5
-------
MAY 1 2 1972
GATF
APP~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
3104
Investigation
Erratum
Investigation No.
PML 72-24
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
May 10, 1972
x
Mr. Anthony Gimbrone has detected and brought to our attention an
error in an equation which has appeared in two reports from this laboratory.
The reports are:
GATF Air Pollution Program; PML 70-2; October 2, 1970
Section IV-B-2-e, page 14
GATF Air Pollution Program II; PML 71-4; December 17, 1971
Section IV-e, page 5
The equation, as written in the reports, is:
VGC
(
PI - P2
P )V
1 c
The correct equation is:
VGC
P - P
(1 2)V
P2 c
The effect of the error is to decrease the calculated total volume of the
sample by the factor 0.9948 ~ 0.0004, and to increase the calculated hydro-
carbon contents by the factor 1.0052 + 0.0004.
Please correct the equation in copies of these reports which are in
your files.
='a /~-
''-..- '7 . il '--.J..~,..
.' ~(J"'
R. J. Reitz, Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
RJR: jd f
Form 111
486
-------
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLOI-J INSTITUTE
RESEARCH Sr:.RVICES
'''''4JJ --
~)l.B.ica.LMeas.lJrcmentA T.J.1bnrA.t.ary (7615-2)
Fellow,. ,..---Dr.. P..\. -5J:Jliu:..f.fer
Graphic Arts
Account No.J.e..t:.hn.ic..a.l, :...OJ.mdation
3104
Iu\'C~t i~alion
Stack Simulator
Investigation No.
PML 71-17
NATURE !
OF
REPORT
.
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
Dato or Report
Jtl1y 27, 1971
-. -~ - -- - ...--.- .-.
--.-
1.
I;1troduction
At a meeting on May 19, 1971, this laboratory was asked to construct
a device which would provide an air stream containing known quantities of
hy~rvcarbons and which would be suitable for testing stack gas sampling
rates.
An error in design occurred which was elusive, but which has been
identified and corrected.
.....,
.L.A..
DQs1~
During the r,1eeting,agreernent: W&!': reached 00 a prlwisional :'::E:t(.(.G tc".
supply the synthetic stack gas.
The major flow would b.:: obtained froE', :0
large high pressure cylinder of air containing 10 ppm each of miCthaue lWei
butane to be purchased from a commercial source.
The major hydrocarbon
content would be supplied by a small flow of nitrogen which was saturated
at a selected sub-ambient temperature with an appropriate hydrocarbon
(e.g. cyclohexane).
Form 111
487
-------
III.
Flow Calculations
Nomcnc1ature:
Ft
i
Pi
2.
co
flow rate of i at temperature t. cc/mi.n.
a
partial pressure of i, mm-Hg
P'
a barometric pressure, mm-Hg
N-subscript
co nitrogen
C-subscript
cyc10hexane
a cylinder air with added methane and butane
A-subscript
=
The equations below assume that there is negligible pressure drop
from the points at which flow rates are measured to the atmosphere.
160 Ft (273 + 16)
FN Ie
N 273 + t
160 + 160 P
PN Pc a
160
160 160 Pc )
FC co FN (160
PN
Ft 160 273 + t
a FC (273 + 16)
c
t Fi co. FN + Ft + FA
C
Concentration of cyc10hexane as C02
10g Pc
6.84498 -
1203.526
t + 222.863
..
160
Pc
-
64.037 DIIl- Hg
488
a
t
6i
~ Fi
-------
3.
IV.
ApP:1.ratus Asgcmb1y
1.
Air Stream
The air gtream was taken directly from the cylinder of air
contai.ning 10 ppm methane and 9 ppm n-butane through a pressure
reducer and needle valve.
The flow rate was measured with a rota-
IIleter (Fischer and rorter, 12 liter/mi... cap~city).
Connections
from the cylinder to the rotameter and from the rotameter to the inlet
of the stack simulator were made with 1/4" copper tubing.
2.
Saturator
The saturator employed a classical design which, perhaps
because of construction difficulties, is not often used.
In effect,
it is a channel formed from a long member having an inverted-U cross-
section, the lower edges of which dip into, and are sea1cd by, the
saturating liquid.
In practice, compact size is attained by "folding".
The unit available has an effective path length of 9 ft.
The merits of
the design are minimal pressure drop and freedom from entrained spray.
The flow of nitrogen through the saturator was obtained from
the carrier gas control system of a gas chromatograph.
Its volumetric
rate was monitored by a soap-film flow meter.
3.
Stack
The construction of the stack is shawn in the accompanying
drawing.
The body is made from 2" x 3/32" wall aluminum tubing which is
attached to a cone-shaped member at its base.
The nitrogen-cyc1o-
hexane enters at the bottom and was carried to a mixing point just below
a screen at the apex of the cone.
The high flow air stream enters
489
-------
4.
through the side member of the T-connector.
The cone and the lower
1/2" of the tubing are filled with laboratory still packing (Helipak
300855,0.092" x 0.175" x 0.175") to distribute and smooth the up-
ward flOH of gas.
The top of the, stack is capped with wire screening
to minimize disturbance from external air movement.
There is a hole
in the side of the cylinrfer at 11" above the cone for insertion of
the probe of the sampler.
v.
Experimental
1.
Sampling Time Variation
The stack simulator was used to study the effect of sampling rate
on the efficiency of the dry ice-cooled trap of the stack gas sampler
presently in use by personnel of the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation.
Six samples were collected with collection periods ranging from
0.53 to 30.0 min.
The sequence of the sampling periods was randomized.
The concentration of cyclohexane in the flowing stack gas as calculated
from the equations in Section III was 0.594 v/v % as C02'
The samples
were analyzed by the gas chromatographic methods which are in routine
use for field samples.
The data for the samples is given in Table I.
With a sing Ie
exception, the samples have inordinately high trap collections.
2.
Lower Cyclohexane Level in Saturator
If the trap contents in Table I are correlat.ed with the order
in which the samples were taken, there is an indication that the
hydrocarbon content of the gas flow increased with time.
A possible
490
-------
. N2
MOORE
CONTROLLER
28V2"
r-2"-1
nouoonun.nul
11"
- STILL PACKING
ROT AM ETER
CYCLOHEXANE
SATURAT()R
491
::$::.
Air +CH4 +C4H10
\
-------
mechanism for this occurrence is "he C'nl:1'rdnrnent of spray in the
saturator and its trnnsp""" to hig1lcr tJI.lpcrt\tllre regions of the
apparatus.
To test this thesis, the .level of cyclohcxane in the Saturator
was lowered substantially.
The test results are given in Table II,
and clearly ill'i icate that this was not the cause of the high cyclo-
hexane concentrations.
3.
f~~~irmation of Flow Rates
The calculatnd delivery of cyclohexane waS confirmed by trapping
the hydrocarbon with liquid nif!"ogen and weighing the condensate.
The rotameter in the air stream was cleaned and its reading
checked against an0th0r rotameter and against a wet test meter.
There were no discrepancies, but, as indicated in Table III,
high cyclohexane concentrations in the stack simulator persisted.
4.
Concentration Gradi~nt
After the confirmation of the flow rates, it became clear that
the cyclohexane distribution could not be uniform.
A negative radial
concentration gradient must exist in the stack simulator since the
sample was taken at the stack center.
The point of mixing of the high flow air stream and the low
flow cyclohexane stream was shifted from that in the drawing, to a point
at the level of the horizontal entry of the air stream.
TWo small holes
were also drilled in the sides of the tubing transporting the cyclo-
hexane.
492
-------
The analysis of two samples tRken after this modification
are shown in Table IV.
The agreement with the calculated concentration
is satisfactory.
VI.
SlUmnary
Although it has taken a greater effort than was envisioned, a stack
simulator is now available to test the efficiency of trap collection.
& f2.E~~~
P. R. Eisaman
Fe How
6<'A'~
R. J~
Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
RJR: jdf
493
-------
7.
Stack Simulator Measurements
Content, v/v % as cn?
Cylinder
Table No. No. Order Time, m.in. Methane Organics Trap
1 6 6 0.53 0.0011 0.0122 1. 061, 3
-
,-.. 23 1 1.67 0.0010 O. 0089 0.8044
,
,
1\1 22 2 7.0 0.0010 O. 0091 0.4061
N 17 4 16.0 O. 0011 0.0100 0.9664
I
...., 21 5 23.5 0.0010 O. 0043 0.8890
24 3 30.0 O. 0011 0.0055 0.7543
2 '- '24 22 1.1151
C--
" 23 21 1.1418
...
~ 17 21 1.1355
3 ~ 24 22 0.92::9
'
~
c-.:. 17 22 1. 088 7
4 ~ /~\ 22 0.6109
~
~ (,24.! 22 0.605j
r-:.. \...- ,J
Calculated O. S9l.
494
-------
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
APP"+-
Physic~ Measureme~ts Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
3104
ID\'estigation
Stack Simulator II
ID\'esligalion No.
PHL 71-17
Date of Report
May 1. 1972
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
1.
Introduction
At a meeting on May 19, 1971, this laboratory was requested to construct
a device which would provide an air stream containing known quantities of
hydrocarbons and which would be suitable for testing the reliability of smck
gas sampling and analysis methods in use.
This report summarizes work reported earlier (July 27, 1971) and
describes additional studies made with the stack simulator.
II.
Design
A schematic drawing of the stack simulator is shown in Figure 1.
The
major flow through the stack is supplied from a cylinder of air containing
9 ppm butane and 10 ppm methane.
(When this cylinder was exhausted, the
latest tests have used a cylinder of nitrogen.)
The major hydrocarbon
content is supplied by a small flow of nitrogen which is saturated at 16°C.
with cyclohexane.
Form 111
495
-------
III.
Flow Calculations
Nomenclature:
Ft
i
Pi
=
flow rate of i at temperature t, cc/min.
=
partial pressure of i, mm-Hg
P
= barometric pressure, mm-Hg
N-subscript
=
nitrogen
A-subscript
=
cylinder air with added methane and butane
C-subscript
=
cyc10hexane
The equations below assume that there is negligible pressure drop
from the points at which flow rates are measured to the atmosph€re.
160 pt ( 273 + 16 )
FN =
N 273 + t
160 + 160 P
PN Pc =
160
160 160 Pc )
FC = FN ( 160
PN
Ft
C
=
16 273 + t
FC 0 ( 273 + 16 )
~ Fi
=
FN +
Ft
C
+
FA
Concentration of cyc10hexane as C02
=
Ft
6~
~Fi
log Pc
=
6.84498
1203.526
t + 222.863
160
Pc
=
64.037 mm-Hg
FRota. =
N
F
chart
T
. (5300R
28.953
Mol. Wt.
760 mm)1/2
P
496
-------
. N2
MOORE
CONTROLLER
28V2 "
r-2"--1
fiu...".."".ul
11"
- STILL PACKING
ROT AM ETER
CYCLOHEXANE
SATURATOR
497
Ai r + CH4 + C4H'0
\ or N2
-------
IV.
Apparatus Assembly
1.
Gas Stream
The gas stream was taken directly from a cylinder of nitrogen
through a pressure reducer and needle valve.
The flow rate was measured
with a rotameter (Fischer and Porter, 12 liter/min. capacity).
Connections
from the cylinder to the rotameter and from the rotameter to the inlet
of the stack simulator were made with 1/4" copper tubing.
2.
Saturator
The saturator employed a classical design.
In effect, it is a
channel formed from a long member having an inverted-U cross-section,
the lower edges of which dip into, and are sealed by, the saturating
liquid.
In practice, compact size is attained by "folding".
The unit
available has an effective path length of 9 ft.
The merits of the design
are minimal pressure drop and freedom from entrained spray.
The flow of nitrogen through the saturator was obtained from
the carrier gas control system of a gas chromatograph.
Its volumetric
rate was monitored by a soap-film flow meter.
3.
Stack
The construction of the stack is shown in the accompanying
drawing.
The body is made from 2" x 3/32" wall aluminum tubing which is
attached to a cone-shaped member at its base.
The nitrogen-cyc1o-
hexane enters at the bottom and was carried to a mixing point at the
level of the air stream entry.
The high flow air stream enters
498
-------
through the side member of the T-connector.
The cone and the lower 1/2"
of the tubing are filled with laboratory still packing (Helipak 3008 55,
0.092" X 0.175" x 0.175") to distribute and smooth the upward flow of gas.
The top of the stack is capped with wire screening to minimize disturbance
from external air movement.
There is a hole in the side of the cylinder
at 11" above the cone for insert ion of the probe of the sampler.
v.
Re-examination of Earlier Data
In the first progress report for this study (Stack Simulator, July 27,
1971, Table Nos. 1, 2, and 3), excessively high trap-contents were obtained.
The data for these analyses have been re-examined, but the most plausible
explanation is still the assumption that a negative radial concentration
gradient in the stack was the major
cause
of the high trap analyses.
VI.
Interim Tests
Analysis of samples taken from the stack simulator continued.
Results
were obtained for the C02 equivalent of the trap contents which ranged from
0.459 to 0.750 v/v %.
The major source of error did not become apparent until the trap
contents of two samples were calculated using calibration factors obtained
both with cyclohexane and with n-hep~ane:
Standard
n-Heptane
Cyclohexane
Trap 20
Trap 22
O. 512 0
0.5227
0.6755
0.6897
499
-------
The interpretation of these data is that the higher volatility of cyclo-
hexane relative either to n-heptane or to a field sample had not been
compensated.
Both the cyclohexane from the stack simulator traps and from
the calibrations were randomly overloading the hydrogen flame detector
of the chromatograph.
The normal procedure for the injection of trap samples into the
chromatograph is first to cool the trap to -78° and to hold at this
temperature until the recorder returns to base line.
The dry ice trap
is then replaced by ordinary ice, and is finally heated to as high a
temperature as is necessary.
For calibration with n-heptane, the trap
has been cooled first in dry ice and then taken to 0° for the completion
of the injection.
Further tests were made with both cyclohexane and with n-heptane.
They indicate that cyclohexane should not be evaporated into the chromatograph
at a temperature higher than -31°, and that n-heptane should be held at -16°.
VII.
Latest Stack Simulator Samples
1.
Carrier Gas
In all previous stack simulator experiments, the carrier gas was
obtained from a cylinder of air containing 9 ppm butane and 10 ppm methane.
This cylinder of air was exhausted by the last previous set of measurements
Water pumped nitrogen was substituted for it in the latest tests which are
reported here.
2. Methane Analyses
Since methane was not in the present carrier gas, the analyses
obtained for the nine previous cylinder samples which were analyzed are
substituted here:
11, 10, 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 10, 10:
Supplier's analysis:
Avg. 10.3 ppm
10 ppm
500
-------
3.
Butane Analyses
Butane is detected as a part of the reverse flush "organics"
of the cylinder gas analysis. In all of the stack simulator samples,
it has been masked by cyclohexane which has not been condensed in the
traps.
Supplier's analysis:
9 ppm
4.
Carrier Gas Flow
The corrected carrier gas flow was:
FRota
N
=
3940
cc.
min.
( 299.4°C.
2 94 . 2 ° C .
28.953
28.016
760 mm Hi?;) 1/2
740.9 rmn Hg
=
(3940) (1. 0388)
cc.
min.
= 4092 .7
cc.
min.
5.
Saturator Gas Flows
F26.3°
N
=
39.0 cc.
min.
(Soap film meter)
16°
FN
=
39.0 cc.
min.
273.15 + 16.00
273.15 + 26.3
=
37.7
cc.
min.
16°
PN
=
P
Bar
16°
P
c
= 740.9 - 64.04
= 676.9 mm
log
P
c
=
1203.526
6.84498 - t + 222.863
16°
P
c
=
64 . 037 mm
16°
F
c
=
16°
FN
[ p~6°
16°
PN
]
501
-------
37.7 cc. 64.04 mm
=
min. 676.9 mm
3.56 cc.
=
min.
F26.30 3.56 cc. 299.450
= 289.15°
c min.
cc.
= 3.69 min.
6.
Stack Simulator Gas Flow
~F. =
1.
FSat'r +
N
F
c
= (39.0 +
+
FStack
N
3.69 + 4093)
cc.
min.
= 4136 :c.
m1.n.
Cyclohexane concentration as C02
502
[ F26.3
- 6 c
- ZF~6.3
1.
= 6 ( 3.69 )
4136
=
0.535 v/v '70
]
-------
7.
Trap Analyses
Calibration with cyc1ohexane:
10 A =
=
565.6 megacolints
12.37 cc. C02
=
561.9 megacounts
563.7 i 2.6 megacounts
45.55 i 0.21 megacounts
cc.
Avg.
=
Calibration factor = K
=
Analyses:
Trap No. 20/samp1e volume = 6~:6~7~~~a~~~nts
=
0.5156 v/v % C02
64.70 megacounts
Trap No. 21/samp1e volume = K' 272.0 cc.
=
0.5222 v/v % C02
56.34 megacounts
Trap No. 24/samp1e volume = K. 241.0 cc.
=
0.5132 v/v % C02
8.
Cylinder Ana]yses
Calibration with methane:
1. 000 cc. CH4
1.000 cc. C02 = 316.6 megacounts
= K' = 316.6 megacounts
cc.
=
Calibration factor
Cylinder No. 11
= 0.0174 megacounts
cc.
=
0.0055 v/v % C02
Cylinder No.9
0.0000 megacounts
cc.
=
0.0000 v/v % C02
=
Cylinder No. 23
= {). 0222 megacounts
cc.
=
0.0070 v/v % C02
9.
Total Sample Analyses
Trap No. Cy1. No.
20 11
21 9
24 23
Total Hydrocarbons, v/v % as C02
0.5156 + 0.0055 = 0.5211
0.5222 + 0.0000 = 0.5222
0.5132 + 0.0070 = 0.5202
Average = 0.5212 + 0.0014 v/v %
503
-------
10.
Analysis of Error
a.
Stack Simulator
If it is assumed that no radial concentration gradient
exists in the stack simulator, the three most probable sources
of error are the measurement of the 4 1./min. N2 stream, the
small N2 stream into the saturator, and the temperature of the
saturator. The first of these is quite significant: the
anticipated error for a rotameter is :t 1% at full scale, and
since it is primarily an error of read-out, it is :t 3% at 1/3-
full scale which was the operating point for these tests.
(Reference: "Theory of the Rotameter", Catalog Section 98-Y,
p. 9814-9816, Fischer & Porter Co., Hatboro, Pa.).
b.
Error of Trap Analyses
The standard deviation, :t 0.0014 v/v %, which was
calculated for the three samples listed in Section VII-9, represents
the error in the analytical manipulations including the measurement
of the sample volume.
It does not, however, include the error of calibration.
may Lt:! e::;Limated from the calibration factor:
This
K
45.55 :t
0.21 megacounts
cc. C02
=
This must be combined with the error in the analytical manipulations:
Total Hydrocarbons = 0.5212 :t 0.0014%
The final average for the analyses of the three stack simulator
samples is then:
Total Hydrocarbons as C02
=
0.5212 + 0.0028 v/v %.
504
-------
RJR: jdf
c.
Stack Simulator vs. Sample Analyses
The calculated hydrocarbon content of the stack simulator
flow is:
Total Hydrocarbons as C02
0.535 + 0.016 v/v %
=
The average for the three analyses is:
Total Hydrocarbons as C02
=
0.5212 :t 0.0028%
The analyses are within a standard deviation of the calculated
hydrocarbon content of the flow in the stack simulator.
£f) r=-
----' ~ .
.-' , i'7t,-.....--~:-- ,,- .', ,- -,;. --;- .'
, .~.... .' ~. '-. . '. . ~.
P. R. Eisaman, Fellow
I" ~. to' ...
,~--:' .~
,,~-' -- J '
f-~ ---
;' c:: ..,,(
. ,- '.
R. J. Reitz, Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
505
-------
")
Approved ~
( ,
"
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. 3104
Investigation
St:::!~k Sim1l1::!tnT TT'
FoTT::!t;:!
Investigation No.
PML 72-40
NATURE I
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
Augus t 14. 1972
x
1.
Introduction
Mr. Anthony Gimbrone has called attention to an error in the
calculation of the standard deviation for the total hydrocarbons of three
cyc10hexane replicates reported in PML 71-17:
Stack Simulator II.
Re-examination of the report has disclosed other discrepancies.
The pertinent sections have been corrected and are reproduced in the fo11ow-
ing text.
II.
Section VII, Part 7 Trap Analyses (page 8)
Calibration with cyc1ohexane:
10 A = 12.37 cc. C02 = 565.6 megacounts
= 561.9 megacounts
Avg. = 563.75 + 3.28 megacounts
Calibration factor = K = 45.57 + 0.27 megacounts
cc.
Analyses:
Trap No. 20/samp1e volume
64.55 megacounts
K'265.3 cc.
= 0.5154 v/v% C02
Trap No. 21/samp1e volume
64.70 megacounts
K.272.0 cc.
= 0.5220 v/v% C02
Trap No. 24/samp1e volume
56.34 megacounts
K.241.0 cc.
= 0.5130 v/v% C02
Form 111
506
-------
III.
Section VII.
Part 9, Total Sample Analyses (page 8)
Trap No. Cyl. No. Total Hydrocarbons, v/v% as C02
20 11 0.5154 + 0.0055 = 0.5209
21 9 0.5220 + 0.0000 = 0.5222
24 23 0.5130 + 0.0070 = 0.5200
Average 0.52103 + 0.00084 v/v%
IV.
Section VII, Part lOb, Error of Trap Analyses (page 9)
The standard deviation, ! 0.00084 v/v%, which was calculated for the
three samples listed in Section VII-9, represents the error in the analytical
manipulations including the measurement of the sample volume.
It does not, however, include the error of calibration.
This may
be estUnated from the calibration factor:
K = 45.57 ! 0.27 megacounts/cc.
This must be combined with the error in the analytical manipulations:
Total Hydrocarbons = 0.52103 ! 0.00084 v/v%
The final average for the three stack sUnu1ator samples is then:
Total hydrocarbons as C02 = 0.5210 ! 0.0061
V.
Section VII. Part 10c, Stack Simulator vs. Sample Analyses (page 10)
The calculated hydrocarbon content of the stack sUnu1ator flow is:
Total hydrocarbons as C02 = 0.535 + 0.016 v/v %
The average for the three analyses is:
Total hydrocarbons as C02 = 0.5210 + 0.0061%
507
-------
The analyses are within a standard deviation of the calculated
content of the flow in the stack simulator.
RJR: jdf
508
.
~
~~0'
R. J. Reitz
Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
-------
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
APP7?-
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Graphic Arts
A t N Technical Foundation
ccoun o. P.O. 1/'3104
Investigation
Stack Simulator II:
Errata II
Investigation No.
PML 72-46
Date of Report
September 25, 1972
NATURE 1
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
1.
Introduction
Mr. Anthony Girnbrone has called attention to an error in the
calculation of the standard deviation for the total hydrocarbons of three
cyclohexane replicates reported in PML 71-17:
Stack Simulator II.
Re-examination of the report has disclosed other discrepancies.
The pertinent sections have been corrected and are reproduced in the
following text.
II.
Section VII, Part 7 Trap Analyses (page 8)
Calibration with cyclohexane:
10 A = 12.37 cc. C02 = 565.6 megacounts
= 561.9 megacounts
Avg. = 563.75 t 3.28 megacounts
Calibration factor = K = 45.57 t 0.27 megacounts
cc.
Analyses:
Trap No. 20/sample volume
64.66 megacounts
K.275.3 cc.
64.70 megacounts
K.272.0 cc.
= 0.5154 v/v% C02
Trap No. 2l/sample volume
= 0.5220 v/v% C02
Trap No. 24/sample volume
56.34 megacounts
K.241.0 cc.
= 0.5130 v/v% C02
Form 111
509
-------
III. Section VII. Part 9, Total Sample Analyses (page 8)
Trap No. Cyl. No. Total Hydrocarbons, v/v% as C02
20 11 0.5154 + 0.0055 = 0 . 52 09
21 9 0.5220 + 0.0000 = 0.5220
24 23 0.5130 + 0.0070 = 0.5200
Average = 0.52097 + 0.00100
IV. Section VII, Part lOb, Error of Trap Analyses (page 9)
The standard deviation, i 0.00100 v/v%, which was calculated for
the three samples listed in Section VII-9, represents the error in the
analytical manipulations including the measurement of the sample volume.
It does not, however, include the error of calibration.
This may
be estimated from the calibration factor:
K = 45.57 i 0.27 megacounts/cc.
This must be combined with the error in the analytical manipulations:
Total Hydrocarbons = 0.52097 i 0.00100 v/v%
The final average for the three stack simulator samples is then:
Total hydrocarbons as C02 = 0.5210 i 0.0032
V.
Section VII. Part lOco Stack Simulator vs. Sample Analyses (page 10)
The calculated hydrocarbon content of the stack simulator flow is:
Total hydrocarbons as C02 = 0.535 + 0.016 v/v%
The average for the three analyses is:
Total hydrocarbons as C02 = 0.5210 i 0.0032%
510
-------
The analyses are within a standard deviation of the calculated
content of the flow in the stack simulator.
If J~eit~
Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
RJR: jdf
511
-------
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
,roo
APpm~_-
Fellow
Dr. Wm. Schaeffer
~ysica1 Measurements T,.qhnratory (7615-2)
Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation
Account No.
3104
Investigation
Isokinetic Stack Samples
Investigation No.
PML 71- 23
NATURE 1
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
July 29, 1971
x
Introduction
1.
Two stack gas samples which had been collected by the "isokinetic
method" on June 22, 1971 were submitted for analysis.
The basic procedure was the quantitative recovery of the organic
condensate and its gravimetric measurement.
However, this was complicated
by the size and intricacy of the collection device.
Separation from a
relatively large amount of water was also required.
The gases emerging at the outlet of the isokinetic train were also
sampled. They have been analyzed and reported separately (PML 71-223,7/29/71 ).
The organic contents have been adjusted on a volume basis and are included in
the data of this report.
II.
Condensate Recovery
The collection of condensate from the isokinetic apparatus was
accomplished in five steps:
Form 111
512
-------
1.
The impinger train was back-flushed with N2 for approximately
24 hours into large liquid nitrogen cooled traps. After
warming to ambient temperature, the trapped material proved
to be mostly water with a thin immiscible oil layer.' An
effort to segregate the oil by vacuum transfer was not
effective. The separation was accomplished by ether
extraction.
2.
The probes were flushed with N2 into small, tared, liquid
nitrogen cooled traps. Toward the end of the flush, the
probes were heated with their own heating coils.
3.
After the probes had cooled, they were flushed with ether.
4.
The glass wool plugs were removed from the impinger trains,
after which the trains were back-flushed with ether.
5.
The glass wool plugs were extracted with ether in a Soxhlet
apparatus.
The weight of the recovered fractions after ether removal is
shown in Table I.
Table I
Procedure Sample 1 Sample 2
N2-flush of impingers,
Water, g. 12 .412 12 . 02 0
Organics, g. 0.1266 0.1435
N2-flush of probes, g. 0.0177 0 . 03 17
Ether rinse of probes, g. 0.0091 0.0233
Ether rinse of traps, g. 0.0775 0.1548
Ether extraction of plugs, g. 0.0327 O. 12 03
Total organics, g. 0.2636 0.4736
513
-------
The organic content of the gas samples taken of the effluent
from the impinger train indicate that 0.0641 g. and 0.0357 g. of
organic carbon content should be added to Samples 1 and 2 respectively.
~o~
R. J. Reitz
Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
RJR: jdf
514
-------
Approved
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. W. J. Green
Graphic Arts
Account No:I'echnica1 Foundation
P.O. #3104
Analyses of Samples from the Exit of the Isokinetic Train
Investigation
Investigation No.
PML 71-223
Date of Report
July 29, 1971
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
This report presents the analyses of two stack gas samples which
were collected at the exit port of the isokinetic sampling train.
Thus
they represent material which has escaped condensation in the isokinetic
train.
Isokinetic Sample No. 1 2
Cylinder No. 4 20
Sample volume, cc NTP 264.9 266.5
Content, v/v % as C02
Carbon monoxide 0.00 0.00
Carbon dioxide 0.5093 0.4879
Methane 0.0016 0.0016
Cy1. organics 0.0009 0.0012
Trap organics o. 0203 0.0072
PRE: jdf
ti:/~u--
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
515
-------
RUN # 1
1. Volume of dry gas sampled at standard conditionsa, DSCF
Vm =
std
P
17.7 x Vm (Pb +~) 17.7 x 20.2 {29.00 +~
13.6 = 13.6 = 18.57 DSCF
-(Tm + 460) (98 + 460)
2. Percent moisture in stack gas assumed 3%.
3. Mole fraction of dry gas
100 - % M
Md = 100
=
100 - 3%
100
=
0.97
4. Molecular weight of dry stack gas assumed 29.0
5. Molecular weight of wet stack gas
MW = MWd x Md + 18 (l - Md) = 29.0 x 0.97 + 18 (l - 0.97) = 28.7
6. Stack gas velocity at stack conditions, fpmb
1
P x MW
1/2 s
= 2630 fpm
1/2 =
V s = 4,360 x.; i1P s X (T s + 460 f
1
4,360 x 17.4 29.37 x 28.7
7. Percent isokinetic
1,032 x (Ts + 460) x Vm
%1 = std =
2
Vx x Tt x Ps x Md x (Dn)
1,032 x (270 + 460) x 18.57
2,630 x 48 x 29.37 x 0.97 x {0.193)2=104.4
a Dry standard cubic feet at 70°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
b.; i1Ps X (Ts + 460f is determined by averaging the square root of the
product of the velocity head (i1Ps) and the absolute
stack temperature from each sampling point.
516
-------
RUN # 2
1. Volume of dry gas sampled at standard conditionsa, DSCF
17.7 x Vm (Pb + Pm) 17.7 x 24.29 (29.00 + 0)
Vmstd = 1r6 = 13.6
(T + 460) (105 + 460)
m
= 22.01 DSCF
2. Percent moisture in stack gas assumed 3%.
3. Mole fraction of dry gas
Md
- 100 - % M - 100 - 3
- 1 00 - 100
=
0.97
4. Molecular weight of dry stack gas assumed 29.0
5. Molecular weight of wet stack gas
MW = MWd x Md + 18 (1 - Md) = 29.0 x 0.97 + 18 (1 - 0.97) = 28.7
6. Stack gas velocity at stack conditions, fpmb
= 4,360 x I ~Ps x (Ts + 460)
1
29.37 x 28.7
1
P x MW
s
1/2
1/2
Vs
=
4,360 x 16.8
= 2,532 fpm
7. Percent isokinetic
1,032 x (T + 460) x V
%1 = s mstd = 1,032 x 270 + 460 x 22.01 2
V T P M x (0)2 2,532 x 59.2 x 29.37 x 0.97 x 0.193 =104.3
s x t x s x d n
a Dry standard cubic feet at 70°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
b I ~Ps x (Ts + 460) is determined by averaging the square root of the
product of the velocity head (~Ps) and the absolute
stack temperature from each sampling point.
517
-------
Dn
Tt
Pb
Vm
Tm
V
mstd
% M
Md
MWd
MW
Ts
Ps
Vs
% I
NOMENCLATURE
Sampling Nozzle Diameter, in.
Net Time of Test, Min.
Barometric Pressure, in. Hg
Absol ute
Volume of Dry Gas Sampled at
Meter Conditions, DCF
Average Gas Meter Temperature,
of
Volume of Dry Gas Sampleg at
Standard Conditions, DSCF
% Moisture in Stack Gas, by
Volume
Mole Fraction of Dry Gas
Molecular Weight of Stack Gas,
Dry Basi s
Molecular Weight of Stack
Gas, Wet Basis
Average Stack Temperature
of
Stack Gas Pressure, in. Hg
Absolute
Stack Gas Velocity at Stack
Condi ti ons, fpm
Percent Isokinetic
518
-------
;)' :'\ '"1.
: t ~;I\'"
r~ "".~.i I c;;~ (;-7~.
F! .!. U
t..;.;}~
.5.7'"/Pc ~
p,<-,".5
~
..:;1- "~O
-----.-...
f. :':., ~:(,.
......._.,-...L__.._....--- - :.-.
..
-... '-._, .... _._~... -- ...
',j ':"":1','; '-:'
i . ,J". ',,',,'
" f~:.
. ,
: ':: :'~:'J ~( ::
j.:,'! ,L,':: t .~ .: -:;1
"I'...-:._£q., .-.n- '-'0"
L ,; : :: ~i on .
. ,
::.:\(.J
~, q,J t ~ ~J' l ' J ~'I ~' ~,1 \~
~, "t~.. r!. !.; F
[,w
i';'f:.55. "H9-:.......?-9, f.x?__.__--
... ----~_._,
.'- .
€,~.(!J'" ~c~.~; :~.--'.~ r: '~.;;-t ~ .'.
- - ......... '- '--.
CJ1
I-'
{D
:'; ~(~ ,._~- 2-:.:.:::- _!_'!.'!:!.._'!~f_,,-__.-
i'/~-r~:;f..i.J.::: :1:r,:- ,1;': :"!.'l,Ei:~ ';::
., f. .,)t 4-Y&:'Lc%. l":':i;'~'~-': (~',:(;'-.:i',CV.:~-1 'c.',:,:',~:::::'~'- ...:-i.-,:.':)~~' S~:;; S.,tl .
:..:~',:.'=.':<'~: -----: '.' - a/ " '.' " ',. '.";;~"~:.ZZij'-
", .,':<';' ,.J.' N:;. . .:2\. ~. ,d .,', i---- (..0 . ~ . Pi,';.) n,' OJ,:;'., In. ~;:-::.~: .
.' (:~:~:'. ::;~:{::(I.'- ;;-'-'.~:' . .' .. t/ :/,Ie .l.:OK.l?j;J-f<)r'- .' :.' PtOb~. L~;,Gt.h 01--; -,~:-- ...-----. ,
d, :. - .' .',:.~-;-~.-;~.::;-_.__.... . . '. ?tY~(1 ift'f/'w'~t1.1.e.i". I v. " , ' '. . , .' . '----"-,--""".--.--:--"
.;.;".1 ,', 1.. '. /.'" /./~ '. . .,";/ . . --I'J 7 -7/ 7 ' . ;:r~"" v".,t.").. \"'tt':'''J ~.
. - ' " ...~--~---~~-.---'_."'.~'-' ..~_._...- ,..- <, -:. . :,'~ (;.." , -' .;,.' = ,\....L.I.., ..'" --~, :__Il.: ,"" .-.-- '--~'-'G~~'-
" I.~~;'-".' '.. /"'-Cc> . ";"'<~"" '..' [.. " h'1 ',' e:o..,,:r-"'/q ';i ~';:'
: . -::;.~! ". ..~'./.,. ,,'" ! ..,.;7 C): .'7(:; ~7(.,. .-:-~ ....:,", <'->'7.'~' 1- '~I'--'::'" 1;:'- -;:. '::0 I
I 771;, '-::';U;i;.'-'::l"~ /,-/01 .:;'>/ , ~ - .II?"'-:" :'''.'/c'''''' i c';)~1 ---=--"- i -:-'. :-z c'~):
, . , I 1-r1d .I:. L, . , , I ; . I ; ~'r"-
;~~~t""i':::':: -- ~.-""''': . ";&;"'/:~/--~"-;;;;;;-;--~.~;-;;;;: ;:;t/-'~~;"I";;;'~ ~'f?- -,-~r!'~c-...--."
Rt:~ . .; '''77 ., -~-~ rL~'" '.' 0. ar~:4~:~
'1'" '. ""'1' f~ . ' -..- ,/:", ------( . ~a.,
!.!. f'.~'. ''jrfl/'t.:'.... I t,~A' '. ; "'. .,....--- {j ,P'.'" T- I !url''';'~ (
wpcj .,p J . Uf/ ../~/ ,VT ~;""(/A/ 4- --/'/. ~- " ..! h fia/"3..~~t)
c,v : .;v . ' "/ ,/,,"'J I /,., .~ (. j<:'-1:::. . oy c. ta-~~7'/ / -
"'-l">d f'Ol'"I-"'r" N '7
l\'S.~ ':;......... . I ... ~': A,:. /
-------
Vh' C -
. '('~' "c.." / .-~.... j ,.
~:r#io)
(.A" t<- /l;"/
Z 7""
.::1'/' p~-
~ -~- h //,7 ~
. Pi :'1:":~-,-
Pj'\;~'T !: :~:~. :', ~ f f!::. t',
--~--
. .-::::~- -. -..
f."''':'1 :'c~.
-2-
Y~G~'._.}~':.:'i!J':::j,::.~.~ - ~ ~!_t -_.~~~- :"'.:.:.!-:.-.D.~.~~,K~
/"':!1""";- T,'"'''''''' OF -:;;-....--
,.. ; . .... ......., -_V-~----..-_.-...-
lv:;,:t.11)J
...,.. D'''''- .",. ;Z7-C'-t:'
l).-, . It l:..::". 'lY._.__- -.------.-.--
R t~':J c! i. :-, J) rc;:: ~; '.~ L';:': t:~.
.) !::~ -t nf.
l,<:C~i t:2S t LJ.y; j'; ~.
O,)te --_2:-~./(/,;(/ 7(
ASSII,"'~~ f,h)'istl!i'Z ~~._.3 --.-----
P,\THDUY, I Ci',!. H:C:l~D;./ .;C:?~-
re~d ~:\d rec.j(d ~...'" -:::-j 5 ~;:i r.,itt?!;.
i1?..';::' G(!X S.~tUn9> cF.-==--_.__--
(It;::!'',:t.cr ~~c: C~..-PL G Y
~::c~pk Bc~ No. ---L-.------
:Jr::;" _:
.~-; ~ Di a.. LI.JZ..:""--:b-=2.....__.
CJ1
N
C>
?;2t.~r Box No -_8'...._-. ---- r~-,~be L::!~;;U. _....7/ "
:i.2ti":I"'.\!: /'" 7~ 41# t.j,fI~,.gl pr !" "nn,. c:; ..t."..,
--:-- ....-..._-- ...----.- _..-. '/ r;?!': r:L IJ4?_--;;:c - t------- ,~ "h'.%_!"c"" !:,., ~- r- -------- ---- - r i; :,-" i ~ ~c::!::-, --~/ !----'~f:€-,
Cti i1 (,::"'H U\.Y ',',j:'': T.- ;';.F.
,--- ~ ).1' 1.----. -. .' '\' "v :--:."'? ? ~. .. - ..:'_-. -:?" -I--::~;::' "'::,"1 . j ==-: .;; I . ;:..: .... .. ~t'! -.- ) ...;. "-=. . -== -.. _. -'iL:'::' --- -- ;:i. <; -I
~"-~"'-71_.- ."""/i;2r?i.IJ.3.i. '..- '-. ~'--""~'--;'~y.~,-",,:d~... J.I C,} ..c../o .. -:-...- C --.., - u_- --' --........-- -.- -1' .../_L.?..!
~-"~';7 j .__L ~....u~..:.t.P..J,'-O£L.:._,. 33....J~.:...'l.o_- :. -. .J..i/~.-I- /t>.'-. ! .1&.3 1.. ---Q.-..-i --_..:::':'. !_--. _..=----t---~.-. 2..'>C'..J
~._--i.-..~ .L../k?- .?a!._~f~%?'p'...--.,J""/.. L. -_....!. t:L.- f'--'" trI - I /0. S;:.. ! jl?_c/....!.--- (J. ...J.--.'uL._- ---.-...' _.-=--.J"q /(.2 i
t . ~ ~ i.___.t.~~.. :J:.,?i--- Ct&07~ 2(.. L' -.-. 'p ~.:~--:---- -~"'.0. -.- I ...- I~ t.-- ~ //0... - .. ' .. ft'.lJ. . ~.. .-.<:'-. .~. - -=:j-.- ..::=---.i . -. ~ .__1. o(.~ c::)...~
t' ._-j.. ~.L-k,~.-,1?'L_r.'1/.,-.~. 2'.~1 " . _..::.3.5':'L -.. _It. Y-'.- J--...I.J/:L : ./11.. '. fa 5~. .. [ - .._C~..- pi--=:: _L__.__- -= _.i_--=-_.~ .~:>'_D.. :
---'*-j:3'-1-.-di":EJ..1.J.._QQ3....5:ic- ;.---- , 2.'-i_t_....:J...q..~~~._...; ,--2.~!.- ; ../II.--! / Dr:,..... i --..0"'-"1' - ~.t-- -=--!...__:::-:-._J.r_~..?c:2 ...:
't-..._7z__:.. ...~---..£jcf.... _..~_1.-r:~ fc~ - ;..- -- .23 -. L...- .I..2? ...----\-- .--.:l.? - :.. 11.z'.:. I.D f.. ...{.. - 0_" -_-::::::. .J -.----.=-:-:--j.-..:-:-:-. ...,1 oZ.? "-. I
-- ....Li.~?:-! n._. ~ Jf..- Ytl7:.-/.7Q.l"__'_'''_Y/-''J! ._-,....~.q-- 1- -..!/1.1../ '-2........;.lc.6.~ .._~.__..P --.i _..~ .-!-.--. :-::._--..L-=-----,:,2...>-~ -,
~--.._.1-.~~-!.__L~ _2~.i .:f)'I. ;:{tJ.~::----~6:-- ----_-.1 .tCJ_. .1.--. d~J.. '. .//.3 .. . .~. !oC;u. ..j -&.Q -..' ---=-.!.."':-==--_:__.=----~:~7.t2.- II
f--- ..r I':-_.! uL't0 ..?~-, . 5-0 I~. '10.- ..:...- ..!_y L..:__. _L 7.2.- : .. ; '7.< : .11 b. .' IIc. -.-! _.t.o... _.=::. L .----=--. -----~-_.-::-. -_.: ..2'?-Q...
L. '-h--..-fJ...e~~-S~j_:~j..5~_I_..2.9-~'n.uJ..n--_./o_~".- ..:.._. ---- ,..-:. -.'1' . :.... .-. - ..: '" -' .. .,.. . ----. ""!r-::-:-+':::-fi-:-}---- -_.:..----- '
~._--_._._..;_._____.I ...:i!.f ~ t)._. '-- -- ....._...~.- - .._._-_:--¥~?- i/4qCf,/_..At4(....(.{'L._"J,.UU/,c,:m-:... .W:H~'__~,J..-([-c..~('~~.._---.I
',---_..-I------li-- ___.L -------~----- - -i.A.!.:'?c.iJ'~4:;..It!,.I.\J?!--~cLlO'tLhlLJ~~ -...+.u/I.J.NJi~-~l..~;-4.L--l:
--_._-------- --~_._. _.~... -_..._...L...___:'---- .!./li~.:.I:.t:R.~N:Iw.. ---_!.... -__...__..i.. "-'" ---'-_...._L_____L__..~._.,
._----
, .
t..f);;;~:!:rl tS :
~(;;?-.37 ! 1;:/67)
-------
Approved
~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. W. J. Green
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technica 1 Foundat ion
3104
Investigation
Analyses of Stack Gas Samples
Investigation No.
PMT. 71-222
Date of Report
Tilly 29, 1971
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
This report presents the analyses of five stack gas samples which
were collected during the time period in which the isokinetic samples were
obtained.
Date 6-23-71 6-23-71 6-23-71 6-24-71 6-24-71
Cylinder No. 5 7 11 (Notel) 1 18
Sample volume, cc. NTP 249.2 255.7 239.1 268.3 254.6
Content, v/v "10 as C02
Carbon monoxide 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon dioxide 0.4906 0.2848 0.4587 0 . 4198 0.4993
Methane 0.0017 0.0009 0.0017 0.0015 0.0018
Cy1. organics 0.0010 0.0007 0.0015 0.0011 0.0012
Trap organics 0.2012 0.2641 O. 1429 0.2194 0.2692
Note 1:
The trap organic content is a minimum value; the analysis
was interrupted by an electrical power failure.
PRE: jdf
~ f2 C~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
(F~
Form 111
521
-------
APprOYCd--.rirt~.:..
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
~)'J!JJ:~_l.lieasurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Investigation
Air Pollution Program
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
P.O. #3104
Fellow
Dr.. William Green (2)
Investigation No. _l'}q._l1:.232~radient Study)
NATURE !
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report--
-------
Test ~Jo.:Gradient Study
Plant Code No.:
Sampling Location
4-color, I-web
Perfecting
Graphic Arts Technica 1 Foundation
Environmenta 1 Control Division
Research Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Data Sheet #5-ECD
Date: 10/11/71
GATF Personnel:
R. R. Gadomski
W. J. Green
Gas Velocity Data
!Point Time: 9:00-9:15 am Time: 9: 15-9:30 am
No. Vel. Head Temp Velocity Vel. Head Temp Velocity
in. H20 (h) of ft/sec in.H20 (h) of ft/sec
A-I .40 260 49.3 B-1 .20 260 34.8
A-=-2 - .32 -~~O 44.1 B-2 .24 260 38.3 --
A-3 - .27 260 46.3 B-3 .25 260 38.9
..---
er)A-4 .22 260 46.3 B-4 .28 260 41.5
A-5 . 15 260 39.6 B-5 .28 260 41.5
I--- .... .-- -- -...... ---_.- ---... ---
- A-6 .12 260 26.7 B-6 .25 260 38.9
. - ...A:::l ~_ . 12 260 ~6. 7__. B-7 .20 260 34.8
-
.. ~...--_..__..._...- .--.-. ....-. -~-_...._. ., ~-.".._'_h_- --.. ------ _. ... .. .-
.. -..u ..-...-.,---- -----.--. "-------_.
... . .-- .----- - .--.., --.- ---.---- --.-- -.
Av. 260 36.7 260 38.3
(cen
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Av. velocity (:.raverse) ft/sec
Av. velocity (ref. pt.) ft/sec
Flue factor A/B
Pitot Tube correction factor(if any)
Gas density factory(ref. to air)
Corrected velocity BxCxDxE ft/sec
Area of flue, sq. ft.
Av. flue temp. of
Flow rate @ stack cond.
F x G x 60, aefm
Ps = 29.33
Corrected to std. cond.
Flow rate = 520 x I x Ps ,sefm
H + 460 x 29.92
8
730-5/8"
627-5/16"
522-9/16"
6 5.16:3 2 1
Reference
Point
3 9-7/16"
2 4-11/16"
11- 31 '
A
37.5
N/A
None
None
7
1.0
37.5
5.30
260
:1
~
G.
H.
1.
11900
I.D.
32"
J.
K.
Static (.:\H) "H20 = 4.0
P g = - .:\ H/13 . 6 = O. 3 0
Patm "Hg = 29.63
Ps = Patm - Pg = 29.63-.30=29.33
8500
523
-------
Approved
.84hz
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Investigation
Test for Condensates in GATF Sample
Graphic Arts
A t N Technical Foundation
ccoun o. P.O. 1,<31U4
Cylinders
Fellow
Mr. Ray Gadomski
Investigation No.
PML 72-230
Date of Report
Augus t 22, 1972
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
Mr. A. Gimbrone has requested a study be made to determine the
possibility of high boiling material passing through the trap into the
cylinder portion of the "GATF Stack Gas Sampling Apparatus".
If this did
occur,
the analysis of the cylinder organics would be too low as t1his portion
of the analysis is made at ambient temperature.
Since the cylinder section of the sampling train was purchased and
assembled by GATF personnel, the history before the calibration of this
apparatus is not known to us.
All cylinders were calibrated using pure
helium or nitrogen gas.
The cylinders were cleaned by the Physical Measure-
ments Laboratory as described in report number PML 72-14.
This cleaning
procedure was repeated after the completion of each field test analysis.
To concur with the request, a device was designed and constructed
which provided a stream of helium gas to purge the cylinder sample gas,
at a set rate, into the hydrogen flame detector.
This was accomplished by
removing the "Ideal" va,lue assembly and substituting a new flow device.
This assembly was attached to the gas chromatograph with copper tubing.
The first portion of the experiment was conducted at ambient temperature
during which the hydrogen flame response is due to the non-condensibles.
After the non-condensible hydrocarbon concentration dropped below the
Form 111
524
-------
minimum detection level of the hydrogen flame detector, the cylinder was
temperature programmed at
6°C./min. from ambient temperature to 200°C.
The hydrogen flame response was designated as high boiling or condensible
material.
Using cylinder No. 44 data as a typical analysis, the following
information was recorded.
After the helium flow was started, the hydrogen
flame response was rapid and reached a maximum value at 1 min. followed by
a steady decrease in response for 32 minutes.
This response represents the
non-condensible fraction of the cylinder sample.
The temperature program
(6°C./min.) was started at 36 min. and continued until a maximum temperature
of 200°C. was reached.
The detector response started to increase at
approximately 60°C. and reached a maximum at 68 minutes.
An arbitrary selection of cylinders was made and the usage history
of each is indicated in Table I.
Cylinder Nos. 43 and 44 were each used in
two field tests; No. 293 was used in one field test; and No. 301 was unused.
Cylinder Nos. 293 and 301 were cleaned with trichloroethylene by GATF personnel.
Table I
Methane +
PML No. for No. of Times Used Organics Reported
Cylinder No. Last Field Test for Field Test by PML, ppm
43 72-227 2 145
44 72-227 2 117
293 72-225 1 74
301 0 0
525
-------
The results of the analysis are tabulated in Table II.
The non-
condensibles are reported as "ppm as C02" using the corrected volume of
the sample gas present in the cylinder at the time of the analysis.
The
high boiling organics are reported as the equivalent of n-heptane which
would be present as liquid in the cylinder section of the sampling train.
Table II
Cylinder No.
Non-Condensibles,
ppm as C02
High Boiling Organics,
mI. as n.heptane
43
44
293
301
84
89
56
o
0.0014
0.0015
0.0006
0.0019
An exact material balance between the two analyses cannot be expected.
The hydrogen flame response is related to the composition of the gas stream.
In a normal analysis, the hydrogen flame responds to helium carrier plus
pure organics.
In these analyses, the hydrogen flame responds to helium
carrier plus a mixture of inorganics and organics which alter the flame
sensitivity.
Some loss is also expected when changing the cylinder
configuration to accommodate the purging device and the connectors to the gas
chromatographic unit.
526
-------
The high boiling organics or cylinder residue has a low vapor pressure
at ambient temperature since it is not substantially removed by evacuation
at pressures less than one micron.
The presence of this residue would not
contribute to the previous values reported for the cylinder analyses.
£2f~
Paul R. Eisaman
Fe How
Phys ical Measurements Laborator y
PRE: jdf
527
-------
APP~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY" FEB 261971
GATF
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. Wm. J ~ Areen
Account No,
Graphic Arts Technical
3104 Foundation
Investigation
Calibration of Gas Sampling Cylinders
Investigation No,
PML 71-2
February 16, 1971
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
Date of Report
xx
The geometric volumes of five gas sampling cylinders have been
measured.
The measurements were made with a quantitative gas manipulation
system with which nitrogen was expanded into the sampling cylinder from
two calibrated cylinders.
The volumes of the cylinders are:
No.1
305 ml.
No.2
313 m1.
No.3
304 ml.
No.4
309 ml.
No.5
304 ml.
C"',. ,\ ' "
'i \ "..". \:'- ,\ ,\,
.. _-JI~'~ \. . \ _:, '" .;~ "'\,;,-,\ ., r~-
v. Colaluca '
Research Assistant
-'~ ~
\<",' ~,~
R. J. Rei :)
Senior Fellow
Physical Measurements Laboratory
RJR: jdf
Form 111
528
-------
Approved
Z1J
'!," .v0-
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
~Hi :: - '1':J/1
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
GATF
Fellow
Dr. William J. Green
Graphic Arts
Account No, Technical Foundation
fF3104
Investigation
Calibration of Gas Sampling Cylinders
Investigation No,
PML 71-7
Preliminary
Progress
Final
xx
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Date of Report
March 30, 1971
Form 111
The geometric volumes of six gas sampling cylinders have been
measured.
The measurements were made with a quantitative gas manipulation
system with which nitrogen was expanded into the sampling cylinder from
two calibrated cylinders.
The volumes of the cylinders are:
No. 6* 312 ml.
No. 7 307 m1.
No.8 309 ml.
No. 9 311 ml.
No. 10 311 mL
No. 11 312 ml.
No. 12 312 ml.
*Previous1y calibrated on May 23, 1970.
Q~~~ \..~~,~ '"
V. Colaluca '
Research Assistant
Physical Measurements
Laboratory
VC:jdf
529
-------
Approved
\'J~
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
E11-y.si.caLMeas.ureme.nts.-Labo:r.a to.ry (7615 - 2 )
Fellow Dr. William J. Green Account No. Graphic Arts
Techn~cal Fo.undatio.n
Investigation Calibratio.n o.f Gas Sampling Cylinders if 3104
Investigation No. PML 71-9 Preliminary
NATURE
April 8, 1971 OF Progress
Date of Report REPORT Final xx
The geo.metric vo.1umes o.f the two. gas sampling cylinders have
been measured.
The measurements were made with a quantitative gas manipulating
system with which nitro.gen was expanded into. the sampling cylinder
fro.m two. calibrated cylinders.
The vo.1umes o.f the cylinders are:
No.. 13
313 ml.
No.. 14
311 ml.
\, \ \ ~\ '~, '\
. L.)C~r- 1(.'~\.('\.\.M-<.4\.
Val G. Co.1a1uca
Research Assistant
Physical Measurements Labo.rato.ry
VGC:jdf
i~PR 1 3 I~/',
GATF
Form 111
530
-------
Approved
~~
.'-! ~ .-.--:.'"
\._.~.... .
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
I!.I-\ 'f 1 t \':Jll
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William J. Green
Graphic Arts Technical
Account No. Foundation
if3l04
Investigation
Calibration of Gas Sampling Cylinders
Investigation No.
PML 71-10
Date of Report
May 5, 1971
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
xx
The geometric volumes of the ten gas sampling cylinders have
been measured.
The measurements were made with a quantitative gas manipulating
system with which nitrogen was expanded into the sampling cylinder from
two calibrated cylinders.
The volumes of the cylinders are:
No. 15
No. 16
No. 17
312 ml.
310 ml.
No. 18
No. 19
No. 20
No. 21
309 ml.
311 ml.
307 ml.
313 ml.
321 ml.
316 ml.
No. 22
No. 23
No. 24
308 ml.
311 ml.
\L~(~(~~~
Val G. Colaluca \
Research Assistant
Physical Measurements Laboratory
VGC : j d f
Form 111
531
-------
Approved
1'il./,
y ---
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY
MELLON INSTITUTE
RESEARCH SERVICES
UClrs .137'
GA"rr=:
Physical Measurements Laboratory (7615-2)
Fellow
Dr. William J. Green (2)
Graphic Arts
Account No. Technical Foundation
3104
Investigation
Calibration of Gas Sampling Cylinders
Investigation No. PML 71- 38
Date of Report
September 23, 1971
NATURE
OF
REPORT
Preliminary
Progress
Final
x
The geometric volumes of eight gas sampling cylinders have been measured.
The measurements were made with a quantitative gas manipulation system
with which nitrogen was expanded into the sampling cylinder from two calibrated
cylinders.
The volumes of the cylinders are:
No. ml.
25 313
26 305
27 305
28 309
29 309
30 308
31 303
32 308
"1 '- ; \ '" ,
\ ~ (~ (;'\ 't~~_-c-,<\
Val 'G. Colaluca \
Research Assistant
Physical Measurements Laboratory
VGC: jdf
R&T: 9/29/71
Form 111
532
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No. 12.
SHEET APTD-1463 1
4. Title and Subutle .. 5. Report Date
Evaluation of Emissions and Control Technologies ln the Gr~phl(ADDroval -
Arts Industries - Phase II: Web Offset and Metal Decoratlng 6.
Processes
7. AUthor(s) R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gii11brone, Mary P. Davi d and
W.J. Green
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
4615 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
~~Recipient's Accession No.
Mav 1973
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-02-0001
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
EPA, Office of Air Quality,Planning & Standards
Industrial Studies Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Fi na 1 Report
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
Total organics, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane emissions were measured
from offset printing and metal decorating operations. A reliable yet simple grab
sampling method was developed along with the appropriate analytical technique, which
uses gas chromatography and a flame ionization detector. The effects of plant process
variables on emissions were evaluated and equations based on operating parameters such
as press speed, ink coverage, solvent content, dryer type, sheet size, and coating
thickness were then developed to calculate emission rates. These equations can provide
rough estimates of actual emissions. Test results are presented for web offset and
metal decorating operations using both catalytic and thermal afterburners over a range
of incineration temperatures. Uncontrolled process emissions are also presented. Re-
cent developments and changes being investigated within the industry for reducing air
pollution, including process modifications, are discussed in the report to the extent
that information was available.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis.
170. Descriptors
Air Pollution
Offset Printing
Metal Decorating
Graphi cArts
Stack Sampling
Gas Sampling
Gas Analysis
Hydro~arbons - total
Organics - total
Solvent Emissions
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Catalytic Afterburner
Thermal Afterburner
17c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
18. Availability Statement
Release Unlimited
19.. Security Class (This
Re~~~t)1
20. Secumy Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
532
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
USCOMM'DC 141152.P72
I
L
------- |