United States SPA" 600 / 2~ 83-044
Environmental Protection
Agency June 1983
>tPA Kesearch and
Development
DEMONSTRATION OF THE USE OF
CHARGED FOG IN CONTROLLING
FUGITIVE DUST FROM
LARGE-SCALE INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-83-044
June 1983
DEMONSTRATION OF THE USE OF CHARGED FOG
IN CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST
FROM LARGE-SCALE INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
by
Edward T. Brookman
Kevin J. Kelley
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
800 Connecticut Boulevard
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3115
Task No. 109
Task Officer: Robert C. McCrillis
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Although the charged fog concept has been widely applied to industrial
sources of fugitive dust, little data are available regarding fogger control
effectiveness on particulate matter- To obtain such data, the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory of the Environmental Protection Agency
contracted TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct a full-scale
demonstration of a charged fogger on several industrial fugitive emission
sources. The sources tested included a primary rock crushing operation, a
secondary rock crushing operation, a molten iron spout hole at a blast
furnace cast house, and a coke screening operation. The fog device evaluated
was. the "Fogger IV" manufactured by the Ritten Corporation. This report
presents and discusses the results of these four source tests.
This report also presents and discusses the results of three source tests
jointly funded by EPA and Armco Inc. The same charged fog devices were used
along with a charged fog device developed by AeroVironment, Inc. of Pasadena,
California. The sources selected for field testing the two fog devices were
a stainless steel slab torch cutting operation, a conveyor transfer operation
at a recycle (sinter) plant, and a limestone crusher/conveyor operation.
In general, the testing program showed that (1) the control of emissions
by the two types of fog devices are generally comparable, (2) fogger
efficiency is dependent on the positions of the foggers in relation to the
source, and (3) charging a water spray appears to increase its effectiveness
in controlling particulate matter emissions by up to 40 percent.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3115
Task 109, by TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. under the sponorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
May 1979 to June 1982 and work was completed as of July 1982.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
L. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 5
3. Glossary 7
4. Field Tests - General 9
Site Selection Process 9
Test Equipment 10
Laboratory/Data Analysis Procedures 21
5. Field Tests - Specific 23
Test #1 - Sand and Gravel Company: Primary Rock Crusher . . 23
Test #2 - Sand and Gravel Company: Secondary Rock Crusher . 38
Test #3 - Iron and Steel Plant: Cast House Spout Hole ... 47
Test #4 - Iron and Steel Plant: Coke Screen 63
Test #5 - Iron and Steel Plant: Torch Cutting Operation . . 82
Test #6 - Iron and Steel Plant:
Recycle Plant Transfer Operation 96
Test #7 - Cement Plant:
Limestone Crusher/Conveyor Operation 115
6. Discussion of Results 132
7. References 136
111
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
I Schematic Representation of Ritten Corporation's Fogger IV .. 12
2 Schematic Representation of Fogger IV Control Panel 13
3 Schematic Representation of AeroVironment Charged Fog Generator 17
4 Photograph of AeroVironment Charged Fog Generator 18
5 Photograph of Typical Spray Pattern of AeroVironment
Charged Fog Generator 19
6 Primary Crusher Operation 25
7 Primary Crusher Plot Plan 26
8 Test Equipment Positions, Types, and Serial Numbers at the
Primary Rock Crusher 27
9 Secondary Rock Crusher Operation 39
10 Plot Plan of Secondary Crusher Operation 40
11 Equipment Positions for Secondary Crusher Test 42
12 Floor Plan of Cast House 49
13 Photograph of Cast House 50
14 Equipment Positions for Cast House Tests:
December 9 to 18, 1980 52
15 Equipment Positions for Cast House Tests:
January 26 to February 3, 1981 53
16 Coke Screening Operation 65
17 Top View of Coke Screen Operation 6S
18 Side View of Coke Screen Operation ....... 67
19 Equipment Positions for Coke Screen Tests .......... 50
20 Torch Cutting Operation ..... 2
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
21 Equipment Locations for Torch Cutting Operation Test 85
22 High-Volume Sampler Positions and Serial Numbers for
Torch Cutting Operation Test 86
23 Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various
Test Conditions (yg/m3) - Torch Cutting Operation .... 93
24 Equipment Locations for Recycle Plant.Transfer Operation Test:
Elevated Samplers and Outside Corner Foggers 99
25 Equipment Locations for Recycle Plant Transfer Operation Test:
Hi-Vol with CYC/CI 100
26 Equipment Locations for Recycle Plant Transfer Operation Test:
Inside Corner Foggers 101
27 Equipment Location Sketch for Recycle Plant Transfer
Operation Test 102
28 Limestone Crusher/Conveyor Operation 116
29 Equipment Locations for Crusher/Conveyor Test: Foggers .... 118
30 Equipment Locations for Crusher/Conveyor Test:
Samplers and Foggers 119
31 Equipment Location Sketch for Crusher/Conveyor Test 120
32 Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various
Test Conditions (ug/m3) - Crusher/Conveyor Operation:
Hi-Vol and Hi-Vol with SSI Data 127
33 Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various
Test Conditions (ug/m3) - Crusher/Conveyor Operation:
CYC/CI Data 129
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Results of Laboratory Tests: Droplet Size 1-5
2 Test Conditions - Primary Crusher ..... 28
3 Results of Fogger Testing at Primary Rock Crusher:
Uncharged Vs. Charged Fog - Standard Hi-Vol 32
4 Results of Fogger Testing at Primary Rock Crusher:
Uncharged Vs. Charged Fog - Hi-Vol with SSI 33
5 Results of Fogger Testing at Primary Rock Crusher:
Fan Only Vs. Uncharged Fog - Standard Hi-Vol 34
6 Results of Fogger Testing at Primary Rock Crusher:
Fan Only Vs. Uncharged Fog - Hi-Vol with SSI 35
7 Results of Fogger Testing at Primary Rock Crusher:
Fogger Efficiencies (%) 36
8 Test Conditions - Secondary Crusher 44
9 Results of Fogger Testing at Secondary Rock Crusher 45
10 Test Conditions - Cast House: December 9 to 18, 1980 55
11 Results of Fogger Testing at Cast House:
December 9 to 18, 1980 56
12 Test Conditions - Cast House: January 26 to February 3, 1981 . 61
13 Results of Fogger Testing at Cast House:
January 26 to February 3, 1981 62
14 Test Conditions - Coke Screening Operation . 70
15 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Uncontrolled Particulate Matter Concentrations (pg/m3) . 73
16 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Fan Only Particulate Matter Concentrations (yg/m3) ... 74
17 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Uncharged Fog Particulate Matter Concentrations (pg/m3) . 75
VI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number page
18 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Negative Fog Particulate Matter Concentrations (pg/m3) . 76
19 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Positive Fog Particulate Matter Concentrations (yg/m3) . 77
20 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations
(ug/m3) 78
21 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Fogger Efficiencies (%) 79
22 Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
Cascade Impactor Data 81
23 Test Conditions - Torch Cutting Operation 87
24 Butler Works Torch Cutting Operation: Arithmetic Mean
Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various Test
Conditions (ug/m3) 92
25 Test Conditions - Recycle Plant Transfer Operation 103
26 Recycle Plant Transfer Operation - Standard Hi-Vol and SSI
Data: Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations
Under Various Test Conditions (yg/m3) 108
27 Recycle Plant Transfer Operation - CYC/CI Data: Arithmetic
Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various Test
Conditions (yg/m3) 110
28 Results of Fogger Test at Recycle Plant Transfer Operation:
Sampler with Cyclone Preseparator 113
29 Results of Fogger Test at Recycle Plant Transfer Operation:
Sampler with Cyclone Preseparator and Cascade Impactor . . . 114
30 Test Conditions - Crusher/Conveyor Operation 121
31 Crusher/Conveyor Operation: Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter
Concentrations Under Various Test Conditions (yg/m3) . . 126
vu
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
32 Percent Reduction in Arithmetic Mean Uncontrolled Particulate
Matter Concentrations Due to Various Test Conditions -
Crusher/Conveyor Operation . 130
33 Percent Reduction in Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter
Concentrations Due to Charging an Uncharged Fog - Crusher/
Conveyor Operation 131
34 Overall Results of Tests: Reductions in Baseline Emission
Levels Due to Control 133
35 Overall Results of Fogger Tests: Increase in Efficiency Due
to Applying a Charge to a Water Spray 134
Vlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A spray of fine water droplets is a well known means of airborne dust
removal. Various types of scrubbers rely on water droplets to remove
entrained particles from streams and direct water sprays are often used in
mining and material handling for dust suppression. Unfortunately, water
sprays are not very effective in removing dust from the ambient air.
One method of improving the effectiveness of water sprays is by applying
an electrical charge to the spray that is opposite in polarity to the charge
on the dust to be suppressed. It has been found that most industrial
pollutants and naturally occurring fugitive dusts acquire an electrostatic
charge as they are dispersed into the air. If this charged, airborne
material is exposed to an oppositely charged water spray, contact between the
particulate matter and the water droplets is enhanced. After contact is
made, the wetted particulate matter agglomerates rapidly and falls out of the
atmosphere.
The effectiveness of these charged sprays can be improved by atomizing
the water droplets so that a fog is produced. The fineness of the fog
droplets enhances the charge-carrying capability of the spray. Hoenig has
demonstrated that the greatest effectiveness is obtained when the water
droplets are of a size similar to that of the dust particles to be
controlled. There is also the 'benefit of reduced operating costs since less
water is required when fog is used.
-------
A device designed to produce such a fine spray and apply an electrostatic
charge to it is known as a charged fogger. The charged fogger is intended
primarily for fugitive dust sources that cannot reasonably be controlled by
conventional means such as hooding. Such sources include materials-handling
operations (transfer points and conveyors), truck and railroad car loading
and unloading, front-end loaders, ship loading, grain silos, and mining
operations.
Although the charged fog concept has been widely applied to industrial
sources of fugitive dust, little quantitative data are available regarding
fogger control effectiveness on particulate matter. To obtain such data, the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory of the Environmental Protection
Agency at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, (IERL/EPA/RTP) contracted
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (TRC) to conduct a full-scale
demonstration of a charged fogger on several appropriate industrial fugitive
emission sources. In particular, IERL/EPA was interested in testing the
largest fogger, designated "Fogger IV", manufactured by the Ritten
Corporation of Ardmore, Pennsylvania,* on several sources within the iron and
steel industry and the sand and gravel industry.
Following numerous visits to iron and steel plants and sand and gravel
companies, several sources were selected for Phase I field testing the
charged fogger. These sources were:
Sand and gravel company: primary rock crushing operation;
Sand and gravel company: secondary rock crushing operation;
Iron and steel plant: molten iron spout hole at a cast house; and
Iron and steel plant: coke screening operation.
* This device is now being manufactured and marketed by the Sonic Development
Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey. (The Ritten Corporation has gone out of
business.) However, the device will be referred to as the Ritten fogger
throughout this report.
-------
Coincidently with the EPA/IERL fogger test program, Armco, Inc. signed a
Consent Decree with EPA Region V under which funds were set aside in a trust
fund for the demonstration of the use of electrostatically charged fog on
several fugitive dust sources within Armco1s plants. TRC was designated as
the firm to perform the demonstration program.
To provide Armco with state-of-the-art information on charged fog
technology, two types of charged fog devices were to be field tested under
the Consent Decree demonstration program. The first of these devices was the
Kitten Corporation's Fogger IV. The second device was one developed by
AeroVironment, Inc. (AV) of Pasadena, California. AV was subcontracted by
TRC to assist in this demonstration program. As compared with the Ritten
fogger, the AV fogger uses a different method of charging the fog and a
different method of fog dispersal. By testing both fog devices side-by-side,
Armco could be provided with a basis for comparison should a decision be made
in the future to purchase a charged fog device.
The sources selected for Phase II field testing the two fog devices were
located within Armco plants and included:
A stainless steel slab torch cutting operation;
A conveyor transfer operation at a recylce plant; and
A limestone crusher/conveyor transfer operation.
This report presents the results of both Phase I and II charged fogger
testing programs in the following manner:
Section 2 presents a summary and the conclusions of the study.
Section 3 presents a glossary of acronyms and conversion factors used
in the report.
Section 4 provides general field test" information including a dis-
cussion of the site selection process, descriptions of the test equip-
ment, and descriptions of the laboratory procedures.
-------
Section 5 provides specific information on the seven source tests that
were performed. This information includes site and source descrip-
tions, equipment locations, test procedures, test conditions, and
results.
Section 6 presents a general discussion of all the test results.
Section 7 presents the references cited in the text.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the seven field tests, the following specific
conclusions can be drawn regarding the performance, operation, and field
installation of the fog devices tested:
Performance
Charging a water spray appears to increase its effectiveness in
controlling particulate matter emissions by up to 40 percent.
The two Ritten foggers, operating at a combined water flow rate of
approximately 160 1/hr/ were capable of 60 percent effectiveness in
controlling particulate matter emissions. For control efficiencies
greater than 90 percent, water flow rates of 300 to 400 1/hr would
most likely be required for the sources tested.
The Ritten and AeroVironment charged fog devices were essentially
comparable in terms of baseline emissions reduction and increase in
effectiveness due to charging.
The fog devices tested produced no visual improvement in plume opacity
for the following reasons:
The fog itself has an opacity associated with it.
The fogger water flow rates were insufficient to completely
control the quantity of emissions generated.
Several of the sources were hot which caused the fog to turn to
steam and thus added to the visible plume.
Operation
The two fog devices are extremely difficult to operate in subfreezing
ambient temperatures. This problem might be alleviated by adding
glycerin to the water or else by using steam instead of water. Both
of these possible solutions have been successfully demonstrated in
laboratory work.
-------
The two fog devices, as presently designed, are not rugged enough to
withstand the harsh environments often associated with industrial dust
sources (e.g., molten metal, heavy dust plumes, caustic materials.)
The nose cone and control panel of the Ritten fogger should be
redesigned to allow for easier access to the inner workings. As
presently designed, the Fogger IV is extremely difficult to work on in
the field.
Field Installation
The fog devices should be run with as low a fan speed as possible to
avoid dust reentrainment. The fan speed should be no greater than
that necessary to carry the fog to the source.
Foggers should conceivably be placed above a dust source and aimed
down upon it. This should help to isolate the agglomerated particles
at the source.
In general, the two types of foggers, as presently designed, both show
promise, but have design and operational problems. These problems include
dust reentrainment from the fan forced air used to carry the fog to the
source; freezeups in cold weather; frequent shorting of electronics; lack of
mobility; and water flow limitations. It is recognized that both devices were
designed as prototypes and that the test program primarily focused on
evaluating the two different concepts. However, the underlying result is that
both devices are not ready for use in industry and neither device performed
much better than the other.
The future development of the Ritten foggers is no longer with the Ritten
Corporation, which terminated their business since the beginning of this
study. The Ritten foggers are now being manufactured and sold by the Sonic
Development Corporation. Sonic is incorporating their sonic dry-fog nozzles
into the Ritten induction ring fog devices. To date, Sonic is developing a
prototype Fogger I (the original, small Ritten fcgger) using a 15 4/hr (4
gph) water flow nozzle that produces droplets in the 1 to 40 urn range. They
are also planning a Fogger IV with a Sonic nozzle. Some of the inherent
-------
problems of the Ritten foggers have been addressed by Sonic personnel. They
have eliminated waterlines to the gauges and heat traced those leading to the
nozzles, thus eliminating freezeups. They are also using a nozzle that
produces finer droplets which should increase the charge/droplet ratio and
thus the capture efficiency. Sonic has also put the controls into a separate
industrial-strength box which reduces maintenance. The product line offered
should be a significant improvement over the prototype devices tested during
this study.
-------
Acronyms
AV
CFG
CI
CYC
EPA
Hi-Vol
SSI
TRC
TSP
SECTION 3
GLOSSARY
AeroVironment, Inc.
Charged Fog Generator
Cascade Impactor
Cyclone Preseparator
Environmental Protection Agency
High-Volume Air Sampler
Size Selective Inlet
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Total Suspended Particulate
Conversion Factors
To Convert
cm
m3
9 -
k g/cnr
kW
£
m
Multiply By
(°C) (1.8)
0.3937
35.31
0.002205
14.22
1.341
0.2642
3.281
+ 32
To Obtain
in
Ibs
psi
hP
gal
ft
-------
SECTION 4
FIELD TESTS - GENERAL
SITE SELECTION PROCESS
During Phase I, site visits were made to a number of iron and steel
plants and sand and gravel companies in order to locate sources that would be
acceptable for the first four fogger field tests. Similarly, several Armco
plants were visited in Phase II in order to locate three acceptable sites for
the Armco testing program.
To determine the acceptability of a proposed source for fogger testing,
several criteria were applied to each source examined during the site
visits. These criteria were:
Size. Source emissions should be of a nature that will not overwhelm
the spray from two foggers.
isolation. The source should be relatively isolated from other dust
sources.
Physical layout. The area around the source must leave room for the
foggers/ samplers and test personnel.
Utilities. Suitable power and water supplies must be available at the
source.
process continuity. The process operation should be fairly continuous
for minimal testing time.
process consistency. The emissions produced should be similar from
test to test.
Dustiness. A significant amount of dust should be produced so that
sampling time is minimized.
Meteorological influence. The source should be relatively isolated
from meteorological influences such as wind and rain.
-------
Commonality. The source should be one common to other steel mills or
sand and gravel companies. Demonstration of the charged-fog technique
on a unique source would not result in transferable information.
Variety. A variety of source and emission particle types should be
tested so that a broader spectrum of information regarding fogger
effectiveness could be obtained.
While it was not possible to locate any one source that completely
satisfied the acceptability criteria, the sources that were selected met
enough of these criteria to be judged suitable for the fogger field tests.
TEST EQUIPMENT
The equipment used for the field tests included two charged fog devices
manufactured by the Ritten Corporation, two charged fog devices developed by
AeroVironment, several high-volume particulate samplers, size selective
inlets, a cyclone preseparator, cascade impactors, and a wind measurement
system. Each of these items is described below.
Ritten Charged Foggers
Two identical foggers were specially designed and fabricated for the pro-
ject by the Ritten Corporation of Ardmore, Pennsylvania. Ritten's standard
Fogger III was modified and upgraded in order to allow for variations of its
operating conditions. The final configuration, designated "Fogger IV", is
shown schematically in Figure 1.
In the generation of charged fog by the Fogger IV, water is atomized as
it is ejected from a nozzle by a compressed air supply. For the tests, a
1.5 kW compressor was used to supply the required air pressure of 5.6 to 8.8
kg/cm and local water supplies were utilized to provide the required water
2
pressure of 2.1 to 3.5 kg/cm . The air flow is variable from 0 to
11.3 m /hr and the water flow is variable from 0 to 151 i/hr. As the fog
10
-------
leaves the nozzle, it passes throuqh an induction ring, maintained at 12.5
kvs where either a positive or negative charge, depending on the nature of
the dust, is applied to the spray. A power supply of 230 V is required for
the fogger operation. A flow of air around the nozzle, provided by a
centrifugal fan, projects the fog towards the dust source. The fan is driven
by a 3.7 kw motor and operates at a maximum of 79 m /min. It is variable
from 0 to 100 percent of capacity and produces a maximum output air velocity
at the nozzle face of 3048 ra/min. A control panel, located on the back of
the fogger, allows fogger operation and parameter variability. A schematic
representation of the control panel is shown in Figure 2. Additional
information regarding the Fogger IV may be found in references 2, 3, and 4.
Flow Spectra
Two different flow nozzles were used for the tests, both manufactured by
the Delavan Manufacturing Company of West Des Moines, Iowa. While both
nozzles produced a conical flow of droplets, one nozzle had a slightly higher
flow capacity than the other.
To determine the flow spectra of the two nozzles, droplet sizing tests
were performed at TRC's laboratory facilities by KLD Associates, Inc. of
Huntington Station, New York. The device used to measure the droplet sizes
and concentrations was a KLD Model DC-2A Droplet Counter. The Droplet
Counter is a hybrid electronic device which uses both analog and digital
techniques to measure, count, sort and display liquid droplets. The
fundamental technique of this device is to utilize a hot wire anemometer-
type probe which is cooled by the impinging droplets. The degree of cooling
is droplet size dependent. Further information on this device may be found
in reference 5.
11
-------
BELT GUARD
JUNCTION BOX (MOTOR)
1-22.9 cm
-j 3.7 kW MOTOR
-T-
15.2 cm DIAMETER INDUCTION RING
AIR ATOMIZING NOZZLE
NOSECONE
WATER LINE-
COMPRESSED AIR LINE
HIGH-VOLTAGE LINE
UTILITY BASKET
BELT DRIVEN CENTRIFUGAL FAN
-48.3 cm
I r WEATHERPROOF CONTROL
PANEL ENCLOSURE
j 1 f-CONTROL PANEL
rX.
N?
CONTROL BOX
AIR AND WATER INPLTT
CONNECTION PORTS
230 VAC RECEPTACLE
230 VAC MAIN
DISCONNECT SWITCH
CONTROL CABINET
J~«-LIFTING EYE FOR SKID JACK
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the Ritten Corporation's Fogger IV.
-------
21.6
cm
I--1
Ul
SCFH
AIR
1-400
- 50
110 VAC YELLOW INDICATOR LIGHT
230 VAC RED PUSHBUTTON SWITCH
230 VAC BLACK PUSHBUTTON SWITCH
GPH
WATER
1-40
-0
'A
-230 VAC GREEN INDICATOR LIGHT
j ON
OFF
COMPRESSED
AIR
ON OFF
WATER
POWER
INDUCTION
RING
I ON
OFF
INDUCTION
RING
f
POWER
O
ON
FAN SPEED
76.2 cm
INDICATION LIGHTS FOR THE
PARAMETRIC MOTOR SPEED CONTROLLER
Figure 2. Schematic representation of Fogger IV control panel.
-------
Table L presents the operating conditions and results of the droplet
sizing tests for the two Delavan nozzles. Each of the runs presented in the
table are the average of duplicate tests. From these results, the following
observations can be made:
Charging the spray does not change the mass median diameter of the
droplets.
Increasing the atomizing air flow reduces the mass median diameter
while increasing the water flow increases the mass median diameter.
The mass median diameter of the droplets in the spray varies according
to the position in the spray cone.
The two nozzles produced very similar droplet spectra.
Charge Per Drop
Tests were performed at TRC's laboratory facilities to determine the
charge-to-mass ratio for the water droplets. The charged spray was directed
at a fine meshed screen which in turn was connected to an ammeter. The
ammeter displayed the charge on the total mass of droplets which could then
be converted to a charge per drop using the known water flow rate and droplet
spectra.
The results of these tests indicated that the charge-to-mass ratio for a
60 )am diameter drop with 75 i/hr water flow is approximately 0.11
uC/g. This ratio is essentially unaffected by the air flow rate but varies
slightly with the water flow rate (0.10 yC/g at 114 i/hr; 0.14 uC/g at
38 i/hr.)
AeroVironment Charged Fog Generators
AeroVironment Inc. of Pasadena, California developed a charged fog
generator (CFG) under the sponsorship of EPA/IERL/RTP. This device, which
14
-------
TABLE 1. RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTSi DROPLET SIZE
Run No.
1
2
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
SB
6
7
a
Nozzle
Type*
D2
02
D2
D2
D2
D2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Fan Speed
(% of Max.)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Water Flow
(1/hr)
114
114
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
114
114
Air Flow
(nr'/hr)
2.5
2.5
2.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Charge (C)/
No Charge (NC)
NC
C
NC
NC
C
C
NC
NC
C
C
NC
Position In
Spray Cone:
Center (C)/
Outer Edqe(OE)
C
C
C
C
C
OE
C
OE
OE
OE
OE
Calculated
Mass Median
Diameter (MID)
84
81
89
44
44
66
53
66
69
91
90
* Dl - Delavan nozzle, low flow (model 40)
D2 -., Delavan nozzle, high flow (model 20)
-------
charges the water by directly connecting the positive terminal of a 15 kV dc
power supply to the inflowing water, provides fog with a charge-to-mass ratio
of approximately 1.2 yC/g for a 200 ym diameter droplet. Two of these
devices were provided for the Armco tests.
The CFG is a modified Ray Oil Burner which consists of only one movable
part, a hollow steel shaft upon which are mounted the atomizing cup, the fan,
and the motor rotor. Figure 3 schematically represents the CFG. The
modifications to the oil burner include replacement of the fuel tube, air
cone, and the spinning cup with nonconducting materials. The water inlet
tube is attached to the spinning cup and its rear end is connected to the
water supply using a rotating seal. Figure 4 is a photograph of the
prototype unit used in the Armco study.
Water is introduced into the 3,600 rprn spinning cup whose inside is
fabricated to a gradual taper- Because of the centrifugal forces, the water
becomes a thin film and moves forward into a high-velocity airstream where it
breaks up into fine droplets. These droplets are projected forward by the
airstream from the fan. An air butterfly valve is used to set the airflow
rate, thus controlling the spray pattern. Figure 5 shows a typical fog
pattern obtained with the CFG. The spray pattern covers a volume of 16 to 24
m3. The water flow rate can be varied from about 8 to 70 l/hr. The
total power requirement of this unit is less than 1 kW. The whole unit is
mounted on a portable platform for easy transport to a remote location, with
the addition of a small generator, the CFG can be operated where commercial
electric power is not available.
The medians of the size distribution of the water droplets, measured
using a cloud optical array probe for droplets in the range of 30 to 300
ym, are a concentration median droplet diameter of 100 urn and a mass
median droplet diameter of -200 ym for droplets >30 ym.
16
-------
Air Fan
Nooconductive
Air cone
Water Deflecting
- Baffle
iNonconductive
Spinning Cup
Hollow Shaft
Motor'
\
Nonconductive
Water Tube x
X
\ Spinning
Shaft
TJU
Rotating
Seal
Flowmeter-
DC Power
Supply
onconductive
Water,Line
DC Water
Pump /
Isolated
Water
Supply
Figure 3. Schematic representation of AeroVironment charged fog generator.
-------
Figure 4. Photograph of AeroVironment charged fog generator.
-------
Figure 5. Photograph of typical spray pattern of AeroVironment charged
fog generator.
19
-------
Additional information regarding the AV fogger may be found in references
6 and 7.
Sampling Equipment
High-volume air samplers (hi-vols) were used for the particulate matter
measurements. The number of samplers used varied from source to source and,
in some cases, from test to test. The exact number used for each test is
discussed in the individual source test descriptions.
The hi-vols were manufactured by Misco Scientific of Berkeley,
California, and were equipped with automatic flow control. This enabled the
mass flow rate to be held constant irrespective of filter loading,
atmospheric conditions, or line voltage changes. The hi-vols were operated
at a nominal flow of 1.1 m3/min (40 cfm) which corresponds to a design
particulate size cutoff of approximately 30 \im aerodynamic diameter. All
hi-vols were calibrated prior to each of the seven source tests.
Several of the hi-vols were fitted with size-selective inlets (SSIs)
manufactured by Sierra Instruments of Carmel Valley, California. These
inlets, when operated at 1.1 m3/min, are designed to remove all particles
larger than 15 um aerodynamic diameter from the sampled air before
filtering the remaining particulate matter onto a standard hi-vol filter.
For the last two Armco source tests, a hi-vol fitted with a cyclone
preseparator (CYC) was also used for data collection. This device, also
manufactured by Sierra Instruments, has a particle size cutoff of 5.5 ym
aerodynamic diameter when operated at 1.1 m3/min.
Sierra Instruments Series 230 four-stage cascade impactors (CIs) were
used during several of the tests in conjunction with an SSI or cyclone. At a
flow rate of 1.1 m3/min, the four stages separate the collected particles
20
-------
into aerodynamic diameter ranges of: 7.2 to 15 ym (stage 1), 3.0 to 7.2
urn (stage 2), 1.5 to 3.0 um (stage 3), and 0.95 to 1.5 ym (stage 4)
when used with an SSI. The remaining submicron particles are collected on a
backup hi-vol filter. For the majority of the tests at the limestone
crusher/conveyor, only two of the four stages (numbers 1 and 3) were used in
conjunction with the cyclone.
Wind Measurement System
For the first two source tests which were performed outdoors, a Mark III
wind Measuring System manufactured by Climatronics of Bohemia, New York, was
used to measure and record the speed and direction of the wind.
Wind speed is measured by a 3-cup anemometer, coupled to a light chop-
per, which converts the speed of rotation of the cups to a signal with a
frequency proportional to the wind speed. The light chopper output is con-
verted to a DC voltage by circuits located in the recorder, and recorded on a
strip chart.
Wind direction is measured by a wind vane, coupled to a precision low-
torque potentiometer. The wiper voltage of the potentiometer is a measure of
wind direction, and is also recorded (after amplification and filtering) on a
strip chart.
Both wind speed and direction are filtered with a time constant of
approximately 6 seconds. This filtering is used to provide a smooth trace of
both wind speed and wind direction.
LABORATORY/DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Sierra fiberglass filters,. Models C-230-GF and C-305-GF, were used as
collection substrates for the CI and standard hi-vol measurements,
21
-------
respectively. Prior to installation in the samplers, the filters were
inspected for defects, numbered, and stored for 24 hours in a desiccator.
Filters were then weighed in a controlled atmosphere where the temperature
was between 20 C and 25 C, and the relative humidity was below 50
percent. After an additional 24 hours in a desiccator, 10 percent of the
filters, randomly selected, were reweighed. In accordance with procedures of
the EPA Quality Assurance Handbook,3 the entire batch was reweighed when
any one of the audited filters differed by more than 2.8 mg from the original
weight.
After collection from the samplers, the exposed filters were also
desiccated for 24 hours, weighed and audited. In accordance with the above
QA procedures, these filters were reweighed when any of the exposed filters
differed by more than 5.0 mg from the original weight. The difference
between the initial filter weight (Wl) and final weight (WF) is the mass
loading on the filter. All of the mass loading values were normalized by
calculating the concentration using the following equation:
x _ (WF - WI) x 106
f X t
Where X = particulate matter concentration (yg/m3)
WF - WI = mass loading (gm)
f = average flow rate of sampler (m3/min)
t = duration of test (min)
The average flow rate was obtained from field data by averaging the recorded
starting and final flows of each high-volume sampling unit. Accurate time
records were kept for each unit during each test. The resulting values of
concentration were used directly to calculate fogger efficiency.
22
-------
SECTION 5
FIELD TESTS - SPECIFIC
The specifics regarding the seven source tests (four in phase I, three in
Phase II) are presented below in the order in which they were performed.
PHASE I, TEST #1 - SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY: PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER
The primary rock crushing operation at a sand and gravel company in
Connecticut consists of the unloading of quarry rock into a crushing pit and
the subsequent crushing of the rock by a gyratory rock crusher. The unload-
ing of the rock causes dust boil-up at the rear of the pit and the crushing
of the rock produces additional fugitive dust. The control of these
emissions was the subject of the first fogger field test. The testing was
performed during the period from October 2 to 24, 1980, with a total of 32
test runs conducted.
Site and Process Descriptions
As one of the initial steps in the sand and gravel company's operations,
quarry rock is brought to a primary rock crusher. Approximately 100 dump
trucks per day, each carrying loads of approximately 45 Mg (50 tons) of
quarry rock (basically basalt) mixed with dirt, back up to the crushing pit
to unload. Unloading times vary from 30 to 60 seconds, depending on
conditions in the pit. The pi,t itself is roughly 8 meters long, 6 meters
wide, and 4 meters deep. The crushing is done by a Superior 4265 gyratory
23
-------
rock crusher located in the center of the pit. There is a two-story computer
control building to the north side of the crushing pit, a control shed to the
east, and a large paved area to the south side. All approach roads and areas
around the buildings and pit are paved and kept reasonably clean through
frequent sweepings and waterings. Figure 6 is a photograph of the operation
and Figure 7 is a plot plan indicating important features and dimensions.
Fugitive dust emissions result from the dumping and crushing operations.
The truck unloading is the primary source of dust with the major portion com-
ing from dust boil-up at the rear of the pit. There is also dust at the rear
of the truck during the dump. The crushing procedure itself also produces
dust, but to a much lesser degree than the unloading process.
Equipment Placement
The locations of the samplers varied from day to day depending on the
wind direction. Measurements made at the start of each testing day with the
Mark III Wind System were used to insure placement of the samplers within the
dust plume. The positions of the foggers were somewhat dependent on the
positions of the samplers. Where possible, the foggers were placed so as to
blanket the pit with fog while not impinging directly on the samplers.
Figure 8 shows the equipment positions for the six days of testing.
The optimum fogger positions appeared to be at the rear of the pit with
one fogger aimed across the boil-up area and the other fogger directed at the
rear of the unloading truck. This second fogger would help control the boil-
up as well as the crushing and truck emissions.
Test Program and Procedure
The test program consisted of 32 runs during 6 days of testing. The test
conditions are presented in Table 2. Conditions at the crusher prevented
24
-------
Figure 6. Primary crusher operation.
25
-------
12m
PRIMARY
CRUSHING _L
PIT
BREAKER ARM
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
15m
^'
COMPUTER
CONTROL
BUILDING
CEMENT
BLOCKS
PAVED AREA
EDGE OF
-*
-*
EMBANKMENT
12m
CRUSHER
CONTROL
SHED
CRANE FOR
DISLODGING
JAMS AND
REMOVING
OVERSIZE
MATERIAL
Figure 7. Primary crusher plot plan,
26
-------
CD
cf
4.6m
O
B
en
1.5m
cQ
O
3.0m
O
LEGEND
HI-VOLS-
^ (7084)STANDARD
O (7112)STANDARD
<£> (7106)STANDARD
A (710DCASCADE
IMPACTOR
A (7094)CASCADE
IMPACTOR
O
(7105)SIZE
SELECTIVE INLET
(7092)SIZE
SELECTIVE INLET
FOGGERS-
803019
O 803018
Figure 8. Test equipment positions, types, and serial numbers
at the primary rock crusher.
-------
TABLE 2. TEST CONDITIONS - PRIMARY CRUSHER
00
Foqqer 803018
Ambient
Run Equipment Temp.
No. Positions Date Time (
7 Fig. 4a 10-13-80 0938-1000
8 1050-1129
9 1300-1318
10 1326-1350
11 1355-1434
12 Fig. 4b 10-14-80 0833-0915
13 0933-1005
14 1022-1050
15 1059-1125
16 1245-1305
17 1313-1346
18 Fig. 4c 10-15-80 0949-1026
19 1039-1113
20 1116-1156
22 Fig. 4d 10-16-80 0940-1003
23 1021-1038
24 1056-1127
25 1251-1314
26 1323-1345
27 1350-1412
28 Fig. <>e 10-17-80 0850-0927
29 0936-0927
30 ' 1016-1045
31 1105-1135
32 Fig. 4f 10-24-80 0925-0943
33 0950-1004
34 1010-1025
35 1027-1040
36 1045-1112
37 1120-1138
38 1244-1325
39 1334-1403
* Type I: low flow
Type 2i heavy flow
C)
9
10
13
13
13
6
6
7
7
9
10
9
9
11
12
12
16
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
4
4
5
5
5
6
11
11
Relative
Humidity
(«)
77
77
70
70
70
72
72
72
72
72
72
36
36
36
57
57
57
52
52
52
55
55
55
55
82
82
82
82
82
82
68
68
Wind
Direction
N-E
HHW
WNW
Ca m
Calm
SSM
Calm
Calm
N-E
i
SE-S
SE-S
Mind
Hater
Speed No. of Flow
(m/sec) Trucks (l/hr)
2-5
4
Var.
w/gusts
to 9
Calm
Calm
2-5
Calm
Calm
1-2
1-2
8
8 61
8
8 68
8 72
8
8 60
8 57
8 53
8 53
8
10
10 68
8 76
8
4 76
8 72
8 72
8 77
8
8
8 76
8 80
8 76
6
6 76
6
6 76
6 74
6
10
10 78
Air
Flow
(m3/hr)
4.2
4.2
4.0
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.4
4.0
4.1
2.8
2.0
2.6
2.7
3.4
2.2
3.6
4.2
4.7
4.8
4.2
Fan Sign
Speed of
(») Charge
80 (0)
80 (-)
80 ( + )
80 (0)
80 ( + )
80 (-)
80 {-)
50 (-)
50 (0)
80 ( + )
80 (-)
80 ( + )
80 (0)
70 (0)
70 ( + )
70 (-)
80
80 (0)
80
80 (0)
80 (-)
80
80
80 (0)
Nozzle*
Type
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
2~
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Water
Flow
Fogger 803019
Air Fan
Flow Speed
Sign
of Nozzle*
ji/lir) (m /hr) (%) Charge Type
68
68
68
66
72
64
61
66
76
76
76
72
77
76
80
76
74
76
78
78
4.2 80
4.2 80
4.0 80
2.3 BO
1.6 80
1.8 80
1.4 80
4.0 50
3.6 50
4.4 80
2.6 80
3.1 80
2.8 80
4.0 70
2.8 70
2.8 70
80
4.2 80
80
4.4 80
4.1 80
80
80
4.2 80
(0) I
(-) I
( + > 1
(0) L
( + ) 1
(-) 1
(-) I
(-) 2
(0) 2
( + ) 2
(-) 2
( + ) 2
(0) 2
(0) 2
( + ) 2
(-) 2
(0) 2
(0) 2
< + ) 2
(0) 2
-------
extensive variations of fogger operating parameters. Water was provided by a
tank with a small pump which limited nozzle flow to approximately 80 £/hr.
Fan speed was reduced to 80 percent of capacity to help reduce excessive dust
reentrainment in the pit.
The sampling procedure was essentially the same for each test. Upon
arrival at the test site, the wind measurement system was set up and the wind
direction determined. The hi-vol samplers were then positioned in a sampling
array downwind of the crushing pit. The foggers were positioned to control
the dust cloud while not spraying directly into the samplers. Once the
equipment was positioned, the pre-weighed hi-vol filters were placed into the
samplers. The samplers were then turned on simultaneously just prior to the
first truck dump of a predetermined sequence of trucks (typically, 8 trucks
provided sufficient material for sampling purposes). For the runs with the
foggers in operation, the foggers were also turned on at this time and ad-
justed to the predetermined fogger operational parameter conditions. After
the last truck of the sequence had dumped into the pit and crushing was com-
pleted, the samplers and foggers were all stopped and the filters removed.
At the end of the day, all of the filters were returned to TRC's chemistry
laboratory where they were subsequently desiccated and weighed.
Test Results
The filter loadings were used in conjunction with the sampler flow rates
to calculate particulate matter concentrations. Review of these
concentraions indicated that they did not accurately reflect the particulate
levels because of the intermittent nature of the truck dumps and the fact
that each test did not contain an equal number of these dumps. Since the
samplers were not shut off between truck dumps, there was considerable
29
-------
sampling time during which no emissions were emanating from the crushing
pit. The data were therefore reduced on a per-truck basis since the
durations of the unloading and crush- ing times, the times when the vast
majority of the dust was produced, were essentially the same for all dumps.
The data, in the form of mg/truck, were also adjusted to account for the
slight deviations of the actual sampler flow rates from the design flow of
1.1 m3/min (40 cfm).
The majority of the tests (runs 7-31) were completed before results were
available from the chemistry laboratory. Upon examination of these data, it
became evident that a different baseline particulate level would be necessary
for comparison of fogger effectiveness. The fans in the foggers that project
the fog toward the dust source were powerful enough to redirect the plume,
thus causing an "artificial" wind effect. Since the particulate levels
recorded with the fog on were always influenced by the fans, the most useful
baseline for calculating fogger efficiency would be those levels recorded
with just the fans on. This conclusion produced the need for a final series
of tests (runs 32-39) wherein particulate matter levels were recorded with
the fans on, with and without water addition. The data from these runs would
be used for the determination of the efficiency of an uncharged water spray-
Due to the nature of the test, the results are presented separately and
then combined to provide overall fogger efficiency information. The data
from runs 7-31 provide information about the increase in efficiency as a
result of charging the fog. The data from runs 32-39 provide information
about fogger efficiency using uncharged fog. Combining the two sets yields
fogger efficiency information for charged fog.
The efficiencies were calculated in the following manner. All data were
grouped by type of test (fan only, positive fog, negative fog, uncharged fog)
30
-------
into either that measured by standard hi-vols or hi-vols with SSI's. The
data were then separated into two groups: the first group included the data
from test runs 7-31 and the second group included the data from test runs
32-39. The arithmetic means of each data set were then calculated and these
means were used to calculate efficiencies.
Tables 3-6 present the data, means, and efficiencies for the four groups
of data: uncharged fog vs. charged fog - standard hi-vols, uncharged fog vs.
charged fog - SSI's, fan only vs. uncharged fog - standard hi-vols, and fan
only vs. uncharged fog - SSI's. Table 7 summarizes the calculated
efficiencies and presents the overall fogger effectiveness.
There was a marked reduction of 20 to 30 percent in particulate matter
levels as a result of the application of an uncharged water fog on the dust
emissions at the primary crusher. When a charge was applied to this water
fog, the levels were reduced an additional 30 to 40 percent. Thus, the
charged fog produced by two Fogger IVs reduced the particulate matter levels
at the primary crushing pit 45 to 60 percent. This level is consistent with
observations which indicated that more than two foggers would be necessary to
control the dust emissions from the pit. This reduction could be improved
through the use of wind screens (to reduce turbulence and fog deflection) and
increased water flow.
A significant result of this test is that the fogger efficiency seems to
be consistent regardless of the sign of the charge on the fog. This indi-
cates that the dust is comprised of a combination of particles, some with
negative charge and some with positive charge. This is not inconsistent with
1 9
the laboratory work of Hoenig and the findings of Kunkel that show a
charge duality for various types of dust.
31
-------
TABLE 3. RESULTS OP FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER I UNCHARGED VS. CHARGED FOG - STANDARD HI-VOL
Run
No.
a
1
13
J
20
1
26
1
T
29
1
Uncharged
Sampler
No.*
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7106
7094
7084
7084
7094
7106
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Fog
Particulate
Loading
(nig/Truck)**
23.5
31.1
30.3
21.7
22.8
34.2
13.9
20.1
24.0
25.7
12.5
18.6
10.4
7.5
26.9
21.5
Positive Fog
Run
No.
11
J
14
J
23
1
25
1
'
30
T
Sampler
No.«
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7106
7094
7084
7106
7094
7084
7084
7094
7106
7101
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Particulate
Loading
(ing/Truck) **
8.4
14.9
21.4
9.2
8.5
12.6
5.0
3.4
10.9
32.1
11.6
24.1
13.0
11.6
27.0
7.0
= 13.8
Run
No.
10
1
15
1
16
t
19
1
T
24
1
31
1
T
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED = 36
LEVEL
Negative Fog
Sampler
No.*
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7106
7094
7084
7084
7094
7106
7101
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Particulate
Load i ng
(rag/Truck)**
7.7
8.4
14.4
7.4
9.3
13.8
8.7
11.4
17.6
8.2
12.0
13.9
28.1
14.0
34.2
12.0
9.1
21.6
6.6
» 13.6
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED =37
LEVEL
NOTE! * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations
** Corrected to 40 cfm
-------
TABLE 4. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER: UNCHARGED VS. CHARGED FOG - HI-VOL WITH SSI
U>
OJ
Uncharged Fog
Patticulate
Run Sampler Loading
No. No.* (mq/Truck)**
8 7105 6.9
13 7105 9.9
20 7105 13.6
26 7092 2.7
29 7092 3.5
T 7105 7.7
ARITHMETIC
MEAN "
Positive Fog
Particulate
Run Sampler Loading
No. No.* (rag/Truck)**
11 7105 6.0
14 7105 4.2
23 7092 2.6
25 7092 2.4
30 7092 2.4
T 7105 8.8
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED = 41
LEVEL
Negative Foq
Particulate
Run
No.
10
15
16
19
24
31
Sampler Loading
No.* (rag/Truck)**
7105
7105
7105
7105
7092
7092
7105
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED
LEVEL
3.9
5.3
5.5
7.9
3.1
2.0
7.0
= 5.0
= 32
NOTE: * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations
** Corrected to 40 cfm
-------
TABLE 5. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:
FAN ONLY VS. UNCHARGED FOG - STANDARD HI-VOL
Run
No.
32
1
37
T
Fan Only
Uncharged Foq
Particulate
Sampler Loading
No.* (ing/Truck)**
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
6.0
9.2
14.8
1.3
2.1
3.0
4.8
9.0
11.5
1.6
2.5
2.9
= 5.7
Run
No.
33
1
35
39
1
Particulate
Sampler Loading
No. (mg/Truck)**
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3.7
7.5
9.3
1.2
2.9
4.0
1.2
2.0
2.3
= 3.8
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM FAN ONLY
LEVEL
33
Note: * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations.
** Corrected to 40 cfm.
34
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:
FAN ONLY VS. UNCHARGED FOG - HI-VOL WITH SSI
Run
No.
32
34
37
38
Fan Only
Sampler
No.*
7092
7092
7092
7092
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Particulate
Loading
(rag/Truck)**
2.7
0.8
1.4
0.7
= 1.4
Uncharged Fog
Particulate
Run Sampler Loading
No. No. (rag/Truck)**
33 7092 2.1
35 7092 0.7
39 7092 0.4
ARITHMETIC , ,
MEAN = 1'1
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM FAN ONLY =21
LEVEL
Note: * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations.
** Corrected to 40 cfm.
35
-------
TABLE 7. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:
FOGGER EFFICIENCIES (%)
Formula Used In
Calculation*
Fan Only - Uncharged ,
Fan Only
Uncharged - Positive Fog
Uncharged
Uncharged - Negative Fog
Uncharged
Fan Only - Positive Fog ,
Fan Only ~ 10°
Fan Only - Negative Fog ,
Fan Only ~ 10°
Percent
Standard
Hi-Vols
33
36
37
57
58
Reduction
Hi-Vols
with
SSI's
21
41
32
53
46
*NOTE: Input to formulae are the arithmetic mean particulate matter levels.
36
-------
Another significant result is that the efficiency seems to be consistent
regardless of particle size range. The particulate matter reductions
measured by the standard hi-vols (particles <_ 30 pro) and by the hi-vols
with SSI's (particles <_ 15 ym) are very similar. It was hoped that the
use of the cascade impactors would provide additional information on effi-
ciency versus particle size, but the results proved unuseable for this pur-
pose. Almost all of the material collected by the hi-vols fitted with the
impactors was collected on the back-up filter. This indicated that there was
severe particle bounce between the stages. The total mass loadings deter-
mined with these samplers were used as additional data points in the standard
hi-vol group.
Attempts were made at obtaining information in visibility improvement via
EPA Method 9 (visual determination of opacity) . It was found that the
opacity of the fog was similar to the opacity of the uncontrolled dust plume
so that no real visibility improvement was noted.
37
-------
PHASE I, TEST #2 - SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY; SECONDARY ROCK CRUSHER
The transfer of crushed stone onto a conveyor belt results in the gener-
ation of fugitive dust emissions. The control of such emissions was the sub-
ject of the second charged fogger field test. The source chosen for the
tests was a secondary rock crusher operation at a sand and gravel plant in
Connecticut. The field testing was performed during the period of October 28
to November 4, 1980.
Due to some minor equipment problems and the unexpected shutting down of
the operation for the winter, only a limited amount of data was collected.
The source test consisted of nine individual runs conducted over a period of
three days.
Site and Process Descriptions
The secondary rock crusher operation is a continuous process in which
rock is received from a primary jaw crusher and further broken down in size.
The rock enters the crusher from a bin which is fed by an elevated conveyor.
The crushed rock then falls onto another conveyor which transfers it to the
next step of the process. Fugitive dust emissions result from the crushing
process and the falling of the rock onto the conveyor. A photograph of the
operation is presented in Figure 9.
The area around the crushing operation to the northeast is paved and
washed daily. Heavy accumulations of dust and grit occur due to the num-
erous, uncovered conveyors in the area. A lightly traveled paved road, which
is occasionally watered, is located to the southeast of the crusher alongside
a steep hill. Storage piles of crushed stone and dirt are located to the
south and east, respectively. Railroad tracks and railcars used for trans-
porting crushed stone are located to the northwest. A plot plan of the area
is provided in Figure 10.
38
-------
Figure 9. Secondary rock crusher operation.
39
-------
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
HILL
GRAVEL
(STORAGE
CRUSHER
CONTROL
SHED
TRANSFER
STATION
PAVED AREA
RAILROAD
Figure 10. Plot plan of secondary crusher operation.
40
-------
While the majority of the dust in the area was being generated by the
secondary crusher, other operations also generated emissions sporadically
which resulted in a less-than-ideal sampling environment. These emission
sources included: the loading of crushed stone from the adjacent storage
piles into railcars via front-end loaders, traffic on the paved road, the
overhead conveyors, and the loading of dirt onto a storage pile.
Equipment Placement
During the first few days of utility hook-up, the Mark III wind system
was operated in order to provide input for optimum equipment locations. The
recorded results, along with worker observations, indicated that the prevail-
ing wind direction for that time of year was from the southwest. The
samplers were thus positioned on the northeast side of the operation.
The foggers were placed on either side of the conveyor that transported
the crushed stone from the base of the secondary crusher. They were aimed
slightly upwards so as to more completely envelop the transfer area in fog.
Figure 11 depicts the positions of the equipment during the test runs.
Problems Encountered
Two main problems arose that restricted the amount of data obtained. The
first problem was water line freeze-up and the second problem was the shut-
ting down of the operation for the winter.
Although daytime temperatures were well above freezing, night-time tem-
peratures fell below the freezing point on several different occasions.
Despite precautions, residual water that was present in the various pieces of
pipe and tubing in the foggers became frozen. This caused failure in some of
41
-------
LEGEND:
t> FOGGER
D Hl-VOL
© Hl-VOL WITH SSI
O WIND SYSTEM
CONTROL
SHED
O
CRUSHER
T
3.0m
3.0 m
T
TRANSFER
STATION
Figure 11. Equipment positions for secondary crusher test.
42
-------
the joints of the rigid plastic tubing. These pieces of tubing had to be
replaced with more flexible materials and this caused delays in the test
schedule.
When testing was initiated at the secondary crusher, the plant operators
indicated that there might be an operational shutdown in several weeks. This
still allowed adequate time for the source test. However, the operation was
shut down for the winter after only one week of testing was completed. This
shutdown, coupled with the delays due to the ice problems, resulted in the
limited data acquisition.
A third problem that further limited the usefulness of the data that were
obtained was extraneous dust in the crusher area. It was not possible to
completely isolate the dust produced by the crushing operation from the dust
being produced by the overhead conveyors and traffic in the area. Dust was
also periodically generated by the loading of crushed stone into railroad
cars upwind of the operation.
Test Results
The test conditions are presented in Table 8. The test results are
summarized in Table 9.
While it visually appeared that the two foggers succeeded in reducing the
dust emissions generated by the secondary crusher, an inadequate amount of
data was collected to verify the amount of reduction.
43
-------
TABLE 8. TEST CONDITIONS - SECONDARY CRUSHER
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-31-80
11-4-80
11-4-80
11-4-80
Time
1246-1306
1315-1335
1351-1411
1407-1427
1433-1453
0920-0940
0948-1008
1055-1111
1120-1130
Wind
Direction
S-H
S-W
S-W
S-W
S-W
S-W
SSW
SSH
SSW
Hind
Speed
(m/sec)
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1-4
1-4
1-4
Hater
Flow
(l/hr)
114
114
114
102
110
Fogger 803018
Air Fan Sign
Flow Speed of
(ms/hr) (%) Charge
5.4 80 (-)
5.1 80 (0)
80
5.1 80 (+)
80
4.2 100 (+)
100
5.1 100 (-)
Fogger 803019
Nozzle*
Type
2
2
2
2
2
Water
Flow
(l/hr)
114
114
114
95
110
Air Fan
Flow Speed
(m'/hr) (%)
5.4 80
5.1 80
80
5.0 80
80
4.8 100
100
4.2 100
Sign
of Nozzle*
Charge Type
(-) 2
(0) 2
(*) 2
( + ) 2
(-) 2
Type 2i heavy flow
-------
TABLE 9. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT SECONDARY ROCK CRUSHER
Run Un- Fan
No. Date Controlled Only
1 10-30-80 X
X
X
X
X
2 10-30-80
,
3 10-30-80
4 10-30-80 X
X
X
X
X
5 10-30-80
6 10-31-80 X
X
X
X
" T X
Uncharged Positive Negative Sampler
Fog Fog Fog Type
Standard
SSI
Standard
SSI
Standard
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
Standard
SSI
Standard
SSI
Standard
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
Standard
SSI
Standard
SSI
Standard
Distance Measured
From Source Concentration
(ra) (iiQ/m3 )
6.1 17826
9.1 1516
12.2 7312
15.2 414
18.3 1075
6.1 27954
9.1 2435
12.2 8264
15.2 556
18.3 1477
6.1 13813
9.1 1414
12.2 4351
15.2 446
18.3 664
6.1 37390
9.1 3609
12.2 9694
15.2 860
18.3 1577
6.1 22917
9.1 4441
12.2 8102
15.2 1181
18.3 1342
6.1 31321
9.1 3883
12.2 11267
15.2 1047
18.3 2176
(continued)
-------
TABLE 9. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT SECONDARY ROCK CRUSHER (Continued)
Run Un- Fan Uncharged Positive Negative Sampler
No. Date Controlled Only Fog Fog Fog Type
7 11-4-80 X Standard
.
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
8 11-4-80 X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
9 11-4-80 X Standard
II X SSI
1 X Standard
X SSI
1 X Standard
Distance
From Source
(m)
6.1
9.1
12.2
15.2
18.3
6.1
9.1
12.2
15.2
18.3
6.1
9.1
12.2
15.2
18.3
Measured
Concentration
(ug/ra1 )
16539
2962
10894
1138
2992
22319
2851
12452
1083
3593
24345
3515
12879
1126
3524
-------
PHASE I, TEST #3 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT: CAST HOUSE SPOUT HOLE
The casting of molten iron from a blast furnace into a ladle car results
in emissions of hot fume. The control of such emissions was the subject of
the third charged fogger field test. The field testing was performed during
two separate visits: December 9 to 18, 1980, and January 26 to February 3,
1981. The second visit was necessitated by the sampling and equipment
problems encountered during the initial visit.
f
Site and Process Descriptions
As part of the overall steel-making process, blast furnaces are utilized
to produce molten iron and slag from iron ore, limestone, coke and other
materials. The blast furnaces are periodically tapped to release this molten
iron and the slag that has formed. The molten iron travels down runners and
pours through spout holes into torpedoshaped transport cars, known as ladle
cars, which are positioned underneath the cast house floor. The molten iron
is then transported to the next step in the process. The tapping and pouring
process is known as a cast.
At the subject blast furnace, approximately twelve casts occur each day
over three work shifts. Two ladle cars are generally filled during each
cast. The length of each cast varies from 45 to 90 minutes depending upon
process variables such as the condition of the tap hole and quantity of iron
and slag to be cast.
While the molten iron is being cast, fugitive dust emissions, in the form
of hot fume, rise up into the blast furnace cast house. The fume is created
by the burning of the runner material as well as the reaction of the molten
iron with atmospheric oxygen as it falls through the spout holes into the
ladles below.
47
-------
The essential floor plan features of the furnace cast house include the
blast furnace, runners, four spout holes, an enclosed control room, two
bunker areas for material storage, a crane loading and unloading area, a sand
storage bin, and a workman's lounge. A sketch of these features is presented
in Figure 12. A photograph of the site is presented in Figure 13.
Test Description; December 9 to 18, 1980
i
During this initial visit to the blast furnace, a number of sampling and
equipment problems were encountered. As a result, only seven tests were
performed and only a limited amount of data was obtained.
Equipment Placement
Due to safety considerations, it was suggested by plant personnel that
the foggers be placed in one of the bunkers near the control room. This
meant only one fogger could be used since there was a limited amount of room
in the bunker. This also meant that the spout hole nearest the blast furnace
(spout hole A in Figure 12) , the first one utilized during a cast, would be
the source to control since the fogger could not effectively control the
second spout hole (spout hole C in Figure 12) from the bunker position. This
was the fogger position for five of the seven tests. For the other two
tests, the fogger was moved out from the bunker because the spout hole on the
opposite side of the runner (spout hole B in Figure 12) was scheduled for use
and the fogger needed to be moved closer to the source.
The nearest water supply was located on the far side of the control room
which necessitated the fogger water supply hose being routed around the out-
side of the furnace area and into the back of the bunker with the resultant
exposure of the waterline to the ambient temperature.
48
-------
CONTROL
ROOM
MOLTEN
IRON
RUNNER
BUNKER
BUNKER
WALKWAY
CRANE
LOADING/
UNLOADING
OPENING
SAND STORAGE
BIN
WORKMAN S
LOUNGE
> i
SPOUT
HOLES
SPOUT
HOLES
T
51
STAIRWAYS
SLAG
BLAST FURNACE
Figure'12. Floor plan of cast house.
49
-------
i^frgS ^ j*5jj*9J£^*'J.
f.
Butfciaisisg
« $!*$>% fFr&ifvl**' ' t -' 'JTW1!1!1
j ^ v^a.^ - , -^^^-*. ^ ,,- d I ,'j
Figure 13. Photograph of cast house.
50
-------
It was initially decided to use two pairs of hi-vol samplers to measure
the TSP levels, with each pair consisting of a standard hi-vol and a standard
hi-vol fitted with an SSI. The samplers were located on the floor between
the spout hole and the furnace since it appeared the plume was drawn via
natural draft back towards the furnace. This initial equipment arrangement
is depicted in Figure 14a.
During the first set of tests (runs 1-3), it became apparent that the
majority of the fume entering the samplers was from the runners and not from
the spout hole. Since the fume emitted from the spout hole tended to rise
rather than travel across the floor, it was decided to raise the samplers to
obtain more representative results. This elevating of the samplers would
also help to eliminate two other problems that were occurring: the fume was
so heavy that the hi-vol filters were plugging within three to four minutes
and the heat and sparks from the runners and initial furnace tapping were so
intense that some damage to the samplers was being sustained.
During the next two sets of runs (numbers 4-5 and 6-7) only one pair of
samplers was used and this pair was elevated on 2.4 meter high staging with a
heavy metal grating as a platform. The equipment arrangements for these two
sets of runs are presented in Figures 14b and 14c. The elevation of the sam-
plers allowed test runs of fifteen minutes before filter plugging occurred
and eliminated damage to the samplers.
Problems Encountered
While the elevation of the samplers eliminated some of the test problems,
several others were encountered which eventually resulted in the suspension
of testing during this first visit. The problems were principally concerned
with the nature of the casting process and the hostile environment during the
cast.
51
-------
TESTS 1-3
3.0m
2.4m
( i.
:3.0m
(a)
I
TESTS 4-5
SCAFFOLDING
1-f5!
I Bj
(b)
r
TESTS 6-7
SCAFFOLDING
(0
r
LEGEND:
FOGGER
HI-VOL WITH SSI
HI-VOL
Figure 14. Equipment positions for cast house tests: December 9 to 18, 1980.
52
-------
Due to safety regulations and the intense heat generated in the test area
at the time of a cast, the pre-weighed hi-vol filters had to be placed into
the samplers and the flow rates set prior to the start of each cast. This
was often done as much as one hour before the furnace was tapped. This
caused an indeterminate sampling error by allowing particulate matter to
settle onto the filter before the samplers were turned on.
Once the furnace was tapped and the molten iron began to pour into the
ladle cars, the samplers and, where applicable, the fogger were turned on.
The delay was necessary since the ladle cars, positioned below the holes
prior to the cast, cannot tolerate water before the molten iron enters them.
When the filters began to plug up, which was indicated by rapidly fluctuating
flow control lights on the hi-vols, the samplers were turned off. Since it
was not possible to reach the hi-vols and remove the filters until the entire
cast was complete and the tap hole plugged, a heavy layer of metal flake
material was deposited on the hi-vol filters, further biasing the test
results.
The hostile environment in and around the cast house also caused problems
throughout the test period. The ambient temperature was below freezing most
of the time which resulted in several freeze-ups within the various hoses and
tubes associated with the fogger operation. The fogger had to be taken apart
several times in order to remove ice blockages. The dusty atmosphere also
caused some problems with the fogger electronics which necessitated replacing
the originally installed fogger with the other one part way through the test
period.
53
-------
One additional problem encountered, which further complicated the test-
ing, was that ferrosilicon was added to the iron as it entered the ladle dur-
ing some of the tests. This addition caused its own plume of dust which
could not be distinguished from the spout hole fume.
Test Results
The test conditions are presented in Table 10. The test results are
summarized in Table 11.
Observations made during these tests indicated that the fog appeared to
be effective in reducing the amount of fume escaping the spout hole. How-
ever, the limited quantity of data acquired precludes any reliable efficiency
calculations. It also appeared that one fogger is inadequate to control the
amount of fume present during a cast.
Test Description; January 26 to February 3, 1981
Due to the inconclusive amount of data obtained during the first set of
tests at the blast furnace, a second visit to the site was proposed. After
discussions with plant personnel, it was felt that the problems encountered
during the first visit could be eliminated if several changes were made in
the test set-up. These changes and the results obtained are discussed in the
following sections.
Equipment Placement
To help eliminate the problem of material deposition on the filters, it
was decided to use the second spout hole (the one used to fill the second
ladle car during a cast) as the test location (spout hole C in Figure 12) .
It was also decided to use both foggers to control the fume since one fogger
54
-------
TABLE 10. TEST CONDITIONS - CAST HOUSE: DECEMBER 9 to 18, 1980
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
12-13-80
12-14-80
12-14-80
12-16-80
12-16-80
12-17-80
12-17-80
Time
1440-1449
1000-1010
1640-1645
1445-1506
1755-1807
1300-1316
1445-1500
Water
Flow
(A/hr)
114
114
114
114
Air
Flow
(m3/hr)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
Fogger
Fan
Speed
60
60
100
90
80
80
Sign
of Nozzle*
Charge Type
(0) 2
(0) 2
(-) 2
(-) 2
*Type 2: heavy flow
55
-------
TABLE 11. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT CAST HOUSE: DECEMBER 9 to IB, 1980
an
3.
L
2
1
F
3
1
I
i
1
i
S
I
7
I
Measured
Un- Fan Uncharged Positive Negative Concentration
Date Controlled Only Fog Fog Foq Sampler Type (uq/m3 ) Comments
12-13-80 X
X
X
X
12-14-80 X
X
X
X
12-14-80 X
I X
X
J
12-16-80 X
1
12-16-80
1
12-17-80 X
J
12-17-80
I
Standard - closest to spout
SSI - closest to spout
Standard - farthest from spout
SSI - farthest from spout
Standard - closest to spout
SSI - closest to spout
Standard - farthest from spout
SSI - farthest from spout
Standard - closest to spout
SSI - closest to spout
Standard - farthest from spout
SSI - farthest from spout
Standard
SSI
X Standard
X SSI
Standard
SSI
X Standard
X SSI
57273
19051
46170
11613
347497
123496
78756
36005
93803
44389
97849
25284
18765
4683
144649
72031
307191
69874
48586
27731
Ferrosilicon added. Fume trom runners
entering samplers. Test ended when
filters cloqqed.
Ferrosilicon added. Fume from runners
entering samplers. Test ended wnen
filters clogged.
Ferrosilicon added. Samplers moved =-
2 meters further from runner. Less
runner fume entering samplers. Test
ended when filters cloqged.
Ferrosilicon not added. Samplers; on
staging. Fume coming oft of dam.
Ferrosilicon not added. Samplers on
staging. Fume coming oft of dam.
Ferrosilicon added. Samplers on
staging. Fume coming off of dam.
Ferrosilicon not added. Samplers on
staging. Fume coming off ot dam.
-------
was judged to be inadequate. These two changes resulted in the foggers being
located on the cast house floor instead of in bunkers.
To help prevent freeze-ups, the main water line was routed from the work-
man's lounge instead of from near the control room. This eliminated excess-
ive exposure to the ambient temperature.
The fogger and sampler placements for the second set of tests are shown
in Figure 15. One fogger was placed on the blast furnace side of the spout
hole while the other was placed on the side of the hole opposite the work-
man's lounge. This arrangement allowed a cross-flow of fog across the open-
ing. Three samplers were utilized during five of the six tests: two hi-vols
(one with an SSI) were secured to staging about two meters high on the blast
furnace side of the hole and the other hi-vol was positioned below the stag-
ing, on the cast house floor, and protected from runner fume by a metal
shield. One additional hi-vol with an SSI was used during the first test
(run number 8). This sampler was placed on the floor near the fogger.
In order to operate the foggers in the positions shown in Figure 15, it
was necessary to run high voltage power lines and water hoses for distances
of up to 25 meters along the metal floor of the cast house. This posed dan-
gers to both personnel and equipment since the lines could be tripped over
and the intense heat and sparking and splashing of molten iron near the holes
could melt the water hoses or the insulation on the power lines causing them
to fail.
Problems Encountered
Despite the test set-up changes which were designed to help eliminate
testing difficulties, a number of problems still occurred which limited the
data acquisition.
57
-------
SCAFFOLDING
OTJ
SHIELD
I
LEGEND
ON STAGING
* FOGGER
HI-VOL WITH SSI
HI-VOL
C] HI-VOL-BELOW STAGING
O HI-VOL WITH SSI -USED DURING
TEST NUMBER 8 ONLY
Figure 15. Equipment positions for cast house tests: January 26 to February 3, 1981.
58
-------
As mentioned above, voltage lines and hoses had to be routed across the
floor and were thus, at times, subject to intense heat. Precautions were
taken, such as placing boards between the lines and the floor, but some power
line protective coverings did sustain damage and a water line burned through
during one test which caused water to flow across the floor.
Although the area near the runners and spout hole was extremely hot,
there were areas in the cast house that were extremely cold since it was open
to the atmosphere. Ambient temperatures during the testing period resulted
in operating the foggers in sub-freezing weather. Unfortunately, as present-
ly designed, the foggers are extremely difficult to operate below an ambient
o
temperature of approximately -4 C. Water freeze-ups were continually
experienced in the narrow tubing behind the control panel and rotameter.
Freeze-ups also occurred at the nozzle and these were compounded by the wind-
chill effect caused by the fan air blowing around the nozzle. Operating the
o
foggers below -12 C became virtually impossible even though extensive
efforts were made to try to prevent the freeze-up problems. Steps such as
heating the external water lines with electrical heating tape and placing a
hairdryer behind the control panel and at the nozzle proved to be both time
consuming and inadequate to permit the fogger to operate normally.
In addition to the freeze-up problems, one fogger experienced electrical
problems which caused it to become unreliable. The fan would not reach the
speed necessary to transport the fog to the source. Difficulty was also
encountered in keeping the fogger running as the electronic shear pin kept
tripping out. The problem was apparently caused by contamination of the
electronic controls by dust. This fogger was in a position where it was
heavily coated with dust whereas the other fogger was in a less dusty area.
59
-------
Another problem was the nature of the casting process itself which made
it difficult to rely on any set casting schedule. Although plant personnel
were cooperative, it was impossible to cast at the test spout hole on a
regular basis. Many variables, such as runner condition and the positioning
of the ladle cars, affected the schedule. This made it difficult to arrange
the tests.
Based upon the difficulty in performing tests in the harsh and hazardous
cast house environment in conjunction with the freezing ambient temperatures,
it was decided by all parties involved to discontinue testing at this site.
The difficulties involved outweighed the questionnable benefits of obtaining
further data points.
Test Results
As a result of the difficulties encountered, only six tests were per-
formed. The test conditions are presented in Table 12. The test results are
summarized in Table 13.
As with the first set of tests, the limited quantity of data acquired
precludes any reliable efficiency calculations. Furthermore, the fume
created by each cast varied drastically as can be seen by comparing runs 8
and 13. The concentrations measured during these two uncontrolled tests
differ by a factor of ten. Fume variation is due to several parameters,
including iron temperature, ladle temperature, silica content of the iron,
and ambient humidity. In fact, the opacity of the fume was seen to vary from
20 to 100 percent during one individual cast. These variations make it very
difficult to standardize the tests and, thus, any test program would have to
include a considerable number of data points.
60
-------
TABLE 12. TEST CONDITIONS - CAST HOUSE: JANUARY 26 to FEBRUARY 3, 1981
Foqqer 803018
Run
No,
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
1-28-81
1-30-81
1-31-81
1-31-81
2-1-81
2-1-81
Time
1817-1830
1833-1845
1346-1358
1552-1556
1421-1432
1816-1822
Water Air Fan
Flow Flow Speed
(l/hr) (ra'/hr) (»)
114 7.1 80
80
114 7.1 80
114 7.1 80
Sign
of Nozzle*
Charqe Type
( + > 2
(0) 2
( + ) 2
Hater
Flow
(l/hr)
114
114
114
Foqqer 803019
Air Fan Sign
Flow Speed of Nozzle*
(m'/nr) (%) Charge Type
7.1 100 U) 2
80
7.1 80 (0) 2
7.1 80 (+) 2
Type 2i heavy Clow
CTv
-------
TABLE 13. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT CAST HOUSEi JANUARY 26- FEBRUARY 3, 1981
Run
No.
8
I
T
9
1
1
10
I
i
i
i
12
13
1
1
Un- Fan Uncharged Positive Negative
Date Controlled Only Fog Fog Fog Sampler Type
1-28-81 X
X
X
X
1-30-81 X
1X
'
1-31-81 X
IX
X
1-31-81 X
IX
X
2-1-81 X
IX
x
2-1-81 X
1 X
X
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
SSI - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Measured
Concentration
(vig/m' ) Comments
10027
9089
9477
9295
16321
14204
22107
53365
69725
63831
8000
13610
12289
14679
10762
18394
102138 Very heavy fume observed
124111
71787
-------
PHASE I, TEST #4 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT: COKE SCREEN
The separating of coke into size groups by screening results in fugitive
emissions. The objective of the fourth fogger field test was to evaluate the
effect of charged fog on such emissions. The site chosen for the test was
the coke screening operation located at Stelco's Hilton Works in Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada. The field testing was performed during the period of May 1
to 7, 1981 with a total of 51 test runs conducted.
Site and Process Descriptions
As part of the overall steel-making process, coal is converted to coke in
order to obtain a fuel which can be used in a blast furnace to provide the
high temperatures and reducing atmosphere necessary to smelt the iron out of
the ore. As the first step in this process, coal is placed into large ovens
and heated to drive off impurities. The resulting product, known as coke, is
then removed from the ovens and transferred via railcar to the next step of
the process.
One of the subsequent steps in the process is to segregate the still warm
coke into two different size categories. The coke is transferred from a con-
veyor belt onto an inclined vibrating screen. Pieces of coke that are larger
than the pore size of the screen travel down its face and are deposited into
a hopper at its end. Pieces of coke that are smaller than the pore size pass
through the screen into a different hopper. Conveyor belts then transport
the separated material to the next steps in the process. The coke arrives at
the screen in runs which generally last 2 to 6 minutes. The runs are usually
separated by 3 to 10 minutes.
The discharge end of the conveyor belt, the shaker screen, and the hopper
inlets are all located within one enclosed room. The screening operation
63
-------
takes place on two different levels within this room. The conveyor belt and
top of the screen are on the upper level. The hoppers and bottom of the
screen are on the lower level. A catwalk runs around the perimeter of the
screen on the upper level. Figure 16 is a sketch of the room which illust-
rates these features. Figures 17 and 18 are plan view and elevation,
respectively, that provide dimensions of the important features.
While the coke is being screened, emissions of coke dust rise up into the
room from the screen and the hoppers. The majority of this dust exits the
room through a large opening in the wall at the end of the screen on the
second level. The rest of the dust either settles out into the room or exits
the room via roof monitors or doorways.
Equipment Placement
The equipment used for the majority of the coke screen test runs included
five hi-vols (two with SSI's) and the two Ritten foggers. The five hi-vols
were placed on the upper level catwalk in front of the doorway since the
plume was observed to travel across this area. The two foggers had to be
placed on the same side of the screen due to space limitations. One fogger
was placed on the upper level and aimed down and across the screen. The
other fogger was placed on the lower level about 2.7 m from the hopper. The
front end of this fogger was slightly elevated so that it aimed across and
above the hopper area. Figure 19 shows the positions and serial numbers of
the equipment.
The equipment positions remained constant for all of the test runs;
though not all of the samplers were used for every run. All five samplers
were used for the first 31 runs. For the next 16 runs, only four samplers
were operated (standard hi-vol 7094 was eliminated) in order to allow more
64
-------
en
Figure 16. Coke screening operati
on
-------
5.2m
LOWER LEVEL
Figure 17. Top view of coke screen operation.
66
-------
T
CONVEYOR
2.7m
cc
o
o
Q
3,0m
RAILING
OVERSIZE
HOPPER
UPPER
LEVEL
LOWER
LEVEL
-.7m-
Figure 18.-' Side view of coke screen operation.
67
-------
FOGGER
803019
(UPPER LEVEU
Figure 19. Equipment positions for coke screen.
68
-------
test runs to be conducted. The last four test runs were conducted using only
one hi-vol (number 7092) fitted with both an SSI and a four-stage cascade
irapactor. The sampler was moved to the center of the doorway for these runs.
Test Program and Procedure
The test program consisted of 51 runs during 6 days of testing. Included
in the 51 runs were 13 uncontrolled, 8 fan only, 16 uncharged fog, 7 positive
fog and 7 negative fog. The test conditions are presented in Table 14.
The procedure was the same for each of the test runs. Pre-weighed hi-vol
filters were placed into the samplers between coke runs. The samplers were
simultaneously started once coke began to fall from the conveyor onto the
screen and simultaneously turned off at the end of the coke run. During
tests in which the foggers were used they were started and adjusted to the
proper settings prior to the start of the coke run. The hi-vol filters were
immediately removed from the samplers at the end of each run and placed into
envelopes.
Test Results
Following completion of all the test runs, the hi-vol filters were
returned to the TRC Chemistry Laboratory, desiccated, and weighed. The
resulting filter loadings were then used in conjunction with the sampler flow
rates to calculate particulate concentrations.
69
-------
TABLE 14. TEST CONDITIONS - COKE SCREENING OPERATION
Fogger 803018
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
Start
Time
1040
1100
1116
1210
1230
1247
1300
1318
1337
1402
1414
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1440
1450
1507
1520
1535
1400
1422
1443
1500
1511
1522
1536
0732
0812
0832
0837
0846
0856
0905
0915
0925
1003
1015
1025
1040
1055
Duration
Of Run
(min.)
5.0
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.6
3.7
3.5
4.8
5.4
3.4
3.2
6.3
3.1
7.3
2.9
5.1
3.8
3.9
4.9
4.4
3.3
5.4
3.0
4.1
4.6
3.8
4.8
1.2
2.9
2.5
3.1
3.6
5.8
3.5
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.4
2.6
Equipment
Type o£ Test Positions
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Foq
Uncharged Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Uncharged Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Positive Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Positive Foq
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Foq
Positive Fog
Fan Only
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Positive Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
*
*
ft
*
*
ft
*
*
*
*
*
*
ft
ft
ft
A
ft
ft*
ftft
ft ft
ftft
ft*
* *
ft*
ft ft
A ft
ft A
A A
Mater
Flow
(i/hr)
57
53
91
83
61
61
83
79
61
79
76
76
68
79
83
83
83
76
83
83
76
79
76
Air
Flow
(m'/hr)
2.5
3.1
3.4
4.2
4.5
4.5
3.4
3.4
2.8
2.5
2.8
3.7
2.8
2.8
4.0
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.7
4.5
3.7
4.2
3.1
Fan
Speed
(*)
60
60
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Fogqer 803019
Water
Flow
(l/hr)
57
68
76
79
49
49
76
72
53
53
61
68
91
91
83
76
79
83
76
76
91
87
91
Air
Flow
(m'/hr)
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
3.1
3.1
2.1
1.4
2.B
2.3
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.3
3.5
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.1
3.1
3.7
Fan
Speed
l») _._
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
NOTEi
Refer to Figure 19
* Five Samplers - 3 standard, 2 SSI
(continued)
-------
TABLE 14. TEST CONDITIONS - COKE SCREENING OPERATION (Continued)
Fogger 803018
Run
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Date
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-71
5-7-81
5-7-81
5-7-81
5-7-81
Start
Time
1110
1225
1238
1255
1315
0922
0940
0956
1015
Duration
Of Run
(min.)
6.4
2.6
1.8
1.4
4.6
2.7
2.7
5.6
2.2
Water
Equipment Flow
Type of Test Positions (l/hr)
Positive Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Positive Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Positive Fog
*
*
*
*
*
*
83
79
76
76
*
*** 87
*** 79
*** 79
Ait
Flow
(Hi'/hr)
3.7
3.7
4.8
4.0
3.4
3.1
3.4
Fan
Speed
(%)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Fogger 803019
Hater
Flow
U/hr)
76
79
76
87
83
79
76
Air
Flow
(m'/hr)
3.7
5.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.7
4.2
Fan
Speed
(%)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
NOTE! Refer to Figure 19
* Five Samplers - 3 standard, 2 SSI
«* Four Samplers - 2 standard, 2 SSI (7094 eliminated)
«** One Sampler - SSI and CI
-------
Tables 15 through 19 summarize the calculated concentrations for each of
the five test conditions (uncontrolled, fan only, uncharged fog, negative
fog, and positive fog). The data set for each hi-vol is presented along with
the arithmetic mean of that data set. Also included in the tables are the
average concentrations as measured by the standard hi-vols and the hi-vols
with SSI's. Hi-vol 7094 was not used in the standard hi-vol averages because
it was not operated during all of the test runs and would thus bias some of
the results. The arithmetic means of these two data sets are also included
in the tables. A comparison of all of the calculated arithmetic means is
presented in Table 20.
Table 21 presents the fogger efficiencies that were calculated using the
previously described means for the average of the two standard hi-vols and
the average of the two hi-vols with SSI's. In calculating the efficiencies,
the fan-only particulate matter concentrations were used as the baseline.
This was because the fans create an artificial wind effect that is constant
for all conditions except the uncontrolled one. The fan air tends to
redirect and, to some extent, reentrain some of the dust due to the limi-
tations imposed by the test apparatus positioning. This phenomenon would
probably not be present at an actual installation since the fog nozzles would
most probably be positioned above the source and aimed down at it. This
arrangement is not possible with the experimental test equipment.
As shown in Table 21, there was a slight reduction (12 to 23 percent) in
particulate matter concentrations as a result of the application of an
uncharged water fog on the dust emissions at the coke screen operation. When
a negative charge was applied to this water fog, the concentrations were
72
-------
TABLE 15. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (pg/ra3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
1
2
3
6
7
10
11
12
15
18
21
22
25
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
96743
84111
37395
55996
35770
158356
153497
82320
57816
237970
58460
55635
30758
88064
SSI
7105
43248
47853
18866
29278
20093
69493
54752
42787
34870
95672
29342
24563
17647
40651
Standard
7101
68655
79310
31189
34040
15588
88936
69804
54619
36000
116134
21679
37023
15294
51405
SSI
7092
39587
50025
16458
19097
9867
42424
36262
30909
34747
66004
22810
18306
10665
30551
Standard
7094
75068
59116
44379
28646
20605
54530
52203
52872
43226
73282
48906
52423
26004
48558
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
82699
81710
34292
45018
25679
123646
111650
68469
46908
177052
40069
46329
23026
69734
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
41417
48939
17662
24187
14980
55958
45507
36848
34808
80838
26076
21434
14156
35601
73
-------
TABLE 16. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
FAN ONLY PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
28
29
32
35
38
41
44
Standard
7112
205954
229843
115205
149926
144431
148014
181456
SSI
7105
60508
91278
65149
74656
63480
75411
118435
Standard
7101
67576
225319
134932
115376
130322
134221
304563
SSI Standard
7092 7094
27828 28021
75512 136294
51626
41714
43047
46886
91883
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
136765
227581
125068
132651
137376
141117
243009
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
44168
83395
58387
58185
53263
61148
105159
ARITHMETIC
MEAN 167833 78417
158901 54071
82158
163367
66244
74
-------
TABLE 17. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
UNCHARGED FOG PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
4
5
8
9
13
16
19
23
26
30
33
36
39
42
45
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
223620
100933
72356
189098
178908
168438
317657
107765
107819
134123
150095
120065
144588
171003
171168
157176
SSI
7105
93586
46223
31615
81921
43311
160842
103506
45112
36859
58875
86433
56096
64109
84344
97534
72691
Standard
7101
78518
52645
23587
58080
43037
130545
131790
54412
44418
120544
179836
91624
94164
120093
177972
93418
SSI
7092
69921
33943
19063
38274
35763
39292
57152
31879
23623
36058
70426
38542
34824
52397
76210
43824
Standard
7094
98704
51976
31538
57340
84169
89008
76526
52488
27780
43519
-
-
-
-
-
61305
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
151069
76789
47971
123589
110972
149491
224723
81088
76118
127333
164965
105844
119376
145548
174570
125296
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
81753
40083
25339
60097
39537
100067
80329
38495
30241
47466
78429
47319
49466
68370
86872
58258
75
-------
TABLE 18. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
NEGATIVE FOG PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
14
17
31
34
37
47
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
190759
71705
221220
85006
147459
70055
131034
SSI
7105
60430
22332
122963
46362
75354
55538
63830
Standard
7101
41367
13553
295589
79710
138844
74286
86392
SSI Standard
7092 7094
35745 50831
28486 75668
101086 120442
34844
55784
37218
48861 82314
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
116063
42629
258404
82358
143151
72170
119129
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
48087
25409
112024
40603
65569
46378
56345
76
-------
TABLE 19. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
POSITIVE FOG PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (yg/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
20
24
27
40
43
46
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
74915
124471
61084
119430
77963
189030
107816
SSI
7105
30512
42521
23356
63225
45944
114244
53300
Standard
7101
20638
42040
14349
94102
83510
187870
73752
SSI Standard
7092 7094
19321 35254
20301 41190
13451 35749
48661
34150
75862
35291 37398
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
47776
83255
31261
106766
80736
188450
89707
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
24916
31411
18403
f
55943
40047
95053
44296
77
-------
TABLE 20. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (p g/ra3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
Condition
Standard
7112
SSI
7105
Standard
7101
SSI Standard
7092 7094
Avg. of
7112
and
7101
Avg. of
7105
and
7092
Uncontrolled
Fan Only
Uncharged
Fog
Negative
Fog
Positive
Fog
88064 40651
167833 78417
157176 72691
131034
63830
107816 53300
51405 30551 48558 69734 35601
158901 54071 82158 163367 66244
93418 43824 61305 125296 58258
86392 48861 82314 119129 56345
73752 35291 37398 89707 44296
78
-------
TABLE 21. RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
FOGGER EFFICIENCIES (%)
Percent Reduction
Formula Used In
Calculation*
Standard
Hi-Vols
Hi-Vols
With SSI's
Fan Only - Uncharged
x 100
Fan Only
Uncharged - Negative Fog
Uncharged
Uncharged - Positive Fog
Uncharged
Fan Only - Negative Fog
Fan Only
Fan Only - Positive Fog
Fan Only
x 100
x 100
x 100
x 100
23
28
27
45
12
24
15
33
*NOTE: Input to formulae are the arithmetic mean particulate matter con-
centrations.
79
-------
reduced only slightly further (approximately 5 percent). When a positive
charge was applied to the water fog, the concentrations were reduced an addi-
tional 24 to 28 percent. This indicates that the dust plume was primarily
composed of negatively charged particles. The positively charged fog pro-
duced by the two Fogger IV s reduced the concentrations at the coke screen
operation 33 to 45 percent. This level is consistent with observations which
indicated that more than two foggers would be necessary to control the dust
emissions from the operation.
The last four test runs (48-51) were conducted using a hi-vol with an SSI
and a four-stage cascade impactor operated at 0.6 m /rain. Additional runs
were not conducted due to the considerable length of time necessary to
conduct this type of test. The results of these runs are presented in Table
22. While the results are interesting, not enough data were collected to
show any firm conclusions.
An attempt to obtain visible emission information was unsuccessful since
the addition of the fog to the still-warm coke produced steam which masked
any changes to the visibility or opacity of the dust plume.
80
-------
TABLE 22. RESULTS OP FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION! CASCADE IMPACTOR DATA
Run No.
48
49
50
Test
Type
Fan Only
Uncharged
Fog
Negative
Fog
Staqe 1
12313
8424
11036
Stage 2
(4.2-10.2nm
20746
10727
16022
Measured Concentrations dig/in* )
Stage 3 Stage 4
I (2.1-4.2n») (1.3-2.1))iii)
6194
4545
4268
4328
3394
2381
Back-up Filter
(0-1. 3ym)
16866
15333
9496
Total
60448
42424
43193
51
Positive
14088
17737
5766
3431
13066
54088
-------
PHASE II, TEST #5 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT: TORCH CUTTING OPERATION
The cutting of slabs with a torch produces significant amounts of fume.
The control of this fume was the subject of the fifth fogger field test. The
site chosen for the test was the torch cutting operation located at Arraco's
Butler Works in Butler, Pennsylvania. The field testing was performed during
the period from September 1 to 11, 1981, with a total of 132 test runs
conducted.
Site and Process Descriptions
Baseplates for use with the coils of an electric arc furnace are produced
by cutting circles measuring approximately 1.2 meters in diameter from slabs
of 304 stainless. The cutting machine consists of a template and an oxweld
C39 torch which operates using iron powder together with an oxygen and
natural gas flame. During the test, the cutting speed of the torch was set
to approximately 9.5 cm/min. A typical circle was thus cut in approximately
40 minutes. The cutting resulted in emissions of fume which rise vertically
above the operation.
The slabs, which are about 5.5 m long by 1.3 m wide by 0.13 m thick, were
positioned by an overhead crane on the cutting surface adjacent to the
template table. Four circles were cut out of each slab. After the first two
circles are cut, the crane was used to remove the two circles and the scrap
material and then to position the remaining half of the slab adjacent to the
template table for the cutting of the other two circles.
The entire cutting operation is located inside the Butler Works
maintenance building. The area in front and on both sides of the cutting
table is a flat concrete floor. The table is positioned approximately 2
meters from the rear wall of the building. The cutting table itself is
82
-------
approximately 1 meter high so that the top of the slab is 1.1 meters from the
floor. The maintenance building has several bay doors which are opened and
closed frequently for vehicle traffic. Because of these doors and space
heater blowers, the air flow shifted directions at times even though the test
was performed indoors.
Figure 20 is a photograph of the operation illustrating salient features.
Equipment Placement
The equipment used for all the test runs included four hi-vols, two of
which were fitted with SSIs, the two Kitten foggers, and the two AV foggers.
In addition, one of the hi-vols with an SSI was fitted with a four-stage
cascade impactor during certain test runs. The samplers were located above
the cutting operation on a movable platform. The platform was approximately
3 meters high and had a 2-meter by 3-meter metal grating as a surface. After
the first seven test runs, the hi-vols were repositioned slightly to the rear
of the platform to sample the plume more accurately.
Because of the limited amount of space between the operation and the
building wall, all four foggers were located on the same side of the table.
Their positions remained constant throughout all the tests. The front-ends
of the Kitten foggers were elevated slightly so that the air and water were
not directly impinging on the torch. Such impingement was found to disrupt
the flow of the iron powder, causing the torch to sputter or go out
occasionally.
The equipment positions are shown in Figures 21 and 22.
Test Program and Procedure
The test program consisted of 132 test runs during 7 days of testing.
The test conditions are presented in Table 23. To help ensure a valid
83
-------
Figure 20. Torch cutting operation.
84
-------
Figure 21. Equipment locations for torch cutting operation test.
85
-------
SSI
7105 '
7101
SSI 1
7112
Grating
SSI/CI
7105
SSI
7088
STD
7101
STD
7112
Grating
Positions for Test Runs 1-7
Positions for Test Runs 8-132
Figure 22. High-volume sampler positions and serial numbers for torch cutting operation.
-------
TABLE 23. TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION
CD
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Date
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
Start
Time
0830
0835
0840
0935
0950
1050
1100
1120
1130
1250
1305
1310
1315
1330
0825
0835
0840
0845
0850
0855
0900
0940
0945
0950
0955
1000
1005
1010
1100
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1140
1310
1320
1322
Duration
of run
«otn)
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
00
00
00
28
50
50
42
25
00
00
00
00
68
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Ritten Foqqers
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* («./hr)t (of /hr)t
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-t-) Fog
AV-Uncharqed
AV-< + ) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Rltten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
AV-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-( + ) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.6
a 56.8 3.6
a
a
b
b
b
b 56.8 3.6
b
b 56.8 3.6
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
AV loggers
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (fc/nr)t
50
50
50
56.
56.
50
50
56.
50
56.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
NO
No
NO
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
*Refer to Figure 22.
tValues are per Individual foqqer.
-------
TABLE 23. TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION (Continued)
CO
CD
Run
No.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Date
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
Start
Time
1327
1333
1338
1342
0920
0928
0940
0950
1000
1238
1245
1253
1300
1315
1321
1329
1335
1433
1439
1448
1455
1506
0815
0828
0836
0843
1230
1236
1245
1251
1336
1340
1345
1351
Duration
of run
(mln)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bitten Foqqecs
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* (l/hr)t (m1 /hr)t
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-( + ) Foq
AV-Uncharged
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-(+| Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
Rltten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten-Fan Only
Rltten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten-Fan Only
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+( Fog
AV-Fan Only
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b 56.8 3.6
b 56.8 3.6
b
b
b 56.8 3.6
b 56.8 3.6
b
b
b
b
b
AV FoggetB
Fan Mater
Speed Flow
(* of max.)
-------
TABLE 23. TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION (Continued)
00
Kitten Foqgers
Run
No.
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Date
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-1,0-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
Start
Time
1356
1402
1425
1441
1447
1453
1456
1502
0923
0929
0935
0940
0945
0951
0958
1004
1010
1016
1022
1030
1105
1110
1116
1122
1130
1136
1143+
Duration
of run
(rain)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Equipment
Type of Test Position*
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-f) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Rltten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-(-) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV- Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV (+)-Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
Hater
Flow
(*/hr)t
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56,8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
Air-
flow
(mVhr)t
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
AV Foqqers
Fan Mater
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (l/hr)t
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
56.8
56. B
56.8
56.8
Fan
Speed Cascade
(% of max.) Impactor
50 No
50 No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
50 No
50 No
50 No
50 No
No
50 No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
50 No
50 No
50 Yes
50 Yes
50 No
50 No
Refer to Figure 22.
tValues are per individual fogger.
4 Times not recorded after this point.
-------
TABLE 23. TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION (Continued)
Bitten Foqgers
Run
No.
Ill
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Duration
Start of run
Date Time (min)
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-8,1
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Equipment
Mater
Flow
Type of Test Position* (fc/hr)t
AV-Fan Only
AV-(t) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Rltten-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncha rged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Rltten-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(t) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-f) Fog
Ritten-(t) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncha rged
Both-(+) Fog
b
t
b
b
b
t
b
t
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b
b
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
Air-
flow
{of /hr)t
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
AV Foggecs
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (H/hr)t
56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40 56.8
40 56.8
40
40 56.8
40 56.8
Fan
Speed Cascade
(S of max.) Impactor
50 No
50 No
No
NO
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NO
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
NO
50 No
50 No
50 Yes
50 Yes
50 No
50 No
Refer to Figure 22.
tValues are per individual fogger.
-------
comparison of results, all of the foggers were operated at the same water
flow rate of approximately 56.8 i/hr (15 gph) . Fan speed was kept to the
minimum required to project the fog to the fume.
The sampling procedure was essentially the same for each test. Prior to
each set of tests the hi-vol flow controllers were set to approximately 1.1
m'/rain and preweighed filters were placed into the samplers. After the
torch cut had begun and the plume formed, the foggers were adjusted to the
desired conditions. The platform was then moved so that the samplers were in
the visually thickest part of the plume. The samplers were started
simultaneously by a circuit breaker at ground level and allowed to run
approximately 1 minute since sufficient material for analysis was collected
on the filters during this time period. At the end of the sampling period,
the samplers were shut off simultaneously, the platform moved out of the
plume, and the filters removed from the hi-vols and placed into envelopes.
Test Results
Following completion of all the test runs, the hi-vol filters were
returned to the TRC chemistry laboratory, desiccated, and weighed. The
resulting filter loadings were then used in conjunction with the sampler flow
rates to calculate particulate matter concentrations.
The next step in the analysis procedure consisted of determining the
arithmetic mean particulate matter concentration for each test condition
(uncontrolled, Ritten fan only, etc.) for each of the four hi-vols, for the
standard hi-vols combined, and for the hi-vols with the SSls combined. The
resulting values are presented in Table 24. The combined sampler data are
graphically presented in Figure 23. Included in these mean concentration
calculations are the total concentrations from the samplers when a cascade
91
-------
TABLE 24. BUTLER WORKS TORCH CUTTING OPERATION: ARITHMETIC MEAN
PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (ug/m3 )
Particulate
Test
Condition
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7112)
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7101)
Concentrations As Measured By:
Standard
Hi-Vols
Combined
Hi-Vol
With SSI
(7088)
Hi-Vol
With SSI
(7105)*
Hi-Vols
With SSIs
Combined
Uncontrolled
384913
276300
330606
250178
168584
209381
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Onlyt
Both-Unchargedt
Both-(+) Fogt
201838
130549
148538
92147
79109
79877
107043
22955
27192
18673
260695
210507
213847
182017
190792
129547
172377
42422
56504
36198
230426
170528
181192
140078
133588
104134
138950
32688
36963
24514
58622
73971
92482
59569
31560
22254
40499
13067
43084
25427
159191
190102
167531
112128
111431
78576
98536
25471
34873
15185
108906
132036
130006
85848
71496
50415
68843
19269
40347
22013
Also includes the total concentrations from runs where a cascade impactor
was used in this sampler.
Mean concentrations are based on limited data points.
92
-------
CO
o
o
a:
2
400
350
300
250
200
L50
100
50
©
A
A
A A ° O
O
A
0 Combined Standard Hi-Vol Data
A.Combined Hi-Vol with SSI Data
c «
o "^
II
>> -o
IO
.c
^* CT
O I O
o»
o
o
c
J
RITTEN
AV
O
A
+ o
u
BOTH
TEST CONDITION
Figure 23. Arithmetic mean participate matter concentrations under various test conditions
(ug/m3) - torch cutting operation.
93
-------
impactor was used with an SSI. In the calculation of these values, several
data points were omitted when it was obvious that the concentrations were
erroneous because either the torch crossed a support strut and thus created
excess emissions or because of foreign material falling onto the filter from
the hi-vol housing. (The data points that were eliminated from the analysis
are denoted by asterisks in Appendix E.)
Before any conclusions may be drawn from these data, the limitations of
the test setup must be considered. First, the samplers were placed where the
plume visually appeared the thickest. This undoubtably added a degree of
uncertainty and inconsistency in the data. Second, the mass recorded by the
samplers was dictated by the dispersion characteristics of the plume and
whether or not a sampler was in the path of the plume. This, in turn,
depended on the air currents in the building. Third, as discussed
previously, the four foggers had to be placed on the same side of the cutting
operation because of space limitations. As a result, the fan air redirected
the emissions from the operation back toward the wall behind the cutting
table. Since the samplers were restricted as to how near the wall they could
be placed, this redirection by the fan air caused part of the plume to "miss"
the samplers. This redirection is evident in the data presented in Figure 23
which show, for the combined standard hi-vol data, a reduction from the
background level of 30 percent for the Kitten fan only case, 60 percent for
the AV fan only case, and 90 percent for the case where all four fans were
operated at the same time. An examination of the hi-vol with SSI data shows
a similar trend with even greater percent reductions, which is logical since
the fan air would tend to blow the finer material further. Because of this
redirection, it would not be correct to relate controlled emission levels to
uncontrolled emission levels.
94
-------
Introduction of water droplets to the fan air reduces the magnitude of
the redirection force on the dust since a percentage of the fan air momentum
is used in "pushing" the water towards the emission point. This is evident
in the data, particularly with the finer material (SSI data) where it can be
seen that the measured concentrations actually increase between the fan only
and uncharged test condition for the Ritten and both foggers control
conditions. The water sprays are probably reducing the dust levels, but this
reduction could not be measured owing to limitations of the sampling setup.
The only mean concentrations that are directly comparable are the ones
obtained using charged fog and the ones obtained using uncharged fog, since
the only difference is the sign of the charge on the water droplets. Aside
from the case where all four foggers were used (the data are too limited to
draw realistic conclusions), an examination of the mean concentrations
(Figure 23) indicates that the emission levels increased when a positive
charge was applied to the water spray, indicating that the torch cutting
emissions also carry a positive charge. This situation is unusual since
Hoenig found that most industrial dusts carry a negative charge. As a
result, the positively charged fog repelled the dust rather than attracted it
and the fog was rendered less efficient than an uncharged water spray.
Examining the results using negatively charged fog indicates that this
conclusion is correct. The levels decreased when a negative charge was
applied to the water spray. The amount of reduction was 18 percent for the
material less than 30 pm (standard hi-vol) and 35 percent for the material
less than 15 ym (hi-vol with SSI) using the Ritten foggers. The AV foggers
were not operated with a negatively charged fog.
The cascade impactor data were not useful, except from a total
concentration standpoint, because they were obtained for only a few types of
test conditions: Ritten fan only, Ritten positive charge, Ritten negative
95
-------
charge, AV fan only, and AV positive charge. It was not realized during the
tests that the fan only condition could not be realistically used for
comparison since this test condition had been used as the baseline in the
previous EPA-sponsored test programs. Therefore, to reduce sampling time and
data reduction costs, only a few runs were performed with the cascade
impactor and none of these runs were conducted under uncharged fog
conditions. It may be noted, however, that the levels recorded using
negative fog were lower than the levels recorded using positive fog,
supporting the positively charged plume hypothesis.
PHASE II, TEST #6 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT: RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION
The transfer of sinter fines from one conveyor belt to another results in
fugitive emissions. The objective of the sixth fogger field test was to
evaluate the effect of charged fog on such emissions. The site chosen for
the test was a transfer point located at the recycle plant of Armco's
Middletown Works in Middletown, Ohio. The field testing was performed during
the period from October 2 to 14, 1981, with a total of 100 test runs.
Site and Process Descriptions
As part of a material recycling process, iron ore fines are collected
from the blast furnace wet scrubbers and the open hearth slag crushing
operation, combined with coke dust, and are fed onto a large conveyor. The
conveyor moves slowly through a natural gas-fired oven which agglomerates the
material into sinter. The sinter is then broken into small pieces and cooled
by blowing air though it. Once the sinter is crushed, cooled and sized, it
is returned to the blast furnace and used as charging material because of its
iron content and fluxing characteristics.
96
-------
Due to the mechanical agitation of the sinter on the various conveyor
belts throughout the recycle plant, small pieces of material are broken off.
This fine material is collected from several conveyor areas and combined onto
a separate conveyor system. This system transports the fine material back to
the beginning of the recycle operation where it is reintroduced as input
material.
As part of this fine material conveyor system, the material is trans-
ferred several times from one conveyor belt to another. One of these con-
veyor transfer points was used as the location for the fogger tests.
Fugitive dust rises up around the transfer area because of the dropping of
the material onto the next conveyor belt. This particular transfer point has
a drop height of approximately 1.2 meters.
Equipment Placement
The equipment used for all of the fogger test runs included four hi-vols,
two of which were fitted with SSIs, the two Kitten foggers, and the two AV
foggers. In addition, a hi-vol fitted with a cyclone preseparator (CYC) and
a cascade impactor (CI) was used during the majority of the tests.
The two standard hi-vols and the two hi-vols with SSIs were located on a
metal grating directly above the transfer point. The grating was supported
by scaffolding and was approximately 2.6 m above the level of the discharge
conveyor. The hi-vol with the CYC/CI was placed on the existing platform at
the same level as the discharge conveyor. For the fogger tests, one Ritten
and one AV fogger were placed under cover in an existing structure adjacent
to the transfer point. The second AV fogger was placed opposite the first on
the existing platform. Scaffolding was erected adjacent to the existing
platform to support the second Ritten fogger so that it too would be
positioned opposite the first. All four foggers were on the-same level.
97
-------
The transfer operation, scaffolding and equipment positions are displayed
in the photographs presented in Figures 24, 25 and 26. Note in Figures 24
and 25 the wind screen material and tarpaulins that were added to the test
set-up to reduce the effects of wind on dust in the region. A sketch of the
equipment positions including hi-vol serial numbers is presented in Figure 27.
Test Program and Procedure
The test program consisted of 100 test runs during 8 days of testing.
The test conditions are presented in Table 25. To help ensure a valid
comparison of results, all of the foggers were operated at the same water
flow rate of approximately 56.8 i/hr (15 gph) . Fan speed was kept to the
minimum required to project the fog to the transfer point.
The sampling procedure was essentially the same for each test. Prior to
each test run, preweighed filters were placed into the samplers. For the
controlled tests, the foggers were then turned on and adjusted to the desired
conditions. The samplers were all started simultaneously through a control
box. During the duration of the test, the samplers' flow rates were
monitored to ensure that the flow controllers were maintaining the flow at
approximately 1.1 m3/min. Following completion of the test run, the
samplers were shut off simultaneously and the filters were removed from the
hi-vols and placed into individual envelopes.
Test Results
Following completion of all the test runs, the hi-vol filters were
returned to the TRC chemistry laboratory, desiccated and weighed. The
resulting filter loadings were -then used in conjunction with the sampler flow
rates to calculate particulate matter concentrations.
98
-------
Figure 24. Equipment locations for recycle .plant transfer operation test:
elevated samplers and outside corner foggers.
99
-------
Figure 25. Equipment locations for recycle plant transfer operation test:
hi-vol with CYC/CI.
loo
-------
Figure 26. Equipment locations for recycle
inside corner foggers.
plant transfer operation test:
101
-------
AV
Outgoing
Conveyor
Facade of 3-
jStory Structure
Existing
Platform
'a) Level of Transfer Point
Hi-Vol
With SSI
Facade of 3-Story
Structure
Erected
Platform
(b) Platform Level Above Transfer Point
Figure 27. Equipment location sketch for recycle plant transfer operation test
102
-------
TABLE 25. TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION
O
LO
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Date
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-01
10-3-81
10-3-81
10-3-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
Start
Time
1315
1343
1409
1430
1523
1548
1613
1638
1000
1023
1049
1340
1355
1415
1435
1500
1515
1535
1615
1640
1700
1720
1250
1325
1350
1420
1520
1540
1600
Duration
of run
(rain)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
SSIs-5
others-5.45
SSIs-5
otheru-6.12
SSIS-6
others-7.75
5
5
5
Ritten Foggera
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* (l/hr)t (mVhrJt
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
Ritten-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Kitten- (+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Rltten-(-t-) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-(-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.6
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
AV Foggers
Fan Mater Fan
Speed Flow Speed Cascade
(% of max.) U/hr)t (% of max.) Impactor
No
50 No
30 No
56.8 50 No
30 No
56.8 50 No
30 No
No
No
No
50 No
No
No
30 No
50 No
30 No
30 No
No
30 No
30 No
30 No
30 No
________ _\_T^ . ,._ , ____
T
No
30 No
30 No
30 No
56.8 50 No
50 No
56.8 50 No
*Refer to Figure 27.
tValues are per individual fogger.
-------
TABLE 25. TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION (Continued)
Run
No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Date
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-'81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
Start
Time
1655
1715
1735
1825
0935
1012
1040
1115
1155
1225
1405
1445
1520
1550
1620
1645
1710
1735
1805
0920
0950
1020
1105
1140
1300
Duration
of run
(min)
5
5
4.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIe-4.
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-4.
others- 4.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
^
7
7
7
Ritten Foqgers
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* («./hr)t (irf/hr)t
75
5
57
4
08
18
18
12
83
9
33
17
25
17
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Uncharged
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-(-f) Fog
Kitten- (+) Foq
AV-Uncharged
Ritten-Uncharged
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Rlt ten-Uncharged
Ritten-(t) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Foq
Kitten- (-) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
AV Foqqers
Fan Water Fan
Speed Flow Speed Cascade
(% of max.) (l/hr)t 1% of max.) Impactor
No
50 No
56.8 50 No
56.8 50 No
Yes
50 Yes
30 Yes
56.8 50 Yes
30 Yes
56.8 50 Yes
30 Yes
Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
50 Yes
56.8 50 Yes
56.8 50 Yes
Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
Yes
50 Yes
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
"Refer to Figure 27.
tValues are per individual fogger.
-------
TABLE 25. TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION (Continued)
O
Ul
Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
68
Date
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
Start
Time
1320
1410
1435
1505
1530
1615
1000
1025
1050
1110
1125
1240
1305
1325
1345
1405
1425
1450
1515
1545
1605
0845
0905
0925
0950
1010
1025
1050
1110
1240
1300
1320
1340
1400
Duration
of run
(min)
10
10
7
7
10
10
SSIB-9.25
others-10
10
10
10.25
10
15
15
15
15
15
12
15
SSIs-15
others-15.5
15.42
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15 '
15
Kitten Fogqers
Mater Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* (t/hr)t (mVhr)t
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolld
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
AV Foggers
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(» of max.) (l/hr)t
56.8
56.8
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
56.8
56.8
30
30
30
56.8
56.8
56.8
56.8
30
30
30
30
56.8
56.8
30
30
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
Ves (2)
Yes (2)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Refer to Figure 27.
tValues are per individual fogger.
-------
TABLE 25. TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION (Continued)
O
CT>
Ritten Fog^ers
Run
No.
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Date
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14.-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
Start
Time
1420
1440
1500
1525
1545
1605
1625
1645
1705
1725
1750
1310
Duration
of run
(roin)
14.25
15
15
10
9
12
10
15
15
15
15
15
Type of Test
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten- (-) Fog
Uncontrolled
Both-Fan Only
Both-Oncha rged
Both-(+> Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncha rged
Both-( + ) Fog
Equipment
Position*
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Hater
Flow
(l/hr)t
56.
56.
56.
56.
56.
56.
56.
56.
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
Air-
flow
(of /hr)t
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
AV Foggers
Fan Hater
Speed Flow
(» of max.) (i/hr)t
30
30
30
30 56. »
30 56.8
30
30 56.8
30 56.8
30
30 56.8
30 56.8
Fan
Speed
(* of max.)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Refer to Figure 27.
fValues are per individual Jogger,
-------
The next step in the analysis procedure was to group the concentrations
by test day since it was obvious during the testing that some days were much
dustier than other days. The quantity of emissions generated at this site
was highly dependent on meteorological factors such as wind speed, wind
direction, and precipitation and thus all the data could not be grouped
together as in the case of the torch cutting operation data. Table 26
presents the arithmetic mean daily concentrations for each test condition for
the standard hi-vols combined and the hi-vols with SSIs combined (the
samplers located above the operation on the constructed platform). Table 27
presents the arithmetic mean daily concentrations for each test condition for
the hi-vol with the cyclone preseparator and cascade impactor (the sampler
located adjacent to the transfer point on the existing platform).
Examination of the data presented in Table 26 reveals no definite
trends. While a few days appear to display the expected results (i.e.,
emission levels with fan only greater than emission levels with uncharged
fog, greater than emission levels with charged fog), most of the days display
highly erratic results. This wide variability in results from the samplers
above the operation may be due to the influence of other dust sources near
the transfer operation. Dust from the ground surrounding the operation was
frequently reentrained by the action of wind and vehicular traffic; this
reentrained material could have affected the recorded emission levels.
Additionally, downwashed material seemed to be impacting the samplers
occasionally from a shaker-screen operation located above the level of the
samplers. Because of the uncertainty of the accuracy of the results, further
analysis of the data presented in Table 26 does not seem warranted.
The sampler with the CYC/CI located adjacent to the operation was not as
subject to the influence of other dust sources and an examination of the data
presented in Table 27 reveals some possible trends. However, it should be
107
-------
TABLE 26. RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION -
STANDARD HI-VOL AND SSI DATA: ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE
MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (yq/m3)
Date
10-2-81
10-3-81
10-6-81
10-7-81
Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Standard Hi-Vols
Combined
(7101 and 7106)
118195
55025
42038
47431
-
344974
53896
39577
148445
-
-
-
-
58023
-
70265
78307
108567
101470
85176
161645
-
132160
107656
62154
-
102527
257877
158406
111058
Hi-Vols with SSIs
Combined
(7093 and 7105)
35771
26064
15319
19792
-
113809
18433
15102
37238
-
-
-
-
13249
-
"*
35958
39291
43269
42201
42915
48577
-
"~
84035
54845
27015
-
36185
78549
58139
37948
Numbe r
of Runs
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
108
-------
TABLE 26. (Continued) RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION -
STANDARD HI-VOL AND SSI DATA: ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE
MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (\iq/m3 )
Date
10-8-81
10-12-81
10-13-81
10-14-81
Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Foq
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Standard Hi-Vols
Combined
(7101 and 7106)
141079
129856
66101
71574
-
164129
35726
104590
26752
32765
10893
17037
26120
9003
24734
14648
2045
2481
2109
1721
870
1753
1646
1424
1491
3389
4181
3595
4938
5779
1995
2044
1617
855
571
Hi-Vols with SSIs
Combined
(7093 and 7105)
46593
51820
20334
23861
-
63684
10880
46879
9870
8634
2942
3448
7526
2410
5194
3497
1174
1009
760
570
200
921
766
678
334
1323
1545
2474
1322
2028
973
1015
938
284
242
Numbe r
of Runs
3
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
109
-------
TABLE 27. RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION - CYC/CI DATA:
ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS
UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (pg/m3)
HI-VOL WITH CYC/CI (7084)
Date
10-6-81
f
10-7-81
10-8-81
10-12-81
Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
Av-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-{+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Stage
1
CYCLONE
Stage
2
Stage
3
PRESEPARATOR
Stage
4
ONLY
Backup
NO CASCADE IMPACTOR
CYCLONE
PRESEPARATOR
ONLY
Total
81807
92987
60737
55117
47667
119217
-
193267
229828
154590
NO CASCADE IMPACTOR
7366
11385
5007
5058
-
10764
3224
7961
1340
5163
2249
2429
3122
1448
1324
2023
7530
12124
6725
8646
-
13858
4391
9713
785
6099
3541
2357
2920
973
1589
2544
5430
7356
3992
3715
-
6900
2443
5571
676
4982
2119
1562
1876
914
2063
2785
4405
5541
2655
2134
-
4277
1557
4748
*
5312
1574
1128
1199
985
1212
2954
47705
34329
12829
7615
-
15226
4673
32973
5431
83489
16051
10016
5520
8309
9607
54160
87199
186418
158899
129437
Numbe r
of Runs
3
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
*Mass of material on filter less than sensitivity of balance.
110
-------
TABLE 27. (Continued) RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION - CYC/CI DATA:
ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS
UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (u9/m3)
HI-VOL WITH CYC/CI (7084)
Date
10-13-81
10-14-81
Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Stage
1
*
*
677
675
*
405
*
*
707
901
1204
1014
924
1426
940
801
984
939
981
Stage
2
*
*
672
679
550
419
*
383
680
1187
1831
1627
1029
2389
1589
985
1404
1118
780
Stage
3
*
*
*
766
*
264
*
*
464
843
1094
797
642
1336
851
699
935
1037
702
Stage
4
*
*
315
494
*
255
*
*
439
646
758
614
418
909
573
421
720
731
672
Backup
1886
1335
1690
2768
1980
1123
991
1667
3522
2883
3414
2653
2195
3788
1733
2188
6471
5749
5650
Number
Total of Runs
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
*Mass of material on filter less than sensitivity of balance.
Ill
-------
noted that wide variations still occurred between similar tests. For
example, on October 6, three measurements of the background dust levels were
made. During the three runs, the CYC/CI recorded values of 24,028 ug/m3,
178,302 ug/m3 and 43,092 yg/m3, respectively. These data show some
problems relating to the method of sampling, or to the impact of external
parameters, or both. Nonetheless, some possible trends are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
The sampling on October 6 and 7 was performed with only the cyclone
preseparator and no cascade impactor. Using the fan only and uncharged cases
as the baselines, percent reductions in concentration levels were calculated
for the 2 days (Table 28). (Uncontrolled levels are not useful for
comparison since the uncontrolled dust from the operation rises up and away
from the sampler while the controlled dust, theoretically, is kept at the
platform level.) Significant reductions were obtained for the particle size
range sampled (approximately less than 6 ym) for both fog devices with the
Ritten foggers performing slightly better (based on the limited data).
The sampling on October 8, 12, 13 and 14 was performed with a cascade
impactor placed inside the sampler with the cyclone preseparator. Table 29
presents the percent reductions from the fan only and uncharged concentration
levels for each stage of the impactor for October 8, 12 and 14. The data
from October 13 are insufficient to perform this analysis. Perhaps the most
important values shown on this table are the reductions from charging the
spray. The Ritten foggers performed quite well, particularly on the small
particle ranges (the respirable range) , with efficiency increases of 20 to 40
percent for positive fog, and 20 to 65 percent for negative fog.
112
-------
TABLE 28. RESULTS OF FOGGER TEST AT RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER
OPERATION: SAMPLER WITH CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR
October 6, 1981
October 7, 1981
Test
Condition
Mean Percent Percent Mean Percent Percent
Particulate Reduction Reduction Particulate Reduction Reduction
Matter from from Matter from from
Concentration Fan Only Uncharged Concentration Fan Only Uncharged
(yig/m3 ) Condition Condition (yg/m3 ) Condition Condition
Ritten
- Fan Only
92987
Ritten
- Uncharged 60737
Ritten
- (+) Fog
Ritten
- (-) Fog
AV
- Fan Only
AV
- Uncharged
AV
- (+) Fog
55117
47667
34.7
40.7
48.7
229828
154590
32.7
9.3
21.5
87199
186418
158899
129437
62.1
43.6
14.8
30.6
18.5
*No data for this test condition.
113
-------
TABLE 29. RESULTS OF FCGGER TEST AT RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION:
SAMPLER WITH CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR AND CASCADE IMPACTOR
CI
Stage
1
2
3
4
Back-
up
October 3,
Percent
Reduction
from
Test Fan Only
Condition Condition
Ritten-Uncharged 56.0
Ritten- (+) Fog 55.6
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Oncharged 70.0
AV-(-) Fog 26.0
Ritten-Uncharged 44.5
Ritten-( + ) Fog 28.7
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 68.3
AV-(-) Fog 29.9
Ritten-Uncharged 45.7
Ritten- (f) Fog 49.5
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 64.6
AV-(-) Fog 19.3
Ritten-Uncharged 52.1
Ritten- (+) Fog 61.5
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 63.6
AV-(-) Fog -11.0
Ritten-Uncharged 62.6
Ritten- (+) Fog 77.8
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 69.3
AV-(-) Fog -116.6
1981
Percent
Reduction
from
Uncharged
Condition
-1.0
*
-146.9
-28.6
*
-121.2
-6.9
*
-128.0
-19.6
it
-204.9
-40.6
*
-605.6
October
Percent
Reduction
from
Fan Only
Condition
56.4
53.0
39.5
8.6
-39.7
41.9
61.4
52.1
-63.3
-161.5
57.5
63.6
62.3
-125.7
-204.7
70.4
78.8
77.4
-23.0
-199.9
30.8
88.0
93.4
-15.6
-551.8
12, 1981
Percent
Reduction
from
Uncharged
Condition
-8.0
-38.8
-52.8
33.4
17.5
-60.1
26.3
11.5
-35.0
28.3
23.8
-143.7
37.6
65.6
-463.8
October
Percent
Reduction
from
Fan Only
Condition
-33.6
-12.5
-2.6
34.1
43.8
-54.3
-37.1
13.3
33.5
58.8
-29.3
5.5
23.8
36.3
47.7
-17.3
5.0
35.3
37.0
53.7
-18.4
8.0
23.9
54.3
42.2
14, 1981
Percent
Reduction
from
Uncharged
Condition
15.8
23.3
14.8
11.1
43.8
38.0
27.1
41.3
17.9
19.0
44.9
26.5
22.3
35.7
-26.3
*No data for this test condition.
114
-------
Data were also obtained on October 14 using all four foggers. An
examination of Table 27 indicates that the data do not show any trends.
PHASE II, TEST |7 - CEMENT PLANT: LIMESTONE CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION
The production of lime from limestone requires the limestone to be
crushed. The crushing process is completed in several steps which include
sizing and transferring material by conveyor. Throughout the process,
significant amounts of dust are produced. The control of this dust at a
crusher/conveyor was the subject of the seventh fogger field test. The site
chosen for the test was the Black River Lime Company located in Butler,
Kentucky. The field testing was performed during the period from November 16
to December 3, 1981, with a total of 134 test runs.
Site and Process Descriptions
During the lime-making process at Black River Lime, limestone is crushed,
transferred, and screened numerous times. The process begins at an
underground limestone mine. The material is removed from the mine by
conveyor and deposited into a hopper from where it is fed by gravity into a
crusher. The crushed limestone is then transferred by conveyor to the top of
a structure which houses various sorting and screening operations. The
largest pieces of material pass to a crusher located below ground level at
the base of the structure. The crushed pieces of approximately 10 cm in
diameter are transferred to the next step in the process by a conveyor that
begins underground and ends up several stories above ground. The underground
portion of the conveyor is contained in a corrugated tunnel of steel
approximately 3 meters in diameter. All of the dust generated by the
crushing/conveying process passes through the tunnel and exits at its mouth.
Figure 28 is a photograph of the tunnel exit.
115
-------
:igure 28. Limestone crusher/conveyor operation.
116
-------
Equipment Placement
The equipment used for most of the test runs included four hi-vols, one
of which was fitted with an SSI and another fitted with a cyclone
preseparator and a cascade impactor, one Ritten fogger, and the two AV
foggers. Two of the samplers (one standard hi-vol and one with an SSI) were
located on a platform over the conveyor belt at the mouth of the tunnel. The
other two samplers (one standard and one with a CYC/CI) were located
immediately inside the mouth of the tunnel on a walkway next to the
conveyor. The foggers were located outside the tunnel, aimed slightly
downward and back toward the crusher. Two holes (approximately 0.6 m square)
were cut in the sides of the tunnel to accommodate the sprays. These holes
were staggered (by about 6 m) so that the sprays from the opposing foggers
would not impinge on each other which might possibly reduce their
effectiveness. Only one Ritten fogger was used owing to an electronic
malfunction in the other fogger. To provide for a reasonable comparison
between the Ritten and AV foggers, the Ritten fogger was operated at twice
the flow rate of one AV fogger. Figures 29 and 30 are photographs of the
equipment and Figure 31 is a sketch of the locations indicating sampler
serial numbers.
Test Program and Procedure
The test program consisted of 134 test runs during 8 days of testing.
The test conditions are presented in Table 30. To ensure a valid comparison
of results, each of the AV foggers were operated at a water flow rate of 56.8
Jl/hr (15 gph) while the Ritten fogger was operated at a water flow rate of
117
-------
Figure 29. Equipment locations for crusher/conveyor test:
foggers .
118
-------
Figure 30. Equipment locations for crusher/conveyor test:
samplers.and foggers.
119
-------
Lrusner
Standard Hi-Vol
(#7106, Replac
#7094 Part Way T
Program)
Hi-Vol With CYC/CI
(#7084)
Standard Hi-Vol
(#7101)
1
Vol
ed By
hru Test
-Vol
"^ ^"^a
i i
* \
\J_-^
L i
/~~r
^^
1
(
I
, --v
r
*7'tt
)i;^r<^
\
\)
^
^ Corrugated
Steel Tunnel
Hi-Vol With SSI
#7093)
f
Platform
« Conveyor
Figure 31. Equipment location sketch for crusher/conveyor test.
120
-------
TABLE 30. TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Date
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
Start
Time
1040
1200
1215
1230
1240
1330
0825
0835
0845
0855
0910
0920
0930
0940
1010
1025
1035
1045
1055
1105
1115
1125
1310
1320
1330
1345
1355
1405
1415
1425
0750
0800
0810
0820
0835
0845
Duration
of run
(min)
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Type of Test
Uncontrolled
Rltten-Fan Only
Kit ten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Foq
Rttten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Rltten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-t-) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-( + ) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-f) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
Equipment
Position*
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
I
Hater
flow
W/hr)
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
113.5
Utten FoqqersJ
Air-
flow
(rf/hr)
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
AV
Fan Hater
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (i/hr)*
40
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Fogqere
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Refer to Fiqure 31.
tOnly one foqqer used durinq test.
4-Values are per Individual foqqer.
-------
TABLE 30. TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION (Continued)
Rltten Foaaerst AV
Run
No.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Refer
tonlv
Duration
Start of run
Date
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
li-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
to Fiqure
one Eoqdet
Time
0855
0905
0955
1005
1015
1025
1035
1045
1055
1105
1235
1245
1255
1305
1315
1325
1345
1355
1415
1425
1435
1445
1130
1150
1205
1220
1240
1300
1405
1425
1440
1450
0905
0920
0935
0950
1005
1015
1030
1125
1145
1155
1210
1225
1235
1247
1312
1325
1336
1350
31.
(min)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5.75
5
5.08
5
5.17
5
5.23
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.08
5
5.42
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
i test.
Water Air-
Equipment flow flow
Type of Test Position' (l/hr) (nf /hr)
AV-Unc barged
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharqed
Both-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-<+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Kitten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-( + ) Foq
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharqed
Both-(H-) Foq
Uncontrolled
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
e
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (H/hr)t
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
56.8
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
Fogqers
Fan
Speed
(% ot max.)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
TABLE 30. TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION (Continued)
NJ
U)
Ritten Foqqetst AV
Run
No.
87
86
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Date
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
Start
Time
1400
1413
1425
1050
1110
1125
1200
1220
1235
1250
1330
1345
1405
1415
0805
0820
0835
0855
0915
0925
1005
1020
1030
1045
1055
1110
1125
1135
1150
1220
1255
1305
1320
1330
1345
1355
Duration
of run
(min)
5
5.25
5
5
5.25
5
5.08
5.08
5.50
5
5.08
5
5
5
5.25
5.25
5.17
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.17
5
5
5
5
5
5
Water Air-
Equipment Clow flow
Type of Test Position* («./hr) (irf /hr)
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten- (+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharqed
Both-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-( + ) Fog
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
Fan Mater
Speed Flow
(» of max.) (l/hr)±
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
56.8
40
40 56.8
40 56.8
40
40
40
56.8
Foggers
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Refer to Figure 31.
tOnly one foqger used during test.
^Values are per individual foqqer.
-------
TABLE 30. TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION (Continued)
Ritten Foqqerst AV Foggers
Run
No.
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Date
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
Start
Time
0845
0855
0910
0920
0935
0945
1000
1010
1020
1030
1045
1055
Duration
of run
(rain)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.42
5
5
5.17
Hater Air-
Equipment flow flow
Type of Test Position* (it/hr) (irf /hr)
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
Rltten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Ritten- (*) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
Fan Water Fan
Speed Flow Speed
(% of max.) U/hr)* (% of max.)
40
40
40
50
56.8 50
50
56.8 50
40
40
40
50
56.8 50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Refer to Figure 31.
tOnly one fogger used during test.
iValues are per individual fogger.
-------
113.6 i/hr (30 gph) . Fan speed was kept to the minimum required to project
the fog across the tunnel.
The sampling procedure was essentially the same for each test. Prior to
each test run, preweighed filters were placed into the samplers. For the
controlled tests, the foggers were then turned on and adjusted to the desired
conditions. The samplers were then all started simultaneously by a control
box. During the duration of the test, the samplers' flow rates were
monitored to ensure that the flow controllers were maintaining the flow at
approximately 1.1 m3/nun. The samplers were allowed to run for
approximately 4 to 5 minutes since sufficient material was collected on the
filters during this time for analysis. At the end of each sampling period,
the samplers were shut off simultaneously and the filters removed from the
hi-vols and placed into individual envelopes.
Test Results
Following completion of all the test runs, the hi-vol filters were re-
turned to the TRC chemistry laboratory, desiccated and weighed. The
resulting filter loadings were then used in conjunction with the sampler flow
rates to calculate particulate matter concentrations.
The next step in the analysis procedure consisted of determining the
arithmetic mean particulate matter concentration for each test condition for
each of the four hi-vols and for the standard hi-vols combined. The
resulting values are presented in Table 31. (Stage 1 impactor data were not
included because it was frequently noted that material from inside the
cyclone preseparator would fall onto the first stage of the impactor during
its removal, thus invalidating the results.)- These values are reproduced
graphically in Figures 32 (combined standard hi-vols and hi-vol with SSI
data) and Figure 33 (hi-vol with CYC/CI data).
125
-------
TABLE 31. CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION: ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE
MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (pg/m3 )
Particulate Matter Concentrations As Measured By:
Test
Condition
Standard Standard Standard Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol Hi-Vol Hi-Vols with SSI
(7101) (7106/7094) Combined (7093)
Hi-Vol with
CYC/CI (7084)
Stage 3 Backup
Uncontrolled
338001
446316
390153
152607
38079
11383
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
A V-Unc ha r g ed
AV-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
263584
231882
214649
283880
310089
278708
245271
170833
150459
192535
404161
386572
335880
394288
461961
446296
354619
*
*
*
320856
289175
255059
339084
368158
354884
284072
*
*
*
160173
126164
126299
199914
148088
154179
110528
123696
103056
101092
33666
31855
26762
37390
36469
40051
31656
31520
28678
27477
8593
6788
6220
5752
9411
10061
7849
10958
7792
7730
*Insufficient data for analysis.
126
-------
400
350
300
en
o
0
Lul
UJ
250
200
150
100
50
0
o
o
o
0
O
O Combined Standard Hi-Vol Data (<30
A Hi-Vol with SSI Data (<15 o-im)
G
t i
- « ~ =
A
V
RITTEN
AV
o
V
J
BOTH
TEST CONDITION
Figure 32. Arithmetic mean particulate matter concentrations .under various test
conditions (mg/m3)-crusher/conveyor operation
127
-------
For this test setup, it is appropriate to compare the controlled emission
levels with the uncontrolled emission levels since all of the emissions must
exit the mouth of the tunnel. This comparison was performed and the results,
in terms of percent reduction from the uncontrolled level, are presented in
Table 32. An examination of these data reveals that the positively charged
fog reduced the uncontrolled level by 17 to 45 percent using the Ritten
fogger and by 17 to 31 percent using the AV foggers, with the greater
reductions occuring in the less than 1.5 um fraction. Using the three
foggers together reduced the uncontrolled levels up to 55 percent.
An additional analysis was performed on the data to determine the
increase in efficiency from charging the spray. The results of this analysis
are presented in Table 33. It can be seen that charging increased the
efficiency approximately 10 percent for the Ritten fogger and 25 percent for
the AV foggers. However, the increase in efficiency using both foggers was
essentially zero, possibly because of the limited data obtained during the
test condition using both foggers. The lower increase in efficiency with the
Ritten fogger may be due to the fact that only one fogger was used at a
higher flow rate, causing the charge/droplet ratio to decrease (same overall
charge with increased number of droplets) . There is also the possibility
that the spray coverage using one fogger is not as good as with two foggers.
128
-------
a:
LU
a:
<
a.
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
o
o
o
o
" A
O Stage 3 Data (1.5 to^S/im)
A Backup Data (<1.5 jjm)
o
o
A
OJ
^""> I^j7 *>*% ^Jl
4- O I O
o
(J
>> -a
1 §
u
-f O
. ^ 1 1.
o
o
o
A A
>> xJ ' cn
i O) + O
c 01 -u_
o s_
o
J V.
v
J
RITTEN
BOTH
TEST CONDITION
Figure 33. Arithmetic mean participate matter concentrations under various test
conditions (mg/m3)-crusher/conveyor operation CYC/CI data
129
-------
TABLE 32. PERCENT REDUCTION IN ARITHMETIC MEAN UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE
MATTER CONCENTRATIONS DUE TO VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS -
CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION
Percent Reduction from Background as
Test
Condition
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-( + ) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncha rg ed
Both-(-) Fog
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7101)
22.0
31.4
36.5
16.0
8.3
17.5
27.4
49.5
55.5
43.0
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7106/7094)
9.4
13.4
24.7
11.1
-3.5
0.0
20.5
*
*
*
Standard
Hi-Vols
Combined
17.8
25.9
34.6
13.1
5.6
9.0
27.2
*
*
*
Hi-Vol
with SSI
(7093)
-5.0
17.3
17.2
-31.0
3.0
-1.0
27.6
18.9
32.5
33.8
Measured By:
Hi-Vol
CYC/CI
Stage 3
11.6
16.3
29.7
1.8
4.2
-5.2
16.9
17.2
24.7
27.8
with
(7084)
Backup
24.5
40.4
45.4
49.5
17.3
11.6
31.0
3.7
31.5
32.1
*Insufficient data for analysis.
130
-------
TABLE 33. PERCENT REDUCTION IN ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER
CONCENTRATIONS DUE TO CHARGING AN UNCHARGED FOG - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION
Percent Reduction from Uncharged as Measured By:
Test
Condition
Ritten-(+) Fog
AV-(+) Fog
Both-(+) Fog
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7101)
7.4
12.0
-28.0
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7106/7094)
13.1
20.5
*
Standard
Hi-Vols
Combined
11.8
20.0
*
Hi-Vol
with SSI
(7093)
0.0
28.3
1.9
Hi-Vol
CYC/CI
Stage 3
16.0
21.0
4.2
with
(7084)
Backup
8.4
22.0
0.8
*Insufficient data for analysis.
131
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
There are two major factors to consider when evaluating the fogger test
program: (1) overall emission level reduction due to control, and (2) an
increase in fog efficiency from charging. The results for the first of these
factors, the control device efficiency, are presented in Table 34. The torch
cutting operation data are not presented in this table since, as previously
discussed, there are no real baseline levels for comparison. The results for
the second evaluation factor, the increase in fog efficiency from charging,
are presented in Table 35. Based on the data presented in these two tables,
several generalized comments may be made:
o The control of emissions by the two types of fog devices are generally
comparable, with the Kitten fogger appearing slightly more efficient
in the finer size fractions.
o The control efficiencies of the Ritten foggers were higher for the
primary rock crusher and coke screen tests than for the Armco tests.
While this was probably the result of the former tests being performed
with water flow rates that were 50 to 100 percent greater than the
rates used in the Armco tests (due to the AV fogger flow rate
limitation), there is also the possibility that the foggers were
situated in more optimum positions for control at these two sources.
o Two fog devices, in the positions tested with the flow rates used, are
insufficient to completely control the emissions from the types of
sources tested. This is consistent with observations which indicated
that greater water flow would most likely be needed (i.e., 300 to 400
Vhr of charged fog required) as would more optimal fogger locations
(i.e., above the source).
o Charging a water spray .does appear to increase its effectiveness in
controlling particulate matter emissions. Increases in effectiveness
of 10 to 40 percent were noted in some of these tests.
132
-------
TABLE 34. OVERALL RESULTS OF TESTS: REDUCTIONS IN
BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS DUE TO CONTROL
Percent Reduction by Particle Size Fraction
Test Site
Primary Rock
Crusher
Coke Screening
Operation
Recycle Plant
Transfer Operation
Limestone Crusher/
Conveyor Operation
Suspendable Inhalable
Fraction Fraction
Test Type (<30 pro) (<15 pm)
Ritten-(+)Fog* 57 53
Ritten-(-)Fog* 58 46
Ritten-(+)Fog* 45 33
Ritten-(-)Fog* 27 15
Ritten-(+)Fog*
Ritten-(-)Fog*
AV-(+)Fog*
Ritten-(+)Fogt 35 17
Ritten-(-)Fogt 13 -31
AV-(+)Fogt 27 28
Fine Respirable
Fraction Fraction
(<=6 pm) (<2-3 wal_
41
55
31
30
2
17
5
24
-552
45
50
31
to 88
to 93
to 54
*Reduction from fan only levels
tReduction from background levels
133
-------
TABLE 35. OVERALL RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTS: INCREASE IN
EFFICIENCY DUE TO APPLYING A CHARGE TO A WATER SPRAY
Percent Increase by Particle Size Fraction
Suspendable Inhalable Fine Respirable
Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction
Test Site Test Type (<30 ym) (<15 ym) (<= 6 \im) (<2-3 gm)
Primary Rock
Crusher
Coke Screening
Operation
Ritten- (+) Fog
Ritten- (-)Foq
Ritten- (+) Fog
Ritten- (-) Fog
36
37
28
5
41
32
24
3
Torch Cutting Ritten-(-)Fog 18 35
Operation
Recycle Plant Ritten-(+)Fog 9 19 to 41
Transfer Operation Ritten-(-)Fog 33 24 to 66
AV-(+)Fog 19 *
Limestone Crusher/ Ritten-(+)Fog 12 0 16 8
Conveyor Operation AV-(+)Fog 20 28 21 22
*Decrease in efficiency
134
-------
Another significant result of the test program can be derived fton; tht
data from the Armco tests obtained with all four fog devices operating at the
same time. The data indicated that very little benefit was derived from such
action. Perhaps the increased fan air causes more dust reentrainment, thus
counteracting the increased efficiency from increased water flow. This would
not be the case with one set of foggers where the water flow could be doubled
without an increase in fan air.
It should be noted that there was considerable scatter in the test data
in several cases, most notably the Phase II tests. Thus, the efficiency
results for these cases are more indicative of trends rather than
statistically significant differences. The data scatter was primarily due to
process variations and, in some instances, meteorological conditions. There
was also the possible influence of nearby sources, particularly at the
recycle plant (Test Number 6) . The data obtained during the Phase I test
sequence exhibit less scatter.
135
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
1. Hoenig, S.A. Use of Electrostatically Charged Fog for Control of
Fugitive Dust Emissions. The University of Arizona, Tucson. EPA
600/7-77-131 (NTIS PB 276-645). 1977.
2. Brookman, E.T. Demonstration of the Use of Charged Fog in
Controlling Fugitive Dust from Large-Scale Industrial Sources.
Presented at the Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement
Technology for 1980, Philadelphia, November 1980.
3. Brookman, E.T., R.C. McCrillis, and D.C. Drehmel. Demonstration of
the Use of Charged Fog in Controlling Fugitive Dust from Large-Scale
Industrial Sources. Presented at the Third Symposium on the Transfer
and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, Orlando, Florida,
March 1981.
4. Brookman, E.T., K.J. Kelley, and R.C. McCrillis. Demonstration of
the Use of Charged Fog in Controlling Fugitive Dust from a Coke
Screening Operation at a Steel Mill. Presented at the Symposium on
Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for 1981, Chicago,
October 1981.
5. KLD Associates, Inc. Operation and Maintenance Manual For Model DC-2
Droplet Measuring Device. Huntington Station, New York.
6. Mathai, C.V., L.A. Rathbun, and D.C. Drehmel. An Electrostatically
Charged Fog Generator for the Control of Inhalable Particles.
Presented at the Third Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of
Particulate Control Technology, Orlando, Florida, March 1981.
7. Mathai, C.V., L.A. Rathbun, and D.C. Drehmel. Prototype Tests of a
Charged Water Droplet Generator for the Control of Inhalable Fugitive
Dust. Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Philadelphia, June 1981.
8. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Quality Assurance Handbook for
Air Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume II, Ambient Air Specific
Methods, May 1977,
9. Kunkel, W.B. The Static Electrification of Dust Particles on
Dispersion into a Cloud. Journal of Applied Physics. 21:820-32.
1950.
136
-------
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Demonstration of the Use of Charged Fog in Controlling
Fugitive Dust from Large-scale Industrial Sources
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
/Please read launicnons on the reverse bejore completing}
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-83-044
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION i
5 REPORT DATE
June 1983
7. AUTHOR(S)
Edward T. Brookman and Kevin J. Kelley
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
800 Connecticut Boulevard
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3115, Task 109
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF RE PORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 5/79 - 7/82
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL_RTp project officer is Robert C. McCrillis, Mail Drop 63,
919/541-2733.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of a full-scale demonstration of a charged fogger
(Kitten Corporation's Fogger IV) on several industrial fugitive emission sources.
(Although charged foggers have been widely applied to industrial sources of fugitive
dust, little data are available on fogger control effectiveness on particulate matter. )
The sources tested included a primary rock crushing operation, a secondary rock
crushing operation, a molten iron spout hole at a blast furnace cast house, and a
coke screening operation. The report also gives results of three source tests using
the same charged foggers, along with a charged fogger developed by AeroVironment,
Inc. The sources for field testing both foggers were a stainless steel slab torch cut-
ting operation, a conveyor transfer operation at a recycle (sinter) plant, and a lime-
stone crusher/conveyor operation. In general, tests showed that (l) the control of
emissions by the two foggers are generally comparable, (2) fogger efficiency depends
on the positions of the foggers in relation to the source, and (3) charging a water
spray appears to increase its effectiveness in controlling particulate matter emis-
sions by up to 40 percent.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Held/Group
Pollution
Dust
Processing
Leakage
Electrostatics
Spraying
Fogging
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Charged Fog
Fugitive Dust
Particulate
Water Sprays
13B
11G
13 H
14G
20C
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
145
20. SECURITY CLASS {This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
137
------- |