72-MM-I9
(REPORT NUMBER)
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST
J. G. BOSWELL COMPANY
(PLANT NAME)
(COTTON GIN)
EL RICO #9
(PLANT ADDRESS)
CORCORAN, CALIFORNIA
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
-------
PARTICULATE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
PROM COTTON GINS
EMB Project Report No.
72-MM-19
Plant Tested
J. G. Boswell Company El Rico # 9
Corcoran, California
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
¥. R. Feairheller
D. L. Harris
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio
Report Reviewed by John W. Snyder
Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task No. 6
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OP RESULTS 6
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION 27
IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 35
A. LOCATION OP SAMPLING POINTS 35
B. SAMPLING PROCEDURES 4 5
C. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 61
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. • PAGE
1. Summary of Emission Measurements made at the
J. G. Boswell Company, Corcoran, California 9
2. Summary of Velocity and Estimated Emissions of
Unsampled Stacks at the J. G. Boswell Company,
Corcoran, California 11
3« Summary of Efficiency Data 12
4. Summary of Results from Outlet of Mote Cyclone -
Stack Number IB 15
5. Summary of Results from Outlet of Mote Cyclone -
Stack Number 2B l6
6. Summary of Results from Outlet of Wet Scrubber
on Lint Cleaner - Stack Number 4 , 17
7- Summary of Results from Outlet of Wet Scrubber
on Lint Cleaner - Stack Number 6 18
8. Summary of Results from Outlet of Wet Scrubber
on Lint Cleaner - Stack Number 8. 19
9« Summary of Results from Skimmer Vent - Stack
Number 9A ' 20
10. Summary of Results from Outlet of Scrubber and
Spray Column Combination - Stack Number 10 21
11. Summary of Results from Outlet of Wet Scrubber
on Battery Condenser - Stack Number 12 22
12. Summary of Results from Inlet of Wet Scrubber
on Lint Cleaner - Stack Number 7 23
13- Summary of Results from Inlet of Wet Scrubber
on Battery Condenser - Stack Number 11 . 24
l4. Summary of Results from Inlet of Skimmer and
Spray Column Combination - Stack Number 9 25
15. Total Calculated Emissions for Sampled
'Operational Systems 26
l6. Summary of Sampling Points 42
A-l. Particulate Emission Data, Sampled Stacks 64
A-2. Particulate Calculations ! 70
A-3- Particulate Emission Data - High Volume Sampler 75
A-4. Particulate Calculations - High Volume Sampler 77
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
continued
No. PAGE
A-5- Velocity and Estimated Particulate Emission
of Unsampled Stacks 8l
A-6. Velocity Calculations on Unsampled Ducts and
Efficiency of Control Devices 83
B-l. Production Data Summary 86
iii
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
No. • PAGE
1. Schematic Diagram of Cotton Gin Control Devices 4
2. Plant Plow Diagram 28
3. Plant Flow Diagram Showing Location of Emission
Control Devices 29
4. Diagram of Sampling Locations No. 1 and 2 36
5. Diagram of Sampling Location No. 4 37
6. Diagram of Sampling Location No. 6 38
7. Diagram of Sampling Location No. 7 and 8 39
8. Diagram of Sampling Location No. 9, 9A, and 10 40
9. Diagram of Sampling Location No. 11 and 12 4l
10. Diagram of Straightening Vane Construction .46
11. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Locations No. 1 and 2 47
12. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 4 48
13. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 6 49
14. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 7 . 50
15. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 8 51
16. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 9A 52
17. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 9 53
18. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 10 54
19. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 11 55
20. Diagram of Traverse Point Locations for
Sampling Location No. 12 56
E-l. High-Volume Sampler Schematic 409
iv
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The test is part of the Cotton Ginning Industry Study, a
project of the Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The field test work was directed by Joseph
Bazes, Field Testing Section, Emission Measurement Branch.
The sampling was performed by Monsanto Research Corporation
(MRC). The Cotton Ginning Industry Study is being conducted
by William 0. Herring, Industrial Survey Section.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is given the responsibility of establishing
performance standards for new installations or modifica-
tions to existing installations in stationary source cat-
egories. As a contractor, Monsanto Research Corporation,
under the 'Environmental Protection Agency's "Field Sampling
of Atmospheric Emissions" Program, was asked to provide
emission data from the J. G; Boswe11 Company, Corcoran,
California. The cotton gins selected and studied were
equipped with the best types of pollution control equipment
currently available.
This report tabulates the-data collected at the J. G.
Boswell Company during the period from November 27 to Decem-
ber 10, 1972. In this cotton gin, field picked cotton is
1
-------
removed from the wagon on a rotating dump device that in-
verts the wagon and dumps the contents into a conveyer pit.
An alternate system removes the cotton from the wagons with
a vacuum tube, if necessary.
Once the material is inside the gin it is moved from one
operation to the next by a moving air system. Air moves
the material through the ginning machines for removal of
dirt, plant material, the cotton seeds, and fine lint. The
clean cotton is finally collected in the battery condenser
and conveyed to the press and baling machine. The trash
and air from the unloading line, cleaning separator, in-
clined cleaner, and moisture conditioner are fed to various
skimmers and skimmer-spray column combinations. Air from
the gin stands is exhausted to two banks of mote cyclones
and air from the lint cleaners and battery condenser is
scrubbed in seven air/water scrubbers. The trash from all
skimmers is fed through a master trash line to a master
skimmer where it is then blown to a trash pile.
The major emphasis of the study was to obtain accurate
data on the particulate emissions and the efficiency of
the control device for the removal of particulate matter.
To accomplish this objective, simultaneous measurements
were made on the inlets and atmospheric outlets of some
devices. Outlets to the atmosphere were measured for par-
ticulate concentrations using Method 5, "Determination of
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources." Other
procedures that were required during the study included
Method 1, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary
Sources;" Method 2, "Determination of Stack Gas Velocity
and Volumetric Plow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube);" Method 3,
"Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Excess Air and Dry
-------
Molecular Weight;" and Method 4, "Determination of Moisture
in Stack Gases." The particulate loading in the inlets to
the control devices was determined using a high volume
source sampler constructed by the EPA and operated by both
EPA and MRC personnel. A detailed description of this
sampler is given in a later section of this report.
A schematic diagram of the control devices with respect to
the building and indicating which of the devices were sam-
pled is shown in Figure 1. The description of the device
and the designation of the sample point numbers"are as
follows:
Source of Effluent
Lint Cleaner Mote Line
Gin Stands 1, 2, & 3
Lint Cleaner Mote Line
Gin Stands 4, 5, & 6
Lint Cleaner
Gin Stand No. 4
Lint Cleaner
Gin Stand No. 5
Lint Cleaner
Gin Stand No. 6
Inclined Cleaner No. 2
& Skimmers Nos. 4 & 5
Clean Out Vent
Battery Condenser
Control Device
Type
Three Cyclone Bank
Cyclones Nos. 1, 2, & 3
Three Cyclone Bank
Cyclones Nos. 4, 5., & 6
Wet Scrubber No. 4
Wet Scrubber No. 5
Wet Scrubber No. 6
Skimmer/Spray Column
Combination No. 2
Skimmer/Spray Column
Combination No. 2
Wet Scrubber No. 7
Sampling Point No.
Inlet Outlet
1A, IB, 1C
2A, 2B, 2C
4
11
10
9A
12
-------
Trailer Dumping & Feed Control Equipment
LC Bale
Conveyor czz
Vertical #1 rrr
Exhaust #2C2
Ducts
Horizontal #2
Exhaust
Ducts #3
0*1
Skimmers
Battery Condenser A,T
A.T<
Gin #1 Lint Cleaner,
Condensers, A,T
Gin #2 Lint Cleaner
Condensers, A,T
Gin #3 Lint Cleaner
Condensers, A,T
Master Trash Line
Fan
Gin 14 Lint Cleaner _>i—T-\
Condensers, A, T .TU»_iJ
Gin K Lint Cleaner.
Condensers, A,T
Gin #6 Lint Cleaner
Condensers, A, T
Skimmers
B
Vacuum Line
with Stone Trap
Air Scrubber#7
•— Skimmer #3
Combined Skimmer
& Spray Column II
Air Scrubber #1
Air Scrubber 12
Air Scrubber#3
Fan
Master
Skimmer^ Cydone Mote cyclones
Total Trash Fan r»O *1
I J —UQ #2
*O#3
Cyclones (2) Open at Bottom
VED= Vertical Exhaust Duct
HED = Horizontal Exhaust Duct
Total Trash to
Trash Pile
Air Scrubber #4
Air Scrubber#5
Air Scrubber #6
Combined Skimmer
andSpray Column #2
ABREVIATIONS
A - Air
SC = Seed Cotton
LC • Lint Cotton
M- Motes
T - Trash
S = Seed
NG = Natural Gas
Figure 1. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OP COTTON GIN CONTROL DEVICES
-------
Extensive modifications were required to prepare the cotton
gin for sampling. These changes were necessary to meet the
requirements stated in the Federal Register and to gain
access to remote points. The outlet ducts of two wet scrub-
bers (points No. 4 and 6) and a scrubber-skimmer combination
(point No. 10) were extended to provide additional length.
Two wet scrubbers (points 7, 8, 11, and 12) were relocated
to a site farther from the gin wall and new inlet and out-
let ducts installed to provide additional duct length. A
new duct and straightening vane was constructed and instal-
led at the clean-out opening of the scrubber-skimmer com-
\
bination (point No. 9A) so that this emission source could
be measured. The two cyclone banks (points No. 1 and 2)
required straightening vanes, large radius 180° bends
and additional lengths of ducting to control and direct
the flow from the outlets. In addition to the duct modi-
fications, extensive scaffolding was constructed to pro-
vide work platforms at the inaccessible points. The duct
modification and sampling locations are detailed in Section
IV of this report.
The following sections of this report include (1) Summary
of results, (2) description of the process, (3) location
of sampling points and traverse data, (4) process operating
conditions, and (5) sampling and analytical procedures.
Appendix C includes all field data from this cotton gin.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OP RESULTS
The Boswell Gin uses several different types of particulate
control devices. The most prevalent is the water scrubbing
or spraying types.
These wat'er contact particle removers generally result in
saturated outlet air streams. At the Boswell Gin, this
saturated air is returned to the inside of the gin buil-
ding to help alleviate the dry conditions. Air scrubbers
are used on the outlets of the battery condenser and all
six lint cleaners. Two skimmer-spray column combinations
are used to control the effluent of the two inclined clean-
ers, two overflow separators, two moisture conditioning
hoppers, and the extractor feeders. There are other skim-
mers in the gin, but the air outlets of these eventually
feed into one of the skimmer-spray column combinations.
The other devices are cyclone separators. Air, containing
trash and motes, is fed from the lint cleaners of each set
of three gin stands to a bank of three cyclones. The mote
is collected in a wagon below the cyclones, and air is
expelled into the atmosphere from the top.
Most of the sampling points required modification of the
ducting to permit samples to be taken. These changes are
detailed in Section IV of this report. In brief, the
modifications were to adjust the sampling points to be
6
-------
consistent with Federal Register methods. This required
extending several of the scrubber inlets and outlets, con-
structing a new stack at a skimmer clean-out vent, and ex-
tending and straightening the flow at the outlet of the
cyclones. Each cyclone was provided with a large radius
180° bend, a straightening vane, and a long straight length
of pipe in place of the rain shield. The duct additions
resembled a large "candy cane." All cyclones in a bank
were provided with the same type of device so that changes
in back pressure would not change the proportion of air to
each cyclone in the bank.
Measurements of static pressure were not taken before and
after the modifications were made, so it is unknown if a
change occurred. Other tests, however, indicate that these
types of modifications result in a slight increase of static
pressure, especially for the modifications made on the
cyclones (see EMB Project Report No. 72-MM-23). • The data
from the other tests indicate that the "candy cane" duct
design may change the operation of the cyclone. Without
actual velocity data, we must assume that an increase in
static pressure means a decrease in velocity in the duct.
This would mean that the cyclone would not be as efficient;
and therefore, the emission rate with the "candy cane" would
be higher. If, however, the fan on the system is able to
maintain the velocity under the increased static pressure,
then the emission rate would not be appreciably different
under the two conditions.
All of the outlets of the cyclones were not sampled for
particulates; however, the unsampled outlets were traversed
to determine the velocity. It was assumed that the load-
ing in grains/DSCF would be the same in'each portion of the
system, and the outlet emission rate in Ib/hr would vary
with the velocity at each outlet point. Thus, the emission
7
-------
rate of each outlet is known or calculated from the veloc-
ity, and the total emissions are equal to the sum of the
emissions from all outlets in the system.
Inlets to each control device could not be sampled by the
EPA-5 Particulate technique due to the large size of the
material in the duct. A high volume in-stack sampler,
designed and fabricated by EPA was employed at these points.
This device is described in detail in Appendix E. The
high volume sampler was used at the inlets of scrubbers
No. 6 and 7 and the skimmer and spray column combination
No. 2 (sampling points No. 7, 11* and 9 respectively).
A summary of the emission data collected at this gin is
given in Table 1. The test numbers indicate both the
sampling point (as shown in the Introduction) as well as
the run number at that point. The sampling schedule, shown
in Table 2 describes which units were sampled or traversed
during the same time interval. Additional information on
the schedule is given in Appendix P Sample Log.
Particulate removal efficiencies can be determined on devices
where both the inlets and outlets were sampled simultaneously.
Loading from the high volume sampling runs on inlets, however,
cannot be compared with "total" Method 5 outlet data. The
high volume sampler does not collect any material or conden-
sate after the filter. The data from the high volume runs
would, therefore, correlate with the "front half" of the
Method 5 samples. Only "front half" data were used to
determine efficiencies. These efficiencies are summarized
in Table 3.
In Table 3, runs performed on the two scrubbers (points
7/8 and 11/12) were done simultaneously. Runs on the
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF EMMISSION MEASUREMENTS MADE AT
J. G. BOSWELL CO., CORCORAN, CALIFORNIA
Date
12/8
12/8
12/8
12/2
12/5
12/5
11/30
12/:
12/2
11/28
11/29
11/29 ..
11/29
11/29
11/30
11/29
11/29
11/30
Test
No.
IB- 2
IB- 3
IB- 4
2B-1
2B-2
2B-3
1-1
1-3
1-5
6-3
6-1
6-5
7-3 .
7-1
7-5
8-3
8-4
8-5
Test Site
Mote Cyclone
Mote Cyclone
Mote Cyclone
Mote Cyclone
Mote Cyclone
Mote Cyclone
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Inlet
- Inlet
- Inlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
- Outlet
Test
Method
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5 .
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
Hi/Vol
Hi/Vol
Hl/Vol
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
.Average
Velocity
Ft/Sec
35.2
36.0
34.0
35.6
10.2
38.3
25.0
21.8
22.7
25.5
20.8
20.5
28.2
29.0
30.0
16.2
17.-0
16.8
(m/Sec)
(10.7)
(10.9)
(10.1)
(10.9)
(12.2)
(11.7)
(7.62)
(7.56)
(6.9D
(7.77)
(6.35)
(6.25)
(8.59)
(8.84)
(9.14)
(4.93)
(5.18)
(5.13)
Average Stack
Temperature
0 p
85.0
77.0
78.0
81.0
82.0
82.0
85.0
81.0
77.0
76.0
82.0
80.0
99.3
93-6
93.5
89.0
93.0
7.4.0
(29.4)
(25.0)
(25.6)
(27.2)
(27.8)
(27.8)
(29.4)
(27.2)
(25.0)
(24.1)
(27.8)
(26.7)
(37..1)
(31.2)
(34.2)
(31.7)
(33.9)
(23.3)
Emission Rate
(Front Half)
Lb/Hr
1.49
1.05
1.20
1.65
1,95
1.63
0.277
0.378
0.144
0.242
0.184
0.123
3.97
5.31
6.37
1.03
0.202
1.40
(0.676)
(0.476)
(0.514)
(0.748)
(0.885)
(0.739)
(0.126)
(0.171)
(0.0653)
(0.110)
(0.0835)
(0.0558)
(1.80)
(2.41)
(2.89)
(0.467)
(0.0916)
(0.635)
Emission Rate
(Total)
tb/Hr
1.64
1.11
1.10
1.71
2.07
1.71
0.499
0.458
0.186
0.371
0.295
0.223
1.24
0.251
1.51
(0.714)
(0.517)
(0.635)
(0.776)
(0.939)
(0.789)
(0.226)
(0.208)
(0.0844)
(n.i68)
(0.134)
(0.101)
•
"
*
(0.562)
(0.114)
(0.698)
Emission Factor
(Front Half)
Lb/Ton
0.212
0.148
0.162
0.235
0.259
0.197
0.0440
0.0498
0.0204
0.0326
0.0257
0.0179
0.549
0.716
0.909
0.117
0.0289
0 . 199
(Kg/M Ton)
(0.106)
(0.0711)
(0.0808)
(0.117)
fO.130,
(0.0985)
(0.0221)
(0.0248)
(0.0102)
C 0.0163)
(0.0128)
(0.00897)
(0.275)
(0.373)
(0.454)
(0.073D
(0.0145)
(0.0994)
Emission Factor
1 Total 1
Lb/Ton
0.234
0.161
0.189
0.243
0.275
0.210
0.0793
0.0603
0.0^63
0.0500
0.0411
0.0325
',
0.177
0.0360
0.219
(Kg,
(0
(0
(0,
'« Ton)
.117)
.0805)
.0911)
(0.122)
(0,
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0,
(0,
(0,
•
*
*
(0.
(0.
(0.
.1371
.105)
.03961
.0302)
.0132)
.0250)
.0206)
.0162)
0811)
0180)
109)
02°
0.93
0.78
.0.85
1.19
1.15
l..ii
1.89
2,07
1.69
1.91
2.08
2.09
1.50
1.50
1.50
2.09
1.71
1.81
Xlf
fr'f
W-
sf.
!;&
,^r
_>'.»%
81
ll
P
il.
'*•""*
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF EMMISSION MEASUREMENTS MADE AT
J. G. BOSWELL CO., CORCORAN, CALIF, (cont'd)
Date
1972
12/1
12/1
12/2
12/9
12/9
12/9-10
12/9
IS/9
12/9-10
12/5
12/5
12/6
12/5
12/5
12/6
Test
No.
9-1
9-2
9-3
9A-5
9A-6
9A-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
11-1
11-3
il-4
12-1
12-3
12-1
Test
Test Site Method
Skimmer/Spray
Inlet
Skimmer/Spray
Inlet
Skimmer/Spray
Inlet
Skimmer Vent
Skimmer Vent
Skimmer Vent
Skimmer/Spray
Outlet
Skimmer /Spray
Outlet
Skimmer/Spray
Outlet
Wet Scrubber -
rfet Scrubber -
Wet Scrubber -
Wet Scrubber '-
Wet Scrubber -
Wet Scrubber -
*In- high volume sampler,' there a
The total particulate matter is
Column -
Column -
Column -
Column -
Column -
Column -
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Hi/Vol
Hi/Vol
Hi/Vol
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
Hi/VoJ
HI/Vol
Hi/Vol
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
re no impingers u;
presented in the
Average
Velocity
Ft/Sec (m/Sec)
71.3
71.8
69.5
11.9
12.6
11.0
25.0
24.0
25.3
12.3
11.3
39.2
26.2
26.0
25.3
(22.7)
(22.8)
(21.2)
.(1.53)
(3.82).
(3.36)
(7.62)
(7.32)
(7.72)
(12.9)
(12.6)
(11.9)
(7,98)^
(7.92)
(7.72)
Average Stack
Temperature
o P
120
120
118
118
110
110
92
114
113
86.7
77.3
79.5
76.0
61.0
68.0
(18.9)
(18.9)
(17.8)
(17.8)
(13.3)
(13.3)
(33.3)
(15.6)
(15.0)
(30.1)
(25.2)
(26.1)
(21.1)
(17.8)
(20.0)
Emission Kate
(Front Half)
Lb/Hr
729
600
612
0.963
0.912
0.779
2.21
7.92
5.83
2.18
2.63
5.10
51.3
8.02
0.519
(Kg/Hr)
(331)
(272)
(278)
.(0.137)
(O.lll)
(0.353)
(1.02)
(3.59)
(2.61)
(0.989)
(1.19)
(2.15)
(24.6)
(3.64)
(0.235)
Eniission Rate
(Total)
Lb/Hr
1.02
0.954
0.81,6
2.49
8.09
6.45
54.9
8.91
1.06
,
1
(0.463)
(0.433)
(0.370)
(1.13)
(3.67)
(2.93)
*
*
ft
(24.9)
"(4.04)"
(0.481)
Emission Factor
(Front Half)
Lb/Ton
99.5
104
76.2
0.160
0.158
0.121
0.381
1.46
0.931
0.279
0.395
0.808
7.02
1.24
0.0785
(KK/M Ton)
(52.1)
(38,2)
(0.080)
(0.0789)
(0.0605)
(0.191)
(0.727)
(0.465)
(0.139)
(0.197)
(0.404)
(3.5D
(0.620)
(0.0392)
Emission Factor
1 Total )
Lb/Ton
0.169
0.165
0.127
0.423
1.49
1.03
7.10
1,38
0.160
(KK/M Ton) % H,o
'
*
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0,
(0,
(0.
ft
ft
ft
(3.
(0.
(0.
.0878)
.0825)
,0635)
.212)
,743;
.516)
55)
688) '
0802)
2.80
2.80
2.80
0.88
1.28
1.21
1.46
1.1".
1.00
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.26
0.77
1.25
aed as condensing units. '' . '<-^*-
"front half" column.
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF VELOCITY AND ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF UNSAMPLED
STACKS AT THE J. G. BOSWELL CO., CORCORAN, CALIFORNIA
Site
Test
No.
1A-2
1C- 2
1A-3
1C-3
1A-4
1C- 1
2A-1
2C-1
2A-2
2C-2
2 A- 3
2C-3
Sampled
Site
No.
IB- 2
IB- 2
IB- 3
IB- 3
IB- 4
IB- 4
2B-1
2B-1
2B-2
2B-2
2B-3
2B-3
Cyclone
No.
1
3
1
3
1
3
4
6
4
6
4
6
Average Stack
Temperature
°F (° C)
85.0
84.0
79-0
79.0
75.0
75.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
(29.4)
(28. 9)
(26.1)
(26.1)
(23.9)
(23.9)
(26.7)
(26.7)
(26.7)
(26.7)
(26.7)
(26.7)
Average Stack
Gas Velocity
Ft/Mln
1830
1920
1910
1980
1970
2010
2010
2070
1940
1990
1870
1940
(m/Mln)
(558)
(585)
(582)
(604)
(600)
(613)
(613)
(631)
(591)
(607)
(570)
(591)
Stack
DSCFM
3870
4070
4090
4240
4250
4330
4300
4430
4150
4260
4010
4160
Plow Rate
(Nm3/Sec)
(1.83)
(1.92)
(1.93)
(2.00)
(2.01)
(2.04)
(2.03)
(2:09)
(1.96)
(2.01)
(1.89)
(1.96)
Partlculate Emission
(Sampled Site)
GR/DSCP
0.0389
0.0389
0.0265
I.
0.0265
0.0321
0.0321
0.0423
0.0423
0.0443
0.0443
0.0387
0.0387
(Mg/Nm3)
(89.0)
(89.0)
(60.6)
(60.6)
(73.5)
(73.5)
(96.8)
(96.8)
(101)
(101)
(88.6)
(88.6)
Estimated
Emission Rate
Lb/Hr (Kg/Hr)
1.29 (0.585)
1.36
0..929
0.963
1.17
1.19
1.56
1.61
1.58
1.62
1.33
1.38
(0.617)
(0.421)
(0.437)
(0.531)
(0.540)
(0.708)
(0.730)
(0.717)
(0.735)
(0.603)
(0.626)
Emission Factor
Lb/Ton
0.184
0.194
0.131
0.136
0.158
0.160
0.222
0.229
0.210
0.215
0.161
0 . 167
(Kg/M Ton)
(0.0918)
(0.0969)
(0.0656)
(0.0681)
(0.0789)
(0.0802)
(0.111)
(0.114)
(0,105)
r
(0.108)
(0.0804)
(0.0835)
-------
Table 3. SUMMARY OF EFFICIENT DflfA
Control Device
Lint Cleaner - Wet
Scrubber
Battery Condenser -
Wet Scrubber
Skimmer and Spray
Column Combination
Skimmer and. Spray
Column Combination
Skimmer and Spray
Column Combination
Run Numbers
Inlet Outlet
7-3 8-3
7-4 8-4
7-5 8-5
Total
11-1 12-1
11-3. 12-3
11-4 12-4
Total
9-1 10-1
9-2 10-2
9-3 10-3
Total
* 10-5 &
9A-2
* 10-6 &
9A-3
Total
* 10-8 &
9A-5
* 10-9 -&
9A-6
* 10-10 &
9A-7
* 10-11 &
9A-8
High Volume
Inlet
(Lb/Hr)
3.97
5.31
15.65
2.18
2.62
10.21
729
600
612
1941
647
647
1294
647
647 .
647
647
Method 5
Outlet
(Lb/Hr)
1.03
0.202
1.40
2.63
54.3
8.02
' 0.519
62.84
1.68
1.36
. 1.18
4.22
7.16
11.11
18.27
3-20
I
8.83
6.61
10.76
Collection
Efficiency
(X)
74.1
96.2
78.0
83.2
N/A
N/A
90.4
99.8
99.8
99.8
99.8
98.9
98.3
98.6
99.5
98.6
99.0
98.3
Total
2588
29.40
98.9
*Inlet data are based on an average of Runs 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3- No actual
inlet data are available.
12
-------
skimmer and spray column combination (points 9/10) were
done simultaneously, however, after the run series was
finished, an open atmospheric clean-out vent was discov-
ered in the skimmer. This vent constituted another emis-
sion source, and the figures in the table do not include
the emissions from this source.
The vent could not be simply closed off because stopping
this flow would change the static pressure, and thus, change
the flow characteristics of the system. An additional stack
was constructed and installed at the vent (point 9A), and
another series of runs performed on the system running
points 9A and 10 concurrently. True efficiencies can not
be calculated with data from these runs (9A-2 through 9A-3
and 10-5 through 10-6) because no concurrent inlet.data
was taken during the tests.
If the inlet loading rate is assumed to be constant, hypothet-
ical data can be calculated based on an average inlet valve.
This calculated data is presented in the table. During this
series, cyclonic flow was discovered in stack 9A and when the
stack was removed the skimmer was found to be partially plugged
with trash. A straightening vane was installed and, during
the next run series, the stack was removed and the skimmer
cleaned just prior to the start of each run. With the new
vane, vortex flow was still present in some areas of the
stack. The samples were therefore taken only at points that
indicated a straight flow. As before, true efficiencies
cannot be calculated on these runs (9A-5 through 9A-8 and
10-8 through 10-11) but hypothetical data are given based
on the previous inlet data.
13
-------
Table ..3 shows that the wet scrubber of the lint cleaner was
not as efficient as expected with a total value of 83.2%.
The efficiency of the wet scrubber controlling the battery
condenser effluent could not be calculated in two cases because
of higher loading values in the outlet than in the inlet.
The outlet values are suspect because of the wide variation
between runs (two orders of magnitude) while the inlet values
are relatively close. The efficiency values are of course
higher on the skimmer and spray column combination from the
runs where effluent from the skimmer vent are not included.
The consistency of the inlet loading values of these three
runs leads to the assumption that their average value can ••'
be used to calculate efficiencies on runs where inlets were
not sampled.
A summary of the data collected on each individual sampling
site is given in Tables 4-14. In these tables the data in
parenthesis is the value given in metric units. Also in-
cluded in these tables are the values of the loading in terms
of Ibs of cotton produced. This value allows the emission
rate to vary with the production which is more representative
than the grains/DSCF or Ibs/hr emission figures.
Table 15 summarizes the data for each group of outlet control
devices. This data, based on front-half loading (from the
probe tip to filter, and not the contents of the impinger
section) provides the combined total emission rate in Ibs/hr
(kg/Mton) and the emission factors in Ib/ton (fcg/Mton) for
all outlets.
-------
Table 4. SUMMARY OP RESULTS
OUTLET OF MOTE CYCLONE - STACK NUMBER IB
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFMNm3)"
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(DC)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(NmVsec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isoklnetlc
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Partieulates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Partieulates - total catch
mg
grains/DSCFs-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton .produced)
percent impinger catch
1B2
12/8/72
EPA- 5
44.6 (1.26)
0.93
85.0 (29.4)
1)460 (2.10)
4600 (2.17)
107
7.02 (6.37)
64.0
113
0.0389 (89.0)
1.49 (0.676)
0.212 (0.106)
124
0.0428 (97.9)
1.64 (0.744)
0.234 (0.117)
1B3
12/8/72
EPA-5
44.5 (1.26)
0.78
77.0 (25.0)
4640 (2.19)
4710 (2.22)
100
7.08 (6.42)
64.0
76.7
0.0265 .(60.6)
1.05 (0.476)
0.148 (0.0741)
82.8
0.0287 (65.7)
1.14 (0.517)
0.161 (0.0805)
1B4
Average
12/8/72
EPA-5
43.0
78.0
4370
44.50
7.42
0.0321
1.20
0.162
0.0373
1.40
0.189
(1.22)
0.85
(25.6)
(2.06)
(2.10)
105
(6.73)
64.0
89.7
(73.5)
(0.544)
(0.0808)
104
(85.4)
(0.635)
(0.0944)
44.0 (1.25)
0.85
80.0 (26.7)
4490 (2.12)
-4590 (2.17)
104
.7.17 (6.51)
64.0
93.1
0.0325 (74.4) .
1.25 (0.567)
0.174 (0.0870)
104
0.0363 (83.1)
1.39 (0.630)
0.195 (0.0973)
7.37
10.0
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet g 70°F, 29-92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute g 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
''Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
OUTLET OF MOTE CYCLONE - STACK NUMBER 2B
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^tNm3)1*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°P-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Plow Rate-DSCPM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Plow Rate-ACFM3-(mVsec)
Percent Isokinetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Particulates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
gralns/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/tbn of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Particulates - total catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent impinger catch
2B1
12/2/7?
EPA-5
141.5 (1.26^
1.19
81.0 (27.2)
4560 (2.15)
1(660 (2.?0)
103
7.03 (6.38)
61.0
122
0.0123 (96.8)
1.65 (0.718)
0.235 (0.117)
127
0.0138 (100)
1.71 (0.776)
0.213 (0.122)
2B2
12/5/7;
EPA-5
19-0 (1.39)
1.15
82.0 ; (27.8)
5110 (2.13)
5260 (2.18)
98.6
7.53 (6.83)
61.0
111
0.0113 (101)
1.95 (0.885)
0.259 (0.130)
150
0.0171 (108)
2.07 (0.939;
0.275 (0.137)
2B3
12/5/7?
EPA-5
18.5 (1.37)
i.ll
82.0 '27.8)
1910 (2.32)
5010 (2.36)
102
8.27 (7-50)
61.0
122
0.0387 (88.6)
1.63 (0.739)
0.197 (0.0985)
130
0.0113 (91-5)
1.71 (0.789)
0.210 (0.105^
Average
17.3 (1.31.
1.15
81.7 (27.6.
1870 (2.30)
1980 (2.^5;
101
7.61 (6.90)
61.0
128
0.0118 (95.7)
1.71 (0.789)
0.230 (0.115)
136
0.0111 (101)
1.81 (0.835)
0.213 (0.121)
3.94
6.00
6.15
5.36
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet ® 70°F, 29-92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic; Feet per Minute @ 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
''Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFl-(Nm3)H
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(mVsec)
Percent Isoklnetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Partlculates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
• mg
gralns/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Fartlculates -.total catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent implnger catch
Table 6. SUMMARY OF
RESULTS
OUTLET OF WET SCRUBBER ON LINT CLEANER - STACK NUMBER
1-1
11/30/72
EPA-5
79.5 (2.25)
1.89
85.0 (29. 4)
'see) 5850 (2.76)
I0) 6000 (2.83)
92.4
'hr)5 6.29 (5.71)
1.80
28.5
0.0055 (12.6)
0.277 (0.126)
0.041(0 (0.0221)
51. 4
0.0100 (22.9)
0.499 (0.226)
0.0793 (0.0396)
- 4-3
12/1/72
EPA-5
79.2 (2.24)
2.07
81.0 (27.2)
5780 (2.73)
5960 (2.81)
93.0
7.59 (6.89)
180
39.3
0.0076 (17.4)
0.378 (0.171)
0.0498 (0.0248)
47.. 5
0.0092 (21.1)
0.4.58 (0.208)
0.0603 (0.0302)
4
4-5
12/2/72
EPA-5
79.8 (2.26)
1.69
77.0 (25.0)
5350 (2.52)
5440 (2.57)
101
7.06 (6.40)
180
16.2
0.0031 (7.09)
0.144 (0.0653)
0.0204 (0.0102)
- 21.0
0.0041 (9.38)
0.186 (0.0844)
0.0263 (0.0132)
Average
79.5 (2.25)
1.88
81.0 . (27.2)
5660 (2.67)
5800. (2.74)
95.5
6.98 (6.33)
180
28.0
0.0054 (12.4)
0.266 . (0.121)
0.0381 (0.0190.)
40.0
0.0078 (17.8)
0.381 (0.173)
0.0553 (0.0277)
44.6
17.3
22.9
28.3
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet 8 70°F, 29-92 In Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute § 70°F, 29.92 In Hg
'Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
^Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metrlc Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Gralns per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
H
OO
Table 7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
OUTLET OF WET SCRUBBER ON LINT CLEANER - STACK NUMBER 6
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF1-(Nm3)1'
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isokinetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Partlculates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Partlculates - total catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent impinger catch
6-3
11/28/7 !
EPA-5
85.1 (2.41)
1.94
76.0 (24.4)
6020 (2.84)
6120 (2.89)
96.1
7.42 (6.73)
180
25.9
0.0047 (10.8)
0.242 (0.110)
0.0326 (0.0163)
39.8
0.0072 (16.5)
0.371 (0.168)
0.0500 (0.0250)
.6-4
11/29/72
EPA-5
69.2 (1.96)
•2.08
82.0 (27.8)
488C (2.30)
5000 (2.36)
96.3
7.17 (6.50)
180
. 19.8
0.0044 (10.1)
0.184 (0.0835)
0.02.57 (0.0128)
31.7
0.0071 (16.2)
0.295 (0.134)
0.0411 (0.0206)
6-5
11/29/72
EPA-5
69.3 (1.96)
2.09
80.0 (26.7)
4820 (2.27)
4920 (2.32)
97.6
6.86 (6.22)
180
13.4
0.0030 (6.86)
0.123 (0.0558)
0.0179 (0.00897)
24.3
0.0054 (12.4)
0.22^1 (0.101) '
0.03T5 (0.0162)
Average
74.5 (2.11,
2.04
79.3 (26.3)
5240 (2.47)
5350 (2.52;
96.7
•7.15 (6.48)
180
19.7
0.0040 (9.15)
0.183 (0.0830)
0.0254 (0.0127)
31.9
0.0066 (15.1)
0.296 (0.134)
0.0412 (0.0206)
34.9
37.5
44.9
39.1
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet g 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @ 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
••Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
OUTLET
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF1-(Nm3)'4
Percent Moisture b.y Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Plow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isokinetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Particulates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Particulates - total catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
.lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent implnger catch
Table 8. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
OF WET SCRUBBER ON LINT CLEANER - STACK NUMBER
8-3
11/29/72
EPA-5
•59.6
89.0
4110
4600
7.01
0.0271
1.03
0.117
0.0326
1.24
0.177
(1.
2.09
(31
(2.
(2.
112
(6.
176
105
(62
(0.
(0.
126
(74
(0.
(0.
69)
.7)
10)
17)
36)
.0)
467)
0734)
.6)
562)
0884)
3-4
11/29/72
8-5
Average
11/30/72
EPA-5
61.7
93.0
4640
4830
6.98
0.0051
0.202
.0.0289
0.0063
0.251
0.0360
(1.
1.74
(33
(2.
(2.
112
(6.
176
20.4
(11
(0.
(0.
25-3
(11
(0.
(0.
75)
.9)
19)
28)
33)
.7)
0916)
0145)
.4;
114)
0180)
62.4
74.0
4770
4790
7.04
0.0342
1.40
0.199
0.0376
1.54
0.219
EPA-5
(1.
1.84
(23
(2.
(2.
109
(6.
176
139
(78
(0.
(0.
152
(86
(0.
(0.
7-7 1
.3)
25)
26)
39)
.3)
635)
099D
.0)
698)
109>
61.2
85.3
1620
1710
7.01
0.0221
0.877
0.125
0.0255
1.01
0.111
. (1.
1.89
(29
(2.
(2.
Ill
(6.
176
88.1
(50
(0.
(0.
101
(58
(0.
(0.
73.)
.6)
18;
21)
36)
.6)
398)
0621)
.1)
158)
0718)
16.7
19.1
8.55
14.9
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet g 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute % 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
••Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metrlc Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
ro
o
Table 9. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SKIMMER VENT - STACK NUMBER 9A
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF1-(Nm3)••
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(NmVsec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isokinetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Partieulates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Fartleulates - total catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent implnger catch
9A-5
12/9/72
38.9
118
1150
12140
6.02
0.0977
0.963
0.160
0.103
1.02
0.169
EAP-5
(1.10)
0.88
(17.8)
(0.513)
(0.585)
103
(5.16)
60.0
247
(221)
(0.137)
(0.0800)
261
(236)
(0.163)
(0.0878)
9A-6
12/9/72
35.5
110
976
1050
5.79
0.109
0.912
0.158
0.114
0.954
0.165
EPA-5
(1.01)
1.28
(13.3)
(0.461)
(0.496)
104
(5.25)
64.0
251
(249)
(0.414)
(0.0789)
263
(261)
(6.433)
(0.0825)
9A-7
Average
12/9-10/72
32.2
110
858
923
6.43
0.106
0.779
0.121
0.111
0.816
0.127
EPA-5
10.9121
'] .2]
(43.3)
(0.405)
(0.436)
107
(5.83)
61.0
222
(243)
(0.353)
(0.0605)
233
(254)
(0.370)
(0.06351
35.5
113
995
1070
6.08
0.104
0.885
0.146
0.109
0.93Q
0.154
d.or
1 .12
(45.0)
(0.470)
(0.506)
105
(5.51)
62.7
240
(238)
(0.401)
(0.073D
252
(249)
(0.422)
(0.0779)
5.67
4.56
4.72
4.98
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet g 70°F, 29-92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute g 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
'•Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
ro
Table 10. SUMMARY OP RESULTS
OUTLET OF SCRUBBER AND SPRAY COLUMN COMBINATION - .STACK NUMBER 10
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCP1-(Nm3)'t
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Plow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(mVsec)
Percent Isoklnetlc
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Partlculates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
gralns/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Partlculates - total catch
mg
gralns/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent Implnger catch
10-8
10-9
10-10
10.3
2.1
9.6
Average
12/9/72
EPA-5
35.8 (1.01)
1.16
92.0 (33-3)
7090 (3-35)
7370 (3.18)
108
5.88 (5.33)
70.0
85.5
0.0368 (81.2)
2.21 (1.02)
0.381 (0.191)
95.1
0.0110 (93.8)
2.19 (1.13)
0.123 (0.212)
12/9/72
33.7
111
6510
7070
5.41
0.112
7.92
1.16
0.115
8.09
1.49
EPA-5
(0.95D
1.25
(45.6)
(3-07)
(3.34)
111
(1.9D
70.0
311
(325)
(3-59)
(0.727)
318
(332)
(3.67)
(0.713)
12/9-10/72
33.0
113.
6910
7460
'6.26
0.0985
5.83
0.931
0.109
6.45
1.03
EPA-5
(0.934)
1.00
(45.0)
(3.26)
(3.52)
103
(5.68)
70.0
211
(225)
(2.64)
(0.465)
234
(249)
(2.9?)
(0.516)
34.2 (0.966)
1.24
106 (ll.l)
6810 (3.23)
7300 (3.15)
107
5.86 (5.32)
70.0
203
0.0921 (211)
5.33 (2.12)
0.921 (0.161)
216
0.0983 (225)
5.68 (2.58)
0.981 (0.190)
7.3
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet @ 70°F, 29-92 In Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @ 70°F, 29.92 In Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
••Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm.Hg
5Metrlc Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Gralns per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
ro
ro
Table 11. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
OUTLET OF WET SCRUBBER ON BATTERY CONDENSER - STACK NUMBER 12
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF1-(Nm3)'(
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-0F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isoklnetlc
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Partlculates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
gralns/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Partleulates - total catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(Kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
percent implnger catch
12-1
12/5/72
33.5
76.0
17600
17800
7.73
0.360
51.3
7.02
0.364
54.9
7.10
EPA-5
(0.949)
1.26
(24.4)
(8.31)
(8.40)
103
(7.01)
64.0
784
(824)
(24.6)
(3-51)
793
(833)
(24.9)
(3.55)
34
64
12-3
'12/5/72
.9
.0
17900
17600
6.
0.
8.
1.
0.
8.
1.
47
0523
02
24
0581
91
38
EPA-5
(0.
0.77
(17
(8.
(8.
105
(5.
64.0
119
12-4
Average
12/6/7?
EPA-5
988)
.8)
45)
3D
87)
(120)
(3.
(0.
132
64)
620)
(133)
(4.
(0.
04)
688)
33
68
.7
.0
17200
17200
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
61
0035
519
0785
0072
06
160
(0.
1.25
(20
(8.
(8.
106
(6.
64.0
7.70
(8.
(0.
(0.
15.8
(16
(0.
(0.
954)
.0)
12)
12)
00)
01)
235)
0392)
.5)
481)
0802)
34.0
69.3
17600
17500
6.94
0.139
20.9
2.78
0.143
21.6
2.88
(0.9631
1.09
(20.7)
(8.3D
(8.26)
105
(6.29)
64.0
304
(318)
(9.48)
(1.39)
314
(327)
(9.80)
(1.44)
1.13
9.85
51.2.
20.7
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet @ 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute % 70°F, 29.92 In Hg
3Actual Cubic Feet per Minute - Stack Conditions
'•Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
•5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 12. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
INLET OF WET SCRUBBER ON LINT CLEANER - STACK NUMBER 7
PO
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFMNm3)1*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isokinetlc
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Particulates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
gralns/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
Ib/hr-Ckg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
7-3
11/29/72
High Vol. Sampler
3770 (107)
1.5
99.3 (37.1)
6000 (2.83)
6230 (2.91)
109
7.21 (6.55)
192.0
18900
0.0773 (177)
3.97 (1.80)
0.519 (0.275)
7-1
11/29/72
High Vol. Sampler
1(020 .{n't)
1.5
93.6 (31-2)
6230 (2.9D
6120 (3.03)
111
7.12 (6.46)
192.0
26000
0.0995 (228)
5.31 (2.1)1)
0.716 (0.373)
7-5
11/30/72
High Vol. Sampler
1)000 (113)
1.5
93.5 (31.2)
6460 (3.05)
6630 (3.13)
108
7.01 (6.36)
192.0
29800
0.115 (263)
6.37 (2.89)
0.909 (0.45D
Average
High Vol. Sampler
3930 (111)
1.5
95.5 (35.3)
6230 (2.9D
6430 (3.03)
109
7.11 (6.15)
192.0
24900
0.0973 (223)
5.22 (2.32)
0.735 (0.367)
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet § 70°F, 29-92 In Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @70°F, 29.92 In Hg
3Actual Cubic Feed per Minute - Stack Conditions
"Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
"Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 13. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
INLET OF WET SCRUBBER ON BATTERY CONDENSER - STACK NUMBER 11
-Pr
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^CNm3 )"*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isokinetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Particulates - probe, cyclone
and filter catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
11-1
12/5/72
High Vol. Sampler
18]0
86.7
23800
211(00
7-81
0.0107
2.18
0.279
(51
1.39
(30
(11
(11
103
' (7.
64.0
1260
(24
(0.
(0.
.3)
.1)
.2)
.5)
09)'
.5)
989)
139)
11-3
12/5/72
High Vol. Sampler
1790
77-3
23600
23800
6.65
0.0130
2.63
0.395
(50
1.39
(25
(11
(11
102
(6.
64.0
1510
(29
(1.
(0.
.7)
.2)
.1)
.2)
03)
.7)
19)
197)
11-4
Average .
12/6/72
High Vol. Sampler
1710
79.5
22200
22600
6.68
0.0284
5.40
0.808
(48
1.39
(26
(TO
(10
105
(6.
64.0
3160
(65
(2.
(0.
.4)
.4)
.5)
• 7)
06)
.0)
45)
404)
1770
81.1
23200
23600
7-05
0.0174
3.40
0.494
(50
1.39
(27
(10
(11
103
(6.
64.0
1980
(39
(1.
(0.
.1)
.3)
.9)
.1)
39)
.8)
54)
247)
^ry Standard Cubic Feet § 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @70°F, 29.92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feed per Minute - Stack Conditions
''Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric'ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
no
Ul
INLET OF
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF1-(Nm3)1*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature^°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(NmVsec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(mVsec)
Percent Isokinetic
Product Rate-ton lint cotton/hr-(M ton/hr)5
Duration of run - minutes
Particulates - probes cyclone
and filter catch
mg
grains/DSCF6-(mg/Nm3)
lb/hr-(kg/hr)
Ib/ton of lint cotton produced
(Kg/M ton of lint cotton produced)
Table 14. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SKIMMER AND SPRAY COLUMN COMBINATION - STACK NUMBER 9
9-1
9-3
Average
12/1/72
High Vol. Sampler
699
120
8820
9730
7-33
(19.8)
2.80
(48.9)
(4.16)
(1.59)
51.8
(6.65)
30.0
12/1/72
High Vol. Sampler
611
120
8880
9790
5.77
(17.3)
2.80
(48.9)
(4.19)
(4.62)
75.6
(5.24)
18.0
High
617
118
8300
9090
8.03
12/2/72
Vol. Sampler
(17.5)
2.80
(47.8)
(3.92)
(4.29)
81.0
(7.28)
18.0
642
119
8670
9540
7.04
(18.2)
2.80
.(48.3)
(4.09)
(4.50)
69.5
(6.39)
22.0
438000
9.64 (22100)
729 (331)
99.5 (49.8)
7.8£
600
104
313000
(18000)
(272)
(52.1)
345000
8.61 (19700)
612 (278)
76.2 (38.2)
365000
8.71 (19900)
647 (294)
93.2 (46.7)
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet % 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @70°F, 29-92 in Hg
3Actual Cubic Feed per Minute - Stack Conditions
••Normal Cubic Meters at 21.1°C, 760 mm Hg
5Metric Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
'Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 15. TOTAL CALCULATED EMISSIONS FOR
SAMPLED OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
(Based on "Front-Half" Particulate Loading)
Site
System No.
Mote Cyclone
Outlet
Wet Scrubber
Outlet
Wet Scrubber
Inlet
Wet Scrubber
Outlet
Skimmer/Spray
Column Inlet
Skimmer Vent
Skimmer/Spray
Column Outlet
Wet Scrubber
Inlet
Wet Scrubber
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9A
9A
9A
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
Run
No.
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
3
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
3
4
1
3
4
Total Particulate
Emissions
GR/DSCF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0389
.0265
.0321
.0423
.0443
.0387
.0055
.00760
.00310
.0047
.0044
.0030
.0773
.0995
.1150
.0271
.0051
.0342
.64
.88
.61
.0977
.1090
.1060
.0368
.1420
.0985
.0107
.0130
.0284
.360
.0523
.0035
(Mg/Nm3)
(89.0)
(60.6)
(73.5)
(96.8)
(101)
(88.6)
(12.6)
(17.4)
(7.09)
(10.8)
(10.1)
(6.86)
(177)
(228) .
(263)
(62.0)
(11.7)
(78.3)
(22100)
(18000)
(19700)
(224)
(249)
(243)
(84.2)
(325)
(225)
(24.5)
(29.7)
(65.0)
(824)
(120)
(8.01)
Emission Rate
Lb/Hr
4.14
2.94 .
3.56
4.82
5.15
4.34
0.277
0.378
0.144
0.242
0.184
0..123
3.97
5.31
6.37
1.03
0.202
1.40
729.0
600.0
612.0
0.963
0.912
0.779
2.24
7.92
5.83
2.18
2.63
5.^0
54.3
8.02
0.519
(Kg/Hr)
(1.88)
(1.33)
(1.61)
(2.19)
(2.34)
(1>97)
(0.126)
(0.171)
(0.0653)
(0.110)
(0.0835)
(0.0558)
(1.80)
(2.41)
(2.89)
(0.467)
(0.0916)
(0.635)
(331)
(272)
(278)
(0.437)
(0.-414)
(0.353)
(1'.02)
(3.59)
(2.64)
(0.989)
(1.19)
(2.45)
(24.6)
(3.64)
(0.235)
Emission Factor
Lb/Ton
0.
0.
0.
.0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
99
590 :
415
480
686
684
525
0440
0498
0204
0326
0257
0179
551
746
909
147
0289
199
.5
104
76
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
1.
0.
.2
160
158
121
381
46
931
279
395
808
02
24
0785
(Kg/M-Ton)
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(49
(52
(38
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(3.
(0.
(0.
295)
207)
240)
343)
342)
262)
0221)'
0248)
0102)
0163)
0128)
00897)
275)
373)
454)
0734)
0145)
0994)
.8)
.1)
.2)
0800)
0789)
0605)
19D
727)
465)
139)
197)
404)
5D
620)
0392)
26
-------
SECTION III
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
This process description shows the process equipment and
materials from, which all emissions at this plant were
derived, and identifies each emission source with the
device controlling its emissions.
Reference is made to the attached drawings showing the
plant flow diagram (Figure 2 ) and location of each emission
control device (Figure 3 ). Details on the individual
items of process equipment, mentioned in this process
description, may be found in the Handbook for Cotton Ginners,
Agriculture Handbook No. 260 (USDA), 1964.
SEED COTTON UNLOADING
Seed cotton is unloaded from trailers by either of two
methods: (r) trailer dumping with feed control, ;or (2)
telescope suction.
In the trailer-dumping method, the trailer is dumped over
a conveyor that carries the cotton to rollers that feed
it, at the optimum rate, into a duct wherein an air stream
under vacuum carries it to the unloading separator. A
stone trap in that vacuum line removes clumps of dirt,
green bolls, stones, and other heavy impurities.
-------
FIRST CLEANING STAGE SECOND CLEANING STAGE
Cleaner
rv>
co
Telescope
Suction Tubes Pit ij [Trailer Dump
at Trailers Suction , I ! with
i J
TH1RD_CLEAN|NG STAGE
I mpact Cleaners (2)
Screw
Conveyor (2)
. Green Leaf &
Stick Remover
1 i Oropper
ABREV IAT IONS
A - Air
SC • Seed Cotton
LC - Lint Cotton
M = Motes
T • Trash
S • Seed
NG = Natural Gas
VED= Vertical Exhaust Duct
HED = Horizontal Exhaust Duct
See Page 2
U—i HEP
#3
To Master Trash Fan
Figure 2. PLANT PLOW DIAGRAM
-------
ro
vo
LEFT HAND GIN
A
RIGHT HAND GIN
Skimmer #3
Skimmer & Spray ^
Column Combination II
A, Outside .
Skimmer & Spray
Column Combination 12
Skimmers
From Cleaning
Separator
Moisture System
A Humid Air Unit #1
H20
Fuel
Moisture System
Humid Air Unit 12 A
H20
Fuel
To Total Trash Fan (See Fig 2)^
'To Waste & Sewer
To test Duct A, Inside
Overflow
Separator
12 '
Cleaning
Separator
Inclined
Cleaner #2
A,T
Screw
Distributor
'#2
.Moisture
Conditioning
" Hoppers
#4,5,6
Moisture.
Conditioning
Hoppers
3 SYSTEMS IN PARALLEL
Lint Cleaners (6)
3 SYSTEMS IN PARALLEL
Fan Lint Cleaners (6) .
-rftrft
A, Inside
Air Scrubbers
#4.5,6
Air Scrubbers
#1,2,3
Battery
Fan Condenser
A, Inside
LC To Press
Dropper& Blower
To Master Trash Line
(See Page 1)
Air Scrubber #7
Mote Cyclones
#1,2,3
Mote Cyclones
#4,5,6,
Figure 3. PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM SHOWING LOCATION OF
EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES
-------
In the telescope-suction method, the seed cotton is pulled
by vacuum from the trailers through a telescoping tube
and ductwork into the unloading separator. There is no
stone trap in this vacuum line.
The air from the unloading separator (containing trash)
is drawn through fans to skimmers No.s. 1 and 2. Air from
the outer openings of these skimmers (where trash content
is highest) flows into the master trash line. A vacuum
is induced in the master trash line by a fan downstream.
Air from the adjacent (middle) opening of each skimmer
is exhausted through vertical exhaust ducts No. 1 and 2,
outside the plant. There might also be some air exhausted
through the skimmer plate access opening (the inner opening
of the skimmer), inside the plant.
SEED COTTON DRYING AND CLEANING
A stream of hot gases is formed as a fan draws ambient
air, from inside the plant, and forces it through two
heaters, in parallel, where natural gas is burned and the
resulting combustion products mix with the air stream.
The hot gas mixture thus formed flows through a duct to
the seed cotton outlet of the feed control, unit (surge
bin), where the seed cotton is entrained and carried through
a tower drier to; the separating chamber. In this chamber,
the heavier (more moist) fraction of the seed cotton
settles to the bottom and is removed through a dropper,
then entrained in the hot gas stream from another heater
and carried to the first cleaning stage (grid cleaners
with bypass). The gas stream containing the remainder
of the seed cotton flows through the separating chamber,
then into the first cleaning stage.
30'
-------
In the first cleaning stage, the seed cotton is removed
from part of the gas stream by inertia. This part, of the
gas stream passes out of this stage through the bypass.
The cotton, after passing through the first-stage cleaners,
is carried in the remaining gas stream through the second
cleaning stage, then through the third cleaning stage,
then to the cleaning separator.
The cotton from the cleaning separator is entrained in
the gas stream from the bypass of the first cleaning stage,
which carries it to the inclined cleaners of the "left-hand
gin" and the "right-hand gins." Trash from the three
cleaning stages passes through droppers into the master
trash line.
GINNING AND LINT CLEANING
Ginning and lint cleaning are done in two identical,
parallel systems referred to as the "left-hand gin" and
the ."right-hand gin." Each of these contains an inclined
cleaner followed by a screw distributor, then three
parallel moisture conditioning hoppers, each followed by
an extractor feeder, then a gin stand, then two condenser-
unit-saw lint cleaners in series.
The air stream, containing seed cotton from the cleaning
separator is divided into two ducts, one feeding the in-
clined cleaner of the left-hand or right-hand gin respectively,
The seed cotton passes through the inclined cleaner, then
enters the screw distributor.
The screw distributor distributes the seed cotton through
the moisture conditioning hoppers, then to the feeders and
gin stands at rates controlled by the gin stand capacities.
When the flow of seed cotton from the screw distributor
31
-------
exceeds the total of the intake rates of the extractor
feeders, the excess seed cotton flows Into the overlfow
hopper, from which it is again picked up, at a suitable
time, by suction applied within the "blow box" at the
bottom .of the hopper, and routed through the overflow
separator of the opposite (left-hand vs. right-hand)
gin to its screw distributor.
Within the gin stands, lint cotton is separated from seed.
The seed is removed to a seed pile by means of a screw
conveyor and a dropper and blower. The lint cotton is
carried in air streams through the condenser-unit-saw
lint cleaners.
Air streams, containing lint cotton, from the lint cleaners
of both the left-hand and right-hand gins are combined,
and carry this cotton to the battery condenser. Prom the
battery condenser, the lint cotton falls down the lint
slide into the baling press where the product, bales
of lint cotton, is produced..
The air streams containing trash from the inclined
cleaners of the left-hand and right-hand gins flow through
fans to skimmer and spray column combinations, Nos.
1 and 2, respectively^
Air streams containing trash from the moisture conditioning
hoppers and the tops of the feeders of the left-hand gin
flow through a fan to skimmer No. 3- The air stream
containing trash from the overflow separator of the left-
hand gin also flows to skimmer No. 3, through a separate
fan. The air-and-trash stream from skimmer No. 3 combines
with that from the inclined cleaner flowing through the
fan to skimmer and spray column combination No. 1.
32
-------
Air streams containing trash from the moisture conditioning
hoppers and the tops of the feeders of the right-hand gin
flow through a fan to skimmer No. 5. The air stream
containing trash from the overflow separator of the right-
hand gin flows through a fan to skimmer No. 4. The air-
and-trash streams from skimmers No. 4 and 5 combine with
that from the inclined cleaner flowing through the fan to
combined skimmer and spray column No. 2.
Trash from the bottoms of all feeders and from the gin
stands falls into screw conveyors and is carried through
droppers to the master trash line.
The air streams containing trash from the condenser
sections of the lint cleaners and from the battery con-
densers flow to the air scrubbers enumerated in Figure 3.
The air streams containing motes from the unit-saw sections
of the lint cleaners flow through fans to the mote
cyclones enumerated in Figure 3.
The air-and-trash stream in the master trash line flows
through a fan to the master trash skimmer. The air-and-
trash stream from this skimmer is combined with those
from the skimmers of the skimmer-and-spray-column
combinations, and flows through a fan into the total
trash line. This line is exhausted at a trash pile.
Part of the trash collected in the two spray columns is
manually skimmed from the surge tank at the base of the
column or removed from inside the column through an access
door.
Similarly, part of the trash collected in the six air
scrubbers is skimmed or otherwise manually removed from
33
-------
the bottom sections of those units, through access
doors.
Waste waters containing additional trash, drains from
the spray columns and the air scrubbers into a sewer, then
through sand filtration to an irrigation system.
PROCESS OPERATION
Normal plant operating schedule:
24 hours/day
7 days/week •
6 weeks/year
Months of ginning season: October 15 to December 1
Average plant operating capacity:
1,000,000 Ibs. of seed cotton/day (processed)
600 bales of lint cotton/day (produced)
570,000 Ibs. of seed/day (produced)
Peak plant operating capacity:
1,162,000 Ibs. of seed cotton/day (processed)
700 bales of lint cotton/day (produced)
665)000 Ibs. of seed/day (produced)
-------
SECTION IV
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Sampling was conducted at fifteen different locations at
the Boswell Gin. The locations are shown in Figures 4
through 9 . A description of each point (the physical
dimensions, port locations and identification numbers)
follows. Table 16 summarizes the points.
Points 1A, IB, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 2C - These points are the
outlets of two sets of triplicate cyclone banks that control
effluent from the lint cleaners. The numerical part of
the identification number specifies the bank, and the
letter indicates which particular cyclone in the bank.
The '"B" outlets were tested for particulate emissions
while the "A" and "C" outlets were only traversed for
velocity. The vertical outlets of each cyclone were
modified as described before by the addition of a long
radius 180° bend that turned the flow toward the ground.
Following the bend, a straightening vane was installed
with 200 inches of 20" diameter pipe. The ports were
located 160 inches from the vane and 40 inches from the
open end of the pipe. Sufficient ground clearance (^5
feet) was assured by this arrangement to prevent any
blockage or back pressure at the outlet while the ports
were in a reasonable access area close to the ground.
35
-------
t
BUILDING
1
-
ox
20"
DIA.
L ^s
X*
t
13
X
-4"
X
40"
-
STRAIGHTENING
VANE
SAMPLING
PORT #1
SAMPLING POINT #1
CYCLONE OUTLET
Note:.Sampling point #2 is in a similar
position on second set of cyclones.
Figure 4. DIAGRAM OP SAMPLING LOCATIONS NO. 1 AND 2
36
-------
24"
uo
-BUILDING
TOP VIEW
SAMPLING PORTS
SCRUBBER
. 57%'! .j
SCRUBBER
*-BUILDING
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
SAMPLING POINT #4
SCRUBBER OUTLET
Figure 5. DIAGRAM OF SAMPLING LOCATION NO
-------
24'
U>
CO
0>
CA
O
H
Q
( r^
1
r
•-
^"BUILDING " —
TOP VIEW
CO
Ir1
H
O
O
>
1-3
H
O
^
^
O
-SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
SAMPLING PORTS
FRONT VIEW
SAMPLING POINT #6
SCRUBBER OUTLET
SCRUBBER
SIDE VIEW
BUILDING
-------
-•€>-
\
BUILDING
TOP VIEW
-SCRUBBER
FRONT VIEW
26" DIA.
SAMPLING POINTS #7 & #8
SCRUBBER INLET AND OUTLET
Figure 7. DIAGRAM OP SAMPLING LOCATION NO. 7 AND 8
39
-------
SLOT SKIMMER
SLOT SKIMMER
TOP VIEW
fr
SAMPLING
PORT *9A
•STRAIGHTENING -
VANE
SAMPLING
PORT #9
I i—
30" L
JIA.p
SAMPLING
PORT HO
FRONT VIEW
SAMPLING POINTS I9.S9A & (10
SLOT SKIMMER INLET AND OUTLETS'
Figure 8. .DIAGRAM OP SAMPLING LOCATION NO. 9, 9A, AND 10
-------
\
BUILDING
TOP VIEW
. SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
SAMPLING POINTS 111 & #12
BATTERY CONDENSER SCRUBBER
INLET AND OUTLET
Figure 9. DIAGRAM OP SAMPLING LOCATION NO. 11 AND 12
-------
Table 16. SUMMARY OP SAMPLING POINTS
-pr
ro
Point
No.
1A
IB
1C
2A
2B
2C
4
6
7
8
9
9A
10
11
12
Diameter or
Equivalent
(Inches)
2.0
20
20
20
20
20
24
24
26
20
20
• • 16
30
42
35-1/2
Distance to
Upstream
Disturbance
(Inches) /(Diameters)
160
160
160
160
160
160
156
192
200
120
72
124
148
252
162
8
8
8
8
8
8
6.5
8
7.8
6
3.6
7.8
4.9
6.0
4.6
Distance to Required
Downstream Number of
Disturbance Sampling
( Inches )/(Diameters ) Points
40
40
40
40
40
40
48
84
45
• 42
18
32 - .
36
72
44
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
0
2
1
1
1
.5
.8
.1
.9.
— .
.2
.7
.2
12
12
12
12
12
12
20
12
16
24
20
16. -
32
24
32
Number of
Sampling
Points
Used
8
8
8
8
8
8
20
12
8
22
6
8. ..
28
6
32
-------
Point 4 - This point was on the outlet of a wet scrubber
controlling effluent from a single lint cleaner and was
tested for particulate loading. The 57 1/2" x 37" rec-
tangular outlet entered the gin building and was modified
by the addition of a rectangular by square 90° elbow
transition. Following the transition, 17 feet of 24" x 24"
ducting ran horizontally along the gin wall. Four ports
were located 13 feet from the upstream transition or 4
feet from the open end.
Point 6 - Point 6 is the outlet of a wet scrubber controlling
air from a single lint cleaner similar to point 4. It
also opened into the gin building. The 46" x 24" opening
was modified by a rectangular to square elbow and 23 feet
of 24" x 24" ducting ran along the inside wall. Three
ports were placed 16 feet from the elbow or 7 feet from
the opening.
Points 7 and 8 - Point 7 is the inlet of a wet scrubber
similar to those of points 4 and 6 used on the outlet
line of a lint cleaner. It is a 26-inch diameter pipe
with 20 feet of straight run from the gin wall to the
scrubber. The sampling ports were placed 35 inches from
the scrubber or 205 inches from the wall. Point 8 is
the 12" x 57" rectangular outlet of this same scrubber.
The equivalent diameter of this duct is 19.83 inches.
The duct is 13-1/2 feet in length and has 2 ports
located on the 12-inch side of the duct, 120 inches from
the scrubber or 42 inches from the outlet opening.
Both points 7 and 8 were tested for particulate loading.
This scrubber had been previously modified by moving it
further from the gin wall to gain long sections of duct
so that sampling could be done.
-------
Points 9, 9A and 10 - Point 9 is the inlet line of a
skimmer and spray column combination. In this device,
the material is forced into a centrifugal section of duct
at a high velocity and a skimming blade removes the heavy
material forced to the outside of the section by its
inertia. The remaining air is then put through a spray
column and returned to the .gin. The inlet is 20 inches in
diameter and has 90 inches of run before the first
disturbance. The sampling port was located 18 inches
from this disturbance. ,
At the skimmer blade section of the device is a barometric
clean-out vent. This vent was modified by' placing on it
a transition and a circular duct 16 inches in diameter
running upward for 13 feet. Sampling ports were placed
124 inches from the transition or 32 inches from the open
end. A straightening vane was added at the outlet of the
transition after cyclonic flow was discovered in the duct.
The outlet of the spray column vented into the gin through
a 42-inch diameter pipe. This pipe was modified by
installing a 90° elbow turned down, an 18 inch long
transition from 42 inches to 30 inches diameter, and 15
feet 4 inches of 32-inch duct. Ports were placed 36
inches from the opening or 148 inches from the transition.
Particulate loading determinations were done at these
locations.
Points 11 and 12 - Points 11 and 12 were on the inlet and
outlet respectively of the wet scrubber used to control
the effluent of the battery condenser. This scrubber had
been previously modified by relocating it to provide
longer sections of duct for testing. The inlet is 42
inches in diameter and 27 feet long with ports placed 6
feet from the first downstream disturbance. The outlet
-------
is a 68" x 24" rectangular duct 17 feet 2 inches long. The
equivalent diameter for this duct is 35-1/2 inches. Sampling
ports were placed 162 inches from the upstream disturbance
or 44 inches from the open end. Particulate testing was done
at these points.
Figure 10 shows the general construction of a. straightening
vane. The included dimensions are the ones used for the
20 inch duct of the cyclone outlets (points No. 1 and 2).
The vane used in the duct installed on the clean out vent
of the skimmer (point No. 9A) was of the same general con-
struction, 16 inches in diameter, 7-2 inches in length with
2.4 inch openings.
Traverse points were assigned in accordance with the Federal
Register Method 1 and are shown for each duct in Figures 11
through 20. All of the points were not used in all cases for
various reasons as listed in the next section. The illus-
trated points are the sampled ones.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The outlets from all of the control devices at the cotton
gin were sampled generally in accordance with the Methods
given in the August 17, 1971, Federal Register. On excep-
tion was the use of the wet bulb-dry bulb technique to
obtain initial moisture levels, rather than Method 4,
Determination of Moisture in Stack Gases. The low moisture
levels (1-4%) and low stack temperatures (below 212°F) per-
mitted the use of this deviation.
45
-------
20"
I I
6"
Figure 10. DIAGRAM OP STRAIGHTENING VANE CONSTRUCTION
-------
Figure 11. TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS FOR SAMPLING LOCATIONS
NUMBER 1 AND 2
-------
1
21"
T
T
15"
T
9"
I V y \
Figure 12. TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING LOCATION No. 4
-------
K- 2»"
k- «•
4-
«.
A
3"
A A
9"
15"
A
21"
Figure 13- TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 6
-------
. 23 7/8" -,
22 1/4'
t
20 1/8"
17 1/8"
7/8'
5 7/8"
3 3/1"
L.
2 1/8"
f \f
\
— 26"
Figure 14. TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING LOCATION No. 7
50
-------
T
57"
-••
I
7 3/4"
13"
18 1/8"
.23 3/8"
28 1/2"
33 3/V'
38 7/8"
1/8"
•
j
i
49 1/4"
-*!
54 1/2"
12"
1
Figure 15-
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 8
51
-------
Figure 16. TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 9A
-------
Figure 17-
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 9
53
-------
1 3/1"'
; 30"
Figure 18. TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 10
-------
Figure 19- TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 11
55
-------
T
I ' I
- -f--r -f-
• -
-U
f
—1-
• —
t
— 21"
12 3/1"!— >
21 1/1" |—>
29 3/1"
38 1/H"
55 1/1"
63 1/1"
1 68"
Figure 20. TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR SAMPLING
LOCATION No. 12
56
-------
Method 5 of the Federal Register Methods was used to obtain
the emission rate of all sampled outlets. During cyclone
sampling runs, any unsampled outlets in the same cyclone
bank were traversed to obtain the velocity profile and stack
temperature following Method 2. If it is assumed that the
loading in grains/standard cubic foot is the same at all
outlets of the control devices in one unit, the emission
rate in Ib/hr would be a function of the differences in
velocity at the outlets. The loading in grains/cubic foot
were obtained from the Method 5 data on the sampled ducts.
The emission rate in Ib/hr can be calculated for the unsampled
outlets from the velocity data and the grain loading data
of the sampled duct.
A High Volume sampler designed and constructed by EPA was
used on the inlets to the control devices. These inlets
usually contained large quantities of relatively large size
particulate matter. In addition, the velocities in these
ducts were quite high. Both of these factors made it im-
practical to attempt to sample the inlets with a Method 5
sampling train.
The High Volume sampler consisted of a 1-1/2 inch stainless
steel probe and nozzle, a cyclone collector, a 8-1/8 x 10-1/2
inch filter holder for a 8-1/2 x 11 fiberglass filter (MSA
1106 B), a Roots meter, flow orifice, and the necessary
pump and control devices. Details of the sampler and the
equations relating to its use are given in Appendix E.
Sampling of the inlets with the High Volume apparatus was
conducted simultaneously with Method 5 sampling on the out-
lets to permit the calculation of efficiency data on the
control devices.
57
-------
Sampling runs at point No. 7, inlet to the scrubber controlling
effluent from the lint cleaner of gin stand No. 6; and point
No. 11, inlet to the scrubber controlling effluent of the
battery condenser, were the same time duration as the corr-
esponding outlet runs (points No. 8 and 12). Sampling runs
at point No. 9 were a shorter duration due to the large
amount of particulate collected. Runs ranged from 18 to 30
minutes in length.
Conditions at some locations prevented sampling to be con-
ducted in accordance with Method 1 of the previously men<-
tioned Federal Register. High Volume sampling runs at
points No. 7 and 11 were done with only one diameter traverse
because of physical restructions in the sampling device, and
the inability to place scaffolding at certain locations.
Point No. 9 was originally to be a two diameter 20 point
traverse (run 9-1) however, due to the large amount of
material collected, it was shortened to a one diameter 6
point run (runs 9-2 and 9-3). Method 5 sampling at points
No. 1 and 2 was done with an 8 point traverse rather than
12 because the first and last points were within one inch
of the stack wall. Extreme traverse points at locations 9A
and 10 were also eliminated due to their proximity to the
wall. The probe on the high volume -sampler was too short
to sample all of the points at location No. 11 so points
7 and 8 were not done and points 1 and 2 were sampled twice.
It was Discovered during the first few high volume sampling
runs that the high velocity ducts caused a low pressure on
the upstream side of the filter when the nozzle was removed
from the port.
58
-------
This was not caused by the static pressure in the duct (which
in most cases was positive) but rather by the high velocity
perpendicular to the nozzle as it was removed from the port.
This resulted in lifting the filter off of the support
screen and possible loss of collected sample from the probe.
This situation was remedied by starting the sampler pump
before the nozzle entered the port and not stopping it until
the nozzle had been removed.
No conditions were encountered during this sampling program
that were beyond the normal operating parameters of the
Method 5 sampling apparatus. There were however, several
situations encountered that could not be sampled according
to the procedure of Method 5. The method has no provision
relating to stopping and restarting a particulate run, how-
ever, the sampling runs were stopped when portions of the
gin ceased operation or if unusual conditions occurred in
the gin. The runs were restarted when normal operation
resumed. Another deviation from Method 5 was that leak
checks prior to each sampling run were performed on the
entire train including the glass lined probe rather than
excluding the probe as is outlined in the method. Criteria
for leak rate was a maximum of 0.02 CFM leak at a minimum
vacuum of 15 inches of Hg.
Cyclonic flow was discovered in duct 9A and it was decided
that only points of the traverse that show flow parallel to
the duct center line should be sampled.
59
-------
The number of points sampled per run is as follows:
Run No. of_ Points Location
9A-1 - 9A-4 8 1-8
9A-5 2 7 & 8
9A-6 4 5'"- 8
9A-7 4 .5-8
9A-8 3 6, 7, & 8
These points were determined on runs 9A-5 through 9A-8 by
a velocity traverse and null angle check of each point just
before sampling.
60
-------
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Samples from the Method 5 sampling trains were recovered as
outlined in the August 17, 1971, Federal Register. After
removal of the filter, all sample exposed surfaces were
washed with reagent grade acetone or distilled water as
specified. All sample bottles for liquid samples were ob-
tained from Wheaton Scientific, Catalogue No. 219630. Each
of these bottles and the petri dishes for sample filters
were acid soaked with 1:1 HN03 for one day, rinsed with
distilled water and soaked with distilled water for one day.
Sample recovered from the High Volume sampler included re-
moval of the filter and placing it in a large mouth bottle,
removal of the cyclone bottle and sealing it, and washing
of all exposed surfaces of the train with acetone. Ace-
tone washings were placed in acid washed Wheaton bottles.
Analytical procedures for the Method 5 samples follow
the Federal Register guidelines, with one exception. Con-
tainer No. 3 as indicated in the method contains water
from the impingers and washing of the glassware of the
train. The solution was extracted with chloroform and
ether, and then the extracted portion was dried to con-
stant weight, as specified. In addition, the remaining
water after extraction was evaporated to dryness at 212 °F
to constant weight. Both weights were included in the
total mass of particulate.
Sample weight from the Method 5 samplers were reported as
"front half" (probe washings and filter collection weights)
and "total" (front half plus water, chloroform-ether ex-
tract and impinger acetone washing weights).
61
-------
The analytical procedure for the High Volume sampler is
similar to the front half of the Method 5 procedure. The
filter is dried to constant weight as is the dry cyclone
catch. The acetone washings of the probe and all surfaces
up to the filter were evaporated and dried to constant weight
The total particulate mass is the sum of the weight of the
three parts.
62
------- |