72-MM-23
(REPORT NUMBER]
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TES
BLECKLEY FARM SERVICE COMPANY
(PLANT NAME)
(COTTON GIN)
COCHRAN, GEORGIA
(PLANT ADDRESS)
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
FROM COTTON GINS
Plant Tested
Bleckley Farm Service Company
Cochran, Georgia
November 19 7^
EMB Project Report No. 72-MM-23
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park :
North Carolina 27711
by
W. R. Feairheller
D. L. Harris
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton Laboratory
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45^07
Report Reviewed by John W. Snyder
Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task No. 6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 6
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION 26
IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 34
A. LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS 34
B. SAMPLING PROCEDURES . 39
C. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 45
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Emission Measurements 9
2. Sampling Schedule ' 12
i
3. Efficiency Comparison Results 13
4. Summary of Results - Inlet to Unloading Separator
Cyclones - Point 13 15
5. Summary of Results - Outlet of Unloading Separator
Cyclones - Point 1 16
6. Summary of Results - Outlet of Unloading Separator
Cyclones - Point 18 17
7. Summary of Results - Inlet to Inclined Cleaner
Cyclones - Point 10 18
8. Summary of Results - Outlet of Inclined Cleaner
Cyclones - Point 4 19
9. Summary of Results - Inlet to Extracter Feeder,
Gin Stand Cyclones - Point 8 20
10. Summary of Results - Outlet of Extracter Feeder,
Gin Stand Cyclones - Point 6 21
11. Summary of Results - Inlet to Battery Condenser
Filter - Point 16 22
12. Summary of Results - Outlet of Battery Condenser
Filter - Point 17 23
13. Summary of Results - Outlet of Trash Hopper
Cyclone - Point 7 24
14. Summary of Results - EPA-5 and High Volume Samplers
Comparison - Point 18 25
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Schematic Diagram of Control Devices, Bleckley Farm
Service Company, Cochran, Georgia 3
2. Plant Flow Diagram 27
3. Location of Emission Control Devices 28
4. Schematic of In-Line Filter Showing Ducts and
Sampling Ports 36
5. Diagram of Straightening Vane Construction 38
6. Schematic Diagram of Outlet Ducts, 1, 18, 1A, 18A, and
Inlet Duct 13 , 40
7. Schematic Diagram of Outlet Ducts 4 and 4A, and Inlet
Duct 10 *»1
8 Schematic Diagram of Inlet Duct 8, and Outlet Ducts
6 and 6A 42
ill
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This 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.
The cotton Ginning Industry Study is being conducted by
William 0. Herring, Industrial Survey Section.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Environmental Protection
Agency is given the responsibility of establishing performance
standards for new installations or modifications to existing
installations in stationary source categories. As a con-
tractor, Monsanto Research Corporation, under the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's "Field Sampling of Atmospheric
Emissions" Program, was asked to provide emission data from
the Bleckley Farm Service Company, Cochran, Georgia. The
cotton gins selected and studied were equipped with the
best types of pollution control equipment currently availa-
ble.
This report tabulates the data collected at the Bleckley
Farm Service Company during the period from October 9 to
October 20, 1972. In this cotton gin, vacuum is used to
remove the field picked cotton from the cotton wagons and
-------
then the material inside the gin is moved from one operation
to the next by a moving air system. Air moves the material
to the ginning machines for removal of dirt, plant material,
the cotton seeds, and fine lint, and finally to the battery
condenser and the press or baling machine. The air from
the unloader, feeder, dryer, and lint cleaners is exhausted
from the building into a group of fourteen cyclones, while
the air from the lint cleaner condenser and battery condenser
is exhausted through rotary screen in-line filters. The
trash, including plant debris and dirt, is directed to a
cyclone mounted on a trash hopper. A schematic diagram of
the control devices with respect to the building and indi-
cating which of the devices were sampled is shown in Figure 1
The description of the device and the designation of the
sample point numbers are as. follows:
Sample Point Nurabe r s
Exhaust from:
Battery
Condenser
Lint Cleaner
Condenser*
Unloading
Separator
Inclined
Cleaner
Extractor
Feeders, Gin
Stands, Unit-
air Lint
Cleaners
Inlet to Outlet from
Control Device Control Device Control Devicp
In-line filter 16 17, 17A
In-Line filter 15 It, l^A
Cyclone (4) 13 1, 1A, 18, 18A
Cyclone (2) 10 1), 1)A
Cyclone (2) 8 6, 6A
Previous
Cyclones and
In-line Filters
(Trash) Cyclone (1) - 7
* No flow was detected on the outlet of this
device. No samples were collected.
-------
BATTERY
CONDENSER
LINT CLEANER
CONDENSER
UNLOADING
SEPARATOR
INCLINED
CLEANER
EXTRACTOR
FEEDERS GIN STANDS
UNIT AIR
LINT CLEANERS
©-O
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Control Devices, Bleckley
Farm Services Co., Cochran, Georgia
(Note: No flow was detected on outlets 14 and
14A, therefore no samples were collected)
-------
The major emphasis of the study was to obtain accurate data
on the particulate emissions and the efficiency of the con-
trol device for the removal of particulate matter. To
accomplish this objective, simultaneous measurements were
made on the inlets and atmospheric outlets of the devices.
Outlets to the atmosphere were measured for particulate
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 con-
structed 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. Pesticide analysis was performed on
samples of seed cotton and gin trash. Samples of particu-
late collected on runs 18-1, and 2 were analyzed for trace
metal and from runs 18-3, and 4 for arsenic content.
Extensive modifications were required to prepare the cotton
gin for sampling. The outlets of the in-line filters, partly
covered with a rain shield, were vented directly in the out-
side air. This shield was removed and replaced on both sides
with a 42" diameter duct 160" long. The cyclone outlets were
also covered with a rain shield. As the gas flow from the
cyclone would definitely have a cyclonic flow pattern, the
rain shields were removed and replaced with a large radius
180° bend, 16" I.D., to direct the flow downward followed by
a straightening vane to eliminate cyclonic' flow, then a
straight duct 16" in diameter by 194" long. The entire duct
-------
modification for the cyclones resembled a large "candy cane."
The reasons for this type of duct system were to: (1) pro-
vide a long straight run that would be close to the ground,
(2) to permit incorporation of the straightening vane to
eliminate cyclonic flow, and (3) provide sufficient duct
after the vane to provide relatively stable flow at the sam-
pling point. Detail of these modifications are given in
Section IV.
The following.sections of this report include (1) summary
of results, (2) description of the process, (3) location of
sampling points and traverse data, (^) 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 Bleckley Farm Service Company cotton gin employs both
in-line filters and cyclones as control devices. The in-
line filters, used on emissions from the battery condenser
and the lint cleaner condenser, have a single inlet pipe
leading to the rotating screen filter. Each filter has two
outlets venting directly from the side of the filter into
the outside air. A small rain shield was used to cover the
outlet. Sampling criteria required that the rain shields
be removed and replaced with long horizontal ducts.
The exhaust from the other systems (unloading separator,
inclined cleaner, extractor feeders, gin stands, and trash
lines) were directed to cyclones, which were grouped in
banks of 2 or 4 from each inlet line. The cyclones were
capped with a rain shield, adjusted by the gin builder to
yield a back pressure that would provide good separation
efficiency. Such a system however, is not suitable for
testing from two points of view. First, no suitable loca-
tion is available in the exhaust from the cyclone, due to
the short length of outlet pipe, and second, the flow from
these devices is cyclonic and thus would require a device to
eliminate the spiral flow pattern. The sampling modifica-
tions for these devices were required to provide a sampling
location consistent with good sampling practice and also
include straightening vanes.
-------
Specific details of the duct additions are given in Section
III A. In brief, the in-line filters were provided with
two long ducts attached to each outlet. The cyclones were
provided with a large radius 180° bends, a straighten vane
and a long straight length of pipe in place of the rain
shield. The duct additions resembled a large "candy cane."
Each cyclone in a bank was provided with the same type of
device so that charges in back pressure would not change the
proportion of air to each cyclone in the bank.
Measurements of the static pressure were made on the inlet
to each bank of cyclones before the rain sheilds were re-
moved. After installation of the candy canes the measure-
ments were repeated. The static pressure data referring to
the sample point number indicated in the Introduction, are
as follows:
Static Pressure Static Pressure
Inlet to with Rain Cap with Candy Cane
Point No. (inches of water) (inches of water)
7 5.0 6.5
8 0.5 to 1.0 . 0.85
10 not available 2.0
13 -0.3 to -1.0 0.1
This data indicates that the candy cane duct design does
increase the static pressure in the system and may change
the operation of the cyclone. Without actual velocity data
on the inlet, 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 main-
tain the velocity under the increased static pressure, then
the emission rate would not be appreciably different under
the two conditions.
. 7
-------
Although the outlet of the cyclones varied from 16" to 17",
a 16" diameter "candy cane" was used for all units. An
adapter was constructed for the outlets that were over 16"
to allow the 16" duct to fit. All joints were sealed with
furnace tape.
A summary of the emission data collected at this gin is given
in Table I. The test numbers indicate both the sampling
point (as shown in the Introduction) as well as the run num-
ber at that point.
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, de-
signed and fabricated by EPA was employed at these points.
This device is described in detail in Section IV and
Appendix F. A comparison study of the high volume and the
EPA 5 sampling trains was made on duct 18, run numbers 18-4
and 18-4H. For comparison, only the front half mass data
(from probe tip to filter) from run 18-4 can be compared to
the high volume data. The emission rate in Ib/hr was found
to be 0.597 for the EPA 5 Method and 1.32 for the high vol-
ume method. The high volume run was above acceptable iso-
kinetic conditions (111%), but this is not high enough to
account for the difference in the observed emission rates.
One possible reason for this difference is that the high
volume sampler could collect large particles that could not
pass through the EPA 5 probe tip. If this were the case,
these particles would tend to clog the probe tip of the
EPA 5 sampling train. This did not occur during the run.
Sample Number 18-4 (by EPA 5) was also used for arsenic
analysis. The second impinger in the sampling train was
filled with 2% NaOH instead of water. The solution was
then analyzed by EPA for arsenic content. The filter and
8
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY OF EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
MADE AT BLECKLY FARM SERVICES COMPANY. COCHRAN,
GEORGIA
Date
1972
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/11
10/11
10/11
10/12
10/12
10/13
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/17
10/17
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/19
10/19
10/19
10/19
10/19
Test
No.
16-1
16-2
17-1
17-2
7-1
16-3
17-3
6-1
7-2
8-2
4-1
4-2
6-2
6-3
8-3
8-4
10-1
10-2
4-3
10-3
1-1
1-2
13-1
13-2
18-1
18-2
1-3
13-3
18-3
18-4H
18-4
Sampling
Test Site Method
Inlet Battery Condenser High Volume
Inlet Battery Condenser High Volume
Outlet Battery Condenser Method 5
Outlet Battery Condenser Method 5
Trash Hopper Cyclone Method 5
Inlet Battery Condenser High Volume
Outlet Battery Condenser Method 5
Extractor Feeder Cyclone Method 5
Trash Hopper Cyclone Method 5
Inlet/Extractor Feeders High Volume
Inclined Cleaner Cyclone Method 5
Inclined Cleaner Cyclone Method 5
Extractor Feeder Cyclone Method 5
Extractor Feeder Cyclone Method 5
Inlet/Extractor Feeders High Volume
Inlet/Extractor Feeders High Volume
Inlet Inclined Cleaner High Volume
Inlet Inclined Cleaner High Volume
Inclined Cleaner Cyclone Method 5
Inlet Inclined Cleaner High Volume
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5
Inlet Unloading Separator High Volume
Inlet Unloading Separator High Volume
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5
Inlet Unloading Separator High Volume
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5
Unloading Separator Cyc. High Volume
Unloading Separator Cyc. Method 5-As.
Average
Velocity
Average
Temperature
ft/sec (m/sec) °F (°C)
65.2
60.9
12.2
12.4
37.7
59-7
13.0
18.0
36.5
69.0
26.7
28.0
13.8
15.8
70.5
70.4
65.9
61.9
26.8
70.7
18.8
20.0
65-9
79-9
17-7
18.2
18.8
80.4
18.7
18.1
20.3
(19.9 )
(18.6 )
( 3.72)
( 3.77)
(11.5 )
(18.2 )
( 3.96)
( 5.49)
(11.1 )
(21.0 )
( 8.14)
( 8.53)
( 4.20)
( 4.82)
(21.5 )
(21.5 )
(20.1 )
(18.9 )
( 8.19)
(21.6 )
( 5.73)
( 6.10)
(20.1 )
(24.4 )
( 5.39)
( 5.55)
( 5.73)
(24.5 )
( 5-70)
( 5.52)
( 6.19)
88.7
92.5
114.
101.
98.0
87.7
103-
111.
105.
90.0
124.
121.
95.0
96.0
111.
111.
163.
163.
97.0
150.
106.
107.
102.
95.0
109.
96.0
92.0
97.3
98.0
82.0
82.0
(31.5)
(33.6)
(45.6)
(38.3)
(36.7)
(30.9)
(39.4)
(43.9)
(40.6)
(32.2)
(51.1)
(49.4)
(34.0)
(35.6)
(43.9)
(43.9)
(72.8)
(72.8)
(30.1)
(65.6)
(41.1).
(41.7)
(38.9)
(35.0)
(42.8)
(35.6)
(33.3)
(36.3)
(36.7)
(27.8)
(27.8)
% 0,
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.4
21.0
21.0
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.2
21.2
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
jgCO;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
it CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%N2
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
78.6
79.0
79.0
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.8
78.8
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
Particulate
Emission Rate*
Ibs/hr
8.61
8.44
2.57
3.44
1.13
11.0
2.71
0.532
1.32
174.0
0.838
0.591
0.272
0.220
145.0
205.0
43.3
59.7
0.564
38.5
0.709
0.855
40.3
21.3
1.04
1.09
0.748
34.1
0.785
1.32
0.597
_ (kg/hr) .
(3.9D
(3.83)
(1.17)
(1.56)
(0.513)
(4.99)
(1.23)
(0.241)
(.599)
(78.8)
(0.380)
(.263)
(0.123)
(0.100)
(65.7)
(92.9)
(19.6)
(27.1)
(.256)
(17-5)
(.322)
(.388)
(18.3)
(9.66)
(.472)
(.494)
(.339)
(15.5)
(.356)
(..599)
(.271)
itHgO
2.0
2.0
1.87
0.0
0.72
2.0
0.5
1.66'
1.05
1.64
6.34
4.58
2.42
1.81
2.42
1.80
6.34
4.55
3.02
3.01
1.87
1.45
1.86
1.44
2.60
1.88
1.28
1.28
2.17
0.86
0.87
*For Method 5 Samples, Emission Rate is Total Emission Rate
-------
dried residues from all parts of the sampling train were also
analyzed for arsenic. The results indicated (1) that a
greater portion of the arsenic is caught in the impingers
rather than in the probe and filter, and (2) the NaOH is not
required to trap the arsenic. This data, presented in Ap-
pendix I is summarized as follows:
18-3 18-4
Total Gas Volume DSCF 22.8 26.0
Arsenic Front Half (mg) 1.15 1-75
Arsenic Total Train (mg) 7.85 6.60
Arsenic in Blanks <0.4 <0.4
Residues from runs 18-1 and 18-2 were analyzed by Batelle
Memorial Institute for trace metal content. This data is
presented in Appendix J. The elements Ba, Mg, Si, Ca, K,
Na, Fe, Cu, and As were found in appreciable quantities.
Pesticides analysis was performed on the gin trash and seed
cotton. High concentrations of both organochlorihe and
organophosphous compounds were found. The concentrations
levels in the trash is considerably higher than in the seed
cotton. The data given in detail in Appendix H is summa-
rized as follows:
Concentrations ppm by Weight
Compound Seed Cotton . Trash
p,p'-DDT 4.1 19.5
o,p-DDT 0.63 3.57
Toxaphene 4.6 22.5
Methyl Parathion 0.22 0.33
Other material found included degradation products of DDT
and also endrin, the latter just barely detectable.
10
-------
It was assumed that the loading 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 rate of each outlet is known or
calculated and the total emissions is equal to the sum of
the emission from all outlets in the system. As the inlet
loading is known from the high volume samplings runs, an
efficiency can be calculated in each individual control sys-
tem, either cyclone bank or in-line filter.
The high volume sampler does not collect any material or
condensate 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 was used to
determine efficiencies. The sampling schedule, shown in
Table 2 describes which units were sampled or traversed dur-
ing the same time interval. Additional information on the
schedule are given in Appendix G - Sampling Log.
The efficiency data on the control devices is summarized in
Table 3. The complete data and example calculations on all
inlet ducts, sampled and unsampled outlet ducts are given
in Appendix A1-A6. In general, the efficiencies of the
cyclones varied from at low of 82.9% to 99.9$. The cyclones
on the unloading separator are the least efficient indica-
ting that the cyclones could not easily separate the type
of material being fed to them. The inclined cleaner and
extractor feeder cyclones were much more efficient. Only
very short sampling runs were possible on the inlets to these
cyclones due to the high loadings and the large size of
debris present in the ducts.
The results on the cyclones indicate they are very effi-
cient in removing large material from fine material, but
11
-------
TABLE 2
SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Sample Point No.
Date
10/10
10/10
10/11
10/18
10/18
10/19
10/19
10/16
10/16
10/17
10/12
10/16
10/16
10/16
10/11
10/12
Exhaust Prom
Battery Condenser
Battery Condenser
Battery Condenser
Unloading
Unloading
Unloading
Unloading
Inclined
Inclined
Inclined
Extractor
Extractor
Extractor
Separator
Separator
Separator
Separator
Cleaner
Cleaner
Cleaner
Feeders, etc.
Feeders, etc.
Feeders, etc.
Trash Hopper
Trash Hopper
Control
In-line
In-line
In-line
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Device
Filter
Filter
Filter
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
U)
'(•1)
Inlet
16-1
16-2
16-3
13-1
13-2
13-3
10-1
10-2
10-3
*
8-2
8-3
8-4
—
—
Outlet
17-1
17-2
17-3
1-1, 18-1
1-2, 18-2
1-3, 18-3
18-4, 18-4H
4-1
4-2
4-3
6-1
6-2
6-3
—
7-1
7-2
Traversed Duct
17A-1
17A-2
17A-3
1A-1,
1A-2,
1A-3,
4A-1
4A-2
4A-3
6A-1
6A-2
6A-3
—
—
—
18A-1
18A-2
18 A- 3
* High Volume samples run was aborted.
clogged the sampler.
The high particulate loading in duct
12
-------
Process and
Control Device
Unloading Separator
Cyclone
Inclined Cleaner -
Cyclone
Extractor Feeder, Gin
Stands - Cyclone
Battery Condenser -
In-line Filter
TABLE 3
EFFICIENCY COMPARISON SUMMARY
Run Numbers
Inlet
13-1
13-2
13-3
Outlet
1-1,
18-1
1-2,
18-2
1-3,
18-3
1A-1,
, 18A-1
1A-2,
, 18A-2
1A-3,
, 18A-3
Average
10-1
10-2
10-3
4-1,
4-2,
4-3,
4A-1,
4 A- 2
4A-3
Average
8-2
8-3
8-4
Averaj
16-1
16-2
16-3
6-1,
6-2,
6-3,
*e .
17-1
17-2
17-3
6A-1
6A-2
6A-3
, 17A-1
, 17A-2
, 17A-3
Average
(Hi-vol)
Inlet
Ib/hr
40.
21.
3^.
31.
43.
59-
38.
47.
174.
145.
205-
175-
8.
8.
11.
9.
3
3
1
9
3
7
5
2
7
9
8
5
64
44
0
36
Outlet
Ib/hr
3
3
2
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
•4
5
3
4
.10
.65
.34
.03
.331
.918
• 934
.06
.01
.473
.304
.596
.67.
.35
.80
.61 . .
Efficiency
92.3
82
93
90
96
98
97
97
99
99
99
99
45
36
65
50
• 9
.1
.5
.9
.5
.6
.8
.4
• 7
• 9
.7
.9
.6 .
.5 •
.7
13
-------
are not very efficient in separating relatively fine mater-
ial from the gas stream.
As might be expected, the in-line filters are not very effi-
cient. These filters consist of a rotating screen of wire
mesh and as a result, can not remove any fine particles from
the gas stream. The separation efficiency will increase as
the screen becomes clogged, but when this happens, the ve-
locity from the filter outlets will be greatly decreased.
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 representa-
tive than the grains/DSCP or Ibs/hr emission figures.
-------
Table 4 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - INLET TO UNLOADING SEPARATOR CYCLONE - POINT 13
Ul
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFMNm3)"
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°P-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Plow 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)
13-1
10-18-72
High Vol. Sampler
2795 (79.2)
1.86
102 (38.9)
4535 (2.14)
4849 (2.29)
106
1.98 (1.80)
64.0
188356.4
1040 (2.38xl06)
40.3 (18.3)
20.4 (10.2)
13-2
10-18-72
High Vol. Sampler
3110 (88.1)
95
5570
5878
2.04
.44
(35)
(2.63)
(2.77)
97
(1.85)
64.0
446
21.3
10.4
89903.8
(1.02X106)
(9.66)
(5.22)
13-3
10-19-72
High Vol. Sampler
3267 (92.5)
1.28
97.2 (36.2)
5622 (2.65
5914 (2.79)
101
2.96 (2.69)
64.0
150071.7
709 (1.62xl06)
34.1 (15.5)
11.5 (5.76)
Average
3057 (86.6)
1.53
97-3 (36-3)
5243 (2.47)
5547 (2.62)
101
2.33 (2.11)
64.0
142777.3
732 (1.68xl06)
31.9 (14.5)
14 ..1 (7.06)
!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)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 5 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - OUTLET OF UNLOADING SEPARATOR CYCLONES - POINT 1
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^CNm3)1*
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
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 impinger catch
1-1
1-2
10-18-72
EPA Method 5
23.12 (0.657)
1.87
106 (11.1)
1460 (0.689)
1570 . (0.74D
105.6
1.98 (1.80)
64.0
72.8
0.0483 (111)
0.604 (0.274)
.305 (.152)
85.4
0.0567 (130)
0.709 (0.322)
.358 (.179)
1-3
10-18-72
EPA Method 5
24.8 (0.702)
1.45
107 (41.7)
1550 (0.732)
1670 (0.788)
107.3
2.04 (1.85)'
64.0
92.2
0.0573 (131)
0.761 (0.345)
.373 (.186)
103.7
0.0644 (147)
0.855 (0.388)
.419 (.210)
11.1
10-19-72
EPA Method 5
24.2 (0.685)
1.28
92 (33.3)
1510 (0.713)
1580 (0.746)
107.2
2.96 (2.69)
64.0
73.0
0.0465 (106)
0.602 (0.273)
.203 (.101)
90.8
0.0578 (132)
0.748 (0.339)
.253 (.126)
-19.6
Average
24.1 (0.681)
1.53
102 (38.7)
1507 (0.711)
1610 (0.760)
106.7
2.33 (2.11)
64.0
79.3
0.0507 (116)
0.656 (0.297)
.294 (.146)
93.
0.0597
0.771
.343
3
(137)
(0.350)
(.172)
15.2
'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)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 6 - SUMMARY OP RESULTS - OUTLET OF UNLOADING SEPARATOR CYCLONE - POINT 18
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFMNm3)11
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°P-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCPM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Plow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
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)
.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
18-1
18-2
10-18-72
EPA Method 5
21.5 (0.609)
' 2.60
109 (12.8)
1350 (0.637)
1480 (0.698)
105.9
1.98 (1.80)
64.0
111.14
0.0798 (183)
0.923 (0.418)
. .466 (.232)
125.6
0.0900 (206)
1.04 (.472)
.521 (.262)
42.3
10-18-72
EPA Method 5
22.5 (0.637)
1.88
96 (35.6)
1430 (0.675
1520 (0.717)
104.8
2.04 (1.85)
64.0
114.7
0.0785 (180)
0.962 (0.436)
.472 (.236)
129.5
0.0886 (203)
1.09 (0.494)
.531 (.267)
11.4
18-3
10-19-72
EPA Method 5
22.9 (0.648)
2.76
98 (36.7)
1460 (0.689)
1570 (0,741)
104.6
2.96 (2.69)
64.0
65.8
0.0442 (101)
0.553 (0.251)
.187 (.0933)
93.3
0.0627 (143)
0'.785 (.356)
.265 (.132)
29.5
Average
22.3
101
1413
1523
2,33
(0.631)
2.41
(38.3)
(0.667)
(0.719)
105
(2.11)
64.0
97.3 .
0.0675 (155)
0.813 (0.368)
.375 (.187)
116.1
0.0804 (184)
0.972 (0.441)
.440 (.220)
27.7
'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
5Metrlc Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Gralns per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 7 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - INLET TO INCLINED CLEANER CYCLONES -
co
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^CNm3)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
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)
10-1
10-16-72
High Vol. Sampler
491 (13-91)
6.34
163 (72.8)
2486 (1.17)
3103 (1-47)
116
2.33 (2.11)
12.0
64717.8
2.03 (4647)
43-3 (19.6)
18.6 (9.29)
10-2
POINT 10
10-3
10-16-72
High Vol. Sampler
236 (6.68)
4.55
163 (72.8)
2380 (1.12)
2914 (1.38)
117
1.88 (1.71)
6.0
44798.8
2.93 (6707)
59.7 (27.1)
31.8 (15.8)
10-17-72
High Vol. Sampler
241 (6.81)
3.02
150 (65.6)
2810 (1.33)
3328 (1.57)
101
1.37 (1.24)
6.0
24987-5
1.60 (3662)
38.5 U7-5)
28.1 (14.1)
Average
322
159
2559
3115
1.86
(9-13)
1.64
(70.4)
(1.21)
(1.47)
(1.69)
44834.7
2.15 (4921)
47.2 (21.4)
26.2 13.1)
'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)
.6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 8 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - OUTLET OF INCLINED CLEANER CYCLONES - POINT 1
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^CNm3)1*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-0F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Plow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow 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
grains/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
1-1
.4-2
4-3
Average
10-16-72
EPA Method ^
30.0 (0.849)
6.34
124 (51.D
1920 (0.906)
2240 (1.06)
104.5
2.33 (2.11)
64.0
74.4
0.0382 (87.4)
0.629 (0.285)
.270 (.135)
99.1
0.0509 (116.5)
0.838 (0.380)
.360 (.180)
24.9
10-16-72
EPA. Method 5
31.8 (0.900)
4.56
121 (49-4)
2060 (0.972)
2350 (1.11)
102.8
1.88 (1.7D
64.0
52.2
0.0253 (57-9)
0.447 (0.203)
.238 (.119)
69.1
0.0335 (76.7)
0.591 (0.268)
.314 (.157)
24.5
10-17-72
EPA Method 5
32.8 (0.929)
3.02
97. (36.1)
2090 (0.986)
2250 (1.06)
104.7
1.37 (1.24)
. 64.0
52.4
0.0246 (56.3)
0.441 (.200)
.322 (.161)
67.0
0.0315 (72.1)
0.564 (0.256)
.412 (.206)
21.8
31-5
114
2023
2280
1,86
(0.893)
4.64
(45.6)
(0.955)
(1.08)
104
(1.69)
64.0
59.7
0.0294 (67.2)
0.506 (0.229)
.277 (.139)
78.4
0.0387 (88.4)
0.664 (0.301)
.363 (.181)
23-7
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet S 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
5Metrlc Tons per Hour (1 metric ton = 1000 Kg)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 9 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - INLET TO EXTRACTOR FEEDER, GIN STAND CYCLONES - POINT 8
[\J
O
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^CNm3)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
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)
3-2
8-4
10-13-72
High Vol. Sampler
73-9 (2.09)
90
3110
3250
1.86
(32.2)
(1.17)
(1.53)
112
(1.69)
1.5
31331.3
6.54 (15000)
174 (78.8)
93.5 (46.6)
10-16-72
High Vol. Sampler
125 (3-55)
111
3030
3320
1.63'
.42
(43-9)
(1.43)
(1.57)
8.1
(1.48)
3.0
45395-3
5.59 (12800)
145 (65.7)
89.0 (44.4)
10-16-72
High Vol. Sampler
33.8 (0.956)
1.80
111 (43.9)
3040 (1.44)
3310 (1.56)
78.9
1.88 (1.7D
1.0
17215.3
7.87 (18000)
205 (92.9)
109 (54.3)
Average
77-7 (2.20)
1.95
104 (40)
3060 (1.44)
3293 (1.55)
96.3
1.79 (1.63)
1.83
31314.0
6.22 (15300)
175 (79.2)
97.2 (48.4)
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet @ 70°F, 29-92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @70°F, 29-92 in Hg
'Actual 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
-------
Table 10 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - OUTLET OF EXTRACTOR FEEDER, GIN STAND CYCLONES - POINT 6
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFMNm3 )*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(NmVsec)
Stack Volumetric Plow 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)
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
6-1
•6-2
10-12-72
EPA Method 5
52.6 (1.49)
1.65
111 (43.9)
1390 (0.656)
1500 (0.708)
108.0
1.86 (1.69)
64.0
138.8
0.0406 (92.9)
0.484 (0.220)
.260 (.130)
152.6
0.0447 (102)
0.532 (0.241)
.286 (.143)
9.04
10-16-72
EPA Method 5
40.4 (1.14)
2.42
95 (35)
1080 (0.5098)
1150 (0.543)
106.7
1.63 (1.48)
64.0
60.8
0.0232 (53.1)
0.215 (0.098)
.132 (.0662)
77-1
0.0294 (67.3)
0.272 (0.123)
.167 (.0831)
21.1
6-3
10-16-72
EPA Method 5
45-5 (1.29)
1.80
96 (35.6)
1250 (0.590)
1320 (0.623)
104.3
1.88 (1.71)
64.0
39.4
0.0133 (30.4)
0.142 (0.064)
.0755 .(.0374)
60.5"
0.0205 (46.9)
0.220 (0.100)
.117 (.0585)
34.9
Average
46.1 (1.31)
1.96
101 (38.2)
(0.585)
(0.624)
106
(1.63)
1240
1323
1.79
64.0
79-7
0.0257 (58.8)
0.282 (0.127)
.156 (.0779)
96:7
0.0315 (72.1)
0.343 (0.155)
.190 (.0949)
21.7
'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)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table 11 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - INLET TO BATTERY CONDENSER FILTER - POINT 16
rv>
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)
16-1
16-2
16-3
10-10-72
High Vol. Sampler
2870
15608
17917
1.72
(81.3)
2.0
.7 (31.5)
(7.36)
(8.46)
95
(1.56)
iO.O
12045.7
0.065 (148.8)
8.61 (3.91)
5.00 (2.50)
10-10-72
High Vol. Sampler
2948
92.5
15880
16743
1.64
(83.5)
2.0
(33.6)
(7.49)
(7.9)
80
(1.49)
10.0
11863.1
0.062 (141.9)
8.44 (3.83)
5.15 (2.58)
10-11-72
High Vol. Sampler
3295 (93.3)
Average
87.7
15781
16412
1.70
2.0
(30.9)
(7.45)
(7.75)
82
(1.54)
82.0
17^04.8
0.082 (187.7)
11.0 (4.99)
6.47 (3.21*)
3038 (86.0)
2.0
89.63 (32.0)
15756 (7.44)
17024 (8.04)
80.67
1.69 (1.53)
80.7
13771.2
0.0697 (159-5)
9.35 (4.24)
5.5t (2.77)
MJry 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
-------
Table 12 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - OUTLET OF BATTERY CONDENSER FILTER - POINT 17
ro
OO
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCF^Nm3)1*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-0F-(°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,
gralns/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 impinger catch
•17-2
17-3
Average
10-10-72
EPA Method 5
70.3 (1.99)
1.86
n't (15.6)
71tO (3-37)
7730 (3-65)
98.0
1.72 (1.56)
80
178.8
0.0392 (89.7)
2.40 (1.09)
10-10-72
EPA Method 5
44.5 (1.26)
0.0
101 (38.3)
7560 (3.57)
7850 (3-70)
101.4
1.64 (1.49)
80
127.0
0.0440 (101)
2.85 (1.29)
10-11-72
EPA Method 5
47.2 (1.34)
0.5
103 (39.1)
7910 (3.73)
8250 (3.89)
102.7
1.70 (1.54)
80
105.8
0.0345 (78.9)
2.34 (1.07)
54.0 (1.53)
0.79
106 (41.1)
7537 (3-56)
7943 (3.75)
100.7
1.69 (1.53)
80
137.2
0.0392 (89.9)
2.51 (1.15)
i. lo (.699)
191.5
0.0420 (96.1)
2.57 (1.17)
1.19 (.750)
6.63
1.74 (.866)
153-5
0.0531 (122)
3.41 (1.56)
2.10 (1.05)
17.3
1.3.8 (.695)
122.5
0.0400 (91.5)
2.71 (1.23)
1.59 (.799)
13.6
1.51 (.752)
155.8
0.0450 (103)
2.91 (1.32)
1.73 (.866)
12.5
'Dry Standard Cubic Feet @ 70°F, 29-92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute 6 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
-------
Table 13 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - OUTLET OF TRASH HOPPER CYCLONE - POINT 7
IV)
4=-
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCFMNm3)*
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°F-(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM2-(Nm3/sec)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM3-(m3/sec)
Percent Isoklnetic
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)
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
7-1
10-11-72
EPA Method ^
1(5.7 (1.29)
0.72
98 (36.7)
3040 (1.43)
3150 (1.49)
100.3
1.93 (1.75)
64.0
108.7
0.0366 (83.8)
0.954 (0.433)
.494 (.247)
128.2
0.0432 (98.9)
1.13 (0.513)
.585 (.293)
15.2
7-2
10-12-72
EPA Method 5
44.0 (1.25)
1.05
105 (40.6)
2900 (1.37)
3060 (1.44)
101.2
2.44 (2.21)
64.0
138.9
0.0486 (111)
1.21 (0.549)
.496 (.248)
152.0
0.0532 (122)
1.32 (0.599)
Average
44.9
0
102
2970
3105
(1.27)
(39.6)
(1.40)
(1.47)
100.8
2.19 (1.98)
64.0
.541
(.271)
8.6
123.8
0.0426 (97.4)
1.082 (0.491)
.495 (.298)
140.1
0.0482 (110)
1.23 (0.556)
.563 (.282)
11.9
'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)
6Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Feet
-------
Table It - SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EPA 5 and HIGH VOLUME SAMPLERS COMPARISON - POINT 18
ro
\s\
Run Number:
Date:
Method Type:
Volume of gas sampled-DSCP'-CNm3)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
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)
18-4
18-4-H
10-19-72
EPA Method 5 (modified for arsenic)
26.1 (0.739)
0.87
82.0 (27.8)
1660 (0.781)
1700 (0.802)
105-3
2.15 (1.95)
64.0
71.2
0.0420 (96.1)
0.597 (0.271)
.278 (.139)
10-19-72
High Vol. Sampler
837 (23.7)
0.86
82.0 (27.8)
1477 (0.697)
1512 (0.714)
111
2.15 (1.95)
64.0
5623.7
0.104 (238.1)
1.32 (0.599)
.614 (.3.07)
*Dry Standard Cubic Feet @ 70°F, 29.92 in Hg
2Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute @70°F, 29-92 in Hg
'Actual 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
-------
SECTION III
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The following describes the process equipment and materials
from which all emissions at subject plant are derived, and
identifies each of those sources with the specific device
being used to control emissions there from.
Reference is made to the drawings showing the plant flow
diagram Figure 2 and location of each emission control device
Figure 3* Details on the individual items of process equip-
ment, 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 means of telescoping
suction tubes. The resulting air stream, containing seed
cotton, passes through ductwork to a rock trap, where heavy
impurties such as rocks and green bolls are removed, then
to the unloading separator, where air and seed cotton are
separated. The air from the unloading separator (containing
impurities such as dust derived from the seed cotton) is
drawn through the unloading fan to Cyclone Sets Nos. 6 & 7
in parallel.
26
-------
Cyclone Set 2
IV)
—3
Unloading at Trailers
(Telescope Suction Tube)
Note: A separator (bypassed
& not in use) was attached
to the inclined cleaner.
Its inoperative trash line
connected to the duct line
leading to Cyclone set 1.
Cyclone Set 4
Telescope
Suet
^scope X
ion Tube I \*\
TV
SV SC Overflow
2 SYSTEMS IN PARALLEL (See Note 2)
C/clone Set 1 CD Cyclone Set 5
Note 2: A 3rd system was
available, not equipped
with an inline filter.
(Condenser exhausted
to atmosphere)
Inline FilterS
Screw Conveyor
with Dropper
and Glower
A Air
SC Seed Cotton
LC Lint Cotton
S Seed
T Trosh
NG Natural Gas
Figure 2. Plant Plow Diagram - Cotton Ginning Plant, Test No. 72-MM-23
-------
Unloading of SC Raw
Material from Trailers
ro
CO
Cotton Ginning
Plant Bldg.
Cyclone Sets (7)
(numbered as
shown)
V
Screw Convexor
(rece iv ing tra sh
from Cyclone Sets
Nos, 1 thru 7)
Extractor Feeders, Gin Stands, Unit —Air
Lint Cleaners, (Stick-&-Green Leaf
Extractor (bypassed), Separator at Inclined
Cleaner (bypassed).
Drier #2 Separator
Inclined Cleaner
Condenser Section of Condenser — Un it —
•Saw Lint Cleaner
Condenser Section of Condens er—Un it-
Saw Lint C leaner
Overflow Separator (bypassed)
Saw Sections of Condenser—Un it — Saw
Lint Cleaners
#2
o
#3
o
#4
o-
»5
o-
Unloading Separator
#6
••-Ducts
(See Note)
#7
c>^*oT"
acuum Dropper1^
Note: Points at which ducts,
to cyclones, leave the
plant bldg. are not in
the order shown.
Battery Condenser Q
Inline Filters (3)
(numbered as shown)
Trash House
Cyclone •-
Figure 3. Location of Emission Control Devices - Cotton Ginning Plant, Test No. 72-MM-23
-------
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 Heater No. 1
where natural gas is burned and the resulting combustion
products mix with the air stream.
Part of the hot gas mixture thus formed flows through a duct
to the seed cotton outlet of the unloading separator, where
the seed cotton is entrained and carried through Tower Drier
No. 1 to the inclined cleaner. Gases, containing trash, are
separated from the seed cotton in the inclined cleaner and
are drawn through a fan to Cyclone Set No. 3
A stream of hot gases formed in Heater No. 2, similar to
that formed in Heater No. 1, flows through a duct to the
seed cotton outlet of the inclined cleaner, where the seed
cotton is entrained and carried through Tower Drier No. 2
to the Drier No. 2 separator. Gases containing trash are
separated from the seed cotton in that separator and are
drawn through a fan to Cyclone Set No. 2. The seed cotton
from that separator is channelled by gravity flow into the
screw distributor, which carries it into the ginning system.
Ginning and Lint Cleaning
The screw distributor distributes seed cotton to two extractor
feeders which, in turn, feed it to one gin stand each, at
rates controlled to the gin stand capacity. When the flow
of seed cotton from the screw distributor exceeds the total
of the intake rates of the extractor feeders, the excess
seed cotton flows into the overflow bin, from which it is
picked up, at a suitable time, by a telescoping suction tube
and routed again through the unloading separator and the
seed cotton drying and cleaning system then back to the screw
distributor.
29
-------
Part of the hot gas mixture from Heater No. 1 flows into the
two extractor feeders. Air, containing trash, is drawn from
those extractor feeders into a duct having a vacuum, induced
by a fan, wherein it is carried in a gas stream to Cyclone
Set No. 1. The same gas stream receives trash from other
sources which are shown in Figure 1, and which will be noted
in the following paragraphs.
Additional trash from the extractor feeders and trash from
the gin stands is carried by a screw conveyor to a vacuum
dropper, thence into the duct carrying the gas stream to
Cyclone Set No. 1.
Within the gin stands, lint cotton is separated from seed.
The seed is removed to an elevated seed house by means of a
screw conveyor, dropper, blower and ductwork. The lint
cotton is carried in air streams through the unit-air lint
cleaners (one for each gin stand), then through condenser-
unit-saw lint cleaners (one for each gin stand), then to the
battery condenser.
Trash from the unit-air lint cleaners is carried by belt
conveyor to openings into the vacuum line to Cyclone Set
No. 1. Air from the upper (condenser) section of each con-
denser-unit-saw lint cleaner (containing trash) flows through
ducts to a fan, thence to an inline filter.
An additional system consisting of an extractor feeder, a
gin stand, and lint cleaners (the same types as those just
mentioned) was available and was put into operation during
the last part of our test program. An inline filter was
not available for this system; its condenser emissions were
exhausted directly to atmosphere. Otherwise, this system
operated in parallel and in the same way as the two similar,
previously-operated systems.
30
-------
Air streams from the saw units of the condenser-unit-saw lint
cleaners (containing trash and motes) flow through a fan to
Cyclone Set No. 5. .
Air from the battery condenser (containing trash) flows
through a fan to Inline Filter No. 3.
Lint cotton from the battery condenser flows into the baling
press where the products, bales of lint cotton, are formed.
As shown in Figure 3, air and trash from inline Filters Nos.
1, 2 and 3 feed into a duct, thence through a fan to the
outlet of the vacuum dropper removing trash from the screw
conveyor under Cyclone Sets Nos. 1 through 7« Thus, trash
from all inline filters and cyclones is entrained in a gas
stream that carries it to the cyclone atop the trash house.
The total trash is thus collected in the trash house which
is elevated to facilitate periodic removal by dumping into
a trailer or truck.
PROCESS OPERATION
The following list shows typical and peak process operation
parameters for the sampled cotton gin.
Normal plant operating schedule:
10 hrs/day (1 shift)
5 days/week
12 weeks/year, plus a few days for remnants.
From October to December (ginning season).
Average plant operating capacity:
70 bales of lint cotton produced/day (2 gin stands)
90 bales of lint cotton produced/day (3 gin stands)
31
-------
60,000 Ibs of seed produced/day (2 gin stands)
70,000 Ibs of seed produced/day (3 gin stands)
Capacity is based on one 10-hour shift per day; two hours
downtime for maintenance; 9 bales per hour (2 gin stands
operating); 11 bales per hour (3 gin stands operating);
800 Ibs seed per bale lint cotton. Downtime periods range
from a few minutes to several hours.
Peak plant operating capacity:*
140 bales of lint cotton produced/day (2 gin stands)
l80 bales of lint cotton produced/day (3 gin stands)
120,000 Ibs of seed produced/day (2 gin stands)
140,000 Ibs of seed produced/day (3 gin stands)
* Based on two 10-hour shifts per day; other factors
same as listed under "Average plant operating
capacity."
The gin manager provided the following information on
1
operation during sampling. All seed cotton processed
during sampling was machine-picked upland-type cotton.
Weather prior to and during testing had been dry, causing
the seed cotton entering the gin to be as dry as it ever
was (estimated at 3% by the gin manager) in previous ginning
seasons. Because of the dry conditions, the seed cotton
contained more dust than usual. Production rate would have
been about 30% higher had the moisture content been 8%. The
natural gas-fired driers were in use during sampling; their
1 Extracted from "Trip Report-Bleckley Farm Service Company
Cotton Ginning Plant", by William 0. Herring; November
16, 1972.
32
-------
purpose, however, was mostly to fluff the cotton to facilitate
removing trash, rather than to reduce moisture content.
The ginning plant was originally designed by Lummus Cotton
Gin Company in 1961. It was purchased used, moved to its
present site, and operated for the first time by the present
owners in 1972. Recorded production data show that when the
gin operated smoothly, its production rate was about one
500-pound bale each seven minutes (9 bales per hour).
Sampling was conducted from October 10 through October 19.
From October 10 through 16 two gin stands were in use. On
October 17 the third gin stand was put on line and was
operated intermittently. The third gin stand was put to
full use on October 18 and 19. Recorded data show that the
production rate was not significantly changed by adding the
third gin stand, indicating that production was limited by
factors other than the number of operating gin stands.
Production data recorded by the EPA Project Engineer during
sampling is summarized in Appendix B (Operation results)
and the raw data is in the "Process and Production Data
Sheets" in Appendix D (Operating Data Log).
33
-------
SECTION IV
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
There are two types of emission control devices at the
Bleckley Farm Service Company Cotton Gin; 3-42 inch in-
line filters controlling emissions from the battery con-
denser and the lint cleaner condensers and 15-34" cyclones
controlling emissions from the overflow separators, lint
cleaners, unloading separator, dryer separators, extractor
feeders, gin stands, and trash hopper.
The in-line filters were prepared for sampling by removing
the rain shields and installing a 44" ID horizontal duct
166" long on both outlets of the filter. Sample ports were
cut in the ducts for a horizontal sample traverse and a ver-
tical upward traverse. The ports were located 133" (3-02 D)
from the filter and 33" (.75 D) from the outside air, thus
requiring 40 sampling points. The sample system was in-
stalled on the battery condenser (point No. 17» 1?A) and
on one of the lint cleaner condenser (points 14, l4A). The
filter on the lint cleaner (14, l4A) was clogged and no
samples were obtained at this site (or the corresponding
inlet). The inlet to the battery condenser filter was 29"
ID and sampling ports were cut 196" (6.75 D) from the build-
ing (beginning of straight run) and 70" (2.4 D) from the 90°
elbow into the filter. This port location was a compromise
34
-------
between the sampling location and the available space for
scaffolding. Twenty sampling points were required. A
schematic of the in-line filter showing the sampling ducts
and important dimensions are given in Figure 4.
The fifteen cyclones were approximately 3^" in diameter with
outlets ranging in size from 16 to 17". Each cyclone was
equipped with a rain cap which had been adjusted to provide
the proper back pressure for proper separation efficiency.
The arrangement was not suitable for sampling as there was
cyclonic flow from the device and no suitable straight length
of pipe was available. To solve these problems, the rain
cap was removed and replaced with an adapter to fit the top
of the cyclone to a 16" ID 180° large radius sheet metal
return bend with a bend radius of 2.5 D or 40 inches. The
return bend was connected to a straightening vane and then
to a length of 16" ID pipe. This arrangement directed the
flow downward to allow sampling from lower scaffolding, and
the straightening vane greatly reduced the cyclonic flow.
The straight length of duct provided ample distance for the
flow to be stabilized after the straightening vane. The
candy cane as installed on the cyclone was estimated (with-
out the contribution of the straightening vane) to be equal
to at least 54 feet of straight pipe. This estimate is based
on data in "Industrial Ventilation" published by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
The straightening vanes were constructed of 20 gauge sheet
metal following the honeycomb design suggested in "Fan Engi-
neering" of the Buffalo Forge Company. The design criteria
for the vane is to provide honeycomb squares of 7-5 to 15%
of the diameter with the vane length to be three times the
square size.
35
-------
UJ
3D......
T
20 Traverse
Points
<;
Tra
Poi
verse
nts
XX "~-H
t — 1;
1
o 17
A
Sampling
Ports
53 •
i'
i
T
7
\
(—
70
\
i
1
Y
C-.
Trash^
^^____ Line
llf
T
o 1
16
Rain Shield
(Removed) ...
J
._ j
^Fot
Pul
i
1
.
196
133" ^-33
0
or Traversing
ley Points
',
Inlet I
t
f"
29"
Gin
Building
Figure :4., Schematic of In-Line Filter Showing Ducts and Sampling Ports
-------
As a compromise between meeting the criteria and construc-
tion technique, the size of the squares in the honeycomb
were 2.5" and the length of the vane 7.5"- The final design
of the vane is shown in Figure 5.
A total of five candy cane units were constructed, and these
were moved from one cyclone bank to the next for sampling.
Different adapters were used depending on the size of the
outlet of the cyclone. All adapter joints were sealed with
furnace tape to assure a leak tight seal. The straight
length of duct after the straightening vane was 194" long
with 160" (10 D) from the vane to the ports and 3^" (2.1 D)
from the port to the atmosphere. As the duct has suffi-
cient length, the minimum number of traverse point (12) can
be used. This number was further reduced to 8 as the duct
is less than two feet in diameter. No traverse points were
chosen closer than 1 inch to the wall of the duct.
The inlets to the cyclones varied greatly in both diameter
of duct and length of straight run available to meet sam-
pling criteria. The pertinent data is as follows:
Point No.
13
10
8
Inlet from
Unloading
Separator
Inclined
Cleaner
Extractor
Feeders,
etc .
Diameter of
Duct (inches)
15
12
12
Upstream
Distance
(inches)
90 (6D)
96 (8D)
96 (8D)
Downstream
Distance
(inches)
15 (ID)
72 (6D)
24 (2D)
No. of
Traverse
Points
16
8
8
37
-------
16
.
1
• I
'
.
1
1
1
1
r '
7.
u ,
Figure 5. Diagram of Straightening Vane Construction
38
-------
The schematic diagram of the inlets and outlet of the
cyclone banks is given in Figures 6, 7, and 8.
During the testing program, it was found that blockage in
the bottom end of the cyclone would cause larger trash to
exit through the top of the cyclone, and quickly close off
the passages in the straightening vane, forcing the gin to
shut down. Inspection ports were cut into the 180° bend
just above the vane for checking and clean-out. These
ports were closed by sheet metal bonds during test runs.
Approximately one month prior to the beginning of the sam-
pling* program a subcontract was let to Snead's Sheet Metal
Shop in Macon, Georgia, to construct the ducts, elbows,
and straightening vanes. These were transported to the gin
along with the necessary scaffolding and lumber. Prior to
the first day of sampling, the ducts were erected in the
in-line filters and on several of the cyclones. Men and a
boom truck were supplied by Snead's to move the ducting
from one cyclone to the next during the sampling program.
Sufficient electrical power was not available at this cot-
ton gin. Ward's Electrical Service of Hawkensville,
Georgia, installed a 60 amp transformer to convert the
440 V gin voltage to 110 V, 60 hertz service required by
the sampling equipment.
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, 19713 Federal Register. One excep-
tion was the use of the wet bulb-dry bulb technique to
39
-------
160"
Sample_
Ports ~
34"
1,18
(8 Traverse
Points)
Straightening
Vane
(16 Traverse
Points)
^Trash
Line
GIN
BUILDING
15"
Figure 6. Schematic Diagram of Outlet Ducts, 1, 18, 1A,
ISA, and Inlet Duct 13
-------
Sample
Port,s-^
4
(8 Traverse
'Points)
96" *
traightening Vane
Sample
Ports
10
(4 Traverse
Points Used)
Enlet
Pp. !">•(-
J- W .!, O
4A
12"
Figure 7. Schematic Diagram of Outlet Ducts 4 and HA,
and Inlet Duct 10
-------
Gin
Building
12"
Straightening
Vanes
•96"
ZTiT ___L^ )
L___LJL JLX
/
Sample
Port 8
\
(8 Traverse
Points)
Traverse"}!^!'^ j_
Port s -^
6A
o ample
o
(8 Traverse
Points)
Figure 8. Schematic Diagram of Inlet Duct 8, and Outlet
Ducts 6 and 6A
-------
obtain initial moisture levels, rather than Method 4, Deter-
mination of Moisture in Stack Gases. The low moisture levels
(1-4$) and low stack temperatures (below 212°F) permitted
the use of this deviation.
Method 5 of the Federal Register Methods was used to obtain
the emission rate of all sampled outlets. During these
sample runs, any unsampled outlets in the same cyclone bank
or connected to the same control device were traversed to
obtain the velocity profile and stock temperature following
Method 2. If it is assumed that the loading in grains/stan-
dard 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, and from the velocity traverse of the unsampled
ducts, the emission rate in Ib/hr can be calculated for
each individual outlet.
Run 18-4 was designed to accomplish two objectives. First,
the water in the second impinger was replaced with 100 ml
of 2% NaOH. The combination of water in the first impinger
and sodium hydroxide in the second was to trap arsenic
acid. The sampling train was operated in a normal manner.
The second objective of this run was to provide a compari-
son of data obtained by Method 5 apparatus with the High
Volume sampler. Run 18-4H, the High Volume run, was con-
ducted simultaneously with run.18-4.
No conditions were encountered during this sampling pro-
gram that were beyond the normal operating parameters of
the Method 5 sampling apparatus. The sampling runs were
stopped however when portions of the gin ceased operation
43
-------
of if unusual conditions occurred in the gin. The runs
were restarted when normal operation resumed.
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 stain-
less 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 orfice, 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. Sampling at Point 13, inlet to the unload-
ing separator cyclone and Point 16, inlet to the battery
condenser filter, were of the same time duration as the
corresponding outlets. However, on Points 8, inlet to the
extractor feeder, gin stand cyclones, and 10, inlet to the
inclined cleaner cyclones, only very short runs were pos-
sible due to the extremely high loading levels in the inlet.
In these ducts, sampling times were made as long as possible
without completely filling the cyclone and filter.
-------
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).
-------
The analytical procedure for the High Volume sampler is sim-
ilar to the front half of the Method 5 procedure. The filter
is dried to constant weight as is the dry cyclone catch.
The acetone washing 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.
All dried samples from the runs were submitted to the EPA.
Specific samples were analyzed pesticides, arsenic, and
trace metals. The results are summarized in Appendicies
H, I, and J.
------- |