SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 78-ISC-1
April 1979
Air
Industrial Surface
Coating: Automobile and
Light-Duty Trucks
Emission Test Report
Ford Motor Company
Pico Rivera,
-------
Emission Test Report:
Ford Motor Company
Pico Rivera, California
Report Number 78-ISC-l
Emission Measurement Branch
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
July 1979
-------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 6
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 9
V. SAMPLING LOCATION 21
VI. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 21
VII. APPENDIX A-l
*: Test Data Sheets
* Velocity Traverse Data
* Field Data Sheets
* Analytical Data Sheets
* Truesdail Laboratory Report
* List of Participants
DFIA -- Operating Conditions
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES Page
TABLE 1 TEST LOG 3
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF TOTAL GASEOUS NON-METHANE ORGANIC RESULTS 4
TABLE 3 CALCULATED INCINERATOR EFFICIENCY 5
TABLE 4 PAINT COMPOSITION 7
TABLE 5 PROCESS DATA 8
TABLE 6 STRATIFICATION RESULTS 10
TABLE 7 TOTAL COMBUSTION RESULTS ANALYSIS 11
TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF DIRECT FLAME IONIZATION ANALYSIS (DFIA)
RESULTS 14
TABLE 9 INTEGRATED BAG SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS 16
TABLE 10 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON TEST SUMMARY 17
TABLE 11 ALDEHYDE RESULTS 18
TABLE 12 GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROMETRY RESULTS 19
TABLE is TRAVERSE POINTS 23
FIGURES
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 4.
INCINERATOR SCHEMATIC
TCA SAMPLING APPARATUS
DIRECT MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON APPARATUS
22
24
26
27
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
During the period from April 24 to May 9, 1978, a three-person
test crew from the Environmental Engineering Division of TRW, Inc.
performed volatile organic carbon emissions testing at the Ford
Motor Company assembly plant in Pico Rivera, California. The tests
were performed at the inlet and outlet of a thermal incinerator
(used to oxidize organic compounds) associated with a paint drying
oven.
The purpose of this test program was to obtain emission data
by two different volatile organic carbon (VCC) test procedures.
In order to evaluate the precision of each test method, compare
the results of the different methods, and determine the control
device efficiency, two test procedures were utilized to measure
VOC emissions as total gaseous non-methane organics (TGNMO). These
methods were (1) Total Combustion Analysis (TCA) , and (2) Direct
Flame lonization Analysis (DFIA) supplemented with a methane
determination of an integrated gas sample by gas chromatography.
In addition, in order to identify specific organics in the effluent
a third test procedure was utilized on a limited basis. The third
test procedure for total organic carbon (TOC) consisted of a
sampling train containing a solid resin adsorption system followed
by an impinger train containing bisulfite solution for aldehyde
collection.
Salo, Albert E., William L. Oaks, and Robert D. MacPhee. Total
Combustion Analysis. Air Pollution Control District. County of
Los Angeles. August 1974.
-------
In order to obtain data for evaluating the precision of the
two TGNMO sampling methods, simultaneous sampling was conducted with
multiple systems. The TCA tests were conducted simultaneously with
three identical sampling trains. The DFIA tests were conducted with
two or three different analyzers to monitor the total gaseous organic
emissions. Table 1 is a test log summary.
II. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table 2 summarizes the total gaseous non-methane (TGNMO)
results as measured by total combustion analysis (TCA) and the direct
flame ionization analysis (DFIA) procedures. Data are presented by
run number, test location, length of test period, TCA, DFIA, and
integrated bag analysis results. The results reported for the TCA
values are average values based on analysis of triplicate samples.
The reported DFIA non-methane organic value is derived by subtracting
the methane concentration determined by analysis of the integrated
bag sample from the total concentration determined by the direct
flame ionization analyzers.
Table 3 outlines the incineration efficiency based on the
results of both the TCA and DFIA procedures. The overall efficiency
of the thermal incinerator ranges from ninety-four (94+) to
ninety-nine (99+) percent. The results of several outlet sampling
runs were suspect and consequently not included in determining the
average outlet concentration with the TCA procedure. The deleted
runs are indicated in the table.
TOC results are discussed in section IV.
-------
TABLE 1. TEST LOG
Test Date Time
1 4-27
2 4-28
2A 5-1 1015-1105
3A 5-1 1330-1430
4A 5-2 0810-0910
5B 5-2 1005-1105
6B 5-3 0835-0840;
0920-1020
7B 5-3 1335-1435
8B 5-4 1400-1500
9A 5-5 1225-1322
9B 5-5 1245-1322
10B 5-8 0940-0950
1030-1045
1215-1300
11B 5-8 1350-1455
12B" 5-9 0825-0925
13B 5-9 1350-1500
INLET
TCA
/
/
/
/
/
/
DFIA
/
/
/
/
/
*
/
/
/
TOC
/
Integrated baq
Cl
/
/
/
/
\tf\~ V/-
C. D
/
CO C02 °2
/
/
/
OUTLET
TCA
/
'
/
/
/
'
/
/
/
DFIA
/
/
/
/
/]
TOC
/
/
/
Integrated bag
Cl
/
/
/
/
/
VC6
/
'
/
/
/
CO C02 °2
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 Analyzers switched back and forth to inlet and outlet
Beckman 402 Analyzer only
-------
Run No.
02-A
03-A
04-A
09-A
05-B
06-B
07-B
08-B
09-B
10-B
11-B
12-B
13-B
Location
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Sampling
time
(minutes)
50
60
60
57
60
48
60
60
57
65
65
60
70
VOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS, ppm C
Total combustion analysis
(TCA)*
Methane
51
46
60
53
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
Total non-methane
716
642
690
693
125
139
78
115
117
47
43
35
22
Direct flame
lonization analysis
(DFIA)
Total
521
555
532
583
6.8
6.7
5.8
3.6
4.8
-
-
-
-
Total non-methane
474
509
482
530
6.8
6.7
0
3.6
0
-
-
-
-
Integrated bag
Methane
45
40
46
54.2
N.D.**
N.D.
20.8
-
22.6
-
10.4
10.8
18.2
* Represents average values from triplicate samples.
** N.D. not detected
-TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF TOTAL-GASEOUS NON-METHANE ORGANIC RESULTS
-------
Total Combustion Analysis (TCA)
Average
Inlet Outlet Efficiency
(ppm) (ppm)* ' (%)
Direct flame ionization analysis (DFIA) - Average
Total
Inlet Outlet Efficiency
(ppm) (ppm)
Non-methane
Inlet Outlet Efficiency
(ppm) (ppm)
685.25
36.75
94.6
549.35
5.5
98.99
498.75
3.4
99.3
* Note: Runs 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B, and 9B are deleted in calculating average.
en
Efficiency = 100 x [
Ppm
TABLE 3. CALCULATED INCINERATION EFFICIENCY
-------
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
The incinerator tested controlled the emissions from the
"body first color" paint oven. This oven cures the body first
color coating which is a sprayed enamel paint (approximately 21
different colors are used). Typical paint and solvent composition
(supplied by the Ford Motor Company) is presented in Table 4.
This plant assembles intermediate sized automobiles (LTD and
Thunderbird) and during the testing approximately 50 cars were
cured per hour; the actual number of cars painted during each test
period is tabulated in Table 5.
The incinerator tested is a direct-fired unit operating on
natural gas. During the test period the incinerator operated
i
within a temperature range of 1425 to 1440 °F with a natural gas
feed rate of between 10,100 and 10,420 CFH. Table 5 presents
this information for each test run.
-------
TABLE 4. PAINT COMPOSITION
TYPICAL ENAMEL PAINT COMPOSITION
Solids 40-48 Wgt %
Solvents . 52-60 Wgt %
Density 7.8 - 8.4 #/Gal.
Component Typical Solvent Composition
Hgt %
Naptha 25-36
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons - 0-10
Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1-3
Butyl Alcohols 4-8
Isopropyl Alcohol - 0-.5
Butyl Acetate 1-24
Isopropyl Acetate 0-25
Cellosolve Acetate 26-35
-------
00
Test
02A
03A
04A
05B
06B
07B
08B
09A
09B
10B
11B
12B
13B
Average
Incinerator
Temperature
°F
1440
1440
1430
1426
1430
1426
1440
1427
1427
1425
1425
1425
1423
Average
Methane
Flow Rate
CFH
10,100
10,180
10,260
10,180
10,180
10,100
10,420
10,180
10,180
10,180
10,340
10,260
10,260
Production Rate
Time Period
1015-1105
1330-1430
0813-0913
1006-1106
0920-1020
1335-1435
1400-1500
1225-1322
1245-1322
1035-1045
1215-1300
1350-1455
0825-0925
1350-1500
Cars
Entering
Oven
42
54
55
47
56
57
53
50
34
43
68
58
63
Cars/Hr
52
54
55
47
56
57
53
53
55
47
63
58
54
TABLE 5. PROCESS DATA
-------
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Preliminary Tests
Velocity traverses and duct stratification tests were performed
prior to the VOC emission tests. Preliminary velocity traverses were
made at both the inlet and outlet locations and are recorded in the
appendix of this report. A S-type pi tot tube with a chrome V5 alumel
thermocouple was used according to standard procedures. In addition,
the ducts (inlet and outlet) were checked for volatile organic
stratification. Table 6 records the results of these tests. No
significant amount of stratification was found at either the inlet or
the outlet.
Total Combustion Analysis (TCA)
Triplicate samples were performed for all total combustion analysis
tests. This was accomplished by using a heated box containing three
filter holders and four probes, one for the total hydrocarbon analyzer
(DFIA) sample and three for the total combustion analysis samples. The
probes were mounted so that all the samples were taken from the same
location in the stack. The probes remained at a fixed position of
average concentration as determined by the stack stratification test.
Table 7 presents a complete summary of the TCA data.
The TCA tests for the first run are invalid due to a leak in the
sampling system (see discussion DFIA results). Run 2 was conducted with
the TCA trains as a check out run to assure that the problem with the
leak had been rectified; no DFIA data were taken during this run
because of problems with the analyzers.
-------
Data point
Inlet
1
2
3
4
5
Outlet
1
2
3
4
5
6
Distance in stack (in.)
Inlet
6
12
18
24
30
Outlet
7.5
14.5
21.5
28.5
35.5
40.0
Concentration (PPM)*
Inlet
525
512.5
512.5
500
500
Outlet
5,5
5.5
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.5
TABLE 6. STRATIFICATION RESULTS
* Measured by direct flame ionization analysis
-------
DATE
4-27-78
4-28-78
5-01-78
5-01-78
5-02-7E
5-02-78
5-03-76
5-03-79
5-04-7E
5-05-78
5-05-7E
5-08-75
5-08-7
5-09-7
5-09-7
TEST
1
2
02 -A
03-A
,04-A
05-B
06-B
07-B
08-B
09-A
09-B
10-B
11-B
i 12-B
! 13-B
LOCATION
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Inlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
- Outlet
TANK #
F306
F314
F312
A
B
C
F117
F125
F313
A
F321
C
F312
F306
F314
D
E
F
F156
G
H
F117
F125
Fll'3
A
B
C
F321
F312
.F302
E
F
F314
F313
F125
F117
F156
H
G
A
B
C
E '
F306
F321
CONCENTRATION PPM AS C1
TANKS
CO
23
13
7
32
20
26
32
42
27
23
29
12
33
33
25
<5
<5
8
<5
<5
<5
21
<5
15
<5
18
<5
38
24
36
10
23
<5
19
10
<5
32
<5
8
9
14
10
31
17
24
Ci
9
<5
<5
30
44
37
48
58
47
51
46
41
57
49
45
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
56
51
53
<5
45
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
CO,
.457
515
1,154
4,000
4,280
4,140
4,000
4,150
1,805
4,000
4,000
3,500
4,090
3,980
4,040
16,710
8,129
19,610
20,800
7,445
19,100
21 ,900
10,600
21,600
10,900
22,100
21,300
4,220
4,220
4,110
21,900
22,000
22,660
22,500
22,500
23,500
22,600
21,700
21,300
23,200
24,400
24,200
23,600
23,200
23,900
Organic
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
TRAP
Organic '.
71
176
135
711
717 .
714
704
709
735
698
628
600
731
655
685
164
140
170
282
84
52
59
37
138
31
249
66
668
691
720
166
42
144
38
45
58
56
33
39
71
21
13
16
24
25
TANK VACUUM
IN/HG
BEFORE
30
30
30
29
28.8
29.8
27
30
30
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
27
26
28
27
27
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
28
27
30
29.5
28
AFTER
8
8
14
13.5
10
10
6
6
12
n
16
18.5
8
14.
14.5
8
13
11
16
12
10
5
6
9
19.8
19.8
19.0
7
10
8
10
14
16
14
8.5
8
12
10
8
TABLE 7. TCA RESULTS
11
-------
Inconsistent results were obtained for tests 05-B through 09-B
at the outlet; the source of the problem was never identified, although
some sort of contamination is suspected. The possible sources of the
problem are contamination of the probe, filter, filter holder,
condensate trap, or an error in the analytical procedure. If the
condensate trap is not totally baked out during analysis, organics
would remain in the trap and would act as contamination for the next
test run. During this test program the condensate traps used for
runs 05B - 09B were the same traps used earlier for runs 1-5 at the
incinerator inlet; a small amount of organic material left in the
traps from the inlet run could show up as a significant amount at the
outlet location. When the test results for runs 5B, 6B, and 7B were
received, Truesdail laboratories was notified,and the problem of
erratic results was explained. Truesdail indicated that thorough
and proper bake out procedures were being applied. However, the
problem still occurred (runs 8B and 9B). As a precaution the next
set of traps that were received back from Truesdail were also baked
out by TRW laboratories. In addition, the filter holders and probes
were changed since these could have been a source of the problem
(the filter holder is sealed with a viton 0-ring which could have
been outgassing). The outlet test data collected after these steps
were taken are much more consistent. However, it is still not possible
to say whether the problem was contamination of the traps, or
contamination of the probe and filter or filter holder.
12
-------
Direct Flame lonization Analysis (DFIA) Results
Table 8 summarizes the DFIA results giving the range and average
values for each analyzer. In addition, the instrument operating
conditions and the calibration gas concentrations are tabulated in
the appendix. As a rule, the DFIA demonstrated lower values than the
TCA.
The organic concentration was lower than expected during the
check-out run (test 1); furthermore, a large cyclic fluctuation in
the FID response occurred. After investigation, it was found that
ambient air was being drawn into the stack through the outer jacket
of the probe holder; consequently, the sample was being diluted.
The problem was solved by removing the outer jacket and repacking the
section where the probe exited the heated box.
At the beginning of the test period, problems were encountered
with the total hydrocarbon analyzers, particularly the Horiba and the
Beckman 402. Neither instrument was able to establish a steady zero
reading on hydrocarbon free air. The Horiba was taken back to the
factory and the activated charcoal fuel filter was replaced. This is
a strong indication that the fuel mixture (40 percent H2 in He) was
contaminated with hydrocarbons. The instrument was put back on line
and the same problem occurred. The fuel was changed to 40 percent
hydrogen (H2) in nitrogen (N2). In addition, the fuel and air
pressure were suppressed. The Beckman 402 was hand carried to their
plant for repairs. Two problems with this instrument had developed;
the instrument had excessive noise on range one and the sample pump
was unable to produce the required pressure to operate the instrument.
13
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC, ppm C
TEST
1
2
02-A
03-A
04-A
09-A
05-B
06-B
07-B
08-B
09-B
BECKMAN
Av.
536.0
553.0
531.0
562.0
5.6
8.9
5.5
2.4
4.8
RANGE
High
550
625
575
675
7.5
11
7.5
7
8
Low
500
450
470
375
3
3
.5
0
3.5
HORIBA
Av.
-
566.0
570.0
534.0
7.8
6.1
6.7
-
4.8
RANGE
High
-
700
625
695
16
8.5
8
-
8
Low
-
500
490
310
6
4
5
-
3.5
SCOTT
Av.
513-0
550.0
537.2
551.0
7.2
5.3
5.2
3.9
6.7
RANGE
High
570
620
580
690
10
7
7.2
5
10
Low
475
450
495
400
5
2
4
3
5.5
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF DIRECT FLAME IONIZATION ANALYSIS (DFIA) RESULTS
-------
Beckman installed a new pump, but a stable zero reading was still never
achieved without suppressing the air, fuel, and sample pressures. In
addition, range one (0-50 ppm) still had excessive noise, and a zero
drift of between 20% positive 5% negative of full scale was experienced
on this range. Therefore, this range was avoided throughout the test.
Integrated Bag Samples
The two reasons for these tests were 1) to provide methane results
so that DFIA values could be calculated on a non-methane basis, 2) for
several runs, to determine the presence of C, - Co hydrocarbons not
collected in the solid adsorbent portion of the TOC test. In addition,
several samples were analyzed for CO, C02 and 02 for comparison with
values obtained by the TCA[procedure. Table 9 tabulates the analytical
results of the integrated bag samples. The methane results by TCA and
integrated bag sample agree well at the inlet, but not at the outlet.
This would tend to indicate that the sensitivity of TCA is not sufficient
for the low concentration range.
Total Organic Carbon (TOO
Tables 10-12 summarize the results of the TOC sampling. Table 10
presents the general test information for the four test runs conducted.
Table 11 presents the results of the aldehyde analysis conducted on the
impinger train. Results are presented as milligram Aldehyde absorbed;
calculated values fon volume concentration,ppm formaldehyde, and mass
concentration as carbon, mg/dscm,are also presented. Table 12 presents
the GC/MS results for test runs 9A and 9B (runs 11B and 13B were not
analyzed by GC/MS; the XAD-2 was extracted and the extract was retained
for possible future analysis). The total mass (mg) collected for each
15
-------
'.-..''. CONCENTRATION -..-'.-'-- -. ' - '
DATE
5-1 -7p, ;
5-1-78
5-2-78
5-2-78
5-3-78
5-3-78
5-4-78
5-5-78
5-5-78
5-8-78
5-8-78
5-9-78
5-9-78
TEST .
02-A
03-A
04-A
05-B .
. 06-B
. 07-B
08-B
09 -A
09-B
10-B
11-B
12-B
13-B /'
C1 PPM
.'45 .
40 ,
^46
. ND
. . ND
20.8
- ND
; 54.2
22.6
x
10.4
10.8
18.2
% CO ;
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01 .
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
' x :: '''
X
X
X
-X /
0.01
0.01 ;
% C02
0.57
.; o.4i
0.33
-2.12
.. 2.20 ': ;
2.35
'-.; x ".' '
x
X
-.'' X -'v
' 'V:^ /
. -2.51 ..
-,;;.n.-73.'."-.
% 02
14.6 '
13.6 ;
13.0
11.1
.. n.o .
9.83
x . '_.
' x -
.-'- x " -' -
: .X"- -.'-.-
,'. -^ ' '
-. 8.70
-, 8.79 ;;
C2 PPM
, x -'. .
x
.-'.-" x ' :-'
x
' "'. x
x
X
5.6
2.6
r X -
:,8.1
-8-7
9.4
C3 PPM
x
x
X
X
X
X
x
0.6
.ND
x . .
ND . .
X
ND
C4 - C8
x
x
X /
x
x " :.~"~
x
x
:. "ND
ND .
x .
..' ND . ;^~~ "
X
. ND..;
x - Not Analyzed
ND - Not Detected
C .Q
90MOI
-------
TABLE 10 TOTAL.ORGANIC CARBON TEST SUMMARY
DATE
4-25-78
4-25-78
5-08-78
5-09-78
TEST #
09-A, ,
09-B
11-B
13-B
TEST
POSITION
Inlet
Outlet
'.Outlet
Outlet
SAMPLE
VOL.(SCF)
71.86
73.26
69.78
70.12
ĞM IN
STACK
2.3
5.72
5.2.
5i4'
GAS
VELOCITY
ft/ sec
37.27
54.03
; 53.2
53.62
VOLUMETRIC
FLOW RATE
(SCFM)
12,387.44
.10,143.52
9,989.56
10,023.46 . :
i
-------
00
TEST
09-A
09- B
11-B
13-B
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
OUTLET
OUTLET
TOTAL ABSORBED
(mg)
54.8
5.4
5.5
3.9
TOTAL ALDEHYDE*
CONCENTRATION (ppm)
21.6
2.1
2.2
1.6
CARBON**
MASS
21.9
2.2
2.2
1.6
TABLE 11: ALDEHYDE RESULTS
** Carbon
1
* nnm =
Mass, mg = (total
/Total Absorbed, mg
absorbed, mg) x
.. .- . . -
^ v t 1
/12 mg Carbon \
*30 mg Formaldehyde
1
^
ocuiipie vuiume, ubuii . -,r -,* ~£M
Where M = Molecular weight Formaldehyde, (30.0)
-------
Run 9A - Inlet
Run 9B - Outlet
Molecular Weight
weight %
Compound Identified (mw) carbon
Xylene
Styrene
Di ethyl benzene
Ethyl Styrene
Napthalene
Diphenyl Ethane
Naphthalenes (substituted)
Phthalate esters
Adi pate esters
Propanedioic Acid,
dimethyl ester
(dimethyl malonate)
Butanedioic Acid
dimethyl ester
Pentanedioic Acid
dimethyl ester
Hexanedioic Acid
dimethyl ester
Unknown dioic acid ester
* Above numbers +_ 100%
** Acetone washes showed
none of the above com-
pounds
106 90.6
104 92.3
134 89.6
132 90.9
128 75.0
182 92.3
128 75.0
-v-325 55
vl95 62
132 45.5
146 49.3
160 52.5
174 55.2
190 56.8
Mass Concentration Mass Mass Concentration Mass
(mg) (ppm) Carbon (mg) (ppm) Carbon
(ing) (mg)
4.0 .445
-
-
-
trace
-
-
3.6 0.132
2.6 0.158
70 6.3
10 0.81
18 1.3
10 0.7
20 1.2
Sub Total
Aldehydes
Total
Volume sampled, dscm
Carbon Mass Concentration, mg/dson
3.6 0.4 0.045
0.2 0.023
0.5 0.045
0.9 0.081
0.6 0.055
0.2 0.013
0.3 0.028
2.0 10 0.358
1.6 20 1.2
31.8
4.9 -
9.5
5.5
11.4
70.3
21.9
91.2
2.03
45.4
0.36
0.18
0.45
0.82
0.45
0.18
0.23
5.5
12.3
-
-
-
-
-
20.47
2.16
22.6
2.07
10.9
TABLE 12. GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROMETRY RESULTS
-------
compound identified is presented. Calculated values for volume
concentration (ppm), carbon mass (mg), and total carbon mass concen-
tration (mg/dscm) are also presented. The total (aldehyde and GC/MS
results) carbon mass concentration results for test runs 9A and 9B
are 45.4 and 10.9 mg/dscm, respectively. Similarly, the calculated
carbon mass concentration values for TCA runs 9A and 9B are 34.5 and
5.8 mg/dscm, respectively.
20
-------
V. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Figure 1 is a schematic of the two sampling locations indicating
their relative positions to the thermal incinerator at the Pico Rivera
plant. The inlet duct was thirty-six inches (36") in diameter, while
the outlet stack was forty-one inches (41") in diameter. The traverse
points are listed in Table 13.
VI. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Total Combustion Analysis (TCA)
Figure 2 is an illustration of the TCA sampling apparatus. The
system was derived from the method entitled "Total Combustion Analysis.1
Differences between the sampling train specified by this procedure and
the sampling train employed for this particular test include use of
aluminum sample tanks, a heated filter, and a capillary orifice to
regulate the flow at 80 ml/min.
Analyses of the samples were conducted by Truesdail Laboratories,
Inc., whose report is included in the appendix. The organic contents of
the condensate trap were oxidized to carbon dioxide (C02) which was
quantitatively collected and then measured by a non-dispersive infrared
(NDIR) analyzer. A fraction of the sample collected in the evacuated
tank was injected into a gas chromatograph in order to achieve separation
of the non-methane organics from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and
methane. Once separated, the four fractions were oxidized to carbon
dioxide and separately measured with the NDIR. The volume of sample
Total Combustion Analysis; Air Pollution Control District, County
of Los Angeles; Salo, Albert E.; Oaks, William L., and MacPhee, Robert D.
August 1974.
21
-------
ro -
ro
PWNVIEW
MOTOR
ACCESS OOORU
VIEW PORT 2
ACCESS DOOR #2
VIEW PORT 3
VIEW PORT 4
FIGURE .1. INCINERATOR SCHEMATIC
-------
INLET
POINT.
' -.TV-'.;.
- . 2 _';.'.:
.' 3 ;:: ".
-/ V /
,5. ;. .-
6
DISTANCE . .
; 1.5" ';:..'' :. \,'V /
;; 5, 25" -,:'; -/;.;-;'
. 10.75" '' .
25.25"
30.75"
34.5" .
. .-:. OUTLET
' ; . POINT-.
:::..''" V;;-! :-.V:'
"- \ .;.;:; :;';v : 2 ;>,; '
. r ; '.-.;-.- '.3 '.,;/,
,;. ;';/:.;./;.' '4..';:.'.-
.'"'.' -. - : : 5 '.-''.
6
..'.DISTANCE
:1.75-
:; 6.0"
' 12.25"
28.75"
- 35.0"
. .39.0"
TAULE 13, TKAVEKSE I'OINTS
23
-------
POTENTIOMETER
THERMOCOUPLE
IN3
PROBE
r~
i
FILTER HOLDER j
Ğx
1
1
1
^ys^^ss^ssssssssss^sa^E^eissrfTsss^^^^sss.'sssaia
1
1
1
JS53B3
-.^
CONDEiSiSATE TRAP
i
^JL~~^
r~
sss=aKsss:K5= :s5tssfqj!3^~~!*sg! SSg
1
1
I
"I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
; i
I . .
CAPILLARY ORIFICE
^/5/inD *>
^*ĞĞj/ iii /i i j~-~ i
~ ~-\J4XX/ j
SHUT OFF VALVE
VACUUM PRESSURE
GAUGE
.J
HEATED BOX
CRUSHED DRY ICE
8-LITER GAS
COLLECTION
TANK
FIGURE 2. TCA SAMPLING APPARATUS
-------
collected was calculated from vacuum and pressure readings of the evacu-
ated sample tank before and after sampling. The measured CCL concen-
trations and the sample volume collected were used to calculate the
total gaseous non-methane organic concentration in the source as parts
per million carbon.
Direct Measurement Apparatus
The direct measurement apparatus is illustrated in Figure 3. This
sampling system incorporates the flame ionization analyzers and the
integrated bag sampling system. The integrated bag sample was taken
from the heated manifold as were the samples for the flame ionization
analyzers. To insure that a valid sample was being delivered to the
analyzer two procedures were performed. To leak check the inlet and
outlet sample lines the inlet of the heat traced lines were capped and
the lines were evacuated. The flow in the system was monitored at the
exit of the pump with a rotameter; a zero flow rate indicated a leak
tight system. To check for sample loss or contamination, a second pro-
cedure was followed. A 50 liter bag was used to introduce calibration
gas at the sample line inlet. A correct FID response insured that the
I
system was leak tight and that no contamination was introduced by the
heated lines. Both of these procedures were conducted periodically
i
throughout the test period. ;
Total Organic Carbon (TOG) '-
Figure 4 is a schematic of the total organic carbon (TO.C) sampling
\
train. The TOC train is basically a modified Method 5 train; with a
J
vessel containing XAD-2 solid adsorbent resin added after the filter.
During the test, the adsorbent trap was maintained at 45°F. j| The filter
25
-------
ro
NON- HEATED LINES
HEATED LINES
ZERO AIR
LOW SPAN
OUTLET
BAG
SAMPLE
|
INLET
THREE-WAY VALVE TO
.FLOW AMBIENT AIR
THROUGH SYSTEM
EXCESS SAMPLE
"BYPASS FLOW
FLOW METER
FLOW METER
OUTLET
I
THREE-WAY
VALVE
BECKMAN
ANALYZER
SCOTT
ANALYZER
A
HORIBA
ANALYZER
1
1
L.
1 PU
HEA
\
i
MP )
Ihl
k
^~
J MANII-UUU
1 1
HIGH SPAN
1
SILICAGEL
TRAP
^j
1^
1
J THREE-WAY
I VALVE
SILICAGEL TRAP
I
FLOW METER
[J-{PUMP
BYPASS FLOW FOR
EFFLUENT STREAM
NOT BEING SAMPLED
FIGURE.3. . DIRECT MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
-------
SOLID ADSORBENT TRAP
THERMAL COUPLE
HEATED BOX
FILTER HOLDER
r
PROBE
ro
IMP'INGERS
^ -, _ THERMAL COUPLE
ICE BATH
ORIFICE GAUGE
\
VACUUM
GAUGE
COARSE CONTROL
VALVE
'DRY GAS METER
FIGURE 4. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON APPARATUS
-------
was a forty-seven millimeter (47 mm) glass fiber filter which was
maintained, along with the probe, at approximately two hundred and
fifty degrees (250°F). The first two impingers were charged with a
solution of sodium metabisulfite to collect aldehydes which are
not
collected by the resin. The third impinger was empty while the
i
fourth impinger contained 200 grams of silica gel to collect moisture
and protect the pump and dry gas meter. The flow rate during sampling
.i
was maintained at approximately one cubic foot per minute (1 cfrri); the
probe was maintained at a single point in the stack. Since this sampling
train will not collect C, - Cg organics, the integrated bag samples
taken during the TOC runs were analyzed for Cj - Cg compounds by GC.
j
For analysis the resin was refluxed in pentane to extract tlhe
organics; the extract was then injected into a GC/MS system. Ajblank
sample was also analyzed in order to establish background levels.
GC/MS operation was as follows:
COLUMN TYPE - 3% OV-17/CHROMASORB W
COLUMN SIZE - 5 ft x 2.1 mm GLASS COLUMN
TEMPERATURE PROGRAM - 50°C - 280°C @ 4°C/minute
CARRIER FLOW RATE - 30 cc/minute He
The Applied Technology Division (ATD) of TRW performed the'
analysis. The filter portion of the sampling train was not
ana;
For further information regarding sampling and analysis with,
refer to EPA level 1 assessment manual.
IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:
EPA 600/2-76-160A, June 1976.
Level 1 Environmental Ass
28
XA
GC/MS
yzedi
ent
-------
The aldehydes trapped in the impinger solutions of the TOC.jtrain
ij
were analyzed by the sulfoxylate method described in the "Source Test
ji
Manual," Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles.jjon
page seventy-two (p. 72). tj
( 1
A more complete reference is contained in Goldman and Jragoda,
Industrial Engineering Chemistry Annual Addition; 15-377,
29
------- |