MIDWEST RESEARCH KsTITUTE SIZE SPECIFIC PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL ROADS DRAFT FINAL REPORT January 19, 1983 Midwest Research Institute 425 Volker Boulevard Kansas City, Missouri 64110 EPA Contract No. 63-02-3153 Technical Directive No. 12 MRI Project No. 4892-L(20) EPA Project Officer: Dale Harmon EPA Task Manager: William 8. Kuykendal Prepared for: Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816 753-7SGO ------- SIZE SPECIFIC PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL ROADS DRAFT FINAL REPORT January 19, 1983 by J. Patrick Reider Midwest Research Institute 425 Volker Boulevard Kansas City, Missouri 64110 EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158 Technical Directive No. 12 MRI Project No. 4892-L(20) EPA Project Officer: Dale Harmon EPA Task Manager: William B. Kuykendal Prepared for: Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816753-7600 ------- PREFACE This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Environmental Protection Agency's Industrial Environmental Research Labor- atory under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Technical Directive No. 12. Mr. William B. Kuykendal of the Particulate Technology Branch at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, served as technical project officer for this study. The field program was conducted in MRI's Air Quality Assessment Sec- tion under the supervision of Dr. C. Cowherd, Jr. The principal investi- gator for MRI and author of this report was Mr. J. Patrick Reider. The author wishes to acknowledge the following field crew members for their contributions: Julia Poythress - sample filter preparation and lab- oratory analysis, computerized data analysis; Frank Pendleton - equipment preparation, maintenance, and calibration; Dave Griffin - road surface sam- pling and preparation and analysis of sampler washes; and Steve Cummins - soil sample analysis. Pat Reider and Frank Pendleton served as crew chiefs. Additional field crew members assisting with equipment deployment and traf- fic observations were James Knapp, Tim Arnold, and Phil Englehart. Greg Muleski assisted in developing the computerized particle size analysis procedure. Approved for: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE KK? M. P. Schrag, Director Environmental Systems Department January 19, 1983 ii ------- CONTENTS Preface 11 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Test Site Selection 3 2.1 Experimental test matrix 3 2.2 Suitability for exposure profiling 5 2.3 Site representativeness 7 2.4 Industrial cooperation 9 3.0 Exposure Profiling Sampling Equipment 10 3.1 Air sampling equipment 10 3.2 Sampling equipment deployment 13 3.3 Roadway dust sampling equipment 15 3.4 Vehicle characterization equipment 15 4.0 Sampling and Analysis Procedures 16 4.1 Preparation of sample collection media 16 4.2 Pre-test procedures/evaluation of sampling conditions 20 4.3 Air sampling 21 4.4 Sampling handling and analysis 21 4.5 Emission factor calculation 23 5.0 Test Results 24 5.1 Test site conditions 24 5.2 Road surface particulate loadings 27 5.3 Airborne particulate concentrations 30 5.4 Calculated emission factors 33 References 39 Appendices A. Emission factor calculation procedures A-l B. Silt analysis procedure B-l ------- 1.0 INTRODUCTION For years traffic-generated dust emissions from unpaved and paved in- dustrial roads have been identified as a significant source of atmospheric particulate emissions, especially within those industries involved in the mining and processing of mineral aggregates. Typically, road dust emissions exceed emissions from other open dust sources associated with the transfer and storage of aggregate materials. For example, in western surface coal mines, dust emissions from uncontrolled unpaved roads usually account for more than three-fourths of the total particulate emissions, including typi- cally controlled process sources, such as crushing operations.1 Therefore, the quantification of this source is necessary for the development of effec- tive strategies for the attainment and maintenance of the total suspended particulate (TSP) standard, as well as the anticipated particulate standard based on particle size. Although a considerable amount of field testing of industrial roads has been performed, those studies have focused primarily on TSP emissions. Recently, the emphasis has shifted to the development of size-specific emis- sion factors in the small particle range (< 15 urn aerodynamic diameter). The following particle size fractions were of primary interest in this study. IP = Inhalable particulate matter consisting of particles smaller than 15 urn in aerodynamic diameter. PM10 = Particulate matter consisting of particles smaller than 10 urn in aerodynamic diameter. FP = Fine particulate matter consisting of particles smaller than 2.5 urn in aerodynamic diameter. : ------- Two recent studies have provided size-specific emission factors for dust emissions from industrial paved and unpaved roads. In a study of fugitive dust sources in western surface coal mines, conducted by PEDCo Environmental and Midwest. Research Institute,1 emission factors were de- veloped for haul trucks and for light and medium duty vehicles traveling on uncontrolled unpaved haul and access roads. A companion study con- ducted by Midwest Research Institute2 was directed to the development of size-specific emission factors for dust emissions from uncontrolled paved and unpaved roads within iron and steel plants. Both of these studies employed the exposure profiling method coupled with the use of inertial particle sizing devices. The objective of the field study described herein was to expand the emission factor data base by -conducting field testing in other industries with significant road dust emissions. It was anticipated that the combined data base would include ranges of road and traffic conditions that encom- pass most industrial settings where road dust emissions are significant. This document reports the results of a field testing program utilizing exposure profiling to develop quantitative emission factors for dust en- trainment from vehicular traffic on uncontrolled industrial paved and un- paved roads as well as unpaved rural roads. Specific items discussed in- clude field test sites, sampling equipment, field measurements, calculation procedures, and sampling and analysis results. Appendix A presents an ex- ample to demonstrate the emission factor calculation procedure. Appendix B reports the procedures for determining the silt content of the road surface particulate loading. ------- 2.0 TEST SITE SELECTION This testing program was designed to selectively increase the existing emission factor data base for industrial roads. Testing was conducted in four different industries under conditions sufficiently diverse to allow reliable application of the resulting emission factors within these indus- tries. This section discusses the sampling matrix for the field testing pro- gram, test site suitability for exposure profiling, site representativeness of industry, and industrial cooperation. 2.1 EXPERIMENTAL TEST MATRIX An integrated sampling program was conducted at representative road sites distributed over four source category industries. The following in- dustry categories were agreed upon for this task, to be supplemented by testing of rural unpaved roads: Cement and Lime Production Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel Processing Primary Nonferrous Smelting Asphalt and Concrete Batching These industries were believed to represent the largest sources of untested size-specific emissions from paved and unpaved roads. Triplicate tests of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions were conducted at each site. The ex- perimental design test matrix of industry sites originally proposed for this study is given in Table 1. The matrix of test conditions was sufficiently extensive to represent a wide range of conditions encountered in major ------- TABLE 1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TEST MATRIX AND INDUSTRY SELECTION Industry Cement plant Lime plant Stone crushing operation Sand and gravel processing Asphalt batching Concrete batching Copper smelter Rural roads Crushed stone Dirt Gravel Number Paved roads 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 0 0 0 of tests Unpaved roads 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 Totals 24 33 ------- industries. Test sites were selected in each industry based upon the fol- lowing criteria: suitability for exposure profiling; representativeness of the industrial category; and sufficiency of cooperation obtained from plant personnel. Each of these factors are discussed below. 2.2 SUITABILITY FOR EXPOSURE PROFILING Three major criteria were used to determine the suitability of each candidate site for sampling of traffic-entrained road dust emissions by the exposure profiling technique. 1. Adequate space for sampling equipment with easy access to the area; 2. Sufficient traffic and/or surface dust loading so that adequate mass would be captured on the lightest loaded collection substrate during a reasonable sampling time period; and 3. A wide range of acceptable wind directions taking into account the test road orientation relative to the predominant wind direction and the possible effect of nearby structures on wind flow across the test road. 2.2.1 Adequate Space Adequate space for equipment deployment and easy access to the area is required for fugitive road dust sampling. All sites were chosen to provide the necessary space, as well as, accessibility for the setup of the upwind and downwind sampling equipment and to ensure the safety of the field crew. Typically, exposure profiling equipment was deployed at a distance of 5 m from the downwind edge of the road. Background (upwind) samplers were usu- ally located 5 m from the upwind edge of the roadway. ------- 2.2.2 Sufficient Mass Catch To provide for accurate determination of the fugitive dust emission rate from exposure profiling data, at least 5 mg of sample should be col- lected by each profiling head. Particulate concentration and sampling time must be sufficient to provide the 5 mg weight gain under isokinetic sam- pling conditions. This requirement is the most difficult to achieve for the highest sampling head (located at 5 m above ground) because of the sig- nificant decrease in particulate concentration with height. Traffic volume and/or road surface dust loadings should, therefore, be sufficient to pro- vide a minimum sample at the top height. During the site-survey of each candidate testing location, traffic was counted visually during a 15- to 30-min period. These traffic counts were then converted to an average hourly account by simple linear extrapolation with time. This, in conjunction with a visual estimate of emissions from each vehicle pass, was used to determine if an adequate sample could be ob- tained in a reasonable time period. 2.2.3 Acceptable Wind Directions Wind directions that would successfully transport the traffic entrained dust from industrial roadways to the exposure profiler depend on the follow- ing factors: Road Orientation - the mean (15-min average) direction of the wind must lie within 45 degrees of the perpendicular to the road. Wind Fetch - the wind flowing toward the test roadway should not be blocked by obstacles in the upwind or downwind direction. In order to evaluate the candidate sites for the wind fetch require- ment, the arc of wind direction for which the wind would flow freely between the two nearest upwind obstacles (houses, buildings, or trees) can be calcu- lated as follows: 6 ------- 9 = arctan ^ where 6 represents the half angle of the arc, b is half the distance be- tween the two blocking obstacles (fetch), and a is the perpendicular dis- tance from the line joining the corners of the obstacles to the proposed location of the profiler (typically 5 m from the downwind edge of the road- way). Figure 1 illustrates these parameters. 2.3 SITE REPRESENTATIVENESS Also of concern in site selection was the need to select a site that was representative of the test industry category. It was necessary (a) that the test roadways have surface characteristics similar to other sites in the respective industry category; (b) that the traffic on a test roadway be typical of that category; and (c) for industrial categories, that the site be located in a plant with a production rate representative of the plants within that industry. 2.3.1 Surface Characteristics In previous emissions testing of road surfaces, MRI has demonstrated that surface characteristics play an important role in determining the emissions from a roadway source. For this reason, sites were chosen that visibly demonstrated road aggregate type, surface loadings, and surface texture that were typical of their industry category. 2.3.2 Vehicular Traffic Also important in determining fugitive emissions from a roadway source are the characteristics of its vehicular traffic. Sites were, therefore, selected with vehicular traffic that was typical for the respective industry category. Important parameters in making this determination were traffic volume and the mixture of traffic vehicles (vehicle size, weight, and the number of wheels and axles). ? ------- Wind b/2 Obstacle to Flow b/2 Obstacle to Flow Test Roadway Y o 'Exposure Profiler Figure 1. Parameters for calculations of angle of unobstructed wind flow. ------- 2.4 INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION Prior to any site selection, liaison was established with the appro- priate corporate and plant personnel. During the initial contact, an ex- planation of the proposed work was presented. Later, site surveys were performed to determine the suitability of roads within candidate facilities for testing. If the plant was found suitable, permission for testing was requested. Further cooperation was also required once the testing began. Without permission to test and indication of substantial cooperation, plans for testing an otherwise good plant site were abandoned. ------- 3.0 EXPOSURE PROFILING SAMPLING EQUIPMENT A variety of sampling equipment was utilized in this study to measure particulate emissions, roadway surface particulate loadings, and traffic characteristics. . Table 2 specifies the kinds and frequencies of field instruments that were conducted during each run. "Composite" samples denote a set of single samples taken from several locations in the area; "integrated" samples are those taken at one location for the duration of the run. 3.1 AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT The primary sampling technique used in this sampling program for quanti- fication of fugitive emissions was the MRI exposure profiler, which was devel- oped under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0619.3 The profiler as shown in Figure 2 consists of a portable tower (6 m height) supporting an array of five sam- pling heads. Each sampling head is operated as an isokinetic total particu- late matter exposure sampler directing passage of the flow stream through a settling chamber (trapping particles larger than about 50 pm in diameter) and then upward through a standard 8 in. by 10 in. glass fiber filter posi- tioned horizontally. Sampling intakes are pointed into the wind, and sam- pling velocity of each intake is adjusted to match the local mean wind speed, as determined prior to each test. Throughout each test, wind speed is moni- tored by recording anemometers at two heights, and the vertical wind profile of wind speed is determined by assuming a logarithmic distribution. The exposure profiler is positioned at a distance of 5 m from the downwind edge of the road. 10 ------- TABLE 2. FIELD MEASUREMENTS FOR EXPOSURE PROFILE SAMPLING 1. 2. 3. 4. Test Parameter Meteorology a. Wind speed b. Wind direction c. Barometric pressure d. Temperature e. Relative humidity Road Surface a. Pavement type b. Surface condition c. Particulate loading d. Silt content Vehicular Traffic a. Mix b. Count c. Weight d. Speed Atmospheric Particulate a. Total particulate b. Total suspended particulate c. Inhalable particulate d. Inhalable particulate Units ra/s deg "Hg °c % g/m* % silt MG K/ll mass cone, (pg/m3) mass cone, (ug/m3) mass cone, (ug/m3) mass size dist. (|jg) Sampling Mode continuous continuous single single single composite compos i te multiple multiple multiple cumulative multiple multiple integrated Integrated integrated integrated Measurement/Instrument method warm wire anemometer wind vane barometer sling psychrometer sling psychrometer observation observation dry vacuuming/ broom sweeping dry sieving observation observation gravimetric observation Iso-kinetic profiler Hi-Volume sampler size selective inlet cyclone precol lector/ Manuf ac turer/Mode 1 Kurz Model 410 Wong Eco-System III Thorman Taylor cat. no. 146-761 Taylor cat. no. 146-761 Hoover, Model S2015 Quick Broom Forney, Inc. , LA-410 Sieve Shaker - MRI developed under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0619 Sierra Instruments, Inc., Model 305 Sierra Instruments, Inc., Model 7000 Sierra Instruments, Inc., Model 230 slotted high-volume cascade Impactor ------- Figure 2. MRI exposure profile tower and equipment. 12 ------- The recently developed EPA version of the size selective inlet (SSI) for the high-volume air sampler was used to determine IP concentrations. To obtain the particle size distribution of IP, a high-volume parallel-slot cascade impactor (CI) with greased substrates was positioned beneath a cy- clone precollector. The five-stage cascade impactor, operating at a flow rate of 20 SCFM, has 50% efficiency cutpoints of 10.2, 4.2, 2.1, 1.4, and 0.73 urn in aerodynamic diameter. Since the last two stages were below the particle size range of interest, they were not used in this study. Other air sampling instrumentation used included standard high-volume air samplers to measure total suspended particulate matter (TSP) consisting of particles smaller than about 30 urn in aerodynamic diameter. 3.2 SAMPLING EQUIPMENT DEPLOYMENT For each test of a road, the downwind equipment included an exposure profiling system with five sampling heads positioned at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 m heights. A standard high-volume air sampler plus another high-volume sam- pler equipped with an SSI were operated at a height of 2 m. Additionally, high-volume samplers fitted with cyclone/cascade impactors were placed at 1 m and 3 m heights to determine IP, PM10, and..FP mass fractions of the total particulate emissions. The basic upwind equipment were three high-volume air samplers all de- ployed at a height of 2 m. One sampler was equipped with an SSI, another was fitted with a cyclone/cascade impactor, and the third was operated as a standard high-volume sampler. Two variations in profiling equipment deployment were used in this study. The deployment of samplers for each exposure profiling test is shown in Fig- ure 3. However, the upwind cyclone/impactor was omitted for the asphalt and concrete industry testing. The background particulate levels for those sites were anticipated to be insufficient to fractionate and have adequate mass on each substrate to accurately measure. 13 ------- O Cyclone/Impactor ^ SSI A Hi-Vol -D Profile Head 2m Figure 3. Exposure profiling equipment deployment diagram. ------- 3.3 ROADWAY DUST SAMPLING EQUIPMENT Samples of the dust found on paved roadway surfaces were collected dur- ing the source tests. In order to collect this surface dust, it was neces- sary to close each traffic lane for a period of approximately 15 min. Nor- mally, an area that was 12 to 15 in. by the width of a road was sampled. A hand-held portable vacuum cleaner was used to collect the roadway dust. The attached brush on the collection inlet was used to abrade surface compacted dust and to remove dust from the crevices of the road surface. Vacuuming was preceded by broom sweeping if large aggregate was present. Unpaved roadway dust samples were collected by sweeping the loose layer of soil or crushed rock from the hardpan road base with a broom and dust pan. Sweeping was performed so that the road base was not abraded by the broom, and so that only the naturally occurring loose dust was collected. The sweeping was performed slowly so that dust was not entrained into the atmosphere. From these samples, the silt content and moisture content of the surface materials were measured. Recording the sample area provides in- formation to determine the total particulate loading and the silt loading. 3.4 VEHICLE CHARACTERIZATION EQUIPMENT The vehicular characteristics monitored during each test included: (a) total traffic count, (b) mean traffic speed, (c) mean vehicle weight, and (d) vehicle mix. Total vehicle count, vehicle speed, and vehicle mix were determined by manual observations. The speed of the traveling vehicles was verified by consulting with drivers at the test sites. The weights of the vehicle types were obtained by consulting plant operators at industrial sites and automobile literature concerning curb weights of vehicles for rural roads. 15 ------- 4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The sampling and analysis procedures employed in this study were sub- ject to the Quality Control guidelines summarized in Tables 3 to 6. These procedures met or exceeded the requirements specified by EPA.4'5 As part of the QC program for this study, routine audits of sampling and analysis procedures were performed. The purpose of the audits was to demonstrate that measurements were made within acceptable control condi- tions for particulate source sampling and to assess the source testing data for precision and accuracy. Examples of items audited include gravimetric analysis, flow rate calibration, data processing, and emission factor cal- culation. The mandatory use of specially designed reporting forms for sam- pling and analysis data obtained in the field and laboratory aided in the auditing procedure. Further detail on specific sampling and analysis pro- cedures are provided in the following sections. 4.1 PREPARATION OF SAMPLE COLLECTION MEDIA Particulate samples were collected on Type A slotted glass fiber im- pactor substrates and on Type AE (8 in. x 10 in.) glass fiber filters. To minimize the problem of particle bounce, the glass fiber cascade impactor substrates were greased. The grease solution was prepared by dissolving 140 g of stopcock grease in 1 liter of reagent grade toluene. No grease was applied to the borders and backs of the substrates. The substrates were handled, transported and stored in specially designed frames which protected the greased surfaces. 16 ------- TABLE 3. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING FLOW RATES Activity QC check/requirement Calibration • Profilers, hi-vols, and impactors Orifice calibrator Anemometer calibrator Calibrate flows in operations ranges using calibration orifice or anemometer type cali- brator prior to testing each site. Calibrate against displaced volume test meter annually. Audit calibration using a reference flow calibrator provided by local air quality agency. Calibrate against a pi tot tube in a lab- oratory wind tunnel. 17 ------- TABLE 4. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING DATA Activity QC check/requirement Preparation Conditioning Weighing Auditing of weights (tare and final) Correction for handling effects Calibration of balance Inspect and imprint glass fiber media with ID numbers. Equilibrate media for 24 hr in clean con- trolled room with relative humidity of less than 50% (variation of less than ± 5%) and with temperature between 20° ± and 25°C (variation of less than ± 3%). Weigh hi-vol filters and impactor substrates to nearest 0.05 mg. Independently verify weights of 100% of tare weights and 10% of final weights on filters and substrates. Reweigh batch if weights of any hi-vol filters (8 x 10 in.) or sub- strates deviate by more than ±1.0 and ±0.5 mg, respectively. Weigh and handle at least one blank for each 1 to 10 filter substrates, profiler inlets, and cyclones for each industry. Balance to be calibrated once per year by certified manufacturer's representative check prior to each use with laboratory Class S weights. 18 ------- TABLE 5. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT Activity QC check/requirement Maintenance • All samplers Operation • Timing • Isokinetic sampling (profilers only) Prevention of deposition static mode Check motors, gaskets, timers, and flow mea- suring devices at each regional site prior to testing. Start and stop all samplers during time spans not exceeding 1 min. Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever mean (15 min average) wind direction changes by more than 30 degrees. Adjust sampling rate whenever mean (15 min average) wind speed approaching sampler changes by more than 20%. Cap sampler inlets prior to and immediately after sampling. Remove all inlets and filters immediately after the test and transfer to specially designed containers. 19 ------- TABLE 6. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR DATA PROCESSING AND CALCULATIONS Activity QA check/requirements Data recording Use specially designed data forms to assure all necessary data are re- corded. All data sheets must be initialed and dated. Calculations Independently verify 10% of calcu- lations of each type. Recheck all calculations if any value audited deviates by more than ± 3%. Prior to the initial weighing, the greased substrates and filters were equilibrated for 24 hr at constant temperature and humidity in a special weighing room. During weighing, the balance was checked at frequent inter- vals with standard weights to assure accuracy. The substrates and filters remained in the same controlled environment for another 24 hr, after which a second analyst reweighed them as a precision check. Substrates or filters that could not pass audit limits were discarded. Ten percent of the sub- strates and filter taken to the field were used as blanks. 4.2 PRE-TEST PROCEDURES/EVALUATION OF SAMPLING CONDITIONS Prior to equipment deployment, a number of decisions were made as to the potential for acceptable source testing conditions. These decisions were based on forecast information obtained from the local U.S. Weather Service office. A specific sampling location was identified based on the prognosticated wind direction. Sampling would ensue only if the wind speed forecast was between 3 and 20 mph. Sampling was not planned if there was a high probability of measurable precipitation (normally > 20%) or if the road surface was damp. 20 ------- If conditions were considered acceptable, the sampling equipment was transported to the site, and deployment was initiated. This procedure nor- mally took 1 to 2 hr to complete. During this period, the samples of the road surface particulate were collected at a location within 100 m of the air sampling site. 4.3 AIR SAMPLING Once the source testing equipment was set up and filters put in place, air sampling commenced. Information recorded for each test included: (a) exposure profiler - start/stop times, wind speed profiles and sampler flow rates (determined every 15 min) and wind direction (relative to roadway per- pendicular); (b) SSI, Hi-Vols - start/stop times, and sampler flow rates; (c) vehicle traffic - total count, vehicle mix count, and speed; and (d) general meteorology - wind speed and direction, temperature, and relative humidity. Sampling usually lasted 1 to 3 hr. Occasionally, sampling was inter- rupted due to occurrence of unacceptable meteorological conditions and then restarted when suitable conditions returned. Table 7 presents the criteria used for suspending or terminating a source test. The upwind-background samplers were normally operated concurrent with the downwind samplers. Whenever possible, care was taken to position the upwind samplers away from any influencing particulate emission source. 4.4 SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYSIS To prevent particulate losses, the exposed media were carefully trans- ferred at the end of each run to protective containers within the MRI instru- ment van. Exposed filters and substrates were placed in individual glassine envelopes and numbered file folders, and then returned to the MRI laboratory. Particulate that collected on the interior surfaces of each exposure profiling head was rinsed with distilled water into separate jars. 21 ------- TABLE 7. CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDING OR TERMINATING AN EXPOSURE PROFILING TEST A test will be suspended or terminated if:a 1. Rainfall ensues during equipment setup or when sampling is in progress. 2. Mean wind speed during sampling moves outside the 3 to 20 mph acceptable range for a substantial portion of the test. 3. The angle between mean wind direction and the perpendicular to the path of the moving point source during sampling exceeds 45 degrees. 4. Mean wind direction during sampling shifts by more than 30 degrees from profiler intake direction and profiler can not be adjusted without vio- lating number 3 above. 5. Daylight is insufficient for safe equipment operation. 6. Source condition deviates from predetermined criteria (e.g., occurrence of truck spill). a "Mean" denotes a 15-min average. 22 ------- When exposed substrates and filters (and the associated blanks) were returned from the field, they were equilibrated under the same conditions as the initial weighing. After reweighing, 20% were audited to check pre- cision. The vacuum bags were weighed to determine total net mass collected. Then the dust was removed from the bags and was dry sieved. The screen sizes used for the dry sieving process were the following: 3/8 in., 4, 10, 20, 40, 100, 140, and 200 mesh. The material passing a 200 mesh screen is referred to as silt content. 4.5 EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATION The primary quantities used in obtaining emission factors in this study were the concentrations measured by the cyclone/cascade impactor sampler combinations. This combination provides a total particulate value but also permits the determination of concentrations in other particle size ranges. The MRI exposure profiler collects total particulate matter and enables one to determine the plume height. A knowledge of the vertical distributions of plume concentration is necessary in the numerical integration required to calculate emission factors. The emission factor calculation procedure is presented in Appendix A. 23 ------- 5.0 TEST RESULTS 5.1 TEST SITE CONDITIONS The field tests for this study were conducted in the fall of 1981 and during the spring and summer of 1982. As indicated in the test matrix, Table 8, field sampling sites can be classified into five different indus- try types as well as rural nonindustrial roads. As shown in Table 8, field tests were conducted in three different geographical regions, Rocky Mountain region (sand and gravel processing, gravel rural road), Great Plains region (stone crushing, asphalt and concrete batching, and rural roads), and the southwestern region of the United States (copper smelter). Table 9 presents the sampling parameters for each test conducted in- cluding deployment locations for the equipment and road orientation. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation for the wind speed and direction are given to indicate the variability of the wind. The zero degree orientation defined for the wind direction is perpendicular to the roadway. The primary considerations for the selection of an industrial test site were industrial cooperation, which was most essential, suitability for ex- posure profiling, and sufficient traffic for adequate mass on collection substrates. It was desirable during pretest surveys to gain access to in- dustrial plants in the Kansas City region that were of representative size and/or traffic conditions for the respective industrial category. Plant op- erating conditions, which were supplied by plant personnel for each test site, are included in Table 8. Testing at the copper smelter occurred shortly before a scheduled main- tenance shutdown of the plant. Testing of the sand and gravel operation in Colorado occurred before the actual production season started but during the 24 ------- TABLE 8. FIELD TEST MATRIX Industrial category Stone crushing Sand and gravel processing Asphalt batching Concrete batching Copper smelting Rural roads Crushed lime- stone road Dirt road Gravel road Total Test site Operating location conditions Kansas 425 T/hr Colorado a Kansas 225 T/hr Missouri 150 T/hr Missouri 88,500 T/yr Arizona b Kansas c Missouri c Colorado c No. Paved 0 3 0 4 3 S Q 0 0 _0 18 of tests conducted Sampling roads Unpaved roads period 5" 0 3' 0 j*.* ° ^f-^^ 3J 6 / 4' _2 1 21 Dec. 81 Apr. 82 July 82 Oct. 81 Nov. 81 Apr. 82 Aug. 81 Sept. 81 Mar. 82 Apr. 82 Process not operating during testing; for 1982. however, 600 T/hr was the typical rate Source operating rate not available. 25 ------- TABLE 9. SAMPLING PARAMETERS ro en Run Ho. U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 Y-l Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 2-1 2-2 2-3 AA-1 AA-2 AA-3 AA-4 AA-5 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 AB-4 AC-1 AC-2 AC- 3 AC-4 AC- 5 AC-6 AD-1 AO-2 AD- 3 AE-1 AE-2 AF-2 AF-2 AF-3 Industrial category Rural Roads Asphalt Batching Concrete Batching Stone Crushing Rural Roads Copper Smelting Sand and Gravel Processing Rural Roads Sand and Gravel Processing Test date 8/18/81 8/19/81 9/4/81 9/9/81 9/10/81 3/24/82 10/28/81 10/29/81 10/30/81 10/30/81 11/10/81 11/18/81 11/18/81 12/4/81 12/4/81 12/7/81 12/10/81 12/10/81 3/29/82 3/31/82 3/31/82 4/1/82 4/12/82 4/13/82 4/14/82 4/15/82 4/15/82 4/16/82 4/22/82 4/22/82 4/23/82 4/24/82 4/24/82 7/29/82 7/30/82 8/2/82 Sampling duration (rain) 62 46 60 63 62 55 274 344 95 102 170 143 109 65 59 51 72 65 109 22 22 22 SO 45 42 38 36 33 110 69 76 24 15 154 190 203 Distance from source Road orientation N-S N-S N-S E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W N-S E-W E-W - N-S N-S WSW-ENE N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S N-S E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W E-W Upwind (m) 8.6 8.6 8.6 11.2 11.2 6.7 5.8 5.8 6.7 6.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.6 5.3 5.5 5.5 10.5 11.0 11.0 5.8 2.9 2.9 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.2 Downwind (m) 6.2 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.1 5.2 3.7 3.7 4.6 4.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.1 5.1 6.1 6.9 6.9 7.1 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.6 11.9 11.9 11.9 6.6 6.6 6.6 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 Wind speed ; (m/s) 1 ^__^ ^_____^_ X 3.7 3.4 1.1 3.2 5.2 5.9 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.5 3.0 4.4 4.3 2.1 1.1 2.2 3.6 4.2 5.9 2.9 3.8 5.0 1.9 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.3 2.2 3.4 2.3 1.4 4.3 5.0 1.0 1.4 2.1 u 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 3.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Wind direction (degrees) X -20.9 -41.0 4.51 0 31 -21.1 -15.3 -19.5 -12.4 2.7 3.5 -3.5 -17.2 -22.7 -26.7 -61.3 24.1 -32.0 -34.2 -51.5 8.7 -9.0 3.8 -8.6 0.67 7.9 42.1 44.6 -27.4 -1.58 -2.20 -34.6 13.0 28.9 -28.1 -31.7 -27.9 i) 23.3 17.4 20.0 6.50 - 7.13 19.4 6.42 6.60 4.75 7.90 - 6.50 10.2 6.0 34.9 3.6 3.0 - 21.7 29.3 17.9 22.8 7.8 2.9 - - - 14.6 19.4 - 25.2 14.7 28.2 20.4 8.43 ------- material stockpiling activities prior to equipment shakedown operations. In both cases, plant personnel indicated the traffic observed was typical for their operations. 5.2 ROAD SURFACE PARTICULATE LOADINGS During each fugitive emissions sampling run, samples of roadway surface particulate were collected to determine total particulate loadings, silt loadings, silt content (i.e., silt percentage of total loading), and the moisture content of surface loading. Silt loading was calculated as the product of total loading and frac- tional silt content. To obtain the total loading, the mass of road surface particulate sample was divided by the surface area from which the sample was obtained. The tare weights of sample containers were subtracted from the total weights to obtain the sample weights. Appendix B gives the procedure for determination of silt content. Table 10 presents the source parameters for the test roads. As indi- cated in Tables 10 and 11, a wide range of road surface and traffic condi- tions were tested. Mean vehicle weights were calculated as the arithmetic average of the weights of vehicles passing over the test road segment during the emissions sampling period. Vehicle weights were assigned to vehicle types as described in the body of this report. Emission factors developed from this study represent a wide range of road surface loadings as presented in Table 10. The range of total loadings found for paved industrial roads was 189 (Z-l) to 4,197 g/m2 (Y-3). An ob- vious comparison of total loading indicates that the Z runs and AD runs are paved road surfaces characterized by relatively low loading values. Addi- tional industrial paved roads were tested in the Y runs and runs AC-4, -5, and -6; however, for these tests, the surfaces were very heavily loaded with levels comparable to those determined for unpaved roads. 27 ------- TABLE 10. SOURCE PARAMETER DESCRIPTION Run No. U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 Y-l Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 Z-l Z-2 Z-3 AA-1 AA-2 AA-3 AA-4 AA-5 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 AB-4 AC-1 AC- 2 AC- 3 AC-4 AC- 5 AC-6 AD-1 AD- 2 AD- 3 AE-1 AE-2 AF-1 AF-2 AF-3 Industrial category Rural Roads (unpaved) Asphalt Batching (paved) Concrete Batching (paved) Stone Crushing (unpaved) Rural Roads (unpaved) Copper Smelting (unpaved) (paved) Sand and Gravel Processing (paved) Rural Roads (unpaved) Sand and Gravel Processing (unpaved) No. of lanes 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Lane wi dth (m) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 2.9 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 5.3 i 5.3 \5^3_ 377 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 Total 1 oadi ng (g/m2) 3,841 4,889 3,405 2,136 2,774 / 3,490 | 2,819 I 4,197 \4,197 189 1 239 239 3,531 3,363 7,188 5,837 5,837 7,822 2,478- 2,285 2,287 2,302 2,478 3,488 1,448 1,221 1,841 "~ ~T,481 805 — 755 \ 1,20T 1,206 12,979 15,142 14,224 Moisture content fQJ \ \f& / 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.40 0.37 0.22 0.51 0.32 0.32 a a a 0.40 0.34 0.84 2.1 2.1 3.9 4.5 3.2 3.1 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.43 0.43 Or53- . a a a 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.15 Silt loading (g/m2) 365 445 262 184 255 91 76 193 193 11.3 12.4 12.4 484 515 755 911 911 2,745 414 384 133 440 394 558 287 188 400 ""94.8 63.6 52.6 60.3 60.3 545 908 583 Silt content SQ/\ \r& J 9.5 9.1 7.7 8.6 9.2 2.6 2.7 4.6 4.6 6.0 5.2 5.2 13.7 15.3 10.5 15.6 15.6 35.1 16.7 16.8 5.8 19.1 15.9 16.0 19.8 15.4 — 21_7— 6.4 7.9 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.2 6.0 4.1 No moisture determination made on paved road sample. 28 ------- TABLE 11. SOURCE TEST VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS Run No. U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 Y-l Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 Z-l Z-2 Z-3 AA-1 AA-2 AA-3 AA-4 AA-5 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 AB-4 AC-1 AC-2 AC- 3 AC-4 AC-5 AC-6 AD-1 AD- 2 AD- 3 AE-1 AE-2 AF-1 AF-2 AF-3 Industrial category Rural Roads Asphalt Batching Concrete Batching Stone Crushing ' Rural Roads Copper Smelting Sand and Gravel Processing Rural Roads Sand and Gravel Processing No. of vehicle passes 125 105 101 102 107 51 47 76 100 150 149 161 62 55 24 34 56 56 94 50 50 50 51 49 51 45 36 42 11 16 20 46 22 18 28 34 Type of traffic Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Light duty Med. duty Med. duty Med. duty Hvy. duty Hvy. duty Hvy. duty Light duty Light duty Hvy. duty Hvy. duty Hvy. duty Mean vehicle weight (tonnes) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.9 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 11 13 10 14 13 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 5.7 7.0 3.1 42 39 40 2.1 1.8 29 27 27 Mean wheels 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 7 6.5 6 10 10 10 5 4.4 4 5.6 5 4 4 4 4 4.8 4 4.3 7.4 6.2 4.2 11 17 15 4 4 14.5 16.6 12.5 Mean vehicle speed (mph) 35 35 35 25 25 30 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 25 25 25 25 10 10 10 10 15 20 23 23 23 40 35 5 5 5 29 \ ------- Tests conducted at the copper smelter (AC runs) show a distinct dif- ference in loadings considering the road types. Two different sites were tested at the same facility. The unpaved road surface loadings (AC-1, -2, and -3) are generally within a factor of 2 higher when compared to the paved road tests (AC-4, -5, and -6). Another parameter that can be used to dis- tinguish the two types of road surfaces is the silt loading found in Ta- ble 10. Except for runs Y-3 and Y-4, the silt loading is below 100 g/m2. The matrix of test conditions for industrial roads encompass roadways and industrial settings where traffic-entrained road dust emissions were most significant. 5.3 AIRBORNE PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS The upwind particulate mass concentrations, used for background particu- late levels, are listed in Table 12. The data listed in Table 12 include the duration of each sample, a TSP value measured using the standard high- volume sampler, an IP concentration using a high-volume sampler equipped with an SSI, and the isokinetically corrected total particulate (TP) concen- trations from the cyclone precollector and cascade impactor (C/I) combina- tion sampler. The various particulate size data results from the C/I are also presented. Table 13 presents the downwind net TP concentrations (background sub- tracted) at the five exposure profiler heights; the standard hi-vol sampler concentrations; the SSI equipped hi-vol concentrations; and the IP, PM10, and FP particulate concentrations at the 1- and 3-m heights. The data fol- low the expected trends of total particulate and size-specific concentra- tions which decreases with height. The concentrations for paved roads (i.e., Y; Z; AC-3, -4, -5; and AD runs) are generally orders of magnitude lower than the unpaved road tests. The hi-vol (TSP) concentration is usu- ally higher than the SSI (IP) concentration, as would be expected consider- ing the size fractions measured with each instrument. 30 ------- TABLE 12. UPWIND DATA Cyclone and cascade impactor results Sampling Run duration No. (min) U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 Y-l Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 Z-l Z-2 Z-3 AA-1 AA-2 AA-3 AA-4 AA-5 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 AB-4 AC-1 AC-2 AC- 3 AC-4 AC- 5 AC-6_ AD-1 AD- 2 AD- 3 AE-1 AE-2 AF-1 AF-2 AF-3 211 79 119 196 240 147 367 443 200 192 348 313 313 65 58 96 77 73 173 266 266 162 143 143 50 76 58 74 103 71 41 295 295 153 193 227 Hi-vol cone. SSI TP TP size distribution cone. cone. % < % < % < (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 15 urn 10 urn 59 78 350 47 44 17 41 51 74 67 167 b b 5,087 4,391 c 3,479 2,467 195 25 25 77 537 537 676 350 638v 342^ 894 463 279 45 45 946 443 40 21 66 225 23 38 1.0 18 38 49 49 68 913 913 1,823 6 1,121 10 6,717 6 1,596 3 1,089 2 150 15 15 c 337 337 320 1 264 440^ 371' 567 122 877 1 143 143 583 1 271 30 107 204 311 70 131 39 a a a a a a a ,110 ,250 ,728 ,855 ,549 122 28 28 105 625 625 ,199 489 332 625 450 450 ,195 72 72 ,366 419 26 74 97 52 55 44 65 a a a a a a a 25 13 97 45 38 28 16 16 45 38 38 35 32 33 30 23 23 22 49 49 36 49 29 64 87 41 41 34 57 a a a a a a a 15 6 96 30 24 18 11 11 41 26 26 25 19 22 21 15 15 14 36 36 25 38 21 2.5 urn 33 46 17 2 11 40 a a a a a a a 3 1 95 5 5 5 11 11 37 7 7 13 3 6 10 7 7 5 14 14 8 13 9 Cone. < 15 urn (ug/m3) 79 199 161 39 58 25 a a a a a a a 1,530 1,358 6,511 1,733 960 34 4 4 47 .....239 239 415 155 111 190 103 103 268 35 35 485 206 8 3 No cascade b Tear in col impactor sampler used for this test. lection substrate. Equipment malfunction. 31 ------- TABLE 13. DOWNWIND NET CONCENTRATIONS (M9/m3) Run No. U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 Y-l Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 z-i Z-2 Z-3 AA-1 AA-2. AA-3 AA-4 AA-5 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 AB-4 AC-1 AC-2 AC- 3 AC-4' AC-5- AC-6 AO-1 AO-2 AD- 3 AE-1 AE-2 AF-1 AF-2 AF-3 Exoosure profilers (TP) 1 m 56,890 32.040 54,730 31,340 17,740 5,680 432 411 1,698 7,992 1,352 3,214 4,241 15,540 20,220 3,695 14,290 12,280 45,410 121,500 54,580 15,620 11,130 6,500 7,802 7,226 3,261 6,746 1,273 832 1,065 4,288 a 2,487 1,338 1,290 2 m 27,600 16,080 34, -380 11,380 3,895 2,876 118 223 791 2,753 306 1,775 2,409 10,290 10,320 1,693 9,309 8,463 15,710 17,300 16,090 6,253 6,534 4,912 3,828 5,893 1,864 5,314 1,036 1,173 788 2,491 2,193 a a a 3 m 10,230 6,650 18,370 5,503 4,324 918 99 112 562 1,638 454 1,364 1,750 3,163 4,437 1,081 11,510 7,239 6,766 5,350 9,700 a 4,348 3,234 3,525 4,312 1,644 4,144 974 600 504 1,189 793 1,026 826 1,080 4 m 7,720 1,660 14,940 4,440 1,566 182 b 77 355 1,001 366 919 1,256 6,964 2,003 556 7,759 5,600 3,895 1,167 2,943 390 2,422 2,276 1,668 2,755 1,007 b 720 347 c b 141 1,138 506 863 5 ra 2.180 810 7,975 1,400 428 65 37 c 156 490 215 641 711 5,307 305 400 5,654 4,070 1,918 162 1,354 175 1,773 1,431 785 1,363 857 1,524 588 177 c 355 c c 318 675 Hi-vol (TSP), 2 m 17,423 11,429 a 5,286 5,053 2,333 84 179 535 1,332 591 c 2,470 4,502 771 1,484 10,699 8,154 9,914 10,915 14,325 9,522 4,233 3,289 4,563 a 2.454K 2,761;. 477 264 230 a 709 159 833 1,028 SSI (IP), 2 m 6,480 4,887 a 1,866 1,717 1,422 45 92 240 1,046 309 c 223 1,614 835 241 3,968 3,657 1,060 3,588 3,965 2,337 1,793 1,315 1,738 929 1,127< 1,012V 336 137 c a 827 21 230 477 Cyc 1 one/ i mpactors IP (1 m/3 at) 10,628/4,382 7,554/2,688 2,166/1,328 934/718 1,474/650 755/66 30/22 79/65 130/78 529/312 61V347 761/406 1,207/591 3,734/2,180 492/545 595/244 6,815/3,785 4,425/2,730 4,032/1,421 2,228/910 4,124/834 3,540/881 1,579/884 1,739/475 2,366/863 3,422/906 2,243/831' 1,984/561>' 381/175 279/136 129/84 349/217 755/379 213/222 453/188 834/463 PMio (1 m/3 m) 6,793/2,903 4,640/1,803 1,165/766 452/424 811/365 466/38 18/16 58/51 82/52 292/191 425/252 520/285 810/404 2,313/1,347 212/293 346/146 4,078/2,244 2,753/1,675 2,308/817 327/100 2,125/357 2,308/625 995/581 1,156/317 1,542/546 2,399/599 1,567/591^ 1, 367/367 y 251/110 165/82 80/57 571/138 502/299 130/146 317/131 602/346 FP (1 m/3 m) 1,481/538 671/334 222/141 76/71 136/76 63/8 9/9 28/29 41/29 65/58 49/77 158/104 192/119 343/217 29/34 40/18 479/334 338/221 519/142 152/b 326/48 649/211 175/115 139/85 265/118 527/122 330/148 297/100 57/28 32/26 30/25 172/61 217/212 33/35 80/37 133/105 Equipment malfunction or failure. Torn filter. Net concentration resulted in negative value. 32 ------- 5.4 CALCULATED EMISSION FACTORS Tables 14 and 15 present the emission factors (TP, IP, PM10, and FP) determined for each test. The source characterization parameters which are considered to have an effect on the quantity of dust emissions from indus- trial roads are presented in Table 10 in Section 5.2. Appendix A describes the procedures used to calculate the emission factors from field test data. Tables 16 and 17 summarize the TP, IP, PM10, and FP emissions for paved and unpaved roads sampled in this study. The arithmetic mean standard devi- ation and range of values for each set of tests are presented in these ta- bles. Table 18 tabulates the ratios of particle size-specific emission fac- tors. Taking into account the grinding action that occurs on paved surfaces, the emission factor ratios are generally higher for the paved road tests. As stated previously, the primary objective of this study was to expand the existing data base of known size-specific particulate emissions data. The resulting data base from this study and other existing data from surface coal mines and the integrated iron and steel industry should be sufficient to develop reliable emission factors to provide estimates of source condi- tions (industries) not actually tested but lying within the matrix of condi- tions that have been tested. 33 ------- TABLE 14. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNPAVEO ROADS CO Run No. U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 AA-1 AA-2 AA-3 AA-4 AA-5 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 AB-4 AC-1 AC- 2 AC-3 AE-1 AE-2 AF-1 AF-2 AF-3 Total participate emission factor Industrial category (g/VKT) Rural Roads Stone Crushing Operation Rural Roads Copper Smelting Rural Roads Sand and Gravel Processing 12 5 5 13 6 3 2 4 1 9 8 31 11 9 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 ,600 ,050 ,810 ,300 ,200 ,980 ,640 ,310 ,360 ,920 ,540 ,700 ,900 ,160 ,130 ,640 ,150 ,820 ,530 ,240 ,310 ,760 ,330 (Ib/VMT) 44.8 17.9 20.6 27.0 22.0 14:1 9.36 15.3 4.83 35.2 30.3 112.6 42.1 32.5 11.1 9.36 7.62 10.0 5.43 7.96 15.3 9.80 8.28 Inhalable particulate PM10 particulate emission factor emission factor (g/VKT) 3,980 1,410 894 1,010 1,020 851 902 538 429 2,380 2,730 5,980 919 1,180 798 716 623 837 310 392 1,120 944 1,250 (Ib/VMT) 14.1 4.99 3.17 3.56 3.63 3.02 3.20 1.91 1.52 8.44 9.67 21.2 3.26 4.18 2.83 2.54 2.21 2.97 1.10 1.39 3.97 3.35 4.44 (g/VKT) 2,570 871 493 527 555 499 606 266 255 1,270 1,640 3,410 268 561 524 460 412 538 201 270 733 660 919 (Ib/VMT) 9.lP 3.09 1.75 1.87 1.97 1.77J 2.15 0.943 0.903 4.52 5.83 12.1 0.951 1.99 1.86 1.63 1.46 1.91 0.713 "6:957 2.60 2.34 3.26 Fine particulate emission factor (g/VKT) 513 115 85. 91. 84. 70. 80. 33. 30. 110 151 699 25. 79. 143 79. 83. 104 70. 136 176 175 277 7 3 6 5 9 0 7 3 2 8 7 8 (Ib/VMT) 1.82 0.407 0.304 0.324 0.300 0.250 0.285 0.117 0.109 0.389 0.537 2.48 0.0899 0.281 0.507 0.283 0.297 0.370 0.251 0.481 0.624 0.620 0.982 ------- TABLE 15. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAVED ROADS co en Run No. Y-l Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 Z-l 2-2 Z-3 AC-4 AC- 5 AC- 6 AD-1 AD- 2 AD- 3 Total particulate emission factor Industrial category Asphalt Batching Concrete Batching Copper Smelting Sand and Gravel Processing (g/VKT) 403 417 211 1,030 634 2,040 4,930 4,430 3,040 1,990 5,440 1,870 1,230 (Ib/VMT) 1.43 1.48 0.75 3.65 2.25 7.23 17.5 15.7 10.8 7.07 19.3 6.64 4.35 Inhalable particulate emission factor (g/VKT) 100 148 86.2 209 275 660 1,640 1,570 1,250 570 1,440 355 221 (Ib/VMT) 0.358 0.525 0.124 0.741 0.976 2.34 5.82 5.56 4.44 2.02 5.10 1.26 0.783 PM10 particulate emission factor (g/VKT) 72.5 113 22.6 124 197 460 1,130 1,090 882 381 922 212 145 (Ib/VMT) 0.257 0.401 0.0801 0.441 0.699 1.63 4.01 3.86 3.13 1.35 3.27 0.753 0.513 Fine particulate emission (g/VKT) 39.2 60.3 12.0 35.0 56.4 158 307 239 202 73.3 80.4 54.7 59.5 factor (Ib/VMT) 0.139 0.214 0.427 0.124 0.200 0.562 1.09 0.846 0. 716 0.260 0.285 0.194 0.211 ------- TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF UNPAVED ROAD EMISSION FACTORS (Ib/VMT) CJ a\ Industrial category Rural Roads Stone Crushing Rural Roads Copper Smelter Rural Roads Sand and Gravel Processing X 21.9 25.0 28.6 8.99 6.70 11.1 TP 0 3.80 13.7 15.9 1.23 1.79 3.69 Range 17.9-27.0 9.36-35.2 11.1-42.1 7.62-10.0 5.43-7.96 8.28-15.3 X 3.84 7.10 3.42 2.57 1.25 3.92 IP o~ 0.790 3.44 0.690 0.381 0.205 0.547 Range 3.17-4.99 3.20-9.67 2.83-4.18 2.21-2.97 1.10-1.39 3.35-4.44 X 2.17 1.60 1.67 0.835 2.73 PM,n a 0.620 0.566 0.227 0.173 0.474 Range 1.75-3.09 2.15-5.83 0.951-1.99 1.46-1.91 0.713-0.957 2.34-3.26 X 0.334 4.17 0.293 0.317 0.366 0.742 FP a 0.050 1.87 0.209 0.047 0.163 0.208 Range 0.300-0.407 2.15-5.83 0.090-0.507 0.283-0.370 0.251-0.481 0.620-0.982 ------- TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF PAVED ROAD EMISSION FACTORS (Ib/VMT) Industrial - category X o Range X u Range X o Range X a Range Asphalt Batching 1.B3 1.26 0.750-3.65 0.437 0.261 0.124-0.741 0.295 0.163 0.0801-0.441 0.130 0.070 0.0427-0.214 Concrete Batching 4.74 3.52 2.25-7.23 1.66 0.964 0.976-2.34 1.17 0.656 0.699-1.63 0.3B1 0.256 0.200-0.562 Copper Smelting 11.2 4.33 7.07-15.7 4.01 1.81 2.02-5.56 2.78 1.29 1.35-3.86 0.607 0.308 0.260-0.846 Sand and Gravel 5.50 1.62 4.35-6.64 1.02 0.337 0.783-1.26 0.633 0.170 0.513-0.753 0.203 0.012 0.194-0.211 Processing to ------- TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS Co Co Industrial category Unpaved roads Rural Roads Stone Crushing Rural Roads Copper Smelting Rural Roads Sand and Gravel Processing Paved roads Asphalt Batching Concrete Batching Copper Smelting Sand and Gravel 1P/TP X 0.183 0.300 0.154 0.286 0.189 0.379 0.243 0.379 0.350 0.185 0 0.066 0.054 0.091 0.014 0.020 0.142 0.082 0.078 0.063 0.007 PM.o/TP X 0.104 0.183 0.084 0.186 0.126 0.268 0.170 0.268 0.242 0.116 0 0.047 0.052 0.075 0.010 0.008 0.115 0.075 0.061 0.050 0.004 FP/TP X 0.0158 0.0197 0.0188 0.0354 0.0533 0.0744 0.0833 0.0833 0.0523 0.0369 0 0.0048 0.098 0.0235 0.0046 0.0100 0.0403 0.0487 0. 0079 0.0148 0.0109 PM10/IP X 0.560 0.604 0.475 0.649 0.669 0.696 0.681 0.707 0.689 0.627 a 0.041 0.068 0.183 0.011 0.029 0.040 0.075 0.013 0.019 0.040 FP/IP X 0.0878 0.0636 0.0913 0.123 0.287 0.188 0.327 0.223 0.147 0.201 a 0.0069 0.0226 0.0785 0.0116 0.0834 0.0321 0.110 0.025 0.017 0.067 FP/PH.,. X a 0.158 0.104 0.170 0.190 0.428 0.269 0.472 0.316 0.214 0.318 0.020 0.026 0.092 0.015 0.107 0.031 0.128 0.042 0.019 0.085 Processing ------- REFERENCES 1. Axetell, K. , Jr., and C. Cowherd, Jr. Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Oust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources - Vol. II: Emission Factors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 1981. 2. Cuscino, T., Jr., G. Muleski, and C. Cowherd, Jr. Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1982. 3. Cowherd, C. , Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. Jutze. Devel- opment of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA 450/3-74-037, June 1974. 4. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Vol. II - Ambient Air Specific Methods. EPA 600/4-77-027a. May 1977. 5. Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of Significant Deteriora- tion. EPA 450/2-78-019. May 1978. 39 ------- |