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
------- |