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

-------