EPA-600/2-76-174
June 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS INFORMATION SYSTEM:
Summary Report (Simmer 1976]
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-174
June 1976
FINE PARTICLE
EMISSIONS INFORMATION SYSTEM:
SUMMARY REPORT (SUMMER 1976)
by
M. P. Schrag and A. K. Rao
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-02-1324, Task 42
ROAPNo. 21BJV-023
Program Element No. 1AB012
EPA Task Officer: Gary L. Johnson
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
PEEFACE
This report was prepared for EPA/IERL-RTP under contract No. 68-02-1324,
Task 42, and was monitored by Mr. Gary L. Johnson of the EPA.
The work was performed in the Physical Sciences Division of Midwest Re-
search Institute. Mr. M. P. Schrag, Head, Environmental Systems Section,
served as the project leader.
The report was written by Dr. A. K. Rao with assistance from Mr. Schrag
and Dr. L. J. Shannon. Mr. J. Shum, Assistant Environmental Engineer, Environ-
mental Systems Section, contributed significantly to this program.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
L. J. Shannon, Director
Environmental and Materials
Sciences Division
October 8, 1976
111
-------
CONTENTS
List of Figures • «... vi
List of Tables xii
Summary. ................................ 1
1* Introduction 4
2. Description of the Fine Particulate Emission Information
System (FPEIS) 6
Contents of the FPEIS. ......... . 6
Organization of the FPEIS 8
Data Input Format and Structure. 10
Data Output Formats* ................... 12
Possible Uses of the FPEIS 12
3. Data Acquisition 19
4. General Features of Available Data. ....... 30
5. Reduction and Assessment of Particle Size Distribution Data . . 33
Reduction of Particle Size Distribution Data .. 33
Assessment of the Quality of Particle Size Distribu-
tion Data. .......... o 35
6. Applicability and Effectiveness of Particulate Control
Technology 38
7. Assessment of Current Level of Fine Particulate Emissions ... 41
8. Assessment of Current FPEIS Data Base 43
9. Conclusions and Recommendations 44
References ••• 47
Appendices
A. Summary of Particle Size Distribution Plots 51
B. Particulate Sampling and Measurement Methods 148
C. Health Effects of Particulate Pollutants 168
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 FFEIS Organization 9
2 Plot of Particle Size Distribution Data 16
3 Role of FPEIS in Fine Particle Programs. 17
A-l Inlet Mass Distribution of a Hypothetical Source/Collector
Combination. «......«.....•..•..•....« 53
A-2 Inlet and Outlet Mass Distributions of a Hypothetical Source/
Collector Combination With Collector Having a Constant Frac-
tional Efficiency of 80% . . . 54
A-3 Three Inlet Mass Distributions of a Hypothetical Source/
Collector Combination. 56
A-4 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 1 57
A-5 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 1 58
A-6 Inlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 2 59
A-7 Outlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 2. 60
A-8 Inlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 3. 61
A-9 Outlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 3.......... 62
A-10 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 4 63
A-ll Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 4......... 64
A-12 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 5... 65
A-13 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 5.... 66
A-14 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 6. ......... 67
VI
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
A-15 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 6 68
A-16 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 7 69
A-17 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 7 70
A-18 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 8. ......... 71
A-19 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 8 72
A-20 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 9 73
A-21 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 9 74
A-22 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 10 75
A-23 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 11.... 76
A-24 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 11 77
A-25 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 12 78
A-26 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 12 79
A-27 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 13 80
A-28 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 13 81
A-29 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 15 82
A-30 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 15 83
A-31 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 16 84
A-32 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 16. 85
A-33 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 17 86
A-34 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 17... 87
A-35 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 18 88
A-36 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 18 89
A-37 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 19 90
vii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No.
A-38 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 19 91
A-39 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 20. ......... 92
A-40 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 20 93
A-41 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 21 94
A-42 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 21 95
A-43 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 22 96
A-44 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 23 97
A-45 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 24 ..... 98
A-46 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 25.. 99
A-47 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 25 100
A-48 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 26 101
A-49 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 26 102
A-50 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 27. . 103
A-51 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 27 104
A-52 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 28 105
A-53 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 28. 106
A-54 . Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 29 107
A-55 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 29 108
A-56 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 30. 109
A-57 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 30 HO
A-58 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 31 HI
A-59 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 31......... 112
A-60 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 32 113
viii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
A-61 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 33 . . .
A-62 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 34
A-63 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 34
A-64 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 35.. 117
A-65 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 35 118
A-66 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 36. 119
A-67 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 36 120
A-68 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 37 121
A-69 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 38 122
A-70 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 39 123
A-71 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 40 124
A-72 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 41 . 125
A-73 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 41 126
A-74 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 42 127
A-75 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 42 128
A-76 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 43 129
A-77 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 44 . 130
A-78 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 45 131
A-79 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 45. 132
A-80 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 46 133
A-81 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 48 134
A-82 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 48. ........ 135
A-83 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 49 136
ix
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
A-84 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 49......... 137
A-85 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 50. ......... 138
A-86 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 50 ......... 139
A-87 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 51... 140
A-88 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 51 141
A-89 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 52 142
A-90 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 52 143
A-91 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 53. ......... 144
A-92 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 53 145
A-93 Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 54. ......... 146
A-94 Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 54 147
B-l Some Commercially Available Cascade Impactors 154
B-2 Schematic Diagram of Virtual Impactor 155
B-3 Series Cyclone Used in the USSR for Sizing Flue Gas Aerosol
Particles 157
B-4 Schematic Diagram of the Optical System of the Royco PC 245
Optical Particle Counter (After Berglund) .. ... 158
B-5 Schematic Diagram of the Electrical Aerosol Analyzer. ...... 161
B-6 The Roller Elutriator (After Allen) 163
B-7 Simplified Schematic Diagram of a Bahco-Type Micro-Particle
Classifier Showing Its Major Components 164
B-8 Operating Principle of the Coulter Counter 165
C-l Fraction of Particles Deposited in the Three Respiratory Tract
Compartments as a Function of Particle Diameter 174
-------
FIGURES (Concluded)
No. Page
C-2 Effect of Particle Size on the Response to Approximately 1 mg/
m-3 Zinc Ammonium Sulfate . . . 178
C-3 Relationship of Response to Concentration for Zinc Ammonium
Sulfate of Different Particle Sizes 178
C-4 Effect of Aerosols Capable of Dissolving Differing Amounts of
Sulfur Dioxide on the Irritant Potency of the Gas. ...... 180
C-5 Response to Sulfur Dioxide Alone and in the Presence of Various
Solid Aerosols • 181
C-6 Effect of Aerosols Which Would Form Droplets and Also Catalyze
the Oxidation of Sulfur Dioxide to Sulfuric Acid on the Irri-
tant Potency of the Gas. 182
xi
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 FPEIS Data Elements and Their Levels 11
2 Stationary Point Source Fine Particulate Emission Information
System 13
3 Particle Size Distribution Data 15
4 Contacts for Fine Particulate Source Test Data. ......... 20
5 Tabulation of Data for FPEIS Data Base—Initial Loading 22
6 FPEIS Data Classification Based on Source and Control Device
Type 31
7 Average Total Inlet and Outlet Mass Concentration ((jig/nm3)
and Overall Collection Efficiency According to Source Type
and Control Device Type 39
8 Conversion Factors. .... .............. 46
B-l Particle Size Measurement Instrument Types. .... . 152
xii
-------
SUMMARY
The Fine Particulate Emissions Information System (FPEIS) was developed
for the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-RTF, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under Tasks Nos. 25, 36, 37, and 42 of Contract No. 68-02-1324,
The FPEIS is a computerized data base which is designed to contain all cur-
rently available fine particle source test measurements and control device
evaluations. FPEIS contains particulate source characteristics, control de-
vice(s) parameters, test details, particulate physical, biological and chem-
ical properties, and particle size distribution data. By providing a uniform
compilation of fine particle information and data, the FPEIS can serve the
needs and interests of a broad spectrum of users. These users include plant
officials, control device manufacturers, measurement equipment/method devel-
opers, government officials responsible for the development of fine particu-
late control strategies, and other researchers.
The FPEIS data base has been created through the use of SYSTEM 2000, a
flexible, computerized data base management system. SYSTEM 2000 was developed
by MRI Systems Corporation (no relation to Midwest Research Institute) of
Austin, Texas, and offers unique file management features and flexibility.
The data base computerization aspect of the FPEIS has been provided for EPA
by MRI Systems Corporation under a separate contract.
The FPEIS data base development consisted of seven steps:
1. Establishing information requirements.
2. Data acquisition.
3. Data element definition.
4. Development of input and output formats.
5. Preparation of a trial data base for MRI Systems Corporation.
6. Screening, reducing, coding, keypunching, and editing the data
obtained.
7. Analyzing and evaluating the data.
-------
Following preliminary evaluation, the data base was implemented on the
UNIVAC 1110 computer at EPA's National Computer Center at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, and MRI Systems Corporation performed a variety of tests
on the data base using the trial data. In addition to this report, there are
available an extensive FPEIS Reference Manual (EPA-600/2-76-173, June 1976)
and a comprehensive FPEIS User Guide (EPA-600/2-76-172, June 1976). A FPEIS
User's Workshop was held in June 1976 to acquaint potential users with the
system. Under a new task of the above mentioned contract, work is under way
to update the system with new data.
A variety of techniques were utilized in collecting the fine particle
source test data, including a systematic search of the technical literature,
personal contacts with EPA project officers, EPA and other government con-
tractors, university and industry sources, followed by telephone and written
requests when advisable. An initial group of 27 reports and papers was se-
lected from which source/collector measurement data were extracted for entry
into the system. These data were used for the initial data base loading, be-
cause they collectively included nearly all of the data elements in the data
base. As such, they could be of assistance in verifying the data base con-
struction.
The FPEIS organization consists of test series, test subseries, and test
run levels. A test run, which is the fundamental element of the FPEIS system,
is defined as "any test measurement of a specific source/control device com-
bination for a specific length of time, with specific particle size measuring
equipment/method." The test subseries, consisting of one or more runs, de-
scribes the particle-laden gas stream at the inlet or outlet of the control
device(s). The data elements of a test subseries include source and control
device operating parameters, test specifics including sampling method and
physical, biological, and chemical properties of the particulates, particu-
late measurement method, and size distribution data. A test series consists
of one or more test subseries and represents all the information pertaining
to the source/collector combination that was tested.
Input to the system is prepared by completing six data input forms.
Form No. 1 includes a source description and test series particulars. Form
No. 2 provides entries for control device(s) design parameters. Forms Nos.
3 and 4 are for test particulars, control device(s) operating parameters,
mass train test results, and particulate physical properties. Form No. 5 is
used for particulate bioassay and chemical composition test results. Form
No. 6 is for measurement instrument/method description and particle size dis-
tribution data.
The user of SYSTEM 2000 can receive a variety of information as output;
however, the standard output format includes a table containing source, con-
trol device(s), test and particulate descriptions, particle size distribution
data, and a plot of mass, surface, and number size distributions for each run.
-------
At present, the FPEIS data base consists of 717 test runs for 33 differ-
ent source/collector combinations. All of the data were obtained on controlled
sources. Furthermore, almost all of the size distribution data were obtained
with inertial impactors. These size measuring devices have some inherent de-
ficiencies which bear upon the quality of these data. The data, classified ac-
cording to source type and control device type, are shown in Table 6. For these
data, the average inlet and outlet mass concentrations and overall control de-
vice efficiency are shown in Table 7. Inadequacies in many of the test methods
severely restrict the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data base.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Increased awareness of the importance of fine particulate pollution has
fostered discussion regarding programs and alternatives for controlling fine
particle emissions from industrial sources. Formulation and implementation of
control strategies for minimizing fine particulate emissions require adequate
information on emissions. Such necessary information includes sources of fine
particulate, effectiveness of control equipment, process operating parameters
for source and equipment combinations, and the quantities of fine particulate
emitted, with characterization in terms of physical and chemical properties.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI), together with the task officer and
other cognizant EPA staff under Contract No. 68-02-1324, Task 25, developed
the concept of a Fine Particle Emissions Information System (FPEIS). This sys-
tem was designed to contain currently available fine particle source test mea-
surements including source, collector and particulate parameters specific to
the test. The system would be computerized for ease of manipulation, updating,
and accessibility to the user community. The basic input to the system would
be actual field test data from measurements of both controlled and uncontrolled
sources.
The different phases of the FPEIS development were done under different
tasks of Contract No. 68-02-1324. Under Task 25 of the contract, the basic
characteristics of the FPEIS were developed and acquisition of the fine par-
ticle source test data begun. Task 36 of the contract continued the data ac-
quisition phase initiated under Task 25. The acquired test reports were re-
viewed to establish data availability and identify the data gaps. Wherever
there were some missing data, letter requests and telephone calls were made
to the appropriate authors. An important activity of this task was the de-
velopment of the input forms to code the data for entry into the data base.
MRI Systems Corporation of Austin, Texas, under separate contract to
EPA, provided data processing support for the FPEIS using SYSTEM 2000, a data
base management system available through EPA's National Computer Center at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. SYSTEM 2000 provides several features
which will enable FPEIS users to sort, compare, and retrieve information from
FPEIS in almost any arrangement or manner that they choose, SYSTEM 2000 may
be used with existing mathematical and statistical computer programs for a
more comprehensive analysis of the FPEIS data.
-------
Under Task 37, the elements of the data base were defined in a manner
which conforms to the input requirements of SYSTEM 2000 for the construction
of the data base.
The objectives of Task 42 have been:
1. To reduce the data collected under Tasks 25 and 36 to a form
consistent with the FPEIS specifications defined previously in Task 37.
2. Submit the reduced data to the task officer for entry into the
data base.
3. Prepare a final summary report on the development and present
contents of the FPEIS.
The first and second objectives of this task were met by selecting an
initial group of 27 reports collected under Tasks 25 and 36, and extracting
from them the source/control device measurement information. This resulted in
52 test series representing 33 source types and a variety of conventional and
novel control devices. These test series contain over 700 test runs utilizing
primarily impactors of various types, but some optical particle counters, dif-
fusion battery/condensation nuclei counters, and electrical analyzers were
also utilized for the fine particle measurement. The data were keypunched,
verified, and checked for coding and keypunching errors, copied onto a mag-
netic tape, and supplied to MRI Systems Corporation for entry into the data
base system.
The following sections of this report describe the fine particle emis-
sions information system, data acquisition efforts, general features of the
available data, and reduction and assessment of particle size distribution
data. The following sections also discuss the applicability and effectiveness
of particulate control technology, an assessment of current level of fine par-
ticulate emissions, and an assessment of the current FPEIS data base.
Appendix A contains summary particle size distributions for the FPEIS
data base. Appendix B is a summary of particulate sampling and sizing methods,
and Appendix C includes a brief discussion of the adverse effects of fine par-
ticulates on human health. Appendices B and C have been included as comple-
mentary information for completeness.
This FPEIS Summary Report is intended, primarily, to summarize the system
development activities and to evaluate the current FPEIS data base. Some term-
inology used here may be unclear to some readers. For a more detailed explana-
tion of these terms and that of the data base itself, the reader is directed
to the FPEIS Reference Manual and the FPEIS User Guide.
-------
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE FINE PARTICULATE EMISSION INFORMATION SYSTEM (FPEIS)
CONTENTS OF THE FPEIS
The FPEIS contains industrial source emission test data and novel, pilot
or prototype control device evaluation data. It attempts to describe completely
the aerosol from the point of its generation to the point at which it leaves
the control device. General categories of information include source charac-
teristics, control system descriptions, test characteristics, particulate mass
train results, physical, biological, and chemical properties of the particu-
lates, particulate size measurement equipment/method, and particulate size dis-
tribution data. Each category of information includes a number of related data
elements, each of which is a unique variable essential for the description of
the source tested.
Source Characteristics
This group of data elements describes the source that was tested, the name
of the organization which performed the test, and reference from which the data
were obtained. For source descriptions, the Source Classification Code (SCC) of
the National Emission Data System (NEDS)ii' was used in order to provide cross
references with other EPA data bases. The site name is distinguished from the
source name so that a plant can be identified as well as the specific source or
process operation. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system^
is specified along with street, city, state, and zip code to pinpoint location
of the site.
Three additional details include: (a) "Form Prepared by"; (b) "Tested
by"; and (c) "Reference." Item (a) is important so that the individual respon-
sible for encoding the data is identified in the event that follow-up is neces-
sary for cross-checking of information, clarification, etc. Item (b) provides
space for the name of the testing group performing the test. Item (c) identi-
fies the report, journal article, etc., from which the information was acquired,
if available.
Control Device Characteristics
This group includes data elements which describe the control system used
(if any), and specify the design and operating parameters of the control system.
-------
Standard nomenclature and units as given in the FPEIS Reference Manual are to
be used to describe the control system and the design and operating parameters.
The operating parameter values will be those measured during the time of the
test.
Test Characteristics
This group of elements defines specific source operating parameters, in-
cluding source operating mode, source operating rate, feed material type, and
feed material composition. It also contains a description of the sampling lo-
cation, stack gas conditions, Orsat analysis, and trace gas analysis. Additional
test characteristics may be commented upon. These data elements attempt to de-
scribe fully the process and the aerosol at the sampling location, whether it is
the inlet or outlet of the control device.
Particulate Mass Train Results
This group of data contains the results of mass sampling conducted during
the test. Provisions are made for reporting front half and total mass concen-
trations and other comments on the mass train results.
Particulate Physical. Biological, and Chemical Characteristics
These groups of data elements contain the results of analyses performed on
the collected particulate samples. Particulate physical properties include par-
ticle density and resistivity. Also required for these properties are informa-
tion indicating the source of the data (measured or assumed). Any other physical
properties, measured or assumed, are contained in comments.
Although at the present time few particulate samples are utilized for bio-
assay purposes, it is expected that in the future these kinds of tests will be-
come more frequent. The bioassay data group provides data elements for specifi-
cation of the test type as well as comments or results of these additional
analyses.
The chemical composition group of data elements contain the chemical compo-
sition (in pg/j m ) within a given size range and the particle boundary diam-
eters. A maximum of nine size ranges are available in addition to the filter/
total particulate range. The filter/total particulate chemical compositions are
the results of the analyses performed on the particulate collected either by the
mass sampling train or the total mass from all impactor stages. The chemical ele-
ment or compound and its analysis method are given by the codes used in the
SAROAD/SOTDAT data base system.-/
Particulate Size Measurement Equipment/Method
This group of data elements identifies the specific measurement instrument/
method used for collecting size distribution data and/or samples for chemical
-------
analysis. Items such as instrument name/method, the size range, collection
surface, dilution ratio, measurement start time, sampling period and sampling
rate, gas conditions at the instrument inlet along with appropriate comments
are included. These data elements fully characterize the aerosol at the in-
let of the measurement instrument or method.
Particle Size Distribution Data
This group of data elements provides the aerodynamic or Stokes diameter
(see the discussion on page 33) range and mass or number concentration within
this size range as measured by the instrument/method described above. To min-
imize computer storage and to allow users the freedom of calculating any size
distribution, only raw data are contained in the system; however, particle
size distributions, such as mass, surface, number and cumulative percent less
than, and integral parameters of the size distribution are part of the output
program options available to the user.
ORGANIZATION OF THE FPEIS
The organization of the FPEIS is shown in Figure 1. The input data to the
FPEIS have generally been derived from either source test reports or published
papers, although future tests may be reported on FPEIS Data Input Forms as
standard practice. Each report or paper may have test data on one or more
source/control device combinations. (An uncontrolled source is defined as a
combination of source and no control devices.) All the data pertaining to a
source/control device combination obtained at a certain time are given a test
series number. For example, all data obtained on the Union Electric Meramec
plant, Boiler Unit 1, as a part of "Refuse Firing Demonstration Study" were
given five test series numbers. They are Test .Series Nos. 19, 28, 29, 30, and
31, which were tests conducted during December 1973, November 1974, March 1975,
May 1975, and November 1975, respectively. During each test, coal only and/or
coal-plus-refuse was burned and the boiler was operated at various power loads.
The present test series numbers have been assigned on an arbitrary basis; future
additions will be given a master file number.
Each test series consists of a number of subsets which represent all the
data pertaining to a given combination of source and control device operating
parameters. The subseries ties different test runs together and gives a com-
plete description of the aerosol for the various operating conditions of the
source and control device*
The test run, which is a fundamental element of the FPEIS system, is de-
fined as "any test measurement of a specific source/control device combination
for a specific length of time, with specific particle size measuring equipment/
method." For example, one size distribution measurement using the diffusion
battery/condensation nuclei counter constitutes a run. Another size distribu-
tion measurement using an optical particle counter made at about the same time,
with the source and control device operating parameters unchanged, constitutes
another run. The mass train results such as those using EPA Method 5 are not
treated as a test run but are included at the subseries level.
8
-------
FPEIS
Test Series
Level
Test Series 1
Test Series 2
\o
Subseries
Level
Subseries 1
Subseries 2
Run
Level
Subseries 3
Subseries 1
Subseries 2
Run 1
Run 2
Figure 1. FPEIS Organization
-------
The test run as defined above has both advantages and disadvantages. The
disadvantages stem from the fact that the test run data being obtained by a
single particle size measuring equipment/method may not cover the entire size
spectrum of the aerosol. Therefore, it may be necessary to group several test
runs representing data from different instruments to obtain a complete size
distribution. On the other hand, this approach has flexibility, in that the
data obtained by each instrument can be assessed. For example, if one makes
six optical particle counter runs within the time of one impactor run, one
can average all the optical particle counter runs and compare the average
with the impactor run, or treat the six runs of the optical particle counter
separately, getting a time resolution for the optical data.
An advantage of the test run, as defined, is that it simplifies data
coding and verification. Furthermore, editing the data obtained by different
instruments is also simplified. As an example, the cut points of an impactor
which are found to be off by a factor of two can, at a later date, be changed
very easily.
DATA INPUT FORMAT AND STRUCTURE
A tabulation of all the data elements of the FPEIS is shown in Table 1.
Column 1 of this table shows the data input form number for various data ele-
ments. In Table 1, one can see that the source characteristics, test series
remarks contained in the Data Input Form No. 1, and the control device char-
acteristics excepting the device operating parameters contained in the Data
Input Form No. 2 are at the test series level. The test characteristics, the
control device operating parameters, and the particulate mass train results
contained in the Data Input Forms Nos, 3 and 4, and the bioassay and chemical
composition contained in Data Input Form No. 5 are at the subseries level.
The measurement particulars and particle size distribution data contained in
the Data Input Form No. 6 are at the test run level.
This arrangement of data elements minimizes the effort in coding the test
data for FPEIS. For each test series, one needs to complete Data Input Forms
Nos. 1 and 2 only once. For each test subseries Data Input Forms Nos. 3 through
5 need to be completed only once. Similarly, only one data input form (No. 6)
is needed for one test run. The data coding effort is further reduced by not
requiring one to complete the repeating information (see the user guide
for examples and further explanation of labor-saving features). For example,
suppose the inlet and outlet of a utility boiler equipped with an electro-
static precipitator are sampled 20 times with a single impactor operating at
one set of flow rate and gas conditions. In coding this data, one needs to
complete 101,* Computer programs are developed for data debugging and dupli-
cating appropriate data elements.
Measurement instrument particulars and the boundary diameters for the
initial run only. For subsequent runs, one has to code mass concentra-
tion data only.
10
-------
TABLE 1. FPEIS DATA ELEMENTS AND THEIR LEVELS
Input data
form No*
Teat aeries level
' A. Source Characteristics
Source category (SCG I)
Type of operation (SCC II)
Feed material class (SCC III)
Operating mode class (SCG IV)
Site and source name
Source address (street, city,
state, zip code)
UTM cone location and coordinates
Test series start and- finish date
Tested by and reference
Bo Test Series Remarks
C. Control Device(s) Characteristics
Generic device type
Device class and category
Device commercial name
Manufacturer
Description
Design parameter type and value
Subserlea level
D.
F.
Run level
Test Characteristics
Test date, start, and finish
time
Source operating mode
Source operating rate
Percent design capacity
Feed material and its composition
Sampling location and its descrip-
tion
Volune flow rate, velocity tempera-
ture and pressure
Percent isokinetic sampling
Orsat gas analysis and trace gas
Composition
Control Device(s) Operating Parameter
and Value Remarks
Particulate Mass Train Results
Front half and total mass concen-
tration
Mass train comments
Part ic u 1 a t e Phy a leal Properties
Density
Resistivity
Others
G» Bloassay Data
Bioassay test type
Test comments
H. Chemlcaj. Composition
Particle boundary diameters
Sizing instrument calibrated
or calculated
SAROAD chemical and analysis
method ID
Concentration in filter/total
Concentration in Ranges 1 through 9
I. Measurement particulars
Measurement instrument/method name
Size range lower and upper boundary
Collection surface
Dilution factor
Measurement start time and period
Sample flow rate
Sample temperature, pressure, and
moisture content
Comments
J. Paniculate Size Distribution
Particle diameter basis
(Aerodynamic or Stokes)
Boundary diameter
Concentration basis(mass or number)
Concentration
11
-------
DATA OUTPUT FORMATS
The potential for sorting and arranging the data contained in the FPEIS
is virtually limitless; however, for the purposes of this project the format
chosen for displaying all the information pertaining to a test series is shown
in Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 2. These tables and the figure are identified at
the top by the test series number, subseries number, inlet or outlet of the
control device, and the test date and time.
Table 2 shows all the particulars of source, control device(s), test,
particulate mass train, physical, biological, and chemical properties measure-
ment equipment, and remarks.
Table 3 shows particle size distribution data including the mass (AM/Alog
Dae),* surface (AS/Alog Dae), and number (AN/Alog Dae)' distributions. These
three size distributions are based on the aerodynamic diameter. The first four
columns of the table show boundary and geometric midpoint of both aerodynamic
and Stokes particle diameters. At the bottom of the table the integral param-
eters of the three size distributions are shown; namely, total mass, total
surface, and total number. Also, the percentages less than 1 Mm, greater than
1 Mm» less than 0.01 urn, 0.01 to 0.1 Mm, 0.1 to 1.0 (Jtm, 1 to 10 Mm, and greater
than 10 Mm of mass, surface, and number are shown.
Figure 2 shows the three size distributions plotted as a function of the
aerodynamic diameter. The ordinate range for the three distributions is nor-
malized by dividing ordinate values by appropriate scales shown at the bottom
of the plot. The scales are twice the total mass, surface, and number for the
three distributions. The factor of 2 is just a scale factor, and does not af-
fect the shape of the curves. The area under the curves within a given size
range represents the mass, surface or number within that size range.**
POSSIBLE USES OF THE FPEIS
Figure 3 is a block diagram illustrating the potential role of the FPEIS
as an important tool in fine particle program activities. This role encompasses
both private and public sector efforts in: (a) identifying fine particulate
emission sources; (b) determining the quantity and quality of such emissions;
(c) evaluating various conventional and unconventional particulate control de-
vices; and (d) evaluating and developing the sampling equipment and methodology
used for fine particulate source measurement.
In Figure 3, three possible uses of the FPEIS are shown. These are the
fine particle inventory, source/collector information exchange, and regula-
tory control method development.
* For nomenclature and definitions, see page 34.
** Factor 2 is chosen because Alog Dae ~ 0.3 to 0.5. A detailed explanation
of these plots are given in Appendix A.
12
-------
TABLE 2. STATIONARY POINT SOURCE FINE PARTICULATE EMISSION INFORMATION SYSTEM
TEST SERIES NO:
SUB-SERIES NO!
INLET
DATE: 9/26/73
FROM 13120 TO I6I1S
TESTED FROM 09/25/73 TO 09/27/73 BYl CONTROL SYSTEMS LABORATORY.EPA.RTP.NC
REFERENCE: SIATNICK.RM. EP»-6Soiz-7«-iIi OCT 7*
i. SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS-
sec CATEGORY: INDUSTRIAL PROCES
OPERATION CLASS: PRIMARY METALS
FEED MATERIAL CLASS: COPPER SMELTER
OPERATION MODE CLASS: CONVERTING
SPECIFIC OPERATION: CONVERTING
OPERATING KATE: 500 T/DAV
SITE NAME
SOURCE NAME
ADDRESS
TACUMA
UTM ZONE AND X-Y COORDS: 10
FEEDMATEHIAL:
FFED MATERIAL COMPOSITION!
AMERICAN SMELTING • REFINING CO (ASARCOI
COPPER SMELTEH CONVERTER
.MA
-0.0
-0.0
II. CONTROL DEVICEIS) CHARACTERISTICS-
UNIT 1
DEVICE CATEGORY:
CLASS:
GENERIC TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
PARALLEL PLATE
CONVENTIONAL
ESP
DESIGN PARAMETERS
COMMERCIAL NAME:
MANUFACTURER:
ELECTRO STATIC PPTR
RESEARCH COTTREL.NL
OPERATING PARAMETERS
I I VOLUMETRIC GAS FLOW RATE 61.4 ONH3/S
2IELECTROOE AREA 14813 M2
3ICORONA CURRENT 1243 MA
4ISPARK RATE 110 NO/MIN
51 VOLUME PER UNIT ELECTRODE AREA 0.0042 M/S
6ICORONA CURRENT DENSITY 0.084 MA/H2
71 TEMPERATURE 123 C
III. TEST CHARACTERISTICS
CONTROL DEVICE INLET SAMPLING POINT DESCRIPTION: 3.SX7.3M DUCT IM UPSTREAM OF ESP DUCT * 1SOKINETIC: 104
PROCESS CONDITIONS: VOL FLOW= 61.4 DNM3/S VELOCITY* 2.9 M/S T= 123 C P= 770 MMHG MATER VAP *VOL= 5.8
GAS COMPOSITION: ORSAT- co2= .40 * co= o.oo * 02= 20.20 « N2= 79.40 *
TRACE GASSESIPPM)-S02=30236. S03-62.B
IV. PARTICULATE MASSTRAIN RESULTS
KHONT HAI (•'= 3.JbOC>Ub UG/DNM3 TOTAL= 3.b90E>06 COMMENTS:
-------
TABLE 2. (Concluded)
V. PARTICULATE PHYSICAL. BIALO6ICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
DENSITY' 1.00 GM/CC ASSUMED RESISTIVITY^ 5.00EM1 OHM-CM ASSUMED
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION DATA
CHEMICAL AND ANALYSIS METHOD
1> ARSENIC
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
?> CADMIUM
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
3) CHROMIUM
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
«> COPPER
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
SI MERCURY
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
61 LEAD
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
71 ZINC
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
AMOUNT IN UG/DNM3 FOR PARTICLE DIAMETERIUM) RANGE OF
FILTER/TOTAL
616730.0000
40959.0000
Zft?.7300
273.0600
67.5300
121768. 0000
?Z7673.0000
OVER 10 10 TO 1
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-O.OOOB
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
1 TO O.I 0.
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
1 TO 0.01 UNDER 0.01
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
VI. MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT AND GAS CONDITIONS
UNIT
RUNS
EQUIPMENT NAME: BRINK-MODEL B
SUE RANGE! .050 TO 10.000 MICRONS
DILUTION FACTOR: 1.0 TEMP= 104 C
COMMENTS: IMPACTOR POSITION VERTICAL
COLLECTION SURFACE/SUBSTRATE I UNCOATEO SS CUPS
SAMPLING RATE: ?.« LPM SAMPLING PERIOD: is.o MIN
PRESSURE= TTO MMHG WATER VAP «VOL * 5.8
VII. TEST SUB-SERIES REMARKS-
VIII. TEST SERIES REMARKS-
DUCT VELOCITY HAS OBTAINED AT ONLY ONE LOCATION AND RESULT CAN
BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE
SMOKE STACK HEIGHT 163 M
IB» OF THE SMELTER CONVERTER FLUE PASSES THRU AN ACID PLANT (SOX
REMOVAL 96.7*) BEFORE REACHING THE ESP
PARTICLE SUE DISTRIBUTION DATA READ FROM GRAPH (AVE OF 3 RUNS)
PARTICLE SUE BOUNDARIES ARE ARBITRARILY CHOSEN
SAMPLES DRIED 3HR RT 80C DESICCATED ?HH » WEIGHED ON METTLER H?OT
BALANCE
-------
TABLE 3. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
TEST SERIES NO:
SUB-SERIES NO:
1 INLET
DATE: 9/36/73
FPOM 13:20 TO 16:15
IX. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
PARTICLE DENSITY= 1.00 GM/CC ASSUMED
AERODYNAMIC DIA
HNDRY MID
(UM) PARTICLE DIA HIM)
PT HNDPY
MID PT
DM
UIG/DNM3)
UNIT 1 BRINK-MODEL H
10.000 10
5.500 7.416 5
2.500 3.708 2
1.600 2.000 I
.880 1.187
.400 .593
.195 .279
.050 .099
.000
.500
.500
.600
.880
.400
.195
.050
MASS
SURFACE
NUMBER
(UG/ONM3)
(UM2/CC)
(NO. /CO
3
6
2
7.416
3.708
2.000
1.187
.591
.279
.099
TOTAL
.761E«06
.898E«06
,812E»06
1
1
3
3
6
6
5
LT 1.
2.0
12.5
fl?.3
DM/DLDAE
(UG/DNM3)
DS
(UM?/CO
OS/DLDAE
-------
TEST
Ni .
t .
U
M
B
E
R
D
I
S
T
.
«
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
D .
I
S
T
M
A
S .
S
D
I
S
T
SERIES NO: 2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
75 +--
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
50 +
4
4
4
+
*
+
4
4
4
25 * —
4
4
4
4
4
4
SUB-SERIES NO: 1 INLET RATE! 9/26/73 FROM 13:20 TO 16 U 5
i i i »
1 1 Ml*
1 1 1 1
/ *
/ *
/ t
1 t
I *
/ »
/ *
/ *
/ "*
/ *
/ *
/ ,
/ »
/ +
/ ,
/ »
/ *
/ «
/ «
/ _ +
/ »
/ +
/^" ~~ "S^ ^
' ^ ^~ / -^ ' " ' *
~ N M j /' *
" " " " ~ ~ -N- /
^Ax •/
/ x XN / ..4
^ V / *
/ y' 4
' S x *
/ M \ *
£ / *
, /
0.00 » + *»»»»» + » + + »»» + 5» + + + *»»*» + » M* »» * * *r*<
.10
r*"+ «.»««.«« + *«.»t»j»«««t*«4
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
N
" , 1
" - 1
~ ~ N~ - - l
> + » + «**»»* +1 ** + »» + + **»»»*« N * » * «1«»»»
10.00
»»+»»«»?
SCALES=
NO.DIST: 1- 5.625E*06 SUR.DIST: 1- 1.380E*07
Figure 2. Plot of Particle Size Distribution Data
MASS OIST: 1- 7.522E*06
-------
r
Government, Industrial
and Academic Research
Stationary Sources
of Fine Particulates
(Controlled and
Uncontrolled)
Test Equipment and
Methods Improvement
and Standardization
Field Testing by EPA,
EPA Contractors,
Industrial Test Groups,
Other Private and
Public Tests
Testing Equipment and
Method Evaluations
Data Acquisition
for FPEIS
(Technical Reports,
Literature, Etc.)
I
Data Analysis
and Reduction
for FPEIS
I
Data base Format
FPEIS
Users
±
Fine Particle Inventory
Problem Definition:
Health Effects, Population
Exposures, Etc.
Future Data Acquisition
(Test) Programs
I
Identification of Data
Deficiencies
System Improvements
Collector Design and
Source Applications
1
Regulatory Control
Methods Development
Figure 3. Role of FPEIS in Fine Particle Programs
17
-------
A fine particle inventory can be used to display the relative contribu-
tions of several source categories to the fine particulate burden. In conjunc-
tion with other important considerations such as geographical distribution of
source operations, hazard potential (health, chemical attack) and aesthetic
contributions (opacity), the fine particle inventory can be used to establish
priorities for allocation of control program resources.
From the source test measurements both at the inlet and outlet of a con-
trol device, one can determine the characteristics of the source and evaluate
the performance of a control device. In addition, one can determine the char-
acteristics of the particulate emissions from both the controlled and uncon-
trolled sources. Such information collected on various source/collector com-
binations could be used in the selection of a given control device for
different sources, or in assessing the performance of a variety of devices
as applied to a selected source operation. Directions for control methods
(hardware) development or identification of promising new or novel control
technology can also be ascertained using the FPEIS.
The availability of a current body of fine particle information, the
fine particle inventory, and state-of-the-art device performance and appli-
cation can also be of extensive usefulness in regulatory strategy development.
18
-------
SECTION 3
DATA ACQUISITION
Acquisition of size distribution data relating to fine particulate emis-
sions from various sources was an integral part of the program. Data acquisi-
tion was initiated under Task 25 and continued in Task 36. A variety of tech-
niques were utilized including a systematic search of the technical literature,
telephone and letter requests to EPA project officers, EPA and other government
contractors, and industry sources.
Technical literature sources included:
Air Pollution Abstracts
Applied Science and Technology Index
Chemical Abstracts
Engineering Abstracts
A tabulation of individuals and agencies contacted is shown in Table 4.
The main objective of the continuing correspondence with these individuals
and agencies was to request reports, reprints of journal articles, or acquire
unpublished test data. Equally important was the continued communication with
the individual, agency, or company so that test work in progress could be iden-
tified and follow-up requests made as appropriate. In addition, possible sources
of test data which may have been overlooked could be uncovered.
Acquired test data sets were tabulated on a master file as received. A
supplementary listing of "requested but not received," which included test
work in progress, was also maintained. Appropriate follow-up action including
letter requests and telephone calls were made in attempts to acquire reports
and missing data.
Active data acquisition was terminated at the end of the fifth month of
Task 36 in an effort to enable compilation of the acquired data in the FPEIS
format. Test data received after this date were maintained in a separate
listing.
19
-------
TABLE 4. CONTACTS FOR FINE PARTICULATE SOURCE TEST DATA
EPA
Testine erouo
Industry
Other
N>
o
James Abbott
Robert Ajax
A. B. Craig
Dale Denny
James Dorsey
Dennis Drehmel
Gary FoLey
Dale Harmon
Bruce Harris
Bob Lorentz
B. N. Murthy
Leslie Sparks
R. M. Statnick
James Turner
EPA Regional Offices
(Director, Air Pro-
grams or Chief, Air
Support)
SOTDAT
(James Southerland)
APT, Inc.
Midwest Research Institute
Southern Research Institute
GCA Technology
York Research
PEDCo Environmental
Carborundum
Mikro Pul
Research-Cottrell
Industrial Gas
Cleaning Institute
Wheelabrator-Frye
Becker Industries
Corporation
State Air Pollution Agencies
Regional or County Agencies
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington (M. J.
Pilat)
University of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland (J. W. Gentry)
Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana (R. B. Jacko)
Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
ment
-------
A tabulation of the data for initial loading of the FPEIS is shown in
Table 5. It is expected that more data will be accumulated by the time of
first update due to the large number of tests conducted in recent months.
21
-------
TABLE 5. TABULATION OF DATA FOR FPEIS DATA BASE—INITIAL LOADING
Test Series
No.
Report's Author and Name—
a/
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment
No. of Runs
Harris, D. B., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fractional Effi-
ciency of Metal Fume Con-
trol as Determined by
Brink Impactor," EPA/CSL
(1973).
Harris, D. B., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fractional Effi-
ciency of Metal Fume Con-
trol as Determined by
Brink Impactor," EPA/CSL
(1973).
Brink Impactor Model B, 5-stage, Zn Roaster
Gelman type "A" final filter
flow rate =2.83 1pm
Ap = 10"Hg
Brink Impactor Model B, 5-8tage, Cu Converter
Gelman type "A" final filter
flow rate = 2.83 1pm
Ap = 10"Hg
Wet ESP
Wet ESP
N5
to
Harris, D. B. , and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fractional Effi-
ciency of Metal Fume Con-
trol as Determined by
Brink Impactor," EPA/CSL
(1973).
Harris, D. B., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fractional Effi-
ciency of Metal Fume Con-
trol as Determined by
Brink Impactor," EPA/CSL
(1973).
Brink Impactor Model B, 5-stage, Zn Sintering
Gelman type "A" final filter .
flow rate = 2.83 1pm
Ap = 10"Hg
Brink Impactor Model B, 5-stage, Pb Sintering
Gelman Type "A" final filter
flow rate - 2.83 1pm
Ap = 10"Hg
Dry ESP
Baghouse (Orion)
Harris, D. B., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fractional Effi-
ciency of Metal Fume Con-
trol as Determined by
Brink Impactor," EPA/CSL
(1973).
Statnlck, R. M. , "Measurement
of SO2> Partlculate, and
Trace Elements In a Copper
Smelter Converter and
Roaster/ Reverberatory Gas
Streams," EPA/CSL
Brink Impactor Model B, 5-stage,
Gelman type "A" final filter
flow rate = 2.83 1pm
Ap = 10"Hg
Brink Impactor (Model B) at
inlets, Andersen Sampler
(Mark III) at outlets
Brink flow rate = 2.83 1pm
Andersen flow rate = 23.8 1pm
Pb Blast Furnace
Baghouse (wool felt)
Cu Roaster and
Reverberatory Furnace
(ASARCO)
Dry ESP (pipe) and
parallel type ESP
a/ Complete references are provided beginning on page 47.
-------
TABLE 5. . (continued)
Test Series
No.
Report's Author and Name
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment
No. of Runa
10
N>
Statnick, R. M., "Measurement
of SO~, Partlculate, and
Trace Elements in a Copper
Smelter Converter and
Roaster/Reverberatory Gas
Streams," EPA/CSL
McCain, J. D., and W. B.
Smith, "Lone Star Steel
Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning
System Evaluation," EPA-
650/2-74-028 (1974).
Cooper, D. W. , and D. P.
Andersen, "Dynactor Scrub-
ber Evaluation," GCA Cor-
poration (1974)
Harris, D. B., "Tests Per-
formed at Celotex Corpora-
tion, Goldsboro, North
Carolina
Brink Impactor (Model B) at
inlets, Andersen Sampler
(Mark 111) at outlets
Brink flov rate - 2.83 1pm
Andersen flow rate =23.8 1pm
Brink Impactor at inlet and
Andersen Sampler at outlet.
Optical particle counter
and diffusion battery.
Method 5 technique.
Andersen (Mark III) 14 1pm
Pilat Impactor
Cu Converter
Open Hearth Furnace
Test Aerosol from
Dust Feeder
Asphalt Roofing
Plate type ESP
Lone Star Steel Steam-
Hydro Scrubber
Dynactor Scrubber
Afterburner
38
50
11 Harris, D. B., and J. A.
Turner, "Particulate and
SOj/SO, Measurement Around
an Anthracite Steam Genera-
tor Baghouse," EPA/CSL (1973)
12 McKenna, J. D., "Applying
Fabric Filtration to Coal-
Fired Industrial Boilers:
A Preliminary Pilot Scale
Investigation," Enviro-
Systems and Research, Inc.
(1974)
13 Cowherd, C., et al., "Hazard-
ous Emission Characterization
of Utility Boilers," EPA-650/
2-75-066
Brink Impactor
flow rate =4.7 1pm
Ap = 10"Hg
Andersen Sampler
Brink Impactor
Pulverized Coal-Fired
Boiler (anthracite)
Pennsylvania Power
and Light Company
Coal-Fired Industrial
Boiler Kerr Industries,
Concord, North Carolina
Utility Boiler
Baghouse
bulked weave, glas
fiber bags with a
Teflon finish
Nomex
Baghouse
Cyclone
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
Test Series
No.
Report's Author and Name
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment
Ho. of Runs
10
15 Statnick, R. M., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fine Partlculate
Control Using SO- Scrubbers,"
EPA (1974).
16 Statnick, R. M., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fine Parttculate
Control Using SO- Scrubbers,"
EPA (1974).
17 Statnick, R. M., and D. C.
Drehmel, "Fine Particulate
Control Using S02 Scrubbers,"
EPA (1974).
18 Riggenbach, J. D., E. D.
Johnson and M. K. Hamlln,
"Measurement of Particulate
Grain Loadings, Particle Size
Distribution, and Sulfur Gas
Concentrations at Hoerner
Waldorf's Pulp and Papermill
No. 3 Recovery System, Vols.
I, II, and III, Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc.
19 Shannon, L. J., et al.,
"St. iLouis/Union Electric
Refuse Firing Demonstration
Air Pollution Test Report."
20 McCain, J. D., "Evaluation of
Aronetlcs Two-Phase Jet
Scrubber," EPA-650/Z-74-129
21 Bosch, J. C., M. J. Pilat,
and B. F. Hrutflord, "Size
Distribution of Aerosols
From a Kraft Mill Recovery
Furnace," Tappl 54(11):1871
(1971).
Brink Impactor and Andersen
Sampler. Total Partlculates
using EPA Method 5.
Brink Impactor and Andersen
Sampler. Total Particulates
using EPA Method 5.
Brink Impactor and Andersen
Sampler. Total Particulates
using EPA Method 5.
Brink Impactor
Total Mass by EPA Method 5
Brink Impactor and Andersen
Sampler
Brink Impactor, Andersen
Sampler Method 5, Optical
Particle Counter, Diffu-
sion Battery + CNC
Pllat Impactor
Coal-Fired Power Boiler
(TVA, Shawnee)
Coal-Fired Power Boiler
(TVA, Shawnee)
No. 6 Fuel Oil Fired
Power Boiler (Mystic)
Pulp and Papermill Re-
covery Biler
Coal-Fired Utility
Boiler Refuse Firing
Demonstration,
St. Louis/Union Electric
Ferro-Alloy Electric Arc
Furnace
Kraft Mill Recovery
Furnace
TCA Scrubber
Venturt Scrubber
Venturl MgO Scrubber
ESP
ESP
Aronetlcs Two-Phase
Jet Scrubber
ESP
38
26
41
Test Series Nos. 14 and 47 has missing or invalid data and will be coded when test data are available,
-------
Test Series
No.
22
23
24
to
Oi
25
26
TABLE
(continued)
Reports Author and Name
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment
Ho. of Runs
Andersen Sampler
Andersen Sampler
Andersen Sampler
McGarry, F. J., and C. J.
Gregory, "A Comparison of
the Size Distribution of
Particulates Emitted From
Air, Mechanical, and Steam
Atomized Oil-Fired Burners,"
JAPCA, 2£(8):636 (1972).
McGarry, F. J., .and C. J.
Gregory, "A Comparison of
the Size Distribution of
Particulates Emitted From
Air, Mechanical, and Steam
Atomized 011-Fired Burners,"
JAPCA, 22W :636 (1972).
McGarry, F. J., and C. J.
Gregory, "A Comparison of
the Size Distribution of
Particulates Emitted From
Air, Mechanical, and Steam
Atomized Oil-Fired Burners,"
JAPCA, 22(8):636 (1972).
Lee, R. E., Jr., H. L. Crist, UW Mark III Sampler
A. E. Riley, and K. E. MacLeod,
"Concentration and Size of
Trace Metal Emissions From a
Power Plant, a Steel Plant,
and a Cotton Gin," Env. Scl.
and Tech., 9(7):643 (1975).
Lee, R. E., Jr., H. L. Crist, UW Mark III Sampler
A. E. Riley, and K. E. MacLeod,
"Concentration and Size of
Trace Metal Emissions From a
Power Plant, a Steel Plant,
and a Cotton Gin," Env. Scl.
and Tech., 9(7):643 (1975).
Air Atomized Oil-Fired
Boiler
ESP
Mechanical Atomized 011-
Flred Boiler
ESP
Steam Atomized Oil-Fired
Boiler
ESP
Emissions from a Power
Plant
ESP
Emissions from a Steel
Plant
Baghouse
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
ro
Test Series
No.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Report's Author and Name
Lee, R. E., Jr., H. L. Crist,
A. F.. Riley, and K. E.
MacLeod, "Concentration and
Size of Trace Metal Emissions
from a Power Plant, a Steel
Plant, and a Cotton Gin," Env.
Sci. and Tech., 9J7)643 (1975).
"St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse
Fuel Project," MRI Project
No. 3821-C(4), January 1975
"St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse
Fuel Project," MRI Project
No. A033-C, Monthly Report
No. 1
"Test and Evaluation Program
for St. Louis-Union Electric
Refuse Fuel Project," MRI
Project No. A033-C, Monthly
Report No. A
"Test and Evaluation Program
for St. Louis-Union Electric
Refuse Fuel Project," MRI
Project No. 4033-C, Monthly
Report No. 11
Toca, F. M., "Lead and Cadmium
Distribution in the Particu-
late Effluent from a Coal-
Fired Boiler," Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Iowa, Ames,
Iowa, July 1972
Baladi, E., "Particle Size Dis-
tribution Tests for Beker
Industries Corporation," MRI
Project No. 5-1379-C
Testing Equipment
UW Hark III Sampler
Brink and Andersen Impactors
Brink and Andersen Impactors
Brink and Andersen Impactors
Brink and Andersen Impactors
Andersen Ambient Sampler
Brinks Impactor
Source
Emissions from a Cotton
Gin
Coal-Fired Boiler
Phosphate Rock Calciner
Control Equipment
Wet Scrubber
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler ESP
Refuse Firing Demonstra-
tion
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler ESP
Refuse Firing Demonstra-
tion
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler ESP
Refuse Firing Demonstra-
tion
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler ESP
Refuse Firing Demonstra-
tion
ESP
Venturl Scrubber
No. of Runs
67
12
43
19
-------
TABLE S. (continued)
Test Series
No.
Report's Author and Name
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment
Wo. of Runs
ro
34 Gooch, J. P., and J. D. McCain,
"Particulate Collection Ef-
ficiency Measurements on a
Wet Electrostatic Precipi-
tator," EPA-650/2-75-033
35 Bradway, R. M., and R. W.
Cass, "Fractional Efficiency
of a Utility Boiler Bag-
house," EPA-600/2-75-013-3
36 McKenna, J. D., J. C. Mylock,
and W. 0. Lipscomb, "Apply-
ing Fabric Filtration to
Coal-Fired Industrial Boil-
ers," EPA-650/2-74-058-a
37 McKenna, J. D., J. C. Mylock,
and W. 0. Lipscomb, "Apply-
ing Fabric Filtration to
Coal-Fired Industrial Boil-
ers," EPA-640/2-74-058-3
38 McKenna, J. D., J. C. Mylock,
and W. 0. Lipscomb, "Apply-
ing Fabric Filtration to
Coal-Fired Industrial Boil-
ers," EPA-650/2-74-058-3
39 McKenna, J. D...J. C. Mylock,
and W. 0. Lipscomb, "Apply-
ing Fabric Filtration to
Coal-Fired Industrial Boil-
ers," EPA-650/2-74-058-3
40 McKenna, J. D., J. C. Mylock,
and W. O. Lipscomb, "Apply-
ing Fabric Filtration to
Coal-Fired Industrial Boil-
ers," EPA-650/2-74-058-3
Brink Andersen Samplers Optical
Particle Counter, Diffusion
Battery and CN Counter
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Aluminum Reduction Cells
Coal-Fired Boiler
Coal-Fired Boiler
Coal-Fired Boiler
Coal-Fired Boiler
Coal-Fired Boiler
Coal-Fired Boiler
ESP Preceded by Spray 17
Towers
Baghouse 86
Nomex Baghouse 28
Teflon Felt (Style 1)
Baghouse
Teflon Felt (Style 2)
Baghouse
Gore-Tex/Nomex Baghouse 11
Dralon Baghouse
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
Test Series
No.
Report's Author and Name
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment
Ho. of Runs
to
oo
41 McCain, J. D., "Evaluation of
Centrifield Scrubber," EPA-
650/2-74-129-a
42 Cooper, D. W., "Pentapure Ira-
pinger Evaluation," EPA-
650/2-75-024-a
43 Yost, K. J. et al., "The En-
vironmental Flow of Cadmium
and Other Trace Metals,"
Progress Report NSF (RANN)
Grant GI-35106, Purdue Uni-
versity, West Lafayette,
Indiana
44 Yost, K. J. et al., "The En-
vironmental Flow of Cadmium
and Other Trace Metals,"
Progress Report NSF (RANN)
Grant GI-35106, Purdue Uni-
versity, West Lafayette,
Ind iana
45 Yost, K. J. et al., "The En-
vironmental Flow of Cadmium
and Other Trace Metals,"
Progress Report NSF (RANN)
Grant GI-35106, Purdue Uni-
versity, West Lafayette,
Ind iana
46 Yost, K. J. et al., "The En-
vironmental Flow of Cadmium
and Other Trace Metals,"
Progress Report NSF (RANN)
Grant GI-35106, Purdue Uni-
versity, West Lafayette,
Ind iana
48 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Particle
Scrubber Performance Tests,"
EPA-650/2-74-093
Brinks Andersen Impactors Dif-
fusions 1, Optical and Electri-
cal Methods
Andersen In-Stack Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
Andersen Impactor
UW Mark II and Andersen
Impactors
Asphalt Dryer Burning
No. 2 Fuel Oil
Gray Iron Foundry
Zinc Coker Plant
Zinc Vertical Retort
Steel Mill Open Hearth
Furnace
Municipal Incinerator
Urea Prilling Tower
1. Coarse Cyclone
2. Secondary Collector
3. Scrubber
Pentapure Implnger
31
12
Baghouse
ESP
Scrubber
Valve Tray
12
-------
TABLE 5* (concluded)
Test Series
No.
Report's Author and Name
Testing Equipment
Source
Control Equipment No. of Runs
49 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Parti-
cle Scrubber Performance
Tests," EPA-650/2-74-093
UW Mark III and Andersen
Impactors
Potash Dryer
Scrubber
17
50 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Parti-
cle Scrubber Performance
Tests," EPA-650/2-74-093
51 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Parti-
cle Scrubber Performance
Tests," EPA-650/2-74-093
UW Mark III and Andersen
Impactors
UW Mark III and Andersen
Impactors
Coal-Fired Boiler
Coal-Fired Boiler
TCA Scrubber
Venturl Scrubber
ho
VD
52 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Parti-
cle Scrubber Performance
Tests," EPA-650/2-74-093
53 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Parti-
cle Scrubber Performance
Tests," EPA-650/2-74-093
UW Mark III and Andersen
Impactors
UW Mark III and Andersen
Impactors
Salt Dryer
Salt Dryer
Wetted Fiber Scrubber
Iraplngment Plate
Scrubber
16
12
54 Calvert, S., N. J. Jhaveri,
and S. Yung, "Fine Parti-
cle Scrubber Performance
Tests," EPA-650/2-74-093
UW Mark III and Andersen
Impactors :
Iron Wetting Cupola
Venturl Rod Scrubber
18
-------
SECTION 4
GENERAL FEATURES OF AVAILABLE DATA
The purpose of this section is to discuss the general features of the
data including the nature of the raw data and the forms in which they exist,
the instruments used in collecting the particle size distribution data and
their problems.
Table 5 shows the fine particle test data contained in the FPEIS at the
present time and the source, control device(s), and testing equipment for
each test series. Table 6 (discussed later in Section 6) summarizes the FPEIS
data based on source type and control device type. These two tables illustrate
that the bulk of the data has been collected on utility and industrial boilers
equipped with electrostatic precipitators, and most of the particle size dis-
tribution data were obtained with inertial impactors.
Most source tests of the present data base were conducted for purposes
other than obtaining fine particulate size distribution data* Furthermore,
most reports were not written solely for the purpose of reporting test data.
The data retrieval was further complicated by lack of standard procedures for
collecting data. Considerable time had to be spent on each test report to
gather the information required by the FPEIS, Even the most important infor-
mation such as source location, control device description, particle density,
and measurement instrument details was either inadequately described or not
mentioned in the report.
The available data were found in English units, metric units, and mixed
units. For example, Method 5 mass train results were reported in units of
grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf), grams per standard cubic meter (g/
son), and grains per standard cubic meter (gr/scm). Also, the data were re-
ported in units of grains per cubic foot (gr/f^), milligrams per cubic meter
(mg/m ), micrograms per cubic meter (M-g/m ), etc., necessitating temperature
and pressure corrections, (Refer to Table 8, page 46 for conversion factors.)
There were different means of presenting the particle size distribution
data. Some of the reports displayed data only in graphical form. The graphs
were either cumulative mass distributions or differential mass distributions;
the particle diameters were either aerodynamic diameter or Stokes diameter.
Other reports displayed data in graphical form supplemented by a tabulation
of reduced data. In a few cases raw data were included as an appendix.
30
-------
TABLE 6. FPBIS DATA CLASSIFICATION BASED ON SOURCE AND CONTROL DEVICE TYPE
ESP
1. Stationary combustion
sources
2. Iron and steel plants
3. Nonferrous plants
4. Asphalt plants
5. Pulp and paper
6. Chemical Industry
7. Other
Ooerat ion
Coal-fired utility boiler
Oil-fired utility boiler
Coal-fired industrial boiler
Open hearth furnace
Electric arc furnace
Gray Iron foundary
Cu conveyor
Cu roastlng/reverberatory
Zn roaster
Zn sintering
Pb sintering
Pb blast furnace
Al reduction cells
Za coker plant
Zn vertical retort
Asphalt aggregate drying
Kraft mill recovery furnace
Phosphate rock calclner
Pot ash dryer
Salt dryer
Urea prilling
ftinicipal Incinerator
Dust feeder
Cotton gin
19,25,28,29,
30,31,32
22,23,24
—
45
--
--
2,7
6
1
3
«
--
34
«
"
—
18,21
..
—
—
—
..
—
—
No. of
174
3
—
6
—
—
6
2
4
2
«
—
17
—
-•
—
42
—
~
—
~
..
«
— **
Conventional
scrubber Novel scrubber Baa house Other
16,50,51
17
—
_„
—
54
..
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
41
—
33
49
52,53
48
46
—
27
No. of No. of No. of No. of
1
16 15 14 11,35 90 Cyclone 13 6
a
12,36,37, 61
38,39,40
— 8 38 26 2
20 41
18 42 12
„
..
..
— _ -_ -- 4 7 •• «
5 2
.-
Unknown 43 1
_• .. -- 44 3 — - «
31
Afterburner 10 1
5
17
28
12
•" " ~~ *" ~~
..9 50 —
i — _^ — _Ti — ii
300
11
61
46
41
30
6
2
4
2
2
2
17
1
3
32
42
5
17
28
12
1
50 .
2.
Subtotal
256
138
155
160
717
-------
Use of the standard FPEIS Data Input Forms by testing groups in the fu-
ture will greatly simplify the process of preparing data for input to the
data base. In this way, the standard FPEIS units protocol will be followed
and, more importantly, complete data sets may be obtained. The greatest dif-
ficulty associated with the initial loading of FPEIS data has been the incom-
pleteness of the data sets received.
32
-------
SECTION 5
REDUCTION AND ASSESSMENT OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
Reduction and preliminary asssessment of particle size distribution data
were necessary prior to entering them in the FPEIS. The following subsections
present the data reduction procedures and discuss the quality of data.
REDUCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
Aerosols can be characterized in a number of different ways. The choice
depends upon the particular need for characterization. For example, in the
field of air pollution one is mainly interested in the concentration and size
distribution based on aerosol mass. The FPEIS output provides concentration
and size distributions based on particle mass, surface, or number. Moreover,
these distributions are provided on both a differential and a cumulative
basis.
Although there are a variety of data reduction techniques in the litera-
ture, a simple, general and straightforward procedure has been adopted. Each
run consists of several classes or stages. The raw data generally are mass or
number concentrations in each class and the upper and lower aerodynamic or
Stokes boundary diameters. For example, in the case of impactors, the mass
collected on each stage per unit volume of gas sampled and the effective cut-
off diameter of each stage are available. The upper boundary for the first
stage and lower boundary for the final filter can usually be estimated.
The following equations are used in the data reduction.
1/2
Diameter midpoints = (upper boundary x lower boundary) (1)
Aerodynamic diameter, Dae = D
-2 - 2 (2)
^D
uae J
where D = particle diameter (Stokes or sedimentation diameter)
p = particle density
CD = Cunningham slip correction factor
= 1+|^ [1.246 + 0.42 exp(-0.87 D /2X]
33
-------
X = mean free path of gas molecules
Cn = 1 + 0.162/D for air at NTP (D is in |j,m, reference temperature
up P P
and pressure are 20 C, 760 mm Hg)
Since Dae appears on both sides of Eq. (2), an interative technique is needed
to solve this equation.
D_£ = particle diameter midpoint (M-m)
AM^ = mass in ^g/m within the class
_ rr 3
AN. = number of particles per cubic centimeter within the
class (no./cnr)
AS^ = surface area of particles within the class (p/m /cnr)
pi i
The underlying assumption here is that all the particles are spherical which
in many cases is. not valid. For nonspherical particles, a shape factor will
enter Eq. (2) whose value depends upon the definition of the diameter of the
nonspherical particle itself.
The differential size distributions are calculated, in the following way:
= Io8l0
D upper boundary of class i
ae
D lower boundary of class i
ae
(5)
(6)
where x is mass, surface or number concentration.
The distributions AM/Alog Dae, AS/Alog Dae or AN/Alog Dae are usually
displayed on a semi- log graph with the distribution function as the ordinate
and log Dae as the abscissa.
The cumulative size distributions are calculated by summing mass, sur-
face or number concentrations in the classes below the class of interest, and
dividing it by the total concentration.
34
-------
j j
cum % less x± = ( £ AXk/ £ AXk) 100 (7)
k=i+l k=l
where X = mass, surface or number
x = particle diameter
j = number of classes + 1
i = class number of interest.
Note that particle sizes decrease with increasing class number.
ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
Quality assessment of data begins with source testing, and all factors
affecting results should be reported. A report of the problems encountered
and solutions sought at the time of the test will be invaluable to data eval-
uation, and to future source testing.
The problems discussed in various test reports can be grouped into three
classes of problems, namely, sampling problems, measurement problems, and data
reporting problems. The data reporting problems are mainly due to a lack of
standard procedures for collecting and reporting data. These problems are ex-
pected to be minimized because of the availability of Data Input Forms devel-
oped for the FPEIS. The sampling and measurement problems are discussed below.
Sampling Problems
Obtaining a representative sample requires careful selection of the sam-
pling site and proper sampling by the instrument. Nonideal sampling locations,
improperly designed or inadequate ports for in situ sampling, and stacks con-
taining effluent from one or more sources with varying operating cycles are
often encountered. Flow disturbances such as those caused by a bend or flow
fluctuations caused by process variations result in nonuniformity of particu-
late concentration profile.
Isokinetic sampling requires that the sample be removed from the main-
stream at the same velocity and flow direction as that of the mainstream. Iso-
kinetic sampling has not always been possible, especially when the sampling
duration is short and flow fluctuations are large.
Samplers such as impactors have to be operated at constant flow rates.
If there are significant variations in flow velocity across the duct, travers-
ing with the sampler is desired. However, traversing with impactor samplers
is not done.
35
-------
Design of the sampling train, especially for ex situ sampling is another
area of concern. The sampling lines must be properly insulated to minimize
sampling line wall loss and growth of particles by condensation. The sampling
lines should be designed to minimize coagulation and wall losses, which was
not done in some tests.
Measurement Instrument Problems
Most of the particle size distribution data in the FPEIS have been ob-
tained using inertial impactors, A few runs have also been made with an opti-
cal particle counter, diffusion battery along with condensation nuclei
counter, and Whitby electrical aerosol analyzer.
Impactors should be calibrated if reliable data are required. None of
the impactors used in collecting FPEIS data at this time have been adequately
calibrated. The stage cut points are almost always theoretically calculated
rather than experimentally determined. Other problems identified with impac-
tors are:
1. Particle bounce due to high jet velocity.
2. Scouring of the adhesive coating on impactor plates under high jet
velocity conditions.
3. De-agglomeration of aggregates within the impactor resulting in dis-
torted aerosol size distributions.
4. Heavy loading on the collection plates due to high aerosol concentra-
tion in the sampled duct. This problem is a common situation when source out-
lets or collector inlets are sampled. When collection plates are overloaded,
particle reentrainment occurs and particles are carried over into subsequent
stages, distorting the size distribution.
5. Formation of tall conical heaps of particulate directly below the
jets.
6. Gas condensation within the impactor which overloads the initial
stages of the impactor, wets the substrate, or in certain cases, results in
a chemical reaction between the condensed gases and the collection substrate.
7. Loss of substrate weight.
8. Sampling with a low flow rate impactor at the collector inlet for
very short sampling times (seconds) to minimize overloading due to high aero-
sol concentration. Sampling with a high flow rate impactor at the collector
outlet for very long periods of time (hours) because of low aerosol concentra-
tion. This procedure is good provided the samples are taken concurrently, and
that several inlet samples are taken during the time the outlet sample is
obtained.
36
-------
One would expect a good correlation between mass train (EPA Method 5)
results and total mass measured by impactors under similar test conditions.
However, this is not the case for several tests due to an isokinetic sampling
and nontraversing of the impactor.
Only ex situ sampling is possible with the presently available automatic
instruments. There is frequently a severe loss of particulates in the sample
conditioner and sampling lines. This loss reduces the absolute concentrations
measured by these instruments.
Typically, 'source test reports contain data of all runs, successful as
well as unsuccessful! therefore, the FPEIS data were screened before coding.
The obvious bad runs were eliminated, and the rest of the data were entered
into the system with appropriate comments. These comments should be helpful
to the FPEIS user in the data evaluation. It should be noted again that no
test series completely satisfied the data requirements on input protocol of
the FPEIS.
37
-------
SECTION 6
APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICIPATE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The available data classified according to source type and control device
type are shown in Table 6. Data gaps clearly exist. However, the available
data cover some important sources/collector combinations, and could be used
for their preliminary evaluation.
At present FPEIS has a sizable amount of data on electrostatic precipi-
tators (ESP), conventional and novel wet scrubbers, and baghouses. The data
show that these four types of control devices are applied to coal-fired util-
ity boiler emissions, a major source of particulates. In addition, electro-
static precipitators were applied to ferrous and nonferrous furnaces, and to
Kraft mill recovery furnaces. Wet scrubbers were employed in the iron and
steel industry and in the chemical industry.
The FPEIS contains, for the most part, particle size distribution data
at the inlet and outlet of control devices from which the fractional effi-
ciency of the device could be obtained. Deriving the fractional efficiency
curves from the present data is complicated by the fact that the inlet and
outlet data are not obtained with the same particle size measuring device
or under similar conditions. The inlet boundary diameters are different
from those of the outlet. So, for fractional efficiency calculations, a com-
puter program which curves to fit the inlet and outlet particle size distri-
bution data, and which calculates the mass fraction within a given size range,
is needed. Because of the lack of such a program, the average of total mass
concentrations at the inlet and outlet were computed from which the overall
collection efficiency was determined.
Table 7 shows the total inlet and outlet mass concentration averages and
overall collection efficiency for various source/collector combinations con-
tained in the FPEIS. The mass concentrations are given in units of micrograms
per normal cubic meter. In this table, one can see that the average overall
efficiencies of electrostatic precipitators, conventional scrubbers, novel
scrubbers, baghouses and cyclones, applied to a coal-fired utility boiler are
92.9, 92.3, 95.8, 99.7, and 47.3%, respectively. Electrostatic precipitators
appear to be not very efficient when applied to nonferrous plants. Baghouses
generally have overall efficiencies over 99% for the source types contained
in the data base. Wet scrubbers are applied mostly in the chemical industry
38
-------
TABLE 7. AVERAGE TOTAL INLET AND OUTLET MASS CONCENTRATION (ng/nm3) AND OVERALL COLLECTION EFFICIENCY ACCORDING TO SOURCE TYPE AND CONTROL DEVICE TYPE
1* Stationary combus- Coal-fired utility boiler
t ion sources Oil— fired uti lity boiler
Coal-fired industrial
boiler
2. Iron and steel Open hearth furnace
plants Electric arc furnace
Gray iron foundry
3. Nonferrous plants Cu converter
Cu roast ing/ reverber at ory
furnace
Zn roaster
Zn sintering
Pb sintering
t*> Pb blast furnace
Al reduction cells
Zn coker plant
Zn vertical retort
4. Asphalt plants Asphalt aggregate drying
5. Pulp and paper Kraft mill recovery
industry furnace
6. Chemical industry Phosphate rock calciner
Pot ash dryer
Salt dryer
Urea prilling
7. Other Municipal incinerator
Dust feeder
Cotton gin
Inlet
3.016E6
2ni i pft
• Ul 1C.D
1.333E6
-
2.028E6
2.619E5
3.394E6
-
_
8.226E4
-
-
-
8.225E6
.
-
-
-
.
.
ESP
1.421E4
_
1.147E4
-
2.563E5
if
1.266E5
1.409E6
-
.
8.53E2
-
-
-
1.319E5
.
-
-
-
_
.
Conventional
scrubber Novel scrubber Baehouse Other
•P Inlet
92.9 1.593E6
_
99.1
— 2 660E6
85.9
51.7
58.5
-
.
99.0
-
-
5.183E7
84.0
2.220E4
8.024E5
- 1.173E5
- 2.572E4
-
-
1.641E4
6.819E4 92.3 7.448E5 3.138E4 95.8 9.573E6 1.444E4 99.7 Cyclone 4.101E6 2.162E6
- - - 4.574E5 1.613E4 98.5
2.824E6 2.922E3 99.9 1.324E5 1.40E2 99.9
J.164E6 2.767E4 97.6 - - - - -
--.-.-.. ..
------ ...
- - - - 5.259E5 1.806E3 99.7
- - - - 1.658E4 7.295E3 56.0
........ ..
... - - Unknown - 4.130E5
2.856E5 - - -
8.037E4 99.8 - - - Afterburner - *
-------- - -
-------- - -
2.185E5 72.8 ------ --
9.966E3 91.7 ------ --
1.703E4 33.8------ --
1.163E5 ------- - -
7.141E5 5.241E4 92.7 ... -
2.330E3 85.8 ------ - -
•n
47.3
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
~
-
-
Note: Averages account for missing data.
* Bad data.
-------
where gaseous pollutants occur along with particulates. The scrubbers tested
do not appear to be very efficient in removing submicron particles. Novel
scrubbers tested thus far exhibit superior collection performance as compared
to conventional scrubbers.
40
-------
SECTION 7
ASSESSMENT OF CUREENT LEVEL OF FINE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
The quantity of particulate emitted from a source to the atmosphere de-
pends upon whether the source is controlled or uncontrolled, the type of con-
trol device(s) used, and the percentage of time the control device(s) is (are)
in operation when the source is in operation.
All of the FPEIS data were obtained on controlled sources. Furthermore,
almost all of the data were obtained with inertial impactors.
The present FPEIS data classified according to source type and control
device type are shown in Table 6 (page 31). As has been pointed out, there are
many data gaps, and a comprehensive assessment of the level of fine particu-
late emissions is difficult. However, some general conclusions can be drawn
from the available data.
The inlet and outlet average total mass concentrations of each source/
control device type are shown in Table 7. Here, one can see that the inlet
mass concentration averages are of the order of 10 |ig/dnm , and the outlet
mass concentration averages are of the order of 10 (ig/dnm^. Nonferrous plants
tested have relatively low inlet mass concentrations and relatively high out-
let mass concentrations. Particulates emitted from these sources are predomi-
nantly submicrometer in size, and their removal with conventional devices is
difficult. Chemical processes form particulates varying widely in particle
size depending upon input materials and reaction conditions.
Figures in Appendix A summarize all the FPEIS data. For each test series,
all the inlet particle size distributions (AM/Alog V versus log Da,.) are
clc clG
plotted on one figure, and all the outlet particle size distributions are
plotted on another figure. Since this type of graphical display is rather new,
information regarding construction and interpretation is given at the beginning
of Appendix A.
In Appendix A, figures showing particle size distributions are arranged
in the order of their test series. However, arranging the inlet plots accord-
ing to the source type shows the general characteristics of each source type.
Coal-fired power boilers and coal-fired industrial boilers are characterized
by predominantly large particulates and high total mass concentration. Oil-
fired boilers on the other hand are characterized by relatively low mass con-
centration and a peak in the mass distribution function between 1 and 10 (j-m
particle diameter.
41
-------
Metallurgical operations are generally characterized by particles pre-
dominantly in the submicrometer range. Their mass distribution function peaks
around 1 M-m.
Asphalt aggregate drying generates very coarse particulate because of
mechanical attrition of the rock within the dryer.
The particle size distributions at the outlets depend upon the source
and control device(s) used. Conventional control devices are generally effec-
tive in removing the coarse particles and ineffective in removing the sub-
micrometer particles. Therefore, the particle distributions at the outlet of
these devices generally tend to peak around 1 p-m.
42
-------
SECTION 8
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT FPEIS DATA BASE
The present FPEIS data classified according to source type and control
device type have been shown in Table 6. There are a total of 717 runs. Nearly
half of the runs pertain to coal-fired boilers. Almost all of the present data
were collected with inertial impactors. The quality of particle size distribu-
tions was discussed in Section 5*
Inadequacies in nearly every aspect of the reported data severely restrict
the accuracy as well as the comprehensiveness of the data base. Major deficien-
cies are:
* Information such as process operating conditions, and control equipment
description is missing in many test reports.
* Most test reports do not have any information on the sampling location,
except that it is the inlet or outlet of the control device.
* The particle physical properties such as particle density and resistiv-
ity are important parameters of aerosols. These are not available in
many instances.
* The particle bioassay data are presently nonexistent.
* Information on the chemical composition of the particulates as a func-
tion of the particle size is very limited in scope. For most sources
of interest, data are nonexistent.
* There are at present no standard procedures for particle sizing in
process streams. Many subjective judgments are involved in making
measurements.
* Impactors used in collecting the data are frequently not calibrated.
In summary, the current FPEIS data base contains limited data on some
important source/collector combinations. The quality of data is generally as
good as the state of the art of source testing.
43
-------
SECTION 9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A computerized Fine Particulate Emissions Information System has been de-
veloped. At the present time, only a limited quantity of data exists in the
data base. Because of inadequate data, an accurate and comprehensive survey
of the applicability and effectiveness of particulate control technology, and
an assessment of the current level of fine particulate emissions could not be
made. However, the available data are adequate to make a preliminary study of
some important source/collector combinations.
The present data indicate that the inlet mass concentration averages are
of the order of 10" |-ig/dnm , and the outlet mass concentration averages are
^,0
of the order of 10 ng/dnm . Particle size distribution data indicate that
for coal-fired boilers the particle sizes are distributed over a wide range,
with most of the mass associated with large particles. Oil-fired boilers, and
metallurgical plants emit significant amounts of fine particulates. Asphalt
aggregate drying generates a very high concentration of coarse aerosol. Chem-
ical processes form particles whose size depends on the feed material and re-
actions involved.
The principal recommendations for improving the quality of the data base
ares
1. Active data acquisition effort should continue with updates to the
data base being made on a regular basis.
2. Encourage source testing groups to review their data as contained in
the FPEIS and complete missing data elements to the extent possible.
3. Obtain and analyze user requests, requirements, problems, and input.
4. Continue improvement of data input sheets.
5. Distribute FPEIS Data Input Forms to source testing groups and urge
their usage. Use of the forms will minimize data coding errors and reduce the
delay between data generation and data entry into the FPEIS.
44
-------
6. Field testing on carefully selected source/collector combinations
should be a major activity for the improvement of the existing data base.
7. Studies and surveys should be conducted to determine the operational
reliability of various control devices so an accurate emissions inventory can
be made.
8. Calibrations for the impactors used in source testing should be
obtained.
45
-------
Table 8. CONVERSION FACTORS
Metric unit
Atmospheres
C
cc
cm2
Jueles
kg/m3
kg-cal
kg-m
km
kw
kw-hr
liters
liter s/min
m
m/min
mg
mm
m2
tons (me trie)
w
Multiply by
2.992 x 101
(c x 9/5) + 32
6.102 x ID'2
1.550 x 10'1
9.486 x 10"4
6.243 x lO'2
4.186
9.296 x 10'3
6.214 x 10"1
5.692 x 101
3.6 x 106
3.531 x 10"2
5.886 x 10'4
3.281
5.468 x ID'2
1.5432 x W2
3.937 x W2
1.076 x 101
2.205 x 103
3.4129
To obtain English equivalent
in. Hg (at 0°C)
F
in.3
sq in.
Btu
lb/ft3
kJ
Btu
miles (statute)
Btu/min
J
ft3
ft3/sec
ft
ft/sec
grains
in.
sq ft
pound s
Btu/hr
46
-------
REFERENCES
1. Guide for Compiling a Comprehensive Emission Inventory (Revised), APTD-
1135. EPA, Office of Air and Water Programs, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March
1973.
2. SAROAD Parameter Coding Manual. APTD-0633, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
3. Baladi, E. 1975. Particle Size Distribution Tests for Beker Industries
Corporation. Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Beker Industries
Corporation, Conda, Idaho. May 1975.
4. Bosch, J. C., M. J. Pilat, and B. F. Hrutfiord. 1971. Size Distribution
of Aerosols From a Kraft Mill Recovery Furnace. Tappi, November 1971.
54(11):1871-1875.
5. Bradway, R. M., and R. W. Cass. 1975. Fractional Efficiency of a Utility
Boiler Baghouse—Nucla Generating Plant. EPA Publication No. EPA-600/2-
75-013-a. August 1975.
6. Calvert, S., N. C. Jhaveri, and S. Yung. 1974. Fine Particle Scrubber Per-
formance Tests. EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-093. October 1974.
7. Cooper, D. W. 1975. Pentapure Impinger Evaluation. EPA Publication No.
EPA-650/2-75-024-a. March 1975.
8. Cooper, D. W., and D. P. Anderson. 1974. Dynactor Scrubber Evaluation.
EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-083. September 1974.
9. Cowherd, C., Jr., M. Marcus, C. M. Guenther, and J. S. Spigarelli. 1975.
Hazardous Emission Characterization of Utility Boilers. EPA Publication
No. EPA-650/2-75-066. July 1975.
10. Environmental Protection Agency. Asphalt Roofing Dryer/Afterburner Test
Data—Celotex Plant, Goldsboro, North Carolina.
11. Gooch, J. P., and J. D. McCain. 1975. Particulate Collection Efficiency
Measurements on a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. EPA Publication No.
EPA-650/2-75-033. March 1975.
47
-------
12. Harris, D. B., and D. C. Drehinel. 1973. Fractional Efficiency of Metal
Fume Control as Determined by Brink Impactor. APCA Paper No. 73-324,
66th Annual Meeting. June 24-28, 1973.
13. Harris, D. B., and J. A. Turner. 1973. Particulate and S02/S03 Measure-
ments Around an Anthracite Steam Generator Baghouse at Pennsylvania
Power and Light Company. Sunbury Steam Electric Station, Shamokin Dam,
Pennsylvania. EPA, Office of Research and Development, CSL, RIP,
North Carolina. November 1973.
14. Lee, R. E., Jr., H. L. Crist, A. E. Riley, and K. E. MacLeod. 1975. Concen-
tration and Size of Trace Metal Emissions From a Power Plant, a Steel
Plant, and a Cotton Gin. Environ. Sci. and Tech. July 1975. 9(7):643-647.
15. McCain, J. D. 1975. Evaluation of Centrifield Scrubber. EPA Publication
No. EPA-650/2-74-129-a. June 1975.
16. McCain, J. D. 1974. Evaluation of Aronetics Two-Phase Jet Scrubber. EPA
Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-129. December 1974.
17. McCain, J. D., and W. B. Smith. 1974. Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro Air
Cleaning System Evaluation. EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-028. April
1974.
18. McGarry, F. J., and C. J. Gregory. 1972. A Comparison of the Size Distri-
bution of Particulates Emitted From Air, Mechanical, and Steam Atomized
Oil-Fired Burners. JAPCA, August 1972. 22(8):636-639.
19. McKenna, J. D. 1974. Applying Fabric Filtration to Coal-Fired Industrial
Boilers—A Preliminary Pilot Scale Investigation. EPA Publication No.
EPA-650/2-74-058. July 1974.
20. McKenna, J. D., J. C. Mycock, and W. 0. Lipscomb. 1975. Applying Fabric
Filtration to Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers—A Pilot Scale Investigation.
EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-058-a. August 1975.
21. Midwest Research Institute. 1975. St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel ,
Project Monthly Report No. 1. Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-
02-1324. January 1975.
22. Midwest Research Institute. 1975. St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel
Project Monthly Report No. 1. Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-
02-1871. March 1975.
23. Midwest Research Institute. 1975. St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel
Project Report. Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-02-1871. September
1975.
48
-------
24. Midwest Research Institute. 1976. St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel
Project Monthly Report No. 11. Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-
02-187U February 1976.
25. Riggenbach, J. D., E. H. Johnson, and M. K. Hamlin. Measurement of Particu-
late Grain Loadings, Particle Size Distribution, and Sulfur Gas Concen-
trations at Hoerner Waldorf's Pulp and Paper Mill No. 3 Recovery System,
Vols. I, II, and IV. Prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering,
Inc., for EPA under Contract No. 68-02-0232.
26. Shannon, L. J., M. P. Schrag, F. I. Honea, and D. Bendersky. 1974.
St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Firing Demonstration Air Pollution Test
Report. EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-073. August 1974.
27. Statnick, R. M. 1974. Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate and
Trace Elements in Copper Smelter Converter and Roaster/Reverberatory Gas
Streams, EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-111. October 1974.
28. Statnick, R. M., and D. C. Drehmel. 1975. Fine Particle Control Using
Sulfur Oxide Scrubbers. JAPCA, June 1975. 25(6):605-609.
29. Toca, F. M. 1972. Lead and Cadmium Distribution in the Particulate Ef-
fluent From a Coal-Fired Boiler. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Iowa. July
1972.
30. Yost, K. J., et al. The Environmental Flow of Cadmium and Other Trace
Metals. Progress Report NSF (RANN) Grant GI-35106, Purdue University.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOTS
51
-------
The standard output of the FPEIS includes a plot of particle size distri-
bution data for each test subseries. In this plot, the mass (AM/Alog Dae)f sur'
face (AS/Alog Dae), and number (AN/Alog Dae) distributions are plotted as a
function of particle aerodynamic diameter, Dae. However, for the purpose of
summarizing the FPEIS data for each test series, all the inlet mass distribu-
tions are plotted on one page, and all the outlet mass distributions are
plotted on another page. The following discussion will be helpful in the in-
terpretation of the summary plots.
Figure A-l shows a lognormal inlet mass distribution ("X = 1 p,m; CTg = 3)
of a hypothetical source/collector combination. The quantity of interest is
mass per unit volume within a size range. Since the particle size ranges over
four decades, we have to use a log^Q scale on the abscissa. Furthermore, as
there is no mass concentration associated with a given size, we need to select
AM/Alog Dae on the ordinate as suggested by the following equation.
Mass within a
given size range
If we divide the above equation by total mass concentration, the right-hand
side then represents the fraction of mass within a given size range, and the
distribution function density (AM/Alog Dae) becomes dimensionless. By plotting
AM/Alog Dae on a linear scale and D on a log scale, the area under the curve
represents the fraction of mass within any size range. The mode or the mean
of this curve as well as the percentage mass within a given size range can be
visually estimated and easily interpreted, which is the primary purpose of such
graphs.
Another useful feature of the present plots results from normalization
of ordinate AM/Alog Dae by the total mass of the distribution. If we draw in-
let and outlet distributions with one scale (i.e., divide the ordinate with
a constant scale factor) the outlet distribution will usually be very close
to the abscissa and cannot reveal all its features. However, by choosing the
total mass as the scale factor, the effect of mass concentration on the plots
is eliminated, and inlet and outlet size distribution curves show only rela-
tive mass concentrations. As shown in Figure A-2, if the control device frac-
tional efficiency is independent of particle size, the inlet and outlet par-
ticle size distribution will be the same, and normalizing ordinates with total
mass concentration makes the inlet and outlet particle size distribution curves
coincide. So, we find that normalized size distribution curves will coincide
with each other (irrespective of total mass concentration) when their size
distributions are the same, and vice versa.
For summarizing the size distribution data of each test series, all inlet
mass distributions are plotted on one page, and all the outlet mass distribu-
tions are plotted on another page. However, instead of using total mass of
52
-------
1.00
0.75
Q.
Q
o
o
I
Q
O 0.50
ID
Ul CO
CO
Q
1/1
0.25
(IT
DM
Log Dp
) (D Log Dp) = DM Mass Within a
Given Size Range
3)( ) = (M9/m3)
Inlet Mass Distribution
/Log Normal with
\ x = 1/im, ag
ith \
= 3 /
Fraction of Mass
Within the Size Range
Total Area Under
the Curve Gives the
Total Mass Concentration
0
0.10
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER ( ftM)
Scale: 1 = Total Mass Concentration (/xg/m )
Figure A-l. Inlet Mass Distribution of a Hypothetical Source/Collector Combination
10.00
-------
1.00
0.75
g
5
03
fc 0.50
Ui
0.25
-Control Device
Fractional Efficiency
Inlet Mass Distribution
Log Normal wit
X = \JJLtn, CTg
W1 1UI1
ith \
l = 3/
—r
o.io
Scale: Mass Distribution: 1 - 2.000E + 06
1.00
10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-2. Inlet and Outlet Mass Distributions of a Hypothetical Source/Collector Combination With
Collector Having a Constant Fractional Efficiency of 80%
-------
each distribution as the normalizing factor, twice the average total mass of
all runs in a given test series is used. This type of plot shows variation in
total mass concentration as well as size distribution* For example, Figure
A-3 shows three inlet size distribution curves whose total mass concentrations
are different but size distribution is the same. Notice that the shapeof the
curves is similar due to same size distribution, but the three curves do not
coincide with each other because of total mass concentration differences. Of
course, if both size distribution and total mass concentration are different
for these runs, the shape as well as the location of these curves change.
In the summary plots (Figures A-4 to A-94) the individual points and an
average eye fit curve is plotted. The shape of the eye fit curve indicates
the average size distribution, and the scale shows twice the average total
mass concentration of all runs plotted on a given page. These curves are, of
course, subject to all of the limitations of eye-fit curves. They are intended
merely to show trends. Application of an appropriate analytical technique is
necessary to obtain a statistically accurate curve if detailed evaluations are
desired.
55
-------
1.00
0.75
O
o
:5
CO
GO
Q
CO
CO
0.50
0.25
Total Mass Concentration
6.0 E+ 6
4.0 E+ 6
2.0 E+ 6
0
0.10
1.00
10.00
3 PARTICLE DIAMETER
Scale: Mass Distribution: 1 -4.0E + 6p.g/m
Figure A-3» Three Inlet Mass Distributions of a Hypothetical Source/Collector Combination
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 1
1.00 »«»++»+»»*+++++++<
INLET
DATE:
/ /
1
1 Zn Roaster
1
FROM
TO
>*»»+»»»»+»*
.75 * —
H *
A »
S *
S »
»
0 +
I +
S »
T »
. .50 »
.25 * —
0.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
SCALES=
NO.DIST: i- P.HRE + O/ SUR.DIST: i- 8.f.ooE+06 MASS OIST: i- 5.237E
Figure A-4. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 1
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 1
1.00 «++»»*»»««+»+»*»*»»<
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Zn Roaster
1
1 Wet ESP
1
.75 * —
M
A
S
s
D
I
S
T
00
.50 +
0.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
10.00
SCALES= NO.DIST: 1- 1.^14E*07 SUR.DIST: 1- 4.4f>7F>06
Figure A-5. Outlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 1
MASS OIST: 1- 2.532E»05
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 2
1.00 »»»*»»+»++*«+»+<
+++«+++
INLET DATE: / / FROM
+»»»+l4+»»+t»»4*»**»*+»*+»++»»»»*»**»
TO
Cu Converter
.75 »—
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 *
.25 » —
* 1
+ 1
+ 1
0.00 »*»+»»»»»»»»+»++5++*++**»+»»l+»«»*»<
.10
1.00
PARTICLF DIAMETER (UM)
10.00
SCALES= NO.DIST: 1- 3.?64E*Oft SUR.DIST: 1- 4.253E»06 MASS DISTt 1- 5.910E»05
Figure A-6. Inlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 2
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «•+»»»»»*
OUTLET
DATE:
1 Cu Converter
1
/ /
FROM
TO
1 Wet ESP
1
.75 +~
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
g
.50 «
4
.25 4-
0.00
1
1
1
l»+
.10
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
1
1
1
+ »1
10.00
4444444444^
SCALES= NO.DIST: 1- 3.B3BE+06 SUR.HIST: 1- l.n56E*06 MASS OIST: 1- 9.393E*04
Figure A-7. Outlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 2
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»» + »»»
INLET
DATE:
FROM
>++++»»+»»»»++1+»+»»+»+++«»+»»»+<
1
1 Zn Sintering
1
TO
>•»*»»»•»»
.75 * —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 »
.25 » —
0,00
SCALES=
1
1
1
.10
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER CUM)
10.00
NO.DIST: 1- 1.R69E+08 SUR.OIST: 1- 7.732E»07 MASS DIST: 1- 6.788E«06
Figure A-8. Inlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 3
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 3
OUTLET DATE: / /
FROM
TO
1*00 4444444444444444444444444444\444444444444444444444444444444444444444l444444444444444444444444444444444444444l444444444444
+ 1 1 1 »
+ 1 Zn Sintering 1 Dry ESP 1 »
+ 1 1 1 »
4 *
.75 4 —
.50 *-
*
.as 4 —
0.00 4444*444444444445444444444
44144444444444444444444
»44444444j444<
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
444444444444»4444444444444
1 4
1 »
1 4
K + * + ** + l**+ + * + **» + + J>
10.00
SCALES=
NO.OIST! 1- 5.437E407 SUR.OIST: 1- 2.fl'»7E407 MASS GIST: 1- 2.818E406
Figure A-9. Outlet Size Distribution of Test Series No. 3
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»*»»»»«
INLET
DATE:
/ /
FROM
TO
1 Pb Sintering
1
.7b + —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
ON
.50 *
.25 * —
0«00
SCALES=
.10
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER UJM)
10.00
NO.DIST: i- i.5iaE»o7 SUR.OIST: i- ^.AOIE+O^ MASS DIST: i- i.o53E*o6
Figure A-10. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 4
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 4
1.00 »»»»++»»»+»+»+«+<
.75 »—
M +
A «
S »
S +
+
0 +
I +
S »
T »
. .50 +
.35 + —
0.00
OUTLET DATE: / /
1
1 Pb Sintering
1
FROM
TO
1 Baghouse (Orion)
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
10.00
SCALES=
NO.GIST: 1- 3.782E+04 SUR.OIST: 1- 3.54
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»+»»»»«
INLET
DATE:
/ /
FROM
TO
,75 + —
M »
A »
S *
S *
+
D *
I »
S *
T »
. .50 »•
*
1 Pb Blast Furnace
1
0*00 **++*+++++*++***5+++++**+
»*» 1+»»»+»»»»»+»++»»*+
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
SCALES=
NO.DIST: 1- 3.415E+05 SUR.DIST: 1- 2.054E»05 MASS DIST: 1- 3.315E*04
Figure A-12. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 5
-------
TEST SERIES NO!
1.00 *»»»
OUTLET DATE: / /
Pb Blast Furnace
FROM
TO
1 Baghouse (wool felt)
1
.75 * —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 *
.25 + —
0.00
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
10.00
SCALES=
NO.DIST: i- i.7ooE+(K SUR.DIST: i- 6.640E*o« MASS OIST: i- 1.459E+04
Figure A-13. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 5
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 6
1*00 +* + + + + + + + + + * + •*
INLET
DATE: 9/37/73
FROM 19!
1 Cu Roaster and Reverberator/ Furnace
1
TO 33!
M
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
.75 »-
*
.50 +
.25 +--
0.00
SCALES=
» 1
* 1
* 1
.10
1 1
1 1
1 1
1.00 10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER 9?F.*06 MASS OIST: 1- 4.294E»05
Figure A-14. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 6
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 6
1.00 +++»»»»++»+»»»+»+<
OUTLET
1
DATE:
/ /
FROM
1 Co Roaster and Reverberator/ Furnace
1
TO
Dry ESP (pipe) and Parallel Type ESP
.75 »—
H
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
°* .
0> '
.50 »
.25 + —
0.00
.10
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
10.00
SCALES=
NO.OT.ST: i- ?.9a*>E*o7 SUR.DIST: i- 9.23?E»06 MASS HIST: i- 5.BieE»05
Figure A-15.. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 6
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 7
1.00 »+++»»*»+»**»»»<
INLET DATE: 9/26/73 FROM 13:20 TO 16:15
+»»»l+»«+*+++»+»»+»+++4+»»»*+++»»+»»+++++»»»1»+»»»»++**
.75 *--
H
A
S
s
D
I
S
T
.50 «
.25 * —
»+*+»»+++*<
0.00 »+<
SCALES=
1 Cu Converter
1
,10
1.00
10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER
NO.OIST: 1- 2.R1?E»06 SUR.OIST: 1- 1.3flOE»07 MASS DIST: 1- 7.522E*06
Figure A-16. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 7
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 **«
OUTLET
DATE: 9/26/73
FROM 13:20 TO 16:15
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
S-
.75 + —
»
.50 »
.25 + —
0.00
1 Cu Converter
1
j Plate Type ESP
1
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER <(JM)
10.00
SCALES=
NO.DIST: 1-
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »*.*«»»<
INLET
DATE! I?/ 7/73
FROM
TO
>!...4,.....,....»»,
1
1 Open Hearth Furnace
M
M
.75 • —
.50 *
.25 « —
0.00
M
H
H
M
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
.in
M 1
I
M 1
1 .on
PARTICLE DIAMETFH (UM)
M «
M *
SCALES=
NO.DIST: i- 7.*«iF»n7 SUP.DIST: i- i.i<»?E»o7 MASS OIST: i
Figure A-18. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 8
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *»«««»««
OUTLET
DATE: 12/ 7/73
FROM
TO
1 Open Hearth Furnace
1 Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro Scrubber
1
.75 »—
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 »
ro
.25 «--
0.00
PAPTICLE DIAMETER (UM|
SCALF.S =
NO.OIST: i- n.ni?E»o5 SUR.DIST: i- 4.«7?E*o* MASS DIST: i- 5.fl»*E»03
Figure A-19. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 8
-------
TEST SERIES NO
1.00
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
.75 » —
H
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
0.00
1 .00
PAPTICLF OIAMETF.P (UMI
SCALFS=
NO.DIST: I-
I-
MASS OIST: 1- 1.4?flF»06
Figure A-20. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 9
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 9
*
*
+
*
»
+
OUTLET DATE: / /
1
1 Dust Feeder
1
FROM ! TO
M 1
M
H
M
M
'•
Dynactor Scrubber
M
H
M
M
1 »
1 *
1 «
*
*
+
.75 « —
M
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
.50 »
.25 * —
0.00
SCALES=
P«PTICLR DIAMETEH
NO.OIST: 1- 4.«S3E»n5 SUR.DIST: 1- 6.??flE»OS MftSSOIST: 1- 1.0«flP«05
Figure A-21. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 9
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 10
1.00 ».«»»»**»»»»»<
OUTLET
DATE: 5/13/T*
FROM
TO
.75
H
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
Ui
.50
.25
0.00
1 Asphalt Roofing
1
1 Afterburner
1
SCALES*
, 10
1.00
PAPTlCLf DIAMETER (IJM|
10.00
NO.DIST: 1- 1.470E»0? SUR.DIST: 1- 1.?<>«E»03 MASS OIST: 1- *.9BOE«0?
Figure A-22. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 10
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «»«»»»*4
11
INLET DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler
1
4
.75 *•
M
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
a*
.50 »
.85 *--
0.00
SCALES=
*
»
+
1 ^ — iL ,_— • --"^ 1
1 M 1
1 1
.10 1.00
1
1
1
10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETFH (UMI
: i- ?.493£*o9 SUR.DIST: i- I.«»ORE»OB MASS DIST: i- 3.i39E»o7
Figure A-23. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 11
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 11
1.00 *»««,#.,«»»..
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
.75
H
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50
.85
0.00
1
1 Pulverized Cool-Fired Boiler
1
, Doghouse
I Bulked weave, gloss fiber
bags with a teflon finish
.10
1 .00
PAPTICLE OIAMETEH <(JM)
10.00
SCALES=
NO.niST: 1-
SDR.niST: 1- 3.
MASS DIST: 1- ?.*?3E»0*
Figure A-24. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 11
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «»»»»**«
l^
INLET
RATE:
FROM
TO
1
1 Coal Fired Industrial Boiler
1
,75 »--
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
••J . .50
00
.25 « —
0.00
.10
i .on
PAMTICIF. DIAMF.TFP (IJMJ
in.on
SCALFS=
1-
SUR.DIST: i-
M&SS HIST: 1- ft.57?F»OS
Figure A-25. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 12
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»«»*»««
OUTLET HATE:
FROM
TO
1
1 Cool Fired Industrial Boiler
1
1 Nomex Baghouse
1 M
1
.75 » —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50
,?5 *--
0.00
« 1
» 1
• 1
.in
1 1
1 M 1
1 1 M
i .on 10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER I I)M)
SCALES=
NO.OIST: i-
MA5S DISTt 1- 3.16*E*03
Figure A-26. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 12
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»«««»<
13
INLET
PATE:
FROM
TO
> 1 »»»»«•»•**« + <
1
1 Utility Boiler
1
.75 •--
00
O
.50 «
.25 *--
0.00
1
1
1
>«*t»«4
10.00
i .on
PARTICLF DIAMF.TFH
SCALtS=
NO.OIST: 1- ft.fi07F»OiS
SUP.niST: 1-
M&5S DIST: 1- 8.201F»06
Figure A-27. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 13
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»»«»»«
13
OUTLFT
DATE:
FROM
TO
>],»«.,,««*
1
1 Cyclone
1
1 Utility Boiler
.75 * —
00
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 »
.25 «--
0.00
1 1 .X^"
» 1 1 JJX"'^
* 1 _M : M M -t — *M
.in l .no
1
1
1
10.00
"AWTICLF DIAMFTER (l)M)
SCALES=
NO.DI<;T: i- n.isnF«o(s
SUP. HIST: i-
OIST: i- *.3?3F*06
Figure A-28. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 13
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»»«««<
INLFT
DATF! S/?3/
FROM
TO
Cool-Fired Power Boiler
M
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
oo
NJ
.75 «--
.50 •-
.25 »--
0.00
» 1 M ]
* • 1 M 1
* 1 1
.in i .00
1
1
1
10.00
SCALES=
P«PT ICI F
NO.01ST! 1- I.OS^F'OT miR.DIST: 1- l.?5?E»07 MASS DFST: 1- 1.490E»06
Figure A-29. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 15
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 **+»«*»*
OUTLET
DATE!
FROM
TO
>!*«»«,»«,*«»«,«,»«»..
1
1 Coal-Fired Power Boiler
1
>1*.«••«.«««*«
1
1 TCA Scrubber
1
.75
M
A
S
S
0
I
s
T
00 .
Co
.50
0.00
1
1
1
>!.*<
. in
1
1
1
.«.!*»«
10.00
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (l)M)
SCALES=
NO.niSTt 1- ?.07«E»nft
SIIP.ntST: 1-
MASS niST: 1- 6.276E«0*
Figure A-30. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 15
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «+«*»+»«,
16
TNLET
DATE:
/ /
FROM
TO
1 Cool-Fired Power Boiler
1
M
A
S
s
D
I
S
T
,75 »--
.50 »
.25 * —
0.00
1
1
1
>!«*<
.10
1
1
1
4)«»».
1 .00
HIM)
1
1
1
»»«14»«
10.00
P4RTICLF
SCALFS=
: i-
i-
MASS OIST: i- i.?33F»Oh
Figure A-31. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 16
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *»**«»»«.
16
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
K14444444444444444444
1
1 Coal-Fired Power Boiler
1
.75
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50
OD
0.00
Venruri Scrubber
.in
i .no
PAPTICLE DIAMETER (U")
10.00
SCALES=
NO.D1ST! 1- l.'31?F»0'>
SUR.DIST: i- i.7
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 +•»»»+»«
17
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1
1 Oil Fired Power Boiler
1
.75 «--
H
A
S
s
0
I
s
oo
.50
.as «--
o.oo
« 1
« 1
* 1
.10
1 1
1 1
1 1
1.00 10.00
SCALES=
PAPTICLE DIAMETER
: i- s.R?iF>ns SIIR.DIST: i- i.ii6E*oA MASS OIST: i- i.ni9F»05
Figure A-33. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 17
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»»**»»<
17
OUTLET DATE: / /
FROM
TO
.75 —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
00.
0.00
SCALf.S =
1 Oil Fired Power Boiler
1
1 Venrurl MgO Scrubber
1
.10
PAKTICLE
10.00
NO.DIST: 1- l.f,q9E«nf> SIIP.niST: 1- ?.3^7F»Of, MASS OIST: 1- 3.?fllF»05
Figure A-34. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 17
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »*»»***«
IB
INLET DATE: &/ 4/73 FROM
TO
1 Pulp and Paper mi 11 Recovery Boiler
H M
M
.75 * —
M
A
S
s
D
I
S
T
00 .
00
.50 *
0.00
SCALES=
M
M
MM
+
+
*
1
1 MM
1 MM
.in
MM M
M MM
1
1
1 M
1 .00
M
M
M
M 1
1
M 1
10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER
-------
TEST SERIES NO: IB
OUTLET DATE: 6/ 4/73 PROM
TO J
1.00 ******«*************«*******|***«*«********»******«******«*******«**1******«*****************«*********«****1************
Ml 1 1 «
1 Pulp and Paper mi 11 Recovery Boiler JESP M 1 *
1 1 1 «
.75
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
oo
.85
0.00
i.oo
OIAMtTER
10.00
SCALES=
Mn.nisT: 1-
SUR.niST! 1-
MASS DIST: i- a.f>3RE»o5
Figure A-36. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 18
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»«»»»»<
INLET
DATE: 12/13/73
FROM
TO
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
.75 »—
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
vO
O '
.50 »
.35 »—
0.00
.10
1 ^^^
_—- r'M* M
1 .00
1M
1
1
10.00
PAPTICLF. DIAMETFR
SCALES=
NO.DIST: 1- f,.0?lF.»07
M)«.HIST: 1-
MASS r>isT: 1- ?.735F»06
Figure A-37. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 19
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ««»*»»»+
19
OUTLET DATE: l?/13/73
FROM
TO
1 Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
1
.75 «•
»
H
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 •
0.00
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
H
»
PAPTICLE D1«MFTF« (UM)
NO.DIST: 1-
SUR.niST: 1- T.11flF»OS
MASS DIST: 1- l.»3AF»05'
Figure A-38. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 19
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *»»»»+*<
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Ferro-Alloy Electric Arc Furnace
.75 *--
\O
K3
.SO
0.00
• 5M-
.10
M
M
M
M
PAWTICLE DIAMETER (l/M)
SCALES=
i- ?.4fl8E«or
SUR.OIST: i- 5.?(m»of,
MASS OIST: 1- 2.327E«06
Figure A-39. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 20
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 20
1.00 ».»*«»»»**»*«<
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
>l*«»«»»«+«..«»«,*»•»,»»»»»«
1
1 Ferro-Alloy Electric Arc Furnace
.75
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50
0.00
SCALF S =
.10
1 Aronetics Two-Phase Jet Scrubber
1
•«!»»«
1.00
PAMTICI.F DIAMF.TFR
10.00
ST: i- ?.«7oF«o'< SDR.OIST: i- *.o
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ««4+»»»4
INLET
DATE: S/29/69
FROM
TO
1 Kraft Mill Recovery Furnace
.75 «—
M
A
S
S
o
I
S
T
.50 »
.35 »—
0.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (l)M)
SCALES=
NO. n 1ST: 1-
«03
SUR.niST: 1- ?.|40E»0.1
MASS OIST: 1- ?.OOOE«0?
Figure A-41. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 21
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »*«*»«»*
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
^ I +**•*•<
1
1 ESP
1
1
1 Kraft Mill Recovery Furnace
1
.75 »—
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
*° .
Oi *
.50 *
.25 *--
0.00
« 1
* 1
1
.in
1
1
1
1 .00
PAPTICLF DIAMETER IIIMI
1
l
l
10.00
SCALES^
NO. 01ST: 1- n.4flOF»01
SUR.niST: 1- *.inOE«n?
MASS HIST: 1- ?.100F»0?
Figure A-42. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 21
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 4«**»»««
INLET
DATE:
FPOM
TO
1 Air Atomized Oil-Fired Boiler
\
M
A
s
s
0
I
s
T
.75 * —
.50 »
0.00
» ] M _
» 1
» 1
. in
— — 1 1
1 1
1 1
l. no 10.00
P«»TICLF DIAMETER
SC4LFS=
NO.DIST: i-
-------
TEST SERIES NO! 23
1.00 »»*«.*»»+*.*».
INLET OftTE:
FROM
TO
' Mechanical Atomized Oil-Fired Boiler
1
.75 * —
M
A
S
S
0
I
s
T
vD *
.50 *
.25 »--
0.00
* 1
* 1
* 1
.in
^^ " !
_^-xx*^ i i
1 .nn 10.00
PAPTICLP niftMETF" (I)M)
5CALES=
SUP.HIST: 1- i.«;osF»oft
DIST: 1- 1.334F;»Ofi
Figure A-44. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 23
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »•««««*»•<
INLET
PATE:
FROM
TO
.75
M
A
s
s
0
I
s
T
.50
00
.25
0.00
Steam Atomized Oil-Fired Boiler
5CALFS=
. 10
1 .on
PAUTICIF. DIAMETER HIM)
10.00
NO.niST: 1- 4.nOHE»07 SUR.OIST: 1- l.fl«4F«07 MASS OIST: 1- 1.031E*07
Figure A-45. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 24
-------
TEST SERIES NO: ?b
1.00 »»»*«+«4**..«.
INLET
DATE :
FPOM
TO
1
1 Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
1
.75 * —
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
\O
vO
.50 *
.25 » —
0.00
SC«LFS=
. 10
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETFW (UM)
10.00
NO.DIST: I- l.H4f)F«OS SIIP.OIST: 1- 1.19f>F»0* MASS HIST! 1- f>.06HE*06
Figure A-46. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 25
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ««««»»««
OUTLFT
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Cool-Fired Utility Boiler
>)«»»*
1
1 ESP
1
.75 »—
M *
A •
S »
S »
4-
0 »
I *
S *
^ T
O • «50 »•
O ,
.25 « —
0.00
1 1
» 1 1
* 1 1
.10 1 .no
1
1
1
10.00
PAPTICLF DI«METE» (IJM)
5CALFS=
NO.niST: 1- 7.S??F»03
SUP.niST: 1- 4,S?<»F«04
MASS DIST: 1- l.B34F»04
Figure A-47. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 25
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 .»»»»»«<
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Electric Arc Furnace
1
.75 • —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 »
0.00
SCALFS=
* 1
« 1
« 1
.10
1 1
1 1
1 1
1.00 10.00
PAPTICLF. DIAMETFP U)M)
: i- ft.7<.«F»o4 SUP.HIST: i- s.floiE«ns MASS OIST: i
Figure A-48. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 26
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «**»»»««
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Electric Arc Furnace
1
Boghouse
.75 »—
O
to
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
. .50
.25 »--
0.00
I
1
1
> 1 « • <
.10
».)»..
1 .no
PAPTICLF DIAMETFP
SCftLFS=
NO.nTST! 1- P.*.r»OF»01
SUR.OIST: 1- fl.400F«01
MASS DIST: 1- 1.600E»01
Figure A-49. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 26
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *.»««»»<
?7
INLFT
DATF :
FROM
>!»»*».»**»«
1
1 Cotton Gin
1
TO
,75 * —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
O
U)
.50 «
0.00
« 1 1
» 1 \
• 1 1
.10 • 1.00
1
1
1
10.00
P«»TICLF OIAMETFR
SC«LFS=
: 1- 4.Q07F.O.T
SIJR.DIST: i-
DIST: 1- 3.?fl?F*04
Figure A-50. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 27
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »+«»«««+.
?7
OUTLFT PATF. : / /
FROM
TO
Cotton G!n
• 1*4..»*«»»**
I
1 Wet Scrubber
.75 * —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50
0.00
l .nn
P&RT1CLF DIAMF.TFW (UH)
10.00
SCALF.S =
NO.OIST: l- i.«ioF.«n?
niST: 1- 4.fi60l:«03
Figure A-51. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 27
-------
TEST SERIES NO: ?fi
1.00 .»*.»»«»»»*»»<
INLET
HATE:
FROM
TO
1 Cool-Fired Utility Boiler
.75 * —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
O
Ln
.50
.25 « —
0.00 *«»»M«
MM—T— MM M
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (IJM)
SCALES=
.10
NO.OIST: 1- 1.47*,r:»n7 SUR.DIST: 1- 5.71flE*06 MASS DIST: 1- 1.112E»07
Figure A-52. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 28
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 +»*+«,»»
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
ESP
.75 «--
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 *
0.00
SCALFS=
*
4
«
1 MM S
1 HK^
1 MM
.in
HIM M
M M M 1 M
1 M M
l .no
M 1
1
1
10.00
PftWTICLE OIAMETFH (DM)
NO.OIST: 1- ?.PiS«F»nf> ^(IH.niST: 1- 7.?5?F«OS MASS DIST: 1- 3.865E»05
Figure A-53. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 28
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 .»+.»«»<
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Cool-Fired Utility Boiler
.75 *--
H
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
S-
.50 +
.25 * —
0.00
SCALES=
S M M
M M .S M
M J*^
^X^M
^^^ M
M 1 MM^HM
i-—""""1^"^ M
1 .00
PAWTICLF DIAMETER HIM)
I
1
1
10.00
.10
NO.DIST: i- ?.707e«oA MIR.OIST: i- ?.990F«ois MASS DIST: i- 4.23*r«o6
Figure A-54. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 29
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ...*.««,
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
1 ESP
1
.75 » —
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
o
00
.50 »
.35 «—
0.00
PArtTICLF DIAMETER HIM)
SCALtS=
NO.niST: 1- S.lflftE»0»i SlJR.niST: 1- f,.704E»OS MASS DIST: 1- 1.370E»05
Figure A-55. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 29
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *»»««»««
30
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
I
I Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
o
vO
.75 * —
.50 «
0.00
SCALtS=
.10
1 .no
PAPTICLF DIAMETFM UJM)
NO.OIST: 1- l.?79E»07 SUR.OTST: 1- T.nS*F»Of. MASS DIST! 1- 5.1flOF»06
Figure A-56. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 30
-------
TEST SERIES NO
1.00
30
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
>«««».««»»*», M««,, »«..».«,»,»,.,«,».»».»««,.,....«,,. ,.«,.,.,.,,«,,,»,,,,«,««,. »*..,*. .•«,»»*!,,».«.»,
1 1 1 H
1 Cool-Fired Utility Boiler ) ESP >
1 1 1 M
M
M
M
H
M H H
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4-
.75 » —
H
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 *
0.00
SCALES=
.in
M H
M
MM
MI
i
1
l .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER HIM)
1
1 M
1 ^^JdMM-^^
^ MM
— " MMM
M
M
M
Ml
1
1
H
M
M
M
M
H H H
1
1
1
M
M H M
10.00
NO.DIST: i- 3.i-m»o6 SIIR.DIST: i- 7.690E«os MASS DIST: i- 5.o87E»os
Figure A-57. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 30
M
H
M
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »*»««*»*.
31
INLET
DATE: 11/20/75
FROM
TO
.75
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50
.25
0.00
1 Coal-Fired Utility Boiler
SCALFS=
1 .0(1
PARTICLF DIAMETER HIM)
10.00
NO.DIST: 1- *.<»07E«Of> SUR.ntST: 1- «.RSOE»Oft MASS DIST: 1- 6.B53E»06
Figure A-58. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 31
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»*««*»»
31
OUTLET
DATE: 11/?0/7S
FROM
TO
1 Coal-Fired UHlity Boiler
1 ESP
1
M
A
S
s
.75 «—
.50 +
0.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER lUM)
SCALKS= NO.DIST: i- ?.?o.iE»of> SDP.DIST: i- i.o*iE*06 MASS DIST: l- 7.950E»os
Figure A-59. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 31
M
•»
M
» 1 . 1 M
» 1 MM Ml
» I Ml
.10 1.00
1
1
1
10.00
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ••»»«*»».
INLFT
DATE:
FROM
TO
.75
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50
.25
0.00
1 Cool-Fired Utility Boiler
1
1
1
> 1 » » <
. in
SCALES=
l .on
PABTICLF DIAMETER (IJM)
10.00
NO.DTST! I- 4.ftflQF»n7 SUR.OTST: 1- !.«4nF»n7 MASS HIST! 1- l.»9?F»06
Figure A-60. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 32
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 33
1.00 »*4«*»»»..»*+«
INLET
DATE: 4/10/75 FROM 15:15 TO 15:17
.75 « —
.50
.25 » —
0.00
1 Phosphate Rock Calciner
.in
M
1
1
10.00
PAPTICLF DIAMETER (UM)
SCALFS=
NO.ntST! 1-
1-
MftSS OIST: 1- *.«40F»04
Figure A-61. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 33
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»**»»**
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
> 1 ,» 4 » »*»« t «,»««*»«.»».
1
1 Aluminum Reduction Cells
1
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
Oi
.75 »--
.50
0.00
M
H
M
M
H
A
/ \
.10
1 M H]M
M 1 M M M 1
1.00 10.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
SCALES=
NO.DIST: i-
: 1- 1.1«5F*OA
MASS OIST: 1- 1 .f>45E»05
Figure A-62. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 34
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»*..»»«
OUTLET
DATE: «/?!/?'.
FROM fl:on TO ?i:nr>
1 Aluminum Reduction Cells
1
1 ESP Preceded by Spray Towers
.75 »—
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50
0.00
PAOTICLE DIAMETEP (MM)
SCALES=
: i- s.pohE'O'. siiR.nrsT: i- 1.^7PF«OA MASS HIST: i- i.70ftE«03
Figure A-63. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 34
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »+*»«»»*.
35
INLET
DATE: 10/37/74
FROM
TO
1
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1
.75 *--
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 •
M
M
M
M /
7
M/
/
MM
M
M
MM
M
.X"
/v
M
M
M
H
M
M
M—
M
M
^*
•^ MM
MM
MM
M
M
MM
0.00
M
1
1
M 1
. 10
MMM
MMM
M
MMM ^M£L— — •
JUU4- — — ~" MMM
MMM M
n,.,«. ..«».«»,....«,.»...««»..*. MMM. ««««M
1 .00
"""^ MMM
MMM
M
MM 1
1M
M 1
10.00
H
PAPT1CLF DIAMFTEW (DM)
SCALES= NO.OI5T: 1- fl..1fi6E»08 SUM.OI5T: 1- l.«9?F»07 MASS OIST: 1- 6.913F.*06
Figure A-64. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 35
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *«»*4»««
OUTLET
DATE: io/?7//4
FROM
TO
Cool-Fired Boiler
1 Doghouse
H
A
S
s
D
I
S
T
.75 »—
.50
0.00
SCALFS=
1 .Oft
PAPTICLF OIAMETFR (UM>
10.00
No.nT<;T: i- i.nnflF»nR SDR.DIST: i- i.?f.?E»of, MASS OIST: i- 3.35?F«o*
Figure A-65. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 35
-------
TtST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»»»*«*»
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1
N
U
M
B
E
R
D
.75 +--
.50 »
0.00
10.00
PAPTICLF
SCALFS=
NO.niST: 1-. «.«f.?E»'lS
Sl.IP.ntST: 1-
MASS DIST: 1- 1.119F»0<»
Figure A-66. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 36
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »««»»*»«
36
OUTLFT
DATES B/?l/74
FROM 10:0"; TO
1 Cool-Fired Boiler
1
1 Nomex Doghouse
.75 »—
H
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
to
O
.50 »
0.00
,10
H M
MM
PAPTICLF DI»METFR (UM>
SCALES=
NO.OlSTt 1- 4.QP7F.04
SUR.DFST: i-
M4«5S OISTt 1- 2.495E»04
Figure A-67. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 36
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »««*«»»<
37
OUTLET DATE: ft/l?/74 EROM 16:00 TO
>]»«*»«•».««•««««
1
1 Cool-Fired Boiler
1
1 Teflon Felt (Style 1) Boghouse
.75 »--
ro
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50
.25 »--
0.00
SCALES=
MM
M
M
PARTICLE DIAMETER HIM)
NO.niST: 1- ?.951F»05 Sl/H.nlST: 1- l.?09E«05 MASS OIST: 1- 7,?1AE«04
Figure A-68. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 37
» 1
« 1
» 1
.10
M 1 MM
M 1
MM M 1
l .no
M
M
M 1
M HIM
1 M
10.00
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «»*«4»*».
38
OUTLFT
DATE:
FROM
TO
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
10
ro
.75 —
0.00
SCALES=
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1
1 Teflon Felt (Style 2) Baghouse
1 .00
PftPTICLF OIAMETEH (DM)
10.00
NO.OIST: 1-
S SUR.niST: 1- l.«7OE»05 MASS DIST! 1- 4.036E»04
Figure A-69. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 38
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *«»*»«»<
39
OUTLET DATE: 7/25/7* FROM 10:30 TO
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1
1 Gore-Tex/Nomex Doghouse
..75 «--
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
ro
OJ
.50 »
0.00
SCALES=
M MM
H M
M
*
«.
*
*
•
*
•
*
*
*
/ M \ M /
M MM/ MM \ M / M M
.x^**"--^ M / M \ /
f * ^SNV s M \_/
M / ^*+jt)tS^ nr
M / M
y/ M M
1 MM ^ItMW 1M M 1 MM
1 MM. • "M M 1 . M 1 M
1 M MM 1 1
.in i .00 lo.oo
PAPTICLF OIAHtTE» (DM)
: i- «.?fiiF»n« sup.ntsr: l- ?.mf>F»04 MASS HIST: i- ?.o<»3E*o*
Figure A-70. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 39
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «»«*4«*«
OUTLET DATE! 8/P9/74 FROM 1*:00 TO t
^4444..444444*
1
1 Drolon Baghouse
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1
,75 » —
to
•P-
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50
M«
M«
M
M
M
M
.25 »--
0.00
PAPTICLF OIAMETEP (MM)
10.00
SCALFS=
I-
SDR.DIST: i- s.
MASS niST: 1- 3.?0?F»OA
Figure A-71. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 40
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *•»«***«
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
.75
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
h-. T
ro .
Oi
.50
0.00
Asphalt Aggregate Dryer
.in
PAPTICLF
SCALFS=
NO.niST: 1- ?.4??F»07
! 1- 3.M7F.07
MASS HIST: 1- 1.037F»Ofl
Figure A-72. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 41
-------
TEST SERIES NO
1.00
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
.75 —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
i- T
M .
.50
0.00
1 Asphalt Aggregate Dryer
i .no
PAPTICIF DTAMFTFW (IIM)
10.00
SCALES=
SUM.OIST: l-
MASS DIST: 1- 1.607F«OS
Figure A-73. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 41
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «*»»«.««*
INLET
DATE: ll/afi/74 FROM
TO
1 Grey Iron Foundry
.75 »--
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 *
0.00
PARTICLE niAMETEH (UM)
SC«LF.S =
NO.niST: 1-
SUR.niST: 1- I.IIIF'OT
MASS HIST: 1- B.lflRF»05
Figure A-74. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 42
-------
TEST SERIES NO!
1.00 »»»»«»«4
OUTLET DATE: n/36/7* FROM
TO
1 Grey Iron Foundry
1 Pentapure Impinger
.75 » —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
N>
OO
.50 »
0.00
.»»!»»<
10.00
SCALFS=
.10
1 .00
PAOTICLE DIAMETF.P
NO.OIST: 1- 1.3?6F»07 SUR.niST: 1- 1.3S9F«07 MASS OIST: 1- 8.310F»05
Figure A-75. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 42
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «**»**«».
OUTLET
DATE: 6/21/73
FROM 1:49 TO
H*»«»**»*».»**«
1
1 Zinc Coker Plant
1
.75
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50
N3
VO
.25
0.00
SCALES=
.10
1.00
PAUTICLF DIAMETER os <;iiR.ni<;T: l- ?.4«iF»o* MASS HIST: i- fl.2MF*05
Figure A-76. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 43
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»*««»».
OUTLFT DATE: 04/01/74 FROM 10:36 TO 1?:10
1
1 Zinc Vertical Retort
1
1 Doghouse
1 M
.75 «—
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
Co
O
,50 «
.25 * —
0.00
1
1
1 .00
PAHTICLF DIAMETER (KM)
10.00
SCALES=
NO.OTST: 1-
1- ?.714F«0
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »»«»«**4
INLET
DATF: Oft/13/74 FROM
TO
>!»,»*»««»»«»..,»».
1
1 Open Hearth Furnace
.75 *--
.50 *
.25 » —
0.00
M M
.10 .
1 .00
PAOTICLE DIAMETER (I)M>
10.00
5CALFS=
NO.DIST: 1-
: 1- ?.1R1F«07
MASS OIST: 1- ?.f.fi7F«06
Figure A-78. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 45
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *»»«*»««.
OUTLFT
HATE:
FROM
TO
Open Hearth Furnace
> \ * * * *
1
1 ESP
1
.75 »—
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 »
0.00
P»»TICLF DIAMETEP (tIM)
SCALES^
10.00
NO.niST: 1- l.?l«E»0'S SDB.niST: 1- ?.*75F»05 MASS OIST: 1- 2.2<>3F»0»
Figure A-79. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 45
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00
OUTLET
BATE: 0<»/?l/73
FROM
TO
.75 —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
U>
LO
.50
.85 —
0.00
1 .00
PARTICLE DIAMETER (UM)
SCALES=
»ns
: i- 7.-n«F»os
MASS DIST: 1- ?.3?5F«05
Figure A-80. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 46
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «»»»»»»•
INLET
DATE: / /
FROM
TO
.75 » —
H
A
S
S
•p- •
.50 «
0.00
SCALfS=
1
1 Urea Prilling Tower
1 .00
DIAMETER tuM>
: i- «5.s4nE«os MASS OIST: \- 5.iA3E»o«
Figure A-81. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 48
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 48
1.00 +»»»»»**+«»»*<
OUTLET
DATE; / /
FROM
TO
1
Urea Prilling Tower
1
1 Volve Troy
.75 » —
M
M
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
0.00
1
1
1 .00
PAPTICLF DIAMETFR (UM)
10.00
SCALFS=
NO.nisT: i- i.«nnF.
SII».niST: 1-
MASS niST: 1- 3.F.*04
Figure A-82. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 48
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 49
1.00 »»»««««*»»«««<
INLET PATE:
FROM
TO
.75
.50
.35
0.00
SCALFS=
1 Potash Dryer
1 .00
P««TICLF OIAMETFR (l)M)
NO.niST! 1- l.^??F»07 SllR.nTST: 1- 1.AS4F.06 MASS DISTt 1- 1.605E»06
Figure A-83. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 49
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 49
OJ
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 »
OUTLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
uu
75
* 1 1
* 1 Potosh Dryer 1 Scrubber
* 1 1
*
*
«•
* M
+
*
+
*
1 *
1 *
1 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
.25 »--
0.00
1
M 1
»««»*.•*.«•••!««»
1 .00
PARTICLF DIAMFTFR HIM)
SCALFS=
. in
10.00
NO.niST: 1- fl.RHSE'O^ SHW.niST: 1- 1.043F»0*> MASS niST: 1- 4.370E»05
Figure A-84. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 49
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »*»..»»«
50
INLET
DATE:
FROM
TO
>!*»,.,..,»*„«»•
1
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1
.75 »—
to
oo
H
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 «
0.00
PAWTICLF DIAMETER
10.00
SCALES=
NO.OI^T: 1-
1- l.SQ7E»06
MASS DIST: 1- *.nOSF+05
Figure A-85. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 50
-------
jo
:1SIU
'98-V
I :iSIU'ON
00*0
OS'
—» Si'
CO
j»qqru3S VDi I
I
j3|iog
.»»«»»»* OOM
:ON S3IU3S 1S31
Oi
/ /
131100
OS
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ««»».»»«.
51
INLET
DATE:
FROM
1
1 Cool-Fired Boiler
1
.75 «--
-P-
O
.50 *
0.00
» 1 1 _-——****• — """"" "
* 1 1 M^--t3
• 1 J»— r"M
.in i.oo
— H l
l
l
10.00
PAWTICLE DIAMETFW
SCALKS=
NO.ni'iT: 1- 7.1«Tt'»n'i
SUH.OIST ! 1- S.Q44E«Of.
MftSS DIST! 1- 7,B47F»06
Figure A-87. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 51
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 *»«»«*««
OUTLET
PATE:
FROM
TO
.!».*».««»*...4.
1
1 M
1 Coal-Fired Boiler
1.**.»»«*«»«»»
1
1 Venruri Scrubber
1
.75 «--
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
.50 «
0.00
« 1
• 1
'
.10
M ] 1
1 M 1
I M 1
1*00 10.00
PAPTICLF DIAMETER (MM)
SCALFS=
SUR.DIST: i- s.i«SF«06
MASS DIST: 1- 3.116F«05
Figure A-88. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 51
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «*»»»«»4
INLFT
P*TE :
FROM
TO
1 Salt Dryer
.75 » —
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
•P-
Ni
.50
.25 «--
0.00
PAUTICLF
SCALfS=
NO.DIST: 1-
l- l.i??F»n«
MASS OIST: 1- 5.996E»03
Figure A-89. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 52
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 5?
1.00 *«*»»»»»»*»*»<
OUTLET DATE: / /
FPOM
TO
1 Salt Dryer
1
1 WeHed Fiber Scrubber
1
.75 * —
M
A
S
S
0
I
S
T
-P-
OJ
.50
MM
M
.25 « —
0.00
10.00
SCALFS=
NO.DI<;T:
SlIP.nlST: 1- 7.77?F»m
MASS HIST: I- *.fl«OF»0?
Figure A-90. Outlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 52
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 ««4«**».
INLET
DATE: / /
FROM
TO
1 Salt Dryer
M
A
S
s
0
I
s
T
.75 » —
.50 »
o.oo
*
*
+
1 M
1 MM^___^
1 M "
.IP
PAHMCI.E DIAf
1
1
1.00
1ETFR (IIM)
I
M 1
M M _i d
10.00
SCAI
NO.OIST : 1- ?. ?'.7F
SIJR.DIST: i-
MASS HIST: 1-
Figure A-91. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 53
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 «««**«*«
OUTLFT
DATE: / X
FROM
TO
1 Salt Dryer
1 Impingement Plate Scrubber
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.75 » —
.50
0.00
SCALf S =
1 .00
PARTICI.F DIAMETER (I.IM)
10.00
NO.HIST: i- ^.??SF«oh SUW.OIST: i- ].i^>iE*n
-------
TEST SERIES NO:
1.00 »*+««»»4
INLET
DATE :
FRO"
TO
1 Iron Wetting Cupola
.75 «--
M
A
S
S
D
I
S
T
.50 »
.25 » —
0.00
SCALF.S =
10.00
NO.ni<;T: 1- 7.171F«fl7 SUP.niST: 1- «.4f>hF«07 MASS OI^T: 1- 5.31'»E»06
Figure A-93. Inlet Size Distributions of Test Series No. 54
-------
TEST SERIES NO: 54
1.00 *+»»».»».+«**<
OUTLET DATE:
FROM
TO
.75
H
A
S
S
D
I
S
.50
.as
o.oo
1 Iron Wetting Cupola
1
. 10
1
Venturi Rod Scrubber
1.00
PARTICLE DIAMETER
-------
APPENDIX B
PARTICULATE SAMPLING AND MEASUREMENT METHODS
148
-------
INTRODUCTION
There are few particle size measuring devices suitable for stack sampling
which are noncontact/nonextractive (transmissometers for instance). Most par-
ticulate size measurement instruments require that the aerosol be sampled and
transported some distance (from the sampling point to the measurement location)
before they are measured. What is required is a representative sample, i.e.,
a sample which is identical with the aerosol from which it was taken, with
respect to the concentration, particle size distribution, chemical composition,
etc. In the following sections the state of the art of aerosol sampling, aero-
sol transport, and aerosol measurement methods are reviewed briefly.
SAMPLING OF AEROSOLS
A representative and accurate sample of an aerosol will be obtained only
if the sample air is withdrawn isokinetically. Under isokinetic sampling, the
velocity (speed and direction) of the sampled air and hence the velocity (speed
and direction) of the particulates approaching the sampler are undisturbed from
their mainstream values. In practice it is very difficult to attain.
Because of the practical importance of accurate particle sampling, many
workers have studied theoretically and empirically the errors arising from
anisokinetic sampling. A recent paper by Fuchs (1) reviews the state of the
art.
When the Reynolds number for particles is less than one, the anisokinetic
errors are a function of two parameters.
The anisokinetic parameter, R = u/Uo,
vs U0
The Stokes number, K = j g
where U = stream velocity
"u = mean suction velocity
Vs = particle sedimentation velocity
d = characteristic length of the system (for a sampling nozzle it
is the I. Do of the nozzle)
g = acceleration of gravity.
The aspiration coefficient, A , is defined as:
A = Ci/C0
149
-------
where C^ = aerosol concentration in the sample
GQ = aerosol concentration in the mainstream
When the sampling probe is parallel to the flow stream lines (i.e., con-
ditions of isoaxiallity are met) and when R = u/U0 < 1 the flow lines diverge
at the entry into the probe, the particles drift under the action of inertia
across the flow lines toward the axis and as a result, the concentration in
the sample becomes larger than in the duct (A > 1). At R> 1 , everything
is reversed and A < !•
For probes with very thin (0.1 mm) walls, the aspiration coefficient can
be approximated by an empirical formula (2) applicable in the range of 0.2 <
R < 5.
A- 1+
- Ri
R
(2 4- 0.62 R) k
I + (2 + 0.62 R)k
(B-l)
There are no reliable data available to assess the error caused by non-
isoaxial sampling. However, from elementary considerations, it can be shown
that at small 6 values
A » 1 - 4 sin 6 • K/TT (B-2)
where 9 is the angle between the flow directions in the duct and the sam-
pling probe.
Since the aspiration coefficient depends on K , i.e., on the particle
size, when A =£ 1, not only is the determination of the aerosol concentration
erroneous, but the sample cannot be representative.
AEROSOL TRANSPORT
Here the question is, "When an aerosol is transported through a tube of
certain diameter, length, and flow velocity, what fraction of the particles
are deposited on the inner walls of the transport tube and what fraction pene-
trates the tube?" Usually the flow condition in transport tubes is turbulent.
It is important to know particle penetration or loss as a function of particle
size and other aerosol properties.
150
-------
Particle loss in transport tubes may occur by the following mechanisms:
* Inertial impaction;
* Centrifugal separation;
* Turbulent deposition;
* Gravitational settling;
* Diffusive deposition;
* Condensation and coagulation growth;
* Thermophoretic effects; and
* Electrostatic effects.
In the case of large particles or high flow velocities, the first three
mechanisms will be predominant. Gravitational settling will be significant
for large particles and low flow velocities, i.e., for Vsettline/Vo > ** Dif-
fusive deposition will be a significant mechanism for particles smaller than
0.1 fim. Thermophoretic, electrostatic, and condensation and coagulation growth
depend upon the state of the aerosol and electrical charge on the particles.
Good discussions of these mechanisms can be found in Refs* 3, 4, and 5.
AEROSOL MEASUREMENT
Stationary point sources emit particles over a broader size range, from
about 0.001 to over 100 [im. All portions of the size range are important in
defining the pollutant potential of particulate emissions.
Physical laws governing particle behavior are different for different
sized particles and no single instrument/principle is applicable to the entire
size range. For this reason, numerous types of instruments are used, each ap-
plicable to a limited size range, and each based on one or two of several
physical principles.
Table B-l shows the general class of instruments and their applicable
size ranges. These instruments are described briefly in the following sections.
INERTIAL IMPACTORS
Because of their simplicity, compactness, ruggedness, and ease of opera-
tion, impactors are the most widely used instruments for measuring particle
size distributions in flue gases.
151
-------
TABLE B-l. PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT TYPES
Techninue
Instrument type
Size ranee (um)
Inertial
Optical
Diffusional
Electrical
Other
Cascade impactors 0.3-30*
Cyclone samplers 0.5-30
Single particle light scattering 0.3-30
counters
Nephelometers 0.1-10
Transmissometers 0.1-10
Diffusion battery/condensation 0.005-0.1
nuclei counters
Electrical aerosol analyzers 0.005-1
Sedimentation and elutriation 1-100
Centrifugal separators 2-100
Electrical conductivity 0.5-100
Optical microscopy 0.5-100
Electron microscopy 0.002-10
* Low pressure cascade impactors may prove useful down to 0.05 (Jin
for some applications where volatile particles are not present.
152
-------
All impactors operate under the principle that if a stream of particle-
laden air is directed at a surface, particles of sufficient inertia will im-
pact upon the surface and smaller particles will follow the air streamlines
and not be collected, thus, an impactor consists simply of a nozzle, either
round or rectangular in shape, and an impaction plate.
A cascade impactor consists of several impactor stages in series in which
the aerosol stream is passed from stage to stage with continually increasing
velocities and decreasing particle cut-off sizes. The particle size distribu-
tions are calculated from the mass collected on various stages and the cut-
off sizes of the stages. Some of the cascade impactors commercially available
are listed in Figure B-l.
To obtain reliable data from an impactor, one must be aware of their
limitations. For example, theoretical prediction of impactor performance is
accurate only when the design and operation of the impactor follows the theo-
retical model. It is essential to calibrate the impactors experimentally.
Other nonideal characteristics of impactors one must be aware of are wall loss,
particle bounce, particle reentrainment, de-agglomeration or breakup, electro-
static effects, nonideal collection surfaces, and condensation or reaction of
gases with the particulate or substrate.
The nonideal collection characteristics of inertial impactors were stud-
ied recently (6-7) and tentative procedures exist for particle sizing in process
streams using cascade impactors (8).
VIRTUAL IMPACTOR
A virtual impactor (9) uses the principle of inertial separation, but
impaction plate is replaced by a region of relatively stagnant air (Figure B-2).
The virtual surface formed by the deflected streamlines realizes similar
boundary conditions to those in real impactors. Large particles will pass into
the forward low-flow region while small particles will remain mostly in the
high-flow air stream deflected radially around the receiving tube. Both size
fractions can subsequently be deposited onto separate filters.
CYCLONE SAMPLERS
Cyclones have been used less than impactors for making particle size dis-
tribution measurements because they are bulky and give less resolution. How-
ever, in applications where larger samples are required, or where sampling
times with impactors may be undesirably short, cyclones are better suited for
testing than impactors. Cyclones are also frequently used as precollectors
in impactor systems to remove large particles which might overload the upper
stages.
153
-------
Commercial Importers
i
M
g
i
.
•!
*»1rul
Finn Kite
20 - 40 cfn
(HI-WI)
0.5 - 1 cfn
(St.ck)
O.S - 1 cf>
0.04 cfn
(Ptrionwl)
10 dm
(Hl-lol)
1 - 4 cfn
(touting Drum)
0.1 - 1 cf.
0.003 - 0.1 eta
1 cfn
(Virtual)
Inpactor Identification
SIERRA HI-VOL, parallel slots, 113} lent
(40 cfn), 1690
MDHSEII HI-VOL. round noltl. 566 It"
(20cfn),.IMg
HRI 1502. round holes, 28.3 Ipn (1 efn),
I11JO
U of BASH. KIRK III (POLL. COUTH.
SKIM, round holes 28. 3 Ion (1 cfm)
S1ERM 226, rutll llotl, >1.2 Ion
(0.75 cfn), 11350-1145
AHOCRSIN WU Ml, round holei. 14.2 Ipn
(O.S cf.). SII45-1S80
(O.S cfm). 11490
AJUKRSEK MelENI, round holis. 28.3 !(•
(1 cfl). 1926
MDER3EK VIABLE, round hole>, 28.3 1p»
(1 cf.). (811
SUM* IHBIENT, ndlll llotl, 14.2 log,
(O.S cfm). II24S-I69S
ANDEKSEK MINI, round noln, 1.4 1|»
(O.OS cfn) 1333
B6I HI'VOL, Ilnglt llotl, 8SO Ipn
(30 cfm). S400
5IERW-LU»OGR£n. slot, routing drum
113 lorn (4cfm), tUSO-2400
SURRA HJLTI-DA1. slot, routing drua.
28.3 IDE (1 cfm). (2300
CASELLA I«X II (BGI), slots 17.5 1pm
(0.62 cf«). $200
UKICO. single ilott, 14.2 Ipn
(0.5 c(«)
BATELLE DC] - 6 (OELRON), single round,
12.5 ]D» (0.4 cfn). 11740
8RIHK MODEL D (HMSANTO) , tingle round,
2.8 1pm (0.1 era)
6ATELLE DCI-5 (OELKON), single round,
l.OS Ipn (0.037 cfn). $1140
AIIIES 04-001, single round, 0.65 Ipn
(0.023 cfn) $400
AIIIES 04-002, single round 0.08S lp»,
(0.003 cfn) $400
Bin) > THE CCKTRIPETEII (MI), llngle
round vlrtuil 30 Ipn (1.06 cfn), 1365
Approximate Cut-off Slie Corresponding to Nonlnal Flov lute
1 1 } 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
'n'
i i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i i 1 1 1 1
i i i | 1 1 1 1
i i i
ill i
i i
i i i
ill i
i i i i i
ill it
i i i i i
i i i i i
ill i
i i i
i i i
i i
i i
i i
i i i
ii i
i i
i i i i i
MI i
i i i i 1 1 1 1
*
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
0.2 05 I 2 5 10
Aerodynamic Diameter , p.m
30
Figure B-l. Some Commercially Available Cascade Impactors
154
-------
CONTROL
VALVE
TO PUMP
Figure B-2. Schematic Diagram of Virtual Impactor
155
-------
Chang (10) developed a system of parallel cyclones which separates par-
ticles into four size fractions. This system is too large for in-stream sam-
pling and thus employs a probe for sample extraction. Although the system is
impractical for stack sampling, the discussions of cyclone design and calibra-
tion included in Chang's report are a good starting point for the design of
small cyclones. Figure B-3 shows a schematic of a much simpler series cyclone
system which was described by Rusanov (11) and is used in the USSR for obtain-
ing particle size information. This device is operated in-stack, but because
of the rather large dimensions requires a 20.3 cm port for entry. Smith et al.
(7) have developed and tested a series cyclone system which is designed to
operate at a flow rate of 28.3 liters/min and which is compact enough to fit
through a 15.2 cm port. Complete calibration and preliminary performance test-
ing of this system have been done. Series cyclone systems have adequate resolu-
tion for many purposes and should be much less susceptible to operator error
than impactors and free from gas-substrate interferences. The main advantage
of such systems, however, is the ability to collect large-sized samples for
subsequent analysis.
OPTICAL PARTICLE COUNTERS
The basic operating principle for optical particle counters is illustrated
in Figure B-4. Light is scattered by individual particles as they pass through
a small viewing volume, the intensity of the scattered light being measured
by a photomultiplier tube. The amplitude of the scattered light pulses deter-
mines the particle size and the rate at which the pulses occur is related to
the particle concentration. Thus, a counter of this type gives both size and
number information. The occurrence of more than one particle in the vewing
volume is interpreted by the counter as a larger single particle. To avoid
this effect, dilution to about 300 particles/cm^ is necessary. The intensity
of the scattered light depends upon the viewing angle, particle index of re-
fraction, particle optical absorptivity, and shape, in addition to the particle
size. The schematic in Figure B-4 shows a system which utilizes "near forward"
scattering. Different viewing angles might be chosen to optimize some aspect
of the counter performance. For example, near forward scattering minimizes the
effect of variations in the indicated particle size with index of refraction,
but for this geometry, there is a severe loss of resolution for particle sizes
near 1 p-m. Right angle, or 90 degrees scattering smooths out the response
curve, but the intensity is more dependent on the particle index of refrac-
tion. Available geometries are:
Bausch and Lomb 40-1 Near Forward Scattering
Royco 220 Right Angle
Royco 245, 225 Near Forward
Climet CI-201 Integrated Near Forward
156
-------
INLET NOZZLE
CYCLONE I
Figure B-3. Series Cyclone Used in the USSR for Sizing Flue Gas
Aerosol Particles (11)
157
-------
CONDENSER
LENSES
LAMP
RELAY
LENS
AEROSOL
FLOW
COLLECTING
LENSES PHOTOMULTIPLIER
TUBE
Ln
00
VIEWING
VOLUME
COLLECTING APERTURE HALF ANGLES X3 = 25.0
LIGHT TRAP HALF ANGLE 7( = I6.0
ILLUMINATING CONE HALF ANGLE J - 5.0
LIGHT
TRAP
Figure B-4.
Schematic Diagram of the Optical System of the Royco PC 245 Optical
Particle Counter (After Berglund)
-------
LIGHT SCATTERING AND LIGHT ATTENUATION DEVICES
Aerosol photometers, not discussed here, measure light scattering or ex-
tinction from a cloud of particulates, and do not resolve the individual par-
ticle sizes. These measurements will provide accurate concentration measure-
ments provided the size distributions remain the same.
DIFFUSION BATTERY/CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER
The diffusion battery is an assembly of equally spaced parallel plates
or a bundle of circular tubes of equal diamters or a series of screens. This
device has long been used for the dynamic measurement of the size of aerosol
particles in the diameter range 0.002 to 0.2 |j,m. Such particles are commonly
called condensation nuclei, with the smaller sizes frequently called Aitken
nuclei, after the inventor of the "dust counter." The larger sizes are called
cloud condensation nuclei since they act to form cloud droplets at a super-
saturation of 1% or less as occurs in the atmosphere.
The number concentration of condensation nuclei (CN) of all sizes is mea-
sured with CN counters which act to produce a supersaturation of about 300%
by cooling the aerosol previously saturated with water vapor, usually by adi-
abatic expansion. The size is measured by passing the aerosol through several
diffusion batteries of different lengths, or at different flow rates. The wide
range of sizes has an even wider range of diffusion coefficients, varying from
10~2 cm^/sec at 0.002 urn to 2 x 10 cm /sec at 0.2 p,m. As a consequence,
marked selective deposition according to size occurs by molecular diffusion.
The size distribution may then be obtained by measurement of the concentration
passing through a series of diffusion batteries.
A very compact lightweight diffusion battery made up of wire screens is
described by Sinclair and Hoopes (12). This would be a valuable field instru-
ment for stack sampling. The authors also provide a "graphical stripping"
technique for calculating particle size distributions from raw data.
Diffusional measurements are less dependent upon the aerosol parameters
than the other techniques discussed and perhaps are on a more theoretically
firm basis.
Disadvantages of this technique are the bulk of the diffusional batteries,
although advanced technology may alleviate this problem; the long time required
to measure a size distribution; and problems with sample conditioning when
condensible vapors are present.
ELECTRICAL AEROSOL ANALYZER
The electrical aerosol analyzer is a size distribution measuring instru-
ment with _in situ measurement capabilities over the 0.003 to 1 |j,m diameter
range. The operating principle of the device is that of electrical charging
and mobility analysis, a principle first described by Whitby and Clark (13).
159
-------
Recent advances (Liu, Whitby, and Pui (14)) in charger and mobility design
and the use of all solid-state electronics have resulted in an improved in-
strument that is portable (about 30 kg in weight) and considerably more ver-
satile. Following is a brief description of this more recent device.
Figure B-5 is a schematic diagram of the instrument showing its major
components: the aerosol charger, the mobility analyzer, the current sensor,
and the associated electronic and flow controls. The instrument samples aero-
sols at the rate of 5 liters/min with an additional 45 liters/min of clean
air needed to operate the mobility analyzer.
The EAA has the distinct advantage of very rapid data acquisition com-
pared to diffusion batteries and condensation nuclei counters (2 min as op-
posed to 2 hr for a single size distribution analysis).
Disadvantages of this type of measurement system are: difficulties in
predicting the particle charge, and the fraction of the particles bearing a
charge, with sufficient accuracy; and the requirement for sample dilution
when making particle size distribution measurements in flue gases.
OTHER SIZE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Instruments included in this category are those which require particle
collection and possibly redispersion.
Laboratory Techniques
Since measurements are not dynamic, size distributions from these tech-
niques are different from those obtained by previously described techniques,
and careful interpretation is required to avoid confusion. When performed prop-
erly, these techniques provide information on size, shape, degree of agglomera-
tion, and other physical properties such as density and composition.
Sedimentation and Elutriation
These techniques are suitable for particles in the 1 to 100 p-m size range.
In this size range, particle sedimentation velocity is proportional to the
square of the particle diameter.
If the aerosol which contains the particles of interest is introduced into
a chamber which is then sealed to form a quiescent zone, the particles will
immediately begin to settle to the bottom with various velocities. By measuring
the rate at which the aerosol concentration changes at various levels, or the
rate at which mass accumulates on the bottom, it is possible to calculate a
particle size distribution.
160
-------
CONTROL MODULE
ANALYZER OUTPUT SIGNAL
OAT« READ COMMAND
CTCLE START COMMAND
CYCLE RESCT COMMAND
AEROSOL FLOWMETER READOUT
CHARTER CURRENT READOUT
-- CHARGER VOLTAGE READOUT
AUTOMATIC HIGH VOLTAGE CONTROL AND READOUT
ELECTROMETER (ANALYZER CURRENT! HEACOUT
TOTAL FLO*M£T£R READOUT
AEROSOL IN
FORCES 2b PARTICLE
fff»CLCCTROSTATIC FORCE
fd-ACAOOYNAMIC DRAG
-» EXTERNAL
-9> DATA
—'ACQUISITION
TO VACUUM PUMP
Figure B-5. Schematic Diagram of the Electrical Aerosol Analyzer (14)
-------
Sedimentation is particularly well suited for automated readout of the
w(t) versus t information which could be done by gravimetric means. Cahn*
Instrument Company has available a settling chamber attachment for their elec-
tronic microbalance. Vibrating Crystal microbalance sensors could also be
utilized to obtain these data.
If the air in the aerosol chamber is not stagnant but moves upward, parti-
cles with settling velocities equal to or less than the air velocity will have
a net velocity upward, and particles which have settling velocities greater
than the air velocity will move downward. This is the principle of "elutriation"
which is used frequently to measure the size distribution of dusts. Figure B-6
shows the Roller particle size analyzer which is frequently used for this pur-
pose, and is available commercially.**
Centrifugal Separation
The process of separating particles according to the Stokes diameter can
be accomplished more quickly if a strong centripetal acceleration is applied.
Figure B-7 shows a commercial centrifugal particle classifier (Bahco) that has
been accepted by the ASME and is routinely used to measure the size distribution
of powders.
Electrical Conductivity
A very convenient technique for measuring the size distribution of powdersw
which can be suspended in an electrolyte dispersing medium is conductivity
modulation. A commercially available device, the Coulter Counter, is shown
in Figure B-8, a schematic which illustrates the operating principle of the
Coulter Counter. Particles suspended in an electrolyte are forced through a
small aperture in which an electric current has been established. Each particle
displaces electrolyte in the aperture, providing an electrical pulse which is
proportional to the particle electrolyte interface volume. A special pulse
height analyzer is included with the system which allows convenient data ac-
quisition. A bibliography of publications related to the operation of the
Coulter Counter has been compiled by the manufacturer and is avilable on re-
quest.
* Cahn Instrument Company, 7500 Jefferson Street, Paramount, California
90723.
** The Roller particle size analyzer is available from the American Standard
Instrument Company, Inc., Silver Springs, Maryland.
*** Available from Coulter Electronics, Inc., 590 West 20th Street, Hialeah,
Flordia 33010.
162
-------
SEPARATOR TUBE
AIR SUPPLY
FLEXIBLE JOINT
POWDER
CIRCULATION
Figure B-6. The Roller Elutriator (After Allen) (16)
163
-------
1 . Electric Motor 9.
2. Threaded Spindle 10.
3. Symmetrical Disc 11.
4. Sifting Chm 12.
4. Sifting Chamber 13.
5. Container 14.
6. Housing (l 5.
7. Top Edge 16.
8. Radial Vanes
Feed Point
Feed Hole
Rotor
Rotary Duct
Feed Slot
Fan Wheel Outlet
Grading Member
Throttle
Figure B-7. Simplified Schematic Diagram of a Bahco-Type Micro-
Particle Classifier Showing Its Major Components (17)
164
-------
THRESHOLD
COUNTER "START-STOP
Figure B-8. Operating Principle of the Coulter Counter
Courtesy of Coulter Electronics
165
-------
Disadvantages with the use of this device are the limited size span which
can be covered with any one orifice, the range being limited at the fine end
by rapidly declining resolution as the particle volume becomes small compared
to the orifice dimensions, and limited on the large end by the physical size
of the orifice itself* A secondary problem is obtaining a suitable carrier
liquid which has the required conductivity and in which the particle can be
dispersed without dissolving*
Microscopy
Cadle (15) has discussed methods of illumination, the selection of optics,
sample preparation, and counting techniques which are used in obtaining the
best aerosol characterization by means of microscopy* The major technological
innovations since Cadle's discussion are the development of the scanning elec-
tron microscope and computerized systems which can scan microscopic samples
and do the statistical analysis very rapidly. Scanning Electron Microscopes
(SEM) are now known to most researchers and have the definite advantage of
easier sample preparation and much improved depth of field as compared to
transmission type electron microscopes. These devices are unparalleled for con-
venient studies of surface features, particle shape, agglomeration, and semi-
quantitative compositional analysis.
Computerized scanning devices have been developed which can be used with
optical microscopes, scanning or transmission electron microscopes, and even
photographs to obtain size and shape information on several bases.
166
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1* Fuchs, N. A* Sampling of Aerosols. Atmos. Environ., 9:697-707, 1975.
2. Belyaeu, S. P., and L. M. Levin. Techniques for Collecting of Represen-
tative Aerosol Samples. J. Aerosol Sci., 5:325-338, 1974.
3. Fuchs, N. A. Mechanics of Aerosols. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964. pp. 56,
137, 193, 250, and 257.
4. Davies, C. N. Deposition From Moving Aerosols. In: Aerosol Science (edited
by C. N. Davies), Academic Press, 1966.
5. Agarwal, J. K. Aerosol Sampling and Transport. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
6. Rao, A. K. Nonideal Collection Characteristics of Inertial Impactors. Sub-
mitted to Amer. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J., 1976.
7. Smith, W. B., K. M. Gushing, G. E. Lacey, and J. D. McCain. Particulate
Sizing Techniques for Control Device Evaluation. EPA Publication No. EPA-
650/2-74-102-a, August 1975.
8. Harris, D. B. Tentative Procedures for Particle Sizing in Process Streams-
Cascade Impactors. EPA Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-023, February 1976.
9. Loo, B. W., J. M. Jaklevic, and F. S. Goulding. Fine Particles—Aerosol
Generation, Measurement, Sampling, and Analysis. Edited by B. Y. H. Liu,
Academic Press, Inc., 1976.
10. Chang, H. Amer. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J., 75(9):538, 1974.
11. Rusanov, A. A. Determination of the Basic Properties of Dusts and Gases.
In: Ochistka Dymovykh Gazov v Promshlennoi, Energetike. Rusanov, A. A.,
Urbackh, I. I., and Anastasiadi, A. P., "Energiya," Moscow, 1969. pp.
405-440.
12. Sinclair, D., and G. S. Hoopes. A Novel Form of Diffusion Battery. J. Amer.
Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J., January 1975.
13. Whitby, K. T., and W. E. Clark. Tellus, 18:573, 1966.
14. Lui, B. Y. H., K. T. Whitby, and D. Y. H. Pui. JAPCA, 24:1067, 1974.
15. Cadle, R. D. Particle Size Determination. Interscience, New York, 1974.
16. Allen, T. Particle Size Measurement. Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London, 1968.
17. Sales Brochure, H. W. Dietert Company, Detroit, Michigan.
167
-------
APPENDIX C
HEALTH EFFECTS OF PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
(The major part of this appendix was abstracted from unpublished information
provided by the project officer and from previous work done by MRI on Con-
tract No. CPA 22-69-104)
168
-------
INTRODUCTION
This appendix reviews the health effects of particulate air pollutants
and describes the mechanisms of pollutant uptake, chiefly respiratory, in the
human body. In spite of the paucity of epidemic logical data concerning spe-
cific pollutants, the evidence that is accumulating is sufficient to establish
concern. The surprising fact may be not that air pollutants cause serious
health effects including death, but that the human body is as resistant as
it is to many of these potentially debilitating species. Unfortunately, this
latter observation may be attributable to the experimental difficulties in
establishing cause and effect relationships, since exposures cannot be accur-
ately measured, sensitivities vary from person to person, and many complex
secondary processes produce first-order effects in the interaction.
The following sections of this appendix present (a) a discussion of the
general and specific health effects associated with air pollutants, and (b)
health effects attributable to particulate pollutants.
GENERAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS
Air pollutants and other exogenous chemicals can cause a wide variety of
health effects ranging from discomfort to delayed pathological conditions.
Smell, taste, touch, vision, and hearing are well-developed senses in
humans, and a pollutant that brings discomfort by way of the senses elicits
responses from intricate biological mechanisms. These are, in part, protec-
tive mechanisms, and stimulation of them naturally evokes behavioral as well
as other reactions.
Mild physical irritation is a common response to exposure to pollutants.
A temporary rash, cough, reddening or tearing of the eyes are common responses.
Accompanying even quite mild physical irritation is often an increase in res-
piration rate, in pulse rate, and in blood pressure. Of no consequence to the
healthy, this can be dangerous to the weak, the malnourished, the sick, the
very young, and the very old, especially after prolonged exposure. For SOX,
total suspended particulates and suspended sulfates in polluted air, one or
more of the following effects has been demonstrated: increase in chronic
bronchitis, increase in acute lower respiratory disease, aggravation of car-
diopuLnonary symptoms, and aggravation of asthma. These substances thus prob-
ably contribute to mortality for a segment of the human population (those
individuals who are sensitive and heavily exposed).
Exposure to relative low concentrations of hazardous industrial materials
and products (such as arsenic, asbestos, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
chlorine, chromium, copper, cluorine, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selen-
ium, tin, vanadium, and zinc) is known to have harmful effects on one ore more
of the basic systems of the body, e.g., nervous skeletal, muscular, respiratory,
169
-------
digestive, excretory, and circulatory (1). Severity generally varies with con-
centration. The less severe effects—for example, headache, labored breathing,
pulmonary congestion, dermatitis, chest pain, dizziness, drowsiness, painful
joints, fever, perspiration, muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhea, emotional dis-
turbance, speech difficulty, tremors, and constipation--are generally correc-
table if exposure is stopped in time. If not, failure of one or more systems
occurs and death is the result. Severity and type of effect varies with the
element, the physical form of the element (solid, liquid, or gas), its presence
in different chemical combinations, and the nature of contact (skin contacted,
swallowed, or breathed).
Certain elements, when introduced into the body, are sequestered, accumu-
late, and cause delayed pathological conditions. This may occur as the result
of an active mechanism, or it may occur passively (simply because of limited
capacity for the body systems to remove it). Cadmium, mercury, asbestos, and
lead are among the elements known to accumulate. The danger is insidious in
that accumulation may occur so slowly and the effect may be so slight and
gradual that, until catastrophic proportions are reached, no obvious harm is
noticed. Weakening by general poisoning, with death attributed to other causes,
can occur. Failure of renal, respiratory, nervous, or other systems may happen
rather abruptly after long but low-level exposure, as the carrying capacity
of the body is surpassed (1).
SPECIFIC HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS
Teratogenesis, carcinogenesis, cocarcinogenesis, and mutagenesis are spe-
cific health effects associated with air pollutants. Each of these specific
effects are briefly discussed next.
TERATOGENESIS
Teratogenesis is defined as the formation of a congenital defect, the re-
sulting abnormalities ranging from biochemical and microscopic to functional
and gross morphological. Three groups of human teratogens are recognized—
viruses, radiation, and chemical (including drugs). Mercurials are one class
of chemicals that have been found to be teratogenic (2). The possibility exists
that many air pollutants may be teratogenic, but little testing has yet been
done on specific air pollutants. Also lacking are experimental data on the
tertogenicity of compounds administered by way of the respiratory route in
general (2).
Certain chemicals that enter the atmosphere via industry have been de-
termined to be teratogenic in experimental mammals. These include nitrous
oxide, urethane, benzene, dimethylsulfoxide, propylene glycol, and certain
compounds of Hg, Pb, As, Li, and Cd (3). All pesticides are suspected tera-
togens since they are specifically selected for their antagonism to growth
and metabolism. Those pesticides tested and found to be teratogenic are 2, 4,
5-T, carboryl, captan, and folpet. However, whether or not any agent placed
170
-------
in the atmosphere by human activity is present in sufficient concentration so
as to increase the frequency of occurrence of teratogenic effects beyond the
natural (spontaneous) frequency is largely an open question (3).
CARCINOGENESIS AND GOCARCINOGENESIS
Garcinogenesis if the formation of malignant neoplasm, typically an in-
vasive growth capable of metastasis and often ending in illness and death.
Mutation is one theory which has been proposed as a mechanism to explain car-
cinogenic action, i.e., mutation in somatic cells. Other possible mechanisms
are quasi-permanent and heritable changes in the expression of genes rather
than in the genes themselves, activation of latent viruses, and selective
pressures in the body (e.g., immune logical factors) which allow abnormal cells
(latent presumptive tumor cells) to grow and multiply. All four possibilities
are plausible explanations (4).
There is reason to believe that all chemical carcinogens are strong elec-
troph ilic agents or are converted to such in the body. Several metal ions are
electrophilic and have been shown to have carcinogenic activity. These include
Be++, Ca++, Pb-H-, and Ni4* (6).
There are many examples of correlation between incidence of cancer and
occupation, which indicate possible cause for concern for many pollutants.
Workers exposed to mustard gas, chromium compounds, arsenic, nickel, beryl-
lium, asbestos, radiation, and a variety of hydrocarbons have been shown to
have (but not conclusively in every case) some increased frequency of cancer
(5).
MUTAGENESIS
Mutagenesis is the formation of an altered gene or chromosome. Mutagenic
alterations, therefore, may give rise to hereditary changes in plants and ani-
mals. Such changes can be produced by air. A wide range of compounds have been
found to be mutagenic (6-8). Industrial effluents such as polycyclic organic
matter, alkylating agents, metal fumes, etc., should be viewed as potential
sources of mutagenic hazard. All mutagenic agents in the environment are par-
ticularly alarming since defects produced in offspring are transmitted to suc-
cessive generations, regardless of elimination of the source of mutagenic agent,
HEALTH EFFECTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
The effects on man and his environment of particulate matter are produced
by a combination of particulate and gaseous pollutants. The effects on human
health are, for the most part, related to injury to the surfaces of the res-
piratory system. Such injury may be permanent or temporary. It may be confined
to the surface, or it may extend beyond, sometimes producing functional or
other alterations. Particulate material in the respiratory tract may produce
injury itself, or it may act in conjunction with gases, altering their sites
or their modes of action. A combination of particulates and gases may produce
171
-------
an effect that is greater than the sum of the effects caused by either in-
dividually (i.e., .synergistic effect).
Laboratory studies of man and other animals show clearly that the deposi-
tion, clearance, and retention of inhaled particles is a very complex process,
which is only beginning to be understood. Particles cleared from the respiratory
tract may exert effects elsewhere. Available data from laboratory experiments
do not provide suitable quantitative relationships for establishing air qual-
ity criteria for particulates. These studies do, however, provide valuable in-
formation on some of the bio-environmental relationships that may be involved
in the effects of particulate air pollution on human health.
The following sections present an overview of (a) the physics and phys-
iology of deposition, retention, and clearance in the respiratory system; (b)
toxicological studies of atmospheric particulate matter; and (c) epidemiologi-
cal studies of atmospheric particulate matter.
DEPOSITION, RETENTION, AND CLEARANCE PROCESSES IN THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
An understanding of the effect on human health of particulate pollutants
requires knowledge of the following processes:
1. Mechanisms and efficiencies of particle deposition in the respiratory
system.
2. Retention mechanisms.
3. Clearance mechanisms.
4. Secondary relocation to other sites in the body.
Theoretical and experimental studies have been conducted to define the factors
involved in deposition, retention and clearance processes. The principal re-
sults of these studies are summarized in the following sections.
Deposition
Theoretical Aspects--
The physical forces which operate to bring about aerosol deposition within
the respiratory system vary in magnitude not only with particle size but also
with the air velocities and times of transit of the air from place to place
within the system and from moment to moment throughout the breathing cycle.
Three mechanisms are of importance in the deposition of particulate matter in
the respiratory tract:
1. Inertial impaction - greatest importance in deposition of large parti-
cles of high density, and at points in the respiratory system where the direc-
tion of flow changes at branching points in the airways0
172
-------
2. Gravitational settling (sedimentation) - most important in the depo-
sition of large particles or of high-density particles such as dusts of heavy
metals.
3. Diffusion (Brownian motion) - major mechanism for the deposition of
small particles (below 0.1 ^) in the lower pulmonary tract.
The effectiveness with which the decomposition forces remove particles
from the air at various sites depends upon the obstruction encountered,
changes in direction of air flow, and the magnitude of particle displacement
necessary to remove them from the air stream. The anatomical arrangement and
physical dimensions of the respiratory system, transport mechanisms, flow rates
and gas mixing, and aerosol particle size are important factors that must be
considered in any physical analysis of the deposition of inhaled aerosols.
The Task Group on Lung Dynamics has developed a model for the deposition
of particles in the respiratory tract (9). Findeisen's anatomical model (10)
was chosen as the basis for the Task Group Model. The Task Group used the con-
ventional division of the respiratory tract into three compartments (naso-
pharyngeal, tracheo-bronchial, and pulmonary), and made three fundamental as-
sumptions in the development of their model. There were: (9)
1. Log-normal frequency distribution is generally applicable to parti-
cle sizes in the atmosphere.
2. The physical activity of the individual affects deposition primarily
by its action on ventilation.
3. The aerodynamic properties of the particle, the physiology of res-
piration, and the anatomy of the respiratory tract provide a basis for a mean-
ingful and reliable deposition modelo
The primary conclusions from analysis of aerosol deposition based on the
above three forces and assumptions are:
1. Aerosols larger than 10 fim are removed in the nasapharyngeal region
by inertial impaction.
2. Aerosols of size less than 10 |j,m deposit in the respiratory tract.
3. Aerosols smaller than 3 p,m penetrate deeply into the pulmonary re-
gions gions of the lung.
These boundaries are fuzzy, and deposition curves for aerosols as a function
of mean diameter generally are assumed similar to those illustrated in Figure
C-l (11). The predicted deposition curves generally match the observed depend-
ence of deposition on size. Other factors such as breathing rates and aerosol
hydroscopicity alter the curves somewhat, but the major features remain.
173
-------
NASOPHARYNGEAL
VTRACHEO*
RONCHIAL £?:
10'
MASS MEDIAN DIAMETER, MICRON
Figure C-l. Fraction of Particles Deposited in the Three Respiratory
Tract Compartments as a Function of Particle Diameter
174
-------
Clearance- Mechanisms—
In evaluating the health effects of inspired aerosols, the rapidity and
degree to which the aerosols are removed from the lungs play a more signifi-
cant role than does the magnitude of initial deposition (12), For example,
South African gold miners estimated to have inhaled over 1,000 g of pulmonary-
sized aerosols over a lifetime are found to retain only 20 g of this quantity
in their lungs at death (12).
Relative to other factors, the importance of removal from the respiratory
system of trapped particulate materials depends on the rate at which the mate-
rial elicits a pathological or physiological response. The effect of an irri-
tant substance which produces a rapid response may depend more on the amount
of initial trapping than on the rate of clearance. On the other hand, mate-
rials such as carcinogens, which may produce a harmful effect only after long
periods of exposure, may exhibit activity only if the relative rates of clear-
ance and deposition are such that a sufficient concentration of material re-
mains in the body long enough to cause pathological change. In such a case,
the amount of initial deposition will be of relatively minor importance (13).
Different clearance mechanisms operate in the different portions of the
respiratory tract, so that the rate of clearance of a particle will depend
not only on its physical and chemical properties such as shape and size, but
also on the site of initial deposition. The fast phases of the lung clearance
mechanisms are different in ciliated and nonciliated regions. In ciliated re-
gions, a flow of mucus transports the particles to the entrance of the gastro-
intestinal tract, while in the nonciliated pulmonary region, phagocytosis by
macrophages can transfer particles to the ciliated region. The rate of clear-
ance is an important factor in determining toxic responses, especially for slow-
acting toxicants such as carcinogens. The presence of a nonparticulate irri-
tant or the coexistence of a disease state in the lungs may interfere with the
efficiency of clearance mechanisms and thus prolong the residence time of par-
ticulate material in a given area of the respiratory tract. In addition, since
the clearance of particles from the respiratory system primarily leads to their
entrance into the gastrointestinal system, organs remote from the deposition
site may be affected (13).
Toxicological Studies of Atmospheric Particulate Matter
Experimental toxicology develops information on the mode of action of
specific pollutants, on the relative potency of pollutants having a similar
mode of action, and on the effect of one pollutant on the magnitude of response
to another. If man could be used as the experimental subject, experimental
toxicology would be the best means of deriving air quality criteria. However,
the impossibility of performing experiments using human exposures to varying
concentrations of a wide range of compounds precludes this direct approach.
A limited amount of intentional human experimentation has been conducted, but
most of the data for human toxicology are derived from accidental or occupa-
tional exposures.
175
-------
The use of laboratory animals in toxicological experiments is more
straightforward, but the obvious anatomical and metabolic differences be-
tween the animals and man require the exercise of caution in applying the re-
sults of animal exposures to human health criteria. Furthermore, many of the
animal experiments have been conducted at exposure concentrations far in ex-
cess of those likely to be found in the atmosphere.
In spite of these limitations, toxicological studies have shown that at-
mospheric particles may elicit a pathological or physiological response. Three
types of responses have been determined:
1. The particle may be intrinsically toxic.
2. The presence of an inert particle in the respiratory tract may in-
terfere with the clearance of other airborne toxic materials.
3. The particle may act as a carrier of toxic material.
Few common atmospheric particulate pollutants appear to be intrinsically
toxic; of these, the most important toxic aerosol is sulfur trioxide (803)
(either as the free oxide, or hydrated as sulfuric acid—H2S04), which has a
high degree of toxicity, at least for the guinea pig. Although silica (from
fly ash) is frequently present as a pollutant, atmospheric concentrations are
normally too low to lead to silicosis. In recent years, however, concern has
been expressed over a number of less common toxic particulate pollutants, in-
cluding lead, beryllium, and asbestos.
Toxic substances may be adsorbed on the surface of particulate matter,
which may then carry the toxic principle into the respiratory system. The
presence of carbon or soot as a common particulate pollutant is noteworthy,
as carbon is well known as an efficient adsorber of a wide range of organic
and inorganic compounds.
The role played by the affinity for the adsorbate by the particle is com-
plex. A high affinity will mean that relatively large loads of adsorbate may
be carried by each particle. If the adsorbate in its free state is slowly re-
moved from the air in the respiratory system, then the deposition of particles
carrying high concentrations may constitute a greater toxic hazard, especially
at the localized deposition points. Whether or not the effect is significant
depends on whether the efficiency of the desorption and elution processes is
greater or less than that of the clearance process. The chemical nature of
both adsorber and adsorbate, and the size of the adsorbing particle, all play
a part in determining these various efficiencies, and each system will show
its own individual characteristics.
176
-------
lexicological Studies of Specific Particulate Materials
Certain particulate materials are pulmonary irritants, and have been shown
to produce alterations in the mechanical behavior of the lungs; the alteration
is predominantly an increase in flow resistance. This was demonstrated by Amdur
for sulfuric acid (14), and by Amdur and Corn (15) for ammonium sulfate, zinc
sulfate, and zinc ammonium sulfate, using the guinea pig as an assay animal.
Nader and co-workers report a correlation between the alterations in pulmonary
mechanics and actual anatomical change in cats exposed to aerosols of histamine
and zinc ammonium sulfate (16).
The effect of various aerosols on the response to S02 has also been ex-
amined, using the guinea pig bioassay system. These data are presented in de-
tail in Ref 17. Conditions which lead to the solution of S02 in a droplet and
catalyze its oxidation can alter the irritant potency of levels of S02 which
occur in areas of high pollution. The concentration of the catalytic aerosols
(soluble salts of iron, manganese, and vanadium) was of the order of 1 mg/nr
which is higher than concentrations reported for these metals in urban air.
Particles which do not form liquid droplets, i.e., nonsoluble salts such as
iron oxide fume, carbon fly ash, open hearth dust, and manganese dioxide, did
not show a potentiating effect.
Dautrebande and DuBois have reported constriction and increased airway
resistance in isolated guinea pig lungs and in human subjects with a wide va-
riety of supposedly inert particulates (18). The relationship of their results
to Amdur's work is not clear since Dautrebande*s particle concentrations ap-
pear to be abnormally high.
When a substance is dispersed in the air in the form of particulate mat-
ter, a simple statement of its concentration is insufficient to define in mean-
ingful terms its toxic potential. The size of the particles is also a prime
factor in the overall biological impact of inhaled particulate material. This
point can be illustrated with data obtained by Amdur and Corn for an aerosol
of zinc ammonium sulfate (15). The investigation of this compound was under-
taken because it had been identified as one of the substances present during
the 1948 Donora fog (19). Figure C-2 shows the response of guinea pigs to zinc
ammonium sulfate at a constant concentration (about 1 mg/m), but of different
particle sizes. Within the size range studied, the irritant potency increased
with decreasing particle size. Figure C-3 shows the more extensive data ob-
tained on the dose-response curves of zinc ammonium sulfate at different par-
ticle sizes. These data show that not only is the irritant effect greater for
the smaller particles at a given concentration, but also the dose-response
curve steepens as the particle size is decreased. Thus, if an irritant aerosol
is composed of very small particles, a relatively slight increase in its con-
centration can produce a relatively great increase in irritant response.
177
-------
u
||200-
fc 100
50-
20'
10
-------
From the analytical data (19) it can be estimated that the concentration
of zinc ammonium sulfate present during the Donora fog might have been on the
order of magnitude of 0.05 to 0.25 mg/m . The toxicological data can in no
way be extrapolated to predict what, if any, contribution this substance made
to the overall irritant character of the atmosphere. On the other hand, the
data do indicate that without information on particle size, such predictions
are not possible.
The possible influence of inert particulate matter on the toxicity of
irritant gases has been the subject of considerable speculation and a limited
amount of experimental work. The potentiation of irritant gases by particu-
late material noted by various investigators has been attributed to the ad-
sorption of gas on the particles. Adsorption of the gas on small particles
would tend to carry more gas to the lungs and thus increase the toxicity. Un-
fortunately, in many of these studies the end point was the dosage required
to produce death. With concentrations of this magnitude, the results have
little applicability to air pollution.
Amdur has studied the effect of particulate material on the response to
sulfur dioxide using the pulmonary flow resistance technique. None of the aero-
sols used in the studies produced any effect along (17). From these studies
it appears that the major mechanism underlying the potentiation is solubility
of sulfur dioxide in a droplet and subsequent catalytic oxidation to sulfuric
acid.
Figure C-4 shows the effect of aerosols of sodium chloride, potassium
chloride, and ammonium thiocyanate, at concentrations of about 10 mg/m^, on
the response to about 2 ppm sulfur dioxide. All these substances are soluble
salts which would absorb water to become liquid droplets at the humidity of
the respiratory tract. Sulfur dioxide is increasingly soluble in aqueous solu-
tions of these salts as one goes from sodium chloride, to potassium chloride,
to ammonium thiocyanate. The degree of potentiation observed can be related
in a reasonable manner to the degree of solubility of sulfur dioxide in the
salt solutions.
Figure C-5 shows the results of exposure to about 2 ppm of sulfur diox-
ide alone and in the presence of another group of aerosols. These aerosols do
not take on water to become droplets during transit of the respiratory tract,
and have no detectable effect upon the response to sulfur dioxide. The combina-
tion of data in Figures C-3 and C-4 suggests that solubility in a droplet plays
a role (17).
Figure C-6 shows the dose-response curves to sulfur dioxide along and in
the presence of aerosols of soluble salts of manganese, iron, and vanadium.
These substances were present at a concentration of about 1 mg/m^.
179
-------
SO2
u
z
<
I—
to
to
LU
Q£
LU
IO
<
LU
Ct£
U
Z
100
80
60
40
20
0
-
-
so2
so2 +
NaCI
SO2 +
KCI
i°. ".".".'.".'.*.*
IN
n4 ov-
•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•
IN
PPM
ANIMALS
2.6
16
2.0
10
2.3
16
1.9
16
Figure C-4. Effect of Aerosols Capable of Dissolving
Differing Amounts of Sulfur Dioxide on
the Irritant Potency of the Gas'
180
-------
u
<
t—
—
to
UJ
to
<
UJ
0£
U
Z
30 r
20-
10-
0 0
SO2 PPM
AEROSOL
CONCN. mg/m3
ANIMALS
Figure C-5,
-
'M
3L
m3
LS
2.6
16
2.3
MnO2
10
10
:x:::::::::::x
2.2
Fe203
5
11
:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
2.8
C
9
12
2.8
TPP
48
9
Response to Sulfur Dioxide Alone and in
the Presence of Various Solid Aerosols (16)
181
-------
50 100
SO2 - PPM
Figure C-6. Effect of Aerosols Which Would Form Droplets and Also Catalyze
the Oxidation of Sulfur Dioxide to Sulfuric Acid on the Irritant
Potency of the Gas. The Numbers Beside Each Point Indicate
the Number of Animals (16)
182
-------
They have another property in common. When such salts become nuclei of fog
droplets, they are capable of catalyzing the oxidation of sulfur dioxide to
sulfuric acid (20). The addition of these inert particles produced about a
three-fold potentiation in the response to sulfur dioxide. The similar mag-
nitude of potentiation produced by the three salts suggests a similar mechanism
for the potentiation* The data from Figure C-4 showing the lack of potentiation
by dry manganese dioxide or iron oxide would appear to indicate the importance
of solubility.
Experimental data on the effect of particulate matter on the responses
to sulfur dioxide in human subjects are very limited. Furthermore, there is
no general agreement regarding potentiation by particulates. To date human
exposures have been disappointing is disclosing mechanisms of interaction be-
tween various air pollutants. On the other hand, there is no evidence as yet
for a species difference between animals and man; therefore, we may extrapolate
judiciously to man from the animal studies.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Particulate matter may exert a toxic effect via one or more of three
mechanisms:
a. The particle may be intrinsically toxic because of its inherent
chemical and/or physical characteristics.
b. The particle may interfere with one or more of the clearance
mechanisms in the respiratory tract.
c. The particle may act as a carrier of an adsorbed toxic substance.
2. Evaluation of irritant particulates on the basis of mass or concentra-
tion alone is not sufficient; data on particle size and number averages per
unit volume of carrier gas are needed for adequate interpretation.
3. The toxicological importance to mankind of submicron particles can-
not be overemphasized.
4. Particles below 1 ^m may have a greater irritant potency than larger
particles.
5. A small increase in concentration could produce a greater-than-linear
increase in irritant response when the particles are < 1 ^m.
6. All particulate matter does not potentiate the response to irritant
gases.
7. Both solubility of sulfur dioxide in a droplet and catalytic oxida-
tion to sulfuric acid play a role in the potentiation of sulfur dioxide by
certain particulate matter.
183
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
1. Wilcox, S. L. Presumed Safe Ambient Air Quality Levels for Selected Po-
tentially Hazardous Pollutants. Contract No. 68-02-0438, the MITRE Cor-
poration, Washington, B.C., 1973.
2» Particulate Polycyclic Organic Matter. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
3. Wilson, J. G. Environment and Birth Defects. Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1973.
4. Chemical Mutagens, Principles and Methods for Their Detection, 1. A. Hollander
(Ed.), Plenum Press, New York, New York, 1971.
5. Inhalation Carcinogenesis. M. G. Hann, Jr., P. Nettesheim, and J. R. Gilbert
(Eds.), CONF-691001, AEC Symposium Series 18, USAEC Technical Information
Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1970.
6. Chemical Mutagens, Principles and Methods for Their Detection, 2. A. Hollander
(Ed.), Plenum Press, New York, New York, 1971.
7. Fishbein, L. Pesticidal, Industrial, Food Additive and Drug Mutagens. Muta-
genic Effects of Environmental Contaminants, H. E. Sutton and M. I. Harris
(Eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1972.
8. Varma, M. M., E. L. Dage, and S. R. Joshi. Mutagenicity Following Adminis-
tration of Dimethyl Mercury in Swiss Male Mice. J. Environ. System, 4(12):
135-142, Summer 1974.
9. Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of the Human Res-
piratory Tract. Task Group on Lung Dynamics, Health Physics, 12:173-207,
1966.
10. Findeisen, W. Uber das Absetzen kleiner in der Luft suspendierten Teilchen
in der menschlichen Lunge bei der Atmung. Arch. Ges. Physiol. 236:367-379,
1935.
11. Natusch, D. F. S., Jr., R. Wallace, and C. A. Evans. Concentration of Toxic
Species in Submicron Size Airborne Particles - The Lungs as a Preferential
Absorption Site. Paper 190, 66th Annual Meeting of AIChE, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, November 11-15, 1973.
12. Hatch, T. F., and P. Gross. Pulmonary Deposition and Retention of Inhaled
Aerosols. Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1964.
13. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. USDHEW, NAPCA Publication AP-
49, Washington, D.C., January 1969.
184
-------
14. Amdur, M. 0. The Respiratory Responses of Guinea Pigs to Sulfuric Acid
Mist. Arch. Ind. Health, 18:407-414, 1958.
15. Amdur, M. 0., and M. Corn. The Irritant Potency of Zinc Ammonium Sulfate
of Different Particle Sizes. Amer. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J., 24:326-333,
1963.
16. Nader, J. A., et al. Location and Mechanism of Airway Construction After
Inhalation of Histamine Aerosol and Inorganic Sulfate Aerosol. In: In-
haled Particles and Vapors, Vol. 11, C. N. Davies (Ed.), Pergamon Press,
London, 1967.
17. Amdur, M. 0., and D. Underhill. The Effect of Various Aerosols on the
Response of Guinea Pigs to Sulfur Dioxide. Arch. Environ. Health, 16:460-
468, 1968.
t
18. Dautrebande, L. Microaerosols. Academic Press, New York, 1962.
19. Hemeon, W. G. L. The Estimation of Health Hazards From Air Pollution.
Arch. Indust. Health, 11:397-402 (1955).
20. Johnstone, H. F., and D. R. Coughanowr. Absorption of Sulfur Dioxide in
Air Oxidation in Drops Containing Dissolved Catalysts. Indust. Eng. Chem.,
50:1169-1172, 1958.
185
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inuructions on the reverse before completing},
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-174
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Fine Particle Emissions Information System:
Summary Report (Summer 1976)
5. REPORT DATE
June 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
M. P. Schrag and A. K. Rao
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB012; ROAP 21BJV-023
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1324, Task 42
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT.AND PERIOD COVERED
Summary; 10/75-5/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
is.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTEsTask officer for this report is G.L. Johnson, Mail Drop 63,
919/549-8411, ext 2815.
is. ABSTRACT The report summarizes the initial loading of data into the Fine Particle
Emissions Information System (FPEIS), a computerized database on primary fine
particle emissions to the atmosphere from stationary sources, designed to assist
engineers and scientists engaged in fine particle control technology development. The
FPEIS will contain source test data including particle size distributions; chemical,
physical, and bioassay testing results performed on particulate samples; design and
typical operating data on particle control systems applied; process descriptions of
the sources; and descriptions of the sampling equipment and techniques employed.
The FPEIS, a successor to the MRI Fine Particle Inventory developed in 1971, report
summarizes 52 series of tests on 33 types of sources and a variety of conventional
and novel control devices. The test series contain over 700 test runs or sampling
events, utilizing impactors of various types, optical particle counters, and diffusion
batteries for the fine particle measurements. Particle size distributions from typical
tests are given. The report also describes the FPEIS, summarizes the data acqui-
sition activities, and assesses data acquired relative to the effectiveness of particle
control technology and the current state of the FPEIS database. The report discusses
particulate sampling and sizing techniques, and particulate-related health effects.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Dust
Data Storage
Sampling
Size Determination
Environmental Biology
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fine Particle Emissions
Information System
FPEIS
Fine Particulate
13B
11G
09B,05B
14B
06F
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
197
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |