SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600 2-80-151
June 1980
Research and Development
Evaluation of an
Electrostatic
Precipitator for
Control of Emissions
From a Copper
Smelter
Reverberatory
Furnace
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-151
June 1980
EVALUATION OF AN ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR FOR CONTROL
OF EMISSIONS FROM A COPPER SMELTER REVERBERATORY FURNACE
by
Grady B. Nichols, Joseph D. McCain,
James E. McCormack and Wallace B. Smith
Southern Research Institute
2000 Ninth Avenue South
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
Grant No. R804762
Project Officer
John 0. Burckle
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
li
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both
efficiently and economically.
This report presents the findings of an investigation of
air pollutant emissions from the reverberatory furnace pollution
control system at a primary copper smelter. The study was per-
formed to assess the degree of particulate emissions control and
control problems associated with the application of electro-
static precipitators in the nonferrous metals production
industry. The results are being used within the Agency's Office
of Research and Development as part of a larger effort to define
the potential environmental impact of emissions from this
industry segment and the need for improved controls. The
findings will also be useful to other Agency components and the
industry in dealing with environmental control problems. The
Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Branch of the Industrial Poll-
ution Control Division should be contacted for any additional
information desired concerning this program.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes tests to evaluate the performance
of an electrostatic precipitator installed on a copper rever-
beratory furnace. Particle size measurements were made with
modified Brink cascade impactors in order to calculate the ESP
fractional efficiency. The particle size distributions at the
inlet and outlet were both found to be biomodal. The overall
mass median diameter of the inlet distribution was greater
than 10 urn. The SRI-EPA computer model was used to simulate
the ESP performance. Values of the mass collection efficiency
were found by instack filters to be 96.7%, and by cascade
impactors to be 96.6%. The computer model predicted an overall
efficiency to be 96.8%, which is also the design efficiency.
The particulate matter was found to be very cohesive and
hygroscopic, and the composition (color) varied from impactor
stage to stag.e. There was no evidence of electrical problems
due to particle resistivity or space charge.
Simultaneous testing was also carried out by Radian
Corporation, Austin, Texas. Results of the Radian study are
included in a report "Trace Element Study at a Primary Copper
Smelter, Vol. I and II" (EPA-600/2-70-065a and -065b, March
1978). An evaluation of another such control system (installed
at a different smelter) entitled "Performance Evaluation of an
Electrostatic Precipitator Installed on a Copper Smelter
Reverberatory Furnace", EPA-600/2-79-119, was published in
June, 1979.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
s
Foreword iii
Abstract i v
Figures vi
Tables viii
1. Summary and Conclusions 1
2. Introduction 3
3. Experimental Procedures and Discussion 4
Description Of The Electrostatic Precipitator.. 4
Gas Velocity Distribution 9
Collection Electrode Design 9
Maintenance and Operation 14
Particle Size Measurements 14
4. Test Results 18
Particle Size Distribtutions 18
Particulate Mass Concentration 32
Sulfur Oxide Concentration 32
ESP Collection Efficiency 34
5. Appendix - Procedures and Data for Impactor Tests 38
Brink Impactor Operating Procedures 38
Data 42
References 63
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Approximate Dimensions of the Active Area of the
Electrostatic Precipitator 5
2 Circuits Used to Measure Electrical Operating
Characteristics of the Electrostatic Precipitator.... 7
3 Voltage-Current Characteristics of the Three ESP
Power Sets 13
4 Sampling setup for the Brink Impactor using redundant
calibrated orifice flowmeters 15
5 Plot of Aerodynamic Diameter (Density =1.0 gm/cm3)
versus Physical or Stokes Diameter (Density = 3.58
gm/cm3) 17
6 Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
on July 9 at 0720 HRS in Port 4 of West Pantleg 19
7 Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 9 at 1200 HRS in Port 4 of East
Pantleg 20
8 Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 9 at 0700 HRS in Port 3 of West
Pantleg 21
9 Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 9 at 1135 HRS in Port 3 of East
Pantleg 22
10 Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 10 at 0640 HRS in Port 3 of East
Pantleg 23
11 Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 10 at 1000 HRS in Port 3 of West
Pantleg 24
12 Outlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 9 at 0720 HRS in Port 1 25
13 Outlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 9 at 1500 HRS in Port 3 26
vi
-------
FIGURES (Cont'd.)
Number Page
14 Outlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle Diameter
Measured on July 10 at 0635 HRS in Port 3 27
15 Average Cumulative Mass Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for all Inlet Impactor Tests 28
16 Average Cumulative Mass Loading Versus Particle
Diameter of all Outlet Impactor Tests 29
17 Inlet Size Distribution on a Cumulative Percentage
versus Particle Size Basis 30
18 Outlet Size Distributions on a Cumulative Percentage
versus Particle Size Basis 31
19 Measured and Theoretical Fractional Efficiency Curves
for the Electrostatic Precipitator 36
VII
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Electrostatic Precipitator Descriptive Parameters
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
For A Reverberatory Furnace
Power Supply Log, Reverberatory Furnace, ESP
Voltage Vs. Current Values For Electrostatic
Precipitator. Power Set A. . .
Voltage Vs. Current Values For Electrostatic
Precipitator. Power Set B
Voltage Vs. Current Values For Electrostatic
Precipitator. Power Set C
Mass Concentration and Efficiency
Sulfur Oxide Concentration
Overall Mass Collection Efficiency
Brink Impactor Blank Runs
6
8
10
11
12
33
34
37
43
10-27 Cascade Impactor Data 45-62
Vlll
-------
SECTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Tests were performed on July 9 and 10, 1976 to measure the
fractional collection efficiency of a Joy-Western Precipitation
electrostatic precipitator installed on a copper reverberatory
furnace.
From qualitative observations of cascade impactor stage
catches it was determined that the particulate emissions are
very cohesive, hygroscopic, and very likely inhomogeneous in
composition with respect to particle size. The mass median
diameter of the inlet particle size distribution was greater
than 10 ym. The inlet particle size distributions were bimodel
with one component having a mass median diameter less than 1 ym.
The electrical operating data indicate that the ESP was
in good mechanical alignment and electrical condition. The
overall collection efficiency, measured by instack filters
operating at stack temperatures (^300°C) was 96.7%. The overall
collection efficiency calculated from cascade impactor data was
96.6%. The theoretical collection efficiency, predicted by the
SRI-EPA computer model, was 96.8%. The design efficiency was
96.8%.
A potential source of trouble with the application of ESP's
to sources of very fine particulate is suppression of the corona
current by a particulate space charge. Although some reduction
in current was observed at the ESP inlet, the degree of suppres-
sion was not large. This can be attributed to the fact that
the particles were larger than expected, and the concentration
was rather low.
1. The mass collection efficiency at gas conditions agreed
with the theoretical and expected behavior of the device.
The measured efficiency and design efficiency were identical
within experimental error.
2. The power supply voltage vs current characteristics suggest
that the electrode system was in good mechanical alignment.
3. Particulate resistivity was not limiting the operating
characteristics of the collector.
-------
4. The gas velocity distribution, as reported by Radian, was
good in the inlet and outlet sampling planes.
5. There was an apparent difference in the chemical composition
with respect to particle size.
6. A significant variation in sulfur oxide concentration
occurred with time.
7. No significant change in electrostatic precipitator opera-
tion was deemed to be necessary for optimal operation.
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
Southern Research Institute worked in cooperation with
the Radian Corporation to evaluate the performance of an elec-
trostatic precipitator installed on a copper reverberatory
furnace. In this particular test, Southern Research personnel
conducted measurements of the inlet and outlet particle size
distribution and voltage-current characteristics of the elec-
trostatic precipitator. A computer simulation of the ESP
performance was made using the computer systems model developed
at SRI under the sponsorship of the EPA Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Section 3 contains a description of the ESP and a dis-
cussion of the experimental procedures which were used to make
measurements of the particle size distributions. Section 4
contains reduced data from the particle size distribution
measurements, and a comparison of the measured efficiency with
that predicted by the computer model. All of the data taken
with the Brink impactors is contained in Section 5, the Appendix.
Section 5 also contains a more detailed summary of the proce-
dures which were used to obtain particle size information with
the Brink impactors.
-------
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND DISCUSSION
DESCRIPTION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
Figure 1 is a schematic which shows the overall dimensions
and electrical sectionalization of the Joy-Western electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) used to control the emissions from a reverb-
eratory furnace. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive parameters
of the ESP.
The electrostatic precipitator is physically divided in
the center such that two independent gas flow paths are provided.
No data are available pertaining to turning vanes, baffles or
gas distribution plates.
The power supply control cabinets are equipped with pri-
mary voltage and current meters. Measurements of the secondary
voltage values were made by installing temporary voltage divi-
ders. Series resistors of 26ft, previously installed by Joy-
Western, were used to monitor the currents. The circuits used
to measure the secondary currents and voltages are shown in
Figure 2.
Operating values for the primary and secondary currents
and voltages were monitored throughout the tests. Power set C
was operated in the manual mode because the automatic control
system was inoperative. The manual settings were kept at near
optimum values during the tests by SRI personnel. Sets A and B
were operated in the automatic mode. At the conclusion of the
particulate collection efficiency tests, complete V-I character-
istics were measured for all three electrical power sets.
(Repair to power set C would have caused a delay in the test
program).
Values for the operating current and voltage which were
recorded during the efficiency tests are shown in Table 2.
These values were recorded at approximately 1 hour intervals,
but for periods where the input power did not fluctuate from
the average by more than five percent, only the average is
included.
The electrical operating data indicate that the ESP was
in good condition. Although the inlet section, set C, could
-------
FLOW
Figure 1. Approximate Dimensions of the Active Area of the
Electrostatic Precipitator
-------
(Ti
TABLE 1. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DESCRIPTIVE PARAMETERS
FOE A REVERBERATORY FURNACE
ITEM
ENGLISH
Collection electrode area (A)(total-2 ESP) 39744 ft'
Inlet set area (power set C)
Outlet set area (power set A)
Outlet set area (power set B)
Collection electrode spacing
Corona electrode diameter (round wire)
Collection electrode dimension
Number of gas passages (total - 2 ESP)
Gas passage length (active)
Volume flow rate design (V)*
Design temperature
Design efficiency
Design precipitation rate parameter (w)
Specific collection electrode area (A/V)
19872 ft2
9936 ft2
9936 ft2
9 in.
0.1055 in.
) ft x 24 ft
46
18 ft
150,000 acfm
600-700°F
96.83%
0.21 ft/sec
265 ft2/thousand
cfm
METRIC
3692.4 m2
1846.2 m2
923.0 m2
923.0 m2
0.229 m
2.7 mm
>.74 x 7.32 m
5.49 mm
70.8 m3/sec
315-371°C
6.5 erf/sec
52 m2/m3/sec
* Note - these conditions were within 5% of the actual measured flows during
the test period. The temperature and efficiencies were approxi-
mately the same.
-------
-{
~l
CONTROL
TO
VOLTMETER
FOR
VOLTAGE
6.2K
50M
RECI
r*
TRANSFORMER
TO
VOLTMETER -*-
FOR
CURRENT
26 A
RECTIFIERS
E.S.P.
S.A =
SURGE ARRESTOR
1. SECONDARY VOLTAGE = V, X 5° X 1° + 6-2 X 10
6.2 X 10
V2
8.1 X 10 V,
2. SECONDARY CURRENT =
26
Figure 2. Circuits Used to Measure Electrical Operating
Characteristics of the Electrostatic Precipitator
-------
TABLE 2. POWER SUPPLY LOG, REVERBERATORY FURNACE, ESP
oo
Date Time Set
7-8-76 7:00 A
B
C
7:10 A
B
C
9:00-10:40 A
B
C
11:30-1:00 A
B
C
7-9-76 7:00-1:00 A
B
C
7-10-76 5:00-7:30 A
B
C
8:00 A
C
C
8:07-12:00 A
B
C
Voltage,
Primary
(KV)
210
220
260
230
280
280
250
290
290
245
280
290
260
290
290
250
285
280
240
255
280
265
300
300
Current,
Primary
(V)
80
70
90
125
175
135
160
165
140
155
.165. '
135
155
165
110
155
165
120
125
125
120
165
170
155
Power
(kW)
16.8
15.4
23.4
28.8
49.0
37.8
40.0
47.9
40.6
38.0
46.2
39.2
40.3
47.9
31.9
38.8
47.0
33.6
30.0
31.9
33.6
43.7
51.0
45.0
Voltage ,
Secondary
(kV)
32.0
32.5
36.0
33.5
36.3
36.4
35.5
36.8
37.1
35.0
36.0
37.1
36.5
36.8
37.3
35.0
37.5
37.0
34.5
35.5
37.0
36.5
38.5
38.5
Current,
Secondary
(mA)
231
261
281
378
584
420
515
600
505
480
560
505
530
579
393
543
552
408
409
386
408
562
571
556
Power
(kW)
7.4
8.5
10.1
12.7
21.2
15.3
18.3
22.1
18.7
16.8
20.2
18,7
19.3
21.3
14.7
19.0
20.7
15.1
14.1
13.7
15.1
20.5
22.0
21.4
Current
MA/ ft2
24.0
27.0
14.9
40.1
61.9
22.3
54.6
63.6
26.8
50.9
50.9
26.8
56.3
61.4
20.8
57.5
58.5
21.6
43.3
40.9
21.6
59.6
60.5
29.5
Density
mA/m2 Comments
.25
.28
. 15
.41
.63
.23
.56
.65
.27
.52
.61
.27
.57
.63
.21
.59
.60
.22
.44 Upset relates to
.42 charging furnace
.22
.61 Normal
.62
.30
-------
only be operated at a considerably lower current density than
the outlet section sets A and B-;- this behavior is normal and can
be explained in terms of a space charge effect. For cases of
moderate and heavy mass loading,, a space charge consisting of
charged fine particles exists in the interelectrode space and
causes a suppression of the corona current. Downstream sections
are subjected to a lower concentration of uncollected particu-
late and usually can be operated at higher current densities.
The power supply designs were considered to be adequate
in that the automatic control system operated with some sparking
at currents below the current rating of the power supplies. The
TR Set ratings are 1100 ma for sets A and B and 1400 ma for set
C. Therefore, the power supply-"ratings were adequate.
The current suppression related to the space charge effect
can be explained in terms of a reduced effective mobility of the
charge carriers. If the entire current is carried by gas mole-
cules, then the total current flow is caused by ionic motion.
However, when significant electrical charge is attached to
particulate matter, the velocity of which is much less than that
for ions, the phenomenon of space charge suppression of current
occurs.
Tables 3,4, and 5, and Figure 3 contain data showing the
complete voltage-current characteristics for the ESP. Again,
these curves are normal, and show no indication of any high
resistivity problem nor a severe space charge problem.
GAS VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION
It was initially intended to conduct gas velocity distri-
bution measurements within the internal portion of the electro-
static precipitator. It was not possible to make this measure-
ment because the anticipated reverberatory furnace shutdown did
not occur. Therefore, the on^.y gas velocity measurement was
made in the inlet and outlet plenum areas. These data were
reported by Radian.
The computer system projection suggested that the gas
velocity distribution within the'unit was acceptable.
COLLECTION ELECTRODE DESIGN
No discussion was included about the specific design of
the collection electrode system. No data were available that
could be used to show that any particular electrode design is
superior to another.
Each individual equipment supplier provides the design
that they feel best applies to their device. In the absence
of definite supporting data, np general comment was warranted
-------
TABLE 3. VOLTAGE VS. CURRENT VALUES FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
INSTALLED ON A REVERBERATORY FURNACE
H
o
(Plate
area
9936 ft2
)
Power Set A
Vpri (V)
260
250
225
200
185
175
160
150
125
100
pri(A)
170
150
110
75
50
40
30
25
10
Power
44.
37.
24.
15.
9.
7.
4.
3.
1.
(kW)
2
5
8
0
3
0
8
8
3
V
sec
36
35
33
31
29
29
28
26
23
22
(kV)
.5
.5
.0
.2
.6
.2
.1
.5
.7
.3
sec(mA)
573
515
344
212
131
102
67
40
9
3
Power (kW)
20
18
11
6
3
3
1
1
0
.9
.3
.4
.6
.9
.0
.9
.0
.2
Eff %
47
49
46
44
42
43
39
28
17
Current
]iA/ft2
57.7
51.8
34.6
21.3
13.2
10.3
6.7
4.0
0.9
0.3
Density
mA/m2
.62
.56
.37
.23
.14
.11
.07
-------
TABLE 4. VOLTAGE VS. CURRENT VALUES FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
INSTALLED ON A REVERBERATORY FURNACE
(Plate area 9936 ft2)
Power
Vpri(V) :
290
275
250
235
225
200
185
175
145
125
100
Cpri(A]
175
167
120
90
65
40
30
20
10
0
I Power
50.
45.
30.
21.
14.
8.
5.
3.
1.
(kW)
7
9
0
1
6
0
5
5
5
sec
36.
36.
33.
32.
31.
29.
28.
28.
24.
23.
19.
Set
(kV)
8
1
8
1
7
9
8
5
4
1
8
B
sec (mA)
621
565
378
285
254
148
107
86
21
14
4
Power
22.
20.
12.
9.
8.
4.
3.
2.
0.
(kW)
9
4
8
1
1
4
1
5
5
Eff %
45
44
43
43
55
55
56
70
Current
yA/ft2
62.5
56.9
38.0
28.7
25.6
14.9
10.8
8.7
2.1
1.4
0.4
Density
mA/m2
.67
.61
.40
.31
.28
.16
.12
.09
-------
TABLE 5. VOLTAGE VS. CURRENT VALUES FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
INSTALLED ON 'A REVERBERATORY FURNACE
(Plate area 19872 ft2)
Power Set
Vpri(V) :
320
300
H 275
(0 * '3
250
225
200
175
160
125
100
Epri (A)
190
160
110
75
45
25
10
0
Power (kW)
60.8
48.0
30.2
18.8
10.1
5.0
1.75
Vsec(kV)
39.0
37.8
36.1
34.7
33.4
32.0
29.8
28.3
23.5
17.5
C
sec(inA)
730
585
379
235
135
68
32
15
5
1
Power (kW) Eff
28.5 47
22.1 46
13.7 45
8.2 43
4.5 45
2.2 44
1.0 54
Current
% pA/ft2
36.79
29.4
19.1
11.8
6.8
3.4
1.6
0.8
0.2
0.05
Density
mA/m2
.40
.32
.21
.13
.07
.04
.02
-------
0.70
0.60
0.50
I
E 0.40
LLJ
Q
\-
1 0.30
oc
o
0.20 -
0.10 —
• POWER SET A
• POWER SET B
A POWER SET C
^m
I
10 20 30
SECONDARY VOLTAGE. kV
40
Figure 3,
Voltage - Current Characteristics of the
Three ESP Power Sets
13
-------
for an individual design.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
The behavior of the electrostatic precipitator was con-
sidered to be good. The plant had a maintenance man assigned
to the Electrostatic Precipitator Control Room. He repeatedly
checked the power supply readings and noted the general condi-
tions of the unit. The material collected by the electrostatic
precipitator was moved by screw conveyors into a storage bin for
recycling through the smelter. No particular problems were
noted with the system.
The particular maintenance and operation program that is
followed by individual plants is formulated between the equip-
ment user and supplier. These programs range from complete
inspection and repair carried out at specified intervals to no
maintenance work until a significant failure occurs. In many
cases, electrostatic precipitators may operate satisfactorily
for several years with little or no maintenance required while
in others-, extensive maintenance is required. Each supplier
and user decides what is correct for each installation. The
program followed at the test smelter seemed to be adequate
because the electrostatic precipitator appeared to be in good
operating condition.
PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS
Cascade impactors were used to measure the size distribu-
tion of particles suspended in the flue gas at the ESP inlet
and outlet in order to characterize the particulate and to
measure the collection efficiency vs. particle size. Brink
cascade impactors, modified and calibrated at SRI, were chosen
for this application because their low sampling rate allows
longer sampling times and better averaging of emissions during
process changes. Figure 4 shows the sampling train that was
used during these tests.
On-site pretest investigations were done during the week
of June 28 in order to determine the extent to which gas phase
reactions between the rather high SOX constituent of the efflu-
ent gas and glass fiber collection substrates and filters might
interfere with the tests. The results from these tests indicate
that the Reeve Angel 934AH material was sufficiently inert to
allow confidence in the subsequent test data. A secondary pur-
pose of the pretest was to provide an estimate of the sampling
time required to obtain a weighable sample without overloading
the impactor stages. Data for the efficiency tests were
obtained on July 9 and 10.
Section 5, the Appendix, contains a more detailed descrip-
tion of the procedures that were used to collect impactor samples,
14
-------
PROBE
-5
DRYING
COLUMN
PORT
HEAT EXCHANGER
IMPACTOR
AIR
FLOW
U METERING METERING
\X^ TEE ORIFICE ORIFICE
^=1
/
Hg MANOMETER
)/
ifcli
—
—
~J Pi IMP
=>I20 MAWMETER3
Figure 4.
Sampling setup for the Brink Impactor using redundant
calibrated orifice flowmeters.
-------
and all of the data are tabulated there.
The term "particle size" is somewhat ambiguous if the
particle shape is irregular, or if the mass density is unknown
or inhomogeneous. Fortunately, many particles created by con-
densation are spherical and the diameter is used to measure
size. If the particles are spherical, and the density is known,
cascade impactors yield information on the actual physical size.
If the shape and density are unknown, particle size is generally
reported in terms of "aerodynamic diameter". The aerodynamic
diameter of a particle is related to its behavior in a gas and
is defined as the diameter of a sphere of unit density with the
same settling velocity as the particle of interest. Cascade
impactors measure the aerodynamic diameter directly. (See the
Appendix for detailed discussion).
Since the aerosol of interest was a condensation product,
and an approximate density of 3.58 gm/cm3 was given by the
plant personnel, all the particle size distributions reported
here are based on the physical or Stokes diameter. Figure 5
is a curve relating aerodynamic diameters to physical diameters
for a mass density of 3.58 gm/cm3. This curve can be used to
change any of the particle diameters reported here to an
aerodynamic basis.
16
-------
10'
II
Q.
o
IT
UJ
10°
10"1
51
inin
-rrt!
r 1
10
-1
10°
10
10'
ESTIMATED PHYSICAL DIAMETER, micrometers
Figure 5t Plot of Aerodynamic Diameter (Density = 1.0 gm/cm3)
versus Physical or Stokes Diameter (Density = 3.58
gm/cm3).
17
-------
SECTION 4
TEST RESULTS
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Six measurements of the particle size distribution were
made at the inlet and three at the outlet during thest tests.
The inlet data are shown plotted as cumulative mass loading
vs. particle diameter in Figures 6 through 11 and the outlet
data in Figures 12 through 14. Although the impactors have no
size resolution above ten micrometers, a single point is shown
at the extreme right hand side of each graph. This corresponds
to the total particulate mass loading measured by that test.
The data for the first outlet run, shown in Figure 12, is of
questionable validity because the filter and substrates for
this test were found to be wet upon dissassembling the impactor.
This probably occurred as a result of condensed water within
the probe accidentally running back into the impactor after it
was removed from the duct.
Figure 15 shows the averaged inlet size distribution
plotted as cumulative mass versus particle diameter. Figure 16
shows the averaged outlet data. Figures 17 and 18 are the
averaged inlet and outlet size distributions plotted as cumula-
tive percent of the total particulate loading versus particle
diameter.
The averaged particle size distributions are all plotted
with 90% confidence limits shown. The confidence limits are
rather large, primarily for three reasons: 1) there were a small
number of samples taken, 2) the source fluctuations introduced
scatter/and 3) the collected particles clung together to form
conical deposits underneath the impactor jets. These deposits
quickly grew large enough to plug the jets if sampling times
were too long. Thus, smaller sampling times than desirable
were used and the weighing accuracy was limited.
The inlet distribution is bimodal with a fine particle
mode having a mass median diameter of approximately 0.8 micro-
meters. Approximately 22% of the mass is contained in particles
with diameters smaller than 10 micrometers. The overall mass
median diameter of the inlet particle size distribution is
greater than 10 micrometers.
18
-------
104T
u
103--
H
a
<
a
01
en
102--
-rlO1
u.
u
10° <
CK
CD
ID
M
d
a
01
01
-10
ri
u
<
1—i—i i i i n| 1—i—i i i i u| 1—i—i i i 1
icr1 10° lo1
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 6. Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 9 at 0720 HRS in Port
4 of West Pantleg. Density = 3.58 gm/cm3.
19
-------
TlO1
LJ
LD
t-»
2
cn
tn
LJ
\
--10°
b
a:
CD
-•-ic
5
ic
1
+H
-m
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 7. Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 9 at 1200 HRS in
Port 4 of East Pant leg. Density = 3.58 gm/cm3
20
-------
104T
u
<
1 103--
M
a
<
a
en
in
Ld
10s--
L_
U
•10° <
.
M
a
en
in
--1O
ri'
LJ
<
Z)
•10
1 — i — i i i i ill
H 1—I I I MM
10° lo1
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
H 1 I I I I III
id5
Figure 8. Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 9 at 0700 HRS in
Port 3 of West Pantleg. Density = 3.58 gm/cm3.
21
-------
TlO1
u
M
a
<
a
CD
in
Ld
H
h-
<
U
101-
-10°
10
-1
H 1—I IMIli
1JDP
H 1—I I I I ll|
101
H 1—I MINI
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
102
I
u.
LJ
QL
CD
Figure 9. Inlet Particulate Loading Vers-os Particle
Diameter Measured on July 9 at 1135 HRS in
Port 3 of East Pantleg. Density = 3.58 gm/cm3.
22
-------
u
(U
M
a
<
a
in
01
LJ
>
M
<
TlO1
104T
-10°
103-
10s--
u.
u
<
Q£
CD
a
<
a
01
01
--10'
<
•10
101-
10
rl
1—I I I I ll|
H 1—I MINI
101
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
1—I MINI
102
Figure 10» Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 10 at 0640 HRS
in Port 3 of East Pantleg. Density = 3.58
gm/cm .
23
-------
TlO1
u
103--
a
<
a
in
LD
LJ
101
1—I I I I ll| 1 1—I I I I II
icr1 10°
PARTICLE
.101
(MICROMETERS)
1—I I I I M|
h
CD
LD
M
a
3
01
Ul
LJ
>
<
Figure 11. Inlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter•Measured on July 10 at 1000 HRS in
Port 3 of West Pant leg. Density = 3.58 gin/cm3
-------
-icr1
U
a
-• 101-
01
01
H—I I I I I
H—I I I I H|
i—i i i 11ii
1CT1 ±CP 101
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 12. Outlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 9 at 0720 HRS in
Port 1. Density•= 3.58 gro/cmj. -
25
102
L_
U
<
a
<
a
01
01
M
<
-------
TlO
10s
u
CD
M
a
<
a
-1 1O1
L/l
Ld
10°-
l-i
u
<
CK
CD
a
<
a
ui
en
<
u
M
H
<
10
,-3
1—I I I I III
I - 1 — I MINI
1 - 1 — I I I I H|
icr1 ioP lo1
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS!)
Figure 13. Outlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 9 at 1500 HRS in
Port 3. Density of 3.58 gm/cm3.
26
10s
-------
U
§
M
§
a
-1 101
U]
in
LJ
M
lO
u.
u
CD
--ID-
01
(Jl
LJ
M
h-
1O°H 1 1 l I I I III 1 1 I I I I HI 1 1 i i i I M.
ID"1 10° 101 10s
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 14. Outlet Particulate Loading Versus Particle
Diameter Measured on July 10 at 0635 HRS in
Port 3. Density = 3.58 gm/cm3.
27
-------
iu -
u
\
CD
3 lo3-
3
M
a
a
LD
en
s \
LJ
| 10S-
~i
^
a :
mi-
i
i
I
X
i
I
K
— i 1 — i i i i 1 1 1 1 1— i — i i it> i — . — —i — i i — i i i 1 1 1
icr1 10° lo1 id2
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 15 Average Cumulative Mass Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for all Inlet Impactor Tests.
2B
-------
U
LD
a
<
a
-1 101-
Ln
tn
<
Z)
U
1—i—I i i i 111 1—i—ii i i Hi 1—i—i i i i 1
iCT1 1DP 101
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 16 Average Cumulative Mass Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for all Outlet Impactor Tests.
29
-------
£
LJ
U
o:
LJ
Q_
LJ
>
1-
_J
^
a
99-99-
99.95-
99.9-
99. B-
99.5-
99-
9B-
95-
90^
80^
70 \
B0\
5O^
4O\
30^
EO-
10 \
5:
S:
0.5:
O.E:
O.li
o.osi
n.ni -
L
' lliiililf
1 ..'Iii
1 m
m
'
—1 1 1 — > 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 — I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — I I 1 I I 1
10"
10P
101
10s
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 17 Inlet Size Distribution on a Cumulative
Percentage versus Particle Size Basis.
30
-------
1-
-7
PERCEf
Id
M
h-
_J
1
33.33-
33.35-i
33. 3 j
33. B:
33.5:
33^
38 ]
35:
30 \
80^
70 \
BOi
50 i
40^
30^
20 1
5:
1^
0.5:
O.E-,
O.li
0.05^
O.O1-
1(
i ,lH!lfl
1 .,"'""
r
F
3'1 10° 101 1C
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 18 Outlet Size Distributions on a Cumulative
Percentage versus Particle Size Basis.
31
-------
— Curves are fitted through the data points as shown in
Figures 6 through 14 in order to permit automatic calculation
of averages and the fractional efficiency. The computer data
analysis also yields tabular data and this is contained in
Section 5.
During the tests it was observed that some of the impactor
catches appeared to be hygroscopic. This was indicated by rapid
weight increases of the various impactor stage catches when the
samples were removed from desiccators. Also, the color of the
particles was different from stage to stage within the impactor,
indicating that the chemical composition of the particles was
inhomogenuous with respect to size. If this is true, the value
of 3.58 gm/cm3 which was used to calculate the particle sizes
may not really be appropriate for the entire range of sizes.
Recent research conducted by the Kennecott Copper Corporation
suggests that the particles contained in the aerosol effluent
from copper smelters consists of at least two fractions, a one-
to-ten micrometer size refractory dust and a less-than-one
micrometer component of "sticky" condensation fume.1 Thus, it
is probable that the composition, size and concentration of the
aerosol all change with time. Under such conditions, long term
sampling or suitable averaging of the data is necessary to
obtain data which accurately represent the emissions.
PARTIUCLATE MASS CONCENTRATION
In addition to the particulate mass concentration measure-
ments made with cascade impactors by SRI personnel, the Radian
Corporation test personnel made measurements concurrently using
instack filters. A summary of these data are included in
Table 6. In general, impactor data are less reliable than
mass trains for obtaining mass concentration data because of
the inability to do isokinetic traverses. The degree of
agreement between the averaged impactor data and the mass trains
which is shown in Table 6 is normal for sources where the
emissions and gas velocity are not stable.
The mass emission data were provided by the Radian Corp-
oration from tests conducted simultaneously with those by S.R.I.
Our analyses were based on inlet and outlet loadings with terms
of mass per unit volume. The total emission in pounds per hour
determined from the Radian test is 12 pounds per hour. These
data are found in EPA Report 600/2-78-065a & b, "Trace Element
Study at a Primary Smelter".
SULFUR OXIDE CONCENTRATION
Sulfur oxide samples were collected at the outlet of the
electrostatic precipitator on August 9 and 10, 1976. The sam-
pling system consisted of a heated, glass-lined sampling probe
with a quartz wool filter, a condenser, and a fritted bubbler
32
-------
TABLE 6. MASS CONCENTRATION AND EFFICIENCY
UJ
DATE
MASS CONCENTRATION
Inlet
mg/DSCM
Impactor Mass Train
Outlet
mg/DSCM
Impactor Mass Train
EFFICIENCY
Impactor Mass Train
7/9/76
7/10/76
1146
641
1407
1304
41
21
48
41
96.4
96.7
96.6
96.8
-------
containing a 3% hydrogen peroxide solution. A dry test meter
preceded by a Drierite tower was used to measure the volume of
stack gas sampled.
The water-jacketed condenser was maintained at a tempera-
ture of 60 to 90°C to remove the sulfuric acid from the gas
stream while passing the sulfur dioxide and water vapor. The
sulfur dioxide was absorbed and converted to sulfuric acid in
the peroxide bubbler. An acid-base titration with O.lN NaOH and
brom-phenol blue indicator was used to determine the sulfuric
acid content of each sample.
Since the sulfur oxide content of the stack gas might be
expected to vary during a charging cycle, an attempt was made
to collect samples immediately before and after the furnace
was charged. The results are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7. SULFUR OXIDE CONCENTRATION
Sampling Rate Furnace Charge % By Volume
Date 1/min Cycle
'/9 3.2
2.9
?/10 2.4
1.9
1.0
after
before
after
before
after
1.0
0.42
0.73
0.63
1.7
0.024
0.019
0.018
0.025
0.067
Based on very limited data, it appeared that sulfur oxide
concentrations in the stack gas were highly variable. Since the
efficiency of the condenser had not been previously evaluated in
this type of environment, the reliability of the SO3 data cannot
be verified. There was no reason to suspect the accuracy of the
SOa measurements, however.
There is some question as to the applicability of this
method to the nonferrous metal industry, as it is currently
used. The indicated SO3 concentration appears to be somewhat
dependent upon the sampling rate, suggesting that perhaps
insufficient retention time is allowed in the condenser for the
significantly higher SO3 concentration than encountered in power
station effluent gas streams.
ESP COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
ESP collection efficiency is normally reported two ways.
The overall mass efficiency, irrespective of particle size, is
frequently used for purposes of design and guarantees.
34
-------
Fractional efficiency, or efficiency versus particle size, is
more meaningful for research and development purposes because
both theories and experiments indicate a strong dependence of
efficiency upon the particle size distribution. In general, one
expects a "U shaped" fractional efficiency curve with a minimum
near 0.2 or 0.3 ym diameter.
Figure 19 shows measured and calculated fractional effi-
ciency curves for the Joy-Western ESP. The theoretical curve
was generated by the SRI-EPA computer model, which was developed
under Contract No. 68-07-0265. Averaged "normal" operating
conditions of the ESP for this specific installation were used
as input data. The theoretical curve shown in Figure 19 was
predicted for ideal conditions; i.e., no corrections were made
for rapping losses, poor velocity distribution, or gas bypassing
the active areas.
Rapping reentrainment losses are an important nonideal
feature of full scale ESP behavior and normally constitute a
substantial percentage of the penetration. As previously men-
tioned, however, the particles caught on the impactor stages
tended to adhere to one another, forming large agglomerates.
Agglomeration on the ESP plates would minimize rapping losses
and justifies our approximation of neglecting such losses in
the computer simulation.
The experimental points in Figure 19 were taken from the
averaged inlet and outlet particle size distributions. The con-
fidence limits were calculated in such a way as to represent
outer bounds.
The fractional efficiencies indicated in Figure 19 com-
pares the measured with that computed from the ESP model. The
ESP model did not include any estimate for rapping entrainment.
Therefore, the material reentrained during rapping is expected
to consist of agglomerates of previously collected material.
There is a discrepancy between the measured and predicted values
for particles larger than about 3-5 microns. This is indicated
by the hyphen predicted efficiency for particles larger than
about 5 microns.
The measured and calculated overall mass collection effi-
ciencies are shown in Table 8. The agreement along the measured,
calculated, and design efficiencies indicated that the ESP was
performing well.
One can also dedupe that the particulate emissions from
this copper smelter present no resistivity problems. Rapping
losses are not yet defined. It was not possible to assess the
potential impact of space charge suppression of the corona by
fine particles because the emissions were, on the average, rather
low in particulate concentration.
35
-------
33 • 33 -|
33.35-
33.3-
33. B-
X_ J
U
z
LJ 33.5-
M j
U
M
t 33-
U
\- '•
S 38-
U
e i
Q_
35-
90 :
80'
1C
• ALL IMPACTOR RUNS
-f ALL IMPACTOR RUNS LESS QUESTIONABLE OUTLET RUN
: T
MAXIMUM BOUNDS OF 90% CONFIDENCE
: 1 :
*
'
< \
-H''
p
r1
. i
t
X
^
H
I
' ,
>
^
SRI-EPA
COMPUTER MODEL
SIMULATION
v 1
\/ '
\/
7 i
/
/
/
TTTl/l
•
T'
•
Ii
\
/
i
I
/
\
\
i
/
4
<
»
/
> •
_L
i
i
/
4
i
t
>
^
y
/
/
r
i
»
(
1 1
1 1
i '
T
(
t
10° I111J
1
I
1
\
1
1
101 1C
-0.01
;0.05
^0.1
-0.2
z
M
f—
-0.5 <
ry
i«i_
1—
U
-i S
Q_
I-
• -3 Z
-2 u
U
LY.
U
Q_
-5
:10
^°
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICROMETERS)
Figure 19 Measured and Theoretical Fractional Efficiency
Curves for the Electrostatic Precipitator.
36
-------
TABLE 8. OVERALL MASS COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
Mass Trains Computer
(Radian Corp.) Impactors Simulation Design
96.7% 96.6% 96.8% 96.8%
The total emissions from a reverberatory furnace consist
of particulate and gaseous emissions. The electrostatic pre-
cipitator is only useful for collecting particulate matter with
a significant collection efficiency. Therefore, only that
material that exists as a particulate is expected to be collected
by the device. Any material that exists in the gas phase at the
operating temperature of the electrostatic precipitator will
pass through the unit with essentially no removal.
Therefore, the collection efficiency measured for a given
installation will depend upon the type of measurement system
utilized. If the purpose for the study is to determine the
operating characteristic of a control device, the measurement
should be made with instrumentation operating at the gas condi-
tions. This assures that the mass loading and particle size
distribution data represent the conditions that exist in the
control device. This measurement, however, provides no infor-
mation about condensables or what might be particulate at other
conditions of temperature and pressure.
The analysis presented in this report is based on the in-
stack measurement conditions since the purpose for the test was
to evaluate the control device. The total emissions, determined
by the Radian Corporation, are included in a report "Trace
Element Study at a Primary Copper Smelter, Vol. I and II" (EPA-
600/2-70-065a and -065b, March 1978).
37
-------
APPENDIX
PROCEDURES AND DATA FOR IMPACTOR TESTS
BRINK IMPACTOR OPERATING PROCEDURES
Pretest
Before every test of an unfamiliar source, it is SRI's
practice to perform preliminary testing. Surveys of the site
are made in order to determine the accessibility and suitability
of sampling ports, platforms, and electrical power. Provisions
are made for any special adapters or sampling procedures.
Approximate mass loadings are determined, and potential sub-
strate reactions with the flue gas are checked. Such interfer-
ing reactions can cause weight changes in the substrates and
backup filters and thus confuse the results from particulate
catches.
During the pretest period, both blank and particulate
impactor tests were made. For blank runs the impactors are pre-
pared as in an actual run except that a Gelman 47mm filter
holder with glass fiber filter is attached to the impactor inlet.
The impactor is then inserted into the sampling port and opera-
ted as if a normal particle size distribution measurement were
being made. After the run the impactor is disassembled, the
substrates are removed, examined, desiccated for 24 hours, and
weighed. The observed weight gains from these tests and blank
tests made during the main test period are used as quality con-
trol monitors for the particulate sampling runs.
Sampling Procedures—
Modified Brink cascade impactors were used at the ESP
inlet and outlet. The Brink impactor was selected because its
low flow rate allows relatively long sampling times, long
enough in this instance to sample throughout at least one fur-
nace cycle. Our procedures are specific for this test and
could be slightly different for other sources.
The impactors were purchased from Monsanto Envirochem as
five stage units. We have designed and added a precollector
cyclone and two additional stages. Also, we always operate the
impactors at a flowrate which is much lower than the manufac-
turer's design flowrate. No cyclones were used at the ESP
38
-------
outlet because of the relatively low concentration of large
particles.
Impactor flowrates cannot be modulated during a test to
maintain isokinesticity, thus traverses were approximated by
taking discrete samples at several points in the ducts. The
nozzle diameters were selected so that the sampling velocity
was equal to the average flue gas velocity at the particular
sampling point. Redundant orifice meters were used to set and
monitor the sample flowrate, as shown in Figure 4.
Normally, the length of the sampling time is dictated by
the mass loading and particle size distribution. Tests subse-
quent to the first have sampling times adjusted such that no
single stage, excluding a cyclone if one is used, contains more
than 10 mg. of mass. For these tests, however, the sampling
times were cut short by particle buildup which plugged the
impactor jets, and undesirably small samples were obtained.
Due to the necessity for high weighing accuracy and the
restriction of low tare capacity for the precision electronic
microbalance, greased foil or glass fiber collection substrates
are used with almost all impactors. Greases have been found to
be unstable at temperatures higher than 400°F, thus glass fiber
substrates were used for this test.
Backup filters are used to collect the fine particles
which pass the last impactor stage. One-inch diameter circular
discs are placed under the last spring in the outlet stage of
the impactor. The filter is protected by a teflon washer and a
second filter disc is placed behind the actual filter to act as
a support.
The impactors were carefully loaded with the preweighed
collection substrates, assembled, and tightened with pipe
wrenches to make certain that the asbestos gaskets were seated.
Appropriate nozzles were selected for isokinetic sampling.
The impactors were mounted on probes and placed in the
duct with the nozzles pointed downstream for 45 minutes before
sampling began, to allow them to heat to the gas temperature.
No supplementary heating was used.
For accurate weighing of collected material, a balance
with a sensitivity of at least 0.05 milligrams is required.
This is especially true for the lower stages of the Brink
Impactor where collection of 0.3 mg. or less is not uncommon.
The balance must also be insensitive to vibration if it is to
be used. This balance is highly accurate and is insensitive
to vibrations. A container of Drierite (anhydrous CaSOn) is
placed in the weighing chamber of the balance to keep moisture
uptake to a minimum during weighing operations and a 500 me.
39
-------
Polonium-210 strip is mounted in the weighing compartment for
electrostatic charge neutralization.
The balance was calibrated daily with precision calibra-
tion weights furnished by Cahn. Reference and control weights
were also checked periodically throughout the test series. The
reference weights are standard tare weights while the controls
are impaction substrates which were identical to those actually
used in the impactor runs.
Data Reduction
Dso cut points are determined by the conditions at which
an impactor was run. The determination of particle size distri-
butions from the mass loadings begins with the calculation of
DSQ'S for each stage, using an iterative solution of the follow-
ing two equations:
V2
1.23 + 0.41 EXP [(-0.44D5Q)/L x 10-*)]j
50
and,
2L
C = 1 +
D5Q x 10-
where D-- = the stage cut point (ym),
y = gas viscosity (poise),
D = stage jet diameter (cm),
Lo
P = local pressure at jet stage (atm),
s
p = particle density (gm/cm3),
Q = impactor flow rate (cfm),
P = gas pressure at impactor inlet (atm),
C = Cunningham Correction Factor,
L = Gas mean free path (cm), and
K = Stage calibration constant, proportional to
(50% efficiency Stokes No.)1/2 for that stage.
The value of Kg for each stage is determined by
an empirical calibration.
40
-------
The viscosity of the gas is calculated using a method presented
by C. R. Wilke in a paper entitled, "A Viscosity Equation for
Gas Mixtures" in the Journal of Chemical Physics , 8J4) , April
1950, p. 517.
These cut points are calculated by means of a computer
program. The size parameters used are approximate (Stokes1)
diameter, based on estimated true particle densities, or aero-
dynamic diameters, based on the behavior of unit density spheres.
Aerodynamic diameter is the diameter of a unit denisty sphere
with the same settling velocity as the particle in question.
The aerodynamic diameter is calculated by giving p the value
of 1.0 gm/cm3 in the D5o formula. p
The data are presented on a cumulative basis by summing
the mass on all the collection stages and backup filter, and
plotting the fraction of the mass below a given size versus
size. This is frequently done on special log-probability
paper. This paper is especially convenient for log normal dis-
tributions, but semi-log paper may be preferable for interpreta-
tion, especially if the distribution is not log normal. In
general, cumulative distributions are more difficult to inter-
pret than differential plots. The abscissa is the logarithm of
the particle diameter, and the ordinate is the percentage
smaller than this size. The value of the ordinate at a given
(D50)n is
E
Percent less than stated size = — ^ - x 100%
E dMt
t = o
where t = o corresponds to the filter, and
t = N corresponds to the coarsest jet or cyclone.
In addition, the data are presented as differential parti-
cle size distributions. For this purpose it is assumed that all
of the mass caught upon an impaction stage consists of material
having aerodynamic diameters equal to, or greater than the Dso
for that stage, and less than the Dso for the next higher
stage. For the first stage (or cyclone) , it is assumed that all
the material caught has aerodynamic diameters greater than, or
equal to the Dso for that stage (or cyclone) , but less than or
equal to the size of the largest particle present. The latter
size is determined by microscopic examination of the material
caught on the stage.
Because the intervals between the stage Dso's are usually
logarithmically related, and to minimize scaling problems, the
differential partice size distributions are plotted on log-log
41
-------
or semi-log paper with
dM
a (log D)
as the ordinate and Dgeo as the abscissa. (Daeo is the geo-
metric mean of DI and D2.) The mass on stagey"n" is designated
by dMn. The d (log D) associated with dMn is log D50)n+l-log
(Dso )n. The total mass having diameters between (D50)n is equal
to the area under the curve
n
Mass = / y
t-m log (D^) -log (Deft),' L"= <"50't+i "" ^SO^]
or
D
for a continuum.
The procedure outlined above describes the construction of
a histogram. A smooth curve is drawn through the points,
yielding an approximation to the real particle size distribution.
Such a curve is needed to calculate fractional efficiencies of
control devices if the Dso's differ between inlet and outlet
measurements. The accuracy of the approximation is limited by
the number of points, and by the basic inaccuracy of neglecting
the non-ideal behavior of the impactors, especially the non-
ideal overlapping efficiencies for adjacent stages.
Dividing dM/dlogD of an outlet run at a particle size by
the dM/dlogD from its comparable inlet run at the same size
gives the fractional penetration through the control device of
that size particle. The fractional penetration subtracted from
unity is the fractional efficiency of the control device.
DATA
Table 9 shows the weight changes measured for the blank
Brink impactor runs. The glass fiber substrate material used
was Reeve Angel 934AH. Our experience with this material has
shown that weight changes due to flue gas gas phase reactions
are usually small, especially when "preconditioned" by exposure
to flue gas prior to an actual run. Another pre-conditioning
42
-------
TABLE 9. BRINK IMPACTOR BLANK RUNS*
SUBSTRATE WEIGHT CHANGE FOR EXPOSURE TO FLUE GAS
Run Number 7
Substrate Set Al
Type of H2SCU
Conditioning wash
Run Time
Run Date
SO
SI
S2
*> S3
CO
S4
85
S6
SF
SF1
SO - S6
SF - SF1
SO - SF1
15 min
6/30
-0.07 mg
change
-0.09
-0.05
+0.01
-0.09
-0.19
+0.02
-0.06
-0.27
x=-0.01
x=-0.12
x=-0.04
5
A2
. H2SO,,
wash
15 min
6/29
+0.01 mg
change
+0.02
+0.08
+ 0.11
+0.01
+0.04
+0.01
-0.06
-0.09
0-0.08
0=0.10
0=0.09
8
A3
None
30 min
6/30
+0.04 mg
change
+0.05
+0.04
+0.03
+0.02
+0.01
Lost
Lost
Lost
x=0.05
x=0.16
x=0.06
6
A4
None
15 min
6/29
+ 0.07mg
change
+ 0.10
+0.07
+0.06
+ 0.06
+ 0.03
+0.03
+ 0.15
+0.17
0=0.02
0=0.01
0=0.05
13
A5
In-situ
15 min
6/30
-0.01 mg
change
+0.00
-0.01
+ 0.01
-0.01
+0.00
-0.03
-0.11
-0.08
x=-0.02
x=-0.13
x=-0.04
16
A6
In-situ
15 min
7/1
-0.03 mg
change
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.04
-0.02
-0.05
-0.23
-0.11
0=0.02
0=0.07
0=0.06
4
Jll
In situ
60 min
7/10
+0.06 mg
change
-0.07
-0.02
-0.05
-0.01
-0.03
-0.03
-0.17
-0.06
x=-0.02 0=0.04
x=-0.12 o=0.08
x=-0.04 0=0.06
*Reeve Angel 934AH substrate material.
-------
agent which could offer promise is sulfuric acid, since flue gas
induced weight gains are found to be sulfate compounds.2 Sub-
strate sets Al and A2 were washed in sulfuric acid followed by
a thorough rinse. The weight changes recorded in Table 9 are
listed stage by stage, from "stage zero", to SF1 , which is back-
up filter number two. Averages, and standard deviations about
those averages, are given for stages zero through backup filter
two. Impactor substrates for stages zero through six typically
weigh 14 milligrams apiece and backup filters normally average
about 32 milligrams apiece.
Outline of Data Reduction Procedures
1. Calculate Dso's.
2. Convert Stage Weights To MG/ACM or MG/DSCM.
n M
3. Plot Cumulative Size Distribution. E ^ vs. (D5o) t+^
t=o
4. Plot Cumulative % Size Distribution. %< D5o vs. Dso
5. Plot Differential Size Distribution. (dM/d log D)n vs./Di-Di+1
dM/d log D, Outlet
6. Calculate Penetration.
dM/d log D, Inlet
Based on the results of these tests, unconditioned sub-
strates were used for all the impactor tests on July 9 and 10.
Table 10 through 27 contain computer reduced data for all
inlet and outlet impactor runs on July 9 and 10. The first line
of the printout gives the run location, the run number, the run
date, the start time, the port number, and pantleg designation
as indicated below.
1-1
Location:
I-Inlet
0-Outlet
07-09-76
I
Date
Run Number
0720
Start
Time
4
West
/ f
Port Pantleg
Number Designation
The data are reduced assuming particle densities of 1.0
(aerodynamic) and 3.58gm/cm3, and complete printouts are includ-
ed for each assumed density.
44
-------
TABLE 10.
1-1 07-09.76 0720 ttWEST
IMPACTOR FLOWRATE » 0,029 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE o tso.o F s 343,3 c SAMPLING DURATION = 50,00 MN
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • 0,6 IN, OF HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 65o,o F • 343,3 c
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY « 3,58 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE * 26,15 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER • 100,0 MICROMETERS
GAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6.40 CO = 0,00 N2 • 71,36 02 * 5,50 H20 • 15,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 6.0J46E.01 GR/ACF 1.5607E+00 OR/DNtF 1.3609E+05 MG/ACM 3,57102
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 2.4SE-01 1.99E-01 1.77E-01 1.45E-01 1.52E-01 1.20E-01 1.09E-01 7.58E-02
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 3.24E+01 8,35E*00 4.76E+00 2.48E+00 l,62EtOO 1.07E+00 fc,52E«01 i,85F-01 1.9SE-01
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM) 5.08E+03 5,11E»02 1,73E*02 2.67E+02 3,33E»02 9,74E
-------
TABLE 11.
I»t 07-09.76 0720 4WE8T
IMPACTOR HOWRATE » 0,029 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE » tso.o f = 343,3 c SAMPLING DURATION « 50,00 HIN
IHPAGTOR PRESSURE DROP • 0,6 IN, OF HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 650,0 F « 343.3 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • i.OO GM/CU.CM. STACK PRESSURE * 28,15 IN, OF HO MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER • 180,3 MICROMETERS
5*8 COMPOSITION (PERCENT) COS * 6,00 CO • 0,00 N2 i 71,36 02 » 5,50 H20 « 15.00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 6.0346E.01 GR/ACF 1.S607E+00 GR/DNCF 1.3809E+03 HG/ACH 3.5714E+03 MG/ONCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CVC SO Si 12 83 84 85 S6 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER i23«S6?*9
050 (MICROMETERS) 19,63 12,75 6,60 3,97 2,«t 1,61 1,17 0,66
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 28,72 0,96 0,48 0,70 0,29 0,25 0,24 0,73 1,65
MG/DNCM/8TAGE 3,01E*03 i,01E+02 5,0«E*01 T.J5E+01 3,OttE*01 2,62E*01 2,52E*01 T.66E+01 1,73C*02
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN oso is,SB 12,76 11,35 9,29 6tnu 7,71 7,oo a,86
CUM. (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN 050 2.15E+02 1,76E*02 1,97E*02 1,28E*02 1.17E+02 1.06Ef02 9,67E«01 6.70E«01
CUM. (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050 5,57E*02 4.56E+02 4.05E+02 3,J2E*02 3,01E*02 2,73E*02 2.50E+02 1.73E+02
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN OSO 9,«OE-02 7.70E-02 6.85E-02 5.61E-02 5.09E-03 4.65E-02 4,22E»02 2,93E*02
CUM. (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 2.43E-01 1.99E-01 1.77E-01 1.45E-01 1.32E-01 1.20E-01 1,09E»01 7,58E»02
GEO, MfAN CIA, (MICROMETERS) 6,13E»01 1,59E+01 9,17E»00 U,85E*00 3,23B*00 2,19E+00 1,39E*00 8,78E«01 «,65E»OJ
OM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM) 3,08E*03 5.26E+02 1.76E+02 2.75E+02 3,U9E»02 1.05E+02 1,7«E»02 S,0«E»02 5,75E»0?
DN/DLOGD (NQ, PARTICLES/DNCM) 2.36E+07 2.50E+OB U,35E»08 U.60E+09 1.98E+10 1.91E+10 1.25E+U 8.58E+11 1.09E+13
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 OEG C AND 760MH HG.
-------
TABLE 12.
1*2 07»09«76 OTOB JNE8T
IHPACTOR FLOWRATE • o,056 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE * 650,o F « 343,3 c SAMPLING DURATION • 20,00 HIN
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • 2,2 IN, OF HC STACK TEMPERATURE • 6so.o F * 343,3 c
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 3,98 GM/CU.CM. STACK PRESSURE • 26,80 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER • 100,0 MICROMETERS
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6.140 CO • 0,00 N2 o 71,36 02 • 5,50 H20 » IS,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • l,»fll5En01 GR/ACF S.0121E-01 GR/DNCF 4.U427E+02 MG/ACM 1,1«69E»03 MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CYC SO Si 82 83 Stt 35 86 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 12S056789
050 (MICROMETERS) 7,50 «,7« 2,00 1,25 1,01 0,52 0,3fl 0,15
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 11,65 0,07 0,05 0,02 0.06 0,16 0.3U 0,58 1,16
MG/DNCM/8TAGE 9,«8E*08 5,70t*00 0,07E*00 1,63E*00 a,e6E+00 1,30E+01 2,77E»01 «,72E+01 9.UUE+01
CUM, PERCENT or MASS SMALLER THAN 050 17,32 u.si i6,ur 16,33 is.fo 10,77 12,35 9,20
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN D50 7,70Et01 7,«BE*01 7.32E*01 7.25E+01 7.07E»01 6.56E+01 5,«9E»01 3,66Ef01
CUM, (HG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN OSO 1,99E+02 1,93E*02 1.8?E*02 I,87E*02 1.82E+02 1,6«E+02 I,02 1,60E*02
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN DSO 8.68E.02 8,«3E»02 8.26E-02 8,1SE«02 7,«7E>02 7.00E-02 6,m-02 4,13E>02
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 2.75E+01 5.98E+00 I.37E+00 1.73E+00 1,12E*00 7.J2E-01 4,21E<01 2,25E«01 1.0«E-01
DM/DLOGD (HG/DNCM) S.05E+02 2,62E*01 1.S8E+01 5.76E+00 5.1JE+01 4,53Et01 1,53E*02 l.IOE+02 3.1UF+02
DN/DLOGD (NO. PARTIC.LES/DNCM) 2,18E*07 7.05E+07 1.91E*OB 5,90EtOS 1.9UE+10 6,U3E*10 1.09E+12 6.06E+1J l,U7EilU
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM MG,
-------
TABLE 13.
J«2 OT-09.76 0700 SWEST
IMPACTOR FLONRATE • 0,056 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE • 650,0 F « 343,3 C SAMPLING DURATION * 20,00 HIN
IHPACTOR PRESSURE DROP « 2,2 IN, OF HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 650,0 P « 3«3,3 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 1,00 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE = 28,20 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER • 189,2 MICROMETERS
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) COB • 6,00 CO « 0,00 Ng • 71,36 02 » 5,50 M20 • 15,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 1.941SE.01 CR/ACF 5.0121E-01 GR/DNCF 4,44'87E*02 MG/ACM 1.1«69E»OS MG/ONCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CVC SO 81 82 8} 81 SS 86 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 123056789
050 (MICROMETERS) 14,27 9,1J a.70 2,52 2,05 1,13 0,79 0.40
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 11,65 0,07 0.05 0,02 0,06 0,16 O.Jtt 0,58 1,16
MG/ONCM/STAGE 9,4SEt02 5,70E*00 0.07E*00 1.63E + 00 U.BBE + 00 1,JOE*01 2,77E*Ol (|,72E«01 9,«ilE»01
CUM, PERCENT OP MASS SMALLER THAN D50 17,32 16,63 16.«7 16,33 15,90 14,77 12,35 8.2U
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN D50 7.70E+01 7,«BE*01 7,32E«01 T.25E»01 7.07E*01 6,56E*01 5,49E«01 3.66E+01
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050 1,99E»02 1.93E+02 1.89E+02 1.87E*02 1.82E+02 1.69E+02 1,42E«02 9,«5Et01
CUM, (OR/^CF) SMALLER THAN 050 3.36E-02 3.Z7E-02 3.80E-02 5.17E-02 3.09E-92 2.S7E-02 2,«OE-02 1.60E-02
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 6,68E-02 B.U3E-02 6.26EP02 B.18E-02 7,97E«02 7.40E-02 6,19E-02 U.13E-02
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 5,20E*01 l,iaE»01 6.55E+00 3.04E+00 2.27E+00 1.52E+00 9,a6E-Ol 5.62E-01 2.82E-01
DM/OLOGD (MG/DNCM) 8.05E+02 2.94E+01 1.41E+01 6,02E*00 5.UBE+OI S,02E«01 l,SOEt02 1,59E»02 3,14E*02
DN/DLOGD (NO, PART1CLES/ONCM) 1,15E*07 3,77E*07 9,60E*07 2,82E*08 8.91E+09 2.72E+10 «,05E+11 1,70E»12 2,66E*13
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760HM HG,
-------
TABLE 14.
1-3 07.09.T6 1135 3EAST
•IMPACTOR FLOWRATE = 0.029 ACPM IHPACTOR TEMPERATURE « 625,o f • 129.11 c SAMPLING DURATION « 30,00 n*
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • 0.6 IN. Of HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 625,0 f ' 329.4 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 5,56 GM/CU.CM', STACK PRESSURE i 26,20 IN, OP HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER • 100.0 MICROMETERS
GAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) COB • 6.UO CO • 0.00 N2 . 71,36 02 > 5.50 H20 c 15.00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 4.J317E.01 GR/ACF 1.0931E*00 GR/ONCF 9.9124E+02 MG/ACM 2,501«E+03 HG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE cvc so si sz ss 34 ss 86 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 123456789
D50 (HICROHETCRS) 10.39 6.60 3,36 1.79 1,45 0.76 0,50 0,27
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 19,24 0,24 0.36 0,49 0.29 1.54 0,66 0,56 1,02
MG/DNCM/STAGE 1.97E+03 2,46E*01 J,89E*01 5,02E»01 2.9TE401 1,5SE«02 6,76E*01 5,74E*01 1.04Et02
CUM. PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN DSO 21,22 20,23 is.66 i6,*7 is,«e 9,16 6,48 q.is
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN DSO 2,}OE*02 2,01E*02 1,85E*02 1.65E+02 1,53E*02 9.JOE+01 6,42E*Ol U.15E+01
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN DSO 5,31E^02 5,06E*02 4,67E»02 4.17E+02 J.87E+02 2.30E»02 1,62E«02 1,05E*02
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN 050 9,19E*02 8.76E-02 8.09E-02 7.22E.02 6,718-02 3.96E.02 2.60E-02 1.81E-02
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN DSO 2.32E-01 2.21E.01 2.04E-01 1.82E-01 1,69E>01 l.OOE-01 7.08E-02 1.57E-02
GEO. MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 3.22E«oi S.ZBE+OO «,72E+oo 2,«6E+oo i,6]E*oo i.o7E*oo 6,soE>oi i.eaE-oi i,93E-oi
DM/OLOGD (MG/DNCM) J.OOE+OS I.ESE+OS i,34E
-------
TABLE 15.
I"3 07.01.76 H3S 3EAST
IMPACTOR FlONRATE * 0,029 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE • 625,0 f • 329.8 C SAMPLING DURATION • 30,00 HIM
IMP«TtJR PRESSURE DROP • 0,6 IN, OP HO STACK TEMPERATURE • 629.0 F • 329,0 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • i.OO GM/CU.CM. STACK PRESSURE • 28,20 IN, OF HG MAX. PARTICLE DIAMETER • 189,2 MICROMETERS
6A8 COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 . 6.«0 CO . 0,00 N2 . 71.36 02 • 5,50 H20 • 15.00
CAUC, MASS LOADING • Jl.331TE.01 OR/ACF 1.0931E*00 GR/DNCF 9,912«E*02 MG/ACM 2,501
-------
TABLE 16.
1.4 OT.09.Tfc 1200 4EAST
IMPACTOR FLONRATE = o,o«« »CFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE • 625,0 t « 329,4 c SAMPLING DURATION « 30,00 KIN
IMPACTOH PRESSURE DROP • i.« IN, OF MS S-TACK TEHPERATURE « 435,0 f » 329,4 c
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY " 3,58 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE B 28,20 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE. DIAMETER » 100,0 MICROMETERS
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 f 6.00 CO » 0,00 N2 • 71,1* 02 • 5,50 H20 « 15,00
CALC, MASS LOADING « 4.456TE.01 GR/ACF !,12a6E02 2,89E>02 1.U2E.02
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN DSO 3,?9E>01 2,71E.Q1 1.67E.01 1.12E.01 1.11E.01 8.80E.02 7.29E.02 1.58E.-02
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 2,90E*Ot 6,7lE*00 S.SOEtOO 1,97E*00 1,28E*00 8,3«E"01 4.96E.01 2.78E-01 1,3«E-01
DM/DLOGO (MG/DNCM) 1,59E*OS 1,21E*03 6,78E»02 3.67E+02 7,59Ef02 1.86E+02 2,01Et02 2.57E+02 2,71E»02
ON/OLOGO (NO, PARTICLE8/DNCMJ 3,«6E*OT 2,15E*09 6,59E*0« 2,58E*10 1,93E»H 1.T2E+11 S,76E*11 fc.S7E»12 5,96E»13
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM HG,
-------
TABLE 17.
I-U 07.09.76 1200 «EAST
IMPACTOR FLDNRATE • o,o«« ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE « 625,o F » 329.4 c SAMPLING DURATION . jo.oo HIM
IMPACTQR PRESSURE DROP • l.« IN, Of HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 625,0 F « 329,4 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY « 1.00 CM/CU.CM. STACK PRESSURE • 28,20 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER * 189,2 MICROMETERS
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 * 6.40 CO o 0,00 N2 n 71,J6 02 • 5,50 H20 * 15.00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 4.0S67E.01 GR/ACf 1.1206E*00 6R/DNCF 1.019BE*03 MG/ACM 2.5735E*OJ MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CYC 80 81 82 S3 84 85 86 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 123056789
DSO (MICROMETERS) 15,«T 10.24 5.26 3,84 2,32 1.29 0.91 0,49
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 25,26 I,i9 2,95 1,52 1,05 0,77 0,51 1,26 1,21
01 MG/DNCM/8TAGE 1,71E»03 2,42E*OZ 1,99E*02 1.03E+02 7.09E+01 5.20E+01 3.44E+01 8,51E*01 8,17E»01
to
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN DSO 33,74 20,32 I6,se 12,60 9,84 7,82 6,48 5,ie
CUM, (MB/ACM) SMALLER THAN 050 3,44E*02 2,08E*02 1.69E+02 1.2BE+02 1,OOE»02 7.98E+01 6,61E*01 J,24E*01
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050 8.68E+02 6,26E»02 4.27E402 3,20E*02 2,53E«02 2,01E*62 1,67E*02 8,18E»01
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN 050 1.50E-01 1.08E-01 7.39E.02 5.61E-02 U.39E-02 3.49E-OZ 2.89E.02 1.42E-02
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 3.79E-01 2.74E-01 1.87E-01 1.42E-01 l.HE-01 8.80E-02 7.29E-02 3.58E-02
GEO, MEAN OIA, (MICROMETERS) 5,50E+01 J,28E»Ol T,35E*00 3,88E*00 2,57E*00 1.73E+00 1.09E+00 6.67E.01 3.44E-01
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM) 1.59E+03 1.26E+03 6.93E»02 3.82E+02 8.03E+02 2.04E+02 2,30E*02 3,11E*02 2.71E+02
DN/DLOGD (NO, PARTICLES/DNCM) 1.83E+07 1.15E+09 3.33E+09 1,25E*10
-------
TABLE 18.
1-3 7.10*76 0600 3EA8T
IMPACTOR FLOWRATE » 0,018 ACFM IHPACTOR TEMPERATURE » 615,0 F P 323,9 C SAMPLING DURATION > 30,00 MIS
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP « 1,1 IN, OF HC STACK TEMPERATURE » 615,0 F » 323.9 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 3,56 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE • 28,28 IN, OF H6 MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER * 100.0 MICROMETERS
6A8 COMPOSITION (PERCENT) COS t 6.40 CO * 9,00 N2 • 71,36 02 a 5,50 H20 • 15.00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 1.3402E.01 GR/ACF 3.341ZE-01 OR/DNCF 3.0668E+02 MG/ACM 7,6458E*02 MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CYC SO 81 32 83 84 85 86 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 1234S6T89
D90 (MICROMETERS) 9,0! 5,73 2,92 1,50 1,29 0,66 0,45 0,22
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 4,55 0.25 0,35 0,36 0,29 0,30 1,18 1,06 1,56
MG/DNCM/BTAGE J.51E+OZ 1.93E+01 2.70E*01 2,78E»01 2.24E*01 Z.32E+01 9.HE + 01 8.10E+01 1.20E+0?
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN 050 54,05 51,52 47,98 44,35 41,«2 38,39 26,47 15,76
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN D50 1,66E+02 1.58E+02 1.U7E+02 1.36E+02 1.27E*02 1.18E+02 6,I2E»01 U.83E+01
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050 4,13E+02 3.94E+02 J.67E+02 3,39E*02 3.17E+02 2.94E+02 2,02E*02 1.21E402
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN 050 7,24P»02 6.90E-02 6.U3E-02 5,9aE-02 5.55E.02 5.14E-02 3.55E-02 2.11E-02
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 1,81E>01 1.72E-01 1.60E-01 1,4BE»01 1.J8E.01 1,2BE«01 8,6«E>02 5.27E-02
CEO, MEAN OIA, (MICROMETERS) " S,OIE»OI 7,aoE+oo «.o9E+oo a.i2E+oo i.J9E+oo 9,o9E»oi s,u7E>oi J.IUE-OI I.SUE.OI
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM) J.J7E+02 9.73E+01 9.2«E*01 1,OOE«02 2,«2E+02 8.44E+01 5,45E*02 2.59E+02 4,OOE»02
DN/DLOGD (NQ, PARTlCLES/DNCM) 6.60E+06 1,39E»08 7.JOE+OS S.59E409 U.B5E+10 6,OOE»10 1.78E+12 4,U9E«12 5.8JE+13
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM HG.
-------
TABLE 19.
1-5 T.10.76 0640 3EAST
IMPACTOR FLOWRATE • 0.038 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE • 619,0 F " 323.9 C SAMPLING DURATION x 30,00 HIM
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP a 1,1 IN, OF HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 6J5.0 F " 323,<> C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY > 1.00 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE • 28,26 IN, OF HC MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER « 189,2 MICROMETERS
0A9 COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 « 6,40 CO • 0,00 N2 • 71,16 02 • 5,50 H20 « IS,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • i,S«C2E«01 GR/ACF S,3«12E»01 6R/DNCF 3,0668E*02 HG/ACH 7,602 5,1«E«02 3.5SE-02 2.11E-02
CUN, (6R/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 1,81E»01 1.72E-01 l,60E«Sl 1.1BE-01 1.38E-01 1.28E-01 8,8«E-02 5.27E-02
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 5,69E*01 l.JTE+01 7,90E»00 4.17E+00 2,77E*00 1.87E+00 l,lflE*00 7.35E-01 3,8aE«01
DM/OLOGO (MG/ONCMJ 3,37E+02 1,OOE+02 9,a2E*01 1,0«E+02 2.55E+02 9,15E»01 6,19E*02 3,ilE*02 a,OOE*02
ON/DLOGD (NO, PARTICLE3/DNC") 3,«9E*06 7,«2E+07 3.65E»06 2.73E+09 2,29E*10 2,6?E»10 7,20E»H I.«9E»|2 I,356*13
NORMAL (FNG1NFERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE SI DEG C AND 760MM HG,
-------
TABLE 20.
1.7 07-01-76 1000 SNEST
IHPACTOR FLOWRATE • o.osa ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE » tis.o f * 333.9 c SAMPLING DURATION a 20.00 HIM
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • 1.1 IN. OP HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 6i5,o f « 523.9 c
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY » 3.58 GM/CU.CM. STACK PRESSURE • 26,28 IN. OF HO MAX. PARTICLE DIAMETER • 100,0 MICROMETERS
GAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6,00 CO « 0,00 N2 • 71,1* 02 * 5.50 H20 « IS,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 9.0767E-08 GR/ACF 2.2629E-01 GR/ONCF 2.0771E+02 MG/ACH 5,1783E*02 MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CYC so 91 32 33 34 35 36 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 123056789
050 (MICROMETERS) 9,05 3,73 2,*2 1,54 1,25 0,66 0,45 0,22
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 0,00 0,27 0,49 0,85 0,40 0,97 0,4b 0.65 0,40
MG/DNCM/STAGE O.OOE-01 3.13E+01 5.68E+01 9,62E*01 4,63E*01 1,12E»02 5,33Et01 7.53E+01 4.63E+01
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN oso 100,00 93,96 83.oo 64.43 55,49 33.79 23,49 8.95
CUM. (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN D50 2.06E+02 1,95E»02 !.72E*02 1,34E«02 1.1SE*02 7,02Et01 4,88E401 l.«6E+01
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050 5.18E+02 U,87E»02 4,30E«02 3,34E*02 2,87E^02 1,75E«02 1,22E*02 U,64E»01
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN 050 9,OSE»02 8,53E«02 7.53E-02 5,851-02 5,04E»02 3.07E.02 2,13E>02 8,13E>03
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN D50 2,26E>01 2.13E-01 1.88E.01 I,46E>01 1.26E-01 7.6SE-02 5,32E>02 2.0JE-02
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 3,01E»01 7,20E»00 4,09E*00 2,12E+00 1,39E+00 9,09E-Ot 5.47E-01 i,14E«01 J,SUE.01
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM) O.OOE-Ol 1,58E*02 1.94E*02 3.47E+02 5,01E»02 «,0«E+02 3,19E*02 2,39Et02 1.54E+02
DN/DLOGD (NO, PARTICLES/DNCM) O.OOE-01 2,25E»08 1.51E+09 1.93E+10 l.OOE+11 2.91E+11 1,04E>12 4,13E+12 2,24Ei|3
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM HS,
-------
TABLE 21.
1.7 07«01«7* 1000 SNE8T
IMPACTOR FLOHRATE • 0,058 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE - 615,0 f * 525,9 C SAMPLING DURATION . 20,00 MIN
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • 1,1 IN, OF HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 615,0 P • 523,9 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY . 1.00 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE . 28,28 IN, Of HC MAX. PARTICLE DIAMETER » 189,2 MICROMETERS
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6,40 CO • 0,00 N2 . 71,36 02 « 5,50 H20 • 15.00
CAUC, MASS LOADING . 9.0767E-02 GR/ACF 2.2629E-01 OR/DNCF 2.0T71E*02 MG/ACM 5,1785E*02 MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE CYC SO 81 82 »5 84 35 36 FILTER
8TA6E INDEX NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 «
D50 (MICROMETERS) lT.12 10,M 5.68 3,06 2.50 l.«0 1,00 0,5a
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 0,00 0,27 0,49 0,85 O.«0 0.97 0,06 0.65 O.UO
MG/DNCM/STAGE O.OOE-01 3.13E+01 5.6BE*01 «».62E*01 «,65E*Ol 1.1ZE*02 5,33E*01 7.53E*01 «,63F*01
CUH, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN DSO 100,00 95,96 ss.oo 6a,«3 55,«9 33,79 23,09 8.95
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER TMAN 050 2,08E*02 l,95E»oa 1,72E*OZ 1.30E+02 1.15E*02 7,02E»01 «,88E»01 1.86E»01
CUM. (M8/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050 5,18E»02 «,87E»02 4.30E*02 3,3«B»02 2,87E»02 l,75f»02 1,22E*02 a,6«E*01
. (GRAACF) SMALLER THAN 050 9.08E.02 e,53E.02 7.55E-02 5,»SE-OI 5.04E.02 3.07E.02 2.15E-02 8.13E-03
, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050 2.26E-01 2.13E-01 1.88E-01 1.16E.01 1.26E.01 7.65E-02 5.32E-02 2.03E-02
GEO.. ME-ANDIA. (MICROMETERS) 5,69E*01 1.37E+01 7.90E+00 a,17E*00 2.77E»00 1.87E»00 1,18E*00 7.35E-01 3,8ttE-01
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM) O.OOE-01 1.63E+02 1.9BE*02 3.59E+02 5.28E*02 a,««E+02 3.62E+02 2.86E*02 1.5«E*02
DN/DLOGD ,(NO. PARTICLES/DNCM) O.OOE-01 1.20E*08 7.66E»06 9,4
-------
0-1B 07-09.76 0720 1PORT
IMPACTOR FLOWRATE * 0.073 ACFM
1MPACTOR PRESSURE DROP » 3,6 IN, OF H6
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 3,56 GM/CU.Ch.
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 •
CALC, MASS LOADING • I.0320E-02 GR/ACF
IHPACTOR STAGE
STAGE INDEX NUMBER
D50 (MICROMETERS)
MASS (MILLIGRAMS)
MG/DNCM/STAGF
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN 050
CUM. (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN D50
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN 050
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN 050
CUM, (GR/ONcF) SMALLER THAN DSC
GEO, MfAN OIA, (MICROMETERS)
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM)
ON/OLOGD (NO. PARTICLES/DNCMJ
TABLE 22.
SAMPLING DURATION a 60,00 MIN
IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE • eso.o F n 343,3 c
STACK TEMPERATURE • 650,0 F « 343.3 C
STACK PRESSURE = 28,20 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER = 100.0 MICROMETERS
6,40 CO • 0.00
2.6651E-02 GR/DNCF
SO SI 82
1 Z 3
4,13 2,06 1,06
0,41 0,34 0,09
N2 • 71,36 02
2.S624E+01 MG/ACM
S3 S4 85
5,50 H20 • 15,00
6,0987E*01 MG/DNCM
56 FILTER
7 8
0.11
0.25 1,05
0.66 0,43 0,26
0.16 0,35 0,26
8,53E*00 7.06E*00 l,f*"*00 3,75E»00 7,29E*00 5,«1E*00 5.20E+00 2,19E*OJ
l.OOE+02 8,60E»01 7,02 9.55E»03
2,03E*01 2.93E+00 1.50E+00 9.61E-01 6.10E-01 3.47E-01 1.72E-01 7.51E-02
6.17E«00 2.36E+01 6.53E«00 J.8(1E*01 Z.USEfOl ?,B3Ei01 1.2UE+01 7,26Et01
3.92E+05 5,04E*OB 1.04E+09 2.3lE»10 S.76E+10 S.60E+11 1,30E*»2 9.16E+IS
NORMAL (ENGINEERING 9T»NO»RO) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM HG,
-------
TABLE 23.
0.1B OT«09.76 0720 1PORT
1MPACTOR FLOWRATE « 0,073 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE • 650.0 f • 313,3 C SAMPLING DURATION * 60,00 MIN
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • 3.8 IN, OF HC STACK TEMPERATURE * 650.0 f • 3U3.3 C
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 1,00 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE * 28,20 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER « 189,2 MICROMETERS
QA8 COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6,40 CO • 0,00 N| « 71,36 02 • 5,50 H20 « 15,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • t.OSSSE-02 GR/ACF 2,665iE«02 OR/ONCF 2,368«E*01 MG/ACM 6,09B7E»01
IMPACTOR ITAGE so si 82 sj s« ss 86 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER i 2 s s 5 6 7 8
D50 (MICROMETERS) 7,97 «,09 2,18 1,78 0,97 0,67 0,31
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 0,U1 0,34 0,09 0,18 0,35 0,26 0,25 1.05
MG/DNCM/STAGE 8.s3E*oo T.OSE+OO i,87E+oo 3,7se«oo 7,?9E+oo S,UIE*OO S,?OE+OO
00
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN DSO i,ooE*o2 8,60E»oi 7,a«E*oi T.IIE+OI 6,s2E»oi s,32E+oi «,a«E+oi
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN DSO 2,03E*01 1.76E+01 1,69E*01 l.SQEtOl 1.26E+01 1,05E*01 8,«7E+00
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN DSO 5,2!E*01 «.5flE+Ol «,35E*01 3,98E*01 3,25E«01 2,71E*01 ?,19E»01
CUM, {GR/ACFJ SMALLER 7MAN DSO «,«8E»OS T,68E»03 7,S6E«03 6.73E.03 5.SOE-03 U.5BE-03 3.70E-03
CUM, (GR/ONCF) SMALLER TMAN 050 2.29E-02 t,98E«02 1,90E«02 t,7«E-02 l,«2E«02 1.I8E-02 9.55E-03
ceo. MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) S.SSE+OI s,7te*oo 2,99E+oo i,97E*oo i,3iE»oo s.oaE-oi a,52E-oi 2,i6E»ot
OM/DLOGD (MG/D^CM) 6.21E+00 2,U«E*01 6,87E«00 U.J6E+01 2.76E*01 i,S7E*01 1,53E«01 7,26E*OI
DN/DLOGD (NO, PARTICLE8/DNCM) 2.0ZE+05 2,50E*08 «,9tE+08 1.0aE*10 2,3«E+10 1,2«E*11 3.17E+11 1.38E*13
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MH HG,
-------
TABLE 24.
0.2B OT.09.T6 1500 SPORT
IMPACTOR FLOWRATE • 0,073 ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE » 620,0 F • 326,7 c SAMPLING DURATION • bo.oo MJN
IMPACTOR PRESSURE PROP • s,» IN, or HG STACK TEMPERATURE • 620.0 r • 326,7 c
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 3,58 GM/CU.CM. STACK PRESSURE s 28,25 IN, OF H6 MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER <* 100.0 MICROMETERS
GAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6.«0 CO • 0,00 N2 « 71,36 02 • 5,90 H20 « 19.00
CALC, MASS LOADING « J.8405E.OJ GR/ACF 9.6295E-OJ SR/ONCF 8.788SE+00 MG/ACM 2,2036E*01 MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE so n s>2 33 su ss S6 FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 12305678
050 (MICROMETERS) A.09 2.06 1,07 0,85 0.43 0,28 0,11
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 0,01 0.11 0,11 0,11 0.23 0,23 0,13 0.16
to MG/DNCM/8TAGE 2.02E-01 2.22E+00 2.22E+00 2.22EtOO a,65E«00 4,65E*00 2.63E+00 1,23E*00
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN oso i,ooE+02 9,9iE»oi 8,'oE+oi. 7,89E+oi 6,88E+ot «,77E»oi 2,66E»ot
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN 050 8.71C+00 7,82E*00 6.9JE+00 6,05E«00 03 3,03E»03 2,6aE>03 I.6JE-03 1.02E-03 5,6«E-oa
CUM, (GR/ONCF) SMALLER THAN OSO 9.5UE-03 8.57E-03 7.60E-OJ 6.63E-03 U.59E-03 2,56E-03 1.U1E-OJ
GEO, MEAN DIA. (MICROMETERS) 2.02E + Ol 2.91E + 00 1,01 6,OBE»01 3,(I8E>01 1.72E-01 7,52E>02
OM/DLOGD (MG/ONCM) 1,«6E»01 7,a8E+00 7.78E+00 2,29E*01 1,57E*01 2,«5F*01 6.27E+00 1.07E+01
ON/DLOGO (NO, PARTICLES/ONCM) 9,39E*03 1,63E»OB 1,27E*09 t,«OE*10 5.73E+10 3,11E*H fc,52E*ll I.35E+13
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM HG,
-------
0-?B 07.09.7b 1500 SPORT
IMPACTOR PLOWRATE * 0,071 ACFM
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP * 3,9 IN, OF HG
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY » 1,00 6M/CU.CM.
GAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6.40
CALC, MASS LOADING • S.840SE-03 GR/ACF
IMPACTOR STAGE
STAGE INDEX NUMBER
DSO ("MICROMETERS)
MASS (MILLIGRAMS)
MG/DNCM/STA6E
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN DSO
CUM. (HG/ACM) SMALLER THAN 050
CUM, (MG/ONCM) SMALLER THAN DSO
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN DSO
CUM, (GR/DNcF) SMALLER THAN DSO
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS)
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM)
DN/DLOGD (NO, PARTICLES/ONCM)
SAMPLING DURATION • 60,00 HI*
TABLE 25.
IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE a 620,0 F s 326,7 C
STACK TEMPERATURF c 620,0 F s 336,7 C
STACK PRESSURE « 28.25 IN, OF HG MAX. PARTICLE DIAMETER • 169,2 MICROMETERS
CO • 0,00
9.6295E-03 OR/DNCF
SO 31 82
1 2 3
7,90 fl.OS 2,17
0,01 0,11 0,11
5,50
H20 » 15.00
2.2036E+01 MG/DNCH
36 FILTER
7 8
0,30
0.13 0,16
N2 • 71,36 02
8.78S3E+00 MG/ACM
S3 84 85
4 S 6
1,76 0,96 0,67
0,11 0,23 0,23
2.02E-01 2.22E+00 2,22E*00 2,22EfOO «,65E+00 «,fc5E*00 2.63E400 3,23E*00
l.OOE+02 9,91E*01 8,90EtOi 7.89E+01 6,86EtOI «,77E*01 2,66E*Ot
8,71E*00 7.82E+00 6,9SE*00 6.05E*00 O.J9E+00 2,34E»00 1,29E«00
2.18E+01 1.96E+01 l,74Et01 1.52E+01 i.OSEtOl 5,86E*00 JS.2UE+00
S.eiE-03 3,42E«03 3.03E-03 2.64E-03 1.63E-03 1.02E-03 5,64E»04
9,S4E*03 8.57E-03 7,60E>03 6.63E-03 4,59E>03 i,56E>03 1,41E'03
J.87E+01 5.66E+00 2.96E+00 1.95E+00 1.30E+00 8.00E.01 01 2.15E.01
1.47E-01 7.68E+00 8.17E+00 2.«7E*01 1,77P*01 2,91E*01 7.78E+00 1.07E*01
4,8SEt03 8,10E»07 S,99E*08 6,S3Et09 1.53E+10 1,09E*11 1,62E«11 2.05E+1?
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE 21 DEC C AND 760MM HG,
-------
0.3B 07.10-76 0635 SPORT
IHPACTOR FLOWHATE • 0.066 ACFM
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP • J.2 IN, OP HG
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 1,58 6M/CU.CM,
CAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) COS * 6.40
CAUC, MASS LOADING • J.66S2E.01 GR/ACF
IMPACTOR STAGE
STAGE INDEX NUMBER
D50 (MICROMETERS)
MASS (MILLIGRAMS)
MG/DNCM/STAGE
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN D50
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN D50
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN D50
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN 050
CUM, (GR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN 050
GEO, MEAN DIA. (MICROMETERS)
DM/DLOGD (MG/DNCM)
DN/DLOGO (NO. PARTICLES/DNCMJ
TABLE 26.
SAMPLING DURATION c 60,00
IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE c 615,0 f • 323.9 C
STACK TEMPERATURE • 615.0 F t 323,9 C
STACK PRESSURE • 28,28 IN, OF HG MAX. PARTICLE DIAMETER • 100.0 MICROMETERS
N2 s 71,36 02 * 5,50
8,3826E*00 MG/ACM
S3 SO 35
« 5 6
H20 « 15,00
2,0699E*01 MG/DNCM
56 FILTER
7 8
CO • 0.00
9.1329E-OJ GR/DNCF
SO 81 S2
1 2 3
0,31 2,16 1,13 0,91 0,46 0,30 0,12
0.06 0,10 0.06 0,06 0.07 0,10 0.11 0,36
1.13E+00 I.22E+00 l.S3E»00 1,33E»00 1.56E*00 2,22E»00 2,45E*00 8,«5E»00
1,OOE*02 9,36E»01 8.30E+01 7,fe6E+01 7.02E*01 6.28E+01 5.21E+01
7,851*00 6,96E*00 6,«2E+00 5,8«E*00 5,26EtOO 4,37E*00 3,39E*00
1,96E*01 1,T3E*01 1.60E+01 l,47Et01 1.31E+01 1.09E+01 6.45E+00
3,«JE«OJ 3.DUE.OS 2.81E.03 2.57E-03 2.30E-03 1,91E>03 1.18E-OJ
8.55E-OS 7.58E-03 7.00E-03 6,«1E-03 5.73E-03 tt,76E>03 3.69E-03
2,08E*01 3.06E+00 1,57E*00 1,01E*00 6,«6E>01 3,74E*01 1.92E-01 6.64E-02
•9.77E-01 7,50E*00 4.69E+00 l,39E»Oi 5,3«E»00 1,20E«01 6,20EtOO 2.81E+01
5.63E+OU 1.39E+08 6.48E»08 7.13E+09 1.05E+10 1,22E»11 a,66E+ll 2,33Et)3
NORMAL (ENGINEERING STANDARD) CONDITIONS ARE SI DEC C AND 760MM HG.
-------
TABLE 27.
0-SB OT.10.7t 0635 SPORT
IMPACTOR FLOWRATE » 0,86* ACFM IMPACTOR TEMPERATURE « 6i5,o r * 123,9 c SAMPLING DURATION « 60,oo *i*
IMPACTOR PRESSURE DROP * 1.2 IN. or HG STACK TEMPERATURE a 6is.o F » 323,9 c
ASSUMED PARTICLE DENSITY • 1,00 GM/CU.CM, STACK PRESSURE • 28.26 IN, OF HG MAX, PARTICLE DIAMETER • 189,2 MICROMETERS
GAS COMPOSITION (PERCENT) C02 • 6.UO CO • 0,00 NJ • 71,36 01 • 5,SO H20 * 15,00
CALC, MASS LOADING • 3.6632E.03 GR/ACF 9.1329E-03 GR/ONCF 8,S828E*00 MG/ACM 2.089»E»01 MG/DNCM
IMPACTOR STAGE so si 82 33 so ss s& FILTER
STAGE INDEX NUMBER 1 2 3 « 5 6 7 8
050 (MICROMETERS) «.30 «,27 2.28 1,86 1,02 0,71 0.3U
MASS (MILLIGRAMS) 0,06 0,10 0,06 0,06 0,07 0,10 0,11 0,38
MG/ONCM/STAGE 1,33E*00 2,22E*00 1,33E+00 1,33E*00 1,56E*00 2,22E*00 2,«5E+00 8.BSE+00
CUM, PERCENT OF MASS SMALLER THAN 050 i,ooE+02 «,36E*oi e,JOE*oi 7,66E+oi 7,o2e*oi 6,28E*oi 5,2ietoi
CUM, (MG/ACM) SMALLER THAN 050 7.85E+00 6,<)6E*00 6.12E+00 5.89E+00 5.26E+00 «,37E«00 3,39E^OO
CUM, (MG/DNCM) SMALLER THAN D50 1.96E+01 1.73E+01 1.60E401 1.07E+01 1.31E+01 l,09Et01 8.U5E+00
CUM, (GR/ACF) SMALLER THAN D50 3,«SE«03 3.0aE«03 2,81E«OJ 2.57E-03 2.30E-03 l,91E»03 1,USE-OS
CUM, (CR/DNCF) SMALLER THAN D50 8.55E.03 7,58E-03 7.00E.03 6.41E-03 5.73E-03 4,76E>03 3.69E-03
GEO, MEAN DIA, (MICROMETERS) 3,m*01 5,95E»00 3,12E + 00 2,06E + 00 1,38E + 00 8,51E«01 «,91E«01 2.01E-01
DM/OLOGO (MG/DNCM) 9,S2E»01 7,69E*00 <(,92E*00 1,«9E»01 5,96E*00 1,«2E*01 7,65E*00 2,81E*01
DN/DL06D (NO, PARTICLES/DNCM) 3,01E+0« 6.97E+07 3,09E*08 3.25E+09
-------
REFERENCES
1. Tayler, Paul L., Characterization of Copper Smelter Flue
Dust, APCA Paper 76-24.3, presented at the 1976 Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association.
2. Smith, Wallace B., et al, Particulate Sizing Techniques for
Control Device Evaluation, Appendix A., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report EPA-650/2-74-102a prepared by
Southern Research Institute under Contract No. 68-02-0273.
63
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
I. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-151
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of an Electrostatic Precipitator for Control of
Emissions from a Copper Smelter Reverberatory Furnace
\S. REPORT DATE
__ JUNE 1980 ISSUING DATE,
|6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
G. B. Nichols, j.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
McCain, J. E. McCormack, W. B. Smith
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
I
Southern Research Institute
2000 Ninth Avenue, South
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R804762
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: John 0. Burckle
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes tests to evaluate the performance of an electrostatic
precipitator installed on a copper reverberatory furnace. Particle size measurements
were made with modified Brink cascade impactors in order to calculate the ESP fractional]
efficiency. The particle size distributions at the inlet and outlet were both found
to be bimodal. The overall mass median diameter of the inlet distribution was greater
than 10 ym. The SRI-EPA computer model was used to simulate the ESP performance.
Values of the mass collection efficiency were found by instack filters to be 96.7%, and
by cascade impactors to be 96.6%. The computer model predicted an overall efficiency
to be 96.8%, which is also the design efficiency. The particulate matter was found
to be very cohesive and hygroscopic, and the composition (color) varied from impactor
stage to stage. There was no evidence of electrical problems due to particle
resistivity or space charge. Simultaneous testing was also carried out by Radian
Corporation, Austin, Texas. Results of the Radian study are included in a report
"Trace Element Study at a Primary Copper Smelter, Vol. I and II" (EPA-600/2-70-065a
and - 065b, March 1978).
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Exhaust Emissions
Smelting
Trace Elements
Pollution
Copper Smelter
leverberatory Furnace
Particulate Emission
Slectrostatic Precipitator
Field Test
fractional Efficiency
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)'
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
72
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77}
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
64
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980—857-165/0016
------- |