INVESTIGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM
PLYWOOD VENEER DRYERS
Revised Final Report
Prepared for
PLYWOOD RESEARCH FOUNDATION
7011 South 19th
Tacoma, Washington 98466
with matching support under Contract No. CPA-70-138
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Air Pollution Control Office
Durham, North Carolina 27701
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Engineering
Pullman, Washington
-------
INVESTIGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM PLYWOOD VENEER DRYERS
FINAL REPORT
February 9, 1972
Prepared for
PLYWOOD RESEARCH FOUNDATION
7011 South 19th
Tacoma, Washington 98466
with matching support under Contract No. CPA-70-138
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Air Pollution Control Office
Durham, North Carolina 27701
F. L. Monroe
R. A. Rasmussen
W. L. Bamesberger
D. F. Adams
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents i
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
List of Diagrams viii
List of Pictures viii
Summary 1
Introduction 2
Experimental Methods 2
1. Gas Velocities and Flow Rates 2
2. Quantitative Measurement of Hydrocarbons 3
a. Collection of Condensed Hydrocarbons 3
b. Volatile Hydrocarbons 4
(1) Dilution System 4
(2) Condensing System 6
c. Rinco Evaporating Apparatus 6
3. Qualitative Analyses of Major Hydrocarbon Components. 8
a. Sampling Technique 8
(1) Volatile Hydrocarbons 8
(2) Condensed Hydrocarbons 9
(3) Headspace Analysis 9
(4) Cryocondenser 9
(5) Carboy-Irradiation Studies 10
b. Analytical Techniques and Conditions 11
(1) Gas Chromatography of Volatile Hydrocarbons . 11
(2) Identification of Volatile Hydrocarbons ... 11
(3) Gas Chromatography of Condensed Hydrocarbons. 12
(4) Thin-Layer Chromatography of Condensed
Hydrocarbons 12
(5) Infrared Analysis of Condensed Hydrocarbons . 13
4. Particulates and Aerosols 13
5. Veneer Dryer Operation 14
6. Data Analysis 16
-------
Page
Results 17
1. Gas Velocities and Flow Rates 17
2. Quantitation of Volatile Hydrocarbons 17
3. Qualitative Analysis of Major Hydrocarbon Components . 41
a. Volatile Hydrocarbons 41
(1) Representative GC Profiles of Emissions .... 41
to} Comparison of Volatiles from Green and
v ; Dried Veneer 48
(3) Quantitative Identification of Volatile
Hydrocarbons 48
(4) Comparison of a Pinene Concentrations as
Measured by the THA and GC 6?
(5) Cryocondenser 67
(6) Carboy-Irradiation Studies 74
b. Condensed Hydrocarbons 80
(1) Analysis by Gravimetry 80
(2) Representative GC Profiles of Condensed
Hydrocarbons 81
(3) TLC of Condensed Hydrocarbon 32
(4) IR Analysis of Condensed Hydrocarbon 82
4. Particulates 87
5. Veneer Dryer Operations 91
6. Error Analyses 92
7. Condensation Temperature of Plume 93
Discussion 94
1. Gas Velocities and Flow Rates 94
2. Hydrocarbons 99
3. Qualitative Analysis of the Major Hydrocarbon
Components 99
4. Paniculate 101
5. Veneer Dryer Operation 105
Conclusions 107
Appendix A 110
Formulas Used for Calculations 110
112
-------
Page
Appendix B 113
Evaluation of Sampling and Analysis Techniques for
Emissions of Condensable Organics from Veneer Dryers .... 114
WSU-DEQ Field Comparison 114
Experimental 114
Results 115
Comparisons of Sample Analysis Procedures at WSU 117
Extraction Procedure 117
Results and Discussion 118
WSU's Comparison of "RAC" Sampling Train and the'WSU" Condenser-
Filter Technique 122
Results and Discussion 124
Additional Veneer Dryer Emission Data Obtained with the
Combination WSU Condenser Plus Glass Fiber Filter 125
Results and Discussion 126
THA Response to Condensed Veneer Dryer Emissions Before and
After Filtration 128
Summary 130
References 131
m
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
I. Sample Data Form 15
II. Description of Dryers and Averages of Veneer Moisture
Content 18
III. Individual Measurements for Computation of Emissions .... 19
IV. Hydrocarbon Emissions from Steam-Heated Dryers 34
V. Hydrocarbon Emissions by Type from Steam-Heated Dryers ... 36
VI. Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gas-Heated Dryers 37
VII. Hydrocarbon Emissions by Type from Gas-Heated Dryers .... 38
VIII. Variability of Duplicate Hydrocarbon Samples on Steam-
Heated Dryers 3g
IX. Variability of Duplicate Hydrocarbon Samples on Steam-
Heated Dryers, lb/10,000 Production by Species 40
X. Hydrocarbon Emission Normalized for SCFM 43
XI. Hi-Vol Data on Dryer #9 88
XII. Particle Size Distribution with Unico Sampler in
Sampling Train 89
IB. Comparison of Four Simultaneous Samples Taken by
DEQ and WSU Dryer #50 116
IIB. Comparison of the Recovery of Condensable Organics
by the Rinco Rotary Evaporation and Ether Extraction
Procecures 121
IIIB. Comparison of Sampling Procedures, WSU Condenser-Filter
vs. RAC Staksamplr . " 124
IVB. Condensable Organic Fraction Collected by Filter -
WSU Condenser-Filter System 127
VB. Comparative THA Response Before and After the Filter . . . . 129
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #09 ...................... 49
2. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #09 ...................... 49
3. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #09 ...................... 49
4. Gas Chromatograms - Ponderosa Pine Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #09 ...................... 50
5. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #12 ...................... 50
6. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #12 ...................... 50
7. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions by Stack - Dryer #28 ................. 51
8. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions by Stack - Dryer #28 ................. 51
9. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions by Stack - Dryer #28 ................. 52
10. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir, Sapwood
and Heartwood - Dryer #19 .................... 52
11. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir, Sapwood, Heartwood -
Dryer #15 ............................ 53
12. Gas Chromatograms - Southern Pine Sapwood Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #31 ...................... 54
13. Gas Chromatograms - Distribution of Veneer
Dryer Monoterpene Emissions by Stack - Dryer #31 ........ 55
14. Gas Chromatogram - Reproducibility of Three
Replicated Samples - Dryer #31 .................
15. Gas Chromatograms - Distribution of Veneer Dryer
Monoterpene Emissions by Stack - Dryer #35 ........... 57
16. Gas Chromatograms - Distribution of Veneer Dryer
Monoterpene Emissions by Stack - Dryer #36 ........... 58
17. Gas Chromatograms - Distribution of Veneer Dryer
Monoterpene Emissions by Stack - Dryer #36 ........... 59
18. Gas Chromatograms - Effect of Condenser on Concentration
of Southern Pine Monoterpene Emissions - Dryer #36 ....... 60
19. Gas Chromatograms - Effect of Condenser on Concentration
of Southern Pine Monoterpene Emissions - Dryer #32 ....... 61
-------
Page
20. Gas Chromatograms - Effect of Condenser on Concentration
of White pine Monoterpene Emissions - Dryer #15 62
21. Gas Chromatograms - Comparison of Veneer Dryer Monoterpene
Emissions - Douglas Fir, Sapwood and Heartwood - Dryer #19 ... 63
22. Gas Chromatograms - Comparison of Veneer Dryer Monoterpene
Emissions - Hemlock, Larch, White Pine, Ponderosa
Pine - Dryer #15 64
23. Gas Chromatograms - Comparisons of Veneer Dryer Monoterpene
Emissions by Stack - White Fir - Dryer #27 65
24. Gas Chromatograms - Ponderosa Pine Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #09 66
25. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene Emissions -
Dryer #09 67
26. Comparison of Wood Volatiles by Total Hydrocarbon
Analyzer and Alpha Pinene by Gas Chromatography - Dryer #09. . . 68
27. Continuous THA Measurement of Douglas Fir Wood
Volatiles - Dryer #09 68
28. Comparison of Continuous THA Measurement of Ponderosa
Pine and Douglas Fir Wood Volatiles - Dryer #09 70
29. Continuous THA Measurement of Hemlock Wood
Volatiles - Dryer #12 71
30. Comparison of Continuous THA Measurement of
Douglas Fir Wood Volatiles by Stack - Dryer #12 72
31. Comparison of Continuous THA Measurement of Douglas
Fir Wood Volatiles by Stack - Dryer #12 73
32. Gas Chromatograms - Compairson of Douglas Fir Wood
Volatiles - Direct Sample vs. Cryocondenser Sample - Dryer #09 . 75
33. Gas Chromatogram - Cryocondenser - Enriched
Terpene Sample 76
34. Gas Chromatogram - Cryocondenser - Enriched
Terpene Sample - Dryer #05 77
35. Effect of Irradiation on Douglas Fir
Wood Volatiles - Dryer #09 78
36. Eight Day Stability of Douglas Fir Wood
Volatiles - Dryer #28 79
37. Effect of Irradiation on Douglas Fir
Wood Volatiles - Dryer #28 79
38. Gas Chromatogram - Condensable Douglas Fir
Volatiles - Stack 1 - Dryer #12 83
VI
-------
Page
39. Gas Chromatogram - Condensable Douglas Fir
Volatiles - Stack - Dryer #12 84
40. This Layer Chromatogram of Condensable
Douglas Fir Volatiles - Dryer #12 85
41. Infrared Spectra of Condensable Douglas Fir
Volatiles and Abietic Acid - Dryer #12 86
42. Gas Chromatograms - Light Hydrocarbons in Gas-Fired
Veneer Dryer Emissions - Dryer #05 102
43. Gas Chromatograms - Douglas Fir Monoterpene
Emissions - Dryer #05 102
44. Gas Chromatograms - Comparison of Light Hydrocarbons and
Douglas Fir Volatile Emissions in Gas-Fired Dryer - Dryer #23 . . 103
vn
-------
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Page
1. Schematic of Dilution Probe Sampling Train Used Early in
Project 5
2. Schematic of Condenser Sampling Train for Veneer Dryer
Study 7
IB. Schematic of Solvent Removal System 119
2B. Extraction-Separation Procedure 120
LIST OF PICTURES
Page
1. Veneer Dryer Stacks on Dryer #09 Using Strobe-Light
Photography 90
2. Veneer Dryer Stacks on Dryer #09 90
3. Veneer Dryer Stacks on Dryer #09 90
4. Veneer Dryer Stacks on Dryer #09 90
5. Visible Emissions, Mostly Water Vapor, from Dryer #32 ... 95
6. Visible Emissions, Mostly Water Vapor, from Dryer #32 ... 95
7. Visible Emissions, Mostly Water Vapor, from Dryer #32 ... 95
8. Apparatus Used in Collecting and Separating Condensables . . 96
9. Apparatus Used in Collecting and Separating Condensables . . 96
10. Apparatus Used in Collecting and Separating Condensables . . 96
11. Apparatus Used in Collecting and Separating Condensables . . 96
12. Details of Stack Sampling Train with Condenser 97
13. Details of Stack Sampling Train with Condenser 97
14. Details of Stack Sampling Train with Condenser 97
15. Details of Stack Sampling Train with Condenser 97
16. View of Visible Emissions from Dryer #09 98
17. Method Used to Obtain Wet-Bulb Temperatures 98
18. Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer 93
19. Gas Chromatograph in Field Laboratory 98
vm
-------
INVESTIGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM PLYWOOD VENEER DRYERS
FINAL REPORT
SUMMARY
[Subsequent to the completion of the 13-mill study conducted under
the joint sponsorship of the Plywood Research Foundation and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (contract CPA-70-138) questions were raised
concerning the comparability or equivalence between (a) the condenser
source sampling technique and the Rinco rotary evaporator analytical
procedure used to develop the 13-mill veneer dryer condensable organic
emission data herein reported, and (b) the Research Appliance Company
"Staksamplr" and an organic solvent extraction analysis technique.
Appendix B reports a series of studies of limited scope designed to
delineate possible errors in the reported data for the 13-mill study and
to indicate the possible range of correction factors which might be
applied to these data to provide a more realistic measure of the rate
of emission of condensable organic material from typical veneer dryers
and wood species.3
Eight Pacific Northwest and five southern plywood veneer dryers were
tested for emission rates and process variables. Gas- and steam-heated,
longitudinal and jet dryers were studied drying ten wood species types.
Wood particles in concentrations of less than 0.002 gr/ std dry ft3 were
the only significant particulate found at stack temperatures. The visible
blue-haze plume consists of hydrocarbon materials that condense after the
plume cools below stack temperature. Douglas fir and ponderosa pine pro-
duced the most visible plume. Some dryers have visible water plumes.
Total hydrocarbon emissions from the stacks averaged 5.7 lbs/10,000 ft2
of 3/8" plywood produced, of which 3.6 Ibs represented the condensable
fraction. These condensable hydrocarbons consisted largely of wood
resins, resin acids and wood sugars. The other fraction, termed vola-
tile hydrocarbons, consisted of terpenes only in steam-heated dryers,
and terpenes and natural gas components in gas-fired dryers.
-------
INVESTIGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM PLYWOOD VENEER DRYERS
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The emissions from thirteen plywood dryers drying ten different specie
types were studied: Douglas fir heart, Douglas fir sap, Douglas fir white
speck, Englemann spruce, ponderosa pine, Western hemlock, Western larch,
Western white pine, and southern pine. Four different types of dryers
were included in the study: steam-heated longitudinal, gas-heated longi-
tudinal, steam-heated jet, and a three-zone, steam-heated jet with a gas-
heated first zone.
The objectives of this study included the determination of the physical
and chemical nature of the emissions from these dryers during the drying of
various veneer species under normal conditions of operation and the evalua-
tion of process differences which might account for the observed differences
in visual emissions. Determinations were made of the volatile and condensable
hycrocarbon emissions in pounds per hour and pounds per 10,000 ft2 of 3/8"
plywood produced. Gas velocities, flow rates, and wet and dry bulb temperatures
were measured concurrently. Most of the dryers were operated at about 360°F,
but a wide variation in exhausted stack gas flow was observed. Visual obser-
vations of the equivalent opacity of the stack emissions were also made.
Process and materials variables were documented to attempt to determine
causes for the variations in hydrocarbon emissions.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
1. Gas Velocities and Flow Rates
Stack gas velocities and flow rates were measured and calcu-
lated according to the Standardized Method of the Industrial Gas
Cleaning Institute (IGCI). This procedure requires the measure-
ment of barometric pressure, wet and dry bulb temperatures, 02
and C02 percentage by volume, static and velocity pressure, and
diameter of the stack. Barometric pressures were measured using
an aneroid barometer at the site. The barometric readings were
-------
compared with radio and television weather reports and then cor-
rected to actual altitude to give actual barometric pressures for
use in gas volume flow calculations.
The water content of the stack gas was determined by wet and
dry bulb temperature measurements taken at the top of the stack
with a mercury in glass thermometer. The bulb of the wet bulb
thermometer was encased in a thin layer of cotton cloth and damp-
ened with water, as required, forcing water through a Teflon tube.
02 and C02 percentages by volume were measured with a
Bacharach Fyrite 02-C02 analyzer.
Static and velocity pressures were obtained with an Ellison
Inclined Draft gauge using a manometric fluid with a specific
gravity of 0.834.
Stack sampling locations were determined using the method
described in Western Precipitation Bulletin WP-50. Eight sam-
pling points representing equal cross-sectional areas of the
stacks were used in most cases. Sixteen sampling points were
used in stacks with diameters in excess of 24 inches.
2. Quantitative Measurement of Hydrocarbons
a. Collection of Condensed Hydrocarbons
A sampling train was developed for the collection of the
condensable fraction of the hydrocarbon emissions. The sam-
pling probe for this system consisted of a glass tube with a
fritted glass filter at the inlet end. The glass tube led
from the stack into a glass condenser which was kept in an
ice-water bath. The condenser was designed to provide a
long contact time with the heat exchanger and a large reser-
voir for collecting the water. The condenser was cooled in
an ice water bath to collect the portion of the hydrocarbons
which for purposes of this study were termed "condensable"
hydrocarbons. A vacuum pump, a rotameter, and a vacuum gauge
completed the sampling train. Acetone was used to facilitate
quantitative transfer of the sample into sample bottles in
-------
the field. The sample bottles contained a mixture of wash
acetone and condensed water and hydrocarbons. Sampling time,
usually about 2 hours, varied from 27 minutes to 6 hours.
Sufficient amounts of water condensed in the ice water bath
that no further drying of the sample gas was necessary for
proper operation of the THA.
b. Volatile Hydrocarbons
(1) Dilution System
During the first phase of the study, a sample gas
dilution system was used to deliver a sample of stack gas
to the total hydrocarbon analyzer (THA) (see schematic).
The use of this sampling system was discontinued in favor
of the previously described condenser method because of
the desirability of collecting the condensable hydrocar-
bon in a glassware condenser. With the dilution system,
the condensable hydrocarbons appeared as varnish-like
droplets along the sample line. The purpose of the sam-
ple gas dilution system configuration was primarily to
prevent condensed water from interfering with the opera-
tion of the THA. Ambient air, used as a diluent, was
dried by passing it through anhydrous calcium chloride.
The dry air was then delivered to a tee connector in the
stack where measured (with rotameters) volumes of dry air
and stack gas were mixed. The volume of air required to
dilute the stack gas below its dewpoint, after the gas
is cooled to ambient temperature, was determined from the
wet/dry bulb temperatures of the diluted gas. The ratio
of dry air to stack gas in the sampling train was deter-
mined with two rotameters--the first measured the flow of
dry air and the second measured the total flow of dry air
plus sample gas. The flow of sample gas was determined
from the difference in rotameter readings.
-------
Diagram 1
SCHEMATIC OF DILUTION PROBE SAMPLING TRAIN
USED EARLY IN PROJECT
EMISSION
STACK
ROTAMETER
VALVE /
/ / -
DIRECTION
DILUTION OF FLOW
AIR LINE
AIR IN
\Co CI2 (ANHYDROUS)
USED AS DRYING AGENT
-------
The diluted and cooled sample gas was conducted from
the mixing tee in the stack through a 6 ft x 3/16 in. O.D.
TeflonR tube to the sampling ports where samples were
obtained for determination of volatile hydrocarbons,
particle size distribution, and total hydrocarbons.
(2) Condensing System
Later in the study the previously described condens-
ing system was utilized instead of the dilution probe.
A portion of the sampled stack gas, after the condensible
hydrocarbons were removed, was fed to a Wilkins gas chro-
ma tograph equipped with a hydrogen flame ionization detec-
tor (FID) through the vacuum pump. This gas-chromatograph
was operated without a column in a continuous mode as a
total hydrocarbon analyzer. The THA was calibrated with
hexane. A calibration gas cylinder containing 262 ppm
hexane was also used in the field to determine THA response,
The hydrocarbons that were not collected in the condenser
went through the carbon-vane-vacuum pump and produced a
response on the THA are termed "volatile" hydrocarbons.
The output of the THA was continuously recorded with a
Model H Leeds and Northrup strip chart recorder at a
chart speed of 8 minutes per inch. Significant events
relating to dryer operating conditions and stack sampling
data were also noted on the chart. The items most fre-
quently recorded included stack wet and dry bulb tempera-
tures, times when gas chromatographic samples were taken
and whether or not the dryer was operating.
c. Rinco Evaporating Apparatus
A Rinco evaporating apparatus was used to evaporate water
and acetone from the condensed hydrocarbon samples. The
rotating flask of the apparatus was maintained at 40°C +5° in
a water bath heated with a electrical hot plate under 27-28"
-------
Diagram 2
SCHEMATIC OF CONDENSER SAMPLING TRAIN
FOR VENEER DRYER STUDY
STACK
EMISSION
DIAGRAM OF
CONDENSER
GLASS
FRIT
PRBE
CONDENSER
IN DEWAR
VENEER
DRYER
STACK
VACUUM
£ GAUGE
OUTLET
SMALL PORTION
OF STACK GASES
DELIVERED TO THA
FOR VOLATILE
HYDROCARBON
ANALYSIS
ROTAMETER
VACUUM
PUMP
DEWAR
W/ICE WATER BATH
CLAMPED TO EDGE
OF STACK
STOPPER
-INLET
SAMPLE COLLECTION
RESERVOIR
MOST SAMPLED
STACK GAS
EXHAUSTED HERE
TOTAL HYDROCARBON
ANALYZER
"AFTER CONDENSER"
GAS CHROMATOGRAPIC
SAMPLES TAKEN HERE
-------
Hg. vacuum pressure until the water and acetone had evapora-
ted leaving a pitchy, resinous, varnish-like residue. The
total weight was taken after a 3-hour stabilization period.
This weight was used along with data from rotameter readings
and sample times to determine the amount of condensed hydro-
carbons emitted from the stack in units of pounds per hour,
Ib per 10,000 ft2 of 3/8" plywood produced, and Ib per 10,000
ft2 of plywood per 1000 CFM exhausted from the dryer.
3. Qualitative Analyses of Major Hydrocarbon Components
a. Sampling Technique
(1) Volatile Hydrocarbons
All stack gas samples for analysis on the Carle 9000
gas chromatograph were taken in Pressure-lokR gas-tight
syringes. All samples were of 1 ml volume, except where
otherwise noted. This small volume was used because (1)
sufficient volatile hydrocarbon material was in the sample
for optimum resolution on the low substrate level Carbowax
column used in the study; (2) many samples could be injected
into the GC before the accumulation of higher hydrocarbon
components began to generate spurious signal noise; (3) the
1 ml sample did not need prepressurization for optimum
resolution; and (4) the metal nose piece and front barrel
ring of the Pressure-lok syringe remained hot until injection
a few minutes after the sample was drawn from the stack.
These metal parts of the syringe enclose much of the 1 ml
volume in the syringe.
Samples drawn into the syringe were routinely taken
by holding the syringe 4-6 inches below the rim of the
stack. The syringe was held in the hot stack gases for
a minute before drawing in the sample, using an asbestos
glove to protect the hand. The syringe was flushed twice
with the hot stack gas before closing the valve. The
-------
syringe was immediately placed in the styrofoam insulated
packing box for delivery to the GC in the trailer. Repro-
ducible GC analyses of paired samples were obtained using
this method.
(2) Condensed Hydrocarbons
Gas chromatographic, thin-layer chromatographic, and
infrared spectroscopic techniques were utilized to deter-
mine the qualitative characteristics of the condensed
material discussed in section 2c above.
(3) Headspace Analysis
The analysis of the volatile components in the air
above and around an enclosed material is termed "head-
space analysis." This technique was used to study dif-
ferent types of wood veneer placed in 500 ml flasks each
fitted with a septum sampling port. Gas samples of 1 ml
volume were taken through the septum-sealed sampling port
and analyzed on the Carle 9000 gas chromatograph. The same
conditions of analysis were used as described for the
analysis of the stack gases. The concentration of the
volatile monoterpenes from the enclosed veneers usually
reached equilibrium with the air in 4 hours at room
temperature.
(4) Cryocondenser
A new environmental sampler, with a unique concentra-
tion mechanism, has been developed at this laboratory to
study qualitatively and quantitatively the different
types of trace organics gases present in the atmosphere.
This cryogenic sampler (cryocondenser) employs a multiple
column heat exchanger to pump ambient air into the con-
centrator. The sampling rate of 2.2 1/min is controlled
by a critical orifice with a repeatibility of +2%. The
liquid air sample with its contaminants obtained in the
-------
cryocondenser was distilled at-78°C (dry ice). A retention
efficiency of 95% and higher for C5 - C10 compounds is
obtained using this procedure. Gas samples were taken from
the valved sample port and analyzed by isothermal and pro-
grammed temperature gas chromatography. This equipment
was used at several of the study sites to obtain enriched
collections of C± through C10 compounds in the stack
emissions.
(5) Carboy-Irradiation Studies
The photochemical reactivity of the volatile hydro-
carbons (monoterpenes) in the veneer dryer emissions was
determined using a simulated atmospheric irradiation
reactor. An evacuated borosilicate glass carboy (5 gal)
with a 30 inch 3/16" O.D. stainless steel tube was used
to sample the stack emission. The ambient temperature
of the sampling probe effectively removed the "blue haze"
fraction of the emission by thermal deposition. The
pressure of the final sample in the carboy was the same
as the barometric pressure at the time of sampling.
Gas chromatographic analyses of the stack emissions and
the hydrocarbon fractions in the carboy were made at
the time of sampling. These analyses established baseline
data for determining the accuracy of the monoterpene
composition in the carboy compared to the stack emission
during the sampling period. These data also provided
the time zero analyses for reference to the chemical
changes that would occur in the simulated atmospheric
irradiation of the carboy as well as a measure of any
loss of the hydrocarbons in the carboy because of thermal
deposition on the glass walls.
Access to the carboy is through two stainless steel
fittings with septums and a stainless steel packless
vacuum valve. Twelve "blacklight" (Sylvania F 15T8-BL)
10
-------
fluorescent lamps (15 watts each) are mounted in a frame-
work as a vertical cylinder large enough to contain one
of the carboys. This irradiation system is an established
method for studying the reactivity of hydrocarbons that
participate in the formation of smog.
Analytical Techniques and Conditions
(1) Gas Chromatography of Volatile Hydrocarbons
The basic gas chromatographic (GC) conditions used in
this study were established earlier during the laboratory
studies of the different veneer wood types and veneer dryer
gases obtained from the Potlatch Forests Industries, Inc.,
plant in St. Maries, Idaho. The conditions of those earlier
studies were modified slightly for these field studies.
Instrument: Carle, model 9000 gas chromatograph,
with dual columns, isothermal oven, and dual flame ionization
detectors. Sensitivity of 1 x 10'n AFS.
Columns: One 6-ft column, 1/8 in. O.D., #304, S.S.,
4% Carbowax 20M on 60-80 mesh Chromosorb W HP (Supelco).
One 3-ft column, 1/8 in. O.D., #304, S.S., Porapak Q,
80-100 mesh.
Mode of Operation: Isothermal at 72-76°C; signal noise
from column bleed compensated for through the use of a
Mofet dual channel electrometer. Gas pressures were He,
16 psi; H2, 22 psi; and air, 21 psi. Signal output was
recorded on a Hewlett Packard model 680 option 141,
5 in. recorder, at a chart speed of 1/2 in./min.
(2) Identification of Volatile Hydrocarbons
The identification of the monoterpene components
was based on relative retention times. For greater accuracy
the retention times were measured in millimeters (mm).
This was necessary due to the very close elution times of
the terpene hydrocarbons.
11
-------
The following elution sequence was determined for
the Carbowax column (74°C) used:
isoprene ( 7 mm) myrcene (31 mm)
a pinene (13 mm) a terpinene (34 mm)
camphene (17 mm) limonene (39 mm)
6 pinene (22 mm) B phellandrene (41 mm)
A3 carene (29 mm) y terpinene (53 mm)
a terpinolene (67 mm)
(3) Gas Chromatography of Condensed Hydrocarbons
Analyses of the varnish-like condensate residues
resolubilized in acetone at concentrations of 1.2 - 2.8%
were made on a Perkin Elmer model 990 programmed temperature,
dual column, FID gas chromatograph. Diethylphthlate,
odorless grade, was used as an internal standard to determine
the percentage of the residue eluted from the SE 30 column.
This instrument, with the appropriate column pair, has
the capability of resolving components from -70°C to 400°C.
After initial studies showed very small traces of a pinene,
limonene, and a terpineol in the residues, analyses
were restricted to those components eluted between 100
to 350°C.
Columns: Matched pair of 6 ft, 1/8 in. O.D., #304,
S.S. tubing packed with 2% SE 30 GC grade on 60-80 mesh
Chromosorb W HP. Helium flow was 35 ml/min.
(4) Thin-Layer Chromatography of Condensed Hydrocarbons
Thin-layer chromatographic (TLC) analysis of the
residues from stack #1 and stack #2 at Dryer #2 were
•
made on 10 x 20 cm glass slides coated with Silica Gel G,
250 microns thick. The residues were resolubilized
in acetone at concentrations of 1.2% for stack #1 and 2.8%
for stack #2. Twenty microliters were spotted on the
plates and partitioned in three different single-phase
12
-------
solvent systems. The three solvents selected from the
eluotropic series were benzene (#4), chloroform (#6),
and acetone (#9). The plates were developed by spraying
with a 50% H2S04 solution containing 5% K2Cr207 and
charred at 140°C.
(5) Infrared Analysis of Condensed Hydrocarbons
A Perkin Elmer model 621 infrared spectrophotometer
was used to analyze the condensates. The infrared (IR)
spectra were obtained from amorphous thin films of the
residues on NaCl plates.
Particulates and Aerosols
In the early stages of the study, particulate sampling for
total solid mass loading was accomplished with a Hi-Vol sampler
modified to accept iso-kinetic nozzles. The Hi-Vol unit was
positioned in the stack with its nozzle about two feet below the
rim of the stack. Sampling at stack temperature was accomplished
in this way. The hot stack gas passing over the Hi-Vol melted
the motor's wire insulation, however, causing an electrical short
after approximately an hour of use. To prevent further motor
failures, the sampler was redesigned so that the motor was
outside the stack.
Particulate matter was collected on two types of filter media
a standard fiberglass filter and wire mesh. Difficulties were
encountered with the use of the fiberglass filter because the
light wood chips and splinters blew off the filter easily, making
it difficult to obtain a valid sample. The wire screen support
filter inside the apparatus was used separately because the visi-
ble deposit of the fiberglass filter was primarily wood fibers
and splinters of a large size. The wire mesh had a grid of 30
wires per inch with square "pore" sizes of approximately 1/32
inches on a side. The fiberglass filters were tared following
equilibration in a constant humidity chamber. They were allowed
13
-------
to equilibrate after sampling in the chamber also. The use of
the Hi-Vol sampler was discontinued because the wood particle
emission was below 0.003 gr/std ft3 of stack gas.
A Unico cascade impactor was used to sample aerosol in the
stack gas for determination of particle size distribution. Sam-
ples were obtained from two different locations: (a) from the
diluted stack gas in the sampling train and (b) from the blue-haze
portion of the stack gas plume at one and three feet above the
stack.
Aerosol samples were also taken by holding clean glass slides
in the blue-haze portion of the stack plume for 30 seconds. The
aerosols collected on the impactor plates were counted and sized
by visual observation at 100 x magnification. An American
Optical microscope equipped with a reticle with 100 squares, each
seventy microns on a side, was used to make these measurements.
The smallest particle size visible with the optical microscope
in these conditions was about 1 micron in diameter.
Equivalent opacity readings were made of the plume through-
out the sampling period. These data were a part of the data
set as shown on Table #1, Sample Data form.
The shape of the condensing plume was mapped photographically
using a dark-field strobe-light illumination technique with an
ordinary electronic flash unit. The vertical, oblique, and
horizontal cross-sections of the plume were illuminated in the
dark by a flat light beam from a slitted mask placed over the
face of the electronic flash gun. The shape of the developing
plume was determined using this technique.
Veneer Dryer Operation
The operating conditions of the dryers were noted on the
data sheets. The most frequently variable condition was drying
time, that is, residence time of a sheet of veneer in the dryer.
The drying time was measured with a stopwatch by determining
the time required for a point on a sheet of veneer to travel
-------
TABLE I
SAMPLE DATA FORM
Dryer code
Species code
Stack number
Date
Production
Emission
Barometric pressure ("Hg)
Static pressure ("Hg)
Water vapor pressure ("Hg)
Dry bulb temperature (°F)
Wet bulb temperature (°F)
Percent C00 (%)
Percent 00 («)
0
Duct temperature ( F)
(2,0)
(2,0)
(2,0)
(6,0)
(8,1)
(3,0)
(4,2)
(4,2)
(5,3)
(3,0)
(3,0)
(4,1)
(4,1)
(3,0)
Velocity pressure in water gage ("):
Point Number Velocity Pressure /VP
Al
A2
A3
A4
Bl
B2
B3
B4
Sum Ave (5,4).
Duct diameter (") (5,3)
HC PPM (5,0)_
15
-------
the distance of one section. On longitudinal dryers this distance,
called section size, was usually 63 inches. On some dryers, how-
ever, it was 72 inches. On all jet dryers observed, this length
was 72 inches. An allowance was made in the production and
drying time calculations for the different section sizes.
Veneer moisture contents were determined by weighing selec-
ted sheets of veneer three times -- before being dried, after
being dried, and after being dried a second time. The assumption
was made that after the second pass through the dryer the water
content of the veneer sheet would be 0% by weight. The validity
of this assumption was spot checked occasionally and was found
to be sufficiently accurate.
Other information regarding the dryers was recorded, such
as number of stacks, zones, sections, decks, and drying tempera-
ture within the dryer.
6. Data Analysis
Fortran and PL-1 programs were developed for use on an IBM
360-67 computer to calculate many of the intermediate and
final results contained in this report. An example of a pro-
gram that produced intermediate results was one that used rota-
meter vacuum gauge readings, length of sample time, and barometric
pressure readings to calculate the volume of stack gas sampled.
Standard temperature was assumed since sampling was done at
ambient temperature and an error of 5°F would only affect the
results by a factor of 468/473 or about 1%.
An error analysis was performed using typical data sets
for a longitudinal and a jet dryer. Each datum was decreased
by its expected negative range of error and used to calculate
a complete set of results. The percentage change in the
results was then reported as a plus or minus percentage error.
Single and multiple variable analyses were run. For example,
a typical data set was taken from Table III. The estimated
amount of error for each datum was subtracted from the complete
16
-------
data set. The resulting data set was then calculated using
the formulas in the appendix. The differences between the
actual results and the results from the "reduced" data set
was then reported as a percentage error of the actual results.
In addition, opacity readings were treated separately in
two ways. Linear correlations were run between opacity and
volatile, condensable, and total hydrocarbons on production
basis only and on a production basis normalized for SCFM exhausted
from a dryer. (See key in Appendix for species code and
abbreviations.)
RESULTS
1. Gas Velocities and Flow Rates
A listing of stack analysis data is contained in Table III
(15 pages), Individual Measurements for Computation of Emissions.
Species codes are listed after the table.
Gas velocities and flow rates did not vary greatly within
any stack on a day-to-day basis. However, there was a large
variation between various stacks and between dryers. This
variation depends upon the damper setting within the stack,
which was controlled by the dryer tenders. The range of
average air volumes from all stacks measured varied from a
minimum of 171.8 SCFM to a maximum of 31,627 SCFM. The
minimum and maximum occurred on different dryers drying
southern pine.
Stacks which had a very high velocity emission had
typically clean inside walls and low plume opacities. Those
stacks with lower velocities generally had blue plumes develop-
ing at varying distances above the stacks. Those with the lowest
velocities typically had a steam or water plume developing from
the stack.
2. Quantisation of Volatile Hydrocarbons
Typical volatile hydrocarbon emissions on the THA ranged
from 10 to 200 parts per million as hexane. Hemlock and white
17
-------
TABLE II
DESCRIPTION OF DRYERS AND AVERAGES TF VENEER MOISTURE CONTENT.
DRYFR
CODE
9
1 2
12
15
1 5
1 5
15
15
I 9
' 1 9
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 1
3?
35
36
37
TYPF
STFAM LONG
STEAM LONG
STEAM LONG
STFAM LONG
STEAM LONG
STEAM LONG
STEAM LO.VJG
STFAM LONG
STEAM LONG
STEAM LONG
GAS LHN'G
23 AT ^00C
23 AT 390F
GAS LONG
STFAM JFT
STEAM JET
STFAM J^T
MIXED JET
STFAM LONG
STCAM JFT
STFAM LPNG
SFCT
13
14
14
1 2
12
12
12
12
16
16
12
12
12
e
11
10
17
73
18
70
21
7.DNT
2
7
?
I
1
1
1
1
2
7
1
1
I
1
3
3
6
3
2
5
7
DECK
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
6
NIJM
OF
STKS
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
?
2
3
2
7
3
•3
3
6
4
2
5
7
SECT
SIZE
IN.
63
63
63
72
72
72
72
72
63
63
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
PRY INK
TFMP
F OEG
375.
350.
350.
375.
375.
375.
375.
375.
375.
375.
375.
300.
390.
375.
375.
360.
365.
360.
320.
330.
320.
STACK
WFT
END
316.
778.
283 .
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
317.
315 .
D .
0.
0.
0.
293 .
324.
267 .
314.
256.
19« .
265 .
TFMP
SPFCIES
AVE
PERCENT
H20
DRV (VENEFR D"»Y ?ASISI
END
349.
329.
379.
327.
330.
325.
32P.
325.
348.
348.
273.
225.
277.
2H1 .
351.
360.
334.
290.
279.
316.
292.
n FIR SAP
D. HP SAP
SPRUCF
D FIR H R T
D F IP SAP
D P INF
LARCH
W PINE
D FIR HPT
D FIR SAP
D FIP SAP
0 HP. SAP
D F IP SAP
D F IP WSK
WHITE FIP
D r IR HPT
S PINF.
S r> INF
S PINF
S PINF
S PTNE
NUM
6
6
9
6
6
8
6
8
4
5
4
0
0
n
4
4
1 •>
0
7
14
O
GRFF.^
45.05
91 .94
125.86
38.08
85.96
132.06
45.52
70.49
36.02
84.56
45.82
0.0
0.0
0.0
88.87
34.06
82.87
0.0
76.59
103.53
121.08
DP.v
0.39
0.6°
O.P3
3.05
1 .64
0.17
1.5°
I. 01
4.48
0.77
2.54
0.0
0.0
O.n
0.07
0.1P
I. 7Q
O.n
0.10
0.13
0.7?
PPYTN
TTMF
MYN
11.2
3°. 3
41 .O
6. 6
10.1
11.3
10.5
°. 5
*>. 5
I"*. 7
12."*
1 ^ . O
1 ! .5
7. S
? o . o
&. 0
°. 8
P. 9
1 c. 8
17. 7
20.7
-------
TAPLE III. INHIVIDUt-L Mf ASURE Kf N T ^ FTP C C * F IT AT I C\ QF FMSSICNS
YFR SPFCIF STK
DOE* CODE-** NIJM
DATE PRODUCTION
SO FT/HR
(•"PACT TY
P E P C F N T
1/8 VENEPP
9
9
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
12
12
12
12
12
I?
12
12
1
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7077C
7087C
707 70
70870
70870
7097C
101 570
101 5 70
101570
101570
101570
10157C
101570
101570
7087C
7C97C
1U157C
101570
101570
1C 157«
101570
10 1 5 70
101570
71070
7K70
7147C
71470
71470
71470
7147C
7147C
7147C
7147C
1 32 3 C
13230
1 3230
13230
7216
7215
6750
675C;
6750
6750
5476
5476
5476
5476
7216
7216
675C
£750
675?j
6750
6750
675C
675C
5? 9?
52S2
'-621
9621
96 ?1
•^621
S621
^621
"-.L,2\
'-.621
40
2&
4C
20
10
2C
4C
4C
40
4G
60
6C
60
6G
10
20
UC
5 0
100
10 j
1 r. 0
K-0
IOC
PC
8U
10
1G
1 C
1 C
ir
10
10
1 ':
BARC
PRCSS
IM.hG
30.rq
29.92
30.09
29.92
P9.95
29.92
"^O.Ofi
3C.C8
30. C8
30. C8
30. C?
30. U8
3C.C8
30.08
25.95
29.^2
30.08
? 0 . C B
3 0 . C 8
30. C8
30. C8
3 C . C R
3 0 . C 8
29.92
29.92
30.05
3C.05
3C.L5
30.05
30. C5
30.75
•^O.T5
30. C5
STK T
DRY
DEC
311
31B
330
314
109
309
308
310
316
318
32C
321
321
323
326
326
352
352
157
356
352
357
36f
303
340
290
272
273
275
276
276
275
290
E^P
WET
F
137
13]
138
147
142
143
141
143
148
154
162
158
156
152
145
144
153
144
150
151
155
159
146
144
137
148
149
153
140
128
145
1 4C
148
CC2 C2
PFRCENT
PY
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
u .0
0.0
O.'J
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
o.n
0 .0
o .•:•
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
VOL
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
IN,H20
0.4610
0.4721
0.0180
0.0237
0.4720
0.4738
0.4608
0.4608
0.4608
0.4608
0. 1816
0.1816
0. 1816
0. 1816
0.0193
0.0180
0.1292
0.1292
0.0295
0.0295
0.0295
0.0295
0.0295
0.4753
0.0152
0.5055
0.2556
0.2556
0.2556
0.2556
0.2556
0.2556
0.2556
STK
DIA
IN.
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
18
18
13
13
18
IB
13
18
* See Table II
** See key, page
111
-------
TARLf III. INDIVIDUAL ME A? UR- f'F \T S FCP CC^PUT AT ! ON HF EMISSION'S (Contd)
ro
o
DRYER
CODE
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
: 12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1?
12
12
12
SPEC 1 1
CODE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
7
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
2
7
7
STK
N'JV
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
£.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
?
2
2
2
2
7
?
nflTP
7157C
7157C
71570
7157C
7157C
7 1 4 7 C
71470
7147C
7147C
71470
71470
7147C
7147C
7 1 4 7 C
7 1 4 7 C
7157L
7157T
10117''.
!••;] 370
I'M 37-'
111 3 7 0
K'l 37C.
I.- H 70
1"1370
101370
1C 137C
r-1370
I'll 3 70
1 -1 1370
I r 1 ? 7 .,
1C 1 3 7''
I r 1 3 7 .1
l"137-->
DPPOUC T I HN
SO FT /HP
t / f> \/ ( • M F r.' Q
9671
9621
9621
9621
9621
9671
9621
9621
C621
^621
9621
9621
9671
9621
C621
9671
9671
7975
?n 75
37? C
377"
37?:
357-:
i 5 7 C
3 5 7 C
7975
7975
!57r
2 57f
3 5 7 r
37?'"1
9 7,? -
"* 5~ ?
CP^Cl TY
P E P C fl N! T
1 C
1C
1C
ir
1 0
1 C'
10
10
1C
i :
if
1C
in
1C
1C
i i
i ':
j
•"•
:_,
')
•*
r.
0
•••
G
'^'
r"
•;/
J
0
:1.
1
p ^ D r
PRFSS
! N . HG
29.90
29. 9C
2 c . c 0
29.90
29.90
30.05
3 0 . T' 5
30. C5
30.05
30.05
30.05
3 0 . C 5
3C.C5
30.05
30.05
29.90
29.90
30.24
30.24
10.24
10.24
33.24
30.24
30.24
3C.24
3 1 . 2 4
30.24
30.24
30.24
30.24
30.24
30.24
10.74
STK T
DRY
ntG
292
290
273
294
300
322
124
322
322
326
340
324
370
320
322
324
3?4
292
2P5
273
769
269
279
2 SO
730
330
330
330
329
328
375
374
131
tNP
WET
F
146
136
140
12P
135
14 ?
13H
136
145
136
124
159
131
134
143
142
133
134
134
143
139
1 4 0
136
1 35
136
131
131
136
135
134
136
117
134
CC?
PEP
RY
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
u.O
0.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0 .0
o . •.:
0.0
" ' "':
0 .''•
0 .0
(..• . J
0 . (
0 . G
o .••>
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
I. .0
02
CENT
VOL
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N , H 20
C.4998
0.4998
0.4998
0.4998
0.4999
0.9139
C.9139
0.9139
0.9139
0.9139
0.9139
C.9139
C.9139
G.9139
0.9139
0.8649
0.8649
0.4558
0.4558
0.4558
0.4558
C.4558
0.4558
0.4556
C.4558
G.9912
0.9912
0.9912
0.9912
C.9912
C.9912
0.9912
C.9912
STK
DIA
IN.
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
IR
13
19
18
18
IR
18
13
18
13
13
18
13
18
18
13
19
-------
TABLE III. INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS FCR COFLTATICN OF EMSSICNS (Contd)
ro
DRYER
CODE
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
S°K IE
CODE
2
11
11
11
11
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
2°
29
2Q
29
29
29
29
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
STK
NUM
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
DATE
101370
71370
71570
71370
71570
101370
101370
101470
101470
10147C
101470
101470
101470
101470
101 47C
10 14 70
101370
101370
1C 14 70
101470
101470
101470
101470
101470
101470
101470
101470
100 7 70
1 00 7 7 0
1C097G
100970
ICC 9 70
10097'
PRODUCTION (
SO FT/HP '
3/8 VENEER
357C
7441
24SO
7441
2480
^550
3550
3825
3825
4040
4040
404 C
4040
4C40
4040
4040
3550
3550
3825
3325
4 04 0
4040
4040
404 C
4040
404C
4040
1 865C
1 P65C-
1197G
1197C
1 197-
1 1 9 7 C
1 P t C I T Y
DE"C. FNT
0
0
0
r\
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•?
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
,'t
0
0
0
3C
Q •>
7i*
7C
7c
7C
6 ARC
PRESS
. I N . HG
30.24
30. 16
29.90
30. 16
29.90
30.24
30.24
30.12
30.12
30.12
3C.12
30.12
30.12
30.12
3 C . 1 2
30.12
30.24
30.24
30.12
30. 12
30. 12
30. 12
30. 12
30.12
30. 12
30. 12
30. 12
29. 11
29.11
28.77
23.77
2 ".77
22.77
STK Jf-
DRY
DEC
330
284
284
324
326
293
294
280
274
275
274
284
290
286
280
2^0
330
330
329
324
326
327
328
332
332
332
328
326
312
330
331
331
334
: NP
WET
F
136
134
136
140
149
131
132
139
135
134
135
136
130
135
136
134
129
129
137
133
130
133
132
135
132
131
131
147
143
145
146
145
147
CC2
PER
BY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0."
0.3
0.0
0 . D
02
CENT
VOL
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
IN,h20
C.9912
0.5152
0.4998
0.9686
0.8649
0.4732
0.4732
0.4532
0.4532
0.4532
C.4532
G.4532
0.4532
0.4532
0.4532
0.4532
0.9872
0.9872
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.9176
0.0454
0.0454
0.0779
0.0779
0.0779
C.0779
STK
DIA
IN.
18
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
ia
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
47
47
47
47
47
47
-------
TARl.fr III. INDIVIDUAL Mr/
S CCP CC^PLTATION C^ EMSSICNS (Contd)
DRYER
CODF
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
S 15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
SPFC IF
CODE
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
5
5
*)
5
5
6
6
8
F
p
8
P
P
13
13
1 3
1 3
13
1 ?
n
13
1 3
13
13
STK
NUV
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
DATE
100770
H0770
IOC 77n
1U087C
10037G
1 CO 8 70
1 00 a 70
100.°. 70
10C<>71
1 0op7C
ice- Q7o
1C097C
10097G
1C0970
1 009^0
100970
10067*"
101)670
10067C
100670
1 ';C670
1 n.; 6 7 r>
I i: 06 70
1 00670
1 DC 6 7-'1
ICC 6 70
in i; 770
1 '.'07 7C
1 10770
100?7C
1 ?0?70
1 C >. f- 7 0
1 '..C •'.' 7C,
PRODUCTION
SO PT/HP
3/8 VFNEEF
986C
9860
9060
8970
S97C
°970
6073
£970
8970
8245
8245
??45
82^5
8245
191 OC
191 ?n
9060
c, L- 6 0
9060
9 o £ n
C06.(-
9u60
Rl 30
PI 30
HI 30
81 30
^500
9 5 r 0
05 f P
91 3;.
91 30
'rl 3*.
Tl 30
OPAC I TV
PTPCSNT
15
15
15
35
35
35
3 S
35
35
ICO
100
7C
70
70
sc
10
. i •:
10
1C
i :
10
25
25
25
25
0
f\
1
z:
? 'j
2:
?>.'.
PARC
PR^SS
Ih.l-G
29.11
2^. 11
29. 1 1
29. C8
29.08
79. C8
29.C8
29. C8
29. C8
28.77
26.77
28.77
28.77
23.77
28.77
28.77
28.94
28.94
28.94
2 ? . °4
28.94
23.94
28.94
23.94
28. C4
29. 1 1
29.11
29. 1 I
29.08
2 9 . 0 8
23.::*.
29.'.^
STK T[
OPY
CCG
329
328
332
329
328
331
330
331
332
326
320
329
328
323
322
320
315
331
330
332
32 H
332
325
331
334
32S
325
326
321'
330
329
324
323
: PP
WET
F
145
144
144
146
146
147
148
147
146
147
151
15 1
151
147
130
128
144
146
151
15 1
149
146
152
145
146
140
144
14P
145
147
143
14C
144
CC2
PE
3Y
0.0
0.0
O.TJ
G.O
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0 .0
0.0
0.0
O.G
c.o
0 .0
0.0
0.")
0.0
0 . f i
) .0
0.0
c .c
0.0
D .0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .'J
C2
RCFNT
VOL
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21 .5
21.5
VFLOC ITV
PRESS
IN, 1-20
0.0454
0.0454
O.C454
0.0454
0.0454
0.0454
O.C454
C.0454
O.C454
0.0779
0.0779
0.0779
O.C779
0.0779
0.2948
0.2948
0.0396
0.0396
0.0396
C.0396
C.C396
0.0396
0.03^6
C.C396
0.0396
C.0396
0.0454
0.0454
0.0454
C.C454
0. 1201
0. 1201
C. 1201
STK
DIA
IN.
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
-------
TABLE III. INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS FCR
OF EMSSICNS (Contd)
ro
CO
DRYER
CODE
15
15
15
15
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
SPECIF
CODE
?6
26
26
26
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
2
STK
MUM
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
DATE
1C077C
100770
10077C
1C077C
91670
91670
9167C
91770
91770
91770
91770
91870
91870
91870
91870
9167C
91670
9177C
°1770
91770
91F70
91P70
91 R7!)
SIR 70
9167C
91670
91670
91670
9177G
91770
91770
9177C
91870
ORODUCTIQN
SO FT/HP,
3/8 VFJMFF.P.
9860
9860
9860
9860
17388
17388
17338
14953
1 4950
14958
14958
17010
17010
17010
170 1C
17388
17388
14°5P
14953
14958
17010
1 70 1^
17010
1701 0
6804
68 04
6804
6RC4
61 83
61P3
6183
6183
69.3^
OPACITY
PERCENT
40
40
4f!
40
30
3C
30
0
\j
0
. 0
3C
30
30
30
30
30
25
25
25
35
35
35
35
3C
30
30
3C
3C
3C
3C
3:
r-
BARC
PRESS
I N . HG
29.11
29.11
29.11
29.11
28.87
23.87
7.8.87
28.80
23. RO
28.80
28.80
23.76
28.76
28.76
28.76
28.87
28.87
28.80
28.80
28. RO
28.76
23.76
28.76
2 P. 76
28.87
23.87
28.87
28.87
28.80
2B.PO
28.80
28. 8C
2 P. 76
STK T?
DRY
DFG
323
328
325
322
32n
317
321
312
315
325
321
319
310
311
311
341
352
349
353
356
343
340
344
351
312
310
311
310
317
314
331
311
315
: wp
WET
F
144
147
138
137
142
139
143
137
143
123
137
139
139
139
149
146
139
128
139
131
145
145
136
144
150
132
150
148
141
144
126
146
147
CC2
P
02
ERCENT
BY VOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
G.O
0 .G
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N t H 20
0. 1942
0.1942
0.1942
0. 1942
0.3946
0.3946
3.3946
0.3946
0.3946
0. 3946
0.3946
0.3946
0.3946
0.3946
0.3946
C.3231
0.3231
0.3231
C.3231
0.3231
0.3231
0.3231
0.3231
0.3231
C.39C4
0.3904
0.3904
C.3904
0.3904
0.3904
0. 3904
0.3904
0.3114
STK
DIA
IN.
47
47
47
47
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
-------
TABLE Til
INDIVIDUAL
?: I»T'\T S FOR (TV PUT AT ION ?F EMSSICN'S (Contd)
DRYER
CHDF
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
23
23
23
23
23
ro ..-.
f* 23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
SPFCIF
COPE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•^
d
2
2
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
STK
NUM
1
1
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
T
2
2
2
2
2
DAT?
91H7P
9187C
9167C
91670
91670
91670
9177L
91770
9177C
91P7C
9187C
91870
91970
r 1 9 7 C
91970
9 1 9 7 P
9197C
M2070
920 1C.
92070
9227C
Q2270
52270
9197
-------
TABLE III. INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS FCR CCNPLTATICN GF EMSSICNS (Contd)
ro
tn
DRYER
CODE
23
23
23
?3
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
SPECIE
CODE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
O
«L
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
STK
MUM
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
DATE
92270
9197C
91970
91970
91970
91970
92070
92070
92270
92270
92270
92270
Q2270
9227C
9227C
92270
92270
9227C
92270
921 7C
92170
92170
9217C
92170
92170
9217C
92170
92173
92170
92170
9217C
92170
9?17:;
PRODUCT I DM
SO FT/HR
3/fi VENEEP
4775
5400
54 CO
54 CO
5400
5400
3333
5192
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
4775
5432
5432
543?
5432
5432
5432
5432
5432
b4?2
5432
54?2
543?
5432
5432
OPACI TY
PFPCENT
0
10
10
10
10
1C
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
•^
\J
0
o
i ^
0
o
f*
o
0
0
r
0
c
c
Ij
f\
•J
'•J
0
.<•,
0
GARC
PRESS
IN.HG
23.78
28.72
28.72
26.72
28.72
2R.72
28.82
28.82
28.78
28.78
28.78
28.78
28.73
28.78
28.78
28.78
2P.73
23.78
28.78
28.96
28.96
28.C6
28.96
23.96
28.96
28.96
73.96
23.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
28. 96
? »• . 96
STK TEMP
DFY
DEC
264
195
199
201
205
190
202
208
210
210
216
219
221
225
224
225
161
167
173
268
278
272
256
256
279
239
282
267
267
202
220
207
210
WET
F
145
107
l'J2
102
108
103
112
111
111
113
132
123
130
141
129
132
99
100
105
139
141
143
141
140
143
145
146
143
141
111
112
112
1 12
CC2
PER
BY
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.5
•3.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0 .5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
U .0
1 .4
1.4
1 .4
1.4
1.4
1.1
1 .1
1.1
1 .1
1.1
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
02
CENT
VOL
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
21c5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N , H 20
C.3495
0. 1468
0. 1468
0. 1468
0. 1468
0. 1468
0. 1275
0.1275
0.1468
0.1468
0.5149
0.5149
0.5149
0.3495
0.3495
0.3495
0.1468
0. 1468
C. 1468
0.4453
0.4453
0.4453
0.4453
0.4453
0.3530
0.3530
0.3530
0.3530
0.3530
0.1468
0.1468
C.1468
0. 1468
STK
DIA
IN.
18
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
18
18
18
18
18
18
23
23
23
18
13
18
18
18
13
18
18
18
13
23
23
23
23
-------
TABLF III. INDIVIDUAL >*-_ aSUF.:. "'; r-,'7S FCP Cr^FLTATICN CF F. V TSS I CNS (Contd)
DRYER SPFCIE
CODF CODE
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
N> 26
°* 26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
2
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STK
NUM
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
">
3
3
3
DATE PRODUCT I™.
SO FT/HP
3/
9217*
'=1970
91 970
91970
91 C7C
91 97^
921 70
921 70
921 70
92170
921 "* •"•
9217C
9217C
92170
92170
97270
= 22 7 G
92270
92270
Q 7 2 1 ".
921 7C
9?1 7~
021 70
92170
C217C
921 7'.:
9227.
9227C,
922 7«
9 2 ? 1 "
•1 2 1 7 C
9 7 ] 70
921 7'.
P VGN'E"
5432
51 f 4
51 P4
51 t4
51 P4
51 84
5791
5791
5791
5791
5791
6185
61 fc5
61 85
61 85
54^7
5497
5497
54C7
54 c 7
5791
57ql
r<791
5791
57CI
5791
5497
54 c 7
5497
lr>497
5791
5791
5791
nPA.Cl TY
PfRCFNT
£
0
c
0
0
p.
c
0
\j
*w
0
•1
r
0
3
C
I*]
ij
:J
0
1 J
i :
10
10
1 C
n
0
0
.'1
0
1 '•":
10
1 "•
BARC
PRESS
IISi.HG
29.96
28.72
28. 72
29.72
2S.72
28.72
28.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
28.96
2:3.78
28.78
28.78
28.7R
28. 78
28.96
28.96
26.96
28.96
26.96
28.96
28.78
23.78
28.78
28.78
28.^6
28. 96
28.96
STK T
Dr'.Y
OEG
216
264
276
287
284
289
315
311
261
273
292
294
266
277
276
241
281
295
281
251
213
22,')
222
210
2?0
210
214
271
195
213
211
205
224
WF.T
c
112
128
129
128
129
136
122
128
136
130
137
141
140
141
130
124
130
142
138
128
108
11 3
112
126
132
110
114
133
1 16
120
107
104
1 16
0 G 2 '02
PERCENT
BY
0.0
1.2
1 .2
1.2
1.2
1 .2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1 .5
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
VOL
21.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
IN.H20
0. 1468
0.7081
0.7081
0.7081
0.7C81
C. 7081
C. 3744
0.3744
C.3744
0.3744
0.3744
0.3744
G.3744
0.3744
0.3744
0.3744
0.3744
C.3744
C.3744
0.3744
0.0916
0.0916
0.0916
0.0916
0.0916
0.0916
0.0916
0.0916
C.C916
0.0916
0.1150
C. 1150
0. 1150
STK
DIA
IN.
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
-------
TABLE III. INDIVIDUAL MEASURE ME:N T S FOR CCVPLTATION OF EMSSICKS (Contd)
DRYER
CODE
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
x> 27
^ 27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
SPECIE
CODE
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
7
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
STK
MUM
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
DATE
92270
92270
92270
9227C
92270
9227C
92070
92070
92070
92070
92070
92070
8267C
82670
82670
R277C
82770
B2870
62870
82770
8277C
82 8 70
82?7C
8277C
8277C
82870
82870
831 70
«3170
°31 70
8317C
9C17C
90170
PRODUCT I ON
SO FT/HR
3/8 VENEEP
5497
54<57
5497
5497
5497
5497
5037
5037
5037
5037
5037
5037
8670
8760
S76C
6570
5P 10
6150
6240
6570
59 1C
61 50
6240.
65 70
5910
6150
6240
102CC
102 CO
10200
10200
ICfiCO
lour.;.'
CPACI TV
PFPCENT
0
0
0
0
0
Q
r*
\J
0
0
0
10
1C
20
25
40
20
0
0
o
40
3
0
c
40
0
r
r-
L-
20
2C
2C
2C
40
40
BAPC
PRESS
IN.HG
28.73
28.78
28.78
28.78
28.78
28.78
28.82
28.82
28.82
28.82
28.82
28.32
29.96
29.96
29.96
29.94
29.94
29.92
29.92
29.^4
29.94
29.92
29.92
29.94
29.94
29.92
29.92
29.90
29. °0
29.90
29.90
29.98
29.98
STK TF^P
OPY
DEC
225
274
215
225
275
255
284
235
290
285
212
2,09
3UO
300
340
292
296
307
297
309
302
309
300
355
351
351
345
325
331
295
333
332
330
WET
F
115
130
113
123
131
130
129
134
131
128
108
108
159
164
165
161
162
158
163
163
168
166
167
159
158
150
164
174
190
185
174
170
139
CC2
P
02
ERCENT
BY VOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U .0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOC ITY
PRESS
IN,H20
0. 1150
0.1150
0.1150
0.1150
0.1150
C. 1150
0.4586
0.4586
0.4586
0.4586
0.0916
0. 1150
0.0361
0.0174
0.0635
0.0299
0.0353
0.0328
0.0328
0.0110
0.0151
0.0135
0.0064
0.0600
0.0676
0.0605
0.0471
0.0458
0.0458
0.0458
0.0458
0.0510
0.0510
STK
OIA
IN.
19
19
19
19
19
19
22
22
22
22
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
13
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
-------
TAHLC III. INDIVIDUAL VFASURFMFMTS FOR CCPPLTAT I ON OF EMISSIONS (Contd)
DRYEP
CODE
28
2P
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
£ 28
28
28
28
2P
28
28
28
28
28
2°
28
28
28
23
28
28
28
28
28
S^tr IF
CODE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
STK
NUM
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
7
2
7
2
DATE PRODUCTION
so
3/e
9017C
83170
8 3 1 7 0
63170
83170
ST-170
9017C
90] 70
00170
831 70
831 70
831 70
8317C
831 70
90170
901 70
901 70
c r> 1 7 n
8287C
83070
8307C
93< 70
H3070
?3i' 70
030 70
8307C
C01 70
901 70
9C 170
P 2 3 7 0
9307r
93070
r< 3 0 7 C
FT/HR
Vr.NF r-F
] 0800
10203
102CO
1020J
10200
1 OP 00
10800
1U300
! CrtCO
1020'?
10200
l'J20n
102C'J
10200
1 OP 00
10800
li'BOO
1 c « ;: ')
6^2 0
64 8 C
6480
64F.Q
640 0
64 PO
64 PC
64 °0
64 !5 j
64 £"*
64 P'.;
6 0 7 0
64 P:
64 PC
6490
DP^CI TY
PFPCPM
40
60
60
6C
60
100
100
100
1 00
4C
4G
40
40
40
10u
100
1 00
100
4C
40
40
40
30
3°
30
30
3'!
3'"!
30
?'?
8")
n;.-
'O
BARC
PRESS
IN.HG
29.9R
29.90
29.90
29.90
29.90
2 9 . 9 ?
29.98
29.98
2?. SB
79 . QO
29.90
2q . 70
29.90
29.90
29.93
29.98
29. 9P
79. 99
29.92
79.78
2 9 . 7 P
79.78
29.78
29.7"
29.78
29.78
7 ? . 9 &
29.98
79.98
29.92
29.78
79.78
?r; .78
STK TJ
DRY
OEG
324
354
?40
337
351
340
337
342
351
368
360
357
364
352
358
365
359
366
323
336
332
^38
377
329
326
324
376
318
316
320
361
350
364
': N^
WET
F
178
177
190
190
177
190
134
192
179
154
176
179
16H
171
171
150
168
163
191
173
175
172
142
192
176
173
186
191
178
138
178
175
170
CC2
PER
BY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
c.o
0 .C
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . C-
0.0
0 .0
0 .,0
0 .0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
02
CENT
VOL
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
71.5
21.5
21.5
71.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N , H 20
0.0510
0.0433
0.0433
U.0433
0.0433
G.0435
0.0435
0.0435
0.0435
C.0538
0.0538
0.0538
0.0538
0.0538
0.0427
0.0427
C.0427
0.0427
0.0686
0.0527
0.0527
0.0527
0.0543
0.0543
&.C543
0.0543
0.0538
0.0538
0.0538
0.0239
0.0497
0.0497
0.0497
STK
DIA
IN.
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
-------
TARLE III. INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS FOR C CN PUT AT I ON' OF E MSS I CNS (Contd)
DRYER
CODE
28
28
28
28
28
28
23
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
S 2R
28
28
28
28
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
SPFCU
CODF
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
*>
C.
2
2
?
2
?
2
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
STK
MUM
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
DAT?
83C70
83070
83070
8307C
90170
90170
90170
8287G
83070
83070
8307C
33070
33070
830 7C
33070
3307C
90170
9017C
90170
10287C
1C-? 8 70
1028 7C
10237G
1C2970
102970
1C297C
1C297C
1C307(J
1030 7C
1C287C1
102P70
1C287L,
IP237P
PRODUCTION
SO FT /MR
3/8 VENEER
64SO
6480
6480
6430
6480
6480
6480
6020
64 GO
64RO
6480
6480
6480
648C
6460
6480
64 8 C
£480
64 S3
9C70
907C
<5070
9070
8740
8740
8740
8740
9400
94T.r
9070
^07°
90 7 C
9C7-
OPACI TY
DfcRCE:NT
60
60
6C
60
80
80
80
80
50
80
30
80
60
60
60
60
80
80
PO
C
(J
0
v
C
u
r>
f
0
0
10
10
10
10
8ARC
PRESS
IN.HG
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.98
29.96
29.98
29.92
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.98
29.98
29.98
29. 94
29.94
29.94
29.94
30.00
30.00
30.00
30. CO
30.00
30.00
29.94
29. r4
?9.94
?9.94
STK TF^P
DRY
DEC
346
342
338
344
350
342
344
353
370
366
368
369
356
354
352
349
357
348
359
234
244
224
237
237
231
247
242
243
241
257
270
250
264
WET
F
180
181
180
174
186
192
178
154
171
164
149
158
164
160
172
160
175
176
172
133
130
136
138
139
130
118
138
135
14C
162
154
158
159
CG2
PER
BY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0 . 0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .3
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
02
CENT
VOL
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
IN,H20
0.0468
0.0468
0.0468
C.0468
0.0435
0.0435
0.0435
0.0269
0.0449
0.0449
0.0449
0.0449
0.0506
0.05C6
0.05C6
C.05C6
0.0427
0.0427
0.0427
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
C.OC39
0.0030
O.C030
O.CC30
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0058
C.0058
0.0058
C.OC58
STK
DIA
IN.
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
-------
T4ELE III. INDIVIDUAL ^1 AS UPf' VI~ \ T 3
CC^FITATICN GF EMSSIChS (Contd)
CJ
o
YER SPECIE
ODE COOP
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 1 7
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
31 17
STK
NUiv
2
2
2
7
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
T>
5
5
5
5
5
5
D4T F
1C297C;
107970
1C2970
1C 2 9 70
103070
10307':
1C. 2 8 70
K2P70
1T287C
lf"'287C
10297C
1C.? 9 70
10797C
102C70
1C307C
103r>7'.,
1C7P70
107870
102870
K'.?f? 7-'i
1C? 9 70
K797C
If 2? 70
1 "29 70
1C 3 070
103070
1''28 7i':
1U287'"
1 ?> ? H 7 0
1 1?8 7.'
1C297D
10297C
K 7 c.' 7 L
PRODUCT I f]f.:
SO FT/H*
3/5 V E N E F F
8740
87V)
874 C
8740
?4i"'Ci
94 Tr
9070
c n 7 i"
9070
90 7(
'J740
R740
874C
P740
9400
9 * C C
C070
907C.
CC 7'J
C-C70
R74-"
H74 ^
3 7 4 j
0740
94 CO
0400
9070
9070
i; ."> 7 3
9 C1 7 0
«7^o
fc1 7 4 C.
G74>'.
CPACI TY
PERCENT
1C
10
10
10
1'J
IT
1 0
1C
1 '-
10
1 J
1 p
10
10
10
1 r
1 5
15
15
15
1 r-
15
15
15
15
15
2:
2.';
?>'
2 '.;
30
3C
3'.:,
B A F C
pprss
TN.HG
30.0?
30.00
30 . r-L
30. CO
30. CO
30. C^
29.94
29.^4
29. <54
29.94
30. CO
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
? 9 . •; 4
29.94
2 9. '-'4
29.94
30. GO
30.00
30.0U
30.00
3 0 . C. C
3C.OC'
29.94
29.94
29.94
29.94
30.00
3.";. 00
3(, .00
STK Tf
QC Y
DEC
271
270
274
274
771
271
301
302
290
?C:0
?94
290
293
293
290
305
301
302
2C'5
293
295
293
295
790
291
3'J2
326
328
318
319
371
329
329
: f/p
WET
F
160
158
162
163
165
162
1 70
161
172
169
171
168
168
171
172
160
168
164
169
171
17?
166
164
169
169
163
160
168
171
165
166
163
166
CG2
P
G?
ERCENT
BY VOL
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
\j * 0
L .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.o
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
c: .0
0.0
21.5
? 1 . 5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
71.5
71.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
IN,H20
0.0020
O.C020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0146
C.0146
0.0146
0.0146
0.0159
C.0159
C.0159
0.0159
0.0159
C.0159
0.0139
0.0139
0.0139
0.0139
0.0122
C.C122
0.0122
C.C122
0.0122
0.0122
C. 1249
0. 1249
0.1249
C. 1249
0.0543
C.0543
0.0543
STK
DIA
IN.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
-------
TABLE III. INDIVIDUAL VF A SURF Mb'NT S FCR CCNFLTATICN OF FMSSICNS (Contd)
DRYFR
CODE
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
- 32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
SPECI F
CODE
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
STK
Nuy,
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
DATE
10297C
103070
10307C
102P70
102P70
107870
1C2870
10297^!
102970
102970
102970
1P3C70
103070
103070
1C 30 70
10307C
103070
1C3070
103070
1C3070
103070
103' 71-
103070
1C307C
1030 70
110270
11027C
1 10270
11077 c
U037C
110370
110770
11027C
PRODUCTION
SO FT /HP.
3/8 VEMEFP
874G
Q4CO
94GG
9070
9070
90 7 C
90 7 C
P7'»0
8740
8740
8740
94 GO
94CO
13400
134CG
1 34CO
13400
13400
1?'*CO
13400
1 3400
1 34 C(-
13400
134CC
13400
8 9 CO
89 d"1
8900
«9Cr>
57 GO
8700
P90G
b9Cf'
GPACI TY
PERCENT
30
30
30
20
70
2C
20
30
30
3G
3 "5
30
30
0
o
c
70
20
20
3C
3'J
3 0
1 0
1C
1 ?
o
r-
0
0
C;
0
0
0
EARC
PRESS
IN.t-G
30.00
30.00
30. CO
29.94
29.94
29.94
29.94
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
3C.OC
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
3C.CO
30.00
30.00
30.00
30. GO
30. CO
30. GO
30. CO
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.74
STK TEVP
DPY
DFG
324
318
330
340
342
328
329
?32
337
335
331
331
339
320
316
306
317
323
314
285
293
293
151
141
140
257
257
755
252
256
25R
281
285
WET
F
168
171
164
154
156
152
150
156
148
139
151
142
146
186
178
186
197
191
200
194
184
191
127
114
1 19
131
130
130
130
130
130
126
17.4
CC2
PE
BY
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.C
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
5.7
5.7
3.4
3.4
3.4
1.1
1.1
1.1
0 . U
0 .0
G.O
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
02
RCENT
VOL
21.5
71 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
15.8
15.8
15.8
18. 1
18.1
18. 1
20.4
20.4
20.4
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N , H 20
0.0543
0.0543
0.0543
0. 1614
0 . 1 6 1 4
0. 1614
0. 1614
0. 1579
0.1579
0.1579
0.1579
0.1579
0.1579
C.0206
0.0206
0.0206
0.0267
0.0267
0.0267
G.G253
C.0253
G.0253
G.3842
G.3842
0.3842
C.5975
0.5975
0.5975
C.5975
0.5975
0.5975
0.0046
O.C846
STK
DIA
IN.
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
73
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
49
49
49
49
49
4-3
49
49
-------
TAGLC in. INDIVIDUAL '-'
S FOP cc "PUT AT ION TF SCISSIONS (contd)
DRYEP
CODE
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
£ 36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
SPEC i r
COOE
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
1.7
17
1 7
17
STK
MUM
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
["' TF
1 10270
110 2 70
1U'370
IK: 3 70
Ilu470
11C 4 70
1H-47C
IK 470
1 1 C 4 7 0
110470
11C-47C
110470
110470
1 1047C
110470
110470
1 JC47C;
1 10470
1 Ki 4 7 . j
11C 4 7?
1 1C-47C
1 K-47C-
11C 470
110470
110470
1 10470
] i p 4 7 P.
1 1 L 4 7 '.'
1 K-4 7i":
i n 47'.;
11047G
1 1-470
1 U 4~'P
PRODUCT ION
SO FT/MR
7/6 Vf-NFF.F
101 CL-
IO 1 C '..'
icirr
1 C 1 C •'.'
1 ' I ' .
1010';
1 C 10"
1 C 1 (V
n p £ c i T Y
P F. P C E N T
n
n
0
r
0
,"
V.-
,_
o
j
r
\.
0
0
~
c
l_
•j
•••'
'•
n
25
?5
25
25
Q
7.1
'„
o
•j
rf
**
i:
i':
PARC
PRESS
I N . HG
29.74
29.74
2°. 74
29.74
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
?9.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29. 76
29.76
29.76
29. 76
29. 76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29. 76
2C . 76
STK TENF
DRY
DEC
279
275
277
277
169
191
208
2C2
1 98
209
213
210
238
247
251
242
273
268
271
271
320
31 7
3C.9
316
266
265
265
264
265
266
266
293
291
WET
P
124
126
124
124
167
167
170
168
165
18 1
185
131
190
188
168
192
178
162
191
19C
174
179
135
174
143
142
140
140
14C
139
141
139
14C
CC2
P
n
0 .0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0 .0
0 .0
0.0
O.G
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
L .0
o.n
0.0
U.O
Z .0
0 .J
0 .'3
Q.'i
0.0
C . 0
0.0
0 .0
0 .0
0 . 0
U . J
•j .n
0.0
<"' . 0
02
ERCENT
Y VOL
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21 .5
21.5
21.5
?1 . 5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N , H 20
0.0846
0.0846
O.C846
C.0846
0.0023
C.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0012
0.0012
O.C012
0.0012
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0667
0.0667
0.0667
0.0667
0. 1628
0. 1628
0. 1628
0. 1628
0. 1628
0. 1628
0. 1628
C.0965
0.0965
STK
DIA
IN.
49
49
49
49
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
48
43
43
43
46
48
48
43
48
-------
TABLE III. INDIVIDUAL MFASUREVFNTS FCP CCI" PLT AT I ON CF EMSSIOS (Contd)
DRYER
CODE
37
37
37
37
37
SPECIE
CCDE
17
17
17
17
17
STK
MUM
2
2
2
2
2
0£TE
110470
11C470
11G47C
110470
110470
PRODUCTION
SO FT/HF
3/B VENEER
10100
1C10C
1C1CO
101 00
101 GO
OPAC I TY
PFPCENT
10
1C
10
\r.
1C
PARC
PPFSS
IN.HG
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
29.76
STK TE
DRV
DEC
291
2RR
295
2°l
292
:N°
WET
F
139
137
140
140
140
CC2
p
02
ERCENT
3Y VOL
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
J.O
0.0
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
VELOCITY
PRESS
I N , H 20
C.0965
0.0965
0.0965
0.0965
0.0965
STK
DIA
IN.
48
48
48
48
48
oo
co
-------
TABLE IV
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM S T E AM-HE AT F.D DRYERS.
CO
-fi
DRYER
CODE
9
9
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
19
19
19
19
27
27
27
28
28
STK
NUM
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
SPECIES
CODE
DFPS
OF PS
DFRS
DFRS
SPRC
SPRC
DFRH
DFRS
PPNE
HMLK
LRCH
WPNE
OFRH
DFRH
DFRS
DFRS
WF IR
WF IR
WFIR
DFRH
DFPh
PRODUCTION
SO FT/HR
3/8 VENEER
6580
658C
3474
3474
3911
3911
11970
9266
8245
9060
8067
986C
16386
16386
6635
6635
--
6217
6217
10475
10475
A[R
VOLUME
SCFM
5980
819
3611
5352
3680
5214
9217
7049
9105
6420
6595
14812
5655
5046
4894
4838
—
484
1092
873
705
OPACITY
PERCENT
AVERAGE
43
76
0
0
0
0
73
28
82
10
17
40
20
30
23
22
—
12
12
?8
28
VOLATILE
HC
LB/HR
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.22
0.69
2.43
0.35
0.30
1.07
0.40
•) . ,? 3
0.16
0.26
—
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.09
COND HC
LB/HR
2.24
1.14
0.42
0.73
0.67
0.68
4.17
4.21
6.61
1.03
3.02
6.05
1.5?
2.48
1.20
2.60
—
0.10
0.22
1.05
2.00
H20
LB/MIN
STK
68.2
14.1
38.3
43.5
35.3
36.2
147.7
108.4
151.1
113.5
165.7
213.0
68.4
55.0
69.4
64.8
--
11.5
26.1
45.8
47.7
HYDROCARBONS
LB/100CO,
VOL CONO
5
3
3
1.85 3
0. 74 4
2.95 8
0.39 1
0.34 3
1.09 6
0.38 2
0.63 5
0.03 0
.13
.29
.43
.48
,54
.02
.14
.40
.13
.44
.73
.51
PROD
TGT
5.13
3.29
3.43
5.34
5.29
10.97
1. 53
3.74
7.22
2.83
6.36
0.54
-------
CO
01
HYDROCARBON EMISS
DRYER
CODE
28
28
28
28
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
STK
NUM
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
A
5
I
?.
SPECIES
CODE
DFRH
DFRS
DFRS
OFRS
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
SPNE
PRODUCTION
SO FT/HR
3/8 VENEER
10475
6439
6439
6439
9004
9004
9(04
9004
9004
9004
13400
13400
13400
1340C
8833
8833
8195
8195
8195
8195
8195
10100
10100
AIR
VOLUME
SCFM
1033
820
791
987
317
195
473
434
1727
3454
678
506
650
6173
31627
12062
357
199
171
350
1549
15037
11516
IONS FROM
OPACITY
PERCENT
AVERAGE
66
33
72
73
0
10
10
15
26
26
0
20
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
10
STEAM-HEATED DRYERS. (Cor
VOLATILE
HC
LB/HR
0.18
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.15
0.20
0.21
0.72
1.02
0.27
0.36
0.37
1.21
3.18
1.09
0.17
0.12
o.in
0.22
0.72
2.63
1.40
COND HC
LB/HR
0.85
0.66
1.23
1.03
0.12
0.03
0.10
0.22
1.15
1.21
0.42
2.77
5.15
0.13
1.22
1.17
0.01
0.22
0.12
0.22
2.74
0.71
1.58
H2D
LB/MIN
STK
31.5
51.6
45.4
31.0
3.5
5.4
17.9
15.2
55.9
54.4
51.4
72.3
64.0
51.6
281.9
74.8
14.2
13.0
15.1
23.0
86.4
206.4
144.0
VOL
HYDROCARBONS
LB/lOOOOtPROD
CDND TOT
0.36 3.72 4.09
0.51 4.54 5.05
2.63 3.13 5.76
1.65 6.33 7.98
4.83 2.71 7.55
1.62 4.05 5.67
3.99 2.26 6.25
-------
TABLE V
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY TYPE FROM STEAM-HEATED DRYERS
LB/10000 PRODUCTION BY SPECIES
SPECIES
LOW
HIGH
AVERAGE
DRYERS
TOTAL
DFRH
DFRS
PPNE
HMLK
fcFIR
LRCH
SPNE
WPNE
SPRC
2.83
3.29
10.97
1.53
0.54
3.74
5.67
7.22
3.43
5.34
6.36
10.97
1 .53
0.54
3.74
7.98
7.22
3.43
4.08
5.02
10. P7
1.53
0.54
3.74
6.64
7.22
3.43
3
5
1
I
1
1
5
1
1
CO
en
VOLATILE
DFRH
DFRS
PPNF
HMLK
KFIR
LRCH
SPNE
WPNE
0.36
0.51
2.95
0.39
0.03
0.34
1.62
1.09
1 .35
0.74
2 .95
0.39
0.03
0.34
4.83
1 .09
0.87
0.62
2.95
0.39
0.03
0.34
2.95
1.09
3
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
CONDENSED
DFRH
DFRS
PPNE
HMLK
WFIR
LRCH
SPNE
WPNE
SPRC
2.44
3.29
8.02
1.14
0.51
3.40
2.26
6.13
3.43
3.72
5.73
B .02
1 .14
0 .51
3 .40
6.33
6 .13
3 .43
3.22
4.65
8.02
1.14
0.51
3.40
3.70
6.13
3.43
3
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
-------
TABLE VI
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GAS-HEATED DRYERS
DRYER
CODE
23
23
23
24
25
25
26
•** ->t.
•j 26
STK
NUM
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
SPECIES
CODE
DFRS
DFRS
DFRS
DFRS
DFRS
DFRS
DFRW
DFRW
PRODUCTION
SO FT/HR
3/8 VENEER
5053
5053
5053
4775
5432
5432
5037
5037
AIR OPACITY
VOLUME PERCENT
SCFM AVERAGE
3465
2909
3713
3940
3393
2995
5378
2024
15
17
11
0
0
0
0
10
VOLATILE
HC
LO/HR
2. 50
2.06
0.68
1.55
1.36
1.25
0.90
0.12
COND HC
LB/HR
0.91
0.92
0.22
0.27
0.82
0.54
0.61
0.17
H20
LB/MIN
STK
53.5
45.3
14.8
41.0
50.3
47.2
47.6
8.8
HYDROCARBONS
LB/ioooo,pRon
VDL COND TOT
10.37 4.05 14.41
7.43 0.56 7.99
4.80 2.50 7.31
2.02 1.54 3.57
-------
TABLE VII
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY TYPE FROM GAS-HEATED DRYERS
LB/10000 PRODUCTION BY SPECIES
SPECIES LOW HIGH AVERAGE DRYERS
00
TOTAL
DFRS
DFRW
VOLATILE
DFRS
DFPW
CONDENSED
DFRS
DFRW
7
3
4
2
0
1
.31
.57
.80
.02
.56
.54
14
3
10
2
4
1
.41
.57
.37
.02
.05
.54
9.
3.
7.
2.
2.
1.
90
57
54
02
37
54
3
1
3
1
3
1
-------
VARIABILITY OF
TABLE VIII
DUPLICATE HYDROCARBON SAMPLES ON STEAM-HEATED DRYERS
00
VO
ORYER
CODE
15
15
15
15
15
15
19
19
19
19
28
28
28
28
28
28
STK
MUM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
SPECIES
CODE
DFRS
DFRS
DFRS
LRCH
LRCh-
LRCH
DFRH
DFRH
DFRH
DFRH
DFRH
OFRH
DFRH
DFRH
DFRH
DFRH
PRODUCTION
SQ FT/HR
3/8 VENEER
8970
9860
8970
9500
8130
9130
14958
14958
17388
17010
10200
10200
10200
10800
10800
—
AIR
VOLUME
SCFM
6995
7127
6995
7072
6557
1C554
5746
5206
5574
4945
771
698
995
843
703
—
OPACITY
PERCENT
AVERAGE
35
15
35
6
25
20
0
25
30
35
20
60
40
40
100
—
VOLATILE
HC
LB/HR
0.16
0.29
0.36
0.25
0.17
0.10
0.31
0.17
0.25
0.20
1.60
0.89
0.69
0.50
0.55
—
COND hC
LB/HR
5.92
2.33
3.57
2.72
4.29
3.92
1.57
2.78
1.48
2.23
0.67
1.99
0.82
1.69
2.57
—
H20
LB/MIN
STK
112.4
100.8
112.4
105.4
101.2
165.7
61 .4
37.1
74.6
67.8
52.0
54.0
38.6
45.8
47.7
—
HYDROCARBONS
LB/10000,PROD
VDL
0.40
0.29
3.40
0.26
0.21
0. 1 1
0.32
0.26
3. 12
COND
6.60
2.36
3.98
2.86
5.28
4.29
2.91
2.16
3.41
TOT
7.01
2.66
4.38
3.12
5.49
4.40
3.23
2.42
6.53
0.97
3.94
4.91
-------
TABLE IX
VARIABILITY OF DUPLICATE HYDROCARBON SAMPLES GN STEAM-HEATED DRYERS
LB/10000 PRODUCTION BY SPECIES
SPECIES LOW HIGH AVERAGE DRYERS
0
TOTAL
DFRH
DFRS
LRCH
VOLATILE
DFRH
DFRS
LRCH
CONDENSED
DFRH
DFRS
LRCH
2.42
2.66
3.12
0.26
0.29
0.11
2.16
2.36
2.86
6.53
7.01
5.49
3.12
0.40
0.26
3.94
6.60
5.28
4.27
4.68
4.34
1.17
0.37
0.19
3.10
4.32
4.14
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
-------
fir had very low volatile hydrocarbon emission, for example,
while ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and white pine had compara-
tively high values. Tables IV, V, VI, VII, VIII summarize
hydrocarbon emission values for steam- and gas-heated dryers.
Tables IV, VI, and VIII give hydrocarbon emission figures on
a dryer basis. Tables V, VII, and IX give the figures on a
species-type basis.
3. Qualitative Analysis of Major Hydrocarbon Components
a. Volatile Hydrocarbons
(1) Representative GC Profiles of Emissions
A selection of representative gas chromatograms
of the veneer dryer monoterpene emissions is shown in
Figures 1-8. These chromatograms were selected from
747 gas chromatographic analyses of the stack emissions
made in the field using the Carle 9000 gas chromato-
graph housed in the trailer. The chromatograms
(Figures 1-17) show the following:
1. Concentrations of methane and C2 to C5 compounds
were less than 5 ppm in the stack gases in steam
dryers whereas in gas fired dryers concentrations
of these compounds ranged from 30 to 175 ppm
(hexane).
2. Minor traces of unidentified (U) C6 to Cg compounds
were eluted before a pinene (a) in the stack gas
during the drying of Douglas fir, southern pine,
and ponderosa pine veneer. The amount of light
hydrocarbon (LHC) components in the stack gas
was higher during the drying of ponderosa pine
than during the drying of Douglas fir or southern
pine.
3. The volatile hydrocarbon emission was predominantly
of reactive hydrocarbon types (monoterpenes = olefin
41
-------
structure). Studies to determine its relative
reactivity compared to ethylene, isobutene and 1-
butene are in progress.
4. The percentage distribution of these volatile
terpenes was characteristic of the wood species.
5. The composition of monoterpenes emitted from all
stacks in a dryer during the drying of a single
wood species was similar.
6. The concentration of the volatile hydrocarbons was
different for each stack on a dryer and usually was
characteristic of the dryer.
7. In the diluted stack gas going to the THA, a pinene
was almost 100% of the monoterpene fraction.
8. A wide range in the concentration of volatile
hydrocarbons (monoterpenes) was measured in the
stack gases studied.
9. The day-to-day character of the emissions for a
given species of wood was similar at any plant
but the concentrations of the stack emissions
were variable.
Although Douglas fir veneer was the major wood type
dried at the four plants in the Pacific Northwest, three
other wood types (ponderosa pine, western hemlock, and
white fir) were dried during the study period. Figure 4
shows three chromatograms of the volatile hydrocarbons
analyzed in the stack gas at Dryer #09 on 10 July 1970
during the drying of ponderosa pine veneer. The chroma-
togram on the left is attenuated in the usual fashion,
2X, 5X, 2X. It shows a small (10% of scale at 10X) a
pinene peak compared to the average 60 to 80% of scale
peak at 10X for Douglas fir.
The measurements of the amount of a pinene in the
stack gas indicate that ponderosa pine veneer releases
only 20 to 30% as much a pinene as Douglas fir. These
42
-------
TABLf x. HYQRCC.ftPE'CIM t N I S ? I C N KOPVALIZEC FCP
CRYFR
CODE
9
9
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
19
19
19
19
23
23
23
24
STK SPECIFS
NUM
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
1
2
1
?
3
1
CGDE
CFPS
DFRS
OFRS
DFRS
SPRC
SPP.C
DFR H
PFP. S
PPNE
HMLK
LRCH
WPNF
DFRH
~FRH
CFP 5
DFRS
RFC ?
CFR S
DFP S
DFR S
PRODUCT IGN
SO FT /H9
3/8 VENEFF
65£C
6.5FC
347A
3A1A
3^-11
3911
1197C
9.? 6 6
62^*5
SO 60
«867
•5660
16366
Ifc366
66.35
6635
5^3
5C53
5C53
4775
AIR
VOLUME
SCFM
598C
819
3611
5352
368C
5214
9217
7C49
S1C5
642C
6595
14812
5655
5C46
4694
4833
3465
?9C9
3713
394C
CP/JCITY
PERCENT
AVERAGE
43
76
0
0
0
0
73
28
82
10
17
40
20
30
23
22
15
17
11
0
MYDRCCARDCMS
LB/10000
VCLATILE
—
--
--
0.201
0. 1C5
0.324
0.061
0.052
0.074
0.070
0. 130
3.194
1.886
SO FT PRCC/
CONC
2.680
0.723
0.796
0.378
0.644
0.881
0.178
0.515
0.414
0.466
1.180
1.261
0.14?
1000 SCF
TOT A
2.680
0.723
0.796
C.579
C.75C
1.205
0.238
0.567
0.487
0.536
1.31C
4.449
2.C28
-------
T/i^LF X. HYDRTCAFPCN EMSSICN NCPMLIZEL FC" SCFP. (Contd)
HYDRCCAPRCNS
LR/10000 SO FT PRCC/1000 SCFM
VCLATILE CUNT TOTAL
DRYER
CCDF
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
2P
28
2 P.
28
28
28
21
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
35
35
STK
NUM
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
•3
1
2
-i
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
?
3
*
1
2
SPFCIES
CCDE
OFRS
DFRS
DFRW
PFF'.-J
KFIF
WFIR
UF IR
OF R H
PFRH
PFPH
OFF S
C-FC s
CFRS
S°K
SPNF
SPNf
SPNJ:
SPNr
SPMF
SP'MF.
SPNf
5PN7
SPNC
SPNF
SP\T
PRODUCT I CN
SO FT/HO
3/F VFNFFR
5432
5422
cp 37
5C27
—
6217
6217
1C475
1C475
K.475
6439
6439
6439
c. r c 4
C-CC4
9 C C 4
90C4
c, C C4
CCC4
134CO
134CT
1 34CO
13400
P c 3 3
? H 3 3
AIR
VOLUME
SCFy
33^,3
2995
5378
.?C?4
—
484
1C92
P73
7C5
1C33
82C
791
9E7
317
195
473
434
1727
3454
678
5C6
65C
6173
31627
12C62
CP/IC! TV
PERCENT
AVERAGE
C
0
C
1C
__
12
12
28
28
66
33
72
73
r
10
10
15
26
26
0
20
30
10
C
0
1.505
0.451
0.060
0.418
0.602
2.905
0.779
0.388
0.651
4.633
5.290
2.474
2.283
C.839
0.6SC
5.051
5.891
5 . 4 C 3
1.404 10.464 11.H68
0.216 0. 154 C.37C
-------
TABLE X. HYORGCAPPCN EMSSICN NORMALIZED FCR SCF*. (Contd)
CRYER
cor?E
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
STK
N'JM
1
2
•t
4
5
1
2
SPECIES
CODE
SPNF.
SPrjf
SPNF
SPNF
SPNF
SPME
SPNE
PRODUCT I CM
SQ FT/HC.
3/8 VENEER
6195
E195
8195
8195
6195
1C1CO
1C1CO
AIR
VCLITE
SCFy
357
1?9
171
35C
1549
15C37
11516
CFACITY
°ERCENT
AVFPAGE
0
0
0
0
25
0
10
HYDROCARBONS
LB/10000 SO FT °RCn/1000 SCFM
VCLATILE CUND TOTAL
3.377
0.294
5.188
0.182
8.559
0.476
-------
percentages agree favorably with the reported 10 to 20%
figures for the amount of extractive a pinene in pon-
derosa pine wood compared to Douglas fir.
The middle chromatogram in figure 4 is attenuated
throughout the profile at 2X. It presents a picture
of the undistorted proportions of the eight monoter-
pene and three light hydrocarbon peaks resolved in the
analysis of the volatile hydrocarbons in stack #1.
The chromatograms (left and middle) are analyses of
paired samples, i.e. samples taken simultaneously.
The peaks heights of a pinene are 215 vs. 214 mm; the
two GC profiles are identical within the limits of
analytical error.
The chromatogram on the right in figure 4 is an
analysis of the diluted stack gas going to the THA.
Alpha pinene is essentially the sole component measured.
Figures 5 and 6 (Dryer #12) show the similar day-to-
day character of the volatile hydrocarbon emissions from
the same wood species as well as the significant differ-
ence in actual hydrocarbon concentrations in these emis-
sions. Figures 7, 8, and 9 (Dryer #28) show the constancy
of the composition of the monoterpenes in the stack gas
and the distribution in the concentrations related to
the stack number for three consecutive days during the
drying of Douglas fir. Figure 10 (Dryer #19) and 11
(Dryer #15) show the characteristic composition of the
monoterpenes for Douglas fir veneer as well as the
relative concentrations between sapwood and heartwood.
Figures 12, 13, and 14 (Dryer #31) show the
1. characteristic composition of volatile monoterpene
in the veneer dryer emissions for southern pine;
2. the constancy of composition and relative concentra-
tion of the monoterpene emissions in stacks 1 to 6;
46
-------
3. the repeatibility of the gas chromatographic analyses
for three simultaneous samples taken from stack #4.
Figure 15 (Dryer #35) and 16 and 17 (Dryer #36) show
a lower percentage of a pinene in the monoterpene emis-
sions of southern pine. This difference is most likely
due to a different species of pine being studied under
the general description of "southern pine." These
analyses show essentially the same thing as shown in
Figure 13.
To determine if the condenser used to collect the
condensed hydrocarbon fraction of the stack gas affected
the concentration of volatile hydrocarbons delivered
to the total hydrocarbon analyzer, gas chromatographic
analyses were made before and after the condenser.
Figures 18 and 19 representing southern pine show no
differences for the analyses made before and after the
condenser. Figure 19 includes two ways of calculating
the percentage distribution: one, not including the LHC
from the gas fired dryer and the second one including
the LHC fraction with the monoterpene composition.
Figures 20 and 21 also show that the condenser did not
affect the concentration or composition of the volatile
hydrocarbons fed to the total hydrocarbon analyzer.
At several of the plywood plants analyses were made of
the stack emissions while veneers from tree species recog-
nized not to be monoterpene sources were dried. Chroma-
tograms for these analyses show very low concentrations
of monoterpenes in the stack gases. Figure 22 shows
the composition and the concentrations measured for
western hemlock, western larch, and western white pine
compared to the ponderosa pine. All of the analyses
were made from the same dryer (#15) within three days
of each other. Figure 23 shows the low concentration
47
-------
of a pinene in the stack gases for Dryer #27 during
the drying of western white fir.
(2) Comparison of Volatiles from Green and Dried Veneer
The volatile monoterpenes released from green
veneers of Douglas fir and ponderosa pine at room
temperature were determined for several wood samples
obtained from the feed stock source of dryer #09.
The percentage distribution of the volatile monoterpenes
(by headspace analysis) compared favorably with the
monoterpene composition measured in the stack gas.
Figure 24 shows the volatiles from green ponderosa
pine veneer. The GC profiles for green and dried Douglas
fir veneers are shown in Figure 25. The green veneer
produced approximately nine times greater concentra-
tion of volatiles than did the dried veneer. As
expected, a greater number of monoterpene components
were measured in the hot stack gas than in the
headspace.
(3) Quantitative Identification of Volatile Hydrocarbons
Seven to twelve components were usually resolved
in the 1 ml samples of the stack gas. Three to four
of these were light hydrocarbons and five to eight
were monoterpene hydrocarbons. Five of the monoter-
pene peaks were identified by relative retention
times; in order of elution they are: a pinene (a),
camphene (C), 3 pinene (B), A3 carene (AS), and
limonene (L). No attempt was made to identify the
light hydrocarbon peaks C7, C8, and Cg. The Cj-C5
compounds eluted with the air peak. Isoprene (I)
was determined not to be in the stack gas at a
concentration above 1 ppm. Analyses below 1 ppm were
not attempted.
48
-------
VENEER DRYCR MONOTERPCNE LMISSIONS
Douglos Fir
Figure 1 Dryer #09
7 July 1970, 1705 hrs,
RESPONSE
RESPONSE
rv> * cn 09
p O O O O
C
HU
60
40
20
V
>
>
— J
0
Air
f
zx
JV
1
UJ
in
z
o
Q-
V)
t«
K
Mr
2X
N/J
xo
1
C
2
ll
2
80,
60
40
JO
0-
C
Slock 1 Sleek 2
/MI /In* *' #2
a 81.2% 81.7%
C 3.3 3.5
y 6 3.0 2.6
c '2x c t 168 7 Q
2X ft" " A
A/ A \ * 11
Vv — 'V ^sJ(\I^jJ\ Total ppm (hexane):
2 j 4 s o i 2 j 4 » 57^ 54^0
MINUTES
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS Fl* QUTe 2 Dryer #09
Doufllot Fir 8 July 1970, 1521 hrs
Slock I Slock 2
n
/"ox a 77.3%
C 3.7
A., 6 1.6
r» c L 8.4
A 1" AL ,
01 \ $ \ Total ppm (hexane):
\ / V /X -T^ v^_— ' ^ ^~^-
V~\ V-T-',^ r^, ^ 70 i
MINUTES
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
Figure 3 Dryer #09
D°J9|ot Fir 9 July 1970, 1155 hrs
Slock 1 Dilution to
THA
'Tor #1
a 82.3%
C 3.4
' A,, 0 3.9
L 5.4
c ,
J./JiiVl /V _, Jl ^ Total PP'n (hexane):
1 2 3 4 S 0 i 2 J 4 56.2
MINUTES
49
-------
eo
f
20-
VENEER OHYEH MONOTEKPENE EMISSIONS
Ponderoso Pine
Stock I
0 I "2 3 4 5 ' 6
dilution
Ai,
/2K 0
I/
i i i i 1 1 r-
0 I Z J 4 5 6
MINUTES
0123
Figure 4 Dryer #09
10 July 1970, 1125 hrs
a
C
B
41.6%
7.1
7.5
14.3
Total ppm (hexane)
27.5
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
Douglas Fir
Slock I
eo
Dilution to
THA
Ail
ZX
v
'lox '
P
'"
»J
^0v Jl'll
5 1 Z J 4 01251
Figure 5 Dryer #12
14 July 1970, 1452 hrs,
o
C
_ n
84.1%
3.7
3.1
4.2
Total ppm (hexane);
43.5
MINUTES
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
40-1
siock i Douglos Fir
ro
0
Air
2X
I'lnx
|OX
Oilulion lo '
1MA .'
0123 012
MINUTES
Figure 6 Dryer #12
15 July 1970, 1125 hrs
Total ppm (hexane):
25.6
50
-------
60-
UJ
v>
UJ
-------
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
Douglas Fir
STACK 2
STACK 3
en
ro
oH
0123
0123
MINUTES
0123
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSION
DOUGLAS FIR
Heartwood
60-
O 40-
a.
«
UJ
a:
20-1
Sapwood
IOX
2X
1 1 r"
234
-aiox
1 1 1 r-
1234
Figure 9 Dryer #28
1 September 1970
Stack 1 Stack 2
U .2% .5
U 3.0 7.6
a 86.4 83.2
C 4.5 4.0
B 3.0 2.6
L 3.0 2.2
1005 hrs
Stack 3
.8
9.0
84.5
3.4
2.3
Total ppm (hexane)per 1/2 ml
63 55.8 23.7
Figure 10 Dryer #19
16 September 1970
1135 hrs 1609 hrs
Sap
Heart
U
U
a
C
B
M
L
1.6%
3-6
80.0
3-2
6.9
1.8
6.k
0.8
2.0
78.9
3.6
5-7
1.6
6.7
Total ppm (hexane)
MINUTES
-------
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
DOUGLAS FIR
Sapwood
Hearlwood
MINUTES
Figure 11 Dryer #15
7 October 1970
1145 hrs
Sap
1501 hrs
Heart
U .2%
a 82.
C 1
6
.5
.5
9.1
M
L
3.0
3.6
U
a
C
M
L
1.5
74.6
1.0
10.9
5.4
5.4
Total ppm (hexane)
55 130.5
53
-------
en
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
UJ
UJ
cr
60-
40-
20-
Figure 12 Dryer 31
-
2X
o n x
' Southern Pine Sapwood
fllQX
i^
R 40'
UJ
!l in
I
Mo
Q
A L iu 20-
A
|V/V_
V o-
28 October 1970 30 October 1970
,* IOX 1542 hrs 1159 hrs
|
...
_
zx
J
-
^ U — . 3$
a 67.7$ 56.0
C 1.2 .5
L e 28.0 33-2
M /V M 3.0 2.1
Wv_ L li-9 7-7
1234
MINUTES
01234
MINUTES
121.2 U7.7
-------
Stacks
STACK DISTRIBUTION
OF VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
WvJ
IOX
Ik
012} 0123 0123 0123 0123 01234
MINUTES . _ -
1505 hrs
Stacks
1512 hrs
Figure IJ> Dryer $1
29 October 1970 Southern Pine
Total ppm (hexane) per 1/2 ml
46 110.4 165 179.1
56.8
1520 hrs
u
a
C
B
M
L
65. 1%
1. 1
26.0
2.5
5-2
. 1
67.9
1.4
24.8
1.5
.2
69-7
1.2
23.4
1.7
3-7
. 1
68.9
1. 1
24.4
1.4
4.0
• 3
68.7
1. 1
23-9
1.6
4.5
• 3
64.9
.6
26.5
1.6
6.1
83.1
55
-------
100
80
UJ
v>
§60
Q.
40
20
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
THREE SIMULTANEOUS SAMPLES
,a 20X
SOUTHERN PINE
20X
IOX
01234 01234 01234
MINUTES
Figure lU Dryer yi
29 October 1970 1059 hrs
Southern Pine
U
a
C
6
M
L
Total ppm (hexane) per 1/2 ml
187.5 200
Stack #U
6l'.5
1.6
29.9
1.6
5-9
60.3
1.0
31.8
1-5
5-^
62.0
1.1
30.9
1.3
4.7
18'
56
-------
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
SOUTHERN PINE
80
STACK I
0123 0123 0123 0123 OI23>
Stack
Figure 15 Dryer #35
~$ November 1970 09^0 hrs
u
a
C
3
M
L
.6%
56.1
1.8
30.7
2.5
8.fr
,yfo
55-5
l.fr
•55.1
2.2
7-5
.2*
56.7
1.1
33.1
2.5
6.fr
.2%
5fr.6
1.5
32.2
3-2
8.6
57.fr
1.9
28.7
2.9
8.8
Total ppm (hexane) per 1 ml
115.fr Ifr5.8 177.6 152.0
57
-------
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
SOUTHERN PINE
8CH
STACK 5
20X
0123 0123401234 01234 01234
Stack
U
a
C
B
M
L
Figure 16 Dryer
h November 1970 1637
.2%
51.1
1-3
36.6
2.6
8.3
.21,
52.0
1.9
37-2
2.3
6.4
• 3<
53-5
2.2
36.2
2.0
5-8
Total ppm (hexane) per 1/2 ml
153,8 17^.5 179.1
.1%
50.9
1.5
36.9
2.5
8.0
.1*
51.0
1.6
37.2
2.5
7.6
124.0
58
-------
60
040
a.
u>
20
STACK I
VENEER DRYER MONOTEiiPENE EMISSIONS
SOUTHERN PINE
STACK 4
STACK 5
01 23401 23
01234
MINUTES
0123
01234
Stack
U
a
C
3
M
L
Figure 17
5 November 1970
Dryer #36
1JOU hrs
.1%
57.6
1.4
31.0
3-5
6.4
.1
57-2
1.6
32.7
2.9
5.^
.2
55-7
l.U
35-6
2.3
4.8
.1
52.6
1.6
35.1
3.2
7.4
.1
52.9
1.9
35-2
2.8
7-0
Total ppm (hexane) per 1/2 ml
188.1 244.6 373.3
141.8
59
-------
EFFECT OF CONDENSER ON CONCENTRATION OF
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
SOUTHERN PINE
60-1
z
o
Q.
(/>
2X
Before
a SOX
20X
\J
I 1
01234 01234
MINUTES
Figure 18 Dryer #36
5 November 1970 1137 hrs
Before
After
U
u
a
C
6
M
L
.2%
.1
58.9
1.9
30.5
1.9
6.6
.3*
.07
59.3
1.9
29-9
1.8
6.7
Total ppm (hexane) per 1/2 ml
28U.U 278.1
60
-------
CONDENSER EFFECT ON MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
80
60
20
BEFORE
LHC
/SOX
2X
a SOX
AFTER
/LHC
SOX
a SOX
2X
/920X
0123 0123
MINUTES
Figure 19
30 October 1970
Before
1
LHC --- 22
U .08$
u .5
u .3
a 57-7 44
C 1.0
B 31.7 24
M 2.5 2
L 6.2 4
Dryer #32
1404 hrs
2
.2$
.06
.4
.2
.9
.8
• 7
.0
.8
After
I
.05$
.6
.2
54.4
1.0
35.4
2.7
5-7
2
22.2$
--
.4
.1
42.3
.8
27.6
2.1
4.4
Total ppm (hexane) per 1/2 ml
257.2 263.2
Column 1, LHC not included in calculations
Column 2, LHC included in calculations
61
-------
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
Before Condenser After Condenser
20H
(/)
u
0.
-aIOX
1234 01234
MINUTES
Figure 20 Dryer #15
7 October 1970 Mhite pine
1636 hrs
Before
After
U
U
a
c
B
M
L
5.3%
2.6
58.8
2.0
10.8
9.8
10.8
.2%
.8
57.2
2.0
10.
10.
11.9
Total ppm (hexane) per 1 ml
46.8 47.7
62
-------
en
CO
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
DOUGLAS FIR SAPWOOD
Before Condenser After Condenser
-------
CT>
-pi
20-
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENES EMISSIONS
Larch
-a |OX I ml
B
2X
60-
40n
01234
Ponderosa Pine
.10 X
White Pine
\J
1/2 ml
.0 1.2 3 4
234
Figure 22 Dryer #15
6 October 1970
1100 hrs
Hemlock
U 27.5
U 18.8
U 16.1
a 26.2
U 11.4
Total ppm
9.9
7 October
1540 hrs
Whi te Pine
U 2.0
U 1.4
a 76.9
C 1.2
B 6.3
M 5.6
L 7.9
1427 hrs
Larch
a 74.3
C 2.4
6 9.6
M 9.6
L 3.4
(hexane)
39.6
1970 9 October 1970
1007 hrs
Ponderosa Pine
a 7.9
C 0.4
B 9.1
A3 70.9
L 9.5
U 2.1
Total ppm (hexane)
38
112.3
-------
en
z
o
Q.
20
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
WHITE FIR GROUP
STACK 2
STACK I
0123
0123
MINUTES
STACK 3
Figure 23 Dryer #27
27 August 1970 1635 hours
Stack 1
Stack 2 Stack 3
U 8.0%
U 25.5
a 52.4
L 14.1
18.4
49.0
32.6
-_
17.0
44.7
38.3
__
Total ppm (hexane) per 1 ml
9.9 6.5 6.1
65
-------
PONOEROSA PINE VENEER VOLATILES
BO-,
60-
20-
Figure 24 Dryer #09
10 July 1970, 5*5 hrs
LHC
IHC
a
c
B
A3
4.7%
3.7
82.8
0.6
1.2
2.2
2 3 4 S 6 7
MINUTES
Total ppm (hexane)
457
lOO
80
LJ6O-
Z
o
20-
DOUGLAS FIR VENEER VOLATILES
GREEN
2X
20 X
DRIED
Figure 25 Dryer #09
10 July 1970, 56 hrs,
a
B
Total ppm (hexane)
219
MINUTES
66
-------
(4) Comparison of a Pinene Concentrations as Measured by
the THA and GC
On 9 July 1970 at Dryer #09, the times of nine
samples taken for separate GC analyses were identified
on the THA chart for comparison with the GC analyses.
The data shown in Figure 26 are expressed in equivalent
parts per million of hexane. The THA records a higher
concentration of volatile hydrocarbons than that measured
for the single a pinene peak. This is to be expected.
However, it was not expected that a pinene would repre-
sent only 50 to 60% of the THA response when a pinene
compound is 75-80% of the monoterpenes in the volatile
hydrocarbon fraction. In Figure 26 the average of the
differences in concentrations is 20 to 25 ppm.
The plot of the nine paired measurements shows a
very strong parallel structure. This correlation
indicates that the response of the THA is strongly
influenced by fluctuations in the concentration of
a pinene. The continuous daily recordings of the THA
are presented in Figures 27-31. These THA records have
been corrected for background, baseline drift, dilution
ratio, and attenuation. The points on the graphs
represent the average concentration for each 4-minute
time interval.
(5) Cryocondenser
In Figure 32 a comparison between the analyses of
monoterpenes in the cryocondenser and those in the
stack gas at the time of sampling is shown. The analyses
indicate that no changes occurred in the percentage
distribution of the monoterpenes collected in the
cryocondenser. Figure 33 shows a programmed tempera-
ture gas chromatographic analyses of the same sample.
The analysis was performed to see if any oxygenated
67
-------
70 r
60
50
0)
x
0>
I
O.
CL
40
30
Figure 26
9 July 1970
Dryer #9
20
10
O THA
• Alpha Pinene
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 I600I7CO
Hours of Paired Analyses
68
-------
Figure 27
9 July 1970
Drver #09
Stack #1
Douglas Fir
120,
100
CT1
l£>
so!
UJ
Seo
X
a_
a.
40!
20!
10
II
12
13
14
TIME
15
16
17
18
-------
Pine
Figure 28
10 July 1970
Dryer #09
•< Douglas Fir-
Stack I-
Stack 2
I20r
18
-------
LJ
Z
<
X
60,
Q_
a.
40
20
Hemlock
Stock I
Stack 2
Figure 29
13 July 1970
Orver #12
0
15 16 17 18
Time
-------
Figure 30
14 July 1970
Dryer
Douglas Fir
Stack
40
u
LU 20
a.
CL
0
* dryer stopped 10 min.
* 1 swi tched to whi te fi r
Stack 2
Stack I
Stack 2
10
12
13 14
TIME
15
16
17
18
-------
120
Figure 31
15 July 1970
Dryer #12
Douglas Fir
100
80
LJ
* no veneer going into dryer
X
LU 60
a.
a_
40
20
0
Stack
Stack 2
10
12
13
14
TIME
15
16
17
18
-------
terpenes or sesquiterpene (C]5) components could be
resolved in the collection. The cryocondenser was
heated to 60°C and a 5 ml pressurized gas sample
taken for analysis. The elution of a terpineol is
indicated on the chromatogram by *T. The sesquiterpenes
and other oxygenated terpenes eluted before and after
this component at 30 minutes.
Figure 34 shows a gas chromatographic analysis of
a cryocondenser enriched sample of the stack emission
from a gas-fired dryer (#05). The analysis shows a
range of GI through C5 hydrocarbon with several photo-
chemically reactive olefins: ethylene, propylene, and
butene. The concentrations of these olefins in the
stack emission is in the order of 10 ppm as measured
in a 1 ml sample. The cryogenic collection was necessary
in order to collect sufficient material for precise
identification of these combustion products in the
exhaust gases of the veneer dryer (see section Discussion
3 for more information regarding these gases).
(6) Carboy-Irradiation Studies
In Figure 35 the photochemical reactivity of the mono-
terpenes (conjugated olefins) is shown in two parts. The
first two analyses demonstrate the stability and minimal
thermal deposition of the monoterpenes onto the walls of
the carboy. The carboy was wrapped in black polyethylene
plastic, kept in a cardboard box, and stored at room
temperature for 26 days (9 July to 4 August). The dif-
ference in concentrations is within the error of analysis.
The irradiation was begun after the sample was taken on
4 August. By 17 August a 85% decrease in the concentra-
tion of the monoterpenes in the carboy had occurred. An
interesting observation in the photochemically induced
74
-------
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
DOUGLAS FIR
60-
|4°'
0
0.
CO
o: 20
AIR
\
0
2X
^
a CRYOCONDENSER DIRECT
20X
Air
2X /
C i 2X
i ft ft
(1 li
A/L
i— i ^
a
/IOX
2X
C ^
L\K /^
123456 012345
MINUTES MINUTES
Figure 32 Dryer #09
9 July 1970 1500 hrs
0.2 ml 1 ml
u . 3# M
U --- 1.8
Qk.l Qk.J
C k.O 2.9
6.0 U.7
M .5 A
L k.k k.2
u .7 -5
Total ppm (hexane)
72.9 50.0
75
-------
CRYOCONDENSER HEADSPACE
en
100
80
-------
80
60
UJ
V)
z
o
Si40
20
VtNEER DRYER LIGHT HYDROCARBON EMISSION
CRYOCONDENSER
IE
256X
ETHANE
/256X
ETHYLEN
64X\
PROPYLENEI
32X
PROPANE
/I28X
2-BUTENE
BUTANE
32X
PENTANE
N
0 I 2 I 4 I 6 | 8 I 10
I I I I MINUTES I I
23—60 84 108 132 156 170-
TEMPERATURE
12
14
Figure J>k
2h June 1970
M
E
E
P
P
i-B
n-B
B
i-P
n-P
P
Dryer #05
1515 hrs
Corrected Percent Distribution
47-9$
1.3
35-6
12
7
.5
.14
• 5
.9
.03
.18
.14
Total ppm (hexane) 3>299-5 Per
0.4 ml sample from the cryo-
condenser.
77
-------
00
STABILITY OF VENEER DRYER EMISSIONS STORED IN THE CARBOY
Douqlos Fir
801 July 9.1970
60-
UJ
in
z
o
0.40H
20-
,a
IOX
August 4,1970
IOX
2X
LHC
2X
1?
2X
LHC
OI234S6 012345
MINUTES
IRRADIATED DOUGLAS FIR VENEER EMISSION
10 August
UV LIGHT TURNED ON
Figure 35
9 July 1970
U 1.6*
U k.O
77-7
c 3-3
6.2
M .5
L 5-8
u .9
Dryer #09
k August 1970
3-0
78.3
3-8
3-8
• 5
U.I
.9
Total ppm (hexane)
56.6 55.9
10 August 13 August 17 August
80-j
£60-
z
o
Q.
LJ
* 40-
20-
0-
LHC
k
4 AUGUST 1970 U 16
xa
ex
u 6
70
C h
o
13 August 17 August "
L°
L
IT
•3* 3^.7
.8 12.9
. 0 U3. 1
• 3 5-0
6 L q
• *-* H- . *p
65.2
17.1*
lU. 5
2.9
—
L?c
LHC
L jFL_ i
Vv -\J ^^ -I/
012340133 0
MINUTES
1 Total
JL£
W2x
1 1 1
! 3
ppm (hexane)
^_6 13. 5
9-2
-------
STABILITY OF VENEER DRYER EMISSIONS STORED IN CARBOY
DOUGLAS FIR
Figure 36 Dryer #28
60-
LJ 40-
z
o
0-
tfl
K 20-
0
u
2
O
a.
-
1W\ /Y A pV_A. Total ppm (hexane)
234 0 i 2 3 4 5 33.4 33-2
MINUTES MINUTES
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSIONS
00
80
60
40-
20
0
^(6X
2X
1
BEFORE IRRADIATION
XQMX Figure 37 Dryer #28
i
LL 4 September 1970
1
n Shows:
8xli 7 !• ^oss °t terpenes
JUl A 2. Increase in LHC
Hi MJ^V ^_ 3. NO increase in
^JwjLA—JM " —— — y>_ higher boiling
100 -,
z
o
o
u
cc
80
60
40-
20
i
materials
AFTER IRRADIATION
(9 DAYS)
16 X
2 X
^V^~_
0
2X
C n
\j( _, _-/" -_^_ - . fA
' 2 ' 4 ' 6 ' 8 ' 10 I 12 j 14 j 16 j 18 j 2°
MINUTES II
"*3 CO GO 76 02 ifrfl l?1 140 l^fi |7°
TEMPERATURE
79
-------
disappearance of a pinene and the other monoterpenes is
the appearance of the light hydrocarbon peaks.
Figure 36 shows a similar study made on the emissions
from Dryer #28. The thermal deposition of the monoterpenes
was again neglible for eight days storage period.
Figure 37 shows a programmed temperature analysis of
the monoterpenes in the carboy (Dryer #28) before irradi-
ation and after nine days of irradiation. The photo-
chemical reactivity of the monoterpenes is evident in
the 45-fold decrease in the concentration of these
chemicals. The increase in light hydrocarbon compounds
is similar to that observed in the analyses shown in
Figure 35 for Dryer #09. The programmed temperature
analysis did not resolve any significant increase in
higher molecular weight materials.
b. Condensed Hydrocarbons
(1) Analysis by Gravimetry
The condensate residues obtained in the Rinco evapor-
ating flasks had an odor similar to slightly charred
wood. The odor was the same as that surrounding the
stacks. The residue appeared to be a yellowish emulsion
mixed with a clear liquid which had a yellow to amber
color. The rotating flask gained appreciable weight
after it was taken off the Rinco apparatus and no longer
under vacuum. The most probable cause for this gain is
the absorption of atmospheric water vapor since the
gain was reversible; that is, if the flask was put on
the Rinco and evaporated again under original vacuum
conditions, the original weights would be obtained at
the start, and the observed weight gain would occur again.
For this reason the flasks were allowed to sit within
the laboratory for a period of time (3 hours or more) to
80
-------
reach an equilibrium point so that the weight reported
had a constant value. The gain was generally less than 2%.
Tables III through X summarize results for conden-
sable hydrocarbons. Table IX gives results for repli-
cate samples. Table X contains values for hydrocarbon
emissions normalized for 1000 SCFM at standard conditions.
(2) Representative GC Profiles of Condensed Hydrocarbons
The GC analysis of the condensate residues (Dryer #12)
from stack #1 and stack #2 are shown in Figures 3 and 39.
The retention times at which a pinene and a terpineol
should be eluted are marked in these figures. It can
be seen that these two terpenes were not detected in
these analyses.
Figure 38 shows the analysis of 1 yl volume of
a 1.2% solution of the residue from stack #1 in
acetone. The chromatogram is dominated by one peak,
resolved at 240°C, attenuated to 128X, range 10. The
identity of this compound is unknown, but it is believed
to be a hydrocarbon. This peak represents 70% of the
components resolved. Based on the use of the internal
standard (diethylphthlate), the peaks eluted in this
chromatogram of the residue from stack #1 account for
only 35% of sample injected.
Figure 39 presents the analysis of 1 pi of a
2.8% solution of the residue from stack #2 in acetone.
This chromatogram is strikingly different from Figure 38
in that (1) many more components are resolved, (2) the
chromatogram is not dominated by one peak but rather by
three peaks resolved between 226 to 244°C, and (3) these
peaks are attenuated to 64X, range 10.
The identity of these compounds is unknown. This
group of peaks represents 54% of the composition resolved;
and from the internal standard, only 39% of the sample is
81
-------
eluted from the column. The inability to elute 60
to 65% of the residue from the low level silicone oil
GC column (2.1 SE-30) prompted TLC and IR analyses.
(3) TLC of Condensed Hydrocarbon
Benzene was the best solvent for the TLC analysis,
chloroform the next best, and acetone the least. No
differences were observed between stack #1 and stack
#2 residues.
The plates run in benzene separated the resi-
due from stack #1 and stack #2 into four components
(Figure 40). The bulk of the material was separated
into two components, one of which remained at the
origin, the other moved 30% of the distance of the
solvent front and tailed badly. The third component
moved 50% of the distance of the solvent front and
appeared as a weak, diffuse spot. The fourth com-
ponent moved close to the solvent front as a strong
and coherent spot.
The separations obtained in chloroform were
similar to those obtained in benzene with the
exception that the spots were less well resolved.
In acetone (Figure 40) the residue moved as a
cohesive spot close to the solvent front but
showed considerable tailing.
(4) IR Analysis of Condensed Hydrocarbon.
The spectra obtained for the residues from
stacks #1 and #2 (Figure 41) were similar to the
Sadtler spectrum #U1173 of pitch, a mixture of
residue and oils from treatment of pine wood.
These spectra also resembled the spectrum of
abietic acid (Sadtler #3963) also shown in Figure
41 for comparison. However, both residue spectra
have considerably more structure between 8-15
microns than either of the two reference spectra.
82
-------
VENEER DRYER CONDENSED TERPENIC EMISSIONS
I28X
o
I
100
100
6
I
118
136
T
12
I
154
172
-T
18
I
190
I I I
22 24 26
MINUTES |
208 226
TEMPERATURE
T
28
244
30
2,2
T
32
T
34
280
T
36
298
T
38
T
4O
316
-T
42
334
-1
44
Figure 38
15 July 1970
Drver #12
A
B
C
D
E
1.4%
0.4
16.7
70.1
3.5
-------
VENEER DRYER CONDENSED TERPENIC EMISSIONS
00
-Pi
o
I
100
100
118
136
12
I
154
172
190
T-
22 24
MINUTES |
208 226
TEMPERATURE
244
30
I
262
280
T
36
I
298
38
40
334
Figure 39
15 July 1970
Dryer #12
A
B
C
D
E
2.3%
9.9
23.9
54.1
9.7
-------
Figure 40
15 Julv 1970
Dryer #12
TLC OF STACK 2 RESIDUE
Benzene
Acetone
Solvent Front
Origin
-------
Figure 41
15 July 1970
Dryer #12
2.5
WAVELENGTH 'MICRONS!
6 7
8 9 10 12 15
100
4000 3500
3000 2500 2000 1800 1600 MOO 1200 1000 800
WAVENUMBER (CM I
WAVELENGTH (MICRONS)
6 7
8 9 10 12 15
8
280
UJ
U
a:
£ 60
K t
t 40 :
<
"t t~~
-4
4000
--J--
^F
"TT7
~^"~l H~ I I "l~ i "'"I 'i.
—n-tt-f—V
9
vn
i |~
_.JI^
±~t™zt
3500 3000 2500 2000 1800 ^1600, ^ 1400 1200 1000
iBHTIO ICffi WAVt NUMBEBS IN CM-' "20BM02 *»1- •«• «».« » "20 (lit.)
5000 4000 JOOO 2500 2000 ISOO 1400 1100 1700 1100 1000
I I. I I 1 I i i 1 . . I . I . ,1 . I • I 1 III I I I I II ! I !
3963
700
LENGTH IN MICRONS uouro*! l»or7»t.lHi«L 0» 8. p. BMtUr * a»n, Inc. VullM In
86
-------
Minor differences between the spectra for
stacks #1 and #2 were also observed. The spectrum
for the residue form stack #1 had slightly more
hydrocarbon structure than the spectrum for stack
#2 between 8-15 microns. Also the spectrum for
stack #1 had a more intense double bond absorption
band at 6.1 mccrons. However, the hydroxyl absorp-
tion at 2.8 - 3.1 microns was more intense in the
spectrum for stack #2. The spectra obtained are
appropriate for a 60-65% concentration of abietic
acid in a mixture of various sesquiterpene hydro-
carbon components. The finer hydrocarbon structure
between 8-15 microns approximates this level of
associated composition. Therefore, the tentative
identification of the bulk of the residue as a type
of abietic acid (a resin acid, C2oH3202) is warranted
by the close similarity of the IR spectra.
Particulates
Wood splinters were the primary solid particulate collected
on the Hi-Vol filters at stack temperatures. No condensed
hydrocarbons were evident on the filters. Particulate concen-
trations in grains/dry standard cubic feet were calculated from
the particulate weight collected at stack temperatures. Stack
#1 of dryer 09 yielded concentrations from 0.00122 to 0.00236
gr/dry std ft3 (see Table XI).
Size distribution was determined for particles collected
from diluted stack gas at 70-75°F in the dilute gas sampling
train using a Unico impactor. Twenty-minute samples were
taken at a flow of 0.3 CFM. These impactor plates showed
about 5-10,000 particles in the 1-lOu range, 5-10 particles in
the 50-400u range, and a few particles larger than 400^. The
particles were generally spots of a clear oil, a clear yellow
resin, small black spots, wood and wood fibers (see Table XII).
The particle size measurements obtained from the Unico impactor
87
-------
TABLE XI
HI-VOL DATA ON DRYER #9
oo
CO
Stack
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Sampling
Point
Al
Al
Al
B3
B3
A3
A4
Nozzle
Size
Inches
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.25
3.25
3.0
3.0
Sample
Time
Min.
30
30
8:10
60
60
30
30
Rotameter
Reading
Maintained
CFM
40
40
40
*
*
33
32
Air
Sampled
Ft3
1200
1200
326.4
10400
12000
990
960
Air Sampled
Dry, Std
Ft3
739.33
724.80
188.24
5934.14
6839.40
582.12
536.84
Filter Wt.
Gain Grams
0.0825
0.0574
0.0288
0.7679
0.7679
0.0339
0.0240
Concentration
Grains/
Std Ft3
0.00172
0.00122
0.00236
0.00199
0.00173
0.000898
0.000703
* No Hi-Vol motor used and no Hi-Vol filter used.
Sample collected directly on screen support (for filter).
Flow due to jet velocity of stack.
One collection, calculated for measured flow through
screen and for stack flow.
-------
TABLE XII
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
WITH UNICO SAMPLER IN SAMPLING TRAIN
Location
#12
CO
VO
Species
fir
fir
fir
fir
fir
fir
fir
fir
fir
fir
pine
Stack
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
l-10y
47
365
3791
6483
3972
8325
7740
12560
2758
12638
81
10-50p
30
52
1
11
77
32
58
251
13
148
17
50-400y
1
4
0
8
2
1
4
7
1
8
6
400+u
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
Appearance
Clear yellow resin & wood.
Clear resin & wood.
Clear yellow resin & wood.
Clear resin & wood.
Clear yellow resin & wood.
Opaque black spots & yellow resin,
Clear yellow resin & wood.
Clear yellow resin & wood.
Clear yellow resin & wood.
Clear resin & wood.
Clear resin & wood.
-------
VENEER DRYER STACKS
ON DRYER #9
USING STROBE-LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY
Picture #1
Direct lighting,
No Mask.
Stack #1.
Picture #2:
Mask used,
Slit vertical
Stack #1.
Picture #3:
Mask used,
Slit vertical.
Stack #2.
Picture #4:
90
Mask used,
Slit horizontal
Stack #2.
-------
samples obtained from the gas dilution system used earlier
are of doubtful value in view of the apparent collection of
more than 90% of the "total" hydrocarbons on the interior
wall of the gas dilution system tubing.
The strobe light pictures clearly show the structure
of the developing plume (see Pictures 1-4). The stack gases
were clear (except for a few wood particles) as they left the
stack. Initial particulate development (condensation) began
at the extreme outer edge of the gas stream. The pictures
taken with the slit held horizontally show very clear ring-like
or doughnut shapes. The clear volume in the center of the
developing plume was conical. Vertical cross sections show
the cone which extends 3 to 5 ft above the stack (24 in.
diameter). A stronger side scatter effect than back scatter
was observed in the plume. The emission had the general
appearance of a bunsen burner flame with the clear cone of
hot stack gas analogous to a bunsen burner's reducing flame.
5. Veneer Dryer Operations
Dryer operations were held essentially constant except
for drying time and veneer type. The following average
production figures are calculated using measured drying times.
The maximum average production figure was observed on dryer
#19, drying Douglas fir heart at 16,410 ft2/hr of 3/8"
plywood. The minimum was observed on dryer #12, species
Douglas fir sap, producing 3,474 ft2 of 3/8" plywood. Average
production figures were generally constant on a daily basis
and were characteristic of the species type being dried.
The weight loss of veneers being dried was usually less
than lOg on the third run. Douglas fir heartwood veneers
usually weighed about 2,000 grams and Douglas fir sapwood
about 4,000 grams. After the third pass, both heart and
sap usually weighed about 1,500 grams. Each dryer and
91
-------
species combination was checked (two exceptions) for percentage
moisture through the dryer. Most veneers weighed were 27" x
100" x 0.1" in size.
One of the dryers tested was modified by project personnel
with a barometric-type, trap-door damper made of plywood. The
dryer tender agreed that the modification allowed him to operate
the dryer at higher than usual production rates.
Table II, Description of Dryers and Averages of Veneer
Moisture Content, summarizes information describing the dryer
type, size, number of stacks, etc., and gives average values
for veneer moisture contents along with average drying time
figures for the species type as dried in a particular dryer.
6. Error Analyses
Error of input datum for the longitudinal dryer was
estimated to be: ±2.2% for production, ±0.2% for barometric
pressure, ±0.3% for dry bulb temperature, ±0.7% for wet bulb
temperature, ±2.5% for C02 and 02 concentrations, ±1.5%
for the square root of the velocity pressure, ±0.8% for stack
diameter measurements, and ±5.0% for the representative
volatile hydrocarbon values. Using these figures the error
of the results of the stack analysis program is estimated
to be: ±3.3% for H20 percent, ±0.2% for gas density, ±1.3%
for stack gas velocity, ±2.0% ft3/min actual volume flow,
±2.6% ft3/min standard volume flow, ±6.4% for H20 emission in
Ib/min, and ±7.6% for volatile hydrocarbon emission. Values
for jet dryers showed smaller error than reported for the
longitudinal dryers above. All error for jet dryers was
within ±2.0% except for H20 Ib/min at ±3.8% and volatile
hydrocarbons at ±3.1%. Overall error in the measurement of
condensed hydrocarbons is estimated to be ±8.9%
The error in the volume of stack gas sampled is estimated
to be as high as ±8.4%, allowing ±2.8% error in rotameter
92
-------
readings due to calibration and reading errors, ±1% in sampling
time, and ±3% in the pressure correction factor which combines
error from barometric readings and the vacuum gauge. The
error of weight gain (due to atmospheric water) of the conden-
sable sample after the completion of evaporation is assumed to
be ±0% by the method used because the weights were allowed to
stabilize (the method used would be repeatable if identical
techniques were used).
The average hydrocarbon emission from all veneer dryers
tested was 5.70 Ibs of hydrocarbons per 10,000 ft2 of 3/8"
plywood produced per dryer (production basis) of which on the
average 3.59 Ibs were condensable and 2.43 Ibs were volatile.
(These two figures do not total 5.70 Ibs because three more
samples of condensables were taken than of volatiles see
v
, j".
.
i J» .r
y ^
Table IV,, Stejim, Dryers) . The averages fpr steam- heated, -,43° /
CtfWUoM-w^O/ I'b / (\>!>V \V0[u h(/(VA-
-------
DISCUSSION
1. Gas Velocities and Flow Rates
The average stack velocities observed in dryer stacks varied
depending on the damper setting. The stacks with the highest
stack velocity generally had emissions with less opacity than
stacks with a low velocity. Low velocity stacks generally had
a very obvious blue-haze plume. Jet dryer stacks usually had
the lowest velocities (1000 ft/min or less) and most commonly
had visible steam plumes also. No dryer that had a high stack
velocity (2000 ft/min and higher) had a steam plume evident
and generally very little blue haze. See Pictures 5-19.
Total volume flow out the dryer was calculated from stack
cross-sectional area and stack velocity. The total volume flow
varied as did velocity with stack damper setting. Increased
volume flow out the stack would indicate a higher number of air
exchanges within the dryer per unit time with a corresponding
lessening of water and hydrocarbon concentrations in the stack
emission. Equivalent opacity of the stack plumes can be greatly
reduced by opening stack dampers and increasing stack flow, but
process costs increase because of increased heat losses.
In terms of production of high quality plywood, however,
it is desirable to maintain the highest concentration of water
vapor within the dryer as possible, for two reasons: (1) the
specific heat of water vapor is about twice that of air and
(2) the equilibrium moisture content of wood, in 100% moisture
(live steam) is 1% by weight, dry-basis, above 350°F.
Heat is used to dry wood veneers because raising the tempera-
ture results in faster drying rates. Increased heat is desirable
to attain maximum production levels. Increased temperature and
increased specific heat of the dryer gases would provide the
desired heat. The upper limit for temperature is approximately
360°F since case hardening and surface inactivation effects
begin to be troublesome in the gluing process. The other and
most desirable method of increasing heat in a dryer is by
94
-------
VISIBLE EMISSIONS, MOSTLY WATER VAPOR, FROM DRYER #32
Picture #5. Backlighted with sky as background,
Picture #6. Si delighted with dark trees
and sky as background.
Picture #7. Forelighted with plant roof as background.
95
-------
APPARATUS USED IN COLLECTING AND SEPARATING CONDENSABLES
r
Picture #8. Top of glass condenser used in
sampling train and sample bottle.
Sample entered through glass coil
Picture #9. Collection reservoir of
glass condenser and a sample
bottle.
Picture #10. Rinco evaporating apparatus.
Picture #11.
Clost up of rotating flask on
Rinco apparatus, showing
milky mix of condensable hydro-
carbons and water.
96
-------
DETAILS OF STACK SAMPLING TRAIN WITH CONDENSER
Picture #12. Fritted glass sampling probe.
Picture #13. Glass condenser on stack
in ice-water bath.
Picture #14. Vacuum guage, rota-
meter & vacuum pump.
Picture #15.
Volatile samples taken for gas
chromatograph at outlet of pump.
97
-------
Picture #16. View of visible emissions
from Dryer #9.
Picture #17. Method used to obtain
wet-bulb temperatures,
Picture #18. Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer
Picture #19. Gas chromatograph in field
laboratory.
-------
concentrating the water content of the gases within the dryer
by operating it with the dampers closed as far as possible.
Since the equilibrium moisture content of wood in 100% mois-
ture (live steam) is 1%, above 350°F it would appear that
the wood can be dried most effectively with maximum moisture
content within the dryer. The data generally indicate that
increased moisture concentration in stack gases will increase
production.
The purpose of veneer dryer stacks appears to have very
little to do with proper operation of the dryer as long as the
dampers are closed. Their prime purpose appears to be to
rapidly cool the interior of the dryer should it be necessary
to gain access to the inside of the dryer during a work shift
(under plug-up conditions, for example). It was observed in
the field that many dryer tenders have the misconception that
the dampers should be kept open at least partially and that
the inside of the dryer should be kept as dry as possible to
obtain optimum drying conditions.
2. Hydrocarbons
During the earlier phases of the project, hydrocarbon
materials were seen condensing on the outside of objects
placed in the stack and on the inside of sampling lines. This
condensate was presumed to be responsible for the bulk of the
condensing blue haze emission. It condensed very quickly out-
side the stack after being cooled below stack temperature as
revealed by the immediate appearance of the emission from the
stack. Visual evidence indicated that the emission would
condense into yellow resinous droplets similar to those observed
later in the Rinco evaporating flask. It is estimated that
these materials condensed at a temperature above 100°F, perhaps
as high as 180°F.
When veneer species were switched from Douglas fir to pon-
derosa pine on two dryers, the observed increase in visible
99
-------
emissions was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in
volatile hydrocarbon emission. This fact provides further
evidence that the visible emissions are related to hydrocarbons
which have temperatures of condensation above 100°F. Douglas
fir heart, ponderosa pine, and white pine generally produced
the most visible emission. Hemlock and white fir generally
produced the least blue haze. Volatile hydrocarbon levels
from the hemlock and white fir were also very low.
Qualitative Analysis of the Major Hydrocarbon Components
In addition to carbohydrate (cellulose), lignin, and water,
wood contains smaller amounts of other substances. Some of these
substances are volatile; others are characterized by their
solubility. The fresh limpid oleoresin exudate on the surface
of the veneer peels is a solution of resin acids and neutral
bodies in turpentine. During the drying process, the distilla-
tion of the volatile terpenes, terpene alcohols, sesquiterpenes,
resin acids, fatty acids (free and combined), resin esters,
waxes, and resin alcohols is expected.
In the analysis of the hydrocarbons in the stack gas, two
fractions were encountered: a volatile terpene component and
a condensed hydrocarbon fraction. The volatile terpenes were
expected. The GC conditions for their analysis were determined
in the preliminary study. These conditions were the only GC
conditions used in the in situ analyses at the eight plants
studied. In the preliminary study, gas samples were taken
from the dryer through a partially opened door. Both direct
syringe samples and freezeout collections were made. The GC
analyses showed only monoterpene compounds even though a con-
siderable effort was made to detect oxygenated monoterpenes and
sesquiterpenes in the cryocondenser samples with the Perkin
Elmer 990 GC. The analyses showed very low levels of these
higher boiling materials.
100
-------
There are several possible reasons for not detecting these
higher boiling materials. (1) Most of the material condensed
in the sampling line (a 6 ft, 3/16 in. O.D., #304, S.S. tube).
(2) The material that did condense in the cryocondenser did
not volatilize to an appreciable concentration at the 50 and
100°C temperatures used for sampling the headspace. (3) The
condensate in the cryocondenser cannot be analyzed unless
removed with a solvent such as acetone. A scheme of analysis
involving each of the above considerations should provide a
balanced analysis of the volatile and condensed hydrocarbon
fractions in the stack gas.
On 24 and 25 June 1970, further studies were made of the
#4 stack of dryer #05. Both direct syringe samples and freeze-
out collections were analyzed. The analyses made of 1 ml vol
samples on the Carle 9000 GC at the site showed only volatile
hydrocarbons (Figure 42) methane, ethylene, ethane, and propane
at 100-130 ppm (hexane). The presence of these compounds is
undoubtedly related to the natural gas used to fuel the gas-
fired dryer. The concentrations of monoterpene hydrocarbons
(Figures 42 and 43) emitted during the drying of Douglas fir
ranged from 7 to 15 ppm (hexane). A second series of gas
chromatographic analyses were made on another gas-fired
dryer (#23) with similar results (Figure 44).
Analyses of the emissions of Dryer #09 for methane, ethylene,
ethane, and propane showed very low levels of these gases (less
than 4 ppm). Figures 1-8 show that the volatile hydrocarbons
in the stack gas are almost entirely composed of five monoterpene
hydrocarbons, a pinene, camphene, e pinene, &'* carene, and limonene
at concentrations of 5 to 748 ppm (hexane) as measured in a 1 ml
sample. Programmed temperature GC analyses of 5 ml volume gas
syringe samples and freezeout collections obtained at several
dryers did not show any significant concentration of terpene
alcohols or sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (Dryers 05, 09, 12 and
28).
101
-------
eo
60-
c 40-
20-
VENEER DRYER HYDROCARBON EMISSION
Light Hydrocorbons Monoterpenes
Meinonc
/SO
Clhono
Propone
' v2X
LHC
200X
^
5X
2X
0 I 2 J 4 i 6 01 i 3? T
MINUTES
Figure 42
25 June 1970
Drver #05
LHC Terpenes
M
E
E
P
84
1
12
1
.4%
.6
.1
.9
a
c
B
L
63.
1.
5.
8.
8%
4
0.
1
Total ppm (hexane)
125.6 14.8
VENEER DRYER MONOTERPENE EMISSION
Figure 43
24 June 1970
Drver #05
a 42.0
C 1.6
3 6.2
L 16.3
Total ppm (hexane)
7.4
012}
MIHUTCS
102
-------
VENEER DRYER HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Monoterpenes
60-
u
z
0 40-
0.
(£
20-
(
LHC
200X
•M
D
/
* i
1
Light Hydrocarbons
Iml
a
/ 5X
ETHYLENE
2X \.
I
METHANE 1
B 2X \ 1
A A 11
1/2 ml
/ETHANE
2X
PROPANE
\
rVJV. |r -^V
234 0 1 2 3 4 £
MINUTES
Figure 44 Dryer #23
21 September 1970 1315 hrs
Monoterpenes Light Hydrocarbons
LHC
U
a
C
B
U
M
L
I
2.Q%
77-8
2.1*
6.5
2.1*
1.2
7-1
2
88.0$
.3
9.3
• 3
.8
• 3
.2
.8
M
E
E
P
P
87.0$
3-5
6.3
.8
2.1*
Total pptn ( hexane )
102.1
51*. 1
Column 1, LHC not included in calculations
Column 2, LHC included in calculations
103
-------
At present the Carle 9000 used for on-site GC analyses is
limited to the resolution of volatile hydrocarbons at the
existing stack concentrations. However, the Carbowax 20M
column operated isothermally between 71 to 78°C will elute
terpenic compounds out to and beyond a terpineol (56.4 min-
utes); but in order to be resolved as distinct peaks, com-
pounds with retention times greater than that of a terpinolene
(5.3 ±.1 minutes) must be at concentrations greater than 10 ppm.
The heavy components distilled from the oleoresin in the
veneer peels are believed to be the condensate recovered in
the acetone washings. This same condensate is also believed
to be the source of the blue-haze plume emitted by the veneer
dryer.
The GC data from the analyses of tlv_- residues indicated
that 60-65% of the sample injected would not elute from the
column. This is to be expected if the residue consists
primarily of resin and fatty acids.
The TLC data suggested that the bulk of the residue is
acidic as evidenced by the strong tailing of the separation.
Also a major portion is highly polar as indicated by the
material which remained at the origin (in benzene and chloro-
form). A minor fraction of the residue is moderately nonpolar
and moves with or close to the solvent front (in benzene and
chloroform).
The single, cohesive, strongly tailing spot obtained in
the acetone solvent system supports the interpretation that
the bulk of the residue is a highly polar acidic material.
The IR spectra indicate that a mixture of the isomers of
abietic and pi marie acids may be the major portion of the
residue. Abietic acid is an oxidation product of the diter-
penes and has the empirical formula C2oH3o02- It is recognized
to be the major constituent of coniferous oleoresins.
4. Particulate
The most important particulate in the veneer dryer operations
develops outside and above the stack after the emission has cooled
104
-------
below stack temperatures and consists largely of the hydrocarbon
material collected in the condenser.
The only significant participate in the emission at stack
temperature is wood fiber. Gas dryers had a very slight haze
within the stack at stack temperatures. The concentrations of
wood particles are very low, generally below 0.002 grains per
dry standard cubic foot. These values were found to be so low
in preliminary investigations that subsequent measurements of these
values were not made. Particle counts were made using microscope
slides as impactor plates from Unico Cascade impactor.
Significant quantities of hydrocarbons condensed on the inside
of the sample dilution system tubing. As much as 90-95% of the
condensed hydrocarbons may never have reached the Unico impactor
when it was in the sample line; therefore, the reported counts
were of questionable value. Impactor samples, taken with the
sampler held in the plume, showed an overload of an oil on the
microscope slides. Oil droplets had coalesced on the slides
after only 30- second exposures making it impossible to count
or size particles. Thirty-second exposures of clean slides
inserted directly into the plume showed the same coalescence
of oil on the slides. Spread factors for this material on
glass slides was unknown also.
The strobelight pictures show an especially clear and well-
defined plume formation from dryer #9 drying Douglas fir sap.
The structure of the plume was not as well defined at other
mills, perhaps due to higher stack velocities, which produced
turbulence and distortion within the plume, ambient wind velocities,
condensable hydrocarbon concentrations, and other factors.
Veneer Dryer Operation
Several difficulties were encountered during the sampling
program which were beyond our control. The most important
problem involved the unexpected switching from species to species
and from heart to sap wood. The switching occurred with such
105
-------
frequency in some cases that no separation of sap or heart
wood data was possible. Therefore, the data is reported as
sap wood. (A sheet of veneer is typically dried as sap
if it contains as little as 5% sap wood). Another problem
involved a discrepancy between the drying time as reported by
dryer tenders and drying time as measured by survey personnel.
Therefore, drying times were measured with a stopwatch on a
single section basis and then multiplied times the number of
sections in the dryer.
The expertise of dryer tenders appears to vary widely.
Often after a species change a different drying time would
be required. Sometimes no change in drying time was made for
half an hour or so. Occasionally the tender was not aware
of the drying time being used. Other tenders knew very
accurately what drying time would be required for a species
type depending on its source or storage conditions of the
wood and made fine adjustments constantly. They would use
temperature chart tracings, percentage of veneer marked wet
by the moisture meter at the dry end of the dryer, or some-
times they would make corrections on the basis of "how she
sounded."
Well-defined relationships between amount of production
and water vapor and hydrocarbon emissions from the stack
were difficult to make because many variables impinge upon the
problem. For example, as stack dampers are increasingly closed,
an increased "emission" of dryer gases will occur around the
body of the dryer within the mill; along its sides, around the
section doors, and at the green end and dry end where the veneer
enters and exits from the dryer. Mill personnel generally prefer
to leave the stack dampers open at least slightly to reduce this
emission within the mill. More efficient seals around section
doors are needed to contain the dryer gases. Water vapor figures
(reported in pounds per minute) will be similarly affected.
106
-------
As the data show (Table II), there is a significant over-
drying of veneers on all dryers tested. Most veneer weighed
contained less than 1% moisture on a dry-weight basis. Some
dryer tenders said they should allow up to 8% moisture in the
veneer for good gluing properties and to maximize production.
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Eight dryers in Pacific Northwest mills and five dryers in southern
mills were studied. Steam- and gas-heated longitudinal and jet dryers
were studied drying ten different species types.
The nature of veneer dryer emissons varies between species types,
heat source, and dryer type. A number of basic similarities exist,
however. At stack temperatures the only particulate emission consists
of wood particles in concentrations less than 0.002 gr/standard dry
cubic feet of stack gas. Outside the stack, however, at cooler than
stack temperature, hydrocarbons and water typically condense to form
blue haze and/or a water plume or both. Plume opacities of the blue-
haze emission ranged from 0% to 100%. Other volatile hydrocarbons do
not condense.
The average total hydrocarbon emission from all dryers tested was
5.7 lbs/10000 ft2 of 3/8" plywood produced. The average condensable
hydrocarbon emission was 3.6, same basis.
There were large differences in the operation of veneer dryers.
These differences, coupled with the condition of the dryers, combined
to give varying results for opacity readings of the stacks, water
vapor emitted from the stack, and the total hydrocarbon emitted from
the stack. If, for example, a stack was operated with its dampers
open, the volume flow of gases out the stack was very high, plume
opacity was very low, and the volatile and condensable concentration
figures seemed generally to be at the lower values. If, however,
the dryer was operated with the dampers closed, production was generally
higher, air volume was lower, plume opacity was higher, volatile and
condensable hydrocarbon concentrations were higher, and total hydro-
carbons on a 10,000 ft2 (of 3/8" plywood) production basis were also
lower. An important factor, therefore, in veneer dryer operation is the
107
-------
damper setting. Further study is planned to evaluate the effects of
dryer operation on the dryer emissions.
Routine GC analyses of the volatile hydrocarbons in the stack gas
at the thirteen dryers studied showed that a pinene was the major
monoterpene emitted except for ponderosa pine where A-3 carene was the
major component. Alpha and B pinene are recognized to be potentially
reactive hydrocarbons. Studies to determine the relative reactivities
of a and 0 pinene, ethylene, isobutene, and 1-butene are in progress.
During the drying of Douglas fir, a pinene accounted for 75 to 90%
of the monoterpene emission; for southernpine, 55 to 65%; and for
ponderosa pine, 40 to 50%. The data also showed that the monoterpene
composition of the stack gas was characteristic of the wood species
being dried. However, the concentrations were not as characteristic
as the composition. During the drying of Douglas fir, southern pine,
and ponderosa pine, the concentrations were quite variable; whereas
the concentrations measured during the drying of western hemlock, larch,
and white fir were at the lower limits of sensitivity of the GC used.
The condensed hydrocarbon fraction has been preliminarily studied.
A tentative identification of the bulk of the condensate as a mixture
of abietic-pimaric acids has been made. The data also indicate the
presence of sesquiterpenes, fatty acids, resin esters, and resin alcohols
Analyses to more precisely identify the components in the condensate
would require an effort equal to a separate research project and as such
is outside the scope of the present project.
108
-------
APPENDIX A
109
-------
APPENDIX A
FORMULAS USED FOR CALCULATIONS
Calculation of moisture content:
Moisture content calculated using Carrier's equation from IGC1 method,
Pp = Pw _ (Pd-Pw) (Td-Tw)
p 2800-1.3 Tw
Pp = partial pressure of water vapor in gas (in Hg)
Pw = vapor pressure of water at Tw (in Hg)
Pd = absolute pressure in duct (in Hg)
Moisture Content (% by vol) = fe x 100
Total mole fraction of gas calculated by summing all mole fractions.
£ gas % by volume X molecular wt = E mole fractions
Gas density = Dd (lb/ft3) at standard conditions of 70°F and 29.92
in Hg pressure
n , _ mole frac 530Pd
LJU
386 A duct temp + 460 "29.92
Average stack velocity:
AV velocity (ft/min) = 1096.5 /~~Pv
Dd
PV = velocity pressure
Gas flow rate at stack conditions:
(round stack) 2
Stack flow (ft3/min) = K X AV velocity
r = radius of stack
Stack flow at dry standard conditions of 70°F, 29.92 in Hg pressure:
Stack flowstd (ft3/min) = FRAC X stack flow X duct ^ + 460
- 100 - percentage of H?0 by vol
-- TOO
110
-------
Calculation of volume of stack gas sampled through condenser:
(std conditions)
VOL = ROTA X TIME X B^°^AC
VOL = ft of stack gas at standard conditions
ROTA = average rotameter reading maintained during sample period (ft /min)
TIME = sample time in minutes
BARO = barometric pressure (in Hg)
VAC = vacuum gauge pressure (in Hg)
2
Calculation of Production (ft /hr of 3/8" plywood)
Production = 180 X decks X thickness X in/min = production
decks - number of decks in dryer
thickness - thickness of veneer in decimal inches
in/min - the number of inches of length of veneer fed into the
dryer per minute.
180 = 162 X 60 min X 1 „ 1 ft2
hr 0.375 in * 144 in^
Calculation of condensable hydrocarbon quantities:
CONDHC = Q.132 XVSCFMXWTGXFAC
CONDHC = condensable hydrocarbons (Ib/hr)
SCFM = CFM at standard conditions
WTG = weight of condensable hydrocarbons collected
FAC = factor used to compare two laboratory methods used
VOL = volume of stack gas sampled
0.132 = 6° min X ] 1b
hr A 454 g
Calculation of hydrocarbons on production basis
10000 X HC
Production
HC =hydrocarbon value (Ib/hr)
2
HCPD = Ib hydrocarbon emission per 10,000 ft of 3/8" plywood produced
This calculation performed for volatile, condensable, and total
hydrocarbons and summed for all stacks on a dryer
Calculation of hydrocarbons per production on a SCFM BASIS
HCSCFM = — X 1000
HCSCFM = Ibs hydrocarbons emission per 10,000 ft2 of 3/8" plywood
3
per 1000 ft /min of stack gas flow
This calculation summed for all stacks on a dryer.
Ill
-------
KEY
Douglas fir
Ponderosa pine
Hemlock
White Fir
Larch
Southern Pine
White Pine
Spruce
Spejcies Type
heart
sap
other
sap
redry
sap
sap
sap
sap
sap
sap
Code No.
01
02
03
05
06
08
11
13
17
26
29
Abbreviation
DFRH
DFRS
DFRW
PPNE
PDRY
HMLK
WFIR
LRCH
SPNE
WPNE
SPRC
112
-------
APPENDIX B
113
-------
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR EMISSIONS
OF CONDENSABLE ORGANICS FROM VENEER DRYERS
I. WSU-DEQ FIELD COMPARISON
Field teams from Washington State University (WSU) and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted a joint veneer
dryer emission source testing progran in June, 1971, at two veneer
dryers in Oregon. Both longitudinal dryers were similar, except that
dryer #50 was steam-heated and dryer #60 was gas-fired. Significant
differences in the emission rates for condensable organics reported
by WSU and DEQ for these simultaneously obtained samples raised
several fundamental questions which required experimental investigation.
Experimental. The WSU team utilized a condensation technique
previously described (1), wherein the source sample was cooled to
approximately 60°F in a sp'iral condenser and the condensate collected.
A portion of the sample gas leaving the condenser was then passed through
the flame of a total hydrocarbon analyzer (THA) to determine the
uncondensed or volatile fraction of the sampled veneer dryer emissions.
It was assumed under these conditions that any organic material not
collected in the condenser would be burned in the flame of the THA
and be recorded. These data were calculated as equivalent hexane.
The stack sampling procedure involved sampling at a single point within
the stack and was based upon the knowledge that the organic fraction
of the dryer emissions was gaseous at stack temperature. Therefore, a
"particulate sampling traverse" was not deemed necessary.
The Oregon DEQ team utilized a Research Appliance Company "Staksamplr"
(RAC train) using a particulate stack sampling traverse technique,
i.e., isokinetic sampling with 16 traverse points representing four
concentric, equal areas (2). The usual "NAPCA" sampling train config-
uration was modified in that the filter, normally located in the fore
portion of the train between the heated cyclone and the first impinger,
114
-------
was placed at the end of the sampling train following the fourth
impinger. The purpose of this filter was to collect any particulate
material not collected in the fore-part of the train.
Different laboratory techniques were also used by the two groups
in the determination of the collected weight of condensed organic
material. The WSU team used the "Rinco" method previously used in their
13-mill study (1), wherein the condensed sample weight was obtained
after evaporation of the associated water and rinse acetone at
104-113°F under a 27-28" Hg vacuum in Rinco rotary evaporator. Oregon
DEQ personnel used a chloroform-ether extraction and evaporated the
water and organic solvents from their samples at room temperature
and pressure. The sample weights were then obtained after dessication.
Results. Table I shows the comparative emission rates reported
by the two laboratories for the simultaneously obtained samples. The
significant differences in these comparative data raised several
questions which required experimental evaluation. These questions
were divided into three areas, i£., (a) the high percentage of the
total DEQ collection found in the "heated" RAC probe and cyclone,
(b) the proportion of the DEQ collection on the filter following the
Greenburg-Smith impingers, and (c) possible losses of condensed
organics during separation from condensed water and rinse acetone
in the Rinco evaporation apparatus. A fourth associated question
was related to the need to follow a particulate sampling traverse
protocol when sampling for gases.
As a first approach to answering the above questions, one sample
of condensed organic material with its associated water and acetone
was split. One half was analyzed at WSU using the Rinco procedure
and the other half was analyzed by Oregon DEQ using their room
temperature and pressure evaporation procedure. The results obtained
from one split sample, i.e., 0.1043 grams (WSU Rinco) vs. 0.0971 grams
(DEQ procedure) indicated, under these conditions, that the difference
between the two analytical procedures were not the primary source
of variance between the two laboratories.
115
-------
TABLE IB
COMPARISON OF FOUR SIMULTANEOUS SAMPLES
TAKEN BY DEQ AND WSU
Dryer 50
Stack no. Probe Condenser Filter Total gr/scf
DEQ
1
2
78.7 mg
44.2
102.2 mg
135.7
88 . 1 mg
73.1
269 mg
253
0.095
0.090
1
2
110.8
95.9
Dryer 60
125.5
120.2
32.7
120.9
269
337
0.095
0.144
WSU 1 -- 114.6 -- 114.6 0.045
2 -- 145.9 -- 145.9 0.056
DEQ
WSU 1 -- 116.0 -- 116.0 0.048
2 -- 144.4 -- 144.4 0.076
However, data from one split sample was not considered to be an
adequate evalution. Therefore, 17 additional samples previously collected
by the WSU team and not yet analyzed were split and subjected to the Rinco
and a solvent extraction analytical techniques in the WSU laboratory. The
results of this further evaluation of analytical techniques are discussed
in the following section.
The remaining differences between the two sampling techniques which
required field evaluation included (a) the heated probe and cyclone, and
(b) the final filter vs. the THA as indicators of sample fractions not
retained in the condenser or Greenburg-Smith impingers, and (c) "particulate
traverse" sampling vs. single point gaseous sampling. The WSU field team
investigated these latter three questions on dryer #70 on September 22, 1971
by comparing the RAC and the WSU sampling techniques simultaneously. The
experimental techniques and data obtained are also described in this report.
116
-------
II. COMPARISONS OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES AT HSU.
Each of seventeen veneer dryer emission condensate samples
obtained from three dryers in May, June and July, 1971, were split
into two equal samples. The condensed organic compounds in one-half
of each sample was analyzed with the Rinco rotary evaporator as
previously described. (1) The other half of each sample was analyzed
by an organophillic extraction method described below.
Extraction Procedure. The samples were first filtered through
filter papers which had been previously washed with acetone, dessicated
over Drierite (magnesium sulfate) for 24 hours and weighed. The
filter papers were then redessicated, weighed and the insoluble
weight determined. This insoluble material appeared to be small
wood fibers which probably fell into the sample bottles during the
transfer of the "condensables" from the sampling train to the sample
storage bottles.
The filtrate, containing the dissolved condensable organic
fraction, was placed into a separatory funnel with approximately
100 ml 9:1 ether/acetone (volume of ether-acetone euqal to one-half
of the sample volume) and the flask shaken. The aqueous phase was
separated and the organic layer was placed into a 600 ml beaker. The
aqueous layer was subjected to three additional extractions using first
another volume of 9:1 ether-acetone, and finally two additional
volumes of ether.
These three organic extracts were added to the original ether-acetone
extract. Approximately 75 g of 12 mesh^ anhydrous calcium chloride was
added to the combined extracts with stirring. The contents of the beaker
was stirred again after about fifteen minutes and allowed to stand for
approximately 45 minutes. The liquid was then decanted and placed over
2
approximately 75 g granular, anhydrous potassium sulfate . The calcium
chloride residue was washed with anhydrous ethyl ether and the ether
wash added to the extract and allowed to stand for an hour.
8 mesh CaCl2 formed a hard cake which expanded upon hydration, breaking
the sample beaker.
2 Metallic sodium was tested as the final drying agent. However, it
produced condensation reactions among the condensed organic veneer
dryer emission products.
117
-------
A clean, dry 500 ml Florence flask containing a Teflon-covered
stirring bar was weighed. The sample was filtered into the tared, dry
Florence flask. The flask was then attached to a water cooled condenser
connected to an aspirator solvent evaporator (Diagram IB). The flask was
placed into a water bath maintained at approximately 70°F. The magnetic
stirrer and aspirator were turned on and the solvent evaporated. When
the solvent had been removed, the condenser was washed with anhydrous
ether to remove lower boiling material that may have been condensed on
the walls of the condenser. The system was again closed to the atmosphere
and the ether evaporated. The flask containing the solvent-free sample
was removed from the bath and system, dried and the gross weight taken.
The increase in weight was reported as the condensable hydrocarbon fraction
of the veneer dryer emissions. The extraction procedure is outlined in
Diagram 2B.
Results and Discussion. Table II compares the weights of condensed
organics obtained by the Rinco evaporation procedure with comparable
weights obtained by the solvent extraction procedure. The first 14
paired data sets refer to condensable organics collected at mills #40
and #50. The 400000 series samples were obtained from an eight-section
gas-fired jet dryer on Douglas fir and ponderosa pine. The 500000 series
samples came from a 20-section, five-deck steam dryer on Douglas fir.
The final three 050000 series samples came from a 22-section gas-fired
dryer on white fir.
The extraction method applied to Douglas fir condensate gave a
recovery of 1.48 ±0.13 times as much condensed organics as the corresponding
halves run by the Rinco method. Eleven samples were used to obtain these
figures. Within the Douglas fir species, the condensable organics
recovery from Douglas fir heart was 1.49 and Douglas fir sap was 1.41
times that obtained by the Rinco method. Three white fir condensate
samples averaged 1.80 ±0.20 times as much condensed organics by the
extraction procedure than by Rinco evaporation. Two ponderosa pine
condensate samples averaged 1.46 times as much condensed organics by
the extraction procedure.
118
-------
Diagram IB. Schematic of Solvent Removal System
To
Aspirator
Bleed
Valve Vacuum
Gauge
Tubes
(4) 3-way
Stopcock
H20
Bath
. . Florence , .
f \ Flasks f \
^^=3^^ ^" !• • •*
To Air
J L
J L
J L
(4) Magnetic Stirrers
-------
Diagram 2B. Extraction-Separation Procedure
600 ml. beaker
4-
add *
-t-
add «
4-
add ^
4-
^75 gm CaCl2
anhyd. 12 mesh
Stir
4-
decant
wash CaCl2
4-
^75 gm KjSO^anhyd)
4-
fil ter
4-
500 ml Florence Flask
dessicate and weigh
Sample
4-
filter
4-
extract
w/ ^ vol. 9:1 ether/acetone
^
extract
w/ k vol. 9:1 ether/acetone
4-
extract
w/ % vol. ether
4-
extract
w/ ^ vol. ether
4-
discard
500 ml Florence Flask
4- 0
ti
clean w/ CH3CCH3
4-
dry
4-
v;eigh
500 ml Florence Flask + sample
4-
evaporator system
remove solvent under
reduce temp, and pressure
* 0
M
wash condenser (w/ CH3CCH3)
4-
remove wash acetone
4
remove flask and sample
from evaporator
4-
weigh flask and sample
120
-------
TABLE I IB
COMPARISON OF THE RECOVERY OF CONDENSABLE ORGANICS BY THE RINCO
ROTARY EVAPORATION AND ETHER EXTRACTION PROCEDURES
Sample
No.
400102
420101
420102
420102
500101
500102
510101
400203
410201
410202
410212
420203
410601
410603
051101
051102
051103
Date
5/5/71
5/6/71
5/6/71
5/11/71
6/3/71
6/3/71
6/4/71
5/5/71
5/6/71
5/6/71
5/11/71
5/6/71
5/14/71
5/14/71
7/14/71
7/14/71
7/14/71
Rinco
279 mg
320
525
471
1460
2062
858
277
653
692
279
711
789
946
340
456
263
Ether Extn.
405 mg
449
876
538
2577
3320
1221
403
834
1047
393
1012
1207
1321
558
803
547
Ratio Ether/Rinco
1.45
1.40
1.67
1.14
1.77
1.61
1.42
1.45
1.28
1.51
1.40
1.42
1.53
1.40
1.64
1.76
2.01
121
-------
The lower recovery from the Rinco evaporator is attributed to the
removal of varying quantities of sample vapor of the lower boiling
point compounds at 103-114°F under 28-29" Hg vacuum. From these limited
data, there appears to be some species dependency upon the relative
condensables recovered from split samples, particularly with reference
to white fir. However, the average increase in condensable recovery
from Douglas fir heart and sap and ponderosa pine, i.e., 1.49, 1.41,
and 1.46 were not significantly different. No extension of these
data should be made to other species dried at different temperatures.
III. WSU'S COMPARISON OF "RAC" SAMPLING TRAIN AND THE "WSU" CONDENSER-FILTER
TECHNIQUE.
On September 22, 1971, comparative, simultaneous samples were
obtained from a longitudinal steam dryer (#70) on Douglas fir. The
objective of this limited, one-day study was to compare (a) the
"Research Appliance Company Staksamplr" (RAC) which was similar in
design to the "NAPCA" train and (b) the "WSU" condenser technique with a filter.
In addition, the "WSU" sampling technique was replicated, thus pro-
viding two simultaneous samples from the replicated "WSU" trains to
evaluate the reproducibility of the WSU sampling technique.
The RAC train was equipped with a five-foot, heated stainless
steel probe. Isokinetic conditions were maintained as closely as
possible at all times and the stack was traversed on three minute
intervals, utilizing eight traverse points across one stack diameter
line. Since another sample port at 90° was not available, each point
was sampled twice during the total sample period. The "RAC" train
as used in this situation embodied one major modification from the
usual "NAPCA" train. Normally, a heated glass-fiber filter was
placed between the heated glass cyclone collecter and the first of
four Greenburg-Smith impingers. For source monitoring of volatile
organic compounds in the gaseous state at stack temparature, the
filter was placed behind the four Greenburg-Smith impingers to provide
for a final collection of particulate close to the 70°F EPA particulate
definition temperature. During this comparison study on September 22, 1971,
122
-------
it was only possible to maintain the exit sample gas temperature at
the RAC filter within a temperature range of 86°-103°F while sampling
under isokinetic conditions, using 0.25" diameter probe tip.
On the other hand, the exit gas temperature from the WSU condenser
was readily held between 60-70°F at all times during the sampling
period. These differences in exit gas temperature and the relative
ease of holding the lower temperature with the "WSU" condenser
appeared to be related to the collector designs, j_.e_._, Greenburg-
Smith is an impinger whereas the WSU unit is a condenser. The
former was not designed for use as a condenser, whereas the latter
was specifically designed to provide a high surface to volume ratio
for maximum heat exchange.
Sampling with the replicated WSU sampling train was accomplished
at two points 6 inches into the stack separated by approximately 2
inches. Unheated, 12-inch fritted glass tipped probes were
coupled to their respective condensers. (Any condensate collected
in the unheated probe was transferred with acetone and combined with
the sample fraction collected in the condenser.)
The major change in the "WSU" condenser system from that used
during the previous studies of 16 veneer dryers (1,3) was the addition
of a 2" plastic-filter holder and a glass-fiber filter between the
WSU condenser and the sample flow-measuring rotameter. Two tare
weights were obtained for each filter prior to use - (a) each glass-
fiber filter paper and (b) each filter plus the weight of its protective
envelope. After each filter sample was obtained, the filter was
replaced in its original envelope. Upon return to the laboratory,
the filters and envelopes were dried in a dessicator over Drierite
for 36 hours and weighed.
It was fortunate that the filter and envelope were originally
weighed together. The organic material collected on the filters was
of an oily nature and some of these oily compounds migrated through
the inward-folded filters and accumulated on the inner envelope surface
during the in-transit storage period. Thus accurate weight gains
could not have been obtained from the tared and final filter weights
alone.
123
-------
Results and Discussion. The total condensed organic content in
each of the two sets of replicated samples was determined by the
organic extraction procedure described above. The comparative data
are shown in Table 11 IB. From these limited data it appears that
there is no clear-cut advantage of one sampling system over the other
in terms of collection efficiency.
TABLE 11 IB
COMPARISON OF SAMPLING PROCEDURES
WSU Condenser-filter vs. RAC Staksamplr
Mill 70 - September 22, 1971
Sample
Train
WSU-1A
WSU-1B
RAC-1
WSU-2A
WSU-2B
RAC-2
Sample
Vol.
scfm
23.8
22.4
35.2
23.7
22.7
33.9
RAC
Probe
gr/scf
—
0.033
__
—
0.065
Condenser
qr/scf
0.15
0.18
0.23
0.18
0.22
0.12
Filter
gr/scf
0.094
0.100
0.086
0.072
0.089
0.084
Total
Condensable
Organics
qr/scf
0.24
0.29
0.35
0.25
0.31
0.27
% Total
on filter
39.2
34.6
24.6
28.8
28.7
31.1
Ratio
Total /Condenser
1.61
1.61
1.33
1.39
1.41
1.46
The variation within each sample set ranged from ±10-15% which
is quite reasonable considering the many sources of possible error
including non-uniform flow in the stack, the rooftop environment
where samples had to be handled and transferred in a quantitative
manner, and the difficulty in assuring adequate washing of the RAC
probe.
It was also noted that the total liquid volume of sample to
be handled in the laboratory, was approximately three times as great
from the RAC train. Furthermore, the total sample train surface
which must be cleaned up with acetone was also significantly larger.
124
-------
The organic material collected with the RAC must be separated
from 450-600 ml total volume of water as compared with 100-150 ml
water from the WSU train. The volume of acetone required to clean
the WSU train was approximately 1/3 the quantity required to clean
the RAC train (approximately 150 ml vs. 350 ml) because of the signifi-
cantly different surface areas involved. Hence the field and laboratory
sample and sample train manipulations were magnified many-fold through
the use of the RAC train as compared with the WSU condenser, thereby
increasing the possibility for contamination and sample loss and
increasing the laboratory time required to determine the weight
of the condensable organic material collected.
It was also observed in the RAC Staksamplr used by WSU in
comparative tests run on September 22, 1971, that the manufacturer's
temperature controller scale was in error by more than 100°F. It
was necessary to set the temperature control to 450°F to achieve
a temperature of 325° in the RAC heated cyclone-filter chamber.
It is therefore considered possible that the oven temperature
controller on the Oregon DEQ RAC staksamplr and probe also may have
had a similar calibration error, thus accounting for the relatively
high probe loadings reported (2), during the July comparative
studies in Oregon, i.e., the DEQ probe may have been well below
the stack temperature, thus favoring partial sample condensation
in the probe.
Since the two sampling techniques provide similar results, the
overall equipment advantage lies with the modified "WSU" sampling
train in terms of initial cost, the relative bulk and weight of
the equipment involved, the simplicity of the system, the low
surface area requiring quantitative cleaning, sample transfer, the
lower volume of water in the sample, and the lower total volume of
sample to be handled.
IV. ADDITIONAL VENEER DRYER EMISSION DATA OBTAINED WITH THE COMBINATION
WSU CONDENSER PLUS GLASS FIBER FILTER.
Three samples of white fir emissions were obtained in July, 1971,
from a 22-section, 2 zone gas-fired dryer (#05). Eight additional
125
-------
samples, four of Douglas fir and four of ponderosa pine, were
obtained on dryer #70 on September 20 and 21, 1971. These eleven
samples were obtained using WSU condenser followed by a two-inch
glass fiber filter.
The weights of the organic matter collected in the condensers
and on the filter papers were determined as described above.
Results and Discussion. Table IV shows the relative quantities
of condensable organics collected in the condenser and by the filter.
No consistent pattern emerged from the data to relate the percentage
of condensed organic matter collected on the glass fiber filter
following the condenser. The total weights of organic matter
collected, as well as the ratios of the total condensable organics
to condenser weights appear to be associated with wood species
(Tables III and IV). Ponderosa pine showed the highest ratio
(1.49-2.19); Douglas fir was second (1.33-1.62 ratio); and white
fir had the lowest ratio (1.06-1.19) of the species examined.
Filter weights tended to show greater variation than did the condenser
weights for these three species. The low 9.1% filter collection for
sample 7005018 was probably related to the feed veneer being "re-dry".
Whenever the ratio of condensables collected in the condenser
and on the filter remains relatively constant within a species type
we can assume that the veneer dryer volatiles have quite similar
composition. This would be true for the first three Douglas fir
samples obtained on September 20. The total grain loading for
these three samples, however varied from approximately 0.16 to 0.40
(gr/scf). These variations might reflect differences in production
rate or veneer moisture content. The condenser to filter weight ratio
could also be influenced by the condensation temperature maintained
in the condenser and to dryer temperature. The condenser temperature,
however, seldom varied beyond the 60-70° range, and would not be
expected to influence the condenser to filter ratio to the extent
shown in Tables III and IV.
In the absence of vapor pressure-temperature relationships
for the various fractions of the condensable organics, one can only
126
-------
TABLE IVB
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC FRACTION COLLECTED BY FILTER
WSU Condenser-filter System
Dryer 70 - September 20-22, 1971
Dryer 05 - July 14, 1971
Total
Sample
No.
7001011
7001012
7002013
7002014
7005015
7005016
7005017
7005018
050101
050102
050103
Sample
Species Time
min
DFIRH
DFIRH
DFIRS
DFIRS
PPINE
PPINE
PPINE
PPINE(RDRY)
WFIR
WFIR
WFIR
67
65
59
61
60
48
58
62
61
60
60
Condenser
gr/scf
.100
.250
.184
.201
.143
.094
.134
.192
.056
.081
.056
Filter
gr/scf
.057
.145
.105
.067
.158
.112
. .067
.019
.0105
.0096
.0035
Condensable
Organics
gr/scf
.157
.405
.290
.268
.301
.206
.200
.212
.0665
.0906
.0595
% of Total
on Fi 1 ter
36.3
35.8
36.3
24.9
52.6
54.3
33.0
9.1
15.8
10.6
5.9
Ratio
Total/Condenser
1.57
1.62
1.58
1.33
2.10
2.19
1.49
1.58
1.19
1.12
1.06
-------
speculate as to the classes of wood volatiles which are collected
by the sample condenser or are missed by the condenser and collected
on the fiber glass back-up filter. Visually, the fraction collected
by the filter appeared as a white fume in the glass sample line
between the condenser and the filter.
A specific study would be required to identify the physical
characteristics and chemical identity of the wood volatile fractions
(a) retained in the condenser and (b) missed by the condenser and
collected on the sample train back-up filter.
V. THA RESPONSE TO CONDENSED VENEER DRYER EMISSIONS BEFORE AND AFTER
FILTRATION
During the collection of three samples on dryer #70 the total
hydrocarbon analyzer (THA) sampling tee was moved for a short period
of time from its normal position following the fiberglass filter to
a position between the condenser and the filter to provide a comparison
of the THA response to the sample stream coming directly from the
condenser vs. the same sample stream after filtration through the
glass fiber filter. Calculations of the condensed organic matter
were appropriately adjusted to compensate for the reduction in flow
rate through the filter while a portion of the sample flow was removed
for equivalent hexane determination by THA.
Determination of the effect of filtration on the THA response
was complicated by the fact that the drying of veneer is by no means
a steady state operation. THA recorder traces obtained during all
of our previous studies (1,3) showed an almost cyclic rise and fall
of the measured hydrocarbons when the dryers were being operated
under "normal" loading. More drastic and rapid response was recorded
whenever the usual veneer feed rates were upset due to "plug-ups",
change in species, inadequate veneer supply to the dryer, etc.
Because of the general cyclic nature of the THA "volatile"
measurements, the "before" and "after" the filter THA measurements had
to be evaluated by projecting the changes in THA trend lines between
each pair of sequential samplings. Table V shows the comparative
volatile hydrocarbon response of the THA calculated as equivalent ppm
hexane for the three comparisons.
128
-------
TABLE VB
COMPARATIVE THA RESPONSE BEFORE AND AFTER THE FILTER
THA LOCATION
Date
9/20/71
9/21/71
From these data it appears that the THA did not show a signifi-
cant response to the filterable portion of the condensed veneer dryer
emissions. Therefore, it will not be possible to adjust any of the
previously measured to condensable hydrocarbons through use of the
concurrently obtained THA data.
Sample No.
7001011
7002013
7005017
Before
106 ppm
140
74
After
106 ppm
146
74
129
-------
SUMMARY
The "Rinco" method for separation of the condensable organic fraction
of the veneer dryer emissions from concomitant water and acetone
produced a variable loss of the higher vapor pressure fraction of the
collected condensate. Comparative data from 14 split Douglas fir
samples suggests an analytical correction factor of 1.48 ±.13. Data
from three split samples of white fir suggests a white fir correction
factor of 1.8 ±0.2. No similar comparative studies have been conducted
for the other species previously studied.
Significant and variable quantities of condensed organic matter in
veneer dryer emissions were retained on glass fiber filters following
the WSU condenser maintained at 60-70°F. These variations are probably
related to veneer species and condition and to dryer operating
variables.
Samples obtained simultaneously with the RAC train and the WSU
condenser plus glass fiber filter gave comparable, equivalent veneer
dryer emission data for two one-hour sampling periods.
Samples obtained simultaneously with two replicated WSU condenser-glass
fiber filter trains gave comparable, reproducible veneer dryer emission
data for two one-hour sampling periods.
The total hydrocarbon analyzer (THA) did not show a significant
difference in response to the filtered and unfiltered sample gas
emerging from the condenser. The THA undoubtedly responds to the
volatile, lower molecular weight hydrocarbons, but does not "see"
the higher molecular weight, filterable organic aerosols which can
be collected on a fiberglass filter.
Based upon the data herein reported, it is concluded that the condensable
hydrocarbon emission data previously reported for 13 plywood veneer
dryers and 10 wood species are low by variable amounts depending upon
many factors in the drying operation. The previously reported
130
-------
"volatile" hydrocarbon emission rates were not influenced by the absence
of a filter between the condenser and the THA.
A "best approximation" for developing a correction factor for the
above noted conditions would involve a two-step procedure. First, the
reported weight of condensable hydrocarbons should be multiplied by a
factor in the range of 1.1 to 2.0 (depending upon the species and associated
dryer conditions) to correct for losses of condensed sample from the
Rinco rotary evaporator during the removal of concomitant water and
acetone. Second, this calculated weight of condensables (corrected
for loss in the Rinco apparatus) should then be multiplied by a second
factor in the range of 1.06-2.19 (depending upon the species and
associated dryer conditions) to account for the inability of the
condenser to trap the shock-cooled, aerosolized organics which were
collected on a glass fiber filter following the condenser.
REFERENCES
Monroe, F. L., e_t a]_., "Investigation of Emissions from Plywood
Veneer Dryers," Washington State University, March, 1971.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, "Particulate Emissions
from the International Paper Company and the Willamette Industries
Veneer Dryer Exhaust Stacks," July 19, 1971
Unpublished information, Washington State University, 1971.
131
------- |