EPA 600/2-76-202
July 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
 LABORATORY  EVALUATION OF  THE CLEANABLE
           HIGH  EFFICIENCY AIR  FILTER (CHEAF)
                                 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                      Office of Research and Development
                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
 Protection  Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
 categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
 environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields
 The five series are:

      1.   Environmental Health Effects Research
      2.   Environmental Protection Technology
      3.   Ecological Research
      4.   Environmental Monitoring
      5.   Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

 This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
 demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to  repair or prevent
 environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
 work provides the new or improved technology required for the control  and
 treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.


                     EPA  REVIEW NOTICE


 This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, and approved for publication.  Approval
 does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
 views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
 names or  commercial products constitute endorsement or
 recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.

-------
                                  EPA-600/2-76-202

                                  July 1976
LABORATORY EVALUATION OF THE

   CLEANABLE  HIGH  EFFICIENCY

        AIR  FILTER (CHEAF)
                     by

     Manuel T. Rei and Douglas W. Cooper

              GCA Corporation
              Burlington Road
             Bedford, MA 01730
           Contract No.  68-02-1487
            ROAP No. 21ADL-004
         Program Element No. 1AB012
      EPA Project Officer: D. L. Harmon

  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
    Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
      Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
                Prepared for

 U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Research and Development
            Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                ABSTRACT
A novel scrubber, the CHEAT (Andersen 2000, Atlanta, Georgia) was tested
as part of a program to identify novel high efficiency fine particle
control devices.  The tests were performed at room temperature using
iron oxide aerosols of concentrations near 0.2 g/m  (0.1 grain/ft ),
mass median aerodynamic diameter of 1.1 pm.  Inlet and outlet samples
were taken with cascade impactors, total mass filters, a condensation
nuclei counter, and an optical particle counter.  These tests were per-
formed with different filter media, at different face velocities, and at
different water spray rates and water recycle rates.  Efficiency increased
with increases  in:   foam  pores; per inch, pressure drop, flow rate,  spray
rate, make-up water  addition.  The results were consistent with the
hypothesis  that  impaction was  the major collection  mechanism and re-
entrainment a  substantial contributor  to penetration.   Total mass effi-
ciency was  approximately  95  percent  at normal conditions,  for which the
 pressure drop  across the  CHEAF was  80  cm (31.5 inches)  WC.  The particle
 aerodynamic cut diameter, for  which the efficiency would be 50 percent at
 these conditions, was determined from cascade impactor data to be below
 0.5 um.   This  indicates that the 50 percent cut diameter  for the CHEAP
 is smaller than for a venturi scrubber operating at the same pressure drop.
                                  iii

-------
                                CONTENTS



                                                                    Page



                                                                    iii
Abstract


                                                                    vi
List of Figures


                                                                    viii
List of Tables


                                                                     ix
Acknowledgments



Sections



I      Conclusions


                                                                     3
II     Recommendations



III    Introduction

                                                                     Q

IV     Test  Equipment and  Procedure


                                                                     13
V      Results and Discussion



VI     Theoretical Prediction of Efficiencies                       57



VII   References



Appendices



 A      Manufacturer's Description of CHEAP



 B      Data Reduction for Andersen Impactors


                                                                      79
 C      Andersen Impactor Data



 D      Optical Particle Counter Measurements and Data                117



 E      Condensation Nuclei Counter Measurements and Data             120

-------
                                  FIGURES

 No.

  1    Test System for CHEAP Evaluation                              9

  2    Sampling Equipment Arrangement                                10

  3    Penetration Versus Face Velocity and Pressure Drop for        20
       the 65 ppi Foam

  4    Inlet Particle Size Distribution,  CHEAP Test Number 3222-3    22

  5    Inlet and Outlet Concentration Distributions for Run 3222-3   23

  6    Penetration Versus Particle Size for Nominal Conditions       26
       (Average of 3222 Series of Runs),  Corrected for Reentrainment
       and Uncorrected

  7    Inlet and Outlet Mass  Concentration Distributions             27

  8    Penetration Versus Particle Size for 65 ppi Foam at Three     29
       Levels  of Face Velocity

  9    Penetration Versus Particle Size for 65 ppi Foam at Two       31
       Water Spray Rates  (Two  Liquid-to-gas Ratios)

10     Particle  Size  Versus Penetration for Two Different  Solids     33
      Loadings  in  Recirculation Water

11    Penetration  Versus  Pressure  Drop and Face Velocity  for  the     34
      45 Pores  per Inch  Foam

12    Penetration Versus  Particle  Size for  the 45 ppi  Foam at       35
      Three Levels of Face Velocity

13    Penetration Versus  Particle  Size for  the 80 Pores per Inch     33
      Foam

14    Penetration Versus  Particle  Size for  80 ppi and  65  ppi  Foam    40
      at Approximately the Same Pressure Drop
                                 vi

-------
 25
                           FIGURES (continued)
15    Penetration Versus Particle Size for the 65 ppi Foam at       42
      Nominal Conditions

16    Penetration Versus Particle Size for the 65 ppi Foam at the   43
      Lowest Face Velocity

17    Penetration Versus Particle Size for the 65 ppi Foam at       44
      Nominal Conditions

18    Penetration Versus Particle Size for the 45 ppi Foam at       45
      Nominal Conditions

19    Penetration Versus Particle Size for the 45 ppi Foam at       46
      the Lowest Face Velocity

20    Penetration Versus Particle Size with Metal Foam              48

21    Predicted Aerodynamic Cut Diameter Versus  Pressure  Drop and   55
      Power Consumption

22    Schematic of Jungle Gym Model of Porous Foam                  58

23    Predicted Particle Size Versus  Penetration for Three Foam     62
      Porosities at  a Low Face Velocity,  100 cm/s

24    Predicted Particle Size Versus  Penetration for Three Foam      63
      Porosities at  a High Face Velocity,  1000  cm/s
CHEAP Unit, Cutaway Drawing                                   69
 26    Temperature Correction Factor for Aerodynamic Size of         75
       Particles Captured in Andersen Stack Sampler

 27    Aerodynamic Diameter Versus Flow Rate Through Andersen        77
       Stack Sampler

 28    Diffusion Denuder Size Cutoffs As A Function of Flow Rate     121
                                 vii

-------
                                 TABLES

No.                                                                 Page

 1    Test Program for CHEAF Evaluation                             5

 2    Actual Value of Parameters in Test Matrix                     6

 3    Overall Penetration of the CHEAF at Nominal Conditions        15

 4    Overall Penetration of CHEAF at Water Higher Consumption      16
      Rate of 5.75 Liters per Minute

 5    Overall Penetration of CHEAF at Three Levels of Solids        18
      in Recirculation Water

 6    Overall Penetration for the 65 ppi Foam at Three Levels       19
      of Face Velocity

 7    Sample Data Sheet for Impactor Tests of CHEAF Collection      24
      Efficiency

 8    Overall Penetration of the CHEAF with the 45 Pores per        35
      Inch Foam at Three Levels of Face Velocity

 9    Grand Mean, Marginal Means, and Elements of the Analysis      50
      of Variance for Efficiencies at Different Particle Sizes,
      Gas Flows, Foam Pore Densities

10    Root Mean Square Residuals Estimates of ao and Replication    52
      Estimate of a

11    Summary of Mean Percentage Efficiencies and Standard          53
      Deviation of These Means for the CHEAF Under the Normal
      Operating Conditions

12    Predicted Penetrations Under Assumptions Noted in Text        61

13    Optical Particle Counter Data                                 118

14    CNC Data                                                      122
                                 viii

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The cooperation received from Jack Brady and John Golutnbeski of Andersen
2000, Inc. is gratefully acknowledged.  Also, the efforts of the two
major contributors to the testing effort from the GCA staff, Steve Brenan
and Mark Daniels, are also acknowledged.
                                ix

-------
                                SECTION I
                               CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation was one of a series of such evaluations being conducted
by the Control Systems Laboratory of the Environmental Protection Agency
to identify and test novel devices which are capable of high efficiency
collection of fine particles.  The overall efficiency of the CHEAP was
improved by increasing the spray rate, the make-up liquid rate, the foam
pores per inch, the pressure drop and/or the face velocity at the filter
drum.  Face velocity was not as important as pressure drop, however, when
various filter media were compared.  The mean efficiencies and estimated
standard deviations of these means are listed below  (for tests near
normal operating  conditions, as specified by the manufacturer):

                                                 Estimated
                                                  standard
             Aerodynamic          Mean          deviation of
             diameter, MJTI      efficiency, %     the  mean, %
                  9                 90.8               1.9
                  7                 93.5               1.6
                  5                 93.4               1.2
                  3                 97.4               0.5
                  1                 97.1               0.4
                  0.5              90.4               2.8
 The penetration actually increased as particle size increased, which is
 the opposite behavior expected from theory and found in normal practice.
 This effect appears to be due to reentrainment and possibly leakage around
 seals which may not perform as well in the small pilot scale unit as in

-------
a full scale Industrial unit.  The major collection mechanism was impac-
tion and the major penetration mechanism was probably reentrainment, for
the aerosol studied.  Total mass efficiency was approximately 95 percent
at normal conditions, for which the pressure drop across the CHEAP was
80 cm (31.5 inches) WC.  The particle aerodynamic diameter, for which th«
efficiency would be 50 percent at these conditions, was determined from
cascade impactor data to be below 0.5  m.  This indicates that the aero-
dynamic 50 percent cut diameter for the CHEAT is smaller than for a
venturi scrubber operating at the same pressure drop.

-------
                               SECTION II
                             RECOMMENDATIONS
For operations for which scrubbers are practical, the CHEAP system should
be considered as an alternative which may represent a savings in power
consumption at equivalent collection efficiency.

-------
                              SECTION III
                             INTRODUCTION

The CHEAP is a particulate control device which utilizes a wetted polymer
foam material to capture particulate matter.  The water acts as an aid in
particulate collection at the foam, and as a continuous cleaning agent.
A more complete description of the CHEAP by the manufacturer (Andersen
2000, Inc.) is given in Appendix A.

The goals of the CHEAP evaluation were to determine its fractional and
overall efficiency, its power and water consumption, and the relative
importance of different collection mechanisms.  A balanced factorial test
matrix was designed utilizing three levels of foam pore grade (pores per
inch) and three levels of face velocity.  At the normal operating con-
ditions (labeled 3222 in Table 1 for the third level of face velocity, and
the second levels of pore grade, spray flow, and make-up flow, respectively),
four tests were made with impactors, two tests with total mass filters at
the duct center-line, two tests with total mass filters taken at traverse
points called for in EPA Method 5,  one test with the optical particle
counter, and one test with the condensation nuclei counter.  The three
extreme conditions of pore grade and face velocity (1122, 3122,  1322) were
each tested with one run using impactors, total mass filters, an optical
particle counter and a condensation nuclei counter.  The two remaining
runs in the matrix which were run at the second level of face velocity
with the extremes of pore grade (2122, 2322) were tested with one run
each using impactors and total mass filters.

-------
         Table 1.   TEST PROGRAM  FOR CHEAP EVALUATION
PrIncipal test matrix

Face
velocity
250 cm/ s
(500 fpm)
500-600 cm/a
(1000-1200
fpm)
1000 cm/ s
(2000 fpm)
Foam pores per inch
45 ppi
1122b

2122


3122&

65 ppi
1222b

2222


3222»>b

80 ppi
1322b

2322




Secondary test  series
Spray/gas,
gpm/1000 cfm
1.5
1.1
Test number
3212d
3222C
Make-up/gas,
gpm/1000 cfm
0.03
0.10
0.30
Equivalent
volume fraction,
%
1
0.3
0.1
Test
number
3221d
3222C
3223d
 "Four  total mass tests:  two EPA Method  5;   two in-stack filter.
 bTests with condensation nuclei counter, diffusion battery, and optical
 particle  counter, in addition to impactbrs  and filters.
 °Tests already done for principal matrix.
  vto tests each*-

-------
Secondary conditions were chosen to include two water spray rates and
three solids loadings in the recirculation water.  The use of dif-
ferent solids loadings simulated operating at different bleed and make-up
flow rates.  In this manner we can determine actual water consumption,
exclusive of recirculation rates.  Two impactor and total mass tests were
made at each of the three water use rates (3212, 3221, 3223) which were
different than nominal conditions.  Table 1 displays the test matrix and
conditions we intended to utilize for the tests which were performed.
Table 2 contains the actual values used for the tests.
          Table 2.  ACTUAL VALUE OF PARAMETERS IN TEST MATRIX
Run no.
3222 series
3212 pair
3221 pair
3223 pair
2222
1222
3122
2122
1122
2322
1322
Foam type
pores per
inch
65
65
65
65
65
65
45
45
45
80
80
Water solids
content}
% by volume
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Face
velocity,
cm/s
797
759
680
733
530
243
840
548
262
331
361
Liquid-
to-gas
ratio,
10-3m3/m3
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.23
0.18
0.39
0.18
0.18
0.37
0.29
0.27
The face velocity was determined by dividing the exposed area of the
polymer filter into the total gas flow through the filter.  The liquid-
to-gas ratio was determined by dividing the water spray rate through
the nozzles by the gas volume flow rate at the foam.

-------
Tests were also performed using a metal foam of approximately 60 pores
per inch to determine the overall and fractional penetration of the
CHEAP utilizing this foam at otherwise nominal conditions.

-------
                              SECTION IV
                     TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE

EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

The general schematic of the test system for the CHEAP evaluation is
shown in Figure 1.  The iron oxide aerosol output from a screw-type dust
feeder was aspirated into the inlet of the test ducting where it mixed
                                             33                5
with room air.  (The Reynolds number at 0.5 m /s (10  cfm) was 2 x 10 ,
and earlier work with a similar set-up indicated good mixing under these
conditions.)  The ducting diameter was 20 cm (8 inches).  There were more
than 8 diameters of duct length before the sampling probes, and about 2
after the probe before a right-angle bend.  The CHEAF unit has a cyclone
with a spray preceding the wetted foam part of the unit.  After, the
wetted foam are two types of demisters and a blower (still part of the
CHEAF), followed by more ducting with a sampling configuration which was
nearly identical with the upstream configuration.

The sampling equipment was arranged as shown in Figure 2, with long
straight probes placed in the elbows of the inlet and outlet ducting.  The
reason for using the straight sampling probe was to minimize probe losses
which normally occur when utilizing impactors with the standard button•
hook type nozzles.  This avoided probe bends and yet allowed sampling at
least two diameters upstream from the duct bend.  The sample was pulled
isokinetically through the nozzle, then through the probe, to the filter
holder or Andersen Mark III impactor, followed by a column of dessicant

-------
                                                             ( T  }THERMOMETER
                                                 PRESSURE( P )
                                                  GAUGE  V-X
ROOM
 AIR
                                                                                -*-EXHAUST
                                                                           OPTICAL
                                                                          PARTICLE
                                                                           COUNTER
                                                                                     CONDENSATION
                                                                                       NUCLEI
                                                                                       COUNTER
                           Figure 1.  Test system for CHEAP evaluation

-------
47mm FILTER
OR 1MPACTOR
                                          PROBE
                                                           NOZZLE
                                                   41cm
                        TEMPERATURE SENSOR
MANOMET!
                        Figure 2.   Sampling equipment arrangement
                                                                        (8">
                                                                               GAS  FLOW
                                                                               DIRECTION

-------
(silica gel),  a calibrated orifice,  a dry test meter,  and  a  pump.   The
temperature and pressure of the gas  were measured between  the calibrated
orifice and the dry test meter.

The probe nozzles were placed two duct diameters from an upstream distur-
bance and greater than 8 duct diameters downstream from a disturbance•
Therefore the sampling was done at an excellent location in the duct.
All of tb,e impactor and total mass determinations, except for two runs
for which traversing was utilized, were made at the center of the duct.

A detailed description of our procedure for the use of the Andersen MK III
impactors is given in Appendix B.  Also, the results of a detailed inter-
comparison of our impactors with each other was presented in a previous
GCA report entitled, "Dynactor Scrubber Evaluation", EPA-650/2-74-0830a,
          2
June  1975.   All  impactor  data is given  in Appendix C.

It was determined that  sufficient impactor sampling times were  15 minutes
at the inlet and  2 hours at  the outlet to produce loadings  per  impactor
stage <  15 mg.

For  impactors  and filters  both the  upstream and downstream  samples were
observed to be dry.  Downstream drying was aided by  the gas temperature
 increase produced by the heat from  the blower of the CHEAP.

We also  made particle  size measurements with  a Bausch and Lomb Dust
Counter  Model  40-1,  and a Rich Model 100 Condensation Nuclei Counter.
Details  concerning  our use of these instruments are given in Appendix D
and  Appendix E.

 PROCEDURE

 The estimated equilibrium concentration of solids was achieved by adding
 sufficient iron oxide to the recirculating water in the CHEAP, and the
 spray flow rates were adjusted.  The blower was  turned on and the unit
                                   11

-------
allowed to reach an approximate equilibrium pressure drop.  The dust
feeder was started and more time was allowed to elapse to allow the con-
centration at inlet and outlet to approach equilibrium.  (The sampling
probes were covered to prevent them from catching dust when not sampling.

Sampling was begun downstream.  Upstream sampling was done thrice fof
impactor runs, centered on the midpoints of three equally-spaced time
intervals.  Total mass filter samples were obtained simultaneously for
20 minutes upstream and downstream.  The filters and the impactor sub-
strates were predried and preweighted.  After a 24-hour drying period,
they were weighed again to determine weight of material captured.  For
the condensation nuclei counter and the optical particle counter, samples
were taken at the inlet and at the outlet at somewhat different times,
and these samples were often drawn through a dilution system before going
to the measurement devices.

The total gas flows through the ducts were determined at the inlet and
outlet sampling locations for each run, utilizing velocity traverses.
These measurements indicated approximately 20 percent leakage between the
CHEAF inlet ducting and the outlet ducting.  The effect of the leakage
on results was factored into the analysis of data by multiplying the
impactor dM/d(log d) by an appropriate correction factor.  Total mass
efficiency was determined utilizing a mass flux calculation which uses
the total flow and concentration at each sampling point; therefore, no
further correction was necessary.
                                  12

-------
                               SECTION V
                         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

INITIAL FINDINGS REGARDING OPERATION OF CHEAF

Particle collection occurs in the CHEAF at a reticulated polyurethane
foam filter which is placed over a rotating drum for support.  The thick-
ness of the foam is approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch).  The maximum drum
width is 10 cm (4 inches).  Smaller drum widths can be obtained by cover-
ing a portion of the drum with strips of impermeable rubber.  In this
manner we were able to adjust the area of the  foam through which the
gas flowed, hence the face velocity at the filter.

Our initial plans to test  the  CHEAF  at  3 different face  velocities were
hampered for two reasons.  First, we were informed that  in order  for  the
demisters to operate efficiently it  would be  necessary to maintain  the
nominal flow of approximately  0.47 m^/s (1000 cfm) through the unit.   This,
coupled with the limited maximum drum width,  made it impossible to attain
the low face velocities  we initially intended to run.   Second, the  fan in
the, CHEAF unit  was  designed  for one foam and  could not pull 0.47 m3/s (1000
cfm)  through the two denser  foams at the highest intended face velocity
of 1000 cm/s  (2000  f pm).  In fact,  the fan was unable to pull 0.47 m3/s
 (1000 cfm)  through  the densest 80 pores per inch foam even at the inter-
mediate, face velocity  of 500 cm/s (1000 f pm).  Consequently, we were
  - "'  '  --V.. ,'"-•"'•.'         ' •        '    ;, ''.'-  " ' .:   "     ' • •
 forced to run  at approximately 20 percent lower face velocities than
 originally intended and were unable to run the 80 ppi foam at more than
 one face velocity.
                                    13

-------
We were also unable to run any of the foams at the lowest face velocities
without modification of the CHEAF unit itself.  This was accomplished by
introducing filtered dilution air through a replacement plate which was
placed downstream of the drum and upstream of the mist eliminator.  In
this manner we were able to pull the reduced volume of air through the
CHEAF filter drum and maintain the needed air flow through the demister,
thus insuring its proper operation.

Utilizing a combination of varying filter drum width and addition of
dilution air beyond the drum, we were able to achieve 3 levels of face
velocities, varying between 243 cm/s and 840 cm/s (478 and 1650 fpm).

TESTS WITH 65 PORES PER INCH FOAM

CHEAF Set-Up

The majority of the tests performed were with the 65 pores per inch foam
since it is the usual foam used in the CHEAF.  Tests performed with this
foam included impactor and total mass filter runs up and downstream as
well as optical particle counter and condensation nuclei counter
measurements.

Initial flow testing with the 65 ppi foam determined that a 6,35 cm
(2.5 inches) wide strip of exposed foam at the CHEAF drum yielded the
highest face velocity possible with a corresponding total volume flow
                                        3
at the fan inlet of approximately 0.47 m /sec (1000 acfm).  The initial
pressure drop across the filter drum at these conditions was
61 cm WC (24 in. WC).  Running the CHEAF at these conditions, with the
addition of 6 g/min of iron oxide at the inlet and 0.3 percent by volume
of iron oxide in the recirculation water, rapidly increased the pressure
drop across the filter drum to 66 cm WC (26 in. H_0).  This increase in
                                   14

-------
pressure drop across the filter drum caused a corresponding  decrease  in
the total volume flow of air through the CHEAP,  bringing the nominal
conditions of face velocity down to approximately 800 cm/sec or 20 percent
lower than initially planned.

We were forced to settle for this compromise because the fan was somewhat
underpowered and was not capable of pulling more than approximately
0.38 m3/s (800 acfm) through the 65 ppi foam with a face velocity of
800 cm/s.

Overall Efficiency Runs

Overall Efficiency Runs  at Nominal  Conditions (3222  Series)  - Two  sets
of total mass and impactor runs were made  at the nominal condition (3222)
before  the pressure drop across the filter drum rose noticeably.   Two
more  pairs of runs were  made with  impactors and total mass  filters.  This
time  the total mass filters  were attached  to button  hook type  nozzles
and collected by traversing  in the duct as called  for in EPA Method  5.
During  these tests  the pressure drop across the filter drum had risen to
70 cm WC  (27.5  in.  WC),  and  the flow through the  CHEAP was  consequently
diminished  somewhat along  with the face velocity.   The overall penetration
 (total  mass) for these runs at nominal conditions are given in Table 3.
                    Table 3.   OVERALL PENETRATION OF THE
                              CHEAP AT NOMINAL CONDITIONS
                              (3222 SERIES OF RUNS)
Run no.
3222-1
3222*2
3222-3
3222-4
[Penetration^
%
5.87
5.04
5.65
4.99
; Pressure drop,
cm (in.) WC
66 (26)
66 (26)
70 (27.5)
7.0 (27.5)
                                   15

-------
Overall Efficiency Runs at Increased Water Spray Rate (3212 pair) - A
secondary set of tests were performed to evaluate the effect of water
usage of the CHEAF upon overall and fractional efficiency.  These in-
cluded a higher water spray rate and both higher and lower water recycle
rates.

The nominal water spray rate was chosen as 4.2 liters per minute
(1.1 gpm) or approximately 11 Ipm/m3/sec (1.4 gpm/1000 cfm).  This
is the water rate at which the 3222 series of tests were run.  Two
runs were performed at a higher water spray rate of 5.75 liters per
minute (1.5 gpm) or approximately 15 Ipm/m3/sec (1.9 gpm/1000 cfm).
Two total mass filter and impactor efficiency runs were performed at this
higher water spray rate, and are numbered as the 3212 series of runs.
The penetration for the total mass filter runs are given in Table 4, and
it can be seen that they average somewhat lower than for the 3222 series
of runs;  penetration decreased as liquid-to-gas ratio increased.
               Table 4.  OVERALL PENETRATION OF CHEAF AT
                         HIGHER WATER CONSUMPTION RATE OF
                         5.75 LITERS PER MINUTE (1.5
                         gpm) (3212 SERIES OF RUNS)
Run no.
3212-1
3212-2
Penetration,
%
5,24
4,89
Pressure drop,
cm (in.) WC
70 (27.5)
70 (27.5)
Overall Efficiency Runs at Simulated High and Low Water Recycle Rates
(3221 and 3223) - The second water-related parameter which was investi-
gated was the rate of recycling water through the CHEAF system.  It is
common scrubber practice to maintain a tank or reservoir of water from
which water is drawn for the sprays and into which is charged the col-
lected spray water.  This substantially reduces water consumption and
hence reduces the cost of water and its subsequent treatment.  Therefore,
                                  16

-------
it is important to determine how high a solids loading (corresponding  to
a high water recycle rate)  can be tolerated before the solids in the water
begin to substantially contribue to the penetration.   If a constant
amount of particle-bearing water is entrained by the  scrubber off-gases,
the amount of solids escaping into the off-gases with the water would  be
proportional to the solids loading in the scrubber water.

In order to determine the effect of solids loading on the CHEAP's per-
formance, we ran a series of two paired runs each at a lower and higher
than nominal solids loading.  These tests spanned a tenfold difference
in solids loading which corresponded directly to a tenfold difference in
water recycle rate.  Since the CHEAP unit was not set up to run with a
continuous water  addition and water removal  flows, we ran  tests  on a batch
type basis, periodically removing  solids-laden water and replacing  it
with clean water  to maintain a fairly  steady known solids  level  in the
recirculation  tank.

At nominal  conditions  (3222), we maintained  a  solids  level in the  tank
of 0.3  percent  volume  fraction,  which  was  to be  equivalent to a water
removal/replacement rate of  1 Ipm/m3/s (0.125 gpm/1000  cfm).   We ran
 two  total mass filter  and  impactor tests for penetration at a higher
 and  lower  solids  in water volume fraction.   The  lower volume fraction
was  equivalent to 3 Ipm/m3/s (0.375 gpm/1000 cfm),  the  3223 series.
 The  higher  volume fraction was  equivalent to 0.3 Ipm/m3/s (0.0375 gpm/
 1000 cfm),  the 3221 series.

 The  pressure drop across the drum remained the same for the lower volume
 fraction runs  (3223)  as it had been for the previous nominal condition
 runs (3222), namely,  70 cm WC (27.5 in.); however, for the higher
 volume fraction runs (3221), the pressure drop across the drum rose to
 72 cm WC (28.5 in.),  thus clouding somewhat the explanation of the re-
 sults presented here in Table 5.
                                   17

-------
             Table 5.  OVERALL PENETRATION OF CHEAT AT
                       THREE LEVELS OF SOLIDS IN RECIR-
                       CULATION WATER
Run no.
3222
Series
3221-1
3221-2
3223-1
3223-2
Pene-
tra-
tion,
'%
5.38
4.15
4.64
3.07
3.76
Pressure drop,
cm (in.) WC
68 (26.75)
72 (28.5)
72 (28.5)
70 (27.5)
70 (27.5)
Volume fraction
of solids
in water,
7.
0.3
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
Although the results are somewhat obscured by the variations in pressure
drop across the filter drum, it can be seen clearly from runs 3221-1 and 2
and 3223-1 and 2, that the penetration depends upon volume fraction of
solids in the recirculation water.  Even with a higher pressure drop, the
higher solids runs (3221-1 and 2) had nearly a 29 percent higher average
overall penetration than the lower solids (3223-1 and 2) runs.  This in-
dicates that entrained water droplets which escape the demisters are a
substantial source of penetration in the CHEAP.

Overall Efficiency Runs at Lower Face Velocities (2222 and 1222) - Two
other tests were run with the 65 ppi foam, and these were considered to
be primary tests belonging in the principal test matrix.  These two
tests involved operating the CHEAP at lower-than-nominal face velocities
of 530 and 243 cm/s (1040 and 480 fpm).   The first or higher velocity tes^
(2222) were accomplished by exposing 10 cm (4 in.)  of the foam filter
material on the drum.  With this new increased drum width, the fan in the
CHEAP was able to pull 0.387 m3/s (820 cfm)  through the filter drum at a
pressure drop of 48 cm WC (19 in. WC), yielding a 530 cm/s face velocity.
A total mass and impactor efficiency test was run at these operating
conditions.
                                  18

-------
The lowest face velocity tests (1222)  were accomplished with much more
difficulty, requiring a modification of the CHEAP itself,  as explained
in the Introduction.  Efficiency tests using total mass filters and
impactors were run as well as measurements with an optical particle
counter and a condensation nuclei counter.  The face velocity for this
test was 243 cm/s and the pressure drop across the filter drum was
18 cm WC (7 in.).  Results of the total mass filter efficiency tests
are given  in Table 6, and as would be expected, the penetration rises
with decreasing face velocity and/or pressure drop.
             Table 6.  OVERALL PENETRATION FOR THE 65 PPI
                       FOAM AT THREE LEVELS OF FACE
                       VELOCITY
Run no.
3222
Series
2222
1222-A
Penetration,
%
5.38
6.20
22.45
Pressure drop,
cm (in.) WC
68 (26.75)
48 (19)
18 (7)
Face velocity,
cm/ sec
797
530
243
 As can be seen in Figure 3,  however,  the total penetration appears to
 level off at the intermediate face velocity,  indicating perhaps some
 optimum face velocity exists where the CHEAF  will achieve the maximum
 particulate collection per unit of energy.  These results are somewhat
 clouded by the lowest face velocity run (1222-A) since we were unable
 to decrease the water spray rate per unit time, hence the ratio of water
 spray to volume of gas treated is elevated by over a factor of 2 for
 this run.  The effect of using a higher water spray rate in our earlier
 tests (3212) indicated that a somewhat lower penetration might be ex-
 pected.  Since the penetration at this low face velocity is very high
 compared to the higher face velocity runs, the effect of the excess water
 spray is unlikely to change the overall appearance of curves in Figure 3.
                                   19

-------
       100
        90
        80
        70

        6O

        50

        40


        30



        20
      2
      2L
      z"
      o
QC  9
   8
   7

   6
     Ul

     Ld
     CL
          10
          T"
                     20
   PRESSURE DROP.cmW.C.

30   40    50    60    70
                      80
T
T
T
T
                      T
 90
—T~
                           100
                              o PRESSURE  DROP

                              A FACE VELOCITY
          0    100  200   300  400  500   600   700   800  900  1000
                               FACE VELOCITY, ctn/t
Figure 3.  Penetration versus  face velocity and pressure drop
           for the 65 ppi  foam
                             20

-------
Fractional Efficiency Tests With Andersen Impactors

Fractional Efficiency for Runs at Nominal Conditions - As  we  have  stated,
Andersen impactors were run for each of the conditions previously  mentioned.
The irapactor data were ultimately utilized to derive fractional efficiency
information presented here as curves of penetration versus particle size.
Appendix B gives the details.

Figure 4 shows one of the inlet particle size distribution results, as
obtained from the Andersen impactor, using the manufacturer's calibration.
The mass median aerodynamic diameter is about 1.1 um and the geometric
standard deviation is about 2.2, although the distribution is clearly
truncated in the upper particle size range, thus substantially different
from a log-normally distributed aerosol.  Because about 85 percent of
the particle mass was less than 3 um aerodynamic diameter, the iron
oxide was a convenient test dust for fine particle efficiency measurements.

A  typical data sheet for the tests  is  shown  in Table  7, and  the data sheets
for all other impactor runs are given  in Appendix C.   This sheet  cor-
responds to the size distribution results  shown  in Figure 4.   From the
cumulative distributions one can calculate the fraction of particles in
any size interval, and thus compare inlet  and outlet  concentrations as a
function of particle size  to obtain penetration  versus particle size.
Figure 5 gives the inlet and outlet concentrations  for the  same test
 (again number 3222-3) at the usual  operating conditions for  the CHEAF
 (nominal flow rate,  foam pores-per-inch rating,  water-spray-to-gas flow
ratio) in  terms of the mass  concentration per logarithmic interval, dm/d
 (log dp).  On this basis the penetration of  any  particle  size  is  just  the
ratio of  the outlet  value  of  dm/d  (log dp)  to the  inlet value. The outlet
value of dm/d  (log dp) has been corrected for air  leakage into the CHEAF,
 and  it  is  the corrected  value  which has been plotted in Figure 5.
                                   21

-------
      100
M
at


u

o
   tc
   u
   »-
   Ul
       10
   z


   §  1-0

   K
     0.1
             I	 I
        2    5    10    20      40     60      60    90  96    96


          PERCENTAGE  OF MASS LESS  THAN  OR EQUAL  TO STATED  SIZE
Figure 4.  Inlet particle  size distribution, CHEAF test number 3222-3
                                 22

-------
     (J
     o»
    (T
    UJ
     UJ

     N
     o

     2
     X
     H

     o£
     or
     Id
     O.
     
-------
          Table 7.   SAMPLE DATA SHEET FOR MPACTOR TESTS OF CHEAP
                    COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/12/75    Run #  (3222-3)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =   10.9630

Moisture             (%)    =    0.9492

Concentration (grains/ft3)  =    0.1040

I.mpactor flow rate (acfm)   =    0.5529
Location Inlet

Orifice E

Bar. press. ("Hg)
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Ttn (OF)
H20 (grams)
Meter volume  (ft3)
Avg. Ps (+H20)
Avg. Ts (OF)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
 29.93
 29
  1.5
. 76
  2.2
 11.56
 -1
 74
 20
  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight,
grams
0.0032
0.0012
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0053
0.0203
0.0227
0.0137
0.0032
0.0732
7. on
stage
4.37
1.64
1.37
1.64
1.91
7.24
28.73
31.01
18.72
4.37

Size cutoff,
[00

12.91
8.07
5.41
3.75
2.34
1.22
0.74
0.51


% < stated
size
95.63
93.99
92.62
90.98
89.07
81.83
54.10
23.99
4.37


dm/d log D

0.0070
0.0098
0.0125
0.0366
0.1018
0.1503
0.1170
0.0027


Geo. mean,
Mm

10.21
6.61
4.51
2.96
1.69
0.95
0.61
0.07


These abbreviations are  explained  in Appendix  B.
                                    24

-------
If the predominant collection mechanisms for the CHEAP are interception
and inertial impaction,  one would expect the penetration to decrease
with increasing particle size.  If diffusion is important, one would
expect perhaps an improvement in collection efficiency (or at least a
change in slope of collection efficiency versus particle size) at the
smallest particle sizes ($ 0.3 urn).  One more complication, at least,
will arise.  Some fraction of particulate material which has been captured
in the scrubbing liquid may escape the demisters, either because the
droplets were too fine to be captured or because the liquid has been
atomized from some surface because of air shear.  Figure  6 shows the
penetration versus particle size curve for a test at  the  nominal con-
ditions with and without correction for  spray  solids.  For the uncorrected
values, up to about 3 ym, one has the expected  increased  efficiency (de-
creased penetration) versus increasing particle size.  The penetration then
rose  to a  nearly  constant level  for particles  larger  than about  5  ym aero-
dynamic diameter.  Because we thought such  behavior might occur, we made  a
test  near  the very beginning  without a  dust feed with the scrubber in  the
nominal operating mode  (including suspended material  in the  recirculating
water)  to  have  an estimate  of the extent to which  reentrained droplets (or
 those not  captured at  all)  would affect penetration.

 Curve (4)  in Figure  7  shows the results of the test without inlet  aerosol,
 just  described.  Curves (1)  and (2)  in Figure 7 are  the inlet and outlet
 concentrations for the test with dust  generated at the inlet, and curve (3)
 is the outlet concentration for that  test minus the  outlet concentration
 found when no aerosol  was generated at the inlet.   The penetration calcu-
 lated from the corrected curve (3)  and the inlet curve (1) is also shown
 in Figure 6.  This is  strong evidence for the hypothesis that most penetra-
 tion of the particles  larger than 3 urn or so was due to  reentraihment and/
 or imperfect demisting.  When dust is present at the inlet, the contribu-
 tion from reentrainment and imperfect demisting would be somewhat  greater.
 This is because the concentration of the particulate material in  the  drops
                                   25

-------
 §

 5
 a
 t-
 u
 z
 III
 a
     AVERAGE

MEASURED  PENETRATION
                                AVERAGE PENETRATION


                                CORRECTED  FOR PARTICIPATE  IN OUTLET


                                WITHOUT OUST FEED
                    3        5        7        9        II


                      PARTICLE AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER, jun
Figure 6.  Penetration versus particle size  for nominal  conditions

            (average of 3222 series  of runs),  corrected for re-

            entrainment and uncorrected
                                   26

-------
     1.0
o

9
o
      O.I
'5


-i
 ui
 M

 in

 o
 5


 I
 _/
     0.01
    0.00
 K
 h-
 w
 u
    0.000
        0.01
 AVERAGE  INLET


> AVERAGE  OUTLET

I AVERAGE  OUTLET CORRECTED FOR PARTICULATE
 IN  OUTLET WITHOUT DUST FEED

 OUTLET  WITHOUT  OUST FEED
         0.1                 I

    PARTICLE  AERODYNAMIC  DIAMETER ,/»m
Figure  7.   Inlet  and  outlet  mass  concentration distributions
                                 27

-------
and on the collection surfaces will be somewhat higher than the average
equilibrium concentration in the recirculating water on account of the
particulate material just captured.  This may well explain the change in
slope of percent penetration for particles larger than 0.5 ym in Figure <»

In reporting the CHEAF penetration we have not subtracted the material
produced by reentrainment and/or imperfect demisting, for this is an
integral part of the CHEAF performance.

Fractional Efficiency at Different Face Velocities - Figure 8 contains
penetration versus particle size curves for the average of the tests at
nominal conditions, the 3222 series, and for the two lower face velocity
runs, namely, 2222 and 1222-la.  It can be seen that curves (3) and (2)
have a very similar shape with their main difference being that they are
at different levels of penetration.  These two curves correspond to the
highest and intermediate face velocities, therefore, the overall pene-
tration being somewhat higher for curve (2) than curve (3) is as ex-
pected if impaction is the predominant collection mechanism.  The simi-
larity of the curves in their shape indicates that the collection mecharti
are essentially unchanged for these two conditions.

Curve (1) is very dissimilar to both curves (2) and (3).  First of all,
the data indicated more large particles at the outlet than at the inlet.
Unfortunately, the impactor runs from which curve (1) was derived con-
tain some zero weight gains for the upper stages of the inlet impactor,
which was most unusual for our tests.  These zero weight gains may well
be the result of a somewhat different particle size distribution at the
CHEAF inlet sampling point, due to the very low flow for this test.
The very low flow or velocity in the inlet duct could have caused the
larger particles to settle out in the ducting before reaching the inlet
sampling point.  If this was the case, then the appearance of large
particles at the outlet due to reentrainment of solids-laden spray water
                                  28

-------
         4>
         O
         UJ
         z
         UJ
         a.
10
 9

 8

 7

 6
                                                           (3)
                                        D I222-IA.243 cm/s

                                        O 2222,530 Cm/s

                                        A 3222 SERIES AVERAGE, 797cnyg
                                                         6
                                                        10
                    AERODYNAMIC  PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 8.  Penetration versus  particle  size  for 65 ppi foam at three

           levels of face velocity
                                 29

-------
could cause the greater than 100 percent penetration observed, which in
fact we plotted as 100 percent penetration for convenience.

Looking at the bulk of curve (1), below 5 microns, we see penetration
behaving oppositely to curves (2) and (3).  The lowest penetration in
curves (2) and (3) at 2 microns, corresponds to the highest penetration of
greater than 100 percent for curve (1).  Extrapolating from the changes in
going from (3) to (2), we expected somewhat higher penetrations in all
size classes for (1) but with a minimum in the 1 to 3 ym range— we observe
the former but not the latter.  Either the CHEAT is operating very unlike
nominal conditons at this low face velocity or the change in conditions
seriously affected our ability to obtain accurate and meaningful data.
Later the results for 45 ppi foam at three flow rates will be presented;
these curves show no such anomaly.

Fractional Efficiency at Higher Water Spray Rate — Figure 9 contains frac^
tional efficiency curves for the CHEAP at nominal conditions (3222) and
with a higher water spray rate (3223).  Curve (1) is for the nominal con-
                                      -33  3
ditions, liquid-to-gas ratio 0.19 x 10  m /m  and curve (2) is for the
                               —3 3  3
higher ratio  (L/G) of 0.26  x 10  m /m  .  The two curves are very similar,
both in shape and magnitude.  The two points of major difference are at
7 microns where the penetration is much higher at the higher water spray
rate, and at 1/2 micron where the penetration is much lower at the higher
flow rate.  The higher penetration at 7 microns may be due to poor mist
eliminator performance, in which case it is a problem which could be cor-
rected by better design.  The lower penetration for the 1/2 micron particle
size seems to represent an improvement in the CHEAP's performance on fine
particles.  Only one impactor run of two contained useable data, therefore
we cannot place as much confidence in curve (2)  of Figure 9 as in curve (1)
which is the average of four impactor runs.
                                  30

-------
        100
         90

         80

         70


         60


         50



         40




         30
         20
      o>
      a.
      5 10


      *  2
      UJ  8
      u
      a
                             A 3222 SERIES  AVERAGE.0.19 [lO"3m3/m2]


                             o 3212-1 SINGLE RUN,0.26|jO-3m3/m3]
                       23     4    56     7     8     9


                       AERODYNAMIC  PARTICLE DIAMETERt/im
Figure 9.  Penetration versus  particle size for 65 ppi foam at two

           water spray rates  (two liquid-to-gas ratios)
                                  31

-------
The total mass runs indicate only a very slight improvement in efficiency
for the higher water spray rate (3212 series) runs, indicating that the
penetration should be lower at least somewhere on curve (2), further
evidence for the better fine particle particle capture at higher L/G.

Fractional Efficiency for Runs at High and Low Simulated Water Recircula*-
tion Rates - Figure 10 contains the particle size versus penetration
curves for the two sets of runs, 3221-1 and 2, and 3223-1 and 2, where
the solids loading in the tanjc recirculation water was made both higher
and lower than nominal conditions.  The two curves have a similar shape
for particles smaller than 3 ym.  Above 3 microns, curve (1), which cor-
responds to a lower solids loading, begins to show a lesser degree of pens
tration than curve (2).   These results from these two pairs of runs furthe
strengthen the argument that reentrained particle made up most of the
larger particles found at the outlet.  The curves are as expected if there
is a given fraction of the water spray droplets by-passing the demisters
and being carried through to the outlet.  Under these circumstances, we
would expect that the overall occurrence of larger particles at the outlet
would be increased if the spray water contains a higher solids loading,
and this is what was observed.

TESTS WITH THE 45 PORES PER INCH FOAM

Overall Efficiency at Three Face Velocities

The 45 pores per inch foam was tested at three levels of face velocity at
the nominal water spray rate and water solids loading.  These tests in-
cluded one set of impactors and total mass filters per condition, and
optical particle counter and condensation nuclei counter measurements of
the highest and lowest face velocity.  The three runs were numbered 3122,
2122,  and 1122 from highest to lowest face velocity, respectively.  The
results of the total mass tests were as shown in Table 8 and presented
graphically in Figure 11.
                                  32

-------
        to


         9


         8



         7
       q>
       o

       a>
       z
       O
      .
      tr
      i-
      UJ
      z
      Ul
      a.
                                 O 3223 -1 + 2, AVERAGE, 0.1% VOLUME
                                                          SOLIDS
                                 A 3221 -1-1-2, AVERAGE, 1.0% VOLUME
                                                          SOLIDS
                           JL
J_
JL
                                                 _L
                      2345678


                      AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE  DIAMETER ,
Figure 10.  Particle size versus penetration for two different

            solids loadings  in  recirculation water
                                33

-------
          100
           90
           80
           70
           60

           50

           40

           3O
              10
         
-------
           Table 8.  OVERALL PENETRATION OF THE CHEAF WITH
                     THE 45 PORES PER INCH FOAM AT THREE
                     LEVELS OF FACE VELOCITY
Run no.
3122
2122
1122
Penetration,
%
9.61
17.45
41.52
Pressure drop,
cm (in.) WC
53 (21)
28 (11)
14 (5.5)
Face velocity,
cm/s
840
548
262
Comparing Figure 11 with Figure 3 (for 65 ppi foam) we note that both show
decreasing penetration as pressure drop (or face velocity) increases, as
one expects for collection dominated by impaction.  For a comparable
pressure drop, however, the 65 ppi foam has a higher efficiency than the
45 ppi foam, an important advantage for the 65 ppi material.

Fractional Efficiency at Three Face Velocities

Figure 12 contains the fractional penetration curves for the three dif-
ferent face velocity runs with the 45 ppi foam.  Curves  (2) and  (3)  have
very similar shapes with a minimum penetration occurring at 2 microns.
The penetration to the right of the minima on curves  (2) and (3) is  believed
due to reentrainment.  As the face velocity increases, smaller droplets are
reentrained, becoming  smaller particles once dry.   Curve  (1) appears to
have a contribution from reentrained particles which  is  predominant  even  at
1  ym.  As the  face velocity increases, the capture of  the  droplets before
the demister section has apparently increased  (the detnisters were operated
at constant flow).

Generally the  curves occur at varying  overall  penetration levels are as
expected, that is,  penetration was highest for  the lowest  face velocity,
which  is consistent with the hypothesis  that  impaction was the  dominant
particle collection mechanisms for particles  & 1 ym aerodynamic  diameter.
                                   35

-------
       100
       90

       8-0

       70

       60

       50


       40



       30
     -  20
     0>
     Q.
     o:
     H
     UJ
10
 9
 8

 7

 6

 5
                                             A  3122  (840 cm/s)

                                             o  2122  (548 cm/s)

                                             O  | 122  (262 cm/s)
                                                     JL
                    23456     78

                    AERODYNAMIC  PARTICLE  DIAMETER.
                                                        10
Figure 12.  Penetration versus particle  size  for the 45 ppi

            foam at three levels of  face velocity
                            36

-------
Overall, the penetration is very high for each particle size,  indicating
that the 45 ppi foam is not as efficient as the 65 ppi foam for  the  CHEAP
system.

TESTS WITH THE 80 PORES PER INCH FOAM

Overall Efficiency Run

We were unable to test the 80 ppi foam at more than one face velocity,  as
previously explained, due to the high resistance of that foam compared  with
the fan power in the CHEAP unit.  Consequently, we ran a total mass ef-
ficiency test and an impactor or fractional efficiency test for the low
face velocity we were able to achieve, 331 cm/s.

The results of the total mass test indicated an overall penetration of
3.67 percent at a pressure drop of 72 cm  (28.5 in.) WC, and a face
velocity of 331 cm/s.  This low overall penetration was as expected for
the noticeably denser foam and the high pressure drop.  The low face
velocity of 331 cm/s did not seem to have as important an effect upon
the penetration with the 80 ppi foam as the high pressure drop across
that foam.  The 80 ppi foam had lower penetration than the 65 ppi foam for
comparable pressure drop, but the volume  flow per filter area was also
lower.

Fractional Efficiency Run

The fractional efficiency  curve for  the  impactor  run  is plotted in  Fig-
ure 13.  The curve displays the general  shape  of  the  same  curves for the
65 and 45 ppi foams,  indicating that  the  collection mechanisms  are  similar.
It  is  interesting to note  that  the lowest penetration occurs  at 2 microns
for essentially all  of  the foams and face velocities  tested,  including
this most dense foam.
                                   37

-------
        10



         9



         8




         7
      u

      O>
      o.



      O
      Ul
      z
      u
      a.
          o
                                                                10
                     AERODYNAMIC  PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 13.  Penetration versus particle size for the 80 pores

            per inch foam
                             38

-------
Figure 14 contains the 2 fractional penetration curves for the 65  ppi
foam and the 80 ppi foam at nearly the same pressure drop.  Since  the
face velocity was not the same for any runs with either foam,  the
similar pressure drop is the best remaining common parameter for com-
parison.  It can be seen that the penetration is lower between 1 micron
and A microns for the 65 ppi foam while it tends to be higher for  the
below 1 micron and above 5 micron particles.  The overall penetration
and shape of the curves is somewhat similar while the penetration is lower
for the 80 ppi foam, perhaps due to the disproportionately higher  mass of
the larger particles which penetrated the 65 ppi foam.
RESULTS OF, MEASUREMENTS WITH AN OPTICAL PARTICLE COUNTER AND A
CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER
As previously indicated in the test plan, we made both optical particle
counter measurements and condensation nuclei counter measurements of some
runs.  These measurements were made for four of the five runs indicated
in the test plan, since we were unable to make the CHEAP operate at con-
dition 1322 long enough to make the measurements.

Both  types of measurement yielded data in terms of number of particles equal
to or greater than  a given size, per volume.  Therefore, the data had to
be reduced to number of particles between a given size interval, and this
number of particles was assigned to the geometric mean particle diameter
of that  interval.   In  this manner we were able to compare the number of
particles assigned  to  a geometric mean particle diameter of the inlet and
outlet of the CHEAP from which we calculated  the penetration.  As with our
other calculations, we also  corrected the outlet for  the effects of air
leakage  at the  CHEAP outlet.  The data for these runs are given in
Appendices D and E.
                                   39

-------
      10



       9



       8



       7




       6
    £  4
    v

    if
    V
    O.

    zf
    O
    UJ
    z
    UJ
    Q.
                      A  2322,80ppi FOAM,  P=72 cmW-C.


                      o  3222,65pp| FOAM,  P = 68cmW.C.
                                                               10
              AERODYNAMIC  PARTICLE  DfAMETER,/ifn



Figure 14.  Penetration versus particle  size  for 80 ppi and 65 ppi

            foam at approximately the  same  pressure drop
                                  40

-------
Tests With the 65 Pores Per Inch Foam

The data from the optical particle counter and the condensation nuclei
counter were combined to yield penetration versus particle size data from
1.4 microns down to 0.006 microns.  The results for run 3222 are plotted
in Figure 15 along with the penetration versus particle size curve for the
impactor runs.  The results are in good agreement with the impactor data,
where they overlap.  The points which go beyond the lower limits of the
impactor data indicate a rapid rise in penetration with decreasing particle
size which is as expected for particle impaction.

Similar tests for the lowest face velocity run 1222, given in Figure 16,
indicate similar behavior for submicron particles.  However, there is,
substantial disagreement between  the impactor and optical counter data for
the two points near 1 micron.  Recall that the 1222 impactor data seemed
anomalous (Figure 8).

Figures 15, 16,  18, and  19 were plotted with  a linear  scale  for  the  par-
ticle size to facilitate their comparison with the  preceding figures of
penetration versus particle  size.  However, since the  very  fine  particle
size data is  difficult  to plot accurately on  a linear  scale, we  have
plotted Figure  17, the  nominal conditions run (3222),  with  a log scale for
geometric particle size.  Here we can see more clearly that the  penetra-
tion rises steeply below the 1 micron particle size, as would  be expected
from the  penetration  theory  given below.

Tests With the 45 Pores Per  Inch  Foam

Figures 18 and  19 are very similar in nature  to  those  for the  65 ppi foam
just discussed.  The  submicron particles  show the expected  dramatic  rise
in penetration while  the overlapping impactor data  are in good agreement
for the highest  face  velocity run and in  poor agreement for the  lowest face
velocity run.   Again  we can  offer no good explanation  for these  anomolous
results near  the 1 micron  size.

-------
  100
   90
   80
   70

   60

   SO

   40


   30
   20
u
w
a


O

<
(C
H
UJ

UJ
0.
IO
 9
 8
 7

 6

 5
  . ©
                              o OPTICAL DATA

                              B CMC DATA

                              * OPTICAL PLUS  CNC

                              AIMPACTOR  DATA
                                                     DATA
                234567
                         PARTICLE  DIAMETER,Mm
                                               8    9
10
 Figure  15.   Penetration versus particle size for the
              65  ppi  foam at  nominal conditions
                          42

-------
       IOOQ
       90
       80

       70

       60

       50


       40



       30
        20
    z
    o
    K
    t-
    hJ
    Z
    tu
    CL
10
 9

 8

 7

 6

 5
O OPTICAL  DATA

0 CNC  DATA

* OPTICAL PLUS CNC

AIMPACTOR  DATA
                                                          DATA
                                 4    5     67

                              PARTICLE DIAMETER,/*™
                                                          10
Figure 16.  Penetration versus particle size for the 65 ppi
            foam at the lowest face velocity (1222)

-------
  100
111

tu
0.
-n
D
_
-
-
—
_
"
-
-
i i
TT| 	 1 — i — i i i ii 1 1 	 1 — i — i i i 1 1 f| 	 1 — i — n —

CD +x
O
O OPTICAL DATA
Q CNC DATA A ./
X OPTICAL PLUS CNC DATA \ /
vv »»
A IMPACTOR DATA \ /
•f THEORETICAL VALUES V /
O A
ill i iiiiiiil i iiiiiiil i iii


^^^m
-
-
	
^
-
-
_

           O.OI
    O.I                     1.0

PARTICLE   DIAMETER ,/im
5.O
IO
        Figure 17.  Penetration versus particle diameter for the 65 ppi

                    foam at nominal conditions

-------
 01
 a.
 o
 Ul
 z
    I OOP
    9O

    80 (D

    70

    60


    50


    40 |-



    30
10

 9

 8

 7
                             o OPTICAL DATA

                             Q CNC  DATA

                             x OPTICAL  PLUS  CNC  DATA

                             AlMPACTOR DATA
                                  -A,
                          PARTICLE DIAMETER,
                                                              0
Figure 18.   Penetration versus  particle size for  the

             45 ppi foam at nominal conditions  (2122)

-------
     1009
     90
     80
     70
     60
     50
     40

     30
   V
   O.

   O
   Ul
   z
   lu
   a.
IO
 9
 8
 7
                                    o OPTICAL DATA
                                    Q CNC DATA
                                    x OPTICAL PLUS  CNC
                                    AIMPACTOR  DATA
                                                  DATA
                   JL
                        JL
                                         J_
             234     567
                      PARTICLE DIAMETER,/
                                                                10
Figure 19.  Penetration versus  particle  size for  the  45 ppi
            foam at the lowest  face velocity (1122)
                              46

-------
TESTS WITH METAL FOAM

Overall Efficiency Run

The metal foam supplied by Andersen 2000, Inc. was made by plating the
45 ppi foam with nickel and burning out the polymer, leaving the. structure
with some 60 pores per inch, similar to the foam utilized for our nominal
conditions.  In all, four runs were made with the metal foam:  two impactor
runs, and two total mass runs.  Each of the runs were at nominal conditions,
similar to the 3222 series of runs.  The most notable differences between
the metal and urethane foam was the much smaller pressure drop across the
metal foam (38 cm or 15 in. WC) at the nominal face velocity.

The two total mass efficiency runs yielded penetrations of 13.7 percent
and 16.1 percent considerably higher than for the polyurethane foam of
approximately the same pore structure, namely, the  65 pores per inch  foam.
The penetration versus pressure drop is more consistent with what we  have
observed from Figure 8; we estimate the 65 ppi foam would have had about
10 percent penetration at 38 cm WC.

Fractional Efficiency Run

The fractional penetration is plotted  in Figure  20  from the average penetra-
tions determined by the two impactor runs.  The  higher penetration may mask
the effect of spray carryover, as  there  is no sign  here of penetration in-
creasing with particle size as it  did  in the more efficient  case, the
polyurethane foam.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:  FLOW RATE,  FOAM, MEASUREMENT ERROR

The data from the efficiency  tests were  subjected to a two-way analysis  of
variance,  using a standard program, "BMD02V-Analysis of Variance  for
Factorial  Design"  (Revised  12  September  1969, UCLA  Health Services Com-
                                                            ^
puting  Facility).   Such a  two-way  analysis works as follows:

                                  47

-------
          100
         :
         i*
         •
         &
         8
         u
         w
           1.0.
'\
            0    I2346«789
                 PARTICLE  AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER,Mm
Figure  20.  Penetration versus  particle size with metal  foam
                               48

-------
    1.  The two factors  (flow and foam) are arranged in a row and
       column format with r rows and c columns (here, r = 3 levels
       of flow and c =  2 foams).

    2.  It is assumed that each measurement value, xij, comes from
       the mean value y, as altered by a row  (flow) effect, a±, and
       a column (foam)  effect,  g j , and experimental error, eij,
       with eij assumed to be "independently  and normally distributed
       with mean  zero and common variance oo^."  That is:
                            a
    3.   The mean  squares  (sum of  squares  divided  by degrees of freedom)
        for the rows  and  columns  are  divided  by the residual mean
        square to form the  F  ratio.

    A.   This ratio is compared with the F value from tables; the F
        chosen is Fp  ((r  -  1), (r - l)(c  - 1)) for the row comparison
        and Fp ((c -  1),  (r - 1)(c -  1))  for  the  column comparison,
        with p being  the  level of statistical significance (i.e.,
        p - 90 percent means  that ratios  as large as Fgo% would happen
        by chance only 10 percent of  the  time).  From Table 5 of Crow,
        et al.3  (r -  3, c - 2):
                         Fg() (2,  2) = 9.00

                         F9Q (1,  2) = 8.63
                         Fg5 (2, 2) = 19.00
                             (1, 2) - 18.51
        Note that F (L, 2) means the F ratio for a variable with 1
        degree of freedom (foam pore density) versus one with 2
        (residual) .
Table 9 shows the results of such an analysis.  The first column has the

aerosol size fraction; the second has the mean of all efficiency tests for

that size; the third through fifth give the mean efficiencies for that size


                                 49

-------
                Table 9.   GRAND MEAN,  MARGINAL MEANS, AND ELEMENTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR

                          EFFICIENCIES AT DIFFERENT PARTICLE SIZES, GAS FLOWS, FOAM PORE DENSITIES
No.
1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.




Total



Total



9 urn



7 pm



5 nn



3 um



1 HB



0.5
V*


Grand
m^an
82.897



84.038



69.950



68.175



81.780



81.975



80.913



77.808



Marginal wans
Flow
250
68.015



77.183



29.730



25.000



62.335



59.135



59.165



51.895



500
88.175



90.893



88.445



86.435



88.500



92.010



88.895.



89.235



800
92.500



—



91.675



93.090



94.505



94.780



94.680



92.295



Foam pore density
45
77.140



70.515



80.083



76.183



78.223



86.783



84.947



70.467



65
88.650



85.675



59.817



60.167



85.337



77.167



76.880



85.150



80
_



95.925



—



—



—



—



_



—



Source of variation
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Flow
Foam density
Residual
Total
Degree of
freedom
2
1
2
5
1
2
2
5
2
1
2
5
2
1
2
5
2
1
2
5
2
1
2
5
2
1
2
5
2
1
2
5
Mean
squares
342
199
27.6

282
327
70.0

2,431
616
577

2,818
385
433

585
75.9
1.13

786
139
406

726
97.6
210

1,012
323
319

F ratio
12.34
7.21


4.02
4.67


4.22
1.07


6.51
0.89


518
67.2


1.94
0.34


3.47
0.466


3.17
1.01


Significance
> 0.90
	


_
_


	
—


	
_


> 0.995
> 0.975


_
—


	
—


—
—


Ul
o

-------
at different flows;  the sixth through seventh (and in one case eighth)
columns give the mean efficiencies for different foams for that fraction.
finally, the ninth through thirteenth columns give the values and results
in connection with the statistical analysis.

From the analysis we conclude:
    1.  Although it  is evident that increasing the flow increased
        efficiency in every case, this was demonstrated statistically
        significant  (p >_ 90 percent) only for the total collection
        efficiency and for the 5 ym particle size aerosol fraction.
    2.  Higher foam densities (pores per inch) sometimes produced
        improved collection efficiency and sometimes did not, with
        a statistically significant improvement demonstrated only for
        the 5 urn size.  (This lack of demonstrable improvement is
        puzzling.  Explanations might be that improved particle
        capture is being offset by increased particle release in the
        finer foam or that capture is nearly complete for both and
        release is similar for both.)

The two-factor model assumes that the variation due to flow is independent
of that from foam density and vice-versa.  All effects other than the row
(flow) and column (foam) are included in the residual eij (thus in ao).
Table 10 has listed the root mean square (RMS) residuals, which are esti-
mates of o0, sometimes (loosely) called the experimental error.  The values
of o0 for 5 urn, 1 um, and 0.5 pm are quite like those for very similar
tests done by GCA in evaluating the Dynactor scrubber (Cooper and Anderson,
1975);  for 3 Mm, the 20 percent  is much larger than  the  (approximately)
1 percent for the Dynactor tests and the values for the total filter tests
are much larger than the 1.3 percent value for such tests in the Dynactor
study.  These figures indicate there were other sources of variation
 (beyond flow and  foam) for the CHEAP evaluation,  but  that the  sources of
variation might well  not be  "experimental error," as  they were often much
larger  than the "experimental error" pf  the  Dynactor.
                                 51

-------
Table 10.  ROOT MEAN SQUARE RESIDUALS ESTIMATES OF ao AND REPLICATION
           ESTIMATE OF a
Aerosol aerodynamic
diameter fraction
Total lb
Total 2C
9 urn
7 ym
5 ym
3 ym
1 ym
0.5 ym
Root mean square
residuals, oo
5.3%
8.4%
24.0%
20.8
1.1
20.1
14.5
17.7
Measurement error estimate
from four replicate runs
Range (w)
0.9d
7.6
6.6
4.9
1.9
1.7
11.5
a - (0.49) w*
0.44
3.7
3.2
2.4
0.93
0.83
5.6
 Best estimate of oo from range of four measurements.
 Three flows times two foam densities, total filter values.
 Three foam densities times two flows, total filter values.
 Total filter results for the four replicate runs.

Table 10 also has an  error  estimate from the four replicate tests made at
nominal CHEAP operating conditions.  The estimates of experimental error,
a, from the replicate runs are (except at 5 urn) much smaller than the RMS
residuals from the factorial tests.  This is strong evidence for concluding
that the simple model
                                 a
does not account for all the effects of flow rate and foam density.  A
more detailed statistical test model would take into account the inter-
actions of flow and foam (as done for the Dynactor evaluation)— for ex-
ample the degree to which the difference between high and low flow
velocities is different for the various foams.
                                 52

-------
In Table 11, we have listed for the CHEAF at normal operating conditions
the mean efficiencies and the standard deviation of the means (a- =
                                                                x
OQ//N" ), the latter derived from the last column in Table 10.  These
results are in general agreement with those of Calvert, Rowan, and Lake,6
who found efficiencies in the range 91 to 96 percent for particle dry
aerodynamic diameters from 0.5 ym to 2.0 ym (nearly independent of par-
ticle size) for a CHEAF installation on a diatomaceous earth calcining and
drying process operating at - 50 cm WC (20 in. H20) and 0.11 x 1Q-3 m3
water per m  gas.

   Table 11.  SUMMARY OF MEAN PERCENTAGE EFFICIENCIES AND STANDARD
              DEVIATION OF THESE MEANS FOR THE CHEAF UNDER THE
              NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS (TEST SERIES 3222)
Aerosol aerodynamic
diameter fraction
Totala
9 ym
7 ym
5 ym
3 ym
1 ym
0.5 ym
Mean
efficiency,
percent
94.6
90.8
93.5
93.4
97.4
97.1
90.4
Estimated standard
derivation of the mean,
percent
0.2
1.9
1.6
1.2
0.5
0.4
2.8
Mean
penetration,
percent
5.4
9.2
6.5
6.6
2.6
2.9
9.6
aTotal efficiency for iron oxide 'aerosol at normal conditions.

POWER CONSUMPTION

The power used by a scrubber is predominantly the  pressure drop of the
air going through the scrubber (Ap) times the flow rate of the air (Qg) in
actual volume terms divided by the fan/motor power efficiency.

We measured the pressure drop across the fan in the CHEAF unit using a
           rin*                •   -   .. .  . 		. .__.._	.	   ..   	^°
Magnehelic.    For the 65 pores per inch foam at nominal conditions the
                                  53

-------
 pressure drop across the entire CHEAT,  including ducting,  cyclone,  drum,
 and demisters, was 1.5 cm,  5 cm,  68 cm,  and 5.5 cm,  respectively,  for  a
 total of 80 cm (31.5 inches) WC.   The gas flow at the fan inlet was mea-
                                  3
 sured to be approximately 0.47 am /s (1000 acfm). Thus the power  con-
                                                  2
 sumption of the CHEAT is the pressure drop in N/m times the actual volume
          2
 flow in m /s, or:
                 Power = Q  AP
                          &
                       = (0.47 m3/s)  (7.85 x 103 N/m2)

                       = 3.7 kW

This gives the air power consumption  in kilowatts.  A good estimate of
the electrical power consumption is to assume motor plus fan efficiency
of 0.6.  Using this assumption we get an overall electrical power con-
sumption of  13.1 kW/m3/s (8.3 HP/1000 acfm).  The CHEAF fan motor was
rated at 10  horsepower; therefore, it is in reasonably good agreement with
our estimate.

The CHEAF also used pumps for water sprays and a very small motor to turn
the filter drum.  The combined power  rating of these three motors was
under 746 watts (1 horsepower).

Comparison of CHEAF with Other Scrubbers

One method of comparison between the performance of various particulate
control devices with regard to their power consumption is to compare their
energy consumptions for given aerodynamic cut diameters, as presented in
Figure 21.   Aerodynamic cut diameter is the aerodynamic diameter for which
collection efficiency is 50 percent.  Pressure drop is equivalent to air
power used per volume flow rate and it serves as a useful measure of power
consumption per flow capacity for different devices (we have not included
for the CHEAF the small pump power consumption).
                                54

-------
Ul
                        O.I
                                    0.25
                                               0.5
 POWER, hp/tOOOcefm

0.8  LO        2.0   3.0
                                                                               5.0
                                                                                     8.0  10
                                                                               90 100
                                                                                          ZOO
                                                                                                300
                                                      PRESSURE DROP, cm HtO
      Figure 21.  Predicted aerodynamic cut diameter versus pressure drop and  power consumption  (adapted from
                  Scrubber Handbook).   Lines la and Ib  are for sieve plates; line  3 is for impingement  plate;
                  line 4 is for a  packed column; lines  2a  and 2b are for venturi scrubbers with  f = 0.25,
                  0.50 respectively.   See text

-------
The last size interval we obtained using the irapactors was 0 to 0.5 urn.
Since the aerodynamic cut diameter for the CHEAF occurred at greater than
one-half micron for only one condition, we were only able to plot one
point.  However, for the remainder of the runs we were able to indicate
a line which starts at 0.5 microns and goes straight down parallel to the
y-axis which defines where, at the corresponding pressure drop, the cut
diameter must fall.  For example, the line for run 2122 should be read
as, the aerodynamic cut diameter for the CHEAF operating at 28 cm H»0
pressure drop is below 0.5 microns.  Extrapolation of impactor data for
the 3222 runs indicates that the aerodynamic cut diameter is much less
than 0.5 micron, indicating that the point should be placed very low on
the line.

It should also be noted here that the use of the cyclone may have detracted
from the overall performance of the CHEAF per unit of energy expended.
Because we generated a very fine test aerosol, the low-pressure-drop
cyclone would not have been very efficient and the CHEAF might have
yielded essentially the same penetration for our fine test aerosol with
or without the cyclone.  However, the cyclone contained a water spray
which may have conditioned the aerosol somewhat previous to seaching the
foam-filter drum, which would aid collection.

It is evident from the figure that the CHEAF may be substantially more
energy efficient than many conventional and novel scrubbers.
                                 56

-------
                            SECTION VI
                THEORETICAL PREDICTION OF EFFICIENCIES

The pore structure of the CHEAF collection material was modeled as an
array of equally-spaced cylinders intersecting each other and parallel
to the x, y, or z axis, a "jungle gym" configuration (see Figure 22).

The void volume fraction of the material is e = 0.97.7  To determine fiber
diameter, consider a volume LxLxL in dimension (see Figure 22).  Each
face, front, side, top, has (L A)2 rods (fibers) perpendicular to it
(!L is number of pores per length) so the total number of fibers is
           2                  3
Nf « 3U L) •  The volume is L  and the fraction of that which is solid
is (1-e).  The solid volume is just that of the fibers:  (l-e)L3 =
3(«. L)2  (ir/4)df2L.  The fiber diameter is thus df = r4(l-e)/3Tr]1/2/Jl.
Using Jl not in pores per inch but in pores per cm, one obtains fiber
diameters 64 um, 44 urn, 36 urn for 45, 65, 85 ppi foam.

A first approximation to the open face area in a layer is just L x  L minus
the area of fibers parallel to the face.  The fractional open area  becomes
           L  x L
- ['2 (L £)  (Ldf) - (L £)2 (df)2 ]   / L x L
where  the  last  term  in brackets comes  from discounting overlapping.   The
open fraction is  thus
                              •
                        1  - 2  (£ df) + (£  df)2

and we can obtain (X, d.)  from  the  equation for  df above:

                                   57

-------
Figure 22.  Schematic of jungle gym model of
            porous foam
                    58

-------
                         * df - [4(1 - e)/3Ti]1/2



                              = 0.113    for e = 0.97





So the fractional open area of each layer is 0.787, and the fractional


fiber area is 0.214.  (The values used in the calculation below were


0.78 and 0.22, respectively.)





    1.  Diffusion (from Stafford and  Ettinger,8 after Stairmand)





                          nD » (8D/vo df)1/2





where nD «• single fiber efficiency due to diffusive  collection



       D - particle diffusivity, cm2/s



      v  « foam face velocity, cm/s



      d^ « fiber diameter, cm




                    9
    2.  Interception
                        nc - 1+R-U+R)"1 A  2R
where nc " single fiber efficiency due  to  interception



       R - ratio of particle diameter to fiber  diameter,  d /d
    3.  Impaction  (curve fit to data of May  and  Clifford)





                         Hj -  <|>2/OJ»2 + 0.64)





where  ty =* impaction parameter


       il) • Co., d   v /18 u d-           ;
             P  P   o       f
where    C « Cunningham correction  factor (l-fO.16 ym/d )

                                   3                  ^
        p_ - particle density,  g/cm


         V » gas viscosity,  poise.


                                  59
                                                          10

-------
    4.  Combined efficiencies, assumed independent

                       n = l-(l-nI)(l-nc)(l-nD)

Efficiency of a single layer was calculated from

                             nL - 0.22 n,

the fractional area of fibers in a layer times the efficiency of a fiber.
Efficiency of the whole foam (1-inch thick) was calculated from

                            E = l-(l-nT)N
                                      Jj

one minus the probability that a particle would escape capture N times.

where N = pores per inch times thickness in inches.

Table 12 gives the results of these calculations.  Figures 23 and 24
show the penetrations as a function of particle diameter (assuming
p  = 1 g/cm3).  These results are derived from a model which assumes all
particles which strike the (wet) surface are caught (probably nearly true)
and none are reentrained (not true).  The following trends are apparent
for the cases studied:
    a.  Penetration decreased as particle size increased, for
        d  > 0.3 urn.
         P *
    b.  Penetration decreased as velocity increased, for d  > 0.3 ym.
    c.  Penetration decreased as pore grade (pores per inch) increased,
        for a given thickness of foam.
    d.  At 1000 cm/s, impaction was the dominant mechanism for particles
        d  > 1 ym.  At 100 cm/s, impaction dominated for d  > 3 urn.
         P ~                                              v
    e.  Interception was nearly as important as or more important than
        impaction for d  = 0.3 ym, and diffusion was negligible.  Inter-
        ception was alsB significant for d  » 1 ym, especially at the
        lower flow velocity.

                                  60

-------
Table 12.   PREDICTED PENETRATIONS UNDER ASSUMPTIONS NOTED IN TEXT
PORE GRADE FACE PARTICLE
(PORES PER VELOCITY IIIAMLTtR
INCH) (CM/SEC) (MICRONS)
45.
100.
	 ".I
f>.3
1.0
3.0
10.0
1000.
0.1
0.3
1.0
3.0
10.0
65.
100.
O.I
0.3
1.0
3.0
10.0
1000.
0.1
0.3
1.0
10.0
100.
0.1
0.3
1.0
3.0
10. 0
1000.
f'.l
0.3
1.0
3.0
10.0
SINGLE FIBER EFFICIENCIES
*«*************»*+«**»*»»»«»»*
INTERCEPTION DIFFUSION IMPACTHIN


0.0032 ,_ 0.009} 0.0001
O.0095 0.0040 ~ 0.0001
0.0315 0.0019 O.0049
0.0943 0.0011 0.2460
0.3141 0.0006 0.9740

0.0032 0.0030 (T.OOOl "
0.0095 0.0013 0.0069
0.0315 0.0006 0.3281
0.0943 0.0004 0.9703
0.3141 0.0002 0.9998


0.0046 0.0111 0.0001
0.0137 0.004B 0.0002
0.04?4 6.0023 ~"070101
0.1361 0.0013 0.4050
0.4536 0.0007 0.9874

0.0046 0.0035 0.0006
0.0137 ""6. 0015 	 0."6l43
0.0454 0.0008 0.5047
0.1361 0.0004 0.9856
0.4536, 0.0003 0.9999

0.0056 0.0123 0.0001
0.0168 0.0053 0.0003
0.0559 0.002S 0.0152
0.1675 " 0.0014 6.56Y6
0.5503 0.0008 0.9917

0.0056 0.0039 0.0008
0.0163 0.0017 0.0214
0.0559 O.OOOa 	 O."6fl69
0.1675 0.0005 0.9904
0.5583 0.0003 1.0000
TIITAL
t
b Ft* 1C !*• NT f


0.1147
0.1239
0.3131
0.9613
1.0000

6.0602
0.1564
0.9724
1.0000
1.0000


0.1992

0.114o
O.9997
l.onon
1.0000

0.26U7
0.3221
0 . 7«: «: 3
i .bofio
1.0000

n.lt.42
0.5002
1 .0000
1 .0001)
1.0000
Pf NETRAT10N



0.8854
0 .8762
0.637(1
0.038ft
0.0001

0.9399
0.8417
0.0277
0.0001
0.0001


0.8009
0.76U9
6.4409
0.0007
0.0001

O.BB55
O.OOO4
0.0001
0.0001

0.7314
0.67PO

o.fiorti
0.0001

0.8359
0.4999
"6.8601
0.0001
0.0001
                                61

-------
100
                                      o 45 ppi, lOOcm/s
                                      •»- 65 ppi, 100cm/s
                                      x SOppi, lOOcm/s
                       PARTICLE  DIAMETER,
 Figure 23.  Predicted  particle size versus  penetration for
            three foam porosities at a low  face velocity,
            100 cm/a
                         62

-------
  100
   50
   20
-  10
V
;•
O
UJ
a
   0.5
   0.2
           © 45 ppijlOOOcm/s
           •f 65pp|,IOOOcm/s
           x 80ppj,lOOOcm/s
   O.I
JL
               JL
    4          6
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
                                                    8
                                   10
    Figure 24.  Predicted particle size versus penetration for
               three foam porosities at a high face velocity,
               1000 cm/a
                            63

-------
     f.   Diffusion was  about  as  important as or more important than
         interception for particles  ~ 0.1 ym and both were much
         greater  than impaction.
     g.   At  1000  cm/8 much  less  than 1 percent of all particles of
         d   >  3  ym would penetrate.

Recall that Figure 17 had  the experimental values of penetration at
nominal conditions graphed against our estimates of particle diameter
(converting impactor aerodynamic diameter to geometric diameter); the two
crosses on that figure were obtained by doing the theoretical calculations
described above for the case of 65 ppi foam at 800 cm/s face velocity
                                 O
for particles of density 5.2 g/cm  (iron oxide).  For particles 1 ym
in diameter or larger,  the predicted penetrations were less than 10" ,
much lower than the observed penetrations (more evidence for the reen-
trainment explanation).  At 0.3 ym the penetration was predicted to be
0.045, in nearly perfect (probably fortuitous) agreement with interpola-
tion of the impactor measurements; at 0.1 ym geometric diameter, the
predicted penetration was 0.78, again quite close to the measured value.
Except for the optical  counter data at 0.4 ym, the information shown in
Figure 17 shows a consistent picture for particles less than about
1/2 ym: penetration increases from a few percent to nearly 1QQ percent
as particle size goes from tenths of microns to hundredths.  Interception
is more important than  diffusion even at 0.1 ym.   If diffusion were
becoming an important collection mechanism,  we should expect a decrease
in penetration as particles became much smaller than a few tenths microns,
unless perhaps there is another source of particulate matter in this
finest size range.   The theory, which did not  take into account reen-
trainment,  agreed with  the experimental results over the limited size
range of several hundredths of a micron to several tenths of a micron.
                                 64

-------
                              SECTION VII

                              REFERENCES


 1.   Determination of Particulate Emissions  from  Stationary Sources
     (Method 5).  Fed Regist.  Reference Methods  (39 FR 20790)
     June  14, 1974.

 2.   Cooper, D.W. and D.P. Anderson.  Dynactor  Scrubber Evaluation.
     ,GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology  Division,  Bedford, Massachusetts.
     Prepared for U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of
     Research and Development, Washington, D.C.   Contract No.  68-02-1316,
     Task  Order No.  6.  June  1975.  107 p.

 3.   Crow, E.L., F.A. Davis,  and M.W. Maxfield.   Statistics Manual.
     Dover, New York, 1960.   287 p.

 4.   Calvert, S.  Engineering Design  of Fine Particle Scrubbers.   J  Air
     Pollut Control  Assoc.  24(10):924.  October  1974.

 5.   Wilson, E.B. Jr.   An Introduction to  Scientific Research.   New  York.
     McGraw Hill, Inc., 1952.

 6.   Calvert,  S. J.  Rowan,  and L.  Lake.   Final Report on the CHEAP
     Cleanable High Efficiency Air Filter (Draft  Final).  U.S.  Environ-
     mental  Protection  Agency, Research Triangle  Park, N.C.  EPA Contract
     No. 68-02-1496. June  1975.

 7.   Technical  specifications, Scott Paper Co., Chester, Pa.

 8.   Stafford,  R.G.  and H.J.  Ettinger.   Filter Efficiency as a Function of
     of Particle  Size and Velocity.  Atmos Environ.  6:353-362, 1972.

 9.   Fuchs,  N.A.  Mechanics of Aerosols.   Pergamon, New York, 1964.
     408 p.

10.   May,  K.R.  and  R. Clifford.   The Impaction of Aerosol Particles on
     Cylinders,  Spheres,  Ribbons,  and Discs.  Ann Qccup Hyg.  10:83-95,
     1967.                                                    —

11.   Strauss,  W.   Industrial Gas Cleaning.  Pergamon, New York, 1966.
                                 65

-------
                              APPENDIX A
                 MANUFACTURER'S DESCRIPTION OF CHEAF

ANDERSEN 2000 INC.

CHEAF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT

The Andersen 2000 Inc. Cleanable Media High Efficiency Air Filter (CHEAF)
was introduced commercially to the air pollution control market in early
1975.  The CHEAF system combines features of filtration equipment, wet
scrubbers, and Brownian motion or diffusion controlled mist eliminators.

The CHEAF unit is mechanically simple, inherently reliable and is physic-
ally quite small in comparison with other fine particle emission control
equipment.  It can be built of any stainless steel alloy, mild steel, plas-
tic, fiber glass, reinforced plastic, or rubber-lined steel.

The CHEAF system requires an extremely low liquid-to-gas ratio, possibly
the lowest of any type of wet emission control equipment available today.
This, of course, reduces the size of pumps, tanks, connecting piping, and
other liquid handling equipment associated with the air pollution control
installation.

The CHEAF system is well suited to the collection of subtnicron water
soluble particulates and aerosols, including ammonium nitrate and urea
prill tower emissions, soda and borosilicate glass furnace emissions,
phosphoric acid mists and phosphorus pentoxide fumes, emissions from
inorganic chemical calciners and dryers, food product spray dryers,
                                 66

-------
galvanizing fumes and sulfuric acid mists.   It is also well suited  to
control of insoluble particulate matter which has a mean diameter of
less than 1.0 micron.  This makes it an excellent control device for
metallurgical fumes.  The CHEAF system is not capable of handling large
quantities of particulate matter exceeding 5 microns in diameter, although
low energy pre-collectors can often be installed to remove these compo-
nents prior to entry into the CHEAF system.  The CHEAF system is normally
considered for applications where high energy scrubbers or Brownian
motion controlled mist eliminators might also be considered.

The CHEAF air pollution control system utilizes a porous urethane or
metallic foam material as the filter medium.  The foam is installed as a
1-inch thick mat over the perforated filtration drum.  The foam is
secured to the drum using screw clamps.  The foam material can be removed
and replaced in a very short time on the largest CHEAF unit.

The perforated drum, with the reticulated foam in place, is rotated in
the CHEAF housing and is continuously wetted by spray nozzles mounted
at locations around the drum housing.  The sprays around the drum keep
the pores of the foam lined with a film of liquid so that as particulate
matter, aerosols, and fumes pass through the pores, they are contacted
with the scrubbing solution and are either dissolved  or are agglomerated
and captured in liquid drops.  Most of the gas stream contaminants pass
through the pores in the filter material with the liquid.  Particulate
matter, which is larger than the pores, will deposit on the surface of the
foam.  In small concentrations, this material is cleaned from the surface
by turbulent washing action from the sprays as the drum rotates past the
nozzles.  However, if the concentration of this large particulate matter
(greater than 5 microns in diameter) exceeds about 0.10 grains/standard
dry cubic foot, pluggage to the filter media will occur.  A pre-collector
should be used where this condition exists.
                                 67

-------
The foam filter media, which is supplied for the CHEAP unit, typically has
60 pores per linear inch.  The velocity through the filter material is
normally between 1,500 and 2,500 ft/min.  This corresponds to a pressure
drop across the CHEAP unit of between 10 and 30 inches W.G.  The total
liquid flow rate to the CHEAP unit for the sprays around the drum is
1.0 gallon per thousand cubic feet of saturated gas exiting the CHEAP
unit.  This is between 7 and 10 times less than required for a Venturi
type scrubber.

In addition, the CHEAP unit can be operated with a highly viscous scrub-
bing liquid, since atomization of the water is not critical to operation
of the unit.  The spray nozzles, which feed scrubbing liquid over the
CHEAP drum, are operated at low pressures, typically 20 psig.

Once the contaminated gas has passed through the foam filter medium and
has been contacted with the scrubbing liquid, the gas and the liquid drop-
lets exit through one end of the drum into the entrainment separation
section.  A conventional, chevron-type mist eliminator is used to remove
the bulk of the liquid droplets.  A mesh type mist eliminator is then
used to remove the extremely small liquid droplets and any residual mois-
ture which is not collected by the chevron mist eliminator.  The gas is
then exhausted by an induced draft fan and discharged to the atmosphere.
Spent scrubbing liquid is discharged by gravity from the entrainment se-
paration section into a recirculation tank.  This liquid can be recir-
culated back to the CHEAF filtration drum and used for scrubbing the
incoming gas.  A small bleed stream is taken to product recovery or to
disposal.  A cutaway drawing of the CHEAF system is shown in Figure 25.

The CHEAF system depends on three collection mechanisms for its operation:
    1.  Filtration
    2.  Impaction
    3.  Brownian motion (diffusion)
                                  68

-------
                                                                          Inlet
                                                                                          Filtration Drum Spray
Discharge
             Mist Separator Chamber

Chevron Type Mist Separator

Mesh Type Mist Separator
                                                                                                               Reticulated Polymeric
                                                                                                               Foam Filter Media
                                                                                                               Filtration Drum Spray
                                                                                                               Perforated Filtration
                                                                                                               Drum
                                                                                                               Drum Rinse Tank
                                     Figure  25 .    CHEAF  unit,  cutaway  drawing

-------
For large insoluble particulate matter and for undlssolved large soluble
particulate matter, the foam acts as a filter, physically impeding the
flow of the particles and separating them from the gas stream.  Filtra-
tion, however, contributes only slightly to the CHEAF system's high effi-
ciency for fine particles.  For particles of about 3 microns in diameter
down to about 0.3 microns in diameter, impaction is the dominant collec-
tion mechanism.  Impaction results when a projectile (the dust particle
or aerosol droplet) runs into (impacts on) a collection object (the
wetted fibers in the foam) and loses enough of its energy to separate
from the bulk of the gas stream.  Filtration and Brownian motion add
slightly to the collection efficiency resulting from impaction.

Direct comparisons with other wet scrubbers indicate the CHEAF unit is
capable of achieving higher collection efficiencies at lower energy input
levels than conventional scrubbers.   This is probably due to the filtra-
tion and diffusion effects being additive with impaction collection.
                                 70

-------
                              APPENDIX B

                 DATA REDUCTION FOR ANDERSEN IMPACTORS


Data reduction for the Andersen Impactors was done as follows.  Once the

weight gain on each impactor stage had been determined, a Hewlett Packard

Model 9810 A calculator was used to calculate the following parameters:

    •   Total mass collected (grams)
                                       o
    •   Total volume of gas sampled (ft  at NTP)

    •   Moisture content of gas stream (percent)

    •   Particulate mass concentration (grains/dscf)

    •   Flow rate through impactor., (acfm)

    •   50 percent effective cutoff diameter for each  stage
        for unit density spherical  particles (nm)

    «   Mass percent on each stage  (percent)

    *   Cumulative mass percent £ each stage cutoff  diameter
        (percent)                         .

    e   Geometric mean diameter for each stage  interval  (ntn)

    •   dM/d log D for each stage  interval  (grains/dscf).


The following data are entered  into the  calculator  to obtain  the above

parameters:

    »   Barometric pressure  (inches of mercury)

    o   Molecular weight of gas stream at meter (Ib/lb-mole)

    •   Average static  pressure at meter (inches  of mercury)
                                 71

-------
     •   Average  temperature  at meter  ( F)

     •   Water  collected  in condenser  and silica  gel  (grams)
                               3
     •   Gas volume  at meter  (ft )

     •   Average  static pressure in  duct  (inches  of water)

     •   Average  duct temperature  (  F)

     •   Sampling duration (minutes)

     •   Temperature correction factor for Andersen impactor
        (see Figure 26)

     •   Particulate mass collected  in probe and  expander
        section  prior to top stage  (grams)

     •   Particulate mass collected  on each impactor stage
        (grams)

     •   Particulate mass on back-up filter (grams).
The following calculations are performed by the calculator:

    1.  Total mass collected
where     M  = total mass collected (grams)

          M  = mass collected in probe and impactor prior
           ^   to top impactor stage (grams)

          M. = mass collected on impactor stage (grams)

       i = t = corresponds to the top impactor stage

       i = b = corresponds to the bottom impactor stage

          Mf = mass collected on back-up filter (grams).
                                 72

-------
    2.  Volume tUO vapor @ NTP
                             Q -  (0.0473)  (W)
where  V  Q ». volume of water vapor @ NTP  (ft3)




          W = water collected (grams)




        NTP - 29.92 in. Hg and 70°F.






    3.  Meter volume @ NTP
                      V   -V  I —	2>
                       ms    m \ T  + 460J
where  V   » meter volume @ NTP  (ft3")
        ms                       N    '

                             o

        V  » meter volume  (ft )
         m                 N   '



        Pfe « barometric pressure  ("Hg)




        Pm * avera8e static pressure at meter  ("Hg)




        Tm * avera8e meter temperature  (°F).






    4.  Total volume sampled @ NTPT  y^  (ft3)




        a.  Outlet impactor only
                            VT ' VH20
        b.  Inlet impactor only
                               VT = Vms/F
where  F « dry gas fraction.
                                ..73

-------
     5.  Percent moisture,
                          H2°
6.  Mass concentration, C   (grains/dscf )
                 *""I~B~™T    \±\     ^ — •_





                            ) (15.43 grains/gram)






7.  Volume sampled at duct conditions
                              tns
               V  = V
                s   VT
                                Ts + 46°    \/29.92\


                                -Ps/13-596/\530/
 where  V  = volume sampled at duct conditions (ft )
         s



        T  = average duct temperature (°F)
         S



        P  = average duct static pressure ("H-0).
         S                                   f.
     8.   Impactor flow rate
                                     Vg/t
where  Q  =  impactor  flow rate (acfm)



        t «  time  (minutes).





    9.  Impactor  stage  size  cutoffs
                          Dg -  (tc)  (k)
where  D  = impactor stage  size  cutoff (um)
        S


       tc = temperature correction  factor  from Figure 26.
                                  74

-------
Ln
                 t
                    1.60
                    1.50
                    1.40
                o  1-30
                8   1.20
                o
                o
                    1.10
                    1.00
                   0.00
                                       III  I  I  I  I I
                                                                    i  i  i  r
                                    i  i i i
                                                                                    , I
I    l   i
                       IO        £0    30  4O 50  70   100     ZOO  30O    800 700  WOO

                                                 STACK  TEMPER ATURE,d*flr««s F



                          Figure 26.  Temperature correction factor for aerodynamic size

                                      of particles captured in Andersen stack sampler
 2OOO

-------
         k = constant for each particular stage curve
             from Figure 27 for the Andersen Impactor.

         y = exponent for each particular stage curve
             from Figure 27 for the Andersen Impactor.
     10.   Percent  mass  collected on back-up filter,  P  (7,)


                           Pp  = (M£/Hj)  100


     11.   Percent  mass  collected on each impactor stage,  P (7.)
                           Pi  =
     12.  Percent mass  collected  in probe  and impactor prior
         to  top impactor  stage,  P   (%)
                           P   -  (M /M_,)  100
                           p      p  l


    13.  Cumulative  percent mass  < stage  cutoff diameter
         for each  impactor stage,  C   (%)
         - - u — < - — i —
where  L = b = corresponds to the bottom  impactor  stage

       L = n = corresponds to the impactor  stage of interest.


    14.  dM/d log D  (graina/dacf)
                 dM/d -   -          ~
                               (log Di+1) - (log  Dt)


where  P£ = percent mass collected on  a  particular stage(s)  (%).



                                 76

-------
                                        LL
                                 FLOW RATE.cfm
                                            •
                                            o

£5?
a. M
fD O
i-» a.
a vi
2 ?
P §
CD H.
n CL
^ S"
en g

1 »
•3 n»

fe"1
M •<
  (fi
  (0
  CO
  l-h
   H
   P
   rt
   ffi

   rt

   H

   §

   ?•

-------
    15.  Geometric mean diameter, D  (urn)
                                      lXDi
To get fractional efficiency, we plot the dM/d log D versus the geometric
mean diameter for each stage interval for the inlet and outlet impactors.
The curves from these plots yield the concentration for any given size
particle.  The ratio of the outlet concentration divided by the inlet
concentration for any size particle is the penetration for that size.
Because the CHEAP unit exhibited significant leakage between our inlet
and outlet sampling points, we corrected the calculated dM/d log D for
the effect of leakage before plotting curves.  The correction was made
by multiplying the outlet dM/d log D by the ratio of the total outlet
flow of gas divided by the total inlet flow of gas,  in dry standard cubic
feet per minute.
                                   78

-------
      APPENDIX C




ANDERSEN IMPACTOR DATA
        79

-------
                              ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/5/75    Run # 2 (no dust feed)    Location Outlet

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =  8.4388      Orifice D

Moisture             (%)    *=  1.6876      Bar.  press. ("Hg)
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =  0.0006      *Iw   „  ,  „„ .
                                           Avg.  Pm (-  Hg)
Impactor flow rate  (acfm)   =  0.6886      Avg.  Tm (OF)
                                           H20 (grams  or %)
                                           Meter volumes (ft3)
                                           Avg.  Ps (+H20)
                                           Avg.  Ts (°F)
                                           Time  (minutes)
                                           Correction  factor
=  29.94
=  29.0
a   1.2
"  80.0
"  28.7
=  83.90
»   1.0
"  84.0
= 120
"   I
Stage
Probe 6,
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0000
0.0003
0.0006
0.0004
0.005
0.0001
0 . 0004
0.0001
0.0006
0.0000
0.0030
% on
stage
0.00
10.00
20.00
13.33
16.66
3.33
13.33
3.33
20.00
0.00

Size cutoff
(um)

11.56
7.23
4.83
3.35
2.10
1.08
0.66
0.44


7, < stated
size
100.00
90.00
70.00
56.66
40.00
36.66
23.33
20.00
0.00


!
dm/d log D

0.0006
0 . 0004
0.0006
0 . 0001
0.0003
0 . 0001
0 . 0007
0.0000


Geo. Mean
(um)

9.14
5.91
4.03
2.65
1.51
0.84
0.54
0.06 ,


                                        80

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date 11/11/75    Run * (3222-1)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 12.4140

Moisture             (%)  ;  =  0.8382
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =  0.0806

Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)   =  0.6247
Location Inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press. ("Hg)   =  30.00
Mw                  B  29
Avg. Pm  (-"Hg)      =   It47
Avg. Tm  (op)        =  74
H20 (grains or 70)    =   2.2
Meter volume  (ft3)  =  13.01
Avg. Ps  (+H20)      =   i
Avg. Ts  (OF)        =  74
Time (minutes)      =  20
Correction factor   =
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0034
0.0011
0.0004
0.0010
0.0007
0.0035
0.0192
0.0220
0.0109
0.0021

% on
stage
5.28
1.71
0.62
1.55;
1.08
5.44
29.86
34.21
16.95
3,26
i
Size cutoff
(um)

12.14
7.59
5.08
3.52
2.20
1.14
0.69
0.47


% <. stated
size
94.71 .
93 . 00
92.37
90.82
89.73
84.29
54.43
20.21
3.26


dm/d log D

0. 0025
0.0072
0.0055
0.0214
0.0846
0.1276
0.0812
0.0016


Geo. Mean
(um)

9.60
6.21
4.23
. 2.78
.1.58
0.89
0.57
0.06


                                        81

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date 11/11/75    Run #  (3222-1)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 80.8596

Moisture             (%)    =  1.5794
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =  0.0053

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   =  0.6781
Location  Outlet
Orifice
            <"Hg>
Bar. press,
Mw
Avg. Pm  (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm  (op)
H20 (grams or 7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps  (+H20)
Avg. Ts  (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
30.00
28.7
 2.42
79
27
87.82
 1
74
120
 1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0022
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
0.0003
0.0002
0.0031
0.0049
0.0078
0.0086
0.0274
7. on
stage
8.02
0.00
0.72
0.36
1.09
0.72
11.31
17.88
28.47
31.38

Size cutoff
(|im)

11.65
7.28
4.87
3.38
2.11
1.09
0.66
0.45


% < stated
size
91.97
91.97
91.24
90.87
89.73
89.05
77.73
59.85
31.38


dm/d log D

0.0002
0.0001
0.0004
0.0002
0.0021
0.0044
0.0089
0.0010


Geo. Mean
(nm)

9.21
5.96
4.06
2.67
1.52 -
0.85
0.54
0.06


                                      82

-------
                             ANDERSEN 3MPACTOR '
Date  11/12/75   Run #  (3222-2)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =  10.776

Moisture             (%)    .  0.895

Concentration (grains/ft3)  =  0.10258

Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)   »  0.54225
Location Inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press. ("Hg)   = 30.00
Mw                  . 29.00
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      .  1.5
Avg. Tm (op)        a 75
H20 (grams or 7.)    a  2.04
Meter volume (ft3)  = 11.32
Avg. Ps (+H20)      =  1
Avg. Ts (OF)        = 74
Time (minutes)      m 20
Correction factor   »  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gra)
0.0021
0.0008
0.0008
0.0016
0.0013
0.0041
0.0215
0.0231
0.0130
0.0027
0.0710
7. on
stage
2.95
1.12
1.12
2.25
1.83
5.77
30.28
32.53
18.30
3.80

Size cutoff
(|im)

13.03
8.14
5.46
3.79
2.36
1.22
0.75
0.51


% <. stated
size
97.04
95.92
94.79
92.54
90.70
84.93
54.65
22.11
3.80


dm/d log D

0.00566
0.01333
0.01183
0.02879
0.109682
0.15566
0.11315
0.00228


Geo. Mean
(um)

10.30
6.67
4.55
2.99
1.70
0.96
0.62
0.07
• M .
                                       83

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date 11/12/75    Run # (3222-2)
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 78.7093

Moisture             (7.)    =  1.4423
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =  0.0052

Irapactor flow rate (acfm)   =  0.6601
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (op)
H20 (grams or %)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (±H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
=  30.00
-  28.7
=   2.45
=  76
-  24
=  85.22
=   1
=  74
- 120
-   1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0028
0.0008
0. 0007
0.0005
0.0009
0. 0008
0.0025
0.0029
0.0057
0. 0084
0.0260
. % on
stage
10.76
3.07
2.69
1.92
3.46
3.07
9.61
11.15
21.92
32.30

Size cutoff
(urn)

11.81
7.38
4.94'
3.43
2.14
1.11.
0.67
0.45


% < stated
size
89.23
86.15
83.46
81.53
78.07
75.00
65.38
54.23
32.30


dm/d log D

0.0007
0.0006
0.0011
0. 0008
0.0017
0.0027
0.0067
0.0010


Geo. Mean
(nm)

9.34
6.04
4.11
2.71
1.54
0.86
0.55
0.06


                                       84

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/12/75   Run # (3222-3)
Sample  volume at STP (ft3)  a 10.9630

Moisture             (7.)    »  0.9492
Concentration (grains/ft3)  a  0.1040

Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)   •*  0.5529
Location  Inlet

Orifice   E

Bar. press. ("Hg)   *  29.93
Mw                  a  29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      =    1.5
Avg. Tm (op)        a  76
H2° (grams or 7.)    =    2.2
Meter volume (ft3)  =  11.56
Avg. PS (+H20)      a  -1
Avg. Ts (op)        a  74
Time (minutes)      a  20
Correction factor   a    1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0032
0.0012
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0053
0.0203
0.0227
0.0137
0.0032
0.0732
7. on
stage
4.37
1.63
1.36
1.63
1.91
7.24
27.73
31.01
18.71
4.37

— —
Size cutoff

12.9101
8.0688
5.4112
3.7541
2.3381
. 1.2175
0.7427
0. 5064

	
7. < stated
size
95.62
93.98
92.62
90.98
89.07
81.83.
54.09
23.08
4.37

• " "
dm/d log D

0.0070
0.0098
0.0125
0.0366
0.1016
0. 1503
0.1170
0. 0027

i
Geo. Mean

10.20
6.60
4.50
2.96
1.68
0.95
0.61
0.07
1
'•' 	 : 	
                                       85

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/12/75   Run #(3222-3)
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  -  80.3666
Moisture             (%)    =   1.3537
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0051
Impactor flow rate (acfm)   =   0.6756
Location  Outlet
Orifice   D
Bar. press.  ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (op)
H20 (grams or 7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (±H20)
Avg. Ts (OF)
Time (minutes)
a  29.93
a  28.7
    2.50
a  78
a  23
»  87.80
a   1
a  74
a 120
                                          Correction factor   a
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0022
0.0007
0.0008
0.0006
0. 0008
0.0006
0.0024
0.0040
0.0061
0.0079
0.0261
% on
stage
8.42
2.68
3.06
2.29
3.06
2.29
9.19
15.32
23.37
30.26

Size cutoff
(jim)

11.67
7.29
4.88
3.39
2.12
1.09
0.66
0.45


% < stated
size
91.51
88.88
85.82
83.52
80.45
78.16
68.96
53.63
30.26


dm/d log D

0.0008
0.0007
0.0010
0.0006
0.0016
0.0036
0.0070
0.0009


Geo. Mean
(nm)

9.23
5.97
4.07
2.68
1.52
0.85
0.54
0.06


                                      86

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/13/75   Run *  (3222-4)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  a  10.2335

Moisture             (7.)    =   1.0169
Concentration (grains/ft3)  «   0.1190

Impactor flow rate  (acfm)   »   0.5260
Location  Inlet
Orifice   E

Bar. press. ("Hg)   »   29.37
Mw                  a   29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      a    1.5
Avg. Tm (OF)        a   76
H2° (S^ams or 7.)    a    2.2
Meter volume (ft3)  «   11.00
Avg. Ps (±H20)      =   -1
Avg. Ts (OF)        a   74
Time (minutes)      a   20
Correction factor  a    l
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0016
0.0023
0.0008
0.0006
0.0014
0.0017
0.0202
0.0230
0.0232
0. 0033
0.0781
7. on
stage
2.04
2.94
1.02
0.76
1.79
2.17
25.86
29.44
29.70
4.22

Size cutoff
(um)

13.2365
8.2728
5.5507
3.8503
2.3959
1.2489
0.7630
0.5212


7. < stated
size
97.95
95.00
93.98
93.21
91.42
89.24
63.38
33.93
4.22


dm/d log D

0.0060
0. 0053
0.0134
0.0126
0.1088
0.1637
0.2136
0.0029


Geo. Mean

-------
                             ANDERSEN  MPACTOR
Date  11/13/75   Run #  (3222-4)
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  m  73.3436
Moisture             (%)    »   1.1286
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0052
Impactor flow rate (acfm)   '«   0.6319
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   •   29.37
Mw                  =>   28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      =    2.4
Avg. Tm (OF)        =   78
H20 (grams or 7.)    »   17.5
Meter volume (ft3)  «   81.68
Avg. Ps (+H20)      -    1
Avg. Ts (°F)        »   77
Time (minutes)      »  120
Correction factor   »    1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0018
0.0000
0.0002
0.0003
0.0005
0.0011
0.0025
0.0053
0.0040
0.0076
0.0243
% on
stage
7.40
0.00
0.82
1.23
0.05
4.52
14.40
21.81
16.46
31.27

Size cutoff
(um)

12.0771
7.5482
5.0553
3.5086
2.1905
1.1374
0.6913
0.4690


% < stated
size
92.59
92.59
91.76
90.42
88.47
83.95
69.54
47.73
31.27


dm/d log D

0. 0002
0.0004
0. 0007
0.0011
0.0026
0.0052
0.0051
0.0010


Geo. Mean
(UN)

9.54
6.17
4.21
2.77
1.57
0.88
0.56
0.06


                                       88

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
pate  11/24/75   Run #   2222

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  m  7.4563

Moisture             (7.)    »  1.0150
Concentration (grains/ft3)  a  0.0721
Impactor  f}.ow rate  (acfm)   a  0.4934
Location  Inlet

Orifice   E

Bar. press. ("Hg)   •   30.20
Mw                  =29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      a    1.8
Avg. Tm (op)        m   69.5
HaO (grama or %)    -    1.6
Meter volume (ft3)  a    7.77
Avg. Ps (±H20)      a   -0.37
Avg. Ts (OF)        a   71
Time (minutes)      »   15
Correction factor   »    1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gn>)
0. 0028
0. 0003
0. 0004
0. 0004
0. 0009
0. 0029
0.0119
0.0051
0.0079
0.0019
0. 0345
% on
.. stage
8.11
0.86
1.15
1.15
2.60:
8.40
34.49
14.78
22.89
5.50

Size cutoff
(urn)

13.6671
8.5419
5.7350
3.9774
2.4721
1.2904
0.7897
0.5408


% < stated
size
91.88
91.01
89.85
88.69
86.08
77.68
43.10
28.40
5.50


dm/d log D

0.0041
0.0048
0.0118
0.0294
0.0881
0.0500
0.1004
0.0023


Geo. Mean
(um)

10.80
6.99
4.77
3.13
1.78
1.00
0.65
0.07


                                     89

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/24/75   Run #  2222

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  o  79.7884

Moisture             (%)    -   1-3635

Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0046

Impactor flow rate (acftn)   =   0.6661
Location Outlet

Orifice  D

Bar. press, ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (OF)
H20 (grams or 7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (+H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
 30.20
 28.7
  2.62
 73
 23
 85.88
  0.34
 76
120
  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0009
0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.0007
0.0012
0.0034
0.0056
0.0041
0.0064
0.0234
7. on
stage
3.8462
2.8547
1.7094
2.1368
2.9915
5.1282
14.5200
23.9316
17.5214
27.3504

Size cutoff
(um)

11.7623
7.3515
4.9209
3.4159
2.1346
1.1072
0.6719
0.4549


7. < stated
size
96.1538
95.2991
93.5897
91.4530
88.4615
83.3333
68.8034
44.8718
27.3504


dm/d log D

0.0004
0.0006
0.0009
0.0012
0.0023
0.0051
0.0047
0.0008


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.2989
6.0146
4.0999
2.7003
1.5374
0.8625
0.5529
0.0674


                                       90

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  12/3/75    Run #  1222-1A
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  a  7.5612

Moisture             (7.)    •  1.0001
Concentration (grains/ft3)  a  0.0946
Impactor flow rate (acfm)   «  0.5074
Location  Inlet

Orifice   E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   «   29.97
Mw                  a   29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      »    1.3
Avg. Tin (op)        a   74.5
H20 (grams or 7.)    «.    1.5
Meter volume (ft3)  a    7.88
Avg. PS (±H20)      »   -0.04
Avg. Ts (op)        „   75
Time (minutes)      «   15
Correction factor   «    1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
~~
Net weight
(gm)
0.0016
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0018
0.0003
0.0101
0.0004
0.0083
0.0160
0.0459

7. on
stage
3.4858
O.OOOC
O.OOOC
O.OOOC
, 3.9216
0.6536
22.0043
16.122C
18.9542
34.8584


Size cutoff
(urn)

13.4762
8.4226
5.6533
3.9210
2.4383
1.2719
0.7778
0.5321



7. < stated
size
96.5142
96.5142
96.5142
96.5142
92.5926
91.9389
69.9346
53.8126
i
34.8584


t— — — . — _ _
dm/d log D

0. 0000
0. 0000
—^— —•••••••••••«.
0. 0233
0.0029
0.0737
0.0714
0. 1087
0.0191



Geo. Mean
(urn)

10.6539
6.9004
«>*>*»^«»«MMBMM»
4.7082
3.0921
1.7611
0. 9947
0.6433
————•-»•.•,•
0.0729



                                      91

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  12/3/75    Run #  1222-lA

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  a  73.0685

Moisture             (%)    =   1.0357
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0093

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   =   0.6239
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =   29.97
Mw                  =   28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      -    2.1
Avg. Tm (OF)        m   76.5
H20 (grams or %)    a   16
Meter volume (ft3)  a   78.60
Avg. Ps (+H20)      »    0.34
Avg. Ts (OF)        =   84
Time (minutes)      »  120
Correction factor   =    1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gin)
0.0012
0.0000
0. 0005
0.0008
0.0011
0.0020
0.0102
0.0163
0.0092
0.0022
0.0435
% on
stage
2.7586
0.0000
1.1494
1.8391
2.5287
4.5977
23.4483
37.4713
21.1494
5.0575

Size cutoff
(urn)

12.1540
7.5963
5.0881
3.5312
2.2041
1.1448
0.6960
0.4724


% < stated
size
97 . 2414
97.2414
96.0920
94.2529
91.7241
87.1264
63.6782
26.2069
5.0575


dm/d log D

0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0021
0.0077
0.0161
0.0117
0.0003


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.6086
6.2170
4.2388
2.7898
1.5885
0.8927
0.5734
0.0687


                                    92

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/14/75   Run #  (3212-1)
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  »  7.4943

Moisture             (7.)    «  0.9467
Concentration  (grains/ft3)  a  0.1328
Itnpactor  flow rate  (acfm)   »  0.5136
Location Inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   -  29.37
Mw                  a  29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      a    1.72
Avg. Tm (OF)        a  73
H20 (grams or 7.)    a    1.5
Meter volume (ft3)  a    8.08
Avg. Ps (+H20)      a  -1
Avg. Ts (OF)        -  74
Time (minutes)      •»  15
Correction factor   a    1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gro)
0.0033
0.0007
0.0007
0.0006
0.0014
0.0038
0.0175
0.0198
0.0116
0.0045
0.0639
% on
stage
5.1643
1.0955
1.0955
0.9390
2.1909
5.9468
27.3865
30.9859
18.1534
7 . 0423

Size cutoff
(pro)

13.3952
8.3720
5.6187
3.8972
2.4240
1.2642
0.7728
0.5284


% < stated
size
94.8357
93.7402
92.6448
91.7058
89.5149
83.5681
56.1815
25.1956
7.0423


dm/d log D

0.0071
0.0072
0.0183
0.0383
0.1267
0.1925
0.1460
0.0054


Geo. Mean
(H«n)

10.5898
6.8585
4.6794
3.0736
1.7505
0.9884
0.6390
0.0727


                                      93

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/14/75   Run #  (3212-1)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  a  80.2594

Moisture             (7.)    =   1.3614

Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0046

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   =»   0.6966
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)    =  29.37
Mw                   =  28.7
Avg. Pro (-"Hg)       =   2.33
Avg. Tm (op)         «  76
H20 (grams or 7.)     =.  23.1
Meter volume (ft3)   =  88.61
Avg. Ps (±H20)       =   1
Avg. Ts (OF)         =  81
Time (minutes)       = 120
Correction factor    =»   1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gin)
0.0009
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0008
0.0011
0.0042
0.0058
0.0042
0.0053
0.0238
7. on
stage
3.7815
1.6807
2.1008
2.5210
3.3613
4.6218
7.6471
24.3697
17.6471
22.2689

Size cutoff
(urn)

11.5023
7.1889
4.8100
3.3393
2.0884
1.0822
0.6560
0.4434


7. < stated
size
96.2185
94.5378
92.4370
89.9160
86.5546
81.9328
64.2857
39.9160
22.2689


dm/d log D

0.0005
0.0007
0.0010
0.0011
0.0029
0.0052
0.0048
0.0006


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.0933
5.8803
4.0077
2.6408
1.5034
0.8426
0.5393
0.0666


                                      94

-------
                             ANDERSEN XMPACTOR
Date  11/15/75    Run #  (3212-2)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  »  7.1999

Moisture             (7.)    =  0.8869
Concentration (grains/ft3)  »  0.1784

Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)   »  0.4858
Location  Inlet

Orifice   E
Bar. press.  ("Hg)   = 29.82
Mw                  » 29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      »  1.4
Avg. Tm (OF)        » 72
H20 (grams or 7.)    «  1-35
Meter volume (ft3)  «  7.54
Avg. Ps (+H20)      « -1
Avg. Ts (op)        . 74
Time (minutes)      » 15
Correction factor  »  1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gn>)
0.0015
0.0010
0.0008
0.0008
0.0144
0.0011
0.0082
0.0130
0.0116
0.0306
0.0825
7. on
stage
1.8182
1.2121
0.9697
0.9697
17.4545
1.3333
9.9394
15.7576
14.0606
36.4848

Size cutoff
(urn)

13.7732
8.6083
5.7804
4.0087
2.4909
1.3006
0.7963
0.5456


7. < stated
size
9J.1818
96.9697
96.0000
95.0303
77.5758
76.2424
66.3030
50.5455
36.4848


dm/d log D

0.0085
0.0100
0.1959
0.0115
0.0628
0.1319
0.1528
0.0375


Geo. Mean
(urn)

10.8887
7.0540
4.8137
3.1599
1.7999
1.0177
0.6591
0.0739


                                         95

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/15/75   Run #  (3212-2)
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  «  71.5421

Moisture             (7.)    =   1.0909
Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0044
linpactor flow rate  (acfm)   »   0.6093
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tin (OF)
H20 (grams or 7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (+H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
=  29.82
a  28.7
=   2.25
„  72
a  16.5
a  77.10
a   1
a  79
a 120
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0009
0.0004
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0009
0.0029
0.0048
0.0035
0.0051
0.0203
7. on
stage
4.4335
1.9704
3.4483
2.9557
2.4631
4.4335
14.2857
23.6453
17.2414
25.1232

Size cutoff
(nn>)

12.2989
7.6868
5.1500
3.5739
2.2208
1.1587
0.7050
0.4789


7. < stated
size
95.5665
93.5961
90.1478
87.1921
84.7291
80.2956
66.0099
42.3645
25.1232


dm/d log D

0.0007
0.0008
0.0007
0.0010
0.0022
0.0048
0.0045
0.0007


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.7231
6.2918
4.2902
2.8230
1.6074
0.9038
0.5810
0.0692


                                        96

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/22/75   Run #  (3221-1)
Sample volume at STP (ft3)   - 6.5745

Moisture             (7.)     «. 1.2231
Concentration (grains/ft3)   B 0.1226

Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)    ** 0.4408
Location Inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =  29.87
Mw                  a  29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      m   1.45
Avg. Tin (OF)        a  74
H20 (grains or 7.)    a   1.7
Meter volume (ft3)  a   6.89
Avg. Ps (±H20)      «  -1
Avg. Ts (OF)        a  74
Time (minutes)      a  15
Correction factor   a   1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
—
7
F
~~
Total
•*"~
Net weight
(gm)
0.0028
0.0000
0.0008
0.0006
0.0009
0.0020
0.0113
0.0210

0.0096
0.0028

0.0516

7. on
stage
5.4263
0.0000
1.1628
1.1628
1.7442
3.8759
21.8992
40.6977

18.6046
5.4263



Size cutoff
(lira)

14.4585
9.0366
6.0739
4.2110
2.6120
'•' 	
1.3666
0.8390
ni
0.5770



i
7. < stated
size
9 v. 57 36
94.5736
— — — — _ _
93.4108
92.2481
90.5039
86.6279
64.7287
24.0310
.
51.4263

i

'
dm/d log D

0.0070
~ 	 _
0.0083
0.0134
0.0229
0.0054
0.2355
— — ~— .
0.1403

0.0037
• *
———————

— — — ^ — — —
Geo. Mean
CM»)

11.4305
7.4086
5.0574
3.3165
1.8894
11.0708
0.6958

0.0760




                                      97

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/22/75    Run #  3221-1
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  »  66.0387

Moisture             (%)    =   1.3394
Concentration (grains/ft3)  »   0.0035

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   **   0.5667
Location Outlet

Orifice  D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   -   29.87
Mw                  =   28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      o    1.8
Avg. Tm (op)        •   76
H20 (grains or %)    »   18.7
Meter volume (ft3)  =   70.25
Avg. Ps (+H20)      •    1
Avg. Ts (°F)        -   84
Time (minutes)      »  120
Correction factor   »    1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0006
0.0017
0.0086
0.0034
0.0040
0.0147
% on
stage
2.0403
1.3605
1 . 3605
1.3605
3.4014
4.0816
11.5646
24.4896
23.1293
27.2109

Size cutoff
(urn)

12.7528
7.9705
5.3439
3.7077
2.3103
1 . 2024
0.7330
0.4993


% < stated
size
9 .9592
96.5986
95.2381
93.8776
90.4762
86.3946
74.8299
50.3401
27.2109


dm/d log D

0.0002
0.0003
0.0007
0.0007
0.0014
0.0040
0.0048
0.0006


Geo. Mean
(um)

10.0820
6.5264
4.4513
2.9267
1.6667
0.9388
0.6050
0.0707


                                      98

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
pate 11/22/75    Run #  3221-2

Sample volume at  STP (ft3)  9 6.5584

Moisture            (7.)    a 1.2261
Concentration (grains/ft3)  = 0.1248
Iinpactor flow rate  (acfm)   - 0.4419
Location  Inlet
Orifice   E

Bar. press. ("Hg)   » 29.87
Mw                  „ 29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      «  1.45
Avg. Tm (OF)        • 73
H20 (grams or %)    =  1.7
Meter volume (ft3)  B  6.86
Avg. Ps (+H20)      « -1
Avg. Ts (opj        =, 74
Time (minutes)      a 15
Correction factor   »  1
probe &
expander
                                      99

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/22/75   Run * 3221-2

Sample volume at STP (ft3)   a  65.8084

Moisture             (7.)     -   1.3297
Concentration (grains/ft3)   -   0.0038

Impactor flow rate (acfm)    =   0.5647
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =  29.87
Mw                  »  28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      -   1.9
Avg. Tm (op)        -  74
H20 (grams or %)    =»  18.5
Meter volume (ft3)  «  70
Avg. Ps (±H20)      -   1
Avg. Ts (OF)        »  84
Time (minutes)      «a!20
Correction factor   »   1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
m 	
Net weight
(gm)
0.0000
0.0003
0.0007
0.0004
0.0008
0.0009
0.0021
0.0035
0.0032
0.0039
0.0158
% on
stage
0.0000
1.8987
4.4304
2.5316
5.0633
5.6962
13.2911
22.1519
20.2532
24.6835

Size cutoff
(n«)

12.7751
7.9844
5.3535
3.7143
2.3142
1 . 2045
0.7344
0.5003


% < stated
size
1 JO. 0000
98.1013
93.6709
91.1392
86.0759
80.3797
67.0886
44.9367
24.6835


dm/d log D

0.0008
0.0005
0.0012
0.0010
0.0018
0.0039
0.0046
0.0005


Geo. Mean
(urn)

10.0996
6.5379
4.4592
2.9318
1.6696
0.9405
0.6062
0.0707


                                       100

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date 11/21/75   Run #  3223-1
Sample  volume  at STP  (ft3)  «. 5.9974
Hoisture              (7.)    m 1.1491
Concentration  (grains/ft3)  • 0.12068
Impact or  flow  rate  (acfm)   =» 0.4736
Location  Inlet
Orifice   E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   »  29.74
Mw                  a  29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      .   1.45
Avg. Tm (op)        a  76
H20 (grams or 7.)    »   1.7
Meter volume (ft3)  =»   7.4
Avg. Ps (+H20)      a  -1
Avg. Ts (OF)        «  74
Time (minutes)      =•  15
Correction factor   •   1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(g«n)
0.0033
0.0014
0.0008
0.0011
0.0015
0.0020
0.0111
0.0172
0.0119
0.0038
0.0541
7. on
stage
6.010
2.589
1.479
2.033
2.772
3.697
20.518
31.793
21.996
7.024

Size cutoff
(um)

13.9499
8.7187
5.8561
4.0608
2.5221
1.3176
0.8073
0.5537


7. < stated
size
T3.900
91.312
89.834
87.800
85.028
81.331
60.813
29.020
7.024


dm/d log D

0.0087
0.0142
0.0210
0.0216
0.0878
0.1803
29.020
0.0049


Geo. Mean
(um)

11.0283
7,1454
4.8765
3.2003
1.8230
1.0314
0.1621
0.0744


                                       101

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/21/75    Run #  3223-1
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  *  70.9377

Moisture             (7.)    =   1.8670
Concentration (grains/ft3)  a   0.0034

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   =»   0.6136
Location Outlet

Orifice  D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)    = 29.74
Mw                   « 29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)       -  2.1
Avg. Tin (op)         a 78
H20 (grains or 7.)     » 28
Meter volume (ft3)   = 76.51
Avg. Ps (+H20)       »  1
Avg. Ts (OF)         - 86
Time (minutes)       = 120
Correction factor    »  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0011
0.0004
0.0003
0.0004
0.0004
0.0010
0.0010
0.0044
0.0031
0.0032
0.0153
7. on
stage
7.1895
2.6144
1.9608
2.6144
2.6144
6.5359
6.5359
28.7582
20.2614
20.9150

Size cutoff
(ura)

12.2552
7.6505
5.1313
3.5611
2.2220
1.1545
0.7023
0.4769


7. < stated
size
9' .8105
90.1961
88.2353
85.6209
83.0065
76.4706
69.9346
41.1765
20.9150


dra/d log D

0.0003
0.0005
0.0006
0.0011
0.0008
0.0045
0.0041
0.0004


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.6886
6.2692
4.2747
2.8130
1.6017
0.9004
0.5787
0.0691


                                     102

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/23/75   Run #  3223-2
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =r  5.1961
Moisture             (7.)    »  1.4565
Concentration (grains/ft3)  o  0.1211
Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)   »  0.3439
Location Inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   » 30.41
Mw                  <. 29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      »   1
Avg. Tin (op)        a 72
H20 (grams or %)    o   1.6
Meter volume (ft3)  =.   5.23
Avg. Ps (+H20)      = -1
Avg. Ts (°F)        =t 74
Time (minutes)      » 15
Correction factor   »   1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gn>)
0.0015
0.0007
0.0005
0.0002
0.0005
0.0015
0.0067
0.0132
0.0096
0.0058
0.0402
7. on
stage
3.7313
1.7413
1.2438
0.4975
1 .2438
3.7313
16.6667
32.8358
23.8806
14.4279

Size cutoff
([Am)

16.3701
10.2313
6.8941
4.7761
2.9493
1.5512
0.9589
0.6658


7. < stated
size
9'..2687
94.5274
93.2836
92.7861
91.5423
87 . 8109
71.1443
38.3085
14.4279


dm/d log D

0.0074
0.0035
0.0095
0.0216
0.0723
0.1904
0.1825
0.0096


Geo. Mean
(nm)

12.9417
8.3985
5.7382
3.7531
2.1389
1.2196
0.7980
0.0816


                                       103

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/23/75   Run #  3223-2

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  »  56.9631

Moisture             (7.)    •   1.3203
Concentration (grains/ft3)  a   0.0035

Impact or flow rate (acfm)   **   0.4757
Location  Outlet
Orifice
("Hg)
Bar. press.
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (OF)
H20 (grams or 7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (+H20)
Avg. Ts (OF)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
» 30.41
- 28.7
"  1.6
» 72
- 15.9
o 58.61
»  1
- 79
o!20
=  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0011
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0007
0.0028
0.0028
0.0058
0.0129
% on
stage
8.5271
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7752
0.0000
5.4264
18.6047
21.7054
44.9612

Size cutoff
(am)

13.9192
8.6995
5.8429
4.0518
2.5167
1.3147
0.5523



7. < stated
size
U.4729
91.4729
91.4729
91.4729
90.6977
90.6977
85.2713
44.9612



dm/d log D

0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
0.0007
0.0031
0.0047



Geo. Mean
(urn)

11.0041
7.1295
4.8656
3.1933
1.8190
1.0290
0.6669



                                     104

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date 11/19/75    Run * 3122

Sample  volume at STP (ft3)  . 8.9309

Moisture             (%)    .0.9003

Concentration (grains/ft3)  « 0.0824

Impactor  flow rate  (acfm)   » 0.5922
Location  inlet

Orifice   E

Bar. press. ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (op)
H2° (grams or  7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. P8 (+H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
30.31
29
 2.07
75.7
 1.7
 9.48
- 0.42
74
15
 1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
r
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(en)
0.0051
0.0018
0.0006
0.0008
0.0009

0.0019
0.0070
0.0108
0.0140
0.0044
0.0473
% on
stage
10.7822
3.8054
1.2684
1.6913
1.9027

4.0169
14.7991
22.8329
29.5983
9.3023

Size cutoff
(urn)

12.4746
7.7966
5.2250
3.6257

2.2609
1.1756
0.7158
0.4868


% < stated
size
89.2177
85.4122
84.1437
82.4524
80.5496
—— •— — •••IM,^,
76.5327
61.7336
38.9006
9;3023


dm/d log D

0.0051
0.0080
0.0098
0.0161
— | ••••••••^•^
0.0429
0;.0873
0.1457
0.0045


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.8620
6.3826
4.3525
2.8631

1.6303
0.9173
0.5903
0.0697
"••••—-•••••.—
-^— «^— — i«*^»^i™««
                                      105

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  11/19/75   Run #  3122

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  »  75.8611

Moisture             (7.)    =   1.4208

Concentration (grains/£t3)  =   0.0048

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   «   0.6334
Location  Outlet

Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =   30.32
Mw                  »   28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      »    3.02
Avg. Tin (op)        a   77.8
H20 (grams or %)    »   22.5
Meter volume (ft3)  =   83.2
Avg. Ps (±H20)      -    l.O
Avg. Ts (°F)        =   80
Time (minutes)      »  120
Correction factor   «•
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gro)
0.0015
0.0005
0.0003
0.0005
0.0006
0.0010
0.0037
0.0059
0.0047
0.0046
0.0233
7. on
stage
5.4377
2.1459
1.2875
2.1459
2.5751
4.2918
15.8798
25.3218
20.1716
19.7424

Size cutoff
(um)

12.0616
7.5385
5.0486
3.5040
2.1877
1.1359
0.6903
0.4682


7. < stated
size
9J.5622
91.4163
90.1287
87.9828
85.4077
81.1158
65.2360
39.9141
19.7424


dm/d log D

0.0003
0.0005
0.000
0.0010
0.0026
0.0056
0.0057
0.0005


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.5355
6.1692
4.2060
2.7687
1.5764
0.8855
0.5685
0.0684


                                     106

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date H/18/75     Run #  2122

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  a  6.8863

Moisture             (7.)    -  0.9866
Concentration (grains/ft3)  a  0.09791
Impactor flow rate (acfm)   a  0.4591
Location Inlet

Orifice

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   »   30.21
Mw                  •»   29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      a   2.23
Avg. Tm (OF)        a   73
H20 (grains or %)    a   1.32
Meter volume (ft3)  a   7.34
Avg. Ps (+H20)      a  - 0.48
Avg. Ts (OF)        »   75
Time (minutes)      a   15
Correction factor   a   1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gn>)
0.0037
0.0010
0.0007
0.0007
0.0010
0.0020
0.0094
0.0116
0.0108
0.0024
0.0433
7. on
stage
8.55
2.31
1.62
1.62
2.31
4.62
21.71
26.79
24.94
5.543

Size cutoff
(um)

14.1685
8.8553
5.9497
4.1254
2 . 5607
1.3386
0.8209
0.5637


7. < stated
size
31.46
89.146
87.529
85.912
83.603
78.984
57.275
30.485
5.543


dro/d log D

0.0078
0.0092
0.0142
0.0218
0.0754
0.1235
0.1486
0.0031


Geo. Mean
(nm)

11.2012
7.2585
4.9542
3.2502
1.8515
1.0483
0.6802
0.0750


                                      107

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/18/75    Run #  2122

Sample volume at STP  (ft3)   « 80.2753

Moisture              (7.)     -  0.9132

Concentration (grains/ft3)   =  0.0106

Impactor flow rate  (acfm)    =  0.6773
Location Outlet

Orifice

Bar. press.  ("Hg)    =  30.21
Mw                   =»  28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)       =>   2.9
Avg. Tm (OF)         -  76
H20 (grains or 7.)     =»  15.5
Meter volume (ft3)   =»  88.15
Avg. Ps (±H20)       -   1.02
Avg. Ts (OF)         =»  81
Time (minutes)       =• 120
Correction factor    =>   1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0005
0.0003
0.0009
0.0013
0.0020
0.0028
0.0107
0.0174
0.0129
0.0059
0.0547
7. on
stage
0.9140
0 . 5484
1.6453
2.3766
3.6536
5.1188
19.5612
31.8098
23.5831
10 . 7 861

Size cutoff
(urn)

11 . 6645
7.2903
4.8792
3.3870
2.1172
1.0978
0.6659
0.4505


7. < stated
size
90.0850
98.5374
96.8921
94.5155
90.8592
85.7404
66.1791
34.3692
10.7861


dtn/d log D

0.0008
0.0014
0.0024
0.0026
0.0072
0.0155
0.0147
0.0006


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.2216
5.9641
4.0652
2.6779
1.5245
0.8550
0,5477
0.0671


                                       108

-------
                             ANDERSEN  IMPACTOR
Date  12/5/75    Run #  1122

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =  9.0883

Moisture             (%)    =  0.8327

Concentration (grains/ft3)  a  0.0877

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   -  0.6062
Location Inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =  30.39
Mw                  =>  29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      »  2.2
Avg. Tm (op)        a  74
H20 (grams or 7.)    =  1.6
Meter volume (ft3)  a  9.64
Avg. Ps (+H20)      =  -0.06
Avg. Ts (OF)        =  79
Time (minutes)      =  15
Correction factor   =»  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0042
0.0015
0.0004
0.0006
0.0014
0.0037
0.0133
0.0172
0.0077
0.0012
0.0512
% on
stage
8.2031
2.9297
0.7813
1.1719
2.7344
7.2266
25.9766
33.5928
15.0391
2.3438

Size cutoff
(Mm)

12.3304
7.7065
5.1634
3.5832
2.2354
1.1618
0.7069
0.4803


% < stated
size
91.7969
88.8672
88.0859
86.9141
84.1797
76.9531
50.9766
17.3828
2.3438


dm/d log D

0.0034
0.0059
0.0151
0.0309
0.0801
0.1365
0.0785
0.0012


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.7480
6.3081
4.3014
2 . 8302
1.6115
0.9062
0.5827
0.0693


                                     109

-------
                             ANDERSEN  3MPACTOR
Date  12/5/75    Run #  1122

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  a  37.5762

Moisture             (7.)    -   2.1342
Concentration (grains/ft3)  m   0.0127

Impactor flow rate  (acfm)   -   0.6333
Location  Outlet
Orifice   D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =•  30.39
Mw                  =  28.7
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      =•   2.25
Avg. Tin (OF)        »  75.5
H2<> (grams or %)    =  17
Meter volume (ft3)  =  39.52
Avg. Ps (+H20)      =   0.36
Avg. Ts (OF)        =  83
Time (minutes)      =  60
Correction factor   =»   1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gn>)
0.0012
0.0001
0.0003
0.0006
0.0009
0.0011
0.0044
0.0087
0.0100
0.0030
0.0303
% on
stage
3.9604
0.3300
0.9901
1.9802
2.9703
3.6304
14.5215
28.7129
33.0033
9.9010

Size cutoff
(urn)

12.0629
7.5393
5.0492
3.5044
2.1879
1.1361
0.6904
0.4683


7. < stated
size
96.0396
95.7096
94.7195
92.7393
89.7690
86.1386
71.6172
42.9043
9.9010


dm/d log D

0.0006
0.0014
0.0024
0.0023
0.0065
0.0168
0.0248
0 . 0008


Geo. Mean
(n*)

9.5365
6.1699
4.2065
2.7690
1.5766
0.8856
0.5686
0.0684


                                      110

-------
                              ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/17/75   Run # (2322)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 7.2045

Moisture             (7.)    - I'0505
Concentration (grains/ft3)  - 0.1359

Impactor flow rate  (acfm)   - 0.4818
Location  Inlet

Orifice   E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (OF)
H20 (grains or %)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (±H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
 30.16
 29
  1.5
 74
  1.6
  7.5
- 0.3
 76
 15
  1
                                      111

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  11/17/75   Run # (2322)

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =  65.1860

Moisture             (%)    =   0.8345

Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.0038

Impactor flow rate  (acfm)   =   0.5428
Location Outlet

Orifice  D

Bar. press.  ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (OF)
H20  (grams or 7.)
Meter volume (ft3)
Avg. Ps (+H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
Correction factor
= 30.16
• 28.7
-  1.9
= 75
= 11.5
= 69.10
=  0.3
- 74
= 120
=  1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0005
0 . 0003
0.0003
0.0005
0.0000
0.0009
0.0027
0.0053
0.0023
0.0032
0.0160
7. on
stage
3.1250
1.8750
1.8750
3.1250
0.0000
5.6250
16.8750
33.1250
14.3750
20.0000

Size cutoff
(urn)

13.0296
8.1435
5.4623
3.7893
2.3593
1.2290
0.7501
0.5118


% < stated
size
96.8750
95.0000
93.1250
90.0000
90.0000
84.3750
67 . 5000
34.3750
20.0000


dm/d log D

0.0004
0.0007
0.0000
0.0010
0.0023
0.0059
0.0033
0.0004


Geo. Mean
(UN)

10.3008
6.6695
v 4. 5495
2.9900
1.7028
0.9602
0.6196
0.0715


                                        112

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date 12/13/76    Run # Metal Foam #1

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 7.721717

Moisture             (7.)    = 0.918837

Concentration (grains/ft3)  = 0.093176

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   = 0.510891
Location inlet

Orifice  E

Bar. press.  ("Hg)
Mw
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm (OF)
H20 (grams or 7.)
Meter volume  (ft3)
Avg. Ps (±H20)
Avg. Ts (°F)
Time (minutes)
=30.38
B 29
-  2.13
"72.3
=1.5
=  3. 14
"-0.45
= 74°p
= 15
                                          Correction factor   = l
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0046
0.0011
0.0004
0.0010
0.0018
0.0035
0.0037
0.0147
0.0062
0.0006
0.04620
7. on
stage
12 . 234
2.926
1.064
2.660
4.787
9.309
9.840
39.096
16.489
1.596

Size cutoff
(urn)

13.431
8.394
5.634
3.908
2.430
1.268
0.775
0.530


7. < stated
size
87.766
84.840
83.777
81.117
76.330
67.021
57.181
18.085
1.596


dm/d log D

0.00395
0.01165
0.02285
0.03422
0.08776
0.13874
0.07578
0.00070


Geo. Mean
(urn)

10.6181
6.8770
4.69210
3.08172
1.7552
0.99118
0.64093
0.073


                                       113

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date 1/13/76     Run % Metal Foam #1
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 75.041321
Location Outlet
Orifice  D
Moisture «) - 1.040027 Bar. press. ("Hg) - 30.38
Concentration (grains/ft3) = 0.009101 Mw a 28-7
AVB Pro ( " "HE^ — 2 72
Impactor flow rate (acfm) = 0.62204 Avg." Tm (op) I 72^4
H20 (grams or 70) a 16. 5g
Meter volume (ft3) = 80.71
Avg. Ps (+H20) a +0.92
Avg. Ts (°F) = 77
Time (minutes) = 120
Correction factor =» 1
Stage
Probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
•
4
5
6
7
	
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
— — — — — — — —
0.0024
0.0003
-I.,.-—
0.0003
0.0008
0.0008
0.0027
"
0.0078
0.0138
__
0.0102
	 ' - _ 	
0.0047
0.0438
% on
stage
5.48
0.68
0.68
1.83
1.83
6.16
111 •M^^_V
17.81
11 -i.--
31.51
23.29
—
10.73

Size cutoff
(urn)

12.17
7.61
5.10
3.54
2.21
1.15
— — — — — —
0.697
0.473
— — — — — — —

% < stated
size
94.52
93.84
93.15
91.32
89.50
—————.
83.33
65.53
34.02
10.73


	
dm/d log D

0.00031
0.00096
0.00105
0.00274
0.00570
0.01327
0.01260
0.00058


	
Geo. Mean
(urn)
- -
9.6228
6.2263
4.2452
2.7940
1.59085
0.89404
0.574
0.069


                                   114

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  1/13/76    Run # Metal Foam #2
Sample volume at STP (ft3)  = 7.726561

Moisture             (%)    = 0.918261
Concentration (grains/ft3)  = Q.109241
Impactor flow rate (acfm)   = 0.511212
Location Inlet

Orifice  £

Bar. press.  ("Hg)   =»  30.38
Mw                  a  29
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)      •   1.9
Avg. Tm (op)        a  730
H20 (grains or %)    =   1.5
Meter volume  (ft3)  =   8.09
Avg. Ps (+H20)      m  -0.45
Avg. Ts (°F)        a  74
Time (minutes)      »  15
Correction factor   =   1
Stage
probe &
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gin)
0 ,0051
0.0009
0 . 0009
0.0010
0.0016
0.0043
0.0135
0.0172
0.0083
0.0014
0.0542
% on
stage
9.41
1.66
1.66
1.85
2.95
7.93
24.91
31.73
15.31
2.58

Size cutoff
(ura)

13.427
8.39
5.63
3.91
2.43
1.27
0.775
0.530


% < stated
size
90.59
88.93
87.27
85.42
82.47
74.54
49.63
17.90
2.58


dm/d log D

0.00889
0.01164
0.203
0.0420
0.0963
0.16223
0.10138
0.00164


Geo. Mean
(nm)

10.615
6.875
4.691
3.081
1.755
0.991
0.641
0.073


                                    115

-------
                             ANDERSEN IMPACTOR
Date  1/13/76     Run # Metal  Foam #  2     Location Outlet

Sample volume at STP (ft3)  =  38.606736   Orifice  D

Moisture             (7.)    =   1.163916   Bar. press.  ("Hg)

Concentration (grains/ft3)  =   0.008249   Jj   pm (_tlHg)

Impactor flow rate (acfm)   =   0.640046   Avg. Tm (OF)
                                          H20 (grams or %)
                                          Meter volume (ft3)
                                          Avg. Ps (±H20)
                                          Avg. Ts (OF)
                                          Time (minutes)
                                          Correction factor
-  30.38
=  28.7
=   2.26
a  73.8
    9.52
=  40.9
=   0.92
=  77
"  60
"   1
Stage
Probe {,
expander
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Total
Net weight
(gm)
0.0015
0.0000
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0011
0.0054
0.0084
0.0047
0.0012
0.0204
7. on
stage
7.35
0
0.49
2.45
2.45
5.39
26.47
41.18
8.33
5.88

Size cutoff
(nm)

12.00
7.50
5.02
3.49
2.18
1.13
0.687
0.466


7. < stated
size
92.65
92.65
92.16
89.71
87.25
81.86
55.39
14.22
5.88


dm/d log D

0.00020
0.00116
0.00128
0.00218
0.00767
0.0157
0.00407
0.00029


Geo. Mean
(urn)

9.486
6.137
4.184
2.755
1.568
0.881
0.565
0.068


                                      116

-------
                                APPENDIX D
              OPTICAL PARTICLE COUNTER MEASUREMENTS AND DATA

GCA/Technology Division utilizes a Bausch and Lomb Dust Counter Model
40-1 which is capable of optically counting dust particles at particle
sizes equal to or greater than 0.3 urn, 0.5 um, 1.0 urn, 2.0 urn, 3.0 mn,
5.0 ^m, and 10.0 |xm.  The dust counter was used in conjunction with the
dilution systems mentioned for use with the CNC.

Readings were taken at 0.3 ^im and were often high enough to be very close
to the maximum counting capabilities of the instrument.  Readings at
0.5 fzm and 1.0 fim were normally well within the counting range of the
instrument while readings at 2 ^im and higher were often very low or
zero.  Therefore, the data were considered valid only  for the 0.3 um,
0.5 um, 1.0 jxin, and 2.0 jim settings.  Table 13 contains the data
obtained with the optical particle counter.
                                  117

-------
Table 13.  OPTICAL PARTICLE COUNTER DATA
Run no.
3222
Inlet





Outlet




1222
Inlet




Outlet



3122
Inlet






Particle
diameter
Lower
limit, u,m

0.3

0.5
1.0
2.0

0.3

0.5
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.5

1.0
2.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.5
1.0

2.0
3.0
5.0
Concentration
Number of
particles
per 0.01 ft3
6
3.19 x 10
6
1.34 x 10
5.83 x 105
4530
6
1.15 x 10°
4
3.18 x 10
1.28 x 104
637
1.67 x 106
5
2.58 x 10J
4
6.92 x 10
31
7.90 x 10
4
1.31 x 10H
3887
0
3.50 x 106
6
1.12 x 10
5.04 x 105
4
3.74 x 10*
2770
1517
                      118

-------
Table 13 (continued).  OPTICAL PARTICLE COUNTER DATA
Run no.
Outlet



1122
Inlet

Outlet



Particle
diameter
Lower
limit, urn
0.3
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
2.0
Concentration
Number of
particles
per 0.01 ffc3
1.57 x 105
6.53 x 104
2.88 x 104
85.5
8.1
0
1.67 x 106
2.58 x 105
6.92 x 104
31
7.1 x 105
7910
2336
53
                           119

-------
                               APPENDIX E
            CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER MEASUREMENTS  AND DATA

GCA/Technology Division utilizes a Rich Model 100 Condensation Nuclei
Counter (CNC) in conjunction with the Diffusion Denuder (DD) for sub-
micrometer particle sizing measurements.  The efficiency of particle
removal by the DD is a function of flow rate through the device, as
shown in Figure 28, so that the utilization of different flow rates will
allow size distribution measurements with the CNC.

To obtain successful measurements with the CNC it is often necessary
to dilute and modify the static pressure of the gas stream to be
sampled.  Various  diluters are employed by GCA/Technology Division.
Each system mixes the sample stream with filtered air, and the
measured flow rates of the sample and dilution streams are used to
calculate the total sample dilution.

Dilution systems were utilized to dilute the gas stream up to 200 times
and to raise the static pressure of the gas stream, since the CNC will
not operate  properly if the static pressure of the sample is too far
below atmospheric.

Table  14  contains  the  data obtained with the CNC.
                                  120

-------
Ivi
            O.I

          0.08

          O.O6


          0.04
          O.O2
          0.01
                  i  i  i
                                              I     I
i  i
                                                                        _L
 3    4    5  6  7  8 9 10           20      30   40
FLOW RATE THROUGH  DIFFUSION-DENUDER,cc/sec.
                                                       I    I	1	1—L
                                                                                            60    80  100
                     Figure 28.  Diffusion denuder size cutoffs as a function of  flow rate

-------
Table 14.  CNC DATA
Run no.
3222
Outlet




Inlet


1222
Outlet


Inlet

3122
Outlet




Inlet




1122
Outlet


Inlet


Particle
diameter
Lower
limit, um

0.0025
0.0145

0.048

0.0025
0.0145
0.048

0.0025
0.0145

0.0025
0.0145

0.0025

0.0145
0.048

0.0025

0.0145

0.048

0.0025
0.0145

0.0025

0.0145
Concentration
Number of
particles
per cnr*
o , -.n6
3.1 x 10
6
2.8 x 10
5
6.4 x 10
6
3.8 x 10°
6
3.6 x 10
8.4 x 105
6
5.3 x 10
7.7 x 105
6
2.2 x 10
1.4 x 106
6
2.6 x 10
6
2.1 x 10°
5.8 x 105
6
2.8 x 10
6
3.0 x 10°
6
1.1 x 10
6
3.9 x 10°
9.2 x 105
6
2.2 x 10
6
1.4 x 10
        122

-------
                                 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/2-76-202
                            2.
                                                        3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Laboratory Evaluation of the Cleanable High Efficiency
  Air Filter (CHEAP)
                                       5. REPORT DATE
                                         July 1976
                                       6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTMOR(S)

Manuel T.  Rei and Douglas W. Cooper
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 GCA Corporation
 Burlington Road
 Bedford, MA  01730
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                         I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                        GCA-TR-76-9-G
                                        10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                        1AB012; ROAP 21ADL-004
                                        11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                        68-02-1487
                                        13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                        Task Final;  Through 5/76
                                        14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                         EPA-ORD
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES project officer for this report is D. L.  Harmon, Mail Drop 61,
 Ext 2925.  Previous report in this series was EPA-650/2-75-024a.
              report  gives  resuits of testing a novel scrubber, the Cleanable High
 Efficiency Air Filter  (CHEAF),  as part of a program to identify novel high efficiency
 fine particle control  devices.  The scrubber was tested at room temperature, using
 iron oxide aerosols  of concentrations near 0.2 g/cu m (0.1 grain/cu ft), mass median
 aerodynamic diameter of 1.1 micrometers.  Inlet and outlet samples were taken with
 cascade impactors,  total mass  filters, a condensation nuclei counter, and an
 optical particle counter.  These tests were performed with different filter media, at
 different face velocities, and  at different water  spray rates and water recycle rates.
 Efficiency increased with  increases in:  foam pores per inch, pressure drop, flow
 rate, spray rate, and  make-up water addition.  The results were consistent with the
 hypothesis that impaction  is the major collection mechanism and re-entrainment
 contributes substantially  to penetration.  Total mass efficiency was approximately
 95 percent at normal conditions, for which the pressure drop across the CHEAF was
 80 cm (31.5 inches)  WC. The particle aerodynamic  cut diameter, for which the
 efficiency would be 50 percent at these  conditions, was determined from cascade
 impactor data to be below  0.5  /im.   This  indicates  that the 50 percent cut diameter for
 the CHEAF is smaller than  for  a venturi  scrubber operating at the same pressure drop.
17.
a.
                              KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
 Air Pollution
 Air Filters
 Scrubbers
 Dust
 Aerosols
 Tests
                           Air Pollution Control
                           Stationary Sources
                           CHEAF
                           Particulate
                           b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                       COSATI Field/Group
 13B
 13K
 07A
 11G
 07D
 14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Unlimited
                           19, SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                           Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
    132
                           20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                           Unclassified
                                                                      22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                          123

-------