5EFK
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/2-80-042a
January 1980
Research and Development
Source Assessment:
Cotton and Synthetic
Woven Fabric Finishing
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
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-600/2-80-042a
January 1980
Source Assessment:
Cotton and Synthetic
Woven Fabric Finishing
by
W.D. McCurley and G.D. Rawlings
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton. Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
Task No. 35
Program Element Nos. 1AB604 and 1BB610
EPA Project Officer: Max Samfield
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington. DC 20460
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility
for insuring that pollution control technology is available for
stationary sources to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and solid waste legis-
lation. If control technology is unavailable, inadequate, or
uneconomical, then financial support is provided for the develop-
ment of the needed control techniques for industrial and extract-
ive process industries. Approaches considered include: process
modifications, feedstock modifications, add-on control devices,
and complete process substitution. The scale of the control
technology programs ranges from bench- to full-scale demonstra-
tion plants.
The Chemical Processes Branch of the Industrial Processes Divi-
sion of IERL has the responsibility for developing control tech-
nology for a large number of operations (more than 500) in the
chemical industries. As in any technical program, the first
question to answer is, "Where are the unsolved problems?" This
is a determination which should not be made on superficial infor-
mation; consequently, each of the industries is being evaluated
in detail to determine if there is, in EPA's judgment, sufficient
environmental risk associated with the process to indicate that
pollution reduction is necessary. This report contains the data
necessary to make that decision for air emissions, water efflu-
ents, and solid residues from woven fabric finishing manufacturing.
Monsanto Research Corporation has contracted with EPA to investi-
gate the environmental impact of various industries which repre-
sent sources of pollution in accordance with EPA's responsibility
as outlined above. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as Program
Manager in this overall program, entitled "Source Assessment,"
which includes the investigation of sources in each of four cate-
gories: combustion, organic materials, inorganic materials, and
open sources. In this study of woven fabric finishing, Dr. Max
Samfield of the Industrial Processes Division at Research Triangle
Park served as EPA Project Officer.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes and assesses the potential environmental
impact of air emissions, wastewater effluents, and solid wastes
resulting from the woven fabric finishing segment of the textile
manufacturing industry. The multimedia emissions characteriza-
tion identifies all emission points and emission species, deter-
mines their emission rates, evaluates the potential environmental
effect due to their release, and discusses existing and emerging
control technologies.
In terms of air emissions, the primary emission species include
particulates, and nonmethane total hydrocarbons. Specific emis-
sion species include chlorinated benzenes, phthalate esters,
methyl Clx to C2o esters, benzoic acid, naphthalenes, and aliphatic
hydrocarbons. The primary source of these emissions are from
dryers associated with heat setting, dyeing, and printing.
Approximately one-third of the woven fabric finishing plants
treat their wastewater on-site, the remainder (indirect dis-
chargers) discharge to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
Criteria pollutants which this industry segment must monitor
include E-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), chromium, oil and
grease, sulfide, phenol, and color. In addition, studies have
shown that 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene,
pentachlorophenol, copper, and zinc are present in the effluent.
Solid waste generated consists of process waste (paper, drums,
waste fabric) and sludge from the wastewater treatment plant.
Approximately 88% (dry weight) of the waste is process waste.
These wastes are disposed of by landfilling, incineration, and
land application.
This report, submitted under Contract No. 68-02-1874 by Monsanto
Research Corporation under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, covers the period from March 1977 to
January 1980.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Preface iii
Abstract iv
Figures yii
Tables viii
Abbreviations and symbols xi
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Source Description 6
Industry description 6
Source definition 9
Process description 10
Materials flow 27
4. Air Emissions 31
Sources and nature 31
Emissions data 31
Environmental effects 38
Control technology 43
5. Wastewater Effluents and Control Technology .... 51
Introduction 51
Wastewater sources and characterization. ... 52
Effluent data 58
Potential Environmental Impact 61
Control technology 73
6. Solid Wastes 86
Source and nature 86
Solid waste discharges data 89
Disposal methods 91
Environmental impact 95
Environmental controls 96
References 98
Appendices
A. MRC air sampling program 104
,B. Emissions data obtained from MRC sampling program . 113
C. Derivation of source severity equations 151
D. Location of woven fabric finishing plant and popu-
lation densities of surrounding areas 164
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendices (continued)
E. EPA effluent guidelines division of priority
pollutants for B.A.T. revision studies
F. Hazard factors developed for use in water
prioritization
G. Hazard factors developed for use in source
severity calculation of stationary water pollut-
ant sources
H. Chemicals used in textile processing
Glossary
Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes
167
169
171
174
179
182
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Fiber construction 6
2 Woven fabric finishing process 12
3 Continuous scouring and bleaching range ....... 14
4 Four-color, roller printing machine 20
5 Sanforizing range 24
6 Main belt shrinker 24
7 Continuous unit for applying durable water repellent
finishes 26
8 Flow diagram of wastewater sources at a typical woven
fabric finishing plant 54
9 Appearance of organic priority pollutants in the raw
wastewater of 11 woven fabric finishing plants. . . 66
10 Appearance of organic priority pollutants in the
secondary effluents of 11 woven fabric finishing
plants 67
11 Woven fabric finishing wastewater treatment model
schematic meeting 1977 (BPT) limitations 78
12 Diagram of a reactor clarifier 81
VI1
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Process Related Average Air Emission
Factors from Four Woven Fabric Finishing Plants. . . 3
2 Source Severity Values for an Average Plant 3
3 Summary of Effluent Discharge Factors and Source
Severities 4
4 General Statistics - Textile Mill Products Najor
Industrial Group 7
5 Survey Status Summary - Mills on Master List 8
6 Geographical Distribution - Mills on Master List ... 9
7 Production Size - Mills on Master List 11
8 Relative Amounts of Dye Used in Dyeing Cotton Fabrics. 17
9 Special Finishes Applied to Cotton and Synthetic
Textile Fabrics 22
10 Chemicals Associated with Typical Processes Used in
Cotton Textile Finishing Plants 28
11 Chemicals Associated with Typical Processes Used in
Polyester Textile Finishing Plants 29
12 Chemicals Related to Special Finishing in Textile
Finishing Plants 30
13 Emission Factors Determined for a Heat Setting
Operation 33
14 Average Emission Factors for Thermosol Dye Ranges. . . 34
15 Average Emission Factors for Resin Finishing Tenter
Frames 35
16 Average Emission Factors for Resin Finish Curing Ovens 37
17 Nonmethane Total Hydrocarbon Emissions 38
18 Pollutant Severity Equations for Elevated Sources. . . 40
19 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. 41
20 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) Used for Noncriteria
Pollutants 41
van
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
21 Source Severity Values for Air Emissions From
Selected Unit Operations at an Average Woven
Fabric Finishing Plant 42
22 Affected Population Values for Air Emissions 43
23 Number of Direct and Indirect Dischargers for Textile
Woven Fabric Finishing Plants 51
24 Water Usage Data and Total Plant Wastewater Discharge
Data for Textile Woven Fabric Finishing Plants ... 53
25 Wastewater Composition During Removal Desizing of
Natural Starch Size 55
26 Raw Wastewater Characteristics - Summary of Data
Reported by Woven Fabric Finishing Plants 59
27 BPT Effluent Characteristics - Summary of Data
Reported by Woven Fabric Finishing Plants 60
28 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Data, and
Plant Specific Data for 11 Woven Fabric Finishing
Plants 62
29 Priority Pollutant Concentrations for Influent and
Effluent Streams at 11 Woven Fabric Finishing Plants 64
30 General Woven Fabric Finishing Source Severity for
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants 71
31 Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Source
Severity for 11 Woven Fabric Finishing Plants. ... 72
32 Source Severity Values Greater than 0.001 for the
Organic Priority Pollutants in Effluents from 11
Woven Fabric Finishing Plants 73
33 Source Severity Values Greater than 0.001 for Metals
Found in Effluents from 11 Woven Fabric Finishing
Plants 74
34 Reported In-Plant Control Measures for Woven Fabric
Finishing Plants 75
35 Summary of Current End-of-Pipe Woven Fabric Finishing
Treatment Practices for Direct and Indirect
Dischargers 77
36 Specific Quantitative Treatment Technology Information
Employed by Direct and Indirect Woven Fabric
Finishing Dischargers 79
37 Demonstrated Removal Efficiencies of Activated Sludge
for BOD, COD, and TSS 79
IX
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
38 Anticipated Treatment Removal Efficiencies of BOD,
COD, TSS, Grease, and Color from Textile
Wastewaters 82
39 Woven Fabric Finishing BPT and Proposed BAT Effluent
Guidelines and Percent Difference 84
40 Recommended BATEA Process for 11 Woven Fabric
Finishing Plants 85
41 Dye Use by Fiber Type 87
42 Estimated Quantities of Total and Potentially
Hazardous Land Destined Wastes from Woven Fabric
Finishing for 1974, 1977, and 1983 89
43 Emission Factors for Solid Wastes Produced During
Woven Fabric Dyeing and Finishing Operations .... 90
44 Woven Fabric Dyeing and Finishing-Sludge Analyses. . . 91
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
a. . .f
AA
A. . .F
Aa
AAQS
ASTM
BOD
1,2-
• «n
CD
CM
CO
COD
DP
e
EF
exp
F
Fe
FMZ
GC-MS
H
I CAP
LC50(96-hr)
M
NEDS
NOX
NPDES
NSPS
P1
PCS
pH
POM
ppm
constants used in dispersion equations
atomic absorption
atmospheric stability classes
area containing the affected population, km2
ambient air quality standard
ratio Q/acnu
American Society for Testing and Materials
biological oxygen demand
ratio -H2/2c2
confidential
organic molecules containing from 1 to n carbon
atoms
concentration of a pollutant in an effluent, g/m3
combustion modification
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
population density, persons/km2
2.72
emission factor, g/kg
exponent of e
hazard factor, g/m3
effluent hazard factor, g/m3
fraction of river flow in a mixing zone
gas chromatograph-mass spectroscopy
height of emission release, m
inductively coupled argon plasma
concentration lethal to 50% of a group of test
organisms in a 96-hr period, g/m3
molar
National Emissions Data System
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
new source performance standards
total affected population
polychlorinated biphenyls
negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration
polycyclic organic materials
parts per million
xi
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
Q — emission rate, g/s
R — rate of fuel flow
S — percent of sulfur content of coal
S_ — source severity of air pollutant emissions
cL
SAMZ — effluent source severity after the mixing zone
SASS — source assessment sampling system
SBD — effluent source severity before dilution
SCQ — source severity of carbon monoxide emissions
Se — source severity of an effluent species
SHC — source severity of hydrocarbon emissions
SMZ — effluent source severity in the mixing zone
— source severity of nitrogen dioxide emissions
SOX — sulfur oxides
Sp — source severity of particulate emissions
— source severity of sulfur dioxide emissions
— averaging time, min
tQ — short-term averaging time, (3 min)
T.C. — thermocouple
TDS — total dissolved solids, g/m3
TLV — threshold limit value, g/m3
TS — total solids, g/m3
TSS — total suspended solids, g/m3
u — wind speed, m/s
u — average wind speed, m/s
vr — river flow rate, m3/s
VR — minimum river flow rate, m3/s
x — downwind emission dispersion distance from source
of emission release, m
XAD-2 — resin used for trapping organic emissions
y — horizontal distance from centerline of disper-
sion, m
n — 3.1416
a — standard deviation of horizontal dispersion, m
°z — standard deviation of vertical dispersion, m
X — time-averaged ground level concentration of an
emission, g/m3
Xmax — instantaneous maximum ground level concentration,
— tin
g/m3
xii
g/m3
Xmax — time-averaged maximum ground level concentration,
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to characterize air emissions,
wastewater effluents, and solid residues resulting from the woven
fabric finishing segment of the textile manufacturing industry.
This industry segment is represented by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes 2261 and 2262 and includes finishing
of broadwoven fabrics made of cotton and synthetic fibers.
The report contains a source description that defines process
operations, process chemistry, plant capacity, and general source
locations. The multimedia emissions characterization identifies
all emission points and emission species, determines their emis-
sion rates, and evaluates the potential environmental effect due
to their release. Present and emerging control technologies are
also discussed.
In this industry segment, the principal process unit operations
include desizing, scouring, bleaching, mercerizing, heat setting,
dyeing, printing, and adding special finishes. A large variety
of chemicals are used in each unit operation throughout the
industry. Because of the variety of chemicals used and the large
number cf ways the unit operations are arranged in order to proc-
ess different products, no two woven fabric finishing plants are
identical.
Therefore, the assessment approach utilized throughout the report
is to discuss each unit operation, the type of emissions which
may be emitted by each operation, and then assess the industry
emissions across the industry as a whole by using maximum, mini-
mum, and mean values to report ranges of emissions and potential
environmental impacts.
The main body of the report consists of five separate sections.
Section 2 presents a summary of the major findings of the study.
Section 3 presents a detailed description of the processes used
in woven fabric finishing and a general description of the indus-
try. Information on the nature of discharges, their environ-
mental impact, and applicable control technologies are presented
in Sections 4, 5, and 6 for air emissions, wastewater effluents,
and solid wastes, respectively.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
This document characterizes and assesses the potential environ-
mental impact of air emissions, wastewater effluents, and solid
residues released to the environment by the woven fabric finish-
ing segment of the textile manufacturing industry. This industry
segment is principally represented by SIC Codes 2261 and 2262.
Further, this study focuses only on those mills classified as
wet, since the dry mills are considered to have little air emis-
sion and no wastewater discharge.
Of the 336 woven fabric finishing mills considered in the study,
46% were located in the states of Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina. Another 25% were located in the
northeastern states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New Jersey and New York.
Woven fabric finishing operations are performed using many com-
binations of the following units operations: desizing, scouring,
bleaching, mercerizing, heat setting, dyeing, printing, and other
special treatments that impart to the fabric one or more of the
following properties: water repellence, soil repellence, flame
retardance, shape retention, static resistance, abrasion resist-
ance, and germicidal and fungicidal characteristics. The opera-
tions that any single manufacturing plant may use depend on the
type of fiber used and the product end use.
In terms of air emissions, the principal sources include vents
and exhaust hoods from the drying, singeing, scouring, desizing,
bleaching, dyeing, and printing operations. Since there was only
a small amount of air emissions data available in the open liter-
ature, MRC conducted a comprehensive organic analysis of air
emissions from four typical woven fabric finishing plants.
Samples of off-gases were collected from heat setting, Thermosol
dyeing, finishing on a tenter frame, and curing of finished goods
in a curing oven. Average emission factors were determined for
these sources and are presented in Table 1.
The potential environmental effect of air emissions from typical
woven fabric finishing plants was evaluated using source sever-
ity, S , defined as the ratio of the time-averaged maximum ground
level concentration (xmax) to an appropriate hazard factor (F).
The values of x__v were Calculated from accepted plume dispersion
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PROCESS RELATED AVERAGE AIR EMISSION
FACTORS FROM FOUR WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS
Emission species
Particulate
Total nonme thane hydrocarbon
Phthalate esters
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl GU to €20 esters
Aliphatics (C12-C34)
Naphthalenes
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Anthraquinone
Benzoic acid
Emission
Heat
setting
290
645
0.2-1.3
4.9
12
0.3
150
factor by
Thermosol
dyeing
230
480
0.1-2.3
0.3
13
18
0.4-4.0
22
0.01-3.0
1.6
0.7
10
3
9.6
source type, mg/kg
of fabric
Resin Resin
finishing finishing
tenter frame curing oven
560
3,160
0.6-130
1.1
4.3
5.3
0.5
140
1-11
16
380
320
50
3.1
7
160
2,600
0.01-2
1.9
24
31
69
0.3-3
0.06
0.06
600
3.3
6.5
130
Blanks indicate species not detected.
equations and emission factors determined from the field sampling
program. The hazard factor is defined as the primary ambient air
quality standard in the case of particulates and total nonmethane
hydrocarbons and as a reduced threshold limit value (TLV®),
F = TLV x 8/24 x 1/100, for other emission species. The factor
8/24 adjusts the TLV for a 24-hr exposure while 1/100 is a safety
factor.
The resulting source severity factors for an average plant pro-
ducing 11,400 mg/yr are shown in Table 2. The source severities
for all other emission species was less than 0.001.
TABLE 2. SOURCE SEVERITY VALUES FOR AN AVERAGE PLANT
Source severity
Emission species
Particulate
Total nonmethane
hydrocarbon
Heat
setting
0.03
0.17
Thermosol
dye range
0.03
0.12
Resin finishing
tenter frame
0.06
0.82
Resin finishing
curing ovens
0.02
0.68
-------
In terms of wastewater, eight unit operations within a woven
fabric finishing plant generate wastewater: desizing, scouring,
bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, functional finishing,
and sanitary wastes. At all mills the various wastewaters are
collectively treated on site or passed to a Public Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) for treatment. Therefore, instead of assessing
effluents from each process unit operation, this study focused
on the range in effluent quality and quantity across the industry.
The basic wastewater treatment plant employed for textile waste-
water from direct dischargers consists of screening, activated
sludge (using surface aeration), clarification and chlorination.
The range in final effluent pollutant discharge factors for the
criteria pollutants and priority pollutants across the industry
is given in Table 3.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
FACTORS AND SOURCE SEVERITIES
Effluent
Discharge factor source
Pollutant parameter g/kg of fabric severity
BOD5
COD'
TSS
Oil and grease
Phenol (total)
Chromium (total)
Sulfide
Color, APHA units
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
2.1-4.1
29-39
4.6-7.6
1.0
2.8-17
2.5-3.7
10-90
100-300
2.2
3.1
0.3
0.18
0.01
0.04
<0.001
0.5
0.03
0.05
0.09
_a
0.001
0.004-0.036
0.003
0.005-0.034
aNo criteria are available by which to calculate a
severity.
As in the case of air emissions, source severity values for
pollutants in wastewaters were also calculated. The relationship
is the ratio of mass of pollutant discharged in the effluent to
the mass the receiving stream can accept:
(1)
-------
where S = source severity for a pollutant,
® = wastewater effluent flow rate, m3/s
CD = concentration of pollutant in wastewater, g/m3
VR = volumetric flow rate of receiving body, m3/s
F = hazard factor for a pollutant, g/m3
The hazard factor is more complicated to calculate for pollutants
in water than in air because it is directly related to toxicology
data, if the data are available. Results of the source severity
calculations for the principal pollutants are also given in Table
3.
Solid waste generated at woven fabric finishing plants consist of
process waste and sludge from the wastewater treatment plant. In
1977 it was estimated that 37,702 Mg (dry weight) of solid waste
was generated, of that total, 88% was process waste (paper, drums
and waste fabric).
The process related wastes are currently being disposed by land-
fill and incineration, both on-site and off-site. Sludges from
the wastewater treatment plants are being stored in lagoons,
incorporated into agricultural soil, and landfilled. The princi-
pal concern from sludges are potential leachates consisting of
higher concentrations of trace metals, such as chromium, copper,
sodium, and zinc.
-------
SECTION 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
The textile manufacturing industry is to converts natural and
man-made fibers into fabrics and other textile products. Fibers
are processed into yarns which are woven, knit, or otherwise
processed into fabrics. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of
fiber types used to produce yarns [1]. The fabrics are then
dyed, printed, and/or finished.
runs
NATURAL
FIBERS
MANMAOC
FIBERS
1
OFVEEIABU OF ANIMAL OF MINERAL
ORIGIN ORIGIN ORIGIN
eonoN ASBESTOS
METAIS
CUSS
MOL siu
yim
NATURAL
POLYMERS
RAYON COLUIOSE PROTEIN
ESTERS
ACETATE
ETICS
1 1 1 1 1 II
AMIDES POLYESTERS POLYACRVLONITRILE POlWIim POLYVINYllDDtt POLYTtTRARUORO POLVOLEFINS KKYUREINMIES
Figure 1. Fiber construction [1].
[1] Current Industrial Reports. Broadwoven Fabrics Finished,
1974. Series MA-225(75)-l, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C., June 1975. 5 pp.
-------
Finished fabrics are then converted by the Apparel industry into
apparel or into household, commercial, or industrial products such
as upholstery, sheeting, and draperies.
In the United States the textile manufacturing industry is
covered by one of the twenty major groups of manufacturing
industries in the SIC: Major Group 22, Textile Mill Products.
A breakdown of Major Group 22 by four-digit SIC codes is given in
Table 4 [2]. The table also shows the number of establishments
reported in each subclassification.
The SIC code system is designed to keep track of the flow of
goods and products throughout the United States and is primarily
structured around products produced. Therefore, this code system
is not particularly useful for evaluating emissions from specific
unit operations or systems of operations. Table 4 illustrates
this point by showing industry segments which use similar unit
processes and the appropriate SIC code.
TABLE 4. GENERAL STATISTICS - TEXTILE MILL
PRODUCTS MAJOR INDUSTRIAL GROUP [2]
Establishments
Industry segment SIC code total
Weaving mills, cotton All Group No. 221 307
Weaving mills, synthetics All Group No. 222 412
Weaving and finishing
mills, wool All Group No. 223 198
Narrow fabrics mills All Group No. 224 376
Knitting mills (including
finishing) All Group No. 225 2,723
Hosiery mills 2251, 2252 727
All other knitting mills 2253, 2254, 2257,
2258, 2259 1,996
Finishing mills, excluding
wool and knits All Group No. 226 656
Broad woven fabric 2261, 2262 455
Stock, yarn, narrow
fabric, etc. 2269 201
Floor covering mills All Group No. 227 529
Yarn and thread mills All Group No. 228 810
Miscellaneous textile goods All Group No. 229 1,193
Felt goods 2291 47
Nonwoven good 2297 82
Wool scouring and NEC goods 2299 345
Other miscellaneous 2292, 2293, 2294
Textile products 2295, 2296, 2298 719
Textile industry - all
segments Major Group No. 22 7,204
elsewhere classified.
-------
Many studies have categorized the industry based on similar unit
operations and sources of emissions [2-5]. The most recent
attempt to categorize the industry for environmental assessment
purposes was by Sverdrup and Parcel and Associates, Inc. [2].
Under contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Effluent Guidelines Division, they collected data from the
industry to support EPA in issuing effluent limitation guidelines,
new source performance standards, and pretreatment standards.
The resulting subcategorization and respective number of plants
is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5. SURVEY STATUS SUMMARY - MILLS ON MASTER LIST [2]
Total mills
Manufacturing segment listed
Wool scouring 17
Wool finishing 37
Low water use processing 808
Woven fabric finishing 336
Knit fabric finishing 282
Hosiery finishing 160
Carpet finishing 58
Stock and yarn finishing 217
Nonwoven manufacturing 38
Felted fabric processing 20
Total 1,973
Because many textile plants perform more than one operation, the
7,204 establishments are located at 5,500 individual plant sites.
Of the 5,500 mills in Major Group No. 22, Sverdrup and Parcel
[2] Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. Technical Study
Report BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS Textile Mills Point Source Cate-
gory. Contract 68-01-3289 and 68-01-3884, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1978.
[3] Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point
Source Category. EPA-440/l-76-002a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June 1974. 241 pp.
[4] Cooper, S. G. The Textile Industry, Environmental Control
and Energy Conservation. Noyes Data Corporation, Park
Ridge, New Jersey, 1978. 384 pp.
[5] Environmental Pollution Control Textile Processing Industry.
EPA-625/7-78-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1978. 523 pp.
8
-------
found that 3,527 were either closed or classified as having dry
operations - meaning no process water discharged. The remaining
1,973 mills were classified as wet processes and were included in
their study [2].
SOURCE DEFINITION
This study assesses the potential environmental effects from only
one segment of the textile manufacturing industry, woven fabric
finishing (basically SIC subclassifications 2261 and 2262).
Woven fabric finishing mills classified as dry operations include
unit operations such as spinning, tufting, and texturizing.
These mechanical operations have no aqueous emissions and are
considered to have little air emission [2-4]. Therefore, this
study concentrates on the woven fabric finishing industry classi-
fied as wet and uses the industry description recently compiled
for EPA and reported in Reference 2.
The geographical distribution of the industry by EPA regions is
shown in Table 6 [2], Of the 336 woven fabric finishing mills,
155 (46%) are located in EPA Region IV, particularly in the
Carolines and Georgia. Another 25% are in the northeast (New
England, New Jersey, and New York).
TABLE 6. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION - MILLS ON MASTER LIST [2]
Manufacturing
segment
Wool scouring
Wool finishing
Low water use
processing
Woven fabric
finishing
Knit fabric
finishing
Hosiery
finishing
Carpet
finishing
Stock and yarn
finishing
Nonwoven
manufacturing
Felted fabric
processing
Total
I
6
20
86
69
27
2
0
33
10
7
260
II
1
2
108
54
58
2
1
19
3
2
250
III
3
4
125
34
45
9
4
31
4
3
262
EPA
IV
3
3
463
155
134
139
39
120
11
3
1,070
region
V
0
1
11
11
9
5
1
6
7
2
53
VI
3
1
8
3
1
2
4
3
2
0
27
VII
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
6
VIII
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
IX
0
0
4
7
6
0
9
4
1
3
34
X
1
4
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
Total
17
37
808
336
282
160
58
217
38
20
1,973
-------
Table 7 gives the distribution of plants by plant size, expressed
in terms of production exposed to wet processing [2]. Wet produc-
tion is dependent on the weight of material in the final product
and it may be noted in the table that mills producing light
weight products such as hosiery and other sheer knit goods occupy
the smaller production ranges. The woven fabric finishing industry
contains twice as many mills as any other segment processing
greater than 34 mg/day.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Woven fabric finishing operations are performed using many combi-
nations of the following unit operations: desizing, scouring,
bleaching, dyeing, printing, heat setting, drying, singeing, and
other special treatments that impart to the fabric one or more of
the following properties: water repellence, soil repellence,
flame retardance, shape retention, static resistance, abrasion
resistance, and germicidal and fungicidal characteristics. The
operations that a particular fabric undergoes in a finishing
plant depends on the class of fiber (natural, man-made, or blend)
and fabric end use.
A generalized process flow diagram for a woven fabric finishing
plant is shown in Figure 2 and is applicable for processing
cotton, man-made, and/or blended fiber fabrics [6]. Depending on
the fabric and its end use, one or more of the unit operations
may be deleted from the system. There are many information
sources which describe in detail all of the unit operations and
combinations of unit operations associated with woven fabric
finishing [2-5, 7-9]. This section briefly describes each unit
operation and its source and type of emissions.
[6] Corbman, B. P. Textiles: Fiber to Fabric, 5th Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1975. 568 pp.
[7] Wright, M. D., S. D. York, III, and J. J. Kearney. Prioriti-
zation of Emissions from Textile Manufacturing Operations on
the Basis of Potential Impact of New Source Performance
Standards. Contract No. 68-02-2612, Task 64, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, April 1979. 76 pp.
[8] Mathews, J. C., G. E. Weant. III, and J. J. Kearney. Screen-
ing Study on the Justification of Developing New Source Per-
formance Standards for Various Textile Processing Operations.
Contract 68-02-0607, Task 11, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1974.
110 pp.
[9] Collins, L. H. Control Technology Assessment of Selected
Processes in the Textile Finishing Industry. Contract No.
210-76-0176, National Institute for Occupational Health
and Safety, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 1978. 218 pp.
10
-------
TABLE 7. PRODUCTION SIZE - MILLS ON MASTER LIST [2]
Manufacturing
segment
Wool scouring
Wool finishing
Low water use
processing
Woven fabric
finishing
Knit fabric
finishing
Hosiery finishing
Carpet finishing
Stock and yarn
finishing
Nonwoven
manufacturing
Felted fabric
processing
Total
0-2
2
8
10
36
43
94
2
32
3
6
236
2-4
3
9
7
27
26
25
2
47
3
5
153
4-9
0
9
11
33
34
10
7
35
2
2
143
Mills
9-13
1
2
19
28
29
5
3
23
4
1
115
within given
13-22
4
1
23
33
48
2
8
25
3
0
147
22-34
2
2
21
21
21
0
5
20
5
0
97
production range, mg/day
34-45
2
2
7
20
7
0
6
6
2
0
52
45-68
2
0
5
12
9
0
7
7
2
1
45
68-91
0
0
3
9
5
0
5
1
0
0
23
91+
0
0
2
21
1
0
5
2
1
0
32
Unknown
1
4
700
96
59
24
8
19
13
5
929
Total
17
37
808
336
282
160
58
217
38
20
1,973
-------
H
ILEAC
JM
1
LH
T
SETTING
—
VII
I
into I—
0
-iHJ
™j
_ _ i PI 1 1
4,
*— '
M
1
SPEI
FINI
JUJ
T
EIAL
SMS
-------
There are two post-desizing operations. The desized goods are
passed through a caustic bath and a penetrant bath to ready them
for scouring [11].
Scouring
In the scouring operation, spinning oils, wax, dirt, and grease
are removed by cooking the fabric in a hot, alkaline detergent or
soap solution. Pressure kier boiling and continuous atmospheric
pressure scour are two methods in use today for cotton fabrics;
the latter process is becoming more prevalent because it requires
less time.
Pressure kier boiling utilizes a cylindrical pressure vessel
(kier), 1.8 m to 2.7 m in diameter and 3.0 m to 3.7 m high.
Approximately 1,800 kg to 4,500 kg of the fabric is plaited down
in the kier [10]. Preheated alkaline scouring agent, containing
sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium silicate, pine oil
soap, and fatty alcohol sulfates [12], is added and undergoes
constant recirculation through the tank throughout the process.
Cooking is performed at 120°C and 34 kPa to 100 kPa (5 psi to 15
psi) for 2 hr to 12 hr. When the operation is concluded, the
scouring liquid is drained and the fabric rinsed, first with hot
water and then with cold [12].
In continuous ambient pressure scouring, the fabric is saturated
with a caustic solution and plaited down into a J-box where its
detention is about 1 hr. While the fabric is situated in the
J-box, it is heated to a temperature of 99°C to 102°C with steam.
Following the passage of the cloth through the J-box, the heated
fabric is rinsed of scouring solution [10].
For polyester and cotton/polyester blends, four methods of scour-
ing in open-width form are used: 1) utilization of jigs or
becks, 2) continuous range operations, 3) batch operations using
baths,
[11] Schelsinger, H. A., E. F. Dill, and T. A. Fridy, Jr. Pollu-
tion Control in Textile Mills. In: Industrial Pollution
Control Handbook, Chapter 15, Herbert F. Lund, Ed. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1971. 30 pp.
[12] State of the Art of Textile Waste Treatment. EPA-12090 ECD
02/71 (PB 212 359), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., February 1971. 348 pp.
13
-------
and 4) jet scouring operations [13-15]. All of these operations
entail cleansing the fabric with a weak alkaline, detergent
solution. Kier boiling with caustic soda is not performed on
polyester fabrics because fiber degradation occurs as a result of
polyester polymer hydrolysis.
Solvent scouring is one alternative method to the alkaline wet-
process [13]. Three solvents used in the scouring of fabrics are
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
In general terms, the solvent scouring process involves satura-
tion of the fabric with solvent and the subsequent removal of the
solvent by passing the fabric through a steam or hot water cham-
ber. Solvent is continuously purified by filtration or
distillation [13].
Figure 3 illustrates a typical continuous scouring and bleaching
operation [10].
H202 SOLUTION SCOURING LIQUOR
Figure 3. Continuous scouring and bleaching range [10]
[13] Davis, J. W. The Preparation and Dyeing of Polyester-Cotton
Fabrics. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists,
89(3):77-80, 1973.
[14] Forrester, R., L. Wellingham, and G. Gambino. How to
Prepare, Dye, and Finish Textured Polyester Woven Fabrics.
American Dyestuff Reporter, 63(10):27-43, 1974.
[15] Sturkey, W. Preparing, Dyeing, and Finishing textured
Polyester Woven Fabrics. American Dyestuff Reporter,
62(l):42-45, 1973.
14
-------
Bleaching
Following scouring, the fabric preferably undergoes bleaching in
which the natural yellowish shade of the fabric is removed and
replaced with a highly intense, white color. The operation can
be performed in bins, jigs, or on a continuous basis [10].
One of three bleaches is used in finishing cotton: sodium hypo-
chlorite, chlorine, or hydrogen peroxide. When sodium hypo-
chlorite is the bleaching agent, the fabric is rinsed in water,
passed through a bath of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid, and rinsed
in water again. In a batch operation, fabric passes through the
hypochlorite solution, a slight padding is applied to achieve a
uniform distribution of the solution, and the product is stored
in white bins for up to 24 hours at 13°C to 19°C [11]. The
fabric is finally rinsed and moved on for further finishing.
When the continuous bleaching method is practiced, hydrogen
peroxide is commonly used as the oxidizing agent. This operation
is usually conducted in conjunction with a continuous scouring
operation. The bleaching process involves a rinse, saturation
with an alkaline peroxide solution, and a detention period in
the J-box. The cloth then undergoes final rinses.
Heat Setting
Heat setting is used on synthetic fabrics and cotton/synthetic
blended fabrics in order to stabilize shrinkage which may occur
as a result of exposure to hot solutions and drying operations in
subsequent process steps. Steam or hot air at 200°C is used to
transfer heat to the cloth. After emerging from this step, the
dimensional stability of the fabric will not change unless the
operation is repeated at a higher temperature [4, 16].
Mercerizing
Mercerization is conducted to increase the luster, strength, and
dye affinity of the fabric. Fabric mercerization is a continuous
process utilizing padding mangles, a tenter frame, and a number
of boxes for rinsing and scouring (an acidic rinse). The proc-
ess entails the saturation of the cloth with sodium hydroxide,
stretching the cloth while it is saturated, and the removal of
the alkaline solution before releasing the tension. The fabric
is then rinsed and scoured. The padder's function is to achieve
[16] Wastewater Treatment Systems: Upgrading Textile Operations
to Reduce Pollution. EPA Technology Transfer Seminar
Publications, EPA-625/3-74-004, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1974. 45 pp.
15
-------
uniform saturation of the fabric with the alkaline mercerizing
solution. Wetting agents are added to the solution to aid pene-
tration. The tenter frame stretches the fabric while the caustic
solution is acting. The final stage of the operation involves
three rinsing boxes. The first rinse box contains warm water;
the second, a weak sulfuric acid solution; and the third, cold
water [10].
Mercerization wastes are predominantly the sodium hydroxide used
in the process, diluted as a result of the washing step. The
waste stream contains high levels of dissolved solids and may
have a pH of 12 to 13. Depending on whether mercerization is
practiced before or after bleaching, small amounts of foreign
material and wax may be removed from the fiber and will appear as
suspended solids and oil and grease. In total, mercerization has
been found to contribute about 1 percent of the BOD load gener-
ated during the processing of 100 percent cotton woven fabric
[2].
Today, with synthetics and cotton-synthetic blends replacing 100
percent cotton fabric, mercerization is practiced less often.
Most of the mills that do utilize the process have found it
economically attractive to recover sodium hydroxide for reuse.
Consequently, the waste contribution from the process has become
even less significant at many mills.
Dyeing
There are several methods used commercially in dyeing woven
fabrics. The process involves fixing a dye on the fabric to
obtain the desired shade and the best resistance to color-de-
stroying factors. Besides the obvious use of dyes in this opera-
tion, two kinds of dyeing assistants are also utilized: retard-
ing agents, and exhausting agents. Retarding agents prevent
quick fixation to the fabric, which would result in uneven dyeing.
Exhausting agents cause the dye to be firmly attached to the
fibers. Piece dyeing, the general term used to refer to the
dyeing operation as it is conducted in the finishing plant, is
performed utilizing beck, jig, jet, or pad dyeing machines. Some
fabric is dyed using dyebaths or beam dyeing machines that are
operated batchwise. Continuous operations involve the utiliza-
tion of thermosol or thermofix dyeing equipment [10].
The procedure basically involves completion of the following
steps [17]:
[17] Cook, G. Man-made fibers. In: Handbook of Textile Fibers,
4th Edition, II. Morrow Publishing Company, Ltd., Watford
Herts, England, 1968. 895 pp.
16
-------
impregnation of fabric with dye
fixation of dye on fiber Singeing
removal of unreacted dye liquor by washing
drying or curing
Six types of dyes used are: disperse, vat, sulfur, naphthol,
pigment, and reactive [10]. Table 8 shows the relative amounts
of each dye used in a typical cotton dyehouse (personal communi-
cation with O'Jay Niles, American Textile Manufacturers Associa-
tion, Charlotte, North Carolina, January 1977).
TABLE 8. RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF DYE USED
IN DYEING COTTON FABRICS
Dye type Amount used, %
Vat 30
Sulfur 20
Naphthol 10
Reactive 15
Disperse 15
Pigment 10
Pigment dyes are not true dyes in that the dye has no affinity
for the material. The dye is applied to the fabric and held with
resins.
Disperse dyes, which are primarily used on synthetic fibers, are
effective on predominantly cotton fabrics blended with synthetics.
To accelerate the rate of diffusion of the disperse dye into the
polyester fiber, carriers are added to the dye liquor. The most
common dye carriers used for polyester fabric dyeing are ortho-
phenylphenol, benzoic acid, salicyclic acid, phenylmethyl carbi-
nol, monochlorobenzene, and biphenyl. Dyeing at atmospheric
pressure requires a larger amount of carriers than does the same
operation performed under pressure. Dispersing agents, pH con-
trol chemicals, and lubricants are other constituents of the
dyeing solution [17].
Dyeing with direct dyes is customarily performed batchwise in a
dyebath in which the fabric, dye, and appropriate dyeing assis-
tants are properly placed. Dyebath temperature is increased to
94°C to 99°C and maintained for up to one hour. The following
after-treatments to direct dyeing result in increased fastness to
washing and light:
17
-------
Rinsing in a copper sulfate and acetic acid solution.
Rinsing in a potassium chromate and acetic acid solution.
Rinsing with a formaldehyde solution.
An important subgroup of direct dyes are developed dyes which are
formed through diazotizing an amino group of a direct dye com-
pound and creating a new dye directly on the fabric. The three
steps below illustrate the chemistry involved:
Formation of nitrous acid:
NaNO2 + HC1 •* NaCl + HNO2 (2)
Diazotization:
RNH2 + HN02 + HC1 -> RN2C1 + 2H2O (3)
where R is an organic radical (i.e., CsHy)
RN2C1 + HC10H6OH -> RN2C10H6OH + HC1 (4)
In the developing step, the diazotized dye (RN2C1) reacts with
the developer p-naphtol (HC10H6OH) and forms the new dye with the
formula RN2C10H6OH. Several other developers also are in common
use.
In vat dyeing the insoluble dye is reduced to soluble form using
a sodium hydrosulfite and sodium hydroxide solution. Fabric is
saturated with reduced vat dye and then reoxidized back to its
insoluble, colored form directly on the cloth. Oxidation is
caused by treatment in a bath with sodium perborate and steam or
sodium dichromate and acetic acid. After reoxidation the fabric
is warm washed and then soaped. The final steps are rinsing and
drying.
Sulfur dyes are similar to vat dyes. Sodium sulfide or hydro-
sulfite is utilized to dissolve the dye before exposure to the
fabric. A large amount of exhausting agent (salts) must be used
for the fabric to efficiently consume the dye. Color is revived
by oxidation with sodium perborate, hydrogen peroxide, or potas-
sium dichromate and acetic acid.
Naphthol dyeing involves the same concepts utilized in developed
direct dyeing, but in a reverse manner. Fabric is initially
impregnated with developer and new dye is formed when the cloth
passes through a diazotized dye bath.
Reactive dyes represent the newest class of dyes used in dyeing
cotton fabrics. The forces which cause attraction between most
dyestuffs and textile fibers are not of the chemical bond nature
such as those which hold the atoms of the dye or cellulose
18
-------
molecule together. Instead, reactive dyes link with the cellu-
lose molecule utilizing a chemical bond to produce dyed fabric of
exceedingly good wet-fastness qualities [10].
Cellulose contains many hydroxyl groups, which are the sites
where the reactive dye will bond under alkaline conditions.
Reactive dyes have the characteristic formula, S-R-X, where S
represents a solubilizing group, R is a colored organic molecule,
and X is a reactive halogen atom [18]. Chemical bonds are formed
with the cellulose molecule according to the reaction equation
shown below [18]. Reactive dyes can be applied utilizing contin-
uous, pad-batch, or exhaust procedures.
S-R-X + H-O-cellulose -» S-R-O-cellulose + HX (5)
The continuous process involves the following four steps: pad-
ding of the dyestuff, drying, fixation, and final rinses. Dye
solution consists of the dye (chloropyrimidine or dichloroquin-
oxyline types), urea, soda ash, antireducing agent, and a thick-
ener. Drying occurs at 100°C over a time interval of 1 min. The
dye is fixed using the thermofix process at a temperature of
166°C for 90 s. The dyed fabric then encounters final hot and
cold water baths and a detergent rinse which removes excess
materials.
The pad-batch method of dyeing cotton fabrics with reactive dyes
is similar to the continuous method with an exception in the
fixation step. Vinyl sulfone-type reactive dyes are utilized in
this method, and fixation of the dye occurs over a 16-hr span at
20°C to 30°C. Following fixation, soaping and rinsing operations
cleanse the fabric of process chemicals.
Chlorotriazine-type reactive dyes are used in the exhaust method
of dyeing cotton fabrics. The process involves adding common
salt gradually to the dyebath over a 40-min period, followed by
addition of soda ash. The acquired alkalinity of the dyebath
initiates the fixation step. The final operations are rinses and
soaping [10].
Drying
Following the dyeing of a fabric, the cloth is dried regardless
of the type of dye used. A typical piece of fabric is dried
three times on the average in the finishing mill. Drying opera-
tions occur after bleaching, dyeing or printing, and finishing.
Drying is conducted at 100°C to 115°C for cotton fabrics and
utilizes tenter frames or can-drying equipment.
[18] Postman, W. Dyeing: Theory and Practice. National Aniline
Division, Allied Chemicals, New York, New York, 1970.
40 pp.
19
-------
Tentering, a forced air drying technique, consists of two endless
chains riding in rugged rails. The chains are constructed with
clips or pins, which clasp the selvage of the fabric and trans-
port it into a heated enclosure where a steady stream of hot air
removes any moisture. Clip frames are usually used for drying
cotton fabrics, and the entire process operates continuously
[10].
Can-drying, a direct contact drying technique, involves drying of
the fabric on rollers or cans which are heated using steam.
Printing
Roller printing and screen printing are two major methods of
printing colored designs or patterns on cotton broadwoven fabric.
A total of 394 roller printing machines were operating in textile
finishing mills in 1973 [19]. Of this total, 165 were primarily
utilized in the printing of cotton fabrics. Figure 4 illustrates
the essence of a four-color, roller printing machine. The large
drum (pressure bowl) rotates the fabric as the engraved rolls
(rolls A, B, C, and D) print a pattern. The printing rolls are
constantly padded with dye paste from the nearby color boxes.
After printing the dye (dye paste) is fixed on the fabric in an
operation termed aging. In this process, the cloth is treated
with steam from 1 min to 10 min at 88°C to 100°C. Fixation is
also achieved using steam, an operation that is similar to aging.
[PRESSURE BOWL
Figure 4. Four-color, roller printing machine [11]
20
-------
Treatment time in fixation by steaming is longer (1/2 hr to 2 hr)
and hotter (100°C) than that used in ordinary aging. In either
case, the key function is to permit the dye to penetrate the
fabric and react with chemicals in the dyepaste to yield high-
quality fastness characteristics. Final printing operations
include washing, rinsing, and drying [10].
Printing pastes are composed generally of a dye, a thickener, a
hygroscopic substance, water, and other dyeing assistants. The
most common hygroscopic substance used is glycerol. Common
thickening agents used are starches, British gum, and vegetable
gums.
Screen printing can be performed utilizing a flat screen or
rotary screen. In 1973, there were 515 screen printing machines
in the United States of which 208 were used primarily to process
cotton broadwoven fabric [19].
Flat screen printing is performed manually or using electronical-
ly controlled automatic machines. Hand screen printing is a
lengthy operation and is limited to fabric lengths of 54 m.
Fabric to be printed is spread out on a long table. The desired
pattern is obtained using prepared screens which are laid on the
fabric and covered with dyepaste, which is spread uniformly with
a squeegee. A pattern appears after the screen is removed. The
automatic method screen-prints fabric at a rate up to 411 m/hr.
In this method, the hand process is merely mechanized. One
exception is the use of an adhesive to coat the back of the
cloth. The adhesive causes the cloth to adhere to a conveyor
belt that serves as a tabletop during the operation [6]. The
last operation in the printing range is drying.
Rotary screen printing combines features of roller and flat
screen printing. This printing machine utilizes cylindrical
screens in applying designs to the cloth. Fabric is printed as
the cloth rides a conveyor printing blanket. Adhesion to the
blanket is accomplished using an adhesive or a mechanical grip-
ping device. Dyepaste is forced through the cloth as it travels
through the machine at speeds up to 91 m/min. Finally, the cloth
is dried.
Singeing
When woven cotton fabric is received at the finishing mill, its
surface has a fuzzy or hairy texture due to loose fibers. The
singeing operation burns off the fuzz and a smooth finish is
imparted to the surface. Three types of singers in use are
[19] 1972 Census of Manufacturers. Textile Machinery in Place.
Special Report Series. MC72(SR)-5, U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Washington, D.C., August 1973. 11 pp.
21
-------
plate, roller, and gas [10]. The first two methods involve
passing the fabric over heated plates or a heated roller. Gas
singeing, the most predominant type, entails the passage of the
cloth over a gas flame at a high speed (275 m/min) [10]. Follow-
ing singeing, the fabric travels through a water box to extin-
guish any sparks.
Special Finishing
Special finishing operations endow the fabric with a particular
appearance, surface texture, or behavior characteristics. Sev-
eral special finishing operations were mentioned earlier but a
more complete list along with the relative amounts of fabric
treated in each method is presented in Table 9 (personal com-
munication with O'Jay Niles, American Textile Manufacturers
Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, August 1977). These fin-
ishes generally do not depend on the type of fiber composing the
fabric. Most fabrics receive one or more of these finishes, as
dictated by the requirements to meet the consumer's needs.
TABLE 9. SPECIAL FINISHES APPLIED TO COTTON
AND SYNTHETIC TEXTILE FABRICS [6]
a
Type of finish [6]
Amount of
fabric treated, %'
Polyester
Cotton and blends
Type of operation
Compressive shrinkage
Shape-retentive finishes
Water-repellent finishes
Flameproofing or retardancy
Stain- repellent finishes
Antistatic finishes.
Germicidal finishes.
Fungicidal finishes
Stiffening
Absorbent finishes
Soil release finishes
Moireing
Embossing
Calendaring
20
30
20
20
30
0
1
2
5
1
5
1
0
10
0
0
5
10
30
5
2
0
0
2
10
1
1
10
Mechanical
Coating
Coating
Coating
Coating
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment
Mechanical
Mechanical
Personal communication, O'Jay Niles, August 1977.
Antibacterial finishes could replace germicidal and fungicidal
finishes.
Much developmental work has been conducted in recent years con-
cerning the composition and application of chemical resin or
22
-------
organic finishes. The general sequence shown below is followed
in chemically treating the fabric [6]:
• padding the fabric with the chemical finish
drying the fabric
curing or setting the finish
rinsing in order to remove excess material
Curing involves exposure of the treated fabric to temperatures in
excess of 205°C [20].
Due to the large number of finishing treatments, only the opera-
tions performed to a high degree (as derived from Table 9) are
described in this report.
Cempressive Shrinkage—
Fibers are in a state of tension while undergoing weaving.
Fibers tend to return to their natural unstretched state when
exposed to wet operations in the finishing plant. Although a
substantial amount of shrinkage occurs during these operations,
the fabric will likely experience further shrinkage when washed
by the consumer. Shrinkage is a problem generally characteristic
of cellulosic fabrics since most synthetic fiber fabrics are
dimensionally stable due to the heat setting operation [6].
To maximize the shrinkage in the finishing operations, the fabric
is exposed to a special shrinking operation, such as compressive
shrinkage, wherein tension is exerted on the fabric when it is
damp.
The initial step in the sanforizing operation is to determine the
normal shrinkage that the fabric will experience utilizing a
standard wash or shrinkage test. The compressive shrinkage
machine, shown in Figure 5 is preset to shrink the cloth this
predetermined amount. As the material enters the range it en-
counters a series of tension bars, guide rolls, and feed-control
rolls. The feed-control rolls indirectly control the amount of
shrinkage that the fabric experiences by regulating the rate at
which material enters the range. From these rolls a steam hous-
ing unit dampens the fabric so that the fiber swells and becomes
soft. The next unit, the skyer, allows the moisture absorbed to
fully penetrate the fabric. The segment of the machine where the
actual shrinkage occurs is illustrated in Figure 6. In this unit
the fabric adheres to the stretched surface of the felt blanket
as a result of the reversal of curvature in its path. Fabric
[20] Mathews, J. C., G. E. Weant III, and J. J. Kearney. Screen-
ing Study on the Justification of Developing New Source Per-
formance Standards for Various Processing Operations.
Contract 68-02-0607-11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1974. 106 pp.
23
-------
STEAM
.._ LEAD WHEN AUXILIARY MACHINE
—r^_ JS NOT USED
HEATING
CYLINDER
CLIP
MACHINE £ EXPANDER!/'
. *e^T£ . . \ .
A
STEAM
SPRAYS JU*
CONTROL \ ,' I
ROLLS; '—"•;
V AUTOMAT 1C
GUIDER;
WATEJ?
SPRAY
Figure 5. Sanforizing range [11].
Figure 6. Main belt shrinker [11]
then shrinks uniformly as a consequence of its adhesion to the
outer surface of the blanket [10].
Overall machine operation creates a lengthwise tension in the
material, causing it to decrease in width (narrowing). To remedy
this situation, a small tenter frame (clip expander) stretches
the cloth to the required width. A smooth finish is automatical-
ly imparted on the surface of the cloth that is adjacent to the
main heated cylinder. If this finish is desired on both sides,
the fabric travels through the auxiliary machine.
24
-------
Some fabrics are treated with resins to control shrinkage. The
typical resin used is urea-formaldehyde. The operation consists
of padding the fabric with the resin, followed by drying and heat
curing [20].
Shape-Retentive and Permanent Press Finishes—
Cellulosic cotton fibers lack the resilience properties of wool,
silk, or manmade fibers. To make cotton fabrics desirable to the
consumer, who demands easily cared-for garments, wrinkle-resist-
ant finishes were developed. Later, a new breed of cotton fabric
known as permanent press finished was produced.
Compounds used to obtain wrinkle-resistant finishes are urea
formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, or dimethylol-
ethylene urea resin. These resin compounds combine chemically
with the cotton fiber in a process known as cross-linking.
Adjacent molecular chains of cellulose in the fiber are bonded
together in a way that prohibits intermolecular slippage. Vinyl
sulfones and epichlorohydrin are in limited use as wrinkle-re-
sistant agents. Application of these compounds involves padding
the broadwoven cloth with a solution containing the finishing
resin, an appropriate catalyst (zinc chloride) softening agents,
and wetting agents. Treated fabric is dryed on a tenter frame at
a temperature below 94°C. Curing is then performed at temper-
atures above 125°C. Following curing, two soapings and two addi-
tional rinses are applied to remove any excess catalyst or resin
from the material [6, 10].
Permanent press finishes were developed as a remedy to the gar-
ment manufacturers' problem encountered in shaping wrinkle-resist-
ant goods. Several permanent press finishes are used commercial-
ly, all of which are designated by trade names. The first com-
mercially available finish of this type was Koratron, developed
in 1963, in which the fabric was treated with imidazolidone at
the finishing plant. After application, the cloth is dried at
low temperatures to prohibit the setting reaction of the imidazo-
li done. Treated material is sent to the garment manufacturer,
who cuts and sews the cloth. Finished garmets are hung on spe-
cial hangers and passed through a 160°C curing oven. This final
curing operation, performed at the garment manufacturing plant,
permanently sets the shape given to the cloth on pressing
machines.
Water Resistant Finishes—
Two types of water resistant finishes are available. One con-
sists of a waterproof finish in which an impenetrable water-re-
sistant film coats the surface of the fabric. When individual
fibers are subject to coating with water-resistant compounds, the
finish is termed repellent. Water resisting finishes are also
categorized as durable or nondurable. A durable water repellent
finish is defined as one for which the repellency will withstand
laundering and drycleaning for the entire life of the garment.
25
-------
Fabrics that are treated for water resistance but that cannot
withstand ordinary cleaning operations are termed nondurable.
Durable water repellents include such compounds as stearamido
methyl pyridinium chloride, stearoxy methyl pyridinium chloride,
combinations of melamine resins and stearamides, and silicone
compounds. These compounds are applied in a continuous process
consisting of the following operations: padding, drying, curing,
and washing. Figure 7 shows a possible arrangement for applying
water repellent finishes [6, 10].
PADDER DRYER
Figure 7.
BAKER
WASHER
Continuous unit for applying durable
water repellent finishes [10].
150°C
205°C
fiber
ucts.
During the drying and curing operations, substituted pyridinium
chloride compounds decompose as a result of high process tempera-
tures. Drying is performed at temperatures ranging from 110°C to
Curing is conducted at temperatures ranging from 116°C to
The decomposition fixes a C17H3s radical on the cotton
Pyridine and hydrochloric acid are decomposition prod-
Air emissions from the drying and curing operations con-
tain these two species and have a disagreeable odor (pyridine).
Washing is usually performed in an open-width box washer consist-
ing of seven or eight boxes. The first two boxes contain deter-
gent and alkali to neutralize the acid decomposition products.
The remaining boxes contain hot and cold water. After final
washing, the fabric is dried.
Nondurable water repellent finishes are based on a paraffin
wax-aluminum acetate emulsion. Zirconium salts are being substi-
tuted for aluminum in some cases, since a higher quality finish
results. This type of finish is applied on a continuous manner
utilizing simple pad and dry operations. Drying of the treated
fabric is performed at 102°C to 110°C. At these temperatures,
the wax used melts, resulting in better film coverage.
Waterproofing a fabric involves coating it with a compound that
is totally insoluble in water. Most waterproofing substances in
use today are vinyl resins. The Koroseal waterproofing process
entails coating of the surface of the cloth with polyvinyl
chloride.
26
-------
Other Finishes—
Most other special finishes consist of either a mechanical,
resin, or chemical treatment of the fabric. The finishes covered
above consist of the major resin and chemical treatments that
would be the largest contributors to the emission streams.
MATERIALS FLOW
Because many chemicals are used by the textile finishing industry
in a variety of processes, it would be very difficult to evaluate
the mass emissions from each chemical used, especially since many
materials are sparsely used. However, the finishing industry is
subject to rapid changes in chemical usage and an overall look at
the materials flow is of value. Based upon a review of litera-
ture sources, the chemicals associated with each unit operation
were deduced. These conclusions were reviewed with the ATMI air
subcommittee (November 1976, Fred Rainey, Chairman) to represent
current practice in industry.
A list of major chemicals known to be used in the cotton finish-
ing industry is given in Table 10 (next page). In the table,
these chemicals are classified by the major processing steps
involved as discussed in the Process Description section of this
document. The constituents of typical baths are provided where
applicable. For each process step, the most predominant methods
are listed first. In addition to the chemicals listed, solvents
are widely used in the dyeing, printing, and special finishing
operations.
Chemical usage for polyester and cotton/polyester blends finish-
ing is provided in Table 11 in the same manner as shown for
cotton finishing.
Special Finishes
Special finishes and their related chemical usage are given in
Table 12 [16].
27
-------
TABLE 10. CHEMICALS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL PROCESSES
USED IN COTTON TEXTILE FINISHING PLANTS
Process
Methods
Typical bath constituents
Desizing
Scouring
Bleaching
Sulfuric acid
Enzymes
Detergents
Caustic soda
Hydrogen peroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Mercerizing Caustic soda
Dyeing Direct
Sulfur
Vat
Reactive
Naphthol
Aniline black
Printing
Fiber reactive
Vats
Pigments
Sulfuric acid solution
Commercial enzyme, NaCl, penetrant
Caustic soda, trisodium phosphate, silicate
of soda, detergent, tetrasodium phosphate
Hydrogen peroxide, sodium silicate, caustic
soda, soda ash, wetting agent
Sodium silicate, sodium peroxide, sulphuric
acid, sodium bicarbonate
Caustic soda, penetrants (usually creosols)
Soluble dye, sodium chloride, acetic acid,
copper sulfate
Dye, sodium sulfide, sodium hydrosulfite,
sodium chloride, sodium perborate, hydro-
sulf ite, sodium chloride, sodium perborate,
hydrogen peroxide
Insoluble dye, sodium hydrosulfite, caustic
soda, sodium perborate
Dye, sodium chloride, soda ash, trisodium
phosphate
Dye, caustic soda, sodium chloride, sodium
nitrate, p-naphthol
Aniline hydrochloride, sodium chlorate,
copper sulfate
Dye, urea, sodium carbonate, thickening
agents (possibly hydrocarbon emulsion)
Dye, alkali, reducing agent, thickening
agent
Pigment, resin binder, latex, emulsifier
28
-------
TABLE 11. CHEMICALS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL PROCESSES
USED IN POLYESTER TEXTILE FINISHING PLANTS
Process
Methods
Typical bath constituents
Desizing Sulfuric acid
Enzymes
Scouring Synthetic detergent
Soap
Solvent
Bleaching Hydrogen peroxide
Peracetic acid
Dyeing
Disperse
Azoic
Vat
Printing Disperse
Basic
Enzyme, sodium chloride, penetrant
Synthetic detergent, soda ash
Pe rchloroe thylene
Hydrogen peroxide, wetting agent, pH
stabilizer
Sodium hexametaphosphate, peracetic acid,
wetting agent
Dye, diphenyl, acetic acid, soap
Dye, oleyl sodium sulfate, caustic soda,
sodium hydrosulfite, cetyl trimethyl ammo-
nium bromide, p-oxynaphthoic acid, sodium
nitrite, hydrochloric acid
Insoluble dye, oleyl sodium sulfate
Dye, dispersing agent, carrier (p_-phenyl-
phenol), sodium nitrite, hydrochloric acid
Dye, tannic acid, organic acid, thickeners
29
-------
TABLE 12. CHEMICALS RELATED TO SPECIAL FINISHING
IN TEXTILE FINISHING PLANTS [10]
Process
Methods
Typical bath constituents
Fire retardant finishing Nondurable
Shape-retentive finishing Dimethylol dihydroxyl
ethylene urea (DMDHEV)
Carbamates
Stiffening
Softening
Water and soil repellent
finishing
Soil release finishing
Mildewproofing
Antistatic finishing
Polyvinyl acetate
Acrylics
Starches
Anionic softener
Cationic softener
Fluorochemicals
Silicones
Pyridinium salts
Fluorochemicals
Salicylanilide
Phenyl mercurials
bis(2-hydroxy-5-chlor-
phenyl) methane
Cationics
Anionics
Nonionics
Amphoterics
Borax, boric acid, diam-
monium phosphate,
sodium phosphate
DMDHEV, surfactant, soft-
ener, catalyst
Sulfonated tallows
Fluorochemical, extender,
hand modifier, thermo-
setting resin
Quarternary ammonium
derivatives
30
-------
SECTION 4
AIR EMISSIONS
SOURCES AND NATURE
In a typical woven fabric finishing plant air emissions arise
from a number of sources. These sources include: process emis-
sions, room vents which exhaust fugitive emissions from proc-
essing equipment, leaks, oil spills, nonprocess related point
source emissions from chemical and fuel storage tank vents and
ancillary equipment such as fossil fuel fired steam generators,
and fugitive emissions from wastewater treatment systems. The
scope of this project addresses air emissions from process unit
operations.
Woven fabric finishing unit operations which are vented to the
atmosphere include singeing, heat setting, scouring, desizing,
washing, bleaching, mercerizing, drying, thermosol dyeing, open
beck dyeing, printing, and the application of special finishes
which involves drying or curing of chemicals. As emphasized in
Section 3, each manufacturing facility uses different combina-
tions of unit operations and raw materials, therefore, each plant
may use some or all of these unit processes. Emissions from
these operations are exhausted to the atmosphere via vents from
the dryers following each operation and exhaust hoods placed col-
lectively over several processes which vent fugitive emissions.
General factors which affect the composition and quantity of
emissions include characteristics of particular chemicals used,
temperature at which the process is conducted, order in which
processing is carried out, and extent to which emissions controls
are applied. Chemicals used for a particular process, those
added during prior processing steps, plus any reaction products
between these chemicals are all potential emission species. If
high temperatures (>50°C) are used, then thermal degradation
products of the above species may also be present.
EMISSIONS DATA
There are little data in the literature characterizing airborne
emissions from woven fabric finishing operations. Much of what
is available is of limited utility because background information
such as testing and analytical procedures used, operating param-
eters, etc. are not reported. This type of information is
31
-------
essential in establishing the reliability of reported data and in
calculating emission factors.
In order to evaluate the potential environmental impact of this
industry a sampling and analytical program was designed to pro-
vide detailed analyses of the organic and inorganic components of
the stack gas streams. Processes determined to have the largest
volume and greatest potential for hydrocarbon emissions were sam-
pled at four woven fabric finishing plants. The plants selected
reflected the range in age of equipment, quantities of fabric
handled, and the types of process operations that are typical of
this industry.
Three emission sources at each plant site were sampled with a
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) train. This system
collects particulate matter and gaseous pollutants semi-isokinet-
ically for both organic and inorganic analyses. Samples from the
SASS train were analyzed for trace metals and organic species.
These three points and additional emission points at each site
were sampled for total npnmethane hydrocarbon and G! through C6
hydrocarbon emissions using a field portable gas chromatograph
with a flame ionization detector. Detailed descriptions of the
sampling and analytical procedures used are presented in
Appendix A.
Processes sampled with the SASS train included heat setting,
Thermosol dyeing, finishing on a tenter frame, and curing of
finished goods in a curing oven. Average emission factors were
determined for individual emission species from each of the proc-
esses sampled are shown in Tables 13 through 16. Average total
nonmethane hydrocarbon emission factors for a number of addi-
tional processes are shown in Table 17. Additional emissions
data including emission factors determined for each piece of
equipment sampled, physical characteristics of the stack gas
streams, and process data (type of fabric, speed of fabric,
chemicals used, etc.) are given in Appendix B.
One notable feature of the data in Tables 13 through 17 is the
range in emission factors observed for similar unit operations at
different plants. This underscores the fact that there are
unlimited possibilities in the combination of unit operations
used, order of processing, and chemicals used in the woven fabric
finishing industry to produce a fabric with the specific quali-
ties desired by the customer.
Close examination of the emission species and analytical proce-
dures reflect several key items. For example, the XAD-II resin
in the SASS train was extracted with methylene chloride. There-
fore, the three species, methyl myristate, palmitate, and stea-
rate, actually appear in the stack as the sodium soaps which are
nontoxic. This conclusion is further supported by the larger
amounts of sodium in the stack gas. Similarly, the long chained
32
-------
methyl esters reported, actually appear in the stack as long
chained organic alcohols, such as polyvinyl alcohol, or starches.
TABLE 13. EMISSION FACTORS DETERMINED
FOR A HEAT SETTING OPERATION
Emission species
Emission factor,
mg/kg of fabric
Particulate matter
Organic compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Cg-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl-C14-ester
Methyl-Cjy-ester
Aliphatics (C12-C34)
Trace elements:
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
• Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
294
0.25
0.33
0.41
1.3
4.9
12
0.0065
52
0
150
0.020
0.057
0.0036
0.0065
0.0025
0.0046
0.090
0.017
0.017
0.0061
0.020
0.093
0.038
0.016
0.011
0.24
0.062
0.095
0.013
520
0.0034
0.81
0.00040
0.0021
0.074
33
-------
TABLE 14. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR THERMOSOL DYE RANGES
Emission species
Huaber of plants
at which species
was identified
Range of emission
factor values,
mg/kg of fabric
Average
emission factor,
ma/kg of fabric
Particulate matter
Organic compounds:
2-ethylhexanol
C3/C4/Cs-alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Napthalene
Methyl naphthalenes
Dimethyl naphthalenes
C3 above napthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Cg-alkyl phthalate
Bromochlo robenzene
Bromodinitrobenzene
Dichloronitroaniline
Bromodinitroaniline
Anthraquinone
Aoinoanthraquinone
Hethyl-Cn-ester
Hethyl*C|2*ester
Hethyl-Ci3-ester
Hethyl-C,«-ester
Hethyl-C|S-ester
Hethyl-Cig-ester
Methyl-Cig-ester
Methyl-C2o~ester
Methyl myristate
Methyl paImitate
Methyl stearate
Palmitic acid
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-
ethane
Aliphatics
Trace elements:
Aluminum
Antimony
• Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
140 to 610
230
-
1.7 to 3.7
-
-
-
0.45 to 1.6
0.069 to 6.4
0.095 to 3.7
-
-
0.090 to 6.5
1.4 to 2.3
0.0024 to 0.0066
0.055 to 0.11
0.051 to 0.77
0.021 to 2.2
-
0.37 to 6.4
-
-
0.10 to 19
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
0.094 to 0.48
7.8 to 18
16 to 20
1.6 to 180
-
_
8.6 to 45
0.069 to 0.19
0.045 to 0.07B
0.0010 to 0.095
-
0.038 to 0.15
0.00028 to 0.0039
0.31 to 2.2
0.073 to 0.22
0.0030 to 0.0069
0.030 to 12
0.25 to 1.4
0.016 to 0.056
0.057 to 1.9
0.017 to 0.045
0.0064 to 0.050
0.071 to 0.11
0.070 to 0.29
0.49 to 8.5
0.0015 to 1.2
360 to 5.300
0.0028 to 0.0031
0.072 to 0.66
0.00088 to 0.0030
0.00015 to 0.0061
0.076 to 0.12
2.1
2.7
0.54
1.6
0.68
1.0
3.2
1.9
0.016
10.7
3.3
1.9
0.0045
0.083
0.41
0.79
0.13
3.3
0.60
1.2
9.6
2.5
0.40
0.65
0.53
3.6
1.8
4.0
0.88
0.48
0.29
13
18
91
0.29
0.48
22
0.11
0.062
0.039
0.00019
0.077
0.0017
1.1
0.12
0.0051
4.0
0.67
0.038
0.72
0.029
0.030
0.091
0.17
4.5
0.60
2,000
0.0029
0.34
0.0019
0.0031
0.099
34
-------
TABLE 15. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
RESIN FINISHING TENTER FRAMES
Emission species
Number of plants
at which species
was identifled
Range of emission
factor values,
mo/kg of fabric
Average
emission factor
mg/kg of fabric
Particulate matter
Organic compounds:
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Tetrachlorobenzenes
C3/C4/CS alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl napthalenes
Diipethyl napthalenes
C3 above napthalenes
Benzoic acid
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Methyl biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Cg-alkyl phthalate
C9 -phenols
t-butyl-hydroxyanisole
Bromodini trobenzene
Anthraguinone
Ami noanthr aguinone
Methyl dodecanoate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl-Ci 7 -esters
Dichloronitroaniline
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl -phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Di( ethyl phenyl ) ethane
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane
Siloxane (dominant ion 267)
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32 to 1,300
_
_
_
3.7 to 3.9
1.4 to 6.4
0.14 to 0.71
1.5 to 1.8
0.087 to 26
0.12 to 32
-
_
0.14 to 490
0.21 to 150
_
0.85 to 390
-
0.0055 to 0.037
0.54 to 2.9
0.036 to 1.6
_
_
1.1 to 40
1.5 to 4.6
_
_
0.7 to 1.5
0.18 to 10
0.33 to 14
_
_
.
_
_
-
560
16
380
17
3.8
3.9
0.43
1.7
8.8
16
11
7.1
320
50
2.3
130
0.34
0.021
1.4
0.64
0.39
0.028
21
3.1
0.44
3.4
1.1
4.3
5.3
0.55
3.3
1.4
2.3
0.35
2.6
0.95
35
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Emission species
Number or plants
at which species
was identified
Range of emission
factor values,
mg/kq of fabric
Average
emission factor,
mq/kg of fabric
Organic compounds (continued):
Siloxane (dominant ion 341) •
Oxygenates (e.g., alcohols.
alcoholic ethers, etc.,
estimated Ci» and above) '•
Unknown "245" ion 3
Unknown "243" ion 3
Unknown "241" ion 3
unknown "240" ion 3
Unknown "269" ion ]
Unknown "239" ion ]
Unknown "85" ion ]
Aliphatics <
Trace elements:
Aluminum •
Antimony 5
Barium <
Beryllium .
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Vanadium '.
Zinc <
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
I 19 to 260
t 0.037 to 3.8
>. 0.42 to 0.84
I 0.0097 to 0.067
L
0.045 to 0.094
0.0058 to 0.040
0.091 to 2.4
0.14 to 0.81
0.011 to 0.25
0.053 to 0.92
0.84 to 4.5
0.071 to 0.74
0.18 to 1.4
0.020 to 0.19
0.018 to 0.76
0.18 to 0.60
0.038 to 5.0
0.80 to 15
0.00017 to 0.56
60 to 1,080
0.00096 to 0.0084
0.40 to 3.1
L
k 0.15 to 1.1
0.45
9.9
3.1
4.8
6.0
2.2
0.29
2.4
3.7
140
1.3
0.63
0.040
0.0096
0.075
0.019
0.90
0.53
0.086
0.26
2.5
0.46
0.63
0.083
0.43
0.41
1.8
9.9
0.19
440
0.0046
1.9
0.24
0.63
36
-------
TABLE 16. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
RESIN FINISH CURING OVENS
Number of plants Range of emission Average
at which species factor values. emission factor.
Emission species was identified raq/kq of fabric ma/ka of fabric
Participate matter
Organic compounds:
C3/C4/CS alkyl benzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
-Napthalene
Methyl napthalenes
Dimethyl napthalenes
C3 and above napthalenes
Benzoic acid
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Methyl biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
CB phenols
C9 phenols
Dimethyl alkyl amines
Bromodinitrobenzene
Dichloronitroaniline
Anthraquinone
Methyl dodecanoate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Palmitic acid
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl -phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Unknown "245" ion
Unknown "243" ion
Unknown "241" ion
Unknown "240" ion
Unknown "269" ion
Unknown "239" ion
Unknown "85" ion
Oxygenates (e.g.. alcohols.
alcoholic ethers, etc ,
estimated C12 above)
Aliphatics
Trace elements:
Aluminum '
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadnium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
31 to 340
1.1 to 69
3.1 to 6.1
-
-
-
0.63 to 5.5
0.26 to 2.1
0.51 to 0.94
-
-
4.9 to l.BOO
2.1 to 50
-
0.64 to 60
-
-
0.053 to 3.8
0.013 to 1.0
-
-
-
0.32 to 11
0.13 to 9.6
0.069 to 13
-
0.039 to 3.7
0.036 to 72
0.078 to 92
-
-
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
29 to 134
.
.
0.00064 to 0.053
_
0.0047 to 0 099
0.016 to 0.041
1.1 to 7.9
0.012 to 0.72
0.00015 to 0.038
0.0094 to 1.3
0.072 to 2.6
0.0067 to 0.52
0.22 to 4.4
0.0023 to 0.12
.
0.0072 to 0.14
0.073 to 1.0
ISO to 440
0.0016 to 0.0058
0.37 to 1.1
0.068 to 1.3
160
24
4.6
0.64
0.064
0.064
3.0
1.0
0.73
0.35
130
600
3.3
8.3
21
0.0022
0.012
1.9
0.46
0.92
4.1
46
5.7
4.9
6.5
0.010
1.9
24
31
42
3.1
4.4
2 4
2.0
1.4
4 1
0.43
5.6
6.4
16
69
0.018
0 088
0.019
0.0043
0.037
0.029
4.1
0 25
0.018
3.50
1 1
0.18
2 1
0.074
0.067
0.074
0 39
270
0.0035
0 78
0.0026
0.76
37
-------
TABLE 17. TOTAL NONMETHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Range of
Operation or Number emission factors, Average emission
equipment sampled sampled mg/kg factor, mg/kg
Heat set
Thermosol dye range
Resin finishing on
a tenter frame
Drying on a tenter
frame
Curing oven
2a
4
9
2a
4
610 to 680
57 to 1,300
67 to 15,100
6,350 to 17,700
240 to 9,300
645
480
3,160
12,000
2,600
Continuous dyeing in
a washbox 1 - 440
aBoth units located at one plant.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Air emissions released during the finishing of woven fabrics may
have an adverse effect on the quality of air, water, and land
resources; vegetation, property, and/or animal and human health.
Emissions from finishing operations enter the atmosphere as a
concentrated plume. Primary impacts result from direct contact
of the receptor with this plume. The magnitude of the impact
depends on the chemical composition and the concentration of
emission species at the point of contact. This is in turn de-
pendent on a variety of factors including the particular process,
specific chemicals used, height of emission release, atmospheric
conditions, distance from the source, and other factors. Second-
ary impacts can occur after dispersion of the plume throughout the
environment. While the fate and environmental effects of many
trace pollutants are not known, those of the major species are
well documented [21-23].
[21] Air Pollution, Volume I: Air Pollution and Its Affects,
Second Edition, A. C. Stern, ed., Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1968. 694 pp.
[22] Leighton, P. A. Photochemistry of Air Pollution. Academic
Press, New York, New York, 1961. 300 pp.
[23] Seinfeld, J. H. Air Pollution - Physical and Chemical Funda-
mentals. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York,
1975. 523 pp.
38
-------
This segment of the report evaluates the potential environmental
effects due to air emissions. The focus is on emissions from key
unit operations because each textile mill operates the finishing
processes differently. The evaluation is performed for an aver-
age-size woven fabric finishing plant, defined by the EPA to
produce 11,400 Mg/yr of products [2, 3].
Source Severity
The potential environmental effects of air emissions from a point
source can be measured in several ways. The method used here is
to determine the maximum ground level concentration of each
emission species downwind from the average plant and compare this
value to the primary ambient air quality standard for criteria
emissions [24] or to a reduced threshold limit value (TLV) [25]
for the noncriteria emission species.
The comparison is called source severity, S , and is defined as
Cl
(6)
where )Tmax = maximum time-averaged ground level concentration
for each emission species, g/m3
F = primary ambient air quality standard for criteria
pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocar-
bons ), g/m3
or
F = TLV x 8/24 x 1/100, for noncriteria emission (7)
species, g/m3
where TLV = threshold limit value for each species, g/m3
8/24 = correction factor to adjust the TLV to a 24-hr
exposure level
1/100 = safety factor
[24] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42 - Public Health,
Chapter IV - Environmental Protection Agency, Part 410 -
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards, April 28, 1971. 16 pp.
[25] TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1979. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 94 pp.
39
-------
The value of x«-v f°r an average source is calculated from
nicix
t °-i?
xmax = xmax t~
where x = —=-*— for elevated point sources (9)
max (TieuH2)
and
Q = emission rate, g/s
n = 3.14
e = 2.72
u = average wind speed, 4.5 m/s (national average)
t = short-term averaging time, 3 min
t = averaging time, min
H = height of emission release, m
The equation for x~max (Equation 8) is derived from the general
plume dispersion equation for an elevated point source for aver-
age U.S. atmospheric stability conditions [26].
The maximum severity of pollutants may be calculated using the
mass emission rate, Q, the height of the emissions, H, and the
TLVs (used for noncriteria pollutants). The equations summarized
in Table 18 are developed in Appendix C.
TABLE 18. POLLUTANT SEVERITY EQUATIONS
FOR ELEVATED SOURCES
Pollutant Severity equation
70
Particulate matter S = J-^-
P
Hydrocarbons SHC =
Others S =
5.5 Q
a TLV
[26] Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
Public Health Service Publication 999-AP-26 (PB 191 482),
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1969. 62 pp.
40
-------
The ambient air quality standards used for criteria pollutants
and the TLVs used for noncriteria pollutants are listed in
Tables 19 and 20, respectively.
TABLE 19. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS [24]
Emission
Ambient air
quality standard,
ug/m3
Particulate matter
Hydrocarbons
260.
160C
The primary ambient air quality
standard for hydrocarbons. The
value of 160 pg/m3 used for hydro-
carbons in this report is a recom-
mended guideline for meeting the
primary ambient air quality stand-
ard for oxidants.
TABLE 20. THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES (TLVs) USED
FOR NONCRITERIA POLLUTANTS [25]
Emission species
TLV,
mg/m3
Comments
Biphenyl 1
Dichlorobenzenes 300
Dimethyl phthalate 5
Diethyl phthalate 5
Dibutyl phthalate 5
Di-C8-alkyl phthalate 5
Ethyl styrene 420
Naphthalenes 50
Phenols 19
Alkylbenzenes 435
Aluminum 10
Calcium 2
Copper 1
Iron 5
Silver 0,
Sodium 2
Tin 2
o-dichlorobenzene - 300;
p-dichlorobenzene - 450
Di-sec octyl phthalate
Styrene
Nathphalene
Phenol
Ethyl benzene
Aluminum oxide
Calcium oxide
Sodium hydroxide
41
-------
Using the above equations and previous emission factors, the
source severity was calculated and the results are presented in
Table 21. Except for particulate matter and total nonmethane
hydrocarbons, the source severities for all organic and inorganic
species were less than 0.001 and thus are not listed separately
in the table.
TABLE 21. SOURCE SEVERITY VALUES FOR AIR EMISSIONS
FROM SELECTED UNIT OPERATIONS AT AN AVERAGE
(11,400 kkg/yr) WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANT*
Source severity
Emission species
Particulate matter
Nonmethane hydrocarbon
Heat
setting
0.03
0.17
Thermosol
dye range
0.03
0.12
Resin finishing
tenter frames
0.06
0.82
Resin finishing
curing ovens
0.02
0.68
For an average stack height of 15 m.
Affected Population
Dispersion equations predict that the average ground level con-
centration, x/ varies with the distance, x, downwind from a
source. For elevated sources, x is zero at the source (where x
0), increases to some maximum value, Xmax» as x increases, and
then falls back to zero as x approaches infinity. Therefore, a
plot of x/F vs x will have the following appearance.
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE
The affected population is defined as the number of nonplant
persons around an average woven fabric finishing plant who are
exposed to \/F ratio greater than 0.05 or 1.0. A severity of
£1.0 indicates exposure to a potentially hazardous concentration
of a pollutant. The severity value of 0.05 allows for inherent
uncertainties in measurement techniques, dispersion modeling, and
health effects data. The mathematical derivation of the affected
population calculation is presented in Appendix C. The number of
persons within the exposed area was calculated using a population
density of 470 persons/km2. This value was calculated by weight-
ing the county population densities of the sources listed in the
Predicast data by the number of sources in that county (see
Appendix D). Values for the affected population around the
42
-------
average plant are listed in Table 22 for pollutants with severi-
ties greater than 0.05 and 1.0.
TABLE 22. AFFECTED POPULTATION VALUES FOR
AIR EMISSIONS FOR S= >0.05
a "~*
Affected population from source, persons
Heat Thermosol Resin finishing Resin finishing
Emission species setting dye range tenter frame curing ovens
Particulate
Total nonme thane
hydrocarbon
0
102
0
87
2
510
0
476
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The textile manufacturing industry has not, by the nature of its
operations, been one of the major sources of pollution in the
United States and its air pollution problems have been consider-
ably less severe than its wastewater problems. Therefore, due to
its lower priority, this area is only beginning to receive atten-
tion within the industry and from the State and Federal enforce-
ment agencies. Most of the air pollution abatement equipment in
operation in textile mills today has only been recently instal-
led, and its long term technical and economic performance has yet
to be evaluated.
Several recent publications have compiled all relevant data and
investigated air pollution control options [5, 7-9]. Therefore,
this section will summarize the relevant findings.
As discussed earlier, air emissions from woven fabric finishing
plants, excluding steam generation, include oil and acid mists,
solvent vapors, odors, and dust and lint. Oil mists are produced
when textile materials containing oils, plasticizers, and other
materials that can volatilize or be thermally degraded into
volatile organic species are subjected to higher temperatures
(>100°C). Volatile material is driven off and is cooled into a
blue haze of droplets, most of which are in the particle size
range of 0.1 pm to 1.0 pm in diameter [5]. The most common
source of oil mists is the tenter frame. Because of the higher
operating temperatures (150°C to 200°C) organic species in the
tenter frame exhausts are partially oxidized and, therefore, more
odorous and corrosive than exhaust from lower temperature opera-
tions. Exhaust composition, as emphasized earlier, is a function
of the fabric pre-history, and can contain oils, subliming dyes,
carrier residues such as o-phenylphenol and its esters, brighten-
ers, emulsifiers, glycerides, waxes, fatty acids and fatty acid
43
-------
phosphatides, plasticizers, resins, ethylene oxide, and lower
molecular weight fractions of the synthetic fibers.
Acid mists are produced during the carbonizing of wool and during
some types of spray dyeing and acetic acid mist dyeing. Because
of their corrosive nature, some techniques for air pollution con-
trol to this type of dyeing are not applicable. Organic solvent
vapors are released during and after solvent processing steps
such as solvent dyeing and printing, and the application of
finishes.
Odors are often associated with oil mists or solvent vapors and
are removed by removal of the mist or by vapor recovery systems.
The most common odor problems are the carrier odors from aqueous
polyester dyeing and subsequent processes. Resin finishing also
produces odors, chiefly formaldehyde. Other sources of odor
include sulfur dyeing, reducing or stripping dyes with hydrosul-
fite, bonding, laminating, and bleaching with chlorine dioxide.
Air pollution control technology used within the woven fabric
finishing industry to reduce hydrocarbon and particulate emis-
sions is presented in the following subsection.
Scrubbers
Because of the emission of volatile organic compounds, some of
which are quite odorous, several mills have installed wet scrub-
bers of various designs. The literature reports varying degrees
of success for these units when they are applied to tentering
operations [4, 7, 8, 27, 28]. Because oils in the gas stream are
extremely difficult to dissolve in water, scrubbers may allow
organic species to pass through the unit without capture.
A number of variations in scrubber design and application have
been introduced by manufacturers. One of these variations uses
petroleum oils instead of water as the absorbing medium [7, 8].
In this system, tenter frame off-gases are passed through a
countercurrent packed column containing petroleum oils at 9°C.
Other aqueous scrubbers use surfactants and alkaline additives to
enhance collection of oils and organic species [4].
High-energy scrubbers have been applied to a lesser extent within
the industry due to higher equipment and energy costs. However,
there are plants which have installed venturi-type scrubbers
[27] Beltran, M. R. How to Keep Tenter Frame Exhaust Air Clean.
America's Textiles Reporter/Bulletin, November 1974.
pp. 80-82.
[28] Northup, H. J., and W. F. Turner. Air Pollution Control in
Textile Finishing. Textile Chemists and Colorist, 7(4):60-
64, 1975.
44
-------
ortenter frame exhausts utilizing surfactant and alkaline addi-
tives and operate at 30 to 35 inches of water pressure drop [4].
Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon adsorption of volatile organic species and odors
is sparsely applied in the textile manufacturing industry. How-
ever, there is increasing interest in this type of control tech-
nology because of the increased regulatory activity in control-
ling hydrocarbons, potential solvent recovery capabilities, and
energy conservation [5, 29, 30].
In general, substances adsorb more readily (and are consequently
more difficult to desorb) the higher their boiling boints. Ad-
sorption also takes place more readily in small diameter pores
than on open surfaces. Activated carbon adsorbs all organic
species in preference to water while other adsorbents such as
silica gel, synthetic zeolites, and metal oxides are more selec-
tive in the substance they will adsorb and, generally, will
adsorb water in preference to organics [5]. Activated carbon is
best employed for removal of organic substances with a molecular
weight above 45 or a boiling point above 0°C. However, it is not
advisable to use it for removal of high boiling oils, as these
deactivate the charcoal by almost irreversible adsorption.
Carbon adsorption systems normally employ fixed beds of activated
carbon. As the pollutant is adsorbed from the gas stream onto
the bed, an adsorption zone is formed which moves through the bed
at a velocity much slower than the gas velocity. The breakpoint
(or breakthrough) is that time when the adsorption zone (or mass
transfer zone) reaches the end of the bed, and the pollutant con-
centration of the bed effluent begins to increase. The effluent
concentration increases with on-stream time, and at complete bed
saturation will equal the influent concentration. Static equi-
librium measurements of adsorption isotherms indicate the amount
of organic adsorbed at saturation, but these data are not good
design parameters since the onstream time of a fixed bed system
is normally terminated short of complete saturation, usually soon
after the breakpoint occurs [30].
When chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene, trichloro-
ethylene, methylene chloride, and especially 1,1,1-trichloroethane
[29] Chandrasekhar, R., and C. M. Yon. Fluidized Bed Activated
Carbon Adsorption. Presented to the Symposium on Textile
Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8,
1978. 18 pp.
[30] Sheppard, W. M. Fixed Bed Carbon Adsorption for Control of
Organic Emissions. Presented to the Symposium on Textile
Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8,
1978. 23 pp.
45
-------
are steam stripped, hydrochloric acid is present in the bed.
Since the activated carbon has catalytic properties, corrosion
problems can be severe, and 304 and 316 stainless steel is not
acceptable for carbon beds to recover chlorinated solvents. Most
carbon adsorption systems are therefore lined with baked phenolic.
A carbon bed for methylene chloride recovery with a baked pheno-
lic coating can last 20 years under these conditions, while a bed
of 304 stainless steel would last only 3 months [5].
Typically, activated carbon beds are arranged in parallel for
continuous operation. While one bed is being stripped of sub-
stances, the other beds are adsorbing impurities from the exhaust.
In some noncontinuous operations a single bed can be used if it
has sufficient capacity to adsorb all the gaseous pollutants
emitted from the process, and if it can be regenerated in time to
be used the next time the process is performed.
Use of activated carbon adsorption and/or solvent recovery from
textile plant exhausts is complicated by the variety of fabrics
and associated treatments involved. The fabric itself or the
colors and patterns are changed very frequently. The principal
variable in fabric preparation is the inclusion or exclusion of
scouring and the need for chlorinated solvent scouring, as with
some polyester fabrics, versus the use of water and detergents,
as with most other fabrics.
In printing, combinations of certain dyes with acetate or acrylic
fabrics causes emissions. Most other operations only evolve
water vapor. If print pastes used with cotton or rayon fabrics
include quantities of urea, emissions of urea can be expected.
The final finishing step basically involves the application of
resins, most based on formaldehyde polymers, to bestow properties
such as antistat, crease resistance and waterproofing, and heat
setting the resin in a tenter frame at high temperatures. The
resin formulations change with both the fabric as well as the
kind of property imparted to the fabric.
Various paremeters significantly affect the performance of an
activated carbon adsorber. These include temperature, species of
hydrocarbons and their concentrations, quantity of moisture
present, and dust loading. The sizing of the adsorber, choice of
carbon type, the choice of configurations, mode of desorption,
materials of construction, and selection of ancillary equipment
for pre-or post-treatment of the exhaust gases are highly depend-
ent on these parameters as well as the presence of toxic or
odorous compounds.
Textile plant exhaust temperatures approach or exceed normal
desorption temperature of activated carbon. These gases, there-
fore, require preceding prior to entering the adsorber. The
degree of precooling usually prescribed can easily be carried out
46
-------
either with cooling tower water or with gas/gas heat exchangers
depending on the reuse economics of the recovered heat. Close
attention must be paid to undesirable condensation of vapors in
the heat exchanger. Lower inlet concentrations may require lower
inlet temperatures if hydrocarbon recovery required is a very
high percentage of the inlet concentration.
Relative humidities of up to 50 percent at 38°C have been easily
handled in carbon bed adsorbers. Depending on the mode of de-
sorption, products end up with 2 to 20 percent water. Higher
moisture content of the exhaust gases result in more water in the
product. Special dehumidification may be required if the humidi-
ty far exceeds 50 percent.
Dust, in finishing plants, appears in the form of lint. Unless
it is sticky or rendered sticky prior to entering the adsorber
and likely to clog the distributor plates, dust will pass right
through the system without affecting performance.
Incineration
Three methods of incineration are available: open flame incin-
eration, direct flame incineration, and catalytic oxidation. Of
the various methods, open flame burning is the least reliable,
since the contact time between the flame and organic pollutant is
usually too short to insure complete destruction. It can produce
soot, carbon monoxide, and partially oxidized hydrocarbons that
may be more objectionable than the original substance [5, 31,
32].
Direct flame incineration is more widely used throughout the tex-
tile manufacturing industry to reduce organic emissions than any
other control device. This technology requires heating of the
pollutant-air mixture to 750°C to 850°C for 0.3 s to 0.5 s,
generally in an externally heated combustion chamber [5]. Since
liquid, solid, and vaporized organic species are all oxidized, no
pre-filter is required to remove lint. Heat recovery systems
usually double the initial investment cost, but halve the opera-
ting cost.
Catalytic incineration is basically the same chemical process as
direct flame incineration, except that the catalyst initiates the
reaction at much lower temperatures (250°C to 450°C). Oxidation
catalysts are generally of the platinum group of metals, or
[31] Githens, R. E., and D. M. Sowards. Catalytic Oxidation of
Hydrocarbon Fumes. Presented to the Symposium on Textile
Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8,
1978. 9 pp.
[32] Prowler, M. E. Roof-Top Incinerator Prevents Air Pollution.
Environmental Control Safety Management, 141(2):18-19, 1971.
47
-------
copper or silver. They are placed into a monolithic honeycomb
structure made of various grades of alumina or other ceramics.
Cylindrical pellets are another type of substrate or support [5,
31].
The most serious problem with catalytic emission destruction is
loss and deactivation of the catalyst. Catalyst losses are due
primarily to abrasion, which is especially severe with heavy
particulate loading. Deactivation occurs because of clogging
with participates, carbonization on the catalyst surface or in
the pores, and poisoning. Metallic and organometallic vapors of
arsenic, lead, zinc, and mercury are the most common catalyst
poisons, and they may be present in textile manufacturing ex-
hausts due to fire retardant chemicals and organic dyes.
Applications of catalytic incinerators in the textile industry
are on Thermosol oven and tenter frame exhausts [31].
Process Controls
The application of control devices to the effluent gas streams
from tenters and curing ovens tends to attack the problem as it
presently exists, including all of the uncertainties and vari-
abilities related to process conditions. One approach to organic
emission control that warrants more attention is the reduction of
emissions at their source. This involves a critical review of
the processes themselves with the following objectives:
Reducing the level of organics in the fabrics entering the
tenter frame or curing oven
Substituting less volatile reagents to accomplish the same
desired end product
Reducing both the air flow and the operating temperatures of
the equipment to accomplish the same desired end point.
One company has made significant progress in reducing its overall
emission problems by such analysis of its operations [7, 8].
Operating temperatures in its curing/finishing tenters have been
reduced through changes in the resin/catalyst system. Higher
emission-producing operations have been identified and limited to
one specific tenter frame equipped with an air/air heat exchanger
and a high-energy demister control system. It should be noted
that reduced operating temperatures in the finishing oven reduce
not only the visible emission level, but also the noncondensible
hydrocarbon levels.
Another company, after a similar analysis of its operations,
completely eliminated its emissions problem in a large screen
printing installation by shifting from oil-based to water-based
media [7, 8].
48
-------
Since oil mists are cuased by evaporation of oils from textile
materials, their formation can be prevented by reduction of the
oil content of the materials prior to heat treatment. Careful
control of the application of spinning oils and fabric finishes
to prevent excessive buildup on the fabric can reduce mist prob-
lems and simultaneously result in material savings. Scouring
before tentering rather than after is possible in some cases,
though in others tentering is required before scouring to impart
dimensional stability to the fabric. To eliminate oil mist prob-
lems from tenter frames, input oil content must be reduced to
below 0.5 weight percent [5].
Careful control of the heat input to the fabric can also prevent
excessive oil evaporation as well as save energy. Dielectric
dyeing and curing are feasible in some instances, either as total
replacements for other forms of energy input or as supplementary
energy inputs to effect precise energy control. Dielectric
energy as an input source is inherently self-regulating since the
rate at which any material absorbs dielectric energy is propor-
tional to its dielectric constant. Water, with a high dielectric
constant, absorbs energy rapidly and is dried from the fabric.
When the fabric is dry, overheating does not occur, because the
dielectric constant of the fibers is much lower. Dielectric
heating can also be employed as a means of precise energy input
in the curing of plastisols. While economics have previously not
favored dielectric heating, the rising cost of energy and the
increasing stringency of antipollution laws are making it increas-
ingly attractive.
Odor problems can often be eliminated or reduced if the processes
involved are modified so that the odor causing chemicals are
eliminated or emitted in smaller amounts, or so that other vapors
are emitted which are either less odorous or easier to remove
from the atmosphere.
In the case of polyester dyeing, pressure dyeing will produce
fewer odor problems than atmospheric dyeing, since the required
carrier concentration is lower. Substitution of solvent dyeing
for aqueous dyeing can eliminate carrier odors, since no carrier
is necessary with solvent systems. With existing processes,
where major changes in equipment would not be feasible, it is
often possible to substitute less odorous carriers, or carriers
that are easier to mask or to treat with inexpensive techniques.
Optimization of carrier concentration and of the time-temperature
cycle for dyeing can sometimes result in decreased carrier
consumption.
In cases where the odorous compound is generated in the process
or is present in excess concentration, it can sometimes be re-
moved by addition of chemicals that will react with it. One
example is the use of formaldehyde acceptors to react with the
excess of free formaldehyde present in the resin finishing. This
49
-------
example also illustrates the limitations of such a solution
because in some cases the formaldehyde acceptors will also react
with formaldehyde in the resin itself, destroying fabric proper-
ties such as wash-wear and smoothness. If this reaction contin-
ues during storage of the fabric, amine odors are produced.
Formaldehyde acceptors have been used successfully for many
years, but they require extreme care in application [5].
Good housekeeping and proper maintenance of existing antipollu-
tion equipment can alleviate some odor problems. Proper adjust-
ment of air flow rates to the odor abatement system can sometimes
result in reduced volumes of air to be processed and, therefore,
in greater efficiency of odor removal at lower operating cost.
In some cases, an odorous compound is applied to the fabric that
comes off gradually in later processes. Immediate and thorough
drying can result in this compound's removal at a single location,
simplifying odor collection problems. There exist nonodorous
deformers that perform as well as the odorous ones. Other oxi-
dizing agents can sometimes be substituted for chlorine dioxide
in the bleaching process.
50
-------
SECTION 5
WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The woven fabric finishing segment is the largest volume dis-
charger in the textile manufacturing industry. Of those woven
fabric finishing plants reporting data, 32% (87 plants) had dis-
charge rates greater than 1,900 m3/day (0.5 mgd), compared with
15% (156 plants) for the rest of the textile manufacturing indus-
try [2]. Table 23 gives the breakdown of plants that discharge
directly to receiving streams and those that discharge indirectly
through Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
TABLE 23. NUMBER OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
FOR TEXTILE WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS [2]
Number - Percent of
Discharge type of plants total plants
Direct 82 24.4
Indirect 224 66.7
Unknown 30 8.9
Total 336 100
During the development of effluent standards for this industry,
three subdivisions were identified as having distinctive waste-
water characteristics [1]: (a) simple processing, (b) complex
processing, and (c) complex processing plus desizing.
Simple processing covers facilities that perform fiber
preparation, desizing, scouring, functional finishing,
and/or one of the following processes applied to more than
five percent of total production: bleaching, dyeing, or
printing. This subdivision includes all woven fabric finish-
ing plants that do not qualify under either the complex
processing or complex processing plus desizing subdivision.
51
-------
Complex processing includes facilities that perform fiber
preparation, desizing of less than 50% of their total produc-
tion, scouring, mercerizing, functional finishing, and more
than one of the following, each applied to more than five
percent of total production: bleaching, dyeing, and
printing.
Complex processing plus desizing differs from complex proces-
sing only in that it covers those facilities that desize
more than 50% of their total production.
Complex processing plus desizing was identified as a separate
subdivision because desizing is a major (>50%) contributor to the
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODs) loading [1].. Water usage
data and total mill wastewater discharge data for each subdivi-
sion are given in Table 24. Complex processing plus desizing, as
noted in the table, require the most water per unit of
production.
WASTEWATER SOURCES AND CHARACTERIZATION
Wastewaters from woven fabric finishing plants arise from both
point and nonppint sources. Point sources are those which orig-
inate as a definite wastewater stream from a particular process.
Nonpoint sources originate from random leaks and spills at the
plant, equipment washdown, and from rainfall runoff. The eight
types of point sources found in this industry category include:
desizing
scouring
bleaching
mercerizing
dyeing
printing
functional finishing
sanitary wastes
Figure 8 gives a flow diagram of a typical plant, showing the
different unit processes and the corresponding wastewater streams.
As discussed earlier the actual number of process operations at a
site varies from plant to plant, although effluents from each
process are generally combined before discharge from the plant.
This arrangement is important in understanding wastewater char-
acterization data, because most data come from analysis of the
total plant effluent. A qualitative description of the waste-
streams from the individual point and nonpoint sources is given
in the following paragraphs. The important pollutant parameters
for these wastestrearns include: 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BODs); Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD); solid materials, expressed
as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS);
oil and grease; pH; chromium; and color.
52
-------
TABLE 24. WATER USAGE DATA AND TOTAL PLANT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
DATA FOR TEXTILE WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS [2]
ui
Category
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
Total of all plants
Number
of
plants
surveyed
48
39
50
137
Water usage, ma/kg
of production
Minimum
0.012
(1.5)
0.011
(1.3)
0.005
(0.6)
0.005
(0.6)
(gal/lb)
Maximum
0.28
(33.1)
0.28
(33.2)
0.51
(60.9)
0.51
(60.9)
Wastewater discharge rate,
m3/day (MOD)
Median
0.078
(9.4)
0.087
(10.4)
0.11
(13.6)
0.094
(11.2)
Minimum
57
(0.015)
47
(0.012)
34
(0.009)
34
(0.009)
Maximum
20,800
(5.495)
28,900
(7.635)
20,900
(5.495)
28,900
(7.635)
Average
1,970
(0.520)
4,280
(1.131)
1,890
(0.499)
2,599
(0.686)
Median
636
(0.168)
1,530
(0.405)
636
(0.168)
891a
(0.235)3
Average of the medians.
-------
ENZYMES OR H2S04
NaOH AND AUXILIARY CH
CONCENTRATED NaOH
H202ORNaOCI
DYESTUFFS
AUXILIARY CHEM.
PRINT PASTES
AUXILIARY CHEM.
FINISHING AGENTS
EM.
OESIZE
mf\
»»
crniio
31AJUK
MERCERIZE
fcl
**
BLEACH
fc|
**
DYE
fcl
**
PRINT
< tol
*l
FINAL
FINISH
LIQUID WASTE
LIQUID WASTE
CAUSTIC
RECOVERY
LIQUID WASTE
LIQUID
WASTE
LIQUID WASTE
LIQUID WASTE
LIQUID WASTE (FROM CLEANUPL
fc WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
-' DISCHARGE
Figure 8.
Flow diagram of wastewater sources at a
typical woven fabric finishing plant [2]
-------
Desizing
Desizing contributes a significant amount (>50%) of organic load,
some oil and grease, and most of the suspended material found in
woven fabric finishing wastewater. Desizing may contribute 50%
or more of the total waste solids found in the wastewater. There
are two types of sizes used that determine the character of the
wastewater:
Synthetic sizing agents: polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), carboxy-
methyl cellulose (CMC), and polyacrylic acid (PAA)
Natural starch size
Synthetic sizing agents, tending to be less biodegradable unless
exposed to an acclimated biological environment, result in an
increase of COD. They are soluble in water and can be removed
from woven fabric without difficulty.
Natural starch size is high in BOD and is not readily soluble.
In order to facilitate removal, it can be hydrolized into a sol-
uble form by the action of special enzymes or by acid solutions.
Table 25 lists the materials generated by each removal process
and the characteristics of the waste. The wastewater pH from
enzyme removal is about neutral (pH 7) while that from sulfuric
acid removal is acidic (pH 1 to 2).
TABLE 25. WASTEWATER COMPOSITION DURING REMOVAL
DESIZING OF NATURAL STARCH SIZE [2]
Type of removal Wastes generated
Waste characteristics
Enzymatic removal Starch solids,
fat, wax, en-
zymes, sodium
chloride, wet-
ting agents
Sulfuric acid
removal
Starch solids,
fat, wax,
sulfuric acid
Organic and inorganic dis-
solved solids, suspended
solids, some oil and
grease, pH 6 to 8, color:
light
Organic and inorganic dis-
solved solids, suspended
solids, some oil and
grease, pH 1 to 2, color:
relatively light
For the average woven fabric finishing mill processing 100% cot-
ton goods with starch used as the sizing agent, the desizing
waste will generally constitute about 16% of the total wastewater
volume, 5% of the BOD, 36% of the total solids, and 6% of the
alkalinity [2].
55
-------
Scouring
Scouring is done to remove much of the natural impurities of cot-
ton. A 2% to 3% solution of sodium hydroxide is typically used,
with possible auxiliary chemicals such as phosphate, chelating
agents, and wetting agents. Scouring liquors are strongly alka-
line (pH greater than 12), and dark colored due to cotton impuri-
ties. The liquors contain dissolved solids, oil and grease, and
some suspended solids from the presence of cotton impurities.
Synthetic fibers are relatively free of natural impurities so
they require much less vigorous scouring. Scouring of synthetic
fibers generates low levels of dissolved solids from surfactant,
soda ash, or sodium phosphate [2, 3].
For the typical woven fabric finishing plant processing 100%
cotton goods, the scouring waste will generally constitute 19% of
the total wastewater volume, 37% of the BOD, 43% of the total
solids, and 60% of the alkalinity [2].
Bleaching
Most (>50%) cotton bleaching is done with hydrogen peroxide or
hypochlorite. Hydrogen peroxide bleaching contributes very small
waste loads, most of which are dissolved solids, in comparison to
sizing and scouring wastewaters. The dissolved solids contain
both inorganic (sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide, and sodium
phosphate) and organic (a surfactant and a chelating agent)
species. The waste stream contains a low level of suspended
solids (fibers and natural impurities) when goods containing
cotton are bleached [2, 3].
Mercerization
Mercerization wastes predominantly consist of sodium hydroxide
used in the process. The waste stream contains higher levels of
dissolved solids than scouring and has a pH of 12 to 13. Depend-
ing on whether mercerization is practiced before or after bleach-
ing, smaller amounts of foreign material and wax may be removed
from the fiber and will appear as suspended solids, oil and
grease.
For the typical woven fabric finishing plant processing 100% cot-
ton goods, mercerizing waste will contribute about 1% of the BOD
load [2].
Today, mercerization is practiced less often and those plants
that do use it have found it economically attractive to recovery
of the sodium hydroxide used for reuse. Consequently, the waste
contribution due to mercerization has become even less signifi-
cant at many plants [2].
56
-------
Dyeing
Dyeing is the most complex of all the wet finishing operations.
Depending on the types of fabric, the types of dyes used, the
types of equipment employed, and the efficiency of the processes,
the waste stream from the dyeing of woven fabric may contain any
combination of the dyes and auxiliary chemicals.
Dyeing can contribute substantially to the total waste load and
is responsible for most of the waste volume. Color is an obvious
waste. High levels of dissolved solids are present and the sus-
pended solids are relatively low.
For various woven fabric finishing mills that process 100% cotton,
dyeing was found to contribute 1.5% to 30% of the total BOD [2].
Printing
Although the wastewater volumes are much lower and the concentra-
tion greater, printing wastes are comparable in many respects to
dye wastes. The chemicals used in printing will contribute BOD
and printing pigments will contribute some suspended solids when
the fabric is rinsed. Solvents (varsol) and glycerine are also
common constituents found in printing wastes. Much of the waste
from printing comes from the cleaning of make-up tanks and proc-
ess equipment. The relatively concentrated waste from printing
may justify segregated treatment [2, 3].
Functional Finishing
Wastes from resin treatment, waterproofing, flameproofing, and
soil release are small, since the chemicals are applied by pad-
ding followed by drying and curing. The range of chemicals used
in special finishes is very broad, and small amounts of them will
enter the wastes [3].
Sanitary Wastes
Various treatment approaches are used in dealing with sanitary
wastes. In one industry study of 11 plants, the method most com-
monly employed was found to be no treatment at all prior to com-
bination with industrial wastes. One plant provided chlorination
for its sanitary waste prior to further treatment with industrial
wastes. Another had a separate treatment facility (oxidation
pond) for their sanitary wastes. For these 11 plants sanitary
wastes were found to contribute up to 7.5% of the total waste-
water volume [33].
[33] Engineering Science, Inc. Textile Mill Draft Report: Plant
B, C, H, J. K, M, U, V, and Z. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1978-1979.
57
-------
.Nonpoint Sources
Wastewater nonpoint sources found in woven fabric finishing
plants can be caused by leaking pumps, compressors, heat ex-
changers, or other similar equipment, and by random spills [5].
Good housekeeping procedures can keep wastewaters from nonpoint
sources to a minimum.
EFFLUENT DATA
Historical wastewater data for conventional and nonconventional
pollutants were collected from manufactureres and then compiled
in a study by Svedrup and Parcel [2]. The historical data were
supplemented by field sampling data from a recent joint study
conducted by the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this
joint study the EPA and ATMI selected a total of 23 textile
plants representing eight textile processing categories and
having well-operated secondary wastewater treatment facilities to
determine the best available technology economically available
(BATEA) for textile plant wastewaters. Eleven of these 23 se-
lected textile plants were in the subcategory of woven fabric
finishing. The field sampling tests also obtained data for
priority pollutants and other metals since historical data are
not available for these two pollutant classes [34, 35].
A summary of historical data for conventional and nonconventional
pollutant parameters as obtained by Svedrup and Parcel, is pre-
sented in Table 26 for raw wastewaters from woven fabric finish-
ing plants. The secondary effluent historical data summary from
plants practicing the best practicable technology (screening,
equalization, neutralization, aeration basin, secondary clarifi-
cation) are given in Table 27. Although it is possible to sub-
divide the woven fabric finishing plants into simple processing,
complex processing, and complex processing plus desizing, based
on the BOD and COD values of the raw wastewater (Table 26), this
subdivision is not possible based on the BOD and COD values of
the BPT effluents (Table 27). The maximum and average concentra-
tions found in Table 27 will be used later in evaluating the
potential environmental impact of wastewaters from woven fabric
finishing plants. Since it is not possible to subdivide woven
[34] Rawlings, G. D. Source Assessment: Textile Plant Waste-
water Toxics Study, Phase I. EPA-600/2-78-004h. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. March 1978.
[35] Klieve, J. R., and G. D. Rawlings. Source Assessment:
Textile Wastewater Toxics Study, Phase II. EPA-600/2-79-
019i, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1979. 141 pp.
58
-------
TABLE 26. RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - SUMMARY
OF DATA REPORTED BY WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING
PLANTS (HISTORICAL DATA) [2]
Quality of pollutant, kg/kkg of product
Pollutant parameter
5-Day biochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD,)
Chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
Total suspended
solids (TSS)
Oil and grease
Phenol
Total chromium
Sulfide
Color, APHA units
Subcateqory
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Minimum
3.77
3.59
5.90
3.77
12.70
10.18
48.04
12.70
0.81
1.95
0.20
0.20
0.65
2.24
0.36
0.36
1.76
0.91
0.93
0.91
0.07
2.37
0.57
0.07
0.58
7.84
15.73
0.58
20
320
20
Maximum
215.35
96.05
188.51
188.51
436.82
388.01
798.32
388.01
222.11
61.68
83.50
222.11
151.25
14.24
14.93
150
51.21
25.03
149.32
149.32
43.76
49.23
1,521.01
1,521.01
128.21
19.88
293.72
293.72
10,000
700
10,000
Average
36.75
36.99
53.57
43.51
108.00
128.28
157.27
132.22
27.23
14.95
23.17
22.58
25.31
5.52
5.22
15
14.29
10.33
52.69
25.02
8.19
15.32
239.58
84.64
28.24
13.41
154.72
47.21
2,500
508
2,100
Median
22.64
32.74
45.12
34.12
92.40
110.62
122.63
108.27
7.96
9.63
14.76
11.02
9.08
3.84
4.08
6.5
8.15
7.69
13.10
9.54
4.30
2.62
20.86
9.32
7.59
12.51
154.72
35.7
800
508
750
NO. Of
plants
32
23
36
91
28
12
29
69
26
18
28
72
11
6
5
22
10
4
6
20
16
7
11
34
6
3
2
11
9
2
0
11
Note. Blanks indicate data not available.
59
-------
TABLE 27. BPT EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS - SUMMARY
OF DATA REPORTED BY WOVEN FABRIC
FINISHING PLANTS (HISTORICAL DATA) [2]
Quality of pollutant, kg/kkg of product
Pollutant parameter
5-Day biochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD9)
Chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
Total suspended
solids (TSS)
Oil and grease
Phenol
Total chromium
Sulfide
Color, APHA units
Subcategory
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Simple processing
Complex processing
Complex processing
plus desizing
The three subdivisions
combined
Minimum
0.79
0.54
0.51
0.51
17.67
17.87
4.69
17.87
2.27
3.20
0.65
0.65
0.42
0.42
1.57
3.42
0.24
0.24
1.21
1.42
0.08
0.08
8.93
3.74
33.57
3.74
Maximum
18.77
15.04
13.65
13.65
71.71
109.98
82.03
82.03
11.26
10.11
19.38
19.38
3.30
3.30
14.15
73.80
72.79
72.79
37.17
32.89
106.56
106.56
24.24
27.57
155.93
155.93
Average
4.78
4.94
3.12
• 3.91
38.43
47.59
34.49
38.58
6.31
6.65
6.00
6.22
5.18
(24)
1.29
1.94
5.63
31.52
13.63
13.50
8.28
11.66
12.04
10.86
16.58
12.09
93.53
42.52
337
118
228
Median
2.59
4.05
2.14
2.67
33.62
39.03
29.40
32.72
4.76
7.55
4.56
5.28
1.05
1.05
2.78
17.35
3.01
5.31
2.61
3.70
2.45
2.76
16.58
9.60
92.3
40.94
No. of
plants
7
7
17
31
6
6
13
25
7
7
17
31
1
0
5
6
7
3
8
18
7
5
12
24
2
5
4
11
1
0
1
2
Note. Blanks indicate data not available.
60
-------
fabric finishing into simple processing, complex processing, and
complex processing plus desizing based on BPB effluent data, the
maximum concentration values used will be the maximum of the
three subdivisions maximums, and the average used will be the
averages of the three, averages reported.
Plant Specific Data
Specific manufacturers report data (historical data) supplemented
by field sampling data on conventional and nonconventional pollut-
ants for the 10 woven fabric finishing plants studied in the EPA/
ATMI study [34]. These data are presented in Table 28. Ranges
for the 30-day average and maximum were given to illustrate that
these plants were not necessarily at these highest concentration
value for a one-year period.
Where field sampling data were used, the maximum flow rate for a
one-year period, and the top of the range of the mean flow rate
for a one-year period was used. Table 28 also provides the
average plant production and the percentage of that production
covered under a different textile plant subcategory other than
woven fabric finishing, the range of the average (along with the
average) and maximum flow rate for a one-year period, and the
percent sanitary wastes.
Priority Pollutants
The EPA developed a list of 129 priority pollutants which they
will consider in their standards setting process. A list of
these 129 priority pollutants is given in Appendix E. From field
sampling conducted by the EPA and ATMI, priority pollutant data
for 11 woven fabric finishing plants were available [34]. Table
29 gives the concentrations of the priority pollutants found in
the raw wastewater (influent) and secondary effluent for the 10
plants. To illustrate the number of appearances organic pollut-
ants made in the 11 woven fabric finishing plants, influent and
secondary effluent, Figures 9 and 10 were constructed.
Other Metals
In addition to the conventional and nonconventional pollutants,
and the 129 priority pollutants, 15 metals were measured in the
influent and secondary effluents of the 10 woven fabric finishing
plants. These values are given in Table 29. The 15 metals are:
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manga-
nese, molybdenum, sodium, silicon, tin, phosphorus, titanium, and
vanadium.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In this subsection, factors that bear on the evaluation of the
potential environmental effects of a particular wastewater
61
-------
TABLE 28. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT DATA, AND PLANT
SPECIFIC DATA FOR 10 WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS [3, 5, 6]
Ok
Plant B
Parameter
BOD5, mg/L
COD,' mg/L
TSS, mg/L
Phenol, mg
Total chromium,
mg/L
Sulfide, mg/L
Color, APHA
PH
Production rate.
kg/day
Discharge flow
rate, MOD
Percent sanitary
waste
30-day average
12 to 27
178 to 235
11 to 44.
0.015D
0.2
90
7.1 to 7.7
43.
0.57 to 0.96
2
Maximum
19 to 43
216 to 281
30 to 98
7.5 to 8.8
100
1.1 to 1.5
<0.5%
Plant
30-day average
10.7 to 40
318 to 628
23.3 to 240
0.0018 to 0.028
<0.005 to <0.099
<0.210 to 16.9
1,920
8.00 to 9.38
95.
1.63 to 3.73
C
Maximum
19 to 132
446 to 1,576
8
0.01 to 0.028
<0.005 to <0.11
0.38 to 28.8
8.8 to 10.3
100
3.5 to 4.8
Plant E
30-day average
<5
78
19
0.014
<1
30
7.1
Maximum
7.6
170,000
2.17
3
Plant H
Parameter
BOD 5, mg/L
COD," mg/L
TSS, mg/L
Phenol, mg/L
Total chromium.
mg/L
Sulfide, mg/L
Color, APHA
PH
Production rate.
kg/ day
Discharge flow
rate, MOD
Percent sanitary
waste
30-day average
13 to 43
274 to 549
28 to 108
0 Oil to 0.032
0.004 to 0.013
0.02 to 0.09
500
7.2 to 7.8
85.
2.33 to 2.62
<1
Maximum
28 to 79
385 to 967
37 to 239
0.015 to 0.045
0.011 to 0.023
0.1 to 0.2
8.4 to 9.4
500
2.5 to 3.7
Plant J
30-day average
16 to 57
291 to 594
13 to 63
0.024
1.8
1,375
8.0 to 8.8
177.
2.74 to 4.64
4
Maximum
21 to 73
394 to 763
25 to 229
8.9 to 9.4
000
4.5 to 8.5
Plant K
30-day average
5.3 to 12.3
75 to 426
4.6 to 14.3
0.018
<0.04
<1
131
8.3 to 9.0
76,200
1.6 to 2.35
7.5
Maximum
10 to 17
132 to 639
8 to 20
<0.04
8.5 to 9.0
2.8 to 3.4
(continued)
-------
TABLE 28 (continued)
Parameter
BOD5, mg/L
COD," mg/L
TSS. mg/L
Phenol, mg
Total chromium.
mg/L
Sulfide, mg/L
Color, APHA
PH
Production rate.
kg/ day
Discharge flow
rate, MGD
Percent sanitary
waste
Plant M
30-day average
8.9 to 12
Maximum
12 to 17
499 to 546 696 to 1,120
15 to 143
0.02 to 0.03
0.07 to 0.15
500
7.0 to 8.5
334,000
7.34 to 8.78
1
32 to 396
0.04
0.64 to 0.8
7 7 to 13
9.0 to 11.8
Plant U
30-day average Maximum
9 to 55 15 to 265
314 to 1,500 455 to 5,886
177 749
0.02 0.09
<0.02 to 0.011 <0.02 to 0.047
3.5
2,480
5.8 to 6.9 7.5 to 8.6
32,000
0.24 to 0.52 0.5 to 1.0
0
Plant V
30 -day average Maximum
1.4 to 12 2 to 17
75 to 216 75 to
11 to 47 18 to
0.01 to 0.09 0.01 to 0
0.007 to 0.017 0.008 to 0.
<1
500
6.7 to 6.9 7.0 to
15,600
0.15 to 0.74 0.4 to
5
216
59
09
024
7.6
1.3
Parameter
BOD5, mg/L
COD," mg/L
TSS, mg/L
Phenol , mg
Total chromium,
mg/L
Sulfide, mg/L
Color, APHA
pH
Production rate,
kg/ day
Discharge flow
rate, MGD
Percent sanitary
waste
Plant Z
30-day average
2.3 to 24
99 to 207
2.9 to 58
0.01 to 0.09 0
0.01 to 0.023 0
<0.1 to <10
750
7.8 to 8.1
33,000
1.75 to 2.34
5
Maximum
2.5 to 42
109 to 308
36 to 207
.01 to 0.19
.01 to 0.03
<10
8.4 to 10
2.5 to 3.0
0.5
aFlow rate (mean-maximum) is MGD
concentration value.
Data from Reference 6.
for month producing highest
Reference 5.
Subcategory 3 of 3 of Textile Plants: Dry Processing.
eSubcategory 5 of Textile Plants:
c
Subcategory 7 of Textile Plants:
Finishing.
Knit Fabric Finishing.
Stock and Yarn, Dyeing and
Note: Blanks indicate data not available.
-------
TABLE 29.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR INFLUENT AND
EFFLUENT STREAMS AT 10 WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS
[34, 36]
Priority pollutant
kcenephthene
Bcnzciw
1 .2.4-trichlorobenzene
KeHachlorobeiuene
1 . 1. 1-trichloroe thane
1.1-dichloroe thane
2.4.6-trlchlorophenol
p-chloro-oi-creaol
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 . 2-dichlorabenzene
1 . 4-dlchlorabeiusene
1,2-Trani-dichloroethylene
1 . 2-dichloropropane
1 . 2-dichloropropylene
Ethylbentene h
Kethylene chloride
DichlorobroBOBe thane
TrichlorofluoroBethane
Naphthalene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
B-nitroiodlphenylaine
N-nitroaodi-n-propyl-
amine
PCD t
-------
TABLE 29 (continued)
Plants
Pruritr pollutant
Pyrene
Tetrachleroe thy lane
Tnchloroethylene
o-BHC
Ant fanny
areenic
Bnylliiai
Cadaliai
Cbrceuiaa
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Kercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Other ecta la
•luainua
Bar 110
Boron
Calciiai
Cobalt
rron
Kanoaneaff
Holybdenua
Silicon
PKoaphorua
Tltaniiai
Vanadlua
Influent
3.74
1
12
74
17
0 9
300
160
37
70
20
5 6
320
9.500
93
> 100, 000
18
12.000
3 9
58
Secondary
affluent
0.3
4
30
0 6
170
24
8
43
12
5.2
170
4,670
19
> 100, 000
2,300
41
6.500
30
cencentra
plant C Pla
Influent
26.4
236
17.8
7
5
35
B
7
120
150
74
300
83
39
5.000
8 1
1.000
1.900
29
19
>100,OOO
1C, 000
10
4.000
20
290
Secondary
effluent
2 6
4
1 6
1 }
6
3
20
13
120
0.7
140
(M)
120
190
73
IS
4.500
S.6
220
730
17
24
> 100. 000
15.000
120
4.100
12
Influent
61.1
2.0
8
6
11
840
8
40
7
7.900
28
15
2.360
5.400
120
2,500
27
> lOO.OOO
11.000
30
1.900
IB
19
.lion. g/L
int E
Secondary
effluent
0.1
5 5
B
1
4
30
40
5.100
38
12
1.060
39.000
620
3,100
100
19
> 54. 000
a.exw
10
1.400
12
21
Plant H
Influent
25 7
4
4
22
14
41
3,900
n
1,300
5 4
160
2,600
13
11
> 100. 000
17.000
19
390
9
35
Secondary
effluent
11 9
6
9(0
55
6 200
400
3.200
9
> 100. 000
15.000
55
200
32
Plant J
Influent
36 1
7
4B
2,400
29
97
60
2,100
950
100
4 900
8 4
700
5,800
50
4 3
HOO.OOO
la.ooo
30
3.300
' u
Secondary
effluent
0 1
8 0
A 11
25
100
90
BOO
10
24
5 200
6 9
520
6,900
50
> 100. 000
17.OOO
50
600
u
. — ^ _-. -
p"'ritr P"""taat Influent effluent Influent •ftlva?
TetrachlOTMlhylene
Tricolor oethylene
o-BHC
•Teen^
Berylliiai
cadaiiaa
Cyanide
Mercury
Kick
Silver
Zinc
Other Hetala
Boron
Catenae
Cobalt
Hawaii.
Holybdenua
Tin
Phoaphorua
V HI
"" "
29
*
4
190
260
130
100
150
280
28
_ '__.
' g
670
20
> 100, 000
23,000
SO
1,900
3 5
12
3 24 0 04
0 31
a OB 4
495
15
110 1.200 410
IB 13
1,10V 910 530
. 9,700 0,800
•B 180 60
11 *34 'l40
0 6
>100.000 >100.00D >IOO.OOO
15.000 15.000 14.000
40 4.000 3.500
930 3,990 3.460
10 4 9.2
3! 42 37
^•^mrmirni. UOIL
I
7
"
0*
e
8
260
900
10
32
5,800
680
76
> 100, 000
3.200
28
3.500
6
23
13 0
1
14
23
212
190
"I
260
8,000
300
2.500
16
> 100. 000
3.000
3.700
3
19
a <
s
4
230
6
460
200
14
3.4OO
3.200
370
' 63
"l.'SS
750
_
19
,
(0 1
4 11
4
3
97
170
110
340 110
160 23
480 12
3,600 2 500
4 9
470 160
1.700 650
72 14
> 100, 000 >10t> 000
4.500 B.BOO
7an
1 A
13 89
12 0
110 6
12
JO
170
j.
2,100
7J
'•2j;
>100,000
6,200
500
86
Dote Blanta indicate data not available
65
-------
o
a.
o
1-4
0£
O_
U.
O
cc
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
aNUMBER CORRESPONDS TO PRIORITY
POLLUTANT SPECIES LISTED IN
APPENDIX E.
bSPECIES ONLY FOUND IN RAW WASTt
AND NOT IN SECONDARY EFFLUENT.
78s
h
71°
^
h
57°
~30b
27
21b
"l3b
87
68
22
llb
7
4b
1
64
85b 23 65
25 8 38 70 55 86 66
5678
NUMBER OF PLANTS
Figure 9. Appearance of organic priority pollutants
in the raw wastewater of 10 woven fabric
finishing plants [34].
10 11 12
66
-------
O
Q_
a:
o
HH
0£.
Q_
U_
O
Q£
UJ
CO
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
104a
-
70
65
64
a
63a
9
49a
27
22
8
7
-
1
aNUMBER CORRESPONDS TO PRIORITY
POLLUTANT SPECIES LISTED IN
APPENDIX E.
87
78
55
44a
25
23
6H
86
a jift
84 *" 38 1 , . , 66
5 6 7 .8 9
NUMBER OF PLANTS
10 11 12
Figure 10. Appearance of organic priority pollutants
in the secondary effluents of 10 woven
fabric finishing plants [34].
67
-------
discharge are quantified and then combined to determine another
parameter called the source severity. The three factors neces-
sary in determining source severity are:
Hazard potential of the waste
Discharge quantities
Type of receiving body
Hazard Potentials
Hazard factors were developed to correspond to a concentration of
pollutant in the receiving stream that is potentially hazardous
to aquatic life or human health. They were selected first from
water quality criteria if those data were available. In the
absence of such criteria other data on health or toxic effects,
along with a safety factor to allow for more sensitive species,
were used to calculate a hazard factor.
In Appendix F the seven equations are listedthat can be used in
determining a hazard factor when water quality criteria are not
available.
Appendix G lists the pollutants found in the secondary effluent
of 10 woven fabric finishing plants and provides the following
data:
Toxicological data used to derive hazard factors
Equations used to derive hazard factor
Hazard factors used in prioritization
References
Any necessary comments or clarifications
As more data become available the hazard factor used in this
report may be revised.
Discharge Quantities
Discharge quantities are determined by multiplying wastewater
flow rates and effluent concentrations. Discharge quantities are
calculated to give a maximum discharge quantity and an average
discharge quantity. This, along with other factors, were used in
calculating a worst-case source severity and a mean (average)
case source severity, respectively. Other values of source
severity can be generated by the use of different flow rates,
concentrations, and receiving body flow rates.
Receiving Body
Potential environmental effects are strongly dependent upon the
type and flow rate of the receiving stream. The types of
68
-------
receiving bodies encountered in this report are tributaries,
rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The minimum and mean flow rates,
when applicable, for the 10 woven fabric finishing plants were
collected. These data were obtained by using a map to locate the
river nearest a specific plant for which flow rates were provided.
Water resource data for specific states published by the U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division [36-39].
The minimum and mean flow rates were used in calculating a worst-
and mean-case source severity, respectively, for the 11 woven
fabric finishing plants. The receiving body flow rate that was
used in calculating a worst- and mean-case source severity for
the general overview of woven fabric finishing plants were the
minimum and the averages of the mean receiving body flow rates of
the 10 woven fabric finishing plants.
Source Severity
Source severity compares the concentration of a given pollutant
in the receiving water as a result of discharge, to the concen-
tration of the pollutant. There are two basic equations used in
calculating source severity in water corresponding to the two
categories of receiving bodies of water:
Flowing streams where the discharge quantity is compared to
the receiving body flow rate times the hazard factors
(10)
Lakes and estuaries where the discharge concentration is
compared to the hazard factor:
[36] Water Resources Data for Georgia, 1977. USGS/WRD/HD-78/051
(PB 287 732). U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource
Division. Doraville, Georgia. 1977. 283 pp.
[37] Water Resource Data for South Carolina, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-
76/004 (PB 251 855). U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Columbia, South Carolina, 1975. 219 pp.
[38] Water Resources Data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
1977. USGS/WRD/HD-78/020 (PB 284 977). U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Division, Boston, Massachusetts,
1977. 323 pp.
[39] Water Resources Data for New Hampshire and Vermont, 1975.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/057 (PB 262 800). U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, 1975. 193 pp.
69
-------
where
S =
se = r-
source severity for a particular pollutant
wastewater effluent flow rate, m3/s
concentration of particular pollutant, g/m3
volumetric flow rate of receiving body above plant
discharge, m3/s
hazard factor for particular pollutant, g/m3
However, for pollutant species that deplete the dissolved oxygen
content of receiving streams, a different approach was required.
First, an excess oxygen demand hazard factor, F
Q,
= Cs -
DO
is defined as
(12)
where
Cg = saturated dissolved oxygen concentration of the
receiving stream =10.2 g/m3 (assumed for river
water at 15°C) [40]
DO = dissolved oxygen freshwater quality criterion
= 5 g/m3 [41]
Also, the concentration (C_) in Equation 10 and 11 must be ex-
pressed as the total oxygen demand (TOD). Since the oxygen
demand of the wastewater in the effluent streams of woven fabric
finishing plants are expressed as BOD and COD, relationships
between TOD, COD, and BOD were needed.
Correlations between TOD, COD, and BOD for municipal waste were
obtained by Monsanto Research Corporation. These correlations
are
TOD =1.3 COD
TOD =2.9 BOD
(13)
(14)
The relationship between TOD, COD, and BOD will not be valid for
all types of wastes. However, these correlations were used for
thi s document .
[40] Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Fifth Edition. J. H. Perry
and C. H. ChiIton, eds. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
New York, 1973. pp. 3-98, 14-3.
[41] Reznik, R. B., E. C. Eimutis, J. L. Delaney, S. R. Archer,
J. C. Ochsner, W. R. McCurley, and T. W. Hughes. Source
Assessment: Prioritization of Stationary Water Pollution
Sources. EPA-600/2-78-004q, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1978.
70
-------
Since the values obtained for TOD by way of COD and BOD differed
by more than 50%, both methods of calculating TOD were used in
determining the oxygen demand source severity.
Conventional and nonconventional pollutant source severities are
presented in Table 30 for the overview of woven fabric finishing,
and in Table 31 (next page) for the 11 woven fabric finishing
plants. In general, the worst-case source severity was calcu-
lated by using the maximum concentration, the maximum discharge,
and the low receiving body flow rate. The mean case source
severity was calculated by using the mean concentration, the mean
discharge rate, and the mean receiving flow rate (from Tables
27-29).
TABLE 30. GENERAL WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING SOURCE SEVERITY
FOR CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pollutant parameter
Total oxygen demand (TOD)
By way of BOD
By way of CODC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
CD'
Maximum
700*
1,90
-------
TABLE 31. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT SOURCE
SEVERITY FOR 10 WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS
Receiving stream
flow rate.
Vr. ma/s
Plant
B
C
B
H
J
K
M
U
V
z
Minimum
0.425
13.02
H
24.55°
0.68
8.10d
8-31
-*
_c
7.36
Mean
5.126
22.57
114. 00d
1.86
68.70.
179.13
-"
_c
28.86
Oxygen demand source severity
By way
Worst
case8
2.9
1.0
2.3
0.26
15
0.17
0.67
150
9.5
0.38
Of BODS
Mean/
case*
0 099
0.015
0.024
2.4
0.01
0.014
30
6.7
0.038
By way
Worst
case
8.6
6.1
20
1.3
84
2.8
22
1.400
54
1.2
Of COD
Mean
case
0.44
0.94
0.14
15
0.15
0.29
380
0.15
TSS
Worst
case
0.44
0.59
0.033
0.51
5.0
0.014
1.3
30
2.4
0.123
Mean
case
0.012
0.057
0.0043
0.23
<0.001
0.012
7.1
1.9
0.0067
Phenol
Worst
case
2.3
0.34
0.61
0.22
5.7
0.33
2.8
90
90
1.3
Mean
case
0.12
0.17
0.03
2.8
0.27
0.064
20
90
0.24
Chromium
Worst
case
0.031
0.0024
0.014
0.94
0.48
0.011
Mean
case
0.012
<0.001
0.001
0.22
0.34
0.001
Sulfide
Worst
case
15
172
<500
0.58
490
9.1
28
1,750
0.500
76
Mean
case
0.82
48
0.043
98
0.75
0.14
16
Note: Blanks indicate data not available.
worst case source severity generally used maKimum concentration, maximum discharge flow rate, and the minimum river flow rate.
Mean case source severity generally used the mean concentration, mean discharge flow rate, and the mean river flow rate.
cEmpties into a lake or estuary.
Gaging station more than 30 miles away.
-------
TABLE 32. SOURCE SEVERITY VALUES GREATER THAN 0.001 FOR
THE ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN EFFLUENTS
FROM 11 WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS
Source severity value by pollutant
1.2,4-
tri chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Naphthalene Pentachlorophenol
Plant Worst case Mean Worst case Mean Worst case Mean Worst case Mean
B
C 0.003 0.001
E
H
J 0.019 0.004
K
H 0 003 0.001
U 0.003 <0.001
V
Z 0.036 0.007
Note: Blanks indicate pollutant not detected or the source severity is <0.001.
concentration, mean discharge, and mean receiving stream flow
rate) source severity. However, it is possible to calculate
other source severity values using different combinations which
would give values between the worst-case source severity and
mean-case source severity and below the mean-case source severity
Since the reporting of all these values would lead to confusion,
a range was chosen that would give a good indication of the
actual source severity for woven fabric finishing plants. This
value was the worst-case and mean-case source severity.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Two basic approaches to reduce effluent pollutant concentrations
and conserve water in woven fabric finishing plants are in-plant
measures and end-of-pipe treatment.
In this section a brief discussion of in-plant measures is given
followed by a discussion of end-of-pipe treatment.
In-Plant Measures
The in-plant controls and process changes practiced by woven
fabric finishing plants can be described under five basic
sections:
Water reuse
Water reduction
73
-------
TABLE 33. SOURCE SEVERITY VALUES GREATER THN 0.001
FOR METALS FOUND IN EFFLUENTS FROM 10
WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS
Source severity by plant
B
Worst
Metal case
Aluminum 0.018
Antimony
Boron 0.009
Cadniun
Calcium
Chromium 0.012
Cobalt 0.097
Copper 0.004
Iron 0.13
Lead
Mercury 0.045
Magnesium 1.3
Manganese 0 18
Nickel
Phosphorus 980
Silver
Tin
Zinc 0.005
C B
Worst Worst
Mean case Mean case
0.001 0.015 0.007
0.006 0.003
<0.001 1.4
0.01 0.004
0.011 0.005 4.9
<0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.08
0.005
<0.001
0.007 0.012 0.006 2.1
0.04 0.01
0.002 0.006 0.003
0.07 0.11 0.05 6.0
0.01
1.7 0.78
H J
Worst
Mean case
0.002
0.5
2.0
<0.001
0.8 0.009
2.8 0.04
53 65 30 1.400 800 1.3
0.026 0.012
0.19 0.087
<0.001
Worst
Mean case Mean
<0.001 0.027 0.005
0.06 0.01
0.05 0.01
0.001 0.95 0.19
0.006 4.4 0.89
0.55 0.11
0.2 330 66
2.7 0.55
0.088 0.017
K
Worst
case Mean
0.027 0.002
0.13 0.01
17 1.4
0.073 0.006
(continued)
Source severity by plant
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Tin
Zinc
H U
Worst Worst
case Mean case Mean
0.004 O.OOK 0.84 0
0.004 <0
0.058 0.002 0.37 0
0.28 0
0.02 0
1.0 0.03 4.8 2
0.23 0.006 0.32 0
280 7.4 3.700 1.500
0.007 <0.001 0.038 0
V
Worst
case
.05 0.018
.001
.04 0.97
.005 0.086
0.5
.005 0.17
1.6
.0 4.2
.005
1.200
.002 0.068
Z
Worst
Mean case Mean
<0.001
0.04
0.002
0.008 0.019 0.003
0.05
0.6
1.6 0.042 0.008
800 9.0 1.8
0.002
Note: Blanks indicate metal was not detected or the source severity was <0.001.
74
-------
Chemical substitution
Material reclamation
Process changes and new technology
Reported in-plant control measures for 81 woven fabric finishing
plants are presented in Table 34.
TABLE 34. REPORTED IN-PLANT CONTROL MEASURES
FOR WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS [2]
In-plant control measures
Water reuse
Water reduction
Chemical substitution
Material reclamation
Total
Number
of plants
28
20
17
16
81
Percent of
total plants
34.6
24.7
21.0
19.8
100
Water Reuse—
Water reuse in-plant measures are those situations which reduce
hydraulic loadings to treatment systems by using the same water
in more than one process. The recycling of water from advanced
wastewater treated waste is not considered an in-plant measure in
this section. The two major water reuse measures practiced which
can lead to substantial energy and water savings are (1) reuse of
relatively clean cooling water, and (2) reuse of process waste
from one operation in a second unrelated operation.
Of 81 woven fabric finishing plants surveyed, 34% were found to
have instituted some form of water reuse [2].
Water Reduction—
Water reduction, as the name implies, is the use of less water in
textile mill operations. The three forms of water reduction are:
(1) use of countercurrent flow washing, (2) "good housekeeping"
and conservation measures, and (3) process modifications. Of the
81 woven fabric finishing plants surveyed 25% have instituted
forms of water reduction [2].
Chemical Substitution—
Chemical substitutions involves replacing chemicals having high
pollutant strength or toxic properties with others that are less
polluting or more amenable to wastewater treatment. This type of
control can play an important role in the future as discharge
control standards are developed or made more stringent.
75
-------
Of the 81 woven fabric finishing plants surveyed, 21% were found
to practice some measure of chemical substitution [2].
Material Reclamation—
At the present time, material reclamation measures are often
implemented to reduce processing costs, reduction of pollutant
loadings being a secondary benefit. An example commonly prac-
ticed in textile plants is caustic recovery after mercerizing.
It is anticipated that chemical and wastewater treatment costs
will make material reclamation a more practiced in-plant measure
in the future.
Of the 81 woven fabric finishing mills, 20% practiced forms of
material reclamation [2].
Process Changes and New Process Technology—Process changes and
new process technology comprises a group of related measures that
may be used to achieve benefits in the four areas already noted.
Changes in both processes and material flow procedures give a
feasible method of reducing hydraulic and pollutant loadings in
the textile plants at the present time. New process technology
also holds great promise for reducing hydraulic and pollutant
loads in textile plants [2].
End-of-Pipe Treatment—End-of-pipe treatment is dealt with in two
sections: present best practicable technology (BPT), and ad-
vanced wastewater technology.
Present Best Practicable Technology
A summary of current end-of-pipe treatment practices by the woven
fabric finishing plants is given in Table 35 (next page) for both
direct and indirect dischargers.
The table illustrates that for the direct dischargers, 11% pro-
vide no wastewater treatment, 9.8% provide only preliminary
treatment (i.e., neutralization, screening, equalization, heat
exchange, disinfection, primary sedimentation, and/or flotation),
73.2% provide biological or an equivalent level of treatment
(i.e., aerated or unaerated lagoons, biological filtration, acti-
vated sludge, and chemical coagulation/flocculation without pre-
ceding biological treatment), and 6.1% provide an advanced level
of treatment (i.e., activated carbon, chemical coagulation fol-
lowing biological treatment, ozonation, filtration, ion exchange,
and membrane processes). For the indirect dischargers, 57.1%
provide no treatment, 29.0% provide preliminary treatment, 10.3%
provide biological or an equivalent level of treatment, and no
plants provide an advanced level of treatment [2].
Woven fabric finishing plant treatment facilities that provide
the BPT (treatment facilities which can meet the 1977 discharge
limits for criteria pollutants) usually include the following:
76
-------
TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF CURRENT END-OF-PIPE WOVEN
FABRIC FINISHING TREATMENT PRACTICES FOR
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS [2]
Treatment description
No treatment
Preliminary
Biological or equivalent
Advanced
Treatment unclassified
Totals
Direct
dischargers
9
8
60
5
0
82
Indirect
dischargers
128
65
23
0
8
224
Unclassified
dischargers
NA*
NA
NA
NA
30
30
Total
number
of mills
137
73
83
5
38
336
Does not apply.
Neutralization, screening, equalization, heat exchange, disinfection, pri-
mary sedimentation, and/or flotation.
Aerated and unaerated lagoons, biological filtration, activated sludge,
chemical coagulation/flocculation without preceeding biological treatment.
Activated carbon, chemical coagulation following biological treatment,
ozonation, filtration, ion exchange, membrane processes, etc.
(1) screening, (2) equalization, (3) neutralization, (4) activ-
ated sludge, (5) chemical coagulation, and (6) sedimentation
(secondary clarification). A model schematic of woven fabric
finishing wastewater treatment meeting 1977 BPT limitations is
provided in Figure 11 (next page).
Specific quantitative information about the treatment technolo-
gies employed by woven fabric finishing plants is presented in
Table 36 for both direct and indirect dischargers. Over 50% of
the direct dischargers provide screening (70%) activated sludge
(71%), and secondary sedimentation (73%); while less than 50%
provide equalization (38%), neutralization (23%), and chemical
coagulation (14%). These six treatment technologies are briefly
discussed below [2].
Screening—
Screening is usually the first operation employed in wastewater
treatment. It is used to remove large suspended particles, such
as dirt, fibers, and undissolved chemicals from the textile
wastewater. Of the 56 direct dischargers in the survey 70% were
found to provide certain types of screening [2].
Equalization—
Equalization is most often practiced as an initial treatment step
to provide nearly uniform hydraulic, organic, and solids loading
77
-------
NUTR
IIFR
MILL EFFLUENT -rnmiiur
1 SOLIDS
' LANDFI
ALUM 1
POLYMER— | 1
r— FLOCCULATION "JJJ0 *
CHEM-SLUDGE
[ENTFEED
EQUIRED)
TO
r
\~
\
— BIO-5WDGE
AOIVATED
CARBON
CATALYST
IN BASIN
^^
JIH ADJUST
(IF REQUIRED)
1
^H
%
\
^^H
CLARIF1ER
pH ADJUST
(IF REQUIRED)
\
JTRIFUGE
_ TO RECEIVING
~* STREAM
Figure 11.
Woven fabric finishing wastewater treatment model
schematic meeting 1977 (BPT) limitations [5].
rates to subsequent physical unit operation and chemical and
biological unit processes, so that these operations are more
efficient. Of the 56 woven fabric finishing direct dischargers,
38% provided equalization [2].
Neutralization —
Neutrali zation is the process of adjusting the pH so that the
waste is within acceptable limits for discharge to a receiving
body or subsequent treatment plant operation. A pH range of 6.0
to 9.0 is usually considered acceptable. Of 56 direct discharge
plants surveyed, 23% provided neutralization as part of their
wastewater treatment facility [2].
Activated Sludge —
The activated sludge process is an aerobic biological process, of
which many variations exist. The general method employed is to
treat the waste with a sludge or suspension of microorganisms,
aerate the mixture, then separate the sludge by sedimentation
[2]. The effectiveness of activated sludge in treating woven
fabric finishing plants wastewater is demonstrated by Table 37
for plants for which historical data was available. BOD removal
78
-------
TABLE 36. SPECIFIC QUANTITATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION EMPLOYED
BY DIRECT AND INDIRECT WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING DISCHARGERS
Woven fabric finishing
Indirect dischargers pretreatment
Direct dischargers treatment
No. of
mills
46
56
Physical
Sc
25
39
Eq
23
21
1°
2
4
2°
3
41
Sk
0
0
Fi
1
2
AS
1
40
Biological
Al
6
13
A2
3
16
An
0
0
TF
0
2
Chemical
Ne
8
13
CC
4
8
OX
1
19
Tertiary
Ac
0
1
PC
0
0
Other
3
9
Note: Sc = Screening
Eq = Equalization
1° = Primary sedimentation
2° = Secondary sedimentation
Sk = Skimming
Fi = Filtration
AS = Activated sludge
Al = Aerated lagoon
A2 = Facultative or tertiary lagoon
An = Anaerobic lagoon
TF = Trickling filter
Ne = Neutralization
CC = Chemical coagulation
Ox = Oxidation, including disinfection
AC = Activated carbon
PC = Powdered activated carbon
vo
TABLE 37. DEMONSTRATED REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE FOR BOD, COD, AND TSS
Plant
B
pb
H
J
a
jjb
U
V
Z
Average
flow. MOD
0.82
3.13
2 17
2.26
3.71
2 0
8.13
0.33
0.33
2.03
Basin
3
10
3.8
7.2
40
14
15
40
2.4
6
10.5
Detention,'
HP/MOD hr
107
41
79
62.5
45
57
120
20
125
38
57
88
76 7
42.0
76.5
259
168
44.3
417
175
436
124
1 BOD,
Influent
399
280
380
542
361
707
715
342
mg/L
Effluent
19.5
20.2
26
24
7.4
10.4
36
38
4 7
- 2
Percent
95.1
92.8
93.2
95.6
97.8
98.5
95
88 9
594
COD,
Influent
1,033
1,025
1,093
1,716
2,023
1,082
1,604
113
137
mq/L
Effluent
214
412
397
375
181.4
525.6
233
899
75 3
Percent
removal
79.3
59.8
63.7
78.1
74.0
78.5
44.0
TSS. mq/L
Influent
27
65
233
74
125.6
171b
75
20 8
42
Effluent
24
97.6
57
34
8
63.5
5Zb
40
Percent
removal
11.1
12.3
85.4
89.2
49.4
66.7
46.7
Note: Blanks indicate data not available.
Calculated based on average flow rate and basin volume.
Data from Reference 33.
-------
ranges from 88.9% to 98.5%, for COD the range is from 44.0% to
79%, and for TSS the range is from 11.1% to 89.2%. Of 56 woven
fabric finishing direct dischargers, 71.4% employed activated
sludge in their treatment facility.
Chemical Coagulation—
Coagulation is the process by which chemicals are employed to de-
stabilize suspended material found in woven fabric finishing
plants waste such that the particles contact and agglomerate.
Flocculation, the next step in the process, then promotes inter-
particle contact to form a floe. This floe is then removed by
sedimentation. Of the 56 woven fabric finishing direct dis-
chargers, 14% practiced chemical coagulation [2].
Sedimentation—Sedimentation, also termed clarification, uses the
force of gravity to remove settleable solids from wastewater.
Two types of sedimentation performed are primary and secondary
sedimentation. Primary sedimentation is not often employed (only
7% of 56 mills) due to the fact that textile wastewaters are
generally low in settleable solids. Secondary sedimentation, the
most widely employed waste treatment process (73% of 56 mills),
is considered an integral part of the activated sludge systems.
For this reason, separate performance data are not readily avail-
able. A properly designed facility should yield good effluent
quality if the biological process is working properly [2, 5].
Advanced Wastewater Technology
Pilot Plant Studies—
A joint research effort has been made by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Textile Manufacturers
Institute (ATMI) to determine the best available technology eco-
nomically achievable (BATEA) for textile plant wastewaters.
Mobile pilot plant studies during 1977 and 1978 were conducted at
23 textile plants representing eight textile processing cate-
gories and having well-operated secondary wastewater treatment
facilities to evaluate the effectiveness of alternate advanced
wastewater treatment (AWT) technologies. Of these 23 textile
plants, 11 were in the subcategory of woven fabric finishing.
The mobile pilot plant tested 5 process technologies considered
potential BATEA treatment by the EPA and ATMI. These are:
Reactor clarifier
Multimedia filtration
Granular carbon adsorption
Ozonation
Dissolved air flotation
Powdered activated carbon was also considered a potential BATEA
treatment by the EPA and ATMI but was tested in the laboratory.
Anticipated treatment removal efficiencies of BOD, COD, TSS,
80
-------
grease, and color from textile wastewaters by different unit
processes is illustrated in Table 38 (next page). Carbon adsorp-
tion is expected to remove up to 40% of the BOD, up to 60% of the
COD, up to 40% of the TSS, and up to 90% of the color. Multi-
media filtration (mixed media filtration) is expected to remove
up to 40% of the BOD and COD, up to 80% of the TSS, and up to 90%
of the color. Ozonation is expected to remove up to 40% of the
COD, up to 70% of the TSS, and up to 80% of the color. A brief
discussion of the five process technologies tested by the mobile
pilot plant is presented below.
Reactor/Clarifier--
Reactor/clarifier, also known as a sludge-blanket type clarifier,
combines coagulation, flocculation, clarification, and upward
filtration in a single unit. As shown in Figure 12, influent
wastewater is mixed with coagulants as it is fed to the center
chamber where floe is formed. After leaving the mechanically
stirred-flocculating compartment of the wastewater under treat-
ment flows appeared through a fluidized blanket where the floe
solids are maintained. Clear effluent then flows up and out
through a weir at the top of the unit. Reactor/clarifiers have
become more popular than "flow through" systems in recent years
due to the inherent size reduction, and the fact that the floe
volume in a reactor clarifier may be as much as 100 times that in
a flow through system [5, 42].
IAI CHEMICAl TOD INLET
IWU)ENT KIM.INCSI0T
-r-r,. _
SC.UOW I // 11—^. pOfciPITMOR BLOW m
CONCINTRMWI «»«°R \ MfflK WAIN "«
MIXING
ZONE
Figure 12. Diagram of a reactor clarifier [5].
Multimedia Filtration--
Multimedia filtration units may be either of a gravity or pres-
sure type. Multimedia beds are composed of various combinations
of anthracite, sand, activated carbon, and resins. They exhibit
a superiority for filtration of activated sludge effluent over
other filter bed types. This is due to the high volume of floe
storage available in the upper bed and the polishing effect of
the small media [5].
[42] Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal. EPA-
625/l-75-003a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, January 1975. pp. 6-8.
81
-------
TABLE 38. ANTICIPATED TREATMENT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES OF
BOD, COD, TSS, GREASE, AND COLOR FROM TEXTILE
WASTEWATERS [5]
oo
10
Treatment unit process
BODs
Range of removal efficiency, %
COD
TSS
Grease
Color
Primary treatment:
Screening 0 to 5
Equalization 0 to 20
Neutralization
Chemical coagulation
(removals vary with chemicals
and dosage used) 40 to 70
Flotation 30 to 50
Secondary treatment:
Conventional activated
sludge and clarification 70 to 95+
Extended aeration and
clarification 70 to 94+
Aerated lagoon and
clarification 60 to-90
Aerobic lagoon 50 to 80
Packed tower 40 to 70
Roughing filter 40 to 60
Tertiary treatment:
5 to 20
40 to 70 30 to 90 90 to 97
20 to 40 50 to 60 90 to 98
50 to 70 85 to 95 0 to 15
50 to 70 85 to 95 0 to 15
0 to 70
45 to 60 85 to 95
35 to 60 50 to 80
20 to 40
20 to 30
0 to 10
0 to 10
Color removals
for biologi-
cal treat-
ment units
not docu-
mented
Chemical coagulation
Mixed media filtration
Carbon adsorption
Chlorination
Ozonation
Advanced treatment:
Spray irrigation
Evaporation
Reverse osmosis
40
25
25
0
90
98
95
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
70
40
40
5
95
99
99
40
25
25
0
30
80
95
90
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
70
40
60
5
40
90
98
95
30
25
50
95
95
to
80
to
to
to
99
to
90 90 to 97
40
0 to 5
70
98
.
98
0
80
0
70
to 70
to 90
to 5
to 80
Note: Blanks indicate data not available.
-------
Granular Carbon Absorption—
Activated carbon adsorbs a great variety of dissolved organic
materials including many which are nonbiodegradable. The adsorp-
tion which takes place is facilitated by the large surface areas
on the carbon granules which are attributable to its highly
porous structure. Biological degradation also occurring on the
carbon granules compliments the adsorption process in removing
dissolved organic material [43].
Ozonation—
Ozone, because of its instability, cannot be shipped and must be
produced on-site. It is capable of removing color and in reduc-
ing the bacterial and viral content of textile mill wastewater.
Although ozonation is also capable of reducing the concentration
of organics, it is not suitable because of the high dosages often
required [2, 5].
Dissolved Air Flotation—
Dissolved air flotation is a physical separation used to separate
solid particles from the effluent. Unlike a settling basin, this
separation takes place at the surface. When the fine air bubbles
introduced in the effluent become attached to the solid parti-
cles. This causes them to rise to the surface where they are
separated [2].
Based on the five process technologies considered potential BATEA
technologies, ATMI, the EPA, and Engineering Science(ES) selected
seven treatment systems (called modes) which had the greatest
potential of success. These modes are:
Mode A - Reactor/clarifier •* multimedia filter
Node B - Multimedia filter -> granular activated carbon columns
Mode C - Multimedia filter -» ozonator
Mode D - Ozonator
Mode E - Reactor/clarifier (optional) -> multimedia filter -»
granular activated carbon -> ozonator
Mode F - Coagulation -> multimedia filter
Mode G - Dissolved air flotation
These seven modes were then evaluated to determine optimum operat-
ing conditions for the processes, and to select candidate modes
(which did not have to be the same as the seven already mentioned)
for performing additional testing [34, 35].
The 1977 BPT guidelines and the proposed BAT guidelines for woven
fabric finishing plants are provided in Table 39. For a woven
fabric finishing plant just meeting BPT guidelines, removal effi-
ciencies of their treatment facility would have to increase to
[43] Process Design Manual for Carbon Absorption. EPA-625/1-71-
002a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, October 1973. p. iii.
83
-------
to meet BAT by 33% for BOD, 67% for COD, and 83% for TSS. The
BAT guidelines for phenol, chromium, sulfide, and pH remain the
same.
TABLE 39. WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING BPT AND PROPOSED BAT
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND PERCENT DIFFERENCE [33]
BPT, g/kgc
BAT, g/kgc
Percent
Daily 30-Day Daily 30-Day jrcj.w<=*n. .
Compound maximum average maximum average difference
BOD5
COD
COD-N^
COD-SC
COD-S/NC
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
PH
6.6
60
20
40
60
17.8
0.10
0.10
0.20
6-9
3.3
30
10
20
30
8.9
0.05
0.05
0.10
4.4
20
6.6
13.4
20
3
0.10
0.10
0.20
2.2
10
3.3
6.7
10
1.5
0.05
0.05
0.10
33.3
66.7
66.5
66.5
66.7
83.1
0
0
0
aUnits given in g/kg except pH - given in pH units.
b(BPT - BAT)/BPT values x 100.
Additional COD allowances for the complex manufacture of
natural fiber, synthetic fiber, and synthetic/natural
blend.
Table 40 (next page) gives the recommended BATEA process for the
11 woven fabric finishing plants for which ATMI and the EPA pilot
plant data were available. The BATEA process recommended most
often for woven fabric finishing plants was Mode B, multimedia
filtration followed by carbon adsorption.
Other Advanced Wastewater Process Technologies—
Hyperfiltration and powdered activated carbon, both advanced
wastewater treatment processes, are briefly described on the
following pages.
Hyperfiltration—
Hyperfiltration is a physical separation process that relies on
applied pressure to force flow through a semipermeable membrane
(permeable to water but not dissolved materials of a specific
molecular size). The system is capable of removing suspended
particles and substantial fractions of dissolved impurities,
including organic and inorganic materials. A full-scale
84
-------
TABLE 40. RECOMMENDED BATEA PROCESS FOR
10 WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANTS
Plant Recommended BATEA process
B Multimedia filtration
C Reactor/clarifier followed by multimedia filtration fol-
lowed by carbon columns
E
H Multimedia filtration with pre-filter coagulation followed
by carbon adsorption
J Multimedia filtration followed by carbon adsorption
(Mode B)
K Multimedia filtration
M Multimedia filtration followed by carbon adsorption
(Mode B)
U Multimedia filtration followed by carbon adsorption fol-
lowed by ozonation
V Multimedia filtration with precoagulation
Z Multimedia filtration followed by carbon adsorption
(Mode B)
demonstration project has been funded by the EPA and is currently
in the design and construction phase [2].
Powdered Activated Carbon—
Powdered activated carbon treatment (PACT) refers to the addition
of powdered carbon to the activated sludge process. This addi-
tion can significantly upgrade effluent quality in conventional
activated sludge plants [2].
In the ATMI and the EPA research study, powdered activated carbon
treatability tests were performed in the laboratory.
85
-------
SECTION 6
SOLID WASTES
SOURCE AND NATURE
Studies indicate that the woven fabric finishing segment of the
U.S. textile industry produced 37,702 Mg dry weight (1,618,203 Mg
wet weight) of solid wastes in 1977 [44]. These wastes consist
of process wastes (88% of the total) and wastewater treatment
plant sludges.
Sources of solid wastes in the finishing of woven fabrics are
(1) waste fiber in short lengths which accumulates on or around
machinery or is filtered out in the wastewater treatment system,
(2) plant trash which contains discarded cardboard boxes, fabric
scraps, etc., (3) dye and chemical containers (bags, cans, and
drums) and the residual material they carry, and (4) sludges from
wastewater treatment facilities (see Appendix H). Components of
these waste streams are heavy metals, dyestuffs and selected
chemicals and solvents used in the various dyeing and finishing
processes. Among these are acids, alkalies, bleaches, adhesives
and polymers, crosslinking agents, conditioners, catalysts,
detergents, dye carriers, chemical finishes, and solvents.
Process Wastes
Over 96% (dry weight basis) of the land destined manufacturing
wastes are nonhazardous [44]. This includes lint, fibers, cloth,
cardboard, and empty containers of nonhazardous chemicals. Dis-
carded dye and chemical containers constitute the major source of
potentially hazardous process-related solid wastes, the poten-
tially hazardous component being the residual dyes and chemicals
left in a container at the time of disposal.
Discarded dye containers carry approximately 28 g to 56 g of dye-
stuff [4]. Very little is known about the toxicity of dyes to
[44] Abrams, E. F., D. K. Guinan, and D. Derkies. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Textiles Industry.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-3178 (PB 258 953). U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June 1975.
276 pp.
86
-------
the human population and so for only 56 of the over 1,000 dyes
commercially available have been tested to determine their tox-
icity to aquatic life forms [44]. In these tests some dyes
(basic or cationic dyes, some acid dyes and some disperse dyes)
exhibited appreciable toxicities to fish and algae. The remain-
ing dyes are complex refractory organics which may degrade in an
anaerobic atmosphere such as a landfill and leach out toxic,
carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic metabolites. Table 41
lists the major dye types used, the percentage of use they re-
ceive, and the types of fibers on which they are used.
TABLE 41. DYE USE BY FIBER TYPE [44]
Dye types
Fiber used on
Total dye
use. %
Vat
Direct
Disperse
Acid
Sulfur
Basic (cationic)
Azoic
Fiber reactive
Fluorescent
Mordant
Aniline black
Developed
Blends
Indigo
Natural
Oxidation base
Cotton, rayon, polyester/cotton
Cotton, rayon, polyester/cotton, nylon/cotton
Acrylic, acetate, polyester, polyester/cotton,
nylon
Wool, nylon
Cotton, rayon, polyester/cotton
Acrylic, polyester, polyester/cotton, nylon
Cotton, rayon
Cotton
Cotton, wool, rayon, polyester/cotton
Wool
Cotton
Cotton, rayon
Polyester/cotton
Cotton, nylon/cotton
Cotton
Cotton
26
17
15
10
10
6
3
1
1
1
Other chemicals contained in bags and drums which must be dis-
posed of when empty include compounds such as dichromate salts
(oxidizing agents); sodium hydrosulfite (reducing and stripping
agent); zinc nitrate and magnesium chloride (catalysts); poly-
vinyl chloride, tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium chloride,
chlorinated paraffins, and organic phosphorus compounds (flame
retardants); silico-fluoride compounds, sodium pentachloro-
phenate, and phenyl sulfonic acid derivatives (moth-proofing
agents); and urea-formaldehyde, dihydroxydichlorodiphenylmethane,
mixtures of zinc salts of dimethyldithiocarbamic acid, 2-mercapto-
benzothiozole, and copper naphthalenes (mildewicides). It has
been estimated that about 25% of the chemicals in this waste
stream are potentially hazardous [44].
87
-------
Wastewater Treatment Sludges
Sludges from chemical and biological wastewater treatment proc-
esses comprise about 12% of the total solid wastes generated by
the woven fabric finishing segment of the textile industry.
Sludges are generated by chemical precipitation of dissolved
solids, chemical coagulation and subsequent sedimentation of sus-
pended solids, and most commonly, by growth of a biomass (micro-
bial organisms) which feed on dissolved and suspended organic
materials in the wastewater stream. Wastewater treatment sludges
contain heavy metals, adsorbed dyes and chemicals, and chemical
and biological solids. Because of this they are considered to be
potentially hazardous making this the major source of such wastes
accounting for approximately 80% (dry weight basis) of the poten-
tially hazardous land destined wastes.
In the textile industry the vast majority of wastewater treatment
sludges are from some form of aerated biological treatment.
These can be classified as either retained or wasted. Retained
sludges are those that are so slowly generated by aerated biologi-
cal treatment of textile wastewaters that there is no need for
periodic disposal. This type of sludge is allowed to accummulate
in the treatment pond over a period of 5 years to 10 years.
Wasted sludge is excess sludge which must be removed and disposed
of on a regular basis. About 40% of the plants engaged in woven
fabric finishing (accounting for approximately 56% of the total
production) find it necessary to dispose of excess sludge [45].
Both retained and wasted sludges are considered to be hazardous
because of their potential for contaminating ground water through
leaching of hazardous components into the soil.
Heavy metals most likely to be present in the textile sludges and
which have been cited as cause for concern are arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. The bulk of
the heavy metals are washed or rinsed from the fabric into the
textile mills wastewater treatment system from operations such as
scouring of incoming greige goods, dyeing of fabrics, and appli-
cation of finishes. Other sources of these metals are premetal-
ized dyes (3% to 4% metal content) and some basic dyes requiring
preparation as a double salt of zinc (3% metal content), dichro-
mates used to oxidize and fix certain dyes, chromium compounds
used in topchroming, various metal salts such as zinc nitrate
which are used as catalysts for the application of wash and wear
permanent press, or water repellent finishes, heavy metal com-
pounds used to improve wash fastness and light fastness in cer-
tain fabrics, metals used in flame-retardant finishes, and from
the application of pesticides or other chemicals.
[45] Frank, A. Textile Mill Sludge Management: Greige Clouds
on the Horizon. Sludge, 2(3):21-25, May-June 1979.
88
-------
Generally iron accounts for about 50% by weight of the heavy
metals and zinc for an additional 25% by weight due largely to
the use of zinc nitrate as a catalyst in the application of
permanent press finishes [4].
Little is known about the nature of organic compounds in textile
sludges. In one study, the concentration of chlorinated organics
in sludge was monitored and it was found that ^99% by weight of
the total amount was in the solid phase [4]. Concentrations of
chlorinated organics in the liquid phase and the suspended solids
phase measured at five woven fabric finishing plants, ran from
0.001 ppm to 0.23 ppm and from 1.3 ppm to 39 ppm, respectively
[46].
SOLID WASTE DISCHARGE DATA
Estimated quantities of solid wastes generated by the woven
fabric finishing industry for the years 1974 and 1977 and pro-
jected waste quantities for 1983 are listed in Table 42 [44].
The projected increase is based on a 3% per year growth factor
and reflects large increases in sludge volumes expected to result
from the issuance of effluent guidelines for the textiles point
source category.
TABLE 42. ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF TOTAL AND POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS LAND DESTINED WASTES FROM WOVEN
FABRIC FINISHING FOR 1974 AND 1977 [44]
Waste quantities, Gg/yr
Waste type 1974 1977
Total wastes:
Dry basis 35.6 37.7
Wet basis 1,522 1,618
Total potentially hazardous wastes: 15.3 16.2
Dry basis 15.3 16.2
Wet basis 1,500 1,600
Total hazardous constituents:
Dry basis 0.84 0.89
The quantities of solid waste produced per quantity of product
(emission factors) for the various waste producing operations are
shown in Table 43 [44]. The emission factors in this table can
[46] Shaver, R. G., and D. K. Guinan. Textile Sludge Characteri-
zation. In: Proceedings of the Textile Industry Technology
Symposium, Williamsburgh, Virginia. December 1979.
89
-------
TABLE 43. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOLID WASTES PRODUCED DURING
WOVEN FABRIC DYEING AND FINISHING OPERATIONS [44]
Unit operation
Waste material
Emission factor,
kg of waste/Kg
of product
Singe and desize
Mercerize
Bleach and wash
Mechanical finish
Dye and/or print, applied finish
Wastewater pretreatment screening
Wastewater treatment
Cloth
Cloth
Cloth
Cloth
Flock
Dye containers
Chemical containers
Fiber
Wasted sludge3 .
Retained sludge3'
0.2
0.1
0.2
6
4
0.5
0.8
0.8 (dry) 2.8 (wet)
20 (dry) 2,300 (wet)
67 (dry) 7,300 (wet)
3Waste streams considered to be potentially hazardous.
Retained sludge quantities are accumulations over the life of the pond and
cannot be directly related to preoduction.
be applied to the description of an average plant found in
Section 4 to obtain average emission rates.
Emission factors determined in Reference 44 for the potentially
hazardous components of the dye and chemical container waste
stream are 0.0023 g/kg of product and 0.04 g/kg of product,
respectively. Calculation of emission factors for the individual
pollutant species in this stream is not feasible due to the large
number of dye and chemical formulations used in the finishing of
woven fabrics and a lack of data on (1) the quantities of each
type of formulation used, and (2) the chemical composition of
each formulation including major and trace constituents.
Woven fabric finishing mills have reported biological sludge vol-
umes ranging from 0.8 L/m3 to 182 L/m3 of wastewater treated.
The wide range of values reflect differences in aeration deten-
tion periods, loading rates, ambient temperatures, etc. The
median value for these mills was about 23 L/m3. For reference
purposes this can be compared to an average value of 76 L/m3 for
a conventional activated sludge plant handling domestic wastes
[2].
In an earlier assessment conducted for the EPA Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, 20 samples of wastewater treatment
sludges from 5 woven fabric finishing plants were analyzed for
selected trace metals and total chlorinated organics [44]. The
results of these measurements are shown in Table 44 [45].
90
-------
TABLE 44. WOVEN FABRIC DYEING AND
FINISHING-SLUDGE ANALYSES [44]
Parameter
Concentration
Range, mg/L
Average,
mg/kg dry sludge
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Zinc
Total heavy metalsc
Aluminum
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Total chlorinated organics(
<0.6 to <1.4
12 to 85
<1.4 to 10.8
89 to 3,969
<2.8 to 109
193 to 1,130
917 to 13,600
<16 to 68
42 to 318
0.1 to 0.7
<0.2 to <28
12 to 88
318 to 7,791
1,420 to 12,800
1,340 to 5,730
1,420 to 6,350
19,400 to 94,700
2.4 to 21
4.3 to 27.8
39
4.4
1,196
26
652
4,910
.36
128
0.35
32
2,370
9,412
4,620
2,820
3,580
51,300
16
15.2
Suspended solids, %
Total solids, %
0.42 to 1.34
0.72 to 2.04
0.88
1.26
Range of the individual plant averages.
}Grand average of 20 measurements from five plants.
^
'Less than values were considered to be at the maximum in
computing totals.
DISPOSAL METHODS
The disposal of process wastes are handled differently from the
disposal of wastewater treatment sludges throughout the textile
industry. The major reason for this is the difference in mois-
ture content although other things such as quantities produced,
knowledge of waste contents, and the economics involved in dis-
posal of hazardous versus nonhazardous wastes will probably
contribute to the continued segregation of these waste streams.
91
-------
The following subsection describes sludge preparation and dis-
posal techniques which have been used in the past or are current-
ly being used by woven fabric finishing plants. It should be
noted that disposal methods .used in the future will depend most
on the nature of Federal hazardous waste regulations and solid
waste disposal criteria.
Predisposal Treatment Practices
Pretreatment of sludges prior to disposal can involve stabiliza-
tion, wet air oxidation or dewatering, but no pretreatment is
currently typical of the industry [4]. It is expected, however,
that pretreatment will be used increasingly to meet compliance
with sludge management regulations.
Sludge processing generally consists of stabilization and/or
dewatering. Stabilization or digestion of the putrescible organ-
ic materials in biological sludges reduces the potential for
odors and other nuisance conditions and reduces pathogenic bacte-
ria populations, thus increasing the options for ultimate dis-
posal. Dewatering removes excess free water to improve handling
characteristics and reduce transportation costs.
The most common sludge stabilization technique is anaerobic
digestion. Lagooning of sludges has long been practiced and is
the most used method in the textile industry, though the primary
purpose is often not stabilization but temporary storage or a
means of ultimate disposal. Sludge lagoons are generally not
recommended since they are particularly susceptible to odors and
nuisance conditions. However, if properly sized and operated,
they can stabilize and consolidate sludge with very little atten-
tion. Typically, sludge is deposited in a lagoon at depths of
1 m to 2 m [47]. A requirement for thorough digestion is a
detention time of approximately three years, with one year with-
out sludge addition [48].
Stabilization may also be accomplished internally within the
activated sludge process or other biological process by retaining
solids for extended periods. Typical extended aeration systems
utilized in the textile industry produce a relatively stable
waste sludge whereas sludge from high rate systems may require
further stabilization prior to disposal. Internal aeration
periods of greater than 48 hours have been regarded as providing
[47] Donovan, E. J., Jr. Dewatering of Waste Activated Sludge.
In: Proceedings of the EPA Symposium on Textile Industry
Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 1979.
[48] Bauer, D. J., J. P. Woodyard, and S. P. Shelton. Sludge
Treatment and Disposal. In: Proceedings of the EPA Sympo-
sium on Textile Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia,
December 1979.
92
-------
full stabilization [2]. This form of aerobic digestion has
drifted in and out of favor over the past 20 years. The process
is less affected by toxins than anaerobic digestion but energy
costs are high and for this reason it is unlikely that aerobic
stabilization will become common for textile sludges.
Lime stabilization is another technique that has been used for
sludge stabilization since it can increase pH until most biologi-
cal life is destroyed. Quicklime (CaO) also has the ability to
dewater sludge through a hydration reaction. This has the ad-
vantage of avoiding oxidation reduction reactions which could
potentially produce hazardous byproducts. The primary disadvan-
tage to lime stabilization is that the effects are short lived.
It has been shown that lime sludges are not chemically stable and
that it is impossible to maintain a high pH even with very high
dosages. Chemical and/or biological action brings the pH down
and odors return.
Wet air oxidation reduces the amount of sludge and makes the
remaining sludge easier to dewater. It also converts much of the
nonbiodegradable organic material to oxidized innocuous com-
ponents or biologically degradable material which can be recycled
to wastewater treatment.
Only one textile plant is known to have used wet air oxidation
but it discontinued this operation in 1972 because it proved to
be uneconomical due to the small volume of sludge handled.
However, there is a distinct possibility that this procedure may
be used in the future because of its ability to treat biologi-
cally resistant wastes.
Sludge dewatering is practiced at relatively few textile plants
but it is anticipated that it will be used more as sludge volumes
increase and disposal options become more limited. Major methods
include land drying by the use of sand drying beds or lagoons and
mechanical drying with vacuum filters, belt filter presses,
pressure filters, and centrifuges. Dewatering by removal of free
water from activated sludge produces a sludge of 4% to 6% solids,
while removal of bound water by chemical conditioning prior to
dewatering results in sludge cakes containing from 12% to 25%
solids [47].
Lagoon drying is a low cost dewatering solution. Water drains
into the soil or is evaporated. Underdrains may be provided
where drainage to ground water is undesirable or soils are not
permeable. However, lagoons are susceptible to odors and un-
sightly conditions. As with other dewatering techniques the
sludge must eventually be removed to ultimate disposal.
Sand drying beds require less land than do lagoons but are costly
in both capital costs and operating costs due to frequent sludge
removal to ultimate disposal.
93
-------
Mechanical dewatering is used only infrequently in this industry.
Currently about three times as many textile plants use sand dry-
ing as those using all types of mechanical dewatering systems.
Ultimate Disposal
Textile process wastes are commonly disposed of in onsite land-
fills or offsite in general purpose landfills though in some
cases they may be incinerated with other plant trash. Another
method used by some plants for process wastes and occasionally
for wastewater treatment sludges is land dumping. This is cur-
rently practiced both on site and at local public facilities.
Disposal options frequently practiced for sludges are permanent
or semipermanent storage in aeration basins or anaerobic lagoons
and landfilling. The majority of textile plants do not routinely
waste sludge, but allow it to accumulate in aeration basins. For
those that do waste sludge, lagoons are the most common disposal
method. Landfilling, when practiced, is currently done both on
site and off site with the ratio of on site to off site disposal
being about one to one [2]. Other options include landspreading,
incineration, and ocean dumping. Though all of these methods
have been used in the past, the only one currently being used is
landspreading. Due to uncertainties in the potential environ-
mental effects it is being practiced only on a limited basis.
Landspreading is a technique by which wastewater or sludge is
mixed with surface soil to achieve volume reduction and degrada-
tion. It offers the potential advantages of utilization of the
wastes as a fertilizer and minimizing the pretreatment steps
required. Provided that adequate suitable land is available,
reasonable loading rates are used and the handling of runoff and
leachate is adequately addressed in the design, landspreading may
prove to be a cost-effective solution to ultimate disposal. The
extent to which textile industry sludge is amenable will depend
on the specific waste and site characteristics and any applicable
regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
There are several steps involved in landspreading including
application of waste onto the surface soil, mixing the waste with
the soil to aerate the mass and expose the waste to soil micro-
organisms, possibly adding nutrients or other soil admendments
(usually limestone) during site preparation, and remixing the
soil/waste mass periodically to promote biodegradation. The
sludges are applied to the land by spraying, spreading, or sub-
surface injection. The field is then disced or plowed by con-
ventional farm equipment. Important processes that contribute to
waste volume reduction are microbial degradation, chemical and
photochemical degradation, and evaporation and volatilization.
94
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In assessing the potential environmental impact of solid waste
discharges, the main concern lies with potentially hazardous
components which may eventually reach the open environment in
food supplies or as water or air pollution. Contamination of
food supplies occurs when plants growing around or on waste
disposal sites take up hazardous compounds. These plants are in
turn ingested by animals and the hazardous materials are passed
up through the food chain. Water pollution could result from
leaching of heavy metals and hazardous organics into ground water
or into runoff which may flow into surface waters. Air pollution
results primarily from incineration of solid wastes but also
occurs to a much lesser extent during conditioning, transport and
land disposal via the mechanisms of wind erosion and evaporation
of volatile components.
No information is available on the extent or effects of air and
water contamination caused by the disposal of solid wastes from
the textile manufacturing industry. Therefore, only a qualita-
tive assessment of the potential effects can be made. The impact
of textile sludges on the food chain is most evident when land-
spreading is used as a disposal technique. Several preliminary
assessments have been made in this area on waste sludges similar
in character to those produced by woven fabric finishing opera-
tions. Tests were conducted on sludge from an integrated denim
mill in which landspreading on fields used for sorghum and corn
production was done. Preliminary results indicate that the
relatively low concentration of heavy metals in the sludge do not
pose a threat to human health because of the low levels of plant
uptake observed. In another series of experiments, wastewater
treatment sludge from an organic chemical plant which produces
mostly dyes, dye intermediates, dye carries, and pigments for use
in the textile industry was tested. The heavy metal content of
this sludge was maintained at low levels (generally less than
5 ppm wet weight) through pretreatment of individual waste streams
The results of greenhouse experiments and three years worth of
field tests indicate that the practice of landspreading has some
beneficial and no apparent detrimental effects on turf grass
production [49].
The impact of solid wastes generated by the textile industry on
ground and surface water pollution results from the hazardous
components including dyes and other organics and heavy metals. A
number of dye types such as anthraquinone disperse dyes, vinyl
sulfone reactive dyes, and azo disperse dyes have been shown to
[49] SCS Engineers. Land Cultivation of Industrial Wastes and
Municipal Solid Waste: State of the Art Study. Contract No.
68-03-2435, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, April 1978.
95
-------
exhibit refractory behavior in wastewater treatment systems [44].
It can be concluded that many of these dyes are essentially non-
biodegradable given the aeration and retention times used in con-
ventional treatment and thus are incorporated into the sludge in
their original forms. There is little information on the toxi-
cities of dyes to humans but some basic (cationic) dyes, some '
acid dyes, and some disperse dyes exhibit appreciable toxicities
to fish and algae.
Heavy metal concentrations have been found to exceed drinking
water standards in extracts from textile sludges. It is sus-
pected that a sizeable portion of these metals are chelated to
dyes and are not free to leach from landfilled sludge until the
dyes are degraded.
The impact of air pollution resulting from incineration of tex-
tile wastes is assumed to be minimal because only a few plants
incinerate a portion of their process wastes, and none are known
to incinerate wastewater treatment sludges. This is due to the
high cost of environmentally acceptable incineration equipment
and fuels. Air emissions from volatilization of the organic
components of a waste at a disposal site are dependent on the
vapor pressure of the specific compounds present and the rate of
movement away from the evaporative surface. The magnitude of the
volatilization loss depends on the soil moisture content, chemi-
cal and physical properties of the waste and the soil, atmos-
pheric conditions (temperature, wind velocity, relative humidity,
etc.) and the disposal method [48]. In landspreading, mixing of
the waste with the soil should significantly reduce volatiliza-
tion loss due to increased adsorbtion of the chemical by soil
organic matter and clay, and the decreased vapor pressure of the
wastes.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Generally no environmental precautions above standard containment
methods are taken in the disposal of potentially hazardous wastes
in the textile industry. However, air and water contamination
can be and in some instances is controlled by elimination of
waste streams or by instituting waste containment practices.
One waste stream that is easily eliminated is the residuals found
in empty chemical containers. Two forms of control which receive
some usage are the use of returnable drums which go back to the
supplier and the washing of containers prior to disposal. When
containers are washed the hazardous residuals are flushed to the
wastewater treatment system where they add little to the total
waste load. Another method of waste stream elimination used for
potentially hazardous wastes of an atypical nature found in a
small portion of the plants in this category is reclamation of
selected solvents.
96
-------
Several containment methods used for sludges in general, but not
known to be in use in the woven fabric finishing segment of the
textile industry, are lined lagoons, lined landfills, and land-
fills with leachate collection and treatment. A potential treat-
ment technique currently in the demonstration phase for selected
sludges is fixation, which immobilizes the hazardous components
in the sludge prior to disposal. This technology involves the
use of chemical additives to solidify the sludge. Application of
fixation to textile industry sludges has not yet been demon-
strated but if successful, this method would provide the advan-
tages of being able to dispose of a solid, enhancing transpor-
tation and disposal options.
97
-------
REFERENCES
1. Current Industrial Reports. Broadwoven Fabrics Finished,
1974. Series MA-225(74)-l, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C., June 1975. 5 pp.
2. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. Technical Study
Report BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS Textile Mills Point Source Cate-
gory. Contract 68-01-3289 and 68-01-3884, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1978.
3. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point
Source Category. EPA-440/l-76-022a. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June 1974. 241 pp.
4. Cooper, S. G. The Textile Industry, Environmental Control
and Energy Conservation. Noyes Data Corporation, Park
Ridge, New Jersey, 1978. 384 pp.
5. Environmental Pollution Control Textile Processing Industry.
EPA-625/7-78-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1978. 523 pp.
6.i Corbman, B. P. Textiles: Fiber to Fabric, 5th Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1975. 568 pp.
7. Wright, M. D., S. D. York, III, and J. J. Kearney. Prioriti-
zation of Emissions from Textile Manufacturing Operations on
the Basis of Potential Impact of New Source Performance
Standards. Contract No. 68-02-2612, Task 64, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, April 1979. 76 pp.
8. Mathews, J. C., G. E. Weant, III, and J. J. Kearney. Screen-
ing Study on the Justification of Developing New Source Per-
formance Standards for Various Textile Processing Operations.
Contract 68-02-0607, Task 11, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1974.
110 pp.
98
-------
9. Collins, L. H. Control Technology Assessment of Selected
Processes in the Textile Finishing Industry. Contract No.
210-76-0176, National Institute for Occupational Health
and Safety, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 1978. 218 pp.
10. Merril, G. R., A. R. Macormac, and H. R. Mauersberger.
American Cotton Handbook, 2nd Edition. Textile Book
Inc., New York, New York, 1949. 943 pp.
11. Schlesinger, H. A., E. F. Dill, and T. A. Fridy, Jr. Pollu-
tion Control in Textile Mills. In: Industrial Pollution
Control Handbook, Chapter 15, Herbert F. Lund, Ed. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1971. 30 pp.
12. State of the Art of Textile Waste Treatment. EPA-12090
ECS 02/71 (PB 212 359), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., February 1971. 348 pp.
13. Davis, J. W. The Preparation and Dyeing of Polyester-Cotton
Fabrics. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists,
89(3):77-80, 1973.
14. Forrester, R., L. Wellingham, and G. Gambino. How to Prepare,
Dye, and Finish Textured Polyester Woven Fabrics. American
Dyestuff Reporter, 63(10):27-43, 1974.
15. Sturkey, W. Preparing, Dyeing, and Finishing Textured
Polyester Woven Fabrics. American Dyestuff Reporter,
62(l):42-45, 1973.
16. Wastewater Treatment Systems: Upgrading Textile Operations
to Reduce Pollution. EPA Technology Transfer Seminar
Publications, EPA-625/3-74-004, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1974. 45 pp.
17. Cook, G. Man-made fibers. In: Handbook of Textile Fibers,
4th Edition, II. Morrow Publishing Company, Ltd., Watford
Herts, England, 1968. 895 pp.
18. Postman, W. Dyeing: Theory and Practice. National Aniline
Division, Allied Chemicals, New York, New York, 1970. 40 pp.
19. 1972 Census of Manufacturers. Textile Machinery in Place.
Special Report Series. MC72(SR)-5, U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Washington, D.C., August 1973. 11 pp.
20. Mathews, J. C., G. E. Weant III, and J. J. Kearney. Screen-
ing Study on the Justification of Developing New Source Per-
formance Standards for Various Processing Operations.
Contract 68-02-0607-11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1974. 106 pp.
99
-------
21. Air Pollution, Volume I: Air Pollution and Its Affects,
Second Edition, A. C. Stern, ed., Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1968. 694 pp.
22. Leighton, P. A. Photochemistry of Air Pollution. Academic
Press, New York, New York, 1961. 300 pp.
23. Seinfeld, J. H. Air Pollution - Physical and Chemical Funda-
mentals. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York,
1975. 523 pp.
24. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42 - Public Health,
Chapter IV - Environmental Protection Agency, Part 410 -
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards, April 28, 1971. 16 pp.
25. TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1979. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 94 pp.
26. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
Public Health Service Publication 999-AP-26 (PB 191 482),
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1969. 62 pp.
27. Beltran, M. R. How to Keep Tenter Frame Exhaust Air Clean.
America's Textiles Reporter/Bulletin, November 1974,
pp. 80-82.
28. Northup, H. J., and W. F. Turner. Air Pollution Control in
Textile Finishing. Textile Chemists and Colorist, 7(4):60-
64, 1975.
29. Chandrasekhar, R., and C. M. Yon. Fluidized Bed Activated
Carbon Adsorption. Presented to the Symposium on Textile
Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8,
1978. 18 pp.
30. Sheppard, W. M. Fixed Bed Carbon Adsorption for Control of
Organic Emissions. Presented to the Symposium on Textile
Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8,
1978. 23 pp.
31. Githens, R. E., and D. M. Sowards. Catalytic Oxidation of
Hydrocarbon Fumes. Presented to the Symposium on Textile
Industry Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8,
1978. 9 pp.
32. Prowler, M. E. Roof-Top Incinerator Prevents Air Pollution.
Environmental Control Safety Management, 141(2):18-19, 1971.
100
-------
33. Engineering Science, Inc. Textile Mill Draft Report: Plant
B, C, H, J, K, M, U, V, and Z. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1978-1979.
34. Rawlings, G. D. Source Assessment: Textile Plant Waste-
water Toxics Study, Phase I. EPA-600/2-78-004h, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, March 1978.
35. Klieve, J. R., and G. D. Rawlings. Source Assessment:
Textile Wastewater Toxics Study, Phase II. EPA-600/2-79-
019i, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 1979. 141 pp.
36. Water Resources Data for Georgia, 1977. USGS/WRD/HD-78/051
(PB 287 732). U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource
Division, Doraville, Georgia, 1977. 283 pp.
37. Water Resource Data for South Carolina, 1975. USGS/WRD/HD-
76/004 (PB 251 855), U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Columbia, South Carolina, 1975. 219 pp.
38. Water Resources Data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
1977. USGS/WRD/HD-78/020 (PB 284 977), U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Division, Boston, Massachusetts,
1977. 323 pp.
39. Water Resources Data for New Hampshire and Vermont, 1975.
USGS/WRD/HD-76/057 (PB 262 800), U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, 1975. 193 pp.
40. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Fifth Edition. J. H. Perry
and C. H. Chilton, eds. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, New York, 1973. pp. 3-98, 14-3.
41. Reznik R. B., E. C. Eimutis, J. L. Delaney, S. R. Archer,
J. C. Ochsner, W. R. McCurley, and T. W. Hughes. Source
Assessment: Prioritization of Stationary Water Pollution
Sources. EPA-600/2-78-004q, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1978.
42. Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal. EPA-
625/l-75-003a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, January 1975. pp. 6-8.
43. Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption. EPA-625/1-71-
002a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, October 1973. p. iii.
101
-------
44. Abrams, E. F. , D. K. Guinan, D. Derkies. Assessment of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Textiles Industry.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-3178 (PB 258 953), U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June 1975.
276 pp.
45. Frank, A. Textile Mill Sludge Management: Greige Clouds
on the Horizon. Sludge 2(3):21-25, May-June 1979.
46. Shaver, R. G., and D. K. Guinan. Textile Sludge Characteri-
zation. In: Proceedings of the Textile Industry Technology
Symposium, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 1979.
47. Donovan, E. J., Jr. Dewatering of Waste Activated Sludge.
In: Proceedings of the EPA Symposium on Textile Industry
Technology, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 1979.
48. Bauer, D. H., J. P. Woodyard, and S. P. Shelton. Sludge
Treatment and Disposal. In: Proceedings of the EPA
Symposium on Textile Industry Technology, Williamsburg,
Virginia, December
49 . SCS Engineers . Land Cultivation of Industrial Wastes and
Municipal Solid Waste: State of the Art Study. Contract No.
68-03-2435, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, April 1978.
50. Hamersma, J. W. , S. L. Reynolds, and R. F. Maddalene. IERL-
RTP Procedures Manual: Level I Environmental Assessment.
EPA-600/2-76-160a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1976. 147 pp.
51. Method 2 - Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric
Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube). Federal Register, 41(111):
23063-23069, 1976.
52. Method 4 - Determination of Moisture in Stack Gases.
Federal Register, 41(111) :23072-23076, 1976.
53. Martin, D. 0., and J. A. Tikvart. A General Atmospheric
Diffusion Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality
of One or More Sources. Presented at the 61st Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, St. Paul,
Minnesota, June 23-27, 1968. 18 pp.
54. Eimutis, E. C., and M. G. Konicek. Derivations of Continu-
ous Functions for the Lateral and Vertical Atmospheric
Dispersion Coefficients. Atmospheric Environment, 3(6):
688-689, 1969.
102
-------
55. Tadmor, J., and Y. Gur. Analytical Expressions for the
Vertical and Lateral Dispersion Coefficients in Atmospheric
Diffusion. Atmospheric Environment, 3(6):688-689, 1969.
56. Gifford, F. A., Jr. An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in
the Lower Layers of the Atmosphere. In: Meteorology and
Atomic Energy 1968, Chapter 3, D. A. Slade, ed. Publication
No. TID-24190, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Technical Infor-
mation Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 1968. p. 113.
57. Standard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation:
E 380-76 , IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976.
37 pp.
103
-------
APPENDIX A
MRC AIR SAMPLING PROGRAM
SITE PRESURVEY
A presurvey visit to each plant was conducted about two weeks
before the actual sampling took place. At this meeting, MRC
personnel (project manager and project engineer) and key plant
personnel met to discuss the woven fabric finishing source
assessment project and the proposed sampling program. Primary
objectives were to select the sampling points, arrange for the
use of certain plant facilities, and to design a mechanism for
obtaining process information during the sampling operation.
A thorough understanding of the processes and chemicals used for
fabric finishing at this plant was necessary for the selection
of sampling points. Plant personnel provided a step by step,
start to finish description of the specific processes and chem-
icals used at the plant. Discussions were held on the types and
quantities of pollutant species that could potentially be emitted
from each process. This was followed by a walk-through tour of
the plant and an inspection of the potential sampling sites on
the roof. The roof-top inspection served two purposes. First,
some of the potential sites could be ruled out due to the place-
ment of fans and other obstructions in the stack. Second, a
visual and olfactory inspection of the effluent gas streams gave
an indication of which processes would provide a worst-case
effluent for the emissions study. As a result of these efforts,
sampling points were selected and marked.
Arrangements were made with the plant to prepare the sites in
advance by cutting ports in the selected stacks and by scheduling
their finishing work so that these processes would be in opera-
tion during the time scheduled for sampling. Also arrangements
were made to obtain laboratory space, the gases needed to operate
the gas chromatograph, a lift truck to move the sampling equip-
ment to the roof area, and the use of plant personnel to help
coordinate the sampling effort with the finishing operations and
to provide current process information.
104
-------
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Air emissions from major sources were sampled with a modified
source assessment sampling system (SASS) train to collect par-
ticulate, trace element, and trace organic emissions. A field
portable gas chromatograph was used to analyze the emissions
from these processes for total hydrocarbon emissions, nonmethane
total hydrocarbon emissions, and Ci through C6 hydrocarbons.
The SASS train normally employs a set of three cyclones and a
filter for particulate size fractionation and collection, a solid
sorbent trap utilizing XAD-2 resin for organic collection, a set
of impingers for the collection of volatile trace elements, and a
system for flow measurement and gas pumping. For this study, the
train was modified in two ways. First, the cyclone and filter
assembly was replaced with a single oversize filter holder and
filter (216 mm). This modification, done to simplify the cleanup
procedure was deemed acceptable because the processes sampled were
expected to have a very low particulate loading. The second
modification dealt with the impinger portion of the train.
Because meeting the objectives of this study did not require
analysis for volatile trace elements, the number of impingers
was reduced from four to three and the contents were changed
from those specified in the IERL-RTP Level I Procedures Manual
[50]. This modification served to simplify the preparation and
cleanup of the train and the analytical workup for the determina-
tion of the nonvolatile trace elements. A schematic of the SASS
train as modified for this program is shown in Figure A-l.
ami
Figure A-l. Schematic of Source Assessment Sampling
System with program modifications.
[50] Hamersma, J. W., S. L. Reynolds, and R. F. Maddalene. IERL-
RTP Procedures Manual: Level I Environmental Assessment.
EPA-600/2-76-160a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1976. 147 pp.
105
-------
Prior to operating the SASS train, a velocity traverse and mois-
ture determination were done at each sampling point using EPA
Methods II [51] and IV [52]. The Fyrite method was used to deter-
mine the carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen content of the
effluent stream. These tests were used to determine the point
of average velocity and to characterize the source sufficiently
for operating the sampling system as close to isokinetic con-
ditions as possible within the available nozzle sizes and
operating parameters. The sampling train was then assembled
and leak checked. These procedures foolowed those outlined in
the procedures manual [50] with the exceptions mentioned above.
The first impinger was left empty, and the third impinger was
charged with 750 g of silica gel. Once assembled, a leakage
rate of <2.36 x 10~s m3 at 67.6 kPa was considered acceptable.
After passing the leak check, the probe and oven were heated to
stack temperatures while maintaining the organic module at ^20°C.
Once the desired temperatures were obtained, the probe was in-
serted into the stack to a point of average velocity and sampling
was initiated. Sampling was conducted at a rate of 1 x 10~3 m3/s
until a volume of approximately 14 m3 (500 ft3) was collected.
At the conclusion of each run, the pumps were shut down, the
probe was withdrawn from the stack, and the train was allowed to
cool.
The cleanup procedures used are illustrated in Figure A-2. In
brief, the filter was carefully removed from its holder and
placed in a petri dish. The petri dish was then sealed with
tape and labeled. A one-to-one methylene chloride:methanol
mixture and a nylon brush were used to clean the probe tip,
probe, and the front half of the filter holder. The methylene
chloride:methanol used in the cleaning process was collected
in the amber glass bottle. The back half of the filter holder
and the line connecting it to the organic module were cleaned
and the rinses bottled as described above.
The XAD-2 resin and aqueous condensate were removed from the
organic module and separately bottled. The organic module was
then cleaned as described in the procedures manual [50]. The
methylene chloride:methanol used in the cleaning was combined
with the rinse of the back half of the filter holder and con-
necting line.
[51] Method 2 - Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volu-
metric Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube). Federal Register,
41(111):23063-23069, 1976.
[52] Method 4 - Determination of Moisture in Stack Gases.
Federal Register, 41(111):23072-23076, 1976.
106
-------
•SAMPlfl
SAMPLE 2
niuti cuwr MINING uo-i
CMnioa ucnm ID iw uwn
MS ammoRiNC stain
IUKM wo i unrnnci ram
cMnioumin nwvtnjc
•ISM sain ROM IDP OF cut-
•IKI mm mm am DIM
MOUIHCUStUIUIIIU
tiPuasonunioiniDGt «•
msm cunnci IMOMUU
jomMOHMMaiocnwi
•ifua cuuip
OHN cw«««n nuivow v SIPMItMrlUIMl
-*• SAMPLE J
-*• SAMPLE 4
SAMPLE S
am conm>n nsnvon v«m
iniASi ana cuu«> ua> nn oui
IIMI Will
Dim con UMTUIO «IH lanu
(CMjCB CHjONi i mi ma nu
suiua mo urn HOC COHDOIUI
•ui so nui IIMI nns tarn
IHMUCM iw moouif AKO into cm-
H«un couictM mm IIMI au
ISCUAH PuanOMllDLIINU
[MiMa IUH ipno M»UU mmiai
tint oom m coNomoi «AU uo
tun savwi 10 no* oom
imoucH i* SYS nw wo couio n
comcNMiiaif lausicamH
CUMP urn SIMMII M ion*
uciim IKAD-I uo amoiMii an
no* iw ana sicnn iconoisai
iw mini UPKI HCTOTI is MM
IINSI m no* wnv MD-I SEOION
IHTO DC OMDOflATl QIP IOUSI
IOHI OMIP urn lam umicci
sicnmnKMamasMiaiP iw
ooMxiiun toimon «o» oonum
sicon
IMPUCI* COMSIWIII win cuss
nmi
MICH ua DIIUIO sniu ca
w nan uwnen
IIBI nni MO stamo utpucm
uo COM am UM mm uo-i
MODUU mm Disinuo WAIDI
cauo IIKII n u uan cuss
romi
SAMPLE 6
Figure A-2.
Cleanup procedure for modified SASS train
used in woven fabric finishing sampling.
107
-------
The volume of the condensate collected in impingers one and two
was measured and then bottled along with distilled water rinses
of the impingers and the line connecting the organic module to
the impingers. The silica gel was removed from the third im-
pinger and weighed to determine its weight gain.
The aqueous condensate collected in the organic module was taken
to the field laboratory and extracted. The condensate was first
basified with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and extracted three times
with equal portions of methylene chloride. Next, the aqueous
layer was acidified with nitric acid (HN03) and again extracted
three times with methylene chloride. The organic layers from
all six extractions were combined and bottled. The remaining
aqueous layer was bottled separately. All of the liquid samples
were iced down from transport to the analytical laboratory in
Dayton.
The gas chromatographic work was done with an Analytical Instru-
ment Development, Inc. (AID) model 511 portable gas chromatograph
equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID), a gas sampling
valve (CSV) and a column by-pass valve. This instrument was
calibrated daily with standard methane mixtures in the 10, 100,
1,000, and 10,000 ppm ranges. Emission samples were drawn into
the CSV by an electric pump attached to the CSV outlet via a
stainless steel probe attached to the CSV inlet. At each loca-
tion, samples were run straight through the FID (by passing the
column) to determine the total hydrocarbon concentration and
through a 6 ft stainless steel Chromosorb 102 column to determine
the concentration of methane and the number of C-i through Ce com-
pounds present. The results were recorded on a strip chart.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The samples collected in each SASS run are shown in Table A-l.
The sample numbering system is the same as used in Figure A-2.
Figure A-3 provides a summary of the sample workup and the
analytical procedures which are described in detail in the
following paragraphs.
Upon reaching the analytical laboratory, all liquid samples were
logged in and then refrigerated until needed for analysis. The
impinger solutions and the distilled water rinses of the first
and second impingers were extracted. The combined solution was
basified with sodium hydroxide and extracted with methylene
chloride three times. The aqueous layer was then acidified with
nitric acid (HMOs) and again extracted three times with methylene
chloride.
108
-------
TABLE A-l. SAMPLES IDENTIFIED IN FIGURE A-2.
Sample number
Sample description
Sample analysis
Sample 1 CHaCla:CHaOH rinse of probe,
probe tip, and front half
of filter holder.
Sample 2 Particulate filter.
Sample 3 XAD-2 resin.
Sample 4 Aqueous layer of organic
module condensate.
Sample 5 CHaClasCHaOH rinse of back
half of filter holder and
filter to organic nodule
connecting line, CHaCla
rinse of organic module,
and CHaCla layer of
condensate extractions.
Sample 6 CHaCla layer of the'
impinger extracts.
Evaporate to dryness and weight for
contribution to particulate catch:
Add to portion of filter for
organic extraction and GC/MS
analysis.
Dessicate and weigh for particulate
data; divide into two portions for
organic (GC/MS) and trace element
(XCAP) analysis.
2 g portion for trace metal (XCAP)
analysis; remainder for organic
extraction and GC/MS analysis.
Trace metal (ICAP) analysis.
Organic (GC/MS) analysis.
Organic (GC/MS) analysis.
PARTICULATE SAMPLES
The combined probe tip, probe, and front half of the filter
holder washes were evaporated to a low volume and transferred to
a tared weighing pan. The solution was then evaporated to dry-
ness and weighed. Particulate filters were dessicated for 48
hours and then weighed. Each filter was then divided into two
sections and each was weighed. Approximately two-thirds (2/3)
of the total weight of each filter was prepare for trace organic
analysis and the remaining one-third (1/3) was prepared for trace
element analysis.
TRACE ORGANIC ANALYSES
Four samples from each SASS run were analyzed for organic com-
pounds. These consist of: the probe wash residue and two-thirds
of the particulate filter catch; the XAD resin; the methylene
chloride used to extract the organic module condensate combined
with the methylene chloride:methanol rinses of the back half of
109
-------
SMIPLt I
irROM
NAIF MSN)
SAVPlE ?
IPAR1ICUIATE
FIlHR-
CCfMS ANALYSIS
- or EXTRACT ion
ORGANIC SPICIES
ICAP ANALYSIS
FORMHALS
.( I
(CAP ANALYSIS
rORMHALS
CCIMS ANALYSIS
» OFOnRACTFOR
ORGANIC SPtCltS
WASURt
VOLUME
AOJUS1 TO
IF NECESSAR>
REMOVE JO ml
ALIOUAT FOR
ANALYSIS
I CAP ANALYSIS
FDRMHALS
SAMPLE i
SAMPLE 6
GC/MS ANALYSIS
FOR ORGANIC
SPECKS
GC/MS ANALYSIS
FOR ORGANIC
SPECIES
CC/MS-CAS CmOMAIDCRAPHV/MASS SPtCTROSCOPHY
iCAP-iNounivav COUPLED ARGON PLASM*
Figure A-3. SASS sample analysis scheme,
110
-------
the filter holder, the filter to organic module connecting line,
and the organic module; and the methylene chloride used to
extract the impinger solutions and rinses.
The probe wash residue and two-thirds of the filter were combined
and Soxhlet extracted for 24 hours. The extract was then reduced
in volume to below 10 mL in a roto-vap at 40°C under a vacuum of
30 mm Hg to 40 mm Hg. Approximately 2 g of each XAD-2 resin
sample was removed for trace element analysis. The remainder of
the XAD-2 resin was then Soxhlet extracted and concentrated as
described above for the particulate catch. A blank batch of
XAD-2 resin was prepared in the same manner. The two liquid
samples were reduced in volume to <10 mL on the roto-vap appara-
tus. All four of the solutions from each run and the blank were
then brought up to a volume of 10 mL with methylene chloride and
submitted for GC/MS analysis.
The method used for organic analysis employs a peak-area quanti-
tation technique with computer reconstructed chromatograms from
a HP 5982-A GC/MS. All data was collected in the electron impact
(El) mode. The separation of the organics was accomplished with
a 6 mm by 1.83 m glass column packed with 3% Dexsil 400 on
Chromosorb W-MP. The column was temperature programmed at 80°C
for 2 min followed by a 16°C per min increase to 280°C and
isothermal operation at 280°C for 15 min. A carrier gas (helium)
flow of 35 mL/min was used.
TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSES
Three samples from each SASS run were submitted for the analysis
of trace metals. These were two solid samples consisting of
one-third of the filter catch and a 2 g portion of the XAD-2
resin and one liquid sample consisting of an aliquot of the
aqueous condensate collected in the organic module.
The filter samples, XAD-2 resin samples, a filter blank and a
XAD-2 resin blank were prepared for trace element analysis by
digestion in a 125 mL Parr acid digestion bomb. Each sample was
loaded into a bomb along with 15 mL of concentrated redistilled
nitric acid. The bomb was sealed and placed in an oven for
6 hours at 150°C. After cooling, the digest was removed by
washing with hot distilled-deionized water. The insoluble
remains of the glass fiber particulate filters were removed
from the particulate matter samples by filtering. The residue
remaining on the filter was washed with hot distilled-deionized
water which was combined with the digest. The digest was then
diluted to 250 mL with distilled-deionized water and a 50 mL
aliquot was removed from each sample for trace element analysis.
A 50 mL aliquot of the aqueous layer of the organic module con-
densate from each run was also removed for trace element analysis,
111
-------
The 50 mL samples were submitted to the Physical Science Center
of Monsanto Company in St. Louis for analysis by the Jarrel-Ash
Plasma Atomcomp technique. The Atomcomp employs an inductively
coupled argon plasma (ICAP) as an excitation source to produce
an atomic emission which is relatively free of interferences.
This system permits the simultaneous multielement determination
of trace metals at the sub-ppm level in solutions.
112
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSIONS DATA OBTAINED FROM MRC SAMPLING PROGRAM
Results of the air emission measurements are presented in the
following tables. The results in each table consist of a concen-
tration of the specified pollutant in the effluent gas stream and
an emission factor. Concentrations are.given in milligrams (mg)
of pollutant per actual cubic meter (m3) or as ppm of the gas vol-
ume as measured in the stack. Emission factors relate the quantity
of emissions to the quantity of product produced and the units are
milligrams (mg) of pollutant per kilogram (kg) of fabric treated.
PLANT A DATA
TABLE B-l. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PLANT A
Concentration of
particulate in Emission
effluent gas factor
Run steam mg/m3 mg/kg of
No. Operation sampled (actual) fabric
1 Finishing on No. 2 resin
tenter frame (3rd zone 54 507
2 Dyeing on No. 4 Thermosol
oven 68 144
3 No. 2 heat set (1st zone) 27 222
113
-------
TABLE B-2. PLANT A, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
RUN 1: FINISHING ON NO. 2 RESIN TENTER FRAME
(THIRD ZONE)
Orqanic speciea
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palnitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl-CiT-ester
Paraffins/olefins (C,a-Cac>
Paraffins (Ci«-Cj«)
Concentration
in the
effluent gas
stream.
mg/ms
0.014
0.00022
0.12
0.031
0.12
0.21
0.022
0.065
11
Percentage
found in
the particulate
phase.
weight percent
0
0
0
52
3
1
0
0
10
Emission
rate.
kg/day
0.0037
0.000058
0.031
0.0083
0.032
0.056
0.0058
0.017
2.8
Emission factor.
mg/kg of fabric
0.13
0.0021
1.1
0.29
1.1
2.0
0.21
0.61
100
TABLE 3-3. PLANT A, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
RUN 2: DYEING ON NO. 4 THERMOSOL OVEN
Organic species
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Palmitic acid
Bromodinitrobenzene
Dichloronitroaniline
Bromodinitroaniline
Methyl -C, , -ester
Methyl-Cia-ester
Methyl-Co-ester
Methyl-Ci •.-ester
Methyl-Cta-ester
Methyl-C, •> -ester
Methyl-Cia-ester
Methyl-C»o-ester
Paraffins/olefins (Cia-io)
Paraffins (Ci«-Ca«)
Concentration
in the
effluent gas
stream,
mg/ma
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.040
4.9
5.6
0.43
0.83
0.17
0.34
0.11
0.18
0.15
0.99
0.49
1.1
0.24
0.13
0.73
1.7
Percentage
found in
the particulate
phase.
weight percent
0
0
0
15
0.3
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Emission
rate.
kg/day
0.0026
0.0025
0.0023
0.0073
0.88
1.0
0.078
0.15
0.030
0.062
0.020
0.032
0.026
0.18
0.089
0.20
0.044
0.024
0.13
0.30
Emission factor.
mg/kg of fabric
0.051
0.050
0.047
0.15
18
20
1.6
3.0
0.60
1.2
0.40
0.65
0.53
3.6
1.8
4.0
0.88
0.48
2.6
6.1
114
-------
TABLE B-4.
PLANT A, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
RUN 3: NO. 2 HEAT SET (FIRST ZONE)
Organic species
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl-C i» -ester
Methyl-Ci-7-ester
Paraffins/olefins (Cia-Cao)
Paraffins (Ci.-Ca..)
Concentration
in the
effluent gas
stream.
mq/m'
0.014
0.018
0.023
0.069
0.27
0.68
0.00035
0.028
0.057
7.8
Percentage
found in
the particulate
phase.
weight percent
0
60
22
27
0
0
0
0
0
24
Emission
rate.
kg/day
0.0034
0.0045
0.0055
0.017
0.066
0.17
0.000087
0.0069
0.014
1.9
Emission factor,
mg/kg of fabric
0.19
0.25
0.31
0.95
3.7
9.4
0.0049
0.39
0.78
110
TABLE B-5.
PLANT A, TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS DATA
AND TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS
Stack
111
132
133
142
143
313
313
343
422
423
424
42S
432
433
434
452
453
Aztec heat set
No. 1 heat set,
first cone
No. 1 heat set,
second cone
No. 2 heat set,
first cone
No. 2 heat set
SBCond xonG
No. 1 Themosol oven
No. 1 Themosol oven
No. 4 Themosol oven
No. 2 resin tenter,
first exhaust
No. 2 resin tenter,
second exhaust
No. 2 resin tenter,
third exhaust
No. 2 resin tenter.
curing oven
No. 3 resin tenter,
first exhaust
No. 3 resin tenter,
second exhaust
No. 3 resin tenter,
third exhaust
No. 5 resin tenter,
first exhaust
No. 5 resin tenter,
second exhaust
a oL
Conversion factor for ppn jjy
Total hydrocarbon Average
concentration, ppm concentration
as CHit* of methane.
37
15
20
14
15
8
6
B
-------
TABLE B-6.
PLANT A, Ci-C6 HYDROCARBON
EMISSION DATA
Stack
111
132
133
142
143
313
343
422
423
424
425
432
433
434
452
453
of Ci-Ca Average
cosponadB h concentration.
preceu uamiftta detected* atr mm mm ca.
kitec heat aet
Bo. 1 heat aet.
f iret xone
Bo. 1 heat aet.
second ions
Bo. 2 heat aet.
flrat sons
Bo. 2 heat aet.
eecond tone
Bo. 1 Theneaol even
Bo. 4 Thersoaol oven
BO. 2 reain tenter,
f irat exhaust
Bo. 2 reein tenter,
eecond exhauit
Bo. 2 reain tenter,
third exhauat
Bo. 2 reein tenter,
Bo. 3 reein tenter,
firet exhauat
Bo. 3 reein tenter,
eecond exhauat
Bo. 3 reein tenter,
third exhauat
Bo. 5 reein tenter,
firat exhauat
No. 5 reain tenter,
eecond exhauat
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
3
0
0
2
1
0
0
1.47
1.46
1.63
1.11
1.41
6.76
3.67
1.69
1.98
3.96
1.96
3.73
3.C7
27
46
62
145
29
2.049
15
2
2
15
4
19
note. Blank* indicate that no C.-C. eonponnde other than
awthane Here detected.
•other than CM..
Detention tiaw relative to the retention tine for •ethane.
TABLE B-7.
PLANT A, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION
DATA - RUN 1: FINISHING ON
NO. 2 TENTER FRAME (3RD ZONE)
Concentration in
the effluent gas
Element e»ra«nr nq/raa
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.047
0.034
0.00040
0
0.0018
0.00023
0.027
0.034
0.00073
0.037
0.18
0.0029
0.0072
0.0077
0.021
0.016
0.012
0
0
2.5
0.00034
0.076
0.000029
0
0.035
Baission
rate,
kg/day
0.013
0.0089
0.00010
0
0.00048
0.000062
0.0072
0.0089
0.00019
0.0099
0.047
0.00076
0.0019
0.0020
0.0057
0.0041
0.0033
0
0
0.65
0.000089
0.020
0.0000077
0
0.0093
Emission
factor ,
mg/kg
of fabric
0.44
0.32
0.0037
0
0.017
0.0022
0.26
0.31
0.0069
0.35
1.7
0.027
0.067
0.072
0.20
0.15
0.12
0
0
23
0.0032
0.71
0.00027
0
0.33
116
-------
TABLE B-8.
PLANT A, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION
DATA - RUN 2: DYEING ON NO. 4
THERMOSOL OVEN
Concentration in
the effluent gas
Element •trean, tnq/m»
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Sine
0.020
0.022
0.00028
0
0.111
0.000076
0.086
0.020
0.00082
0.012
0.06B
0.0043
0.016
0.0046
0.014
0.020
0.020
0
0.00042
100
0.00085
0.078
0.00024
0.000042
0.021
Emission
rate.
kg/day
0.0035
0.0039
0.000050
0
0.0019-
0.000014
0.015
0.0037
0.00015
0.0022
0.012
0.00078
0.0029
0.00083
0.0025
0.0035
0.0035
0
0.000075
18
0.00015
0.014
0.000044
0.0000075
0.0038
Emission
factor,
og/kg
of fabric
0.071
0.078
0.0010
0
0.038
0.0002B
0.31
0.073
0.0030
0.044
0.25
0.016
0.057
0.017
0.050
0.071
0.070
0
0.0015
360
0.0031
0.28
0.00088
0.00015
0.076
TABLE B-9.
PLANT A, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION
DATA - RUN 3. NO. 2 HEAT SET
(1ST ZONE)
Concentration in Emission
the effluent gas rate.
Element stream, mq/n* kg/day
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.0011
0.0031
0.00020
0.00035
0.00013
0.00025
0.0049
0.00093
0.00033
0.0011
0.0051
0.0021
0.00086
0.00059
0.013
0.0034
0.0052
0
0.0069
28
0.00018
0.044
0.000021
0.00011
0.0040
0.00019
0.00055
0.000035
0.0000062
0.000024
0.000045
0.00086
0.00016
0.000059
0.00019
0.00089
0.00036
0.00015
0.00010
0.0023
0.00060
0.00092
0
0.00012
5.0
0.000032
0.0077
0.0000037
0.000020
0.00071
Emission
factor,
mg/kg
of fabric
0.015
0.043
0.0027
0.00049
0.0019
0.0035
0.068
0.013
0.0046
0.015
0.070
0.029
0.012
0.0081
0.18
0.047
0.072
0
0.0096
390
0.0026
0.61
0.00030
0.0016
0.056
117
-------
TABLE B-10.
ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM SAMPLING
DATA - HEAT SETTING AT PLANT A
Emission species
Particulate matter
Organic compounds
Oiethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Oibutyl phthalate
Di-C.-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl-Cm -ester
Methyl-CiT-ester
Aliphatics (Cia-C**)
Nonmethane total
hydrocarbons
Trace elements8
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Emission factors
measured for
ma/kg oi°£«bric
222
0.19
0.25
0.31
0.95
3.7
9.4
0.0049
0.39
110
460
0.015
0.043
0.0027
0.00049
0.0019
0.0035
0.06(
0.013
0.0046
0.015
0.070
0.029
0.012
0.00*1
0.18
0.047
0.072
0.0096
390
0.0026
0.61
0.00030
0.0016
0.056
Emission factors
estimated for 2nd zone
of heat set,b
tag/kg of fabric
72
0.062
0.081
0.10
0.31
1.2
3.1
0.0016
0.13
36
A
150°
0.0049
0.014
0.00088
0.00016
0.00062
0.0011
0.022
0.0042
0.0015
0.0049
0.023
0.0095
0.0039
0.0026
0.059
0.015
0.023
0.0031
127
0.00085
0.20
0.000098
0.00052
0.018
Emission factors
estimated for total
heat set
(zones 1 and 2) ,c
mg/kg of fabric
294
0.25
0.33
0.41
1.3
4.9
12
0.0065
0.52
150
ri
610fl
0.020
0.057
0.0036
0.00065
0.0025
0.0046
0.090
0.017
0.0061
0.020
0.093
0.038
0.016
0.011
0.24
0.062
0.095
0.013
520
0.0034
0.81
0.00040
0.0021
0.074
The heat setting equipment sampled had 2 exhaust stacks only one of which was sampled
for trace organics and trace elements. Each stack exhausts a section of the machine
designated as zones 1 and 2.
bEmission factors for the second zone were estimated by using the ratio of the total non-
methane hydrocarbon emission factor for zone 1 to that of zone 2 as a multiplier for
the various emission factors determined for zone 1.
GEstimated by adding the values measured for zone 1 to the values estimated for zone 2.
^his value was measured rather than estimated.
eThese samples were also analyzed for silicon which was not detected.
118
-------
TABLE B-ll.
ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM SAMPLING DATA -
FINISHING TENTER FRAME AT PLANT A
vo
Emission factors
estimated for
1st zone of
tenter frame,"
Emission factors
estimated for
2nd zone of
tenter frame,**
Emission factors
measured for
3rd zone of
tenter frame,c
Emission factors
estimated for
total tenter frame,d
(zones 1, 2, and 3)
Emission species
Participate matter
Organic compounds
Diethyl phthalate
Oipropyl phthalate
Dlbutyl phthalate
Di-d-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palnitate
Methyl stearate
Methyl -C i T-esters
Aliphatics (Cia-Cj,)
Nonmethane total
hydrocarbons
Trace elements
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
mg/kg of fabric
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
mg/kg of fabric
820
0.21
0.0034
1.8
0.45
1.8
3.2
0.34
160
890e
0.71
0.52
0.0060
0.028
0.0036
0.42
0.50
0.011
0.57
2.8
0.044
0.11
0.12
0.32
0.24
0.19
37
0.0052
1.1
0.00044
0.53
mg/kg of fabric
507
0.13
0.0021
1.1
0.29
1.1
2.0
0.21
101
550
0.44
0.32
0.0037
0.017
0.0022
0.26
0.31
0.0069
0.35
1.7
0.027
0.067
0.072
0.20
0.15
0.12
23
0.0032
0.71
0.00027
0.33
mg/kg of fabric
1.300
0.34
0.005S
2.9
•0.76
2.9
5.2
0.55
260
l,400e
1.2
0.84
0.0097
0.045
0.0058
0.68
0.81
0.018
0.92
4.5
0.071
0.18
0.19
0.52
0.39
0.31
60
0.0084
1.8
0.00071
0.86
This exhaust stack had no Clow; it is assumed that the emissions from zone 1 were exhausted through the
zone 2 stack.
Estimated by multiplying the emission factors measured for the 3rd zone by the ratio of the nonmethane
total hydrocarbon emission factor for zone 2 to that for zone 3.
cMeasured by stack testing.
Total of emission factors estimated for zones 1 and 2 and those measured for zone 3.
These values were measured rather than estimated.
^Elements not detected during analysis are beryllium, silicon, silver, and vanadium.
-------
TABLE B-12.
PLANT Bf CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EFFLUENT
GAS STREAMS SAMPLED WITH THE SASS TRAIN
Oxygen (O«) content
Carbon dioxide (COi) content
Nitrogen (N») content
Moisture (H»O) content
Dry molecular weight of stack gat
Molecular weight of stack gas
Stack gas temperature (average)
Stack gas temperature (range)
Average stack gas velocity
Average stack gas flow rate
(actual)
Average stack gas flow rate
(standard conditions)
Units
VolUM t
Volume %
Volume %
Volume •
g/mole
g/mole
•c
•c
m/s
•»/•
»»/•
Run 1 i Dyeing
on a thermosol
dye range
_•
_a
_•
4.24
29.14*
28.67'
192
IBS to 1»7
9.58
3.035
1.862
of a finish in
a curina oven
_•
_•
_•
3.50
29.14b
28.75°
145
139 to 152
9.16
2.553
1.754
drying on a finish-
ing tenter frame
20.5
2.0
77.5
3.53
29.14
28.75
151
137 to 167
5.51
1.744
1.180
Not measured.
bAssumed to be the same as for Run 3.
cBased on the assumed dry molecular weight of 29.14 g/nole.
TABLE B-13. PLANT B, PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
Run
No. Operation sampled
Concentration
of partieulate
in effluent
gas stream,
mg/B»»
Partieulate
contribution to
the total
emissions
weight %
Bnission
rate*>
kg/day
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
Dyeing on Themosol
dye range
Curing of a finish on
curing oven No. 1
Finishing/drying on
Krantz finishing frame
No. 1 - sone 1
59
32
39
0.0075
0.0037
0.0045
15.5
7.1
5.9
410
340
440
"Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hour day.
120
-------
TABLE B-14.
PLANT B, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
RUN 1: DYEING ON THERMOSOL DYE RANGE
10
Percentage of compound
Concentration in collected in the Emission
the effluent gas particulate phase rate
Organic species stream, mg/m3 weight % kg/day
CO+CB alkyl benzenes
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Napthalene
Methyl-napthalenes
Dimethyl-napthalenes
€3 and above
napthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-Ce alkyl-phthalate
Bromochlorobenzene
Brontodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Aminoanthraquinone
Methyl myristate
Methyl pa Imitate
Methyl stearate
Aliphatics
0.25
0.23
0.099
0.24
0.93
0.54
0.0023
1.5
0.94
0.21
0.00035
0.0030
0.018
0.93
2.8
0.36
0.014
1.1
2.5
6.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
93
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0.02
2
0.066
0.060
0.026
0.062
0.24
0.14
0.00062
0.40
0.25
0.054
0.00009
0.00080
0.0048
0.24
0.74
0.093
0.0036
0.30
0.66
1.7
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
1.7
1.6
0.68
1.6
6.4
3.7
0.016
10.7
6.5
1.4
0.0024
0.021
0.13
6.4
19.0
2.5
0.094
7.8
17.5
44.8
-------
TABLE B-15.
PLANT B, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
RUN 2: CURING OF A FINISH ON CURING OVEN NO. 1
K)
to
Percentage of compound
Concentration in collected in the Emission
the effluent gas particulate phase rate
Organic species stream, mg/m3 weight % kg/day
C«+Cs alkyl benzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Napthalene
Methyl-napthalenes
Dimethyl-napthalenes
Cj and above
napthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ca alkyl phthalate
Dimethyl alkyl amines
Bromodinitrobenzene
Dichloronitroaniline
Anthraquinone
Methyl dodecanoate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Aliphatics
0.11
0.0061
0.059
. 0.20
0.089
0.034
0.47
0.26
0.091
0.00021
0.0011
0.0050
0.0012
4.3
0.030
0.012
0.0065
0.00099
0.0037
0.0072
0.0074
12.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.024
0.0013
0.013
0.045
0.020
0.0074
0.10
0.057
0.020
0.00005
0.00025
0.0011
0.00026
0.96
0.0067
0.0026
0.0014
0.00022
0.00081
0.0016
0.0016
2.8
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
1.1
0.064
0.63
2.1
0.94
0.35
4.9
2.7
0.97
0.0022
0.012
0.053
0.013
45.9
0.32
0.13
0.069
0.010
0.039
0.076
0.078
134
-------
TABLE B-16.
to
OJ
PLANT B, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS - RUN 3:
AND DRYING ON KRANTZ FINISHING FEAME NO. 1 - ZONE 1
FINISHING
Organic species
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Tetrachlorobenzenes
Methyl-napthalenes
Dimethyl-napthalenes
Cs and above
napthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
Bromodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Ami noa n thraqu inone
Methyl dodecanoate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Aliphatics
Concentration in
the effluent gas
stream, mg/m3
0.72
17
0.77
1.2
1.4
0.48
21
11
17
0.0016
1.8
0.20
0.020
0.15
0.069
0.18
0.079
12
Percentage of compound
collected in the
particulate phase
weight %
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Emission
rate
kg/day
0.11
2.6
0.12
0.17
0.21
0.072
3.1
1.7
2.6
0.00024
0.27
0.031
0.0030
0.023
0.010
0.028
0.012
1.8
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
8.1
192
8.6
12.8
15.8
5.3
230
125
195
0.018
20.1
2.3
0.22
1.7
0.76
2.1
0.88
131
-------
TABLE B-17.
PLANT Bf CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT GAS
STREAMS ANALYZED BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
ro
GC
run
numbers
1,10
2.9
3
4
17
15,16
5
7
8
6
13
14
12
11
Stack identification
Clip frame - stack 1 (zone 1)
Clip frame - stack 2 (zone 2)
Pin frame - stack 1 (zone 1)
Pin frame - stack 2 (zone 2)
Krantz frame No. 1 - stack 1
(zone 1)
Krantz frame No. 1 - stack 2
(zone 2)
Thermosol dye range
Range No. 1 - stack 1 (zone 1)
Range No. 1 - stack 2 (zone 2)
Curing oven No. 1
Range No. 2 - stack 2 (zone 2)
Range No. 2 - stack 3 (zone 3)
Curing oven No. 2
Thermosol preparation line - 3rd
steamer vent
Moisture
content
volume %
5.15
6.91
7.45
3.08
3.53
3.50
4.24
7.27
4.74
3.50
1.98
b
b
b
Stack gas
temperature
°C
111
168
160
138
151
137
192
125
120
145
139
b
_b
_b
Stack gas
velocity
m/s
7.76
7.89
12.24
6.29
5.51
5.15
9.58
14.40
2.34
9.16
13.85
_b
_b
_b
Stack gas
flow rate
mVsa
2.072
1.374
3.269
1.173
1.744
1.629
3.035
5.370
0.872
2.553
2.681
_b
b
"
_b
aActual cubic meters per second.
No measurements were made on these stacks.
-------
TABLE B-18. PLANT B, NONMETHANE TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION DATA
cc
run
numbers Equipment sampled
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
M 10
to
Ul 11
12
13
14°
15
16
17
,
Clip frame - 1st cone
Clip frame - 2nd cone
Pin frame - 1st cone
Pin frame - 2nd cone
Thermosol dye range
Curing oven No. 1
Range No. 1 (finishing and heat set)
2nd cone
Range No. 1 (finishing and heat set)
1st cone
Clip frame - 2nd cone
Clip frame - 1st cone
Thermosol preparation line
3rd steamer vent
Curing oven No. 2
Range No. 2 (finishing and heat set)
2nd cone
Range No. 2 (finishing and heat set)
3rd cone
Krantc finishing frame No. 1
2nd cone1
Krantc finishing frame No. 1
2nd cone
Krante finishing frame No. 1
1st cone
__i__ •__k^.. •*» — 1 Bill 1 •• r*u~ fr«%
Operation
sampled
Finishing
Finishing
Drying
Drying
Dyeing
Curing
Finishing
Finishing
Drying
Drying
Preparation
for dyeing
Curing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
•M/M3 •• ni_ !•
Avirnqp total Avor*t|p Nnnmcthane
hydrocarbon mrthnnp total hydrocarbon
concentration concentration concentration
pp» as Cll»a pro as f.ll." mq/m' as CH,
7.610
2.260
1.010
466
602
3.830
804
821
1.975
5.110
20
3.640
44
61
120
309
374
/lb q\ / mole
4.557
2.023
631
124
461
2,714
107
682
1.572
1.946
4
2.913
24
35
133
89
150
_Wl.OOOi
2.180
169
271
101
101
797
355
99
284-
2,260
11
519
14
19
0
157
17
*Y
total hydrocarbon
emission rate
kq/day
188
20
77
10
26
176
27
46
34
40S
_b
_b
3
_b
0
22
3
Noiwethane
total hydrocarbon
emission factor
q/kg of fabric
14.4
0.74
5.6
0.75
1.3
9.3
1.4
2.4
1.4
16.3
_b
_b
0.17
_b
0
1.7
0.19
Flow rates were not determined for these stacks.
tration data is provided for comparison purposes.
Die/ \22,400mL
Therefore, the emission rates and emission factors cannot be calculated.
• the concen™
-------
TABLE B-19. PLANT B, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA - RUN 2
CURING OF A-FINISH ON CURING OVEN NO. 1
Concentration in
the effluent gas
Element stream, mg/m3
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0
0.0083
0.00042
0.00041
0.00073
0
0.11
0.0012
0.000014
0.12
0.0068
0.0021
0.021
0.00022
0.0064
0
0.0069
0.0062
0.037
14
0.00029
0.035
0.00025
0
0.086
Emission
rate,
kg/day
0
0.0018
0.000092
0.000090
0.00016
0
0.024
0.00026
0.0000031
0.027
0.0015
0.00047
0.0045
0.000048
0.0014
0
0.0015
0.0014
0.0082
3.1
0.000064
0.0078
0.000054
0
0.019
Emission
factor ,
mg/kg
of fabric
0
0.088
0.0044
0.0043
0.0077
0
1.1
0.012
0.00015
1.3
0.072
0.022
0.22
0.0023
0.067
0
0.073
0.066
0.39
150
0.0031
0.37
0.0026
0
0.91
126
-------
TABLE B-20.
PLANT B, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA -
RUN 1: DYEING ON THERMOSOL DYE RANGE
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration in
the effluent gas
stream, mg/m3
0.027
0.006S
0.0031
0.000028
0.0064
0.00056
0.12
0.032
0.00077
0.0043
0.052
0.0060
0.029
0.0036
0.0049
0.016
0.023
0.070
0.18
56
0.00041
0.010 '
0.00043
0.00088
0.017
Emission
rate,
kg/day
0.0072
0.0017
0.00082
0.0000072
0.0017
0.00015
0.031
0.0084
0.00020
0.0011
0.014
0.0016
0.0075
0.00095
0.0013
0.0043
0.0059
0.018
0.046
15
0.00011
0.0027
0.00011
0.00023
0.0045
Emission
factor ,
mg/Jtg
of fabric
0.19
0.045
0.022
0.00019
0.044
0.0039
0.81
0.22
0.0053
0.030
0.36
0.041
0.20
0.025
0.034
0.11
0.16
0.49
1.2
380
0.0028
0.072
0.0030
0.0061
0.12
TABLE B-21.
PLANT B, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA -
RUN 3: FINISHING AND DRYING ON KRANTZ
FINISHING FRAME NO. 1 - ZONE 1
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Sliver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration in
the effluent gas
stream, mg/m3
0.17
0.019
0.0020
0.00043
0.0040
0.0018
0.019
0.0032
0.0030
0.0056
0.038
0.020
0.064
0.00092
0.035
0.027
0.082
0.68
0.025
49
0.00033
0.018
0.0024
0.011
0.019
Emission
rate,
kg/day
0.037
0.0040
0.00042
0.000092
O.OOOB5
0.00038
0.0040
0.00068
0.00064
0.0012
0.0079
0.0042
0.013
0.00019
0.0073
0.0058
0.017
0.14
0.0053
10
0.000070
0.0039
0.00050
0.0022
0.0041
Emission
factor ,
mg/kg
of fabric
1.9
0.21
0.022
0.0048
0.045
0.020
0.21
0.36
0.033
0.062
0.42
0.22
0.71
0.010
0.38
0.30
0.91
7.5
0.2B
540
0.0037
0.20
0.026
0.12
0.21
127
-------
TABLE B-22.
ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM SAMPLING
DATA - FINISHING/DRYING TENTER FRAME AT PLANT B
Emission speciea
factors
easured for 1st zone
of tenter frame,"
eg/kg of fabric
lesion lectors
•estimated for 2nd zone
of tenter frame,0
mq/kq of fabric
Emission factors
estimated for total
tenter frame,c
mg/kq of fabric
Particulate matter
Organic compounds
Oichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Tetrachlorobenzenes
Methyl napthalenes
Dimethyl napthalenes
Cj and above napthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Ci-C.-alkyl phthalate
Bromodinitro benzene
Anthraquinone
Aminoanthraquinone
Kethyl dodecanoate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Aliphatics
Nonmethane total
hydrocarbons
Trace elements
440
8.1
192
8.6
12.8
15.8
5.3
230
125
195
0.018
20.1
2.3
0.22
1.7
0.76
2.1
0.88
131
190
440
8.1
192
8.6
12.8
15.8
5.3
230
125
195
0.018
20.1
2.3
0.22
1.7
0.76
2.1
0.88
131
190
880
16
380
17
26
32
11
460
150
390
0.036
40
4.6
0.44
3.4
1.5
4.2
1.8
260
380
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
1.9
0.21
0.22
0.0048
0.045
0.020
0.21
0.36
0.033
0.062
0.42
0.22
0.71
Q.010
Q.38
0.30
0.91
7.5
0.28
540
0.0037
0.20
0.026
0.12
0.21
1.9
0.21
0.022
0.0048
0.045
0.020
0.21
0.36
0.033
0.062
0.42
0.22
0.71
0.010
0.38
0.30
0.91
7.5
0.28
540
0.0037
0.20
0.026
0.12
0.21
3.8
0.42
0.044
0.0096
0.090
0.040
0.42
0.72
0.066
0.12
0.84
0.44
1.4
0.020
0.76
0.60
1.8
15
0.56
1,080
0.0074
0.40
0.052
0.24
0.42
*The tenter frame sampled had 2 exhaust stacks only one of which was sampled for trace organ-
ic* and elements. Each stack exhausts a section of the machine designated as zones 1 and 2.
DDue to conflicting results received from duplicate total nomnethane hydrocarbon emission
measurements made on the 2nd zone of the tenter frame, emission factor estimates will be made
by assuming that they are the same as measured for the 1st zone.
128
-------
TABLE B-23. PLANT C, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EFFLUENT
GAS STREAMS SAMPLED WITH THE SASS TRAIN
Effluent parameter
Moisture (HaO) content
Molecular weight of
stack gas
Stack gas temperature
(average)
Stack' gas temperature
(range)
Average stack gas
velocity
Stack gas flow rate
(actual)
Stack gas flow
rate (standard
conditions)
Units
Volume %
g/mole
•C
•c
m/s
D»/B
m»/s
Run 1: 2nd tone
of curing
oven No. 4
3.83
28.675°
168
157 to 175
6.58
2.14
1.35
Run 2: 3rd zone
of finishing
tenter frame No. 4
4.85
28.562s
127
111 to 142
11.08
3.09
2.13
Run 3: 2nd zone
of ThernoBol
oven No. 11
2.54
28.818*
154
152 to 158
6.89
3.39
2.26
aBased on an assumed dry molecular weight of 29.10 (estimated from previous measurements
of similar effluent streams).
TABLE B-24. PLANT C, PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
Run
No. Operation sampled
Concentration
of particulate
in effluent
gas stream.
mg/m»8
Particulate
contribution to
the total
emissions
weight %
Dnission
rateb
kg/day
Emission
factor
ng/kg
of fabric
Curing of a permanent
press finish (2nd cone
of curing oven No. 4)
Application and drying
of a permanent press
finish (3rd zone of
finishing tenter
frame No. 4)
Dyeing on a Thermosol
dye range (2nd sone of
Thermosol oven No. 11)
2.6
3.4
5.9
0.0003
0.0004
0.007
17
32
61
18
34
53
'Actual cubic meters.
*Based on continuous operation of a 24-hr day.
129
-------
TABLE B-25.
PLANT C, ORGANIC EMISSION DATA - SASS RUN 1: CURING OF
A PERMANENT PRESS FINISH, 2ND ZONE OF CURING OVEN
Concentration in
the effluent
gas stream
Organic species ing/m3*
C3/C«,/Cs-alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Dichloro benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl-naphthalenes
Dimethyl-naphthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
C a -phenol
Co-phenols
Bromodinitrobenzene
An thraqu inone
Methyl mycistate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Palmitic acid
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Aliphatics
0.067
0.13
0.014
0.0014
0.064
0.0057
0.011
0.22
0.11
1.3
0.039
0.0079
0.020
0.090
0.24
0.27
0.079
1.5
2.0
0.92
0.066
0.095
0.62
Percentage
found in the Emission
particulate phase rate"
weight % kg/day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.43
0.87
0.090
0.0090
0.42
0.037
0.072
1.4
0.70
8.6
0.26
0.052
0.13
0.59
1.6
1.8
0.51
10.0
13.1
6.0
0.43
0.62
4«
.1
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
0.46
0.93
0.097
0.0096
0.45
0.040
0.077
1.5
0.75
9.2
0.27
0.055
0.14
0.63
1.7
1.9
0.55
10.7
• A «•
14.0
6.4 .
0.46
0.66
4 M
.4
aActual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
-------
TABLE B-26.
PLANT C, ORGANIC EMISSION DATA - SASS RUN 2: APPLICATION AND DRYING
OF A PERMANENT PRESS FINISH, 3RD ZONE OF FINISHING TENTER FRAME
Concentration in
the effluent
gas stream
Organic species mg/m3a
C3/C»/Cs-alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl-naphthalenes
Dimethyl-naphthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
C9-phenols
t-Butyl-hydroxyanisole
Bromodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane
Siloxane (dominant ion 267)
Siloxane (dominant ion 341)
Aliphatics
0.31
0.51
0.057
0.15
0.0071
0.010
0.010
0.017
0.40
0.044
0.014
0.032
0.0023
0.087
0.12
0.057
0.85
1.1
0.11
0.19
0.20
0.076
0.036
1.5
Percentage
found in the Emission
particulate phase rate"
weight % kg/day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
100
100
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
12
3.0
4.8
0.54
1.4
0.067
0.094
0.10
0.16
3.8
0.41
0.14
0.30
0.021
0.82
1.2
Of 1
.53
8.0
10.6
1.0
1.8
1.9
0*9 1
.72
0.34
14.2
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
3.2
5.2
0.58
1.5
0.071
0.10
0.11
0.17
4.1
0.44
0.15
0.32
0.023
On A
.88
1.2
OC •V
.57
8.5
U<^
.3
1«
.1
1A
.9
2<|
.1
OTJ
. 77
0^ «v
.37
1C •»
15.2
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation of a 24-hr period.
-------
TABLE B-27.
10
PLANT C, ORGANIC EMISSION DATA - SASS RUN 3: DYEING ON
A THERMOSOL DYE RANGE, 2ND ZONE OF THERMOSOL OVEN
Concentration in
the effluent
gas stream
Organic species ing/m3*
2rEthylhexanol
Ca/C«/Cs-alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Naphthalene
Methyl -naphtha lenes
Dimethyl-naphthalenes
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ce-alkyl phthalate
Bromodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Methyl myri state
Methyl palmitate
Methyl a tear ate
Palmitic acid
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Aliphatics
0.088
0.16
0.023
0.019
0.0030
0.0041
0.0038
0.099
0.00028
0.0049
0.033
0.093
0.015
0.028
0.020
0.54
0.70
7.7
0.013
0.020
0.46
Percentage
found in the Emission
particulate phase rate"
weight % kg/day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
13
1
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
42
0.91
1.6
0.24
0.20
0.031
0.043
0.040
1.0
0.0029
0.051
0.34
0.96
0.16
0.29
0.20
5.6
7.3
80.1
0.13
0.21
4.8
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
0.78
1.4
0.20
0.17
0.026
0.036
0.034
0.88
0.0025
0.043
0.29
0.82
0.14
0.25
0.18
4.8
6.2
68.6
0.11
0.18
4.1
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
-------
TABLE B-28.
PLANT C, CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT GAS STREAMS
ANALYZED BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
GC
run
numbers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Stack identification
Curing oven on finishing line
No. 1 - stack 2 (zone 2)
Curing oven on finishing line
No. 4 - stack 1 (zone 1)
Curing oven on finishing line
No. 4 - stack 2 (zone 2)
Curing oven on finishing line
No. 1 - stack 1 (zone 1)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 1 - stack 3 (zone 3)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 2 - stack 3 (zone 3)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 5 - stack 3 (zone 3)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 4 - stack 3 (zone 3)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 4 - stack 2 (zone 2)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 4 - stack 1 (zone 1)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 3 - stack 1 (zone 1)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 3 - stack 2 (zone 2)
Finishing tenter frame
No. 3 - stack 3 (zone 3)
Atmospheric Beck No. 12
Wash box No. 2 - vent A
Wash box No. 2 - vent B
Jig vent
Thermosol dye range -
stack A (zone 1)
Thermosol dye range -
stack B (zone 2)
Moisture
content
volume %
4.53
2.50
3.83
3.38
6.40
3.03
7.04
4.85
7.95
10.22
3.41
4.93
•vS
28.79
3.80
5.10
3.11
•x-5
•x.5
Stack gas
temperature
°C
94
96
168
58
88
121
129
127
170
168
102
113
126
68
34
36
30
70
68
Stack gas
velocity
m/s
7.09
12.33
6.58
3.25
10.7
9.44
6.49
11.08
11.62
8.10
5.07
3.99
11.90
1.44
11.33
11.08
7.87
12.87
1.71
Stack gas
flow rate
mVsa
2.11
4.01
2.14
0.970
2.98
2.63
1.36
3.09
3.21
2.34
1.34
1.05
3.87
0.63
7.03
6.88
4.89
3.59
0.48
9Actual cubic meters per second.
-------
TABLE B-29. PLANT C, NONMETHANE TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION DATA
run
nuKbers
t
2
1
4
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
11
14
1»
16
17
18
19
Equipment sampled
Curing own on finishing line 1 -
2nd ronr
Curing ovm on finishing line 4 -
l« znnr
Curing oven on finishing line 4 -
2nd cone
Curing oven on finishing line 1 -
lit cone
Finishing tenter Irene 1 -
Ird cone
Finishing tenter Irssc 2 -
Ird sone
Finishing tenter frasw 1 -
Ird COM
Finishing tenter Crave 4 -
Ird cone
Finishing tenter fra*t 4 -
2nd COM
Finishing tenter frsm 4 -
1st COM
Finishing tenter Crave 1 -
1st cone
Finishing tenter trans 1 -
2nd COM
Finishing tenter frssv 1 -
Ird cone
fttSDSpherlc beck Ha. 12
•ash bo* No. 2 - vent ft
•ash boi No. 2 - vent 8
Jig vent
Thersosol dye range - 1st cone
Ttieraosol dye range - 2nd zone
. -
°£!r.ir.nn
Curing
Curing
Curing
Curing
Finishing
Drying
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Dyeing
Dyeing
or«»ng
Correction
of defect'
Dyeing
Dyeing
ftv»iai|» total
hydrocarbon
con* "nt rat ion
rp» "_<-•» a
146
76
55
181
J06
68
10
1.S45
190
110
40J
506
487
1.506
11 .
28
11
118
111
- ».„,„,„•
font «*nt i AI Ion
If* x* i II. a
110
in
40
149
141
46
0
1.042
IDS
79
276
267
615
28
11
6
21
281
152
Noidn't San*
total hyilr'M arhon
' om «>nt rat inn
""/•• HI tUi?
J*
11
II
24
45
16
7
159
61
22
91
171
0
1.056
0
16
7
26
116
Nnnwhanw
total hydrocarbon
•mm Ion cat'b
4 7
II
2.0
2.0
12
1.6
0.82
96
17
4.4
11
16
0
17
0
9.5
1.0
8.1
4.8
Homwthane
total hyifrorarbon
•wl««ion factor
mrj/kgof fabric
240
'
410
77
84
490
190
18
1.600
640
170
140
500
o
.'
0
440
JK
280
170
Based on continuous operation for e 24-hr period.
CBU»lon rate • ««!/•»> (»»/aiinl tl.440 Bin/day I (kg/10* nql.
-------
TABLE B-30. PLANT C, Ci-C6 HYDROCARBON EMISSION DATA
cc
run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
Equipment sampled
Curing oven on finishing
Curing oven on finishing
Curing oven on finishing
Curing oven on finishing
Finishing tenter frame 1
Finishing tenter frame 2
Finishing tenter frame S
Finishing tenter frame 4
Finishing tenter frame 4
Finishing tenter frame 4
Finishing tenter frame 3
Finishing tenter frame 3
Finishing tenter frame 3
Atmospheric beck No. 12
Hash box No. 2 - vent A
Hash box No. 2 - vent B
Jig vent
Thermosol dye range - 1st
Theraosol dye range - 2nd
line 1
line 4
line 4
line 1
- 3rd
- 3rd
- 3rd
- 3rd
- 2nd
- 1st
- 1st
- 2nd
- 3rd
zone
cone
- 2nd tone
- 1st tone
- 2nd sone
- i'st sone
sone
sone
sone
sone
sone
sone
sone
sone
sone
Number
Of C.-C.
Operation compounds
sampled detected4
Curing
Curing
Curing
Curing
Finiahing
Drying
Finishing
Finiahing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Dyeing
Dyeing
Dyeing
Correction
of defect
Dyeing
Dyeing
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
2
2
0
1
Relative Average
retention concentration
time6 ppn as CH.
2.
2.
0.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
1.
5.
2.
2.
3.
2.
3.
6
B
32
8
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
S
6
6
5
6
B
1.5
50
121
63
20
4
21
36
20
18
79
B
71
8
663
19
27
20
19
6
3
Note.—Blanks indicate that no Ci-C« compounds were detected.
'other than CH..
^Retention time relative to the retention time for methane.
135
-------
TABLE B-31.
PLANT C, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA -
RUN 1: CURING OF A PERMANENT PRESS
FINISH - 2ND ZONE OF CURING OVEN
Concentration in Emission
the effluent gas rate,.
Element stream, mg/m3 kg/day
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.00038
0
0.0012
0
0.0021
0.00089
0.17
0.015
0.00082
0.0043
0.058
0.011
0.094
0.0021
0
0.0030
0.0020
0.42
0.000021
9.4
0.00012
0.019
0
0
0.028
0.000070
0
0.00022
0
0.00040
0.00016
0.031
0.0028
0.00015
0.00079 '
0.011
0.0021
0.017
0.00039
0
0.00055
0.00037
0.077
0.0000038
1.7
0.000023
0.0035
0
0
0.0052
Emission
factor,
rag/kg
of fabric
0.0026
0
0.0081
0
0.015
0.0062
1.2
0.11
0.0057
0.030
0.40
0.079
0.66
0.015
0
0.021
0.014
2.9
0.00014
66
0.00087
0.13
0
0
0.20
136
-------
TABLE B-32.
PLANT C, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA
RUN 2: APPLICATION AND DRYING OF
PERMANENT PRESS FINISH - 3RD ZONE OF
FINISHING TENTER FRAME
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration in
the effluent gas
stream, mg/m3
0.0030
0
0.0032
0
0.0055
0-. 0011
0.0073
0.011
0.00089
0.0042
0.082
0.047
0.025
0.0035
0.0015
0.015
0.0031
1.1
0.000014
22
0.000077
0.25
0
0
0.012
Emission
rate,
kg/day
0.00080
0
0.00084
0
0.0015
0.00028
0.0020
0.0029
0.00024
0.0011
0.022
0.012
0.0066
0.00094
0.00041
0.0040
0.00083
0.29
0.0000038
5.9
0.000021
0.067
0
0
0.0031
Emission
factor,
rag/kg
of fabric
0.030
0
0.032
0
0.056
0.011
0.074
0.11
0.0090
0.043
0.82
0.47
0.25
0.036
0.015
0.15
0.031
11
0.00014
220
0.00078
2.5
0
0
0.12
TABLE B-33.
PLANT C, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA -
RUN 3: DYEING ON A THERMOSOL DYE RANGE
2ND ZONE OF THERMOSOL OVEN
Concentration in Emission
the effluent gas rate.
Element stream, mg/m3 kg/day
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.0029
0
0.0041
0
0.0064
0.000035
0.093
0.0032
0.00029
0.49
0.060
0.0024
0.081
0.0020
0.00027
0
0.012
0.36
0
230
0.00012
0.028
0
0
0.0044
0.00084
0
0.0012
0
0.0019
0.000010
0.027
0.00092
0.000085
0.14
0.017
0.00069
0.024
0.00058
0.000079
0
0.0035
0.11
0
67
0.000035
0.0082
0
0
0.0013
Emission
factor ,
mg/kg
of fabric
0.026
0
0.036
0
0.056
0.00031
0.82
0.028
0.0026
4.4
0.53
0.021
0.71
0.017
0.0024
0
0.11
3.2
0
2,000
0.0011
0.25
0
0
0.039
137
-------
TABLE B-34. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM SAMPLING DATA -
THERMOSOL DYE RANGE AT PLANT C
Emission factors
estimated for
1st cone of
Thenaosol dye range.
Emission factors
measured for
2nd zone of
Thennosol dye range,
Emission factors
estimated for total
Thermosol dye range,
Emission species
Particulate matter
Organic compounds
2-Ethylhexanol
Cs/Co/Cs alkyl benzenes
Ethyl styrene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalenes
Dimethyl naphthalenes
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ca-alkyl phthalate
Bromodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Methyl myristate
Methyl pa Imitate
Methyl stearate
Palmitic acid
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Aliphatics
Honmethane total hydro-
carbons
Trace elements
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphorus
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Zinc
tag/kg of fabric
87
1.3
2.3
0.34
0.28
0.043
0.059
0.056
1.4
0.0041
0.071
0.48
1.4
0.23
0.41
0.30
7.9
10
110
0.18
0.30
6.8
280
0.043
0.059
0.092
0.00051
1.4
0.046
0.0043
7.2
0.87
0.035
1.2
0.028
0.0040
0.18
5.3
3,300
0.0018
0.41
0.064
mg/kg of fabric
53
0.78
1.4
0.20
0.17
0.026
0.036
0.034
0.88
0.0025
0.043
0.29
0.82
0.14
0.25
0.18
4.8
6.2
69
0.11
0.18
4.1
170
0.026
0.036
0.056
0.00031
0.82
0.028'
0.0026
4.4
0.53
0.021
0.71
0.017
0.0024
0.11
3.2
2.000
0.0011
0.25
0.039
mg/kg of fabric
140
2.1
3.7
0.54
0.45
0.069
0.095
0.090
2.3
0.0066
0.11
0.77
2.2
0.37
0.10
0.48
13
16
180
0.29
0.48
11
450
0.069
0.095
0.15
0.00082
2.2
0.074
0.0069
12
1.4
0.056
1.9
0.045
0.0064
0.29
8.5
5,300
0.0029
0.66
0.10
138
-------
TABLE B-35.
ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM SAMPLING
DATA - FINISHING TENTER FRAME AT PLANT C
Emission factors
estimated for
1st zone of
tenter frame>
Emission factors
estimated for
2nd zone of
tenter frame>
Emission factors
measured for
3rd zone of
tenter frame>
Emission factors
estimated for total
tenter frame>
Emission species
Particulate matter
Organic compounds
Ca/Cit/Cs alkyl benzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalenes
Dimethyl naphthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ca-alkyl phthalate
Ca-phenols
t-butyl hydroxyanisole
Bromodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-
ethane
Octamethylcyclotetra-
siloxane
Siloxane (dominant ion
267)
Siloxane (dominant ion
341)
Aliphatics
Nonmethane total
hydrocarbons
Trace elements
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Zinc
mg/kg of fabric
1.6
0.15
0.25
0.027
0.071
0.0034
0.0047
0.0052
0.0080
0.19
0.21
0.0071
0.015
0.0011
0.042
0.057
0.027
0.40
0.52
0.052
0.090
0.099
0.036
0.017
0.71
3,600
0.0014
0.0015
0.0026
0.00052
0.0035
0.0052
0.00043
0.0020
0.039
0.022
0.012
0.0017
0.00071
0.0071
0.0015
0.52
0.0000066
10
0.000037
0.12
0.0057
mg/kg of fabric
6.0
0.57
0.92
0.10
0.27
0.013
0.018
0.020
0.030
0.73
0.078
0.027
0.057
0.0041
0.16
0.21
0.10
1.5
2.0
0.20
0.34
0.37
0.14
0.066
2.7
640
0.0053
0.0053
0.010
0.0020
0.013
0.020
0.0016
0.0076
0.15
0.084
0.044
0.0064
0.0027
0.027
0.0055
2.0
0.000025
39
0.00014
0.44
0.021
mg/kg of fabric
34
• 3.2
5.2
0.58
1.5
0.071
0.10
0.11
0.17
4.1
0.44
0.15
0.32
0.023
0.88
1.2
0.57
8.5
11
1.1
1.9
2.1
0.77
0.37
15
170
0.030
0.032
0.056
0.011
0.074
0.11
0.0090
0.043
0.82
0.47
0.25
0.036
0.015
0.15
0.031.
11
0.00014
220
0.00078
2.5
0.12
mg/kg of fabric
42
3.9
6.4
0.71
1.8
0.087
0.12
0.14
0.21
5.0
0.54
0.18
0.39
0.028
1.1
1.5
0.70
10
14
1.4
2.3
2.6
0.95
0.45
IB
4,400
0.037
0.039
0.069
0.014
0.091
0.14
0.011
0.053
1.0
0.58
0.31
0.044
0.018
0.18
0.038
14
0.00017
270
0.00096
3.1
0.15
139
-------
TABLE B-36.
EMISSION FACTORS MEASURED FOR 1ST AND 2ND ZONES
OF A TWO-ZONE TENTER FRAME AT PLANT C
Emission species
Particulate matter
Organic compounds
C3/c»/CB-alkyl benzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalenes
Benzole acid
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Methyl biphenyl
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Di(ethyl-phenyl) ethane
Dimethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Co-alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Unknown "245"
Unknown "243"
Unknown "241"
Unknown "240"
Unknown "269"
Unknown "239"
Unknown "85"
Oxygenates (e.g., alcohols,
alcoholic ethers, etc..
estimated Cia + above)
Aliphatics
Nonmethane total hydro-
carbons
Trace elements
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Zinc
Emission factors
measured for
1st zone,
mg/kg of fabric
13
0.68
1.2
0.099
0.96
0.066
0
52
o.ss
0.23
0.60
0.98
0.35
0.15
0.037
0.44
1.4
0.095
0.18
2.1
4.0
0.74
0.75
0.099
0.70
1.2
5.5
13
150
0.037
0.036
0.056
0.011
0.089
0.43
0.020
0.054
2.1
0.72
0.020
0.037
0.42
2.6
0.55
0.0056
240
0.00073
1.2
0.28
Emission factors
measured for
2nd zone,
mg/kg of fabric
19
3.0
0.18
0.045
0.49
0.12
7.1
436
0.39
2.1
0
0
0
0.70
0
0.29
0.17
0.088
0.15
0.96
0.83
0.47
1.4
0.19
1.7
2.5
4.4
13
350
0
0.031
0.038
0.0047
2.3
0.014
0.23
0.0032
1.4
0.024
0.62
0.039
0.039
2.4
0.25
0.0045
104
0.00078
1.0
0.83
Emission factors
for tenter frame
(zones 1 and 2) ,
mg/kg of fabric
32
3.7
1.4
0.14
1.5
0.19
7.1
490
0.94
2.3
0.60
0.98
0.35
0.85
0.037
0.73
1.6
0.18
0.33
3.1
4.8
6.0
2.2
0.29
2.4
3.7
9.9
26
500
0.037
0.067
0.094
0.016
2.4
0.44
0.25
0.057
3.5
0.74
0.64
0.076
0.46
5.0
0.80
0.010
340
0.0015
2.2
1.1
aThe 1st zone of this tenter frame includes an infrared predryer
140
-------
TABLE B-37. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM SAMPLING
DATA - CURING OVEN AT PLANT C
Emission factors
estimated for
1st zone of
curing oven,
Emission factors
measured for
2nd zone of
curing oven.b
Emission factors
estimated for total
curing oven.c
Emission species
Particulate matter
Organic compounds
C3/C»/C3-alkyl benzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalenes
Dimethyl naphthalenes
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ca-alkyl phthalate
Ca-phenols
Ca-phenols
Brotnodinitrobenzene
Anthraquinone
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Palmitic acid
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Aliphatics
Nonmethane total hydro-
carbons
Trace elements
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Zinc
mg/kg of fabric
101
2.6
5.2
0.54
0.054
2.5
0.22
0.43
8.4
4.2
51
1.5
0.31
0.78
3.5
9.5
11
3.1
61
78
36
2.6
3.7
25
A
430a
0.015
0.045
0.084
0.035
6.7
0.61
0.032
0.17
2.2
0.44
3.7
0.084
0.12
0.078
16
0.00078
370
0.0049
0.73
1.1
mb/kg of fabric
18
0.46
0.93
0.097
0.0096
0.45
0.040
0.077
1.5
0.75
9.2
0.27
0.055
0.14
0.63
1.7
1.9
0.55
11
14
6.4
0.46
0.66
4.4
77
0.0026
0.0081
0.015
0.0062
1.2
0.11
0.0057
0.030
0.40
0.079
0.66
0.015
0.021
0.014
2.9
0.00014
66
0.00087
0.13
0.20
mg/kg of fabric
120
3.1
6.1
0.64
0.064
3.0
0.26
0.51
9.9
5.0
60
1.8
0.37
0.92
4.1
11
13
3.7
72
92
42
3.1
4.4
29
510
0.018
0.053
0.099
0.041
7.9
0.72
0.038
0.20
2.6
0.52
4.4
0.099
0.14
0.092
19
0.00092
440
0.0058
0.86
1.3
141
-------
TABLE B-38.
PLANT D, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EFFLUENT
GAS STREAMS SAMPLED BY MRC
Effluent parameter
Units
Run 1: Curing
oven attached to
finishing tenter
frame No. 2
Run 2: 2nd zone
of finishing
tenter frame No. 2
Run 3: 1st zone
of finishing
tenter frame
No. 2
Oxygen (Oa) content
Carbon dioxide (C0a)
content
Nitrogen (Na) content
Moisture (HaO) content
Dry molecular weight
of stack gas
Molecular weight of
•tack gas
Stack gas temperature
(average)
Stack gas temperature
(range)
Average stack gas
velocity
Average stack gas flow
rate (actual)
Average stack gas flow
rate (standard
conditions)
Volume t
Volume %
Volume %
Volume %
g/mole
g/mole
•C
•c
m/s
m»/s
m>/s
17
1
82
6.61
26.0
25.5
168
161 to 173
15.9
4.64
2.88
20.7
0.5
78.8
5.41
28.9
28.3
49
43 to 54
1.79
6.49
5.54
17.5
2.2
80.3
5.75
29.1
28.4
157
154 to 158
1.95
3.00
1.93
TABLE B-39. PLANT D, PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
Run
No.
1
2
3
Operation sampled
Curing of a finish in
curing oven No. 2
Finishing on tenter
frame No. 2 (2nd zone)
Finishing on tenter
frame No. 2 (1st zone)
Concentration
of particulate
in effluent
gas stream,
mg/m'a
1.99
0.992
1.62
Particulate
contribution to
the total
emissions,
weight %
0.00028
0.000092
0.00020
Emission
rate,b
kg /day
0.80
0.56
0.42
Emission
factor
ing/kg
of fabric
31
19
13
Actual cubic meters.
bBased on continuous operation for a 24-hr day.
142
-------
TABLE B-40.
PLANT D, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
RUN 1: CURING OF A FINISH IN CURING OVEN NO. 2
LJ
Organic species
Cj/Cn/Cs-alkylbenzenes
'Ethyl styrene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalene
Benzole acid
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Methyl biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Cg alkyl phthalate
Methyl pa Imitate
Methyl stearate
Dichloronitroaniline
Aliphatics
Oxygenates (e.g., alco-
hols, alcoholic ethers,
etc., estimated Cia
and above)
Unknown "245"
Unknown "243"
Unknown "241"
Unknown "240"
Unknown "269"
Unknown "239"
Unknown "85"d
Percentage
Concentration in of compound
the effluent collected in the Emission
gas stream, particulate phase, rate,*3
mg/maa weight % kg/day
4.4
0.20
0.35
0.043
8.5
116
0.13
0.53
0.041
0.24
0.064
0.0023
0.0053
0.61
2.7
1.0
0.15
0.13
0.087
0.26
0.027
0.36
0.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
0.079
0.14
0.017
3.4
47
0.053
0.21
0.016
0.096
0.025
0.00093
0.0021
0.24
1.1
0.41
0.061
0.051
0.035
0.10
0.011
0.14
0.16
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
69
3.1
5.5
0.68
133
1,832
2.1
8.3
0.64
3.8
1.0
0.036
0.084
9.6
43
16
2.4
2.0
1.4
4.1
0.43
5.6
6.4
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
-------
TABLE B-41.
PLANT D, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS - RUN 2:
FINISHING ON TENTER FRAME NO. 2 (EXHAUST FROM 2ND ZONE)
Concentration in
the effluent
gas stream,
Organic species mg/m33
Ca/Cn/Cs-alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalene
Benzoic acid
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Methyl biphenyl
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Ca alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Dichloronitroaniline
Aliphatics
Oxygenates (e.g., alco-
hols, alcoholic ethers.
etc., estimated Cia
and above)
Unknown "245"
Unknown "243"
Unknown "241*
Unknown "240"
Unknown "269*
Unknown "239"
Unknown "85"
0.15
0.0096
0.0024
0.026
0.0061
0.37
23
0.020
0.11
0.037
0.016
0.0088
0.0047
0.0081
0.16
0.68
0.23
0.051
0.044
0.025
0.073
0.0099
0.090
0.13
Percentage
of compound
collected in the Emission
particulate phase, rate,
weight % kg/day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.088
0.0054
0.0013
0.015
0.0034
0.21
13
0.011
0.063
0.021
0.0087
0.0049
0.0026
0.0046
0.088
0.38
0.13
0.028
0.025
0.014
0.041
0.0056
0.050
0.073
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
3.0
0.18
0.045
0.49
0.12
7.1
436
0.39
2.1
0.70
0.29
0.17
0.088
0.15
3.0
13
4.4
0.96
0.83
0.47
1.4
0.19
1.7
2.5
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
-------
B-42. PLANT D, EMISSION DATA FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS - RUN 3:
FINISHING ON TENTER FRAME NO. 2 (EXHAUST FROM 1ST ZONE
in
Concentration in
the effluent
gas stream.
Organic species mg/rn33
Cj/C./Cs-alkylbenzenes
Ethyl styrene
Divinyl benzene
Naphthalene
Methyl naphthalene
Butyl benzoate
Biphenyl
Methyl biphenyl
Diphenyl ethane
Ethyl-phenyl-phenyl-ethane
Di (ethyl phenyl) ethane
Dimethyl phthalate
Dipropyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Di-Cs alkyl phthalate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl stearate
Dichloronitroaniline
Aliphatics
Oxygenates (e.g., alco-
hols, alcoholic ethers.
etc., estimated da
and above)
Unknown "245"
Unknown "243"
Unknown "241"
Unknown "240"
Unknown "269"
Unknown "239"
Unknown "85"
0.085
0.15
0.012
0.12
0.0082
6.5
0.068
0.028
0.075
0.12
0.042
0.018
0.0044
0.052
0.17
0.011
0.022
0.030
1.5
0.66
0.26
0.48
0.089
0.090
0.012
0.084
0.14
Percentage
of compound
collected in the Emission
particulate phase, rate.b
weight * kg/day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.022
0.039
0.0032
0.031
0.0021
1.7
0.018
0.0073
0.019
0.032
0.011
0.0050
0.0012
0.014
0.045
0.0031
0.0060
0.0081
0.42
0.18
0.069
0.13
0.024
0.024
0.0032
0.023
0.038
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
0.68
1.2
0.099
0.96
0.066
52
0.55
0.23
0.60
0.98
0.35
0.15
0.037
0.44
1.4
0.095
0.18
0.25
13
5.5
2.1
4.0
0.74
0.75
0.099
0.70
1.2
a
Actual cubic meters.
DBased on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
-------
TABLE B-43.
PLANT D, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA - RUN 1:
CURING OF A FINISH IN CURING OVEN NO. 2
Concentration in Emission
the effluent gas rate,13
Element stream, mg/m3a kg/day
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
_c
_c
0.000041
_c
0.00030
0.0010
0.20
0.0013
0.00019
0.00060
0.047
0.00042
0.099
0.0078
-C
0.00053
0.065
0.49
_c
14.7
0.00010
0.071
_c
_c
0.0043
0
0
0.000016
0
0.00012
0.00041
0.081
0.00052
0.000077
0.00024
0.019
0.00017
0.040
0.0031
0
0.00021
0.026
0.20
0
5.9
0.000041
0.028
0
0
0.0017
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
0
0
0.00064
0
0.0047
0.016
3.2
0.020
0.0030
0.0094
0.73
0.0067
1.6
0.12
0
0.0072
1.0
7.8
0
230
0.0016
1.1
0
0
0.068
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
GBelow detection limit.
146
-------
TABLE B-44,
PLANT D, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA -
RUN 2: FINISHING ON TENTER FEAME NO. 2
(EXHAUST FROM 2ND ZONE)
Concentration in Emission
the effluent gas rate,"
Element stream, mg/maa kg/day
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
c
-
0.0016
-c
0.0021
0.00025
0.12
0.00075
0.012
0.00017
0.076
0.0013
0.033
0.0020
_c
0.0020
0.13
0.013
0.00024
5.5
0.000041
0.054
_c
-C
0.044
0
0
0.00092
0
0.0011
0.00014
0.067
0.00042
0.0067
0.000096
0.042
0.00071
0.018
0.0011
0
0.0012
0.070
0.0072
0.00013
3.1
0.000023
0.030
0
0
0.025
Emission
factor
rag/kg
of fabric
0
0
0.031
0
0.038
0.0047
2.3
0.014
0.23
0.0032
1.4
0.024
0.62
0.039
0
0.039
2.4
0.25
0.0045
104
0.00078
1.0
0
0
0.83
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
CBelow detection limit.
147
-------
TABLE B-45.
PLANT D, TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION DATA -
RUN 3: FINISHING ON TENTER FRAME NO. 2
(EXHAUST FROM 1ST ZONE)
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration in
the effluent gas
stream, mq/m*a
0.0046
_c
0.0044
_c
0.0070
0.0013
0.011
0.054
0.0025
0.0068
0.27
0.090
0.0025
0.0046
_c
0.053
0.33
0.068
0.00073
30
0.000091
0.15 „
_c
-c
0.035
«
Emission
rate , b
kg/day
0.0012
0
0.0012
0
0.0018
0.00035
0.0029
0.014
0.00065
0.00018
0.069
0.023
0.00065
0.0012
0
0.014
0.085
0.018
0.00018
7.9
0.000024
0.038
0
0
0.0091
Emission
factor
mg/kg
of fabric
0.037
0
0.036
0
0.056
0.011
0.089
0.43
0.020
0.054
2.1
0.72
0.020
0.037
0
0.43
2.6
0.55
0.0056
240
0.00073
1.2
0
0
0.28
Actual cubic meters.
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
GBelow detection limit.
148
-------
TABLE B-46. PLANT D, NONMETHANE TOTAL HYDROCARBON (THC) EMISSION DATA
vo
THC
run
No.
1
2
J
4
S
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
Equipment sampled
2nd lone of tenter frame No. 2
2nd lone of tenter frame No. 2
Curing oven on tenter frame No. 2
lat zone of tenter frame No. 2
1st sone of tenter frame No. 2
Curinq oven on tenter frame No. 2
Curinq oven on tenter frame No. 2
2nd sone of tenter frame No. 2
lat sone of tenter frame No. 2
Curinq oven on tenter frame No. 2
2nd sone of tenter frame No. 2
2nd sone of tenter frame No. 2
Averaqe for 1st zone of tenter
frame No. 2
Average for 2nd sone of tenter
frame No. 2
Averaqe for curinq oven on tenter
frame No. 2
Conversion factor for ppml 5% 1 as CH«
Averaqe
total
hydrocarbon
concentration.
pom as CH.a
109
10
26
JO
37
29
54
S
40
60
9
12
37
29
42
to mq/m> as CH. is
Averaqe
methane
concentration
ppn as CH»a
0
4
19
0
14
19
9
1
15^
"d
2°
2d
10
2
14
(l6 q/moleW
Nonmpthane
total
hydrocarbon
, concentration
mq/m1 as CH.
78
4
5
21
16
7
32
1
18
33
S
7
19
19
20
™°le \(l 000
JJ.4bo niLll1'000
Nonmethane
total
hydrocarbon
emission
. rate, b
'a kq/day c
44
2.2
2.0
S.4
4.1
2.8
13
1.7
4.7
13
2.8
3.9
4.9
11
8.0
mq/qj
Nonmethane
total
hydrocarbon
emission
factor
mq/kq of fabric
1.4
0.073
0.06S
0.18
0.13
0.091
0.40
O.OS2
0.14
0.41
0.087
0.12
0.1S
0.35
0.24
Based on continuous operation for a 24-hr period.
c Emission rate » (mq/m>) (mVmln) (1.440 min/day)
-------
TABLE B-47. PLANT D, Ci-Ce HYDROCARBON EMISSION DATA
cc
run
Ho.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
Equipment sampled
2nd
1st
1st
2nd
sone
sone
sone
sone
of
of
of
of
Curing oven
1st
sone
of
Curing oven
2nd
sone
of
tenter
tenter
tenter
tenter
frame No
frame No
frame No
frame No
on tenter frame
tenter
frame No
on tenter frame
tenter
frame No
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 2
No. 2
. 2
No. 2
. 2
Number of Relative
Operation Ci-C. compounds retention
sampled detected* time"
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Curing
Finishing
Curing
Finishing
0
0
1
1
1
2
4
1
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
1.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2
3
2
7
9
3
5
9
8
5
Average
concentration ,
ppm as CH,
14
18
IS
21
4
9
20
IS
16
6
Note.—Blanks indicate that no Ci-C, compounds were detected.
'other than CH..
Retention time relative to the retention time for CH..
150
-------
APPENDIX C
DERIVATION OF SOURCE SEVERITY EQUATIONS
SUMMARY OF SEVERITY EQUATIONS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS
The severity (S) of pollutants may be calculated using the mass
emission rate (Q), the height of the emissions (H), and the
threshold limit value (TLV) (for noncriteria pollutants) [24].
The equations summarized in Table C-l are developed in detail in
this appendix.
TABLEC-l. POLLUTANT SEVERITY EQUATIONS
FOR ELEVATED POINT SOURCES
Pollutants Severity equation
Particulate Sp =
Hydrocarbon SHC = —^5—
Other S
A TLV«H2
DERIVATION OF v „ FOR USE WITH U.S. AVERAGE CONDITIONS
The most widely accepted formula for predicting downwind ground
level concentrations from a point source is [21] .
151
-------
where X = downwind ground level concentration at reference
coordinate x and y with emission height of H, g/m3
Q = mass emission rate, g/s
ir - 3.14
o - standard deviation of horizontal dispersion, m
a = standard deviation of vertical dispersion, m
z
u = wind speed, m/s
y = horizontal distance from centerline of dispersion, m
H = height of emission release, m
x = downwind dispersion distance from source of emission
release, m
We assume that Xmax occurs when x is much greater than 0 and y
equals 0. For a given stability class, standard deviations of
horizontal and vertical dispersion have often been expressed as
a function of downwind distance by power law relationships as
follows [53] :
ax
(C-2)
o = cxd + f
z
(C-3)
Values for a, b, c, d, and f are given in Tables C-2 [54] and
C-3. Substituting these general equations into Equation D-l
yields
X =
acirux
+ aTrufx
exp
r H. i
L 2(cxd + f)2J
(C-4)
Assuming that Xmay occurs at x less than 100 m and the stability
class is C, then f equals 0 and Equation C-4 becomes
C3Cp
(C-5)
For convenience, let
and B
-H2
[53] Martin, D. O., and J. A. Tikvart. A General Atmospheric
Diffusion Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality
of One or More Sources. Presented at the 61st Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, St. Paul,
Minnesota, June 23-27, 1968. 18 pp.
[54] Eimutis, E. C., and M. G. Konicek. Derivations of Continu-
ous Functions for the Lateral and Vertical Atmospheric
Dispersion Coefficients. Atmospheric Environment, 3(6):
688-689, 1969.
152
-------
TABLE C-2.
VALUES OF a FOR
THE COMPUTATION
OF O a [55]
Stability
A
B
C
O
E
F
class
a
0.3658
0.2751
0.2089
0.1471
0.1046
0.0722
*Por Equation C-2: -o • ax
where x - downwind di stand
b • 0.9031 (from
Reference 155)
TABLE C-3.
VALUES OF THE CONSTANTS USED TO
ESTIMATE VERTICAL DISPERSION3 [53]
Usable range,
m
Stability
class
Coefficient
>1,000
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00024
0.055
0.113
1.26
6.73
18.05
.094
.098
.911
0.516
0.305
0.18
2.
1.
0.
-9.6
2.0
0.0
-13
-34
-48.6
100 to 1,000
<100
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.0015
0.028
0.113
0.222
0.211
0.086
C3
0.192
0.156
0.116
0.079
0.063
0.053
1.941
1.149
0.911
0.725
0.678
0.74
ds
0.936
0.922
0.905
0.881
0.871
0.814
9.27
3.3
0.0
-1.7
-1.3
-0.35
«3
0
0
0
0
0
0
For Equation C-3: o •
ex* + f
[55] Tadmor, J., and Y. Gur. Analytical Expressions for the
Vertical and Lateral Dispersion Coefficients in Atmospheric
Diffusion. Atmospheric Environment, 3(6):688-689, 1969.
153
-------
so that Equation C-5 reduces to
X - ARx'(b+d) expl-^l (C-6)
Taking the first derivative .of Equation C-6
exp[BRx-2d](-b-d)x-b-d-1
(C-7)
and setting this equal to zero (to determine the roots which give
the minimum and maximum conditions of x with respect to x) yields
0 - AxexpBx-2dBx-b-d (C-8)
Since we define that x # 0 or » at Xmax, the following expression
must be equal to 0.
-2d
-2dBRx -d-b = 0 (C-9)
or
(b+d)xad - -2dBR (C
or
b+d 2ca(b+d)
or
2d . (
x (C
Hence
x = ( d"2 V — at Y
X I r*2fVvl.ril I at X.
vmax
\ /
Thus Equations C-2 and C-3 (at f = 0) become
b
d»a
»(d+b)/
154
-------
d/ ^ v
/ad
/dHa\ a
Vb+dV (c
The maximum will be determined for U.S. average conditions of
stability. According to Gifford [56], this is when o equals
Y
Since b equals 0.9031, and upon inspection of Table C-2 under
U.S. average conditions, oy equals oz, it can be seen that 0.881
is less than or equal to d which is less than or equal to 0.905
(class C stability9). Thus, it can be assumed that b is nearly
equal to d or in Equations C-14 and C—15 or
o, = — (C-16)
Z /2
and
c> = - — (C-17)
y c /2
Under U.S. average conditions, Oy equals oz and a approximates c
if b approximates d and f equals 0 (between class C and D, but
closer to belonging in class C).
Then
° = — (C-18)
y /2
Substituting for Oy from Equation C-18 and for o from Equation
C-16 into Equation C-l and letting y equal 0
or
*max - - (C'20)
The values given in Table C-3 are mean values for stability
class. Class C stability describes these coefficients and
exponents, only within about a factor of two.
[56] Gifford, F. A., Jr. An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in
the Lower Layers of the Atmosphere. In: Meteorology and
Atomic Energy 1968, Chapter 3, D. A. Slade, ed. Publica-
tion No. TID-24190, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Technical
Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 1968. p. 113.
155
-------
For U.S. average conditions, u equals 4.47 m/s so that
Equation C-20 reduces to
DEVELOPMENT OF SOURCE SEVERITY EQUATIONS
Source severity, S, has been defined as follows:
S = ^SS (C-22)
where \ = time-averaged maximum ground level concentration
F = hazard factor; for criteria pollutants, F = AAQS;
for noncriteria pollutants, F = TLV • 8/24 • 1/100.
Noncriteria Emissions
The value of )(max maY be derived from Xmax» and undefined "short-
term" concentration. An approximation for longer term concen-
tration may be made as follows:
For a 24-hr time period,
/
*max " xmax \^
where tQ = instantaneous (i.e., 3-min) averaging time
t = averaging time period used (i.e., 24 hr or 1,440 min)
Hence
o. 17
1,440 min
(\ o. 17
1,440 min/ (C-24)
- X (0.35) (C-25)
max
Since the hazard factor is defined and derived from TLV values as
follows:
F • (TLV> sirc (c-26'
F = (3.33 x 10-3) TLV (C-27)
then the severity factor, S . is defined as
a
S =
(3.33 X 0~3) TLV
156
-------
105 X-,,.,
S. " TLV (C-29)
If a weekly averaging period is used, then
/ 3 \°*17
*max - 'max (loTOSO )
max
or
and
(c'32)
F = (2.38 x 10~3)TLV (C-33)
and the severity factor, S . is
cl
Xraax 0.25
roax _ fc-34
l
a F (2.38 x 10~3)TLV
or
which is entirely consistent, since the TLV is being corrected
for a different exposure period.
Therefore, the severity can be derived from XmaX directly without
regard to averaging time for noncriteria emissions. Thus, com-
bining Equations C-35 and c-21, for elevated sources, gives
Sa
Criteria Emissions
For the criteria pollutants, established standards may be used
as F values in Equation C-22. These are given in Table c-4 [24]
However, Equation C-23 must be used to give the appropriate
averaging period. These equations are developed for elevated
sources using Equation C-21.
157
-------
TABLE C-4.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS [24]
Pollutant
Partieulate natter
SO.
X
CO
Nitrogen dioxide
Photochemical oxidants
Hydrocarbons (nonmethane)
Averaging time
Annual (geometric mean)
24-hrb
Annual (arithmetic mean)
24-hr»
3-hr»
8-hrJ
l-hr°
Annual (arithmetic mean)
l-hrb
3-hr (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.)
Primary
standards,
lig/m3
75
260
80
365,
10,000
40,000
100
160
160e
Secondary
standards .
pg/m9
60a
160
60.
260C
1,300
10,000
40,000
100
160
160
*The secondary annual standard (60 ug/m3) is a guide for assessing implementa-
tion plans to achieve the 24-hr secondary standard.
Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
cThe secondary annual standard (260 ug/m3) is a guide for assessing implementa-
tion plans to achieve the annual standard.
dNo standard exists.
*There is no primary ambient air quality standard for hydrocarbons. The value
of 160 ug/m3 used for hydrocarbons in this report is an EPA-recommended guide-
line for meeting the primary ambient air quality standard for oxidants.
Carbon Monoxide Severity—
The primary standard for CO is reported for a 1-hr averaging
time. Therefore
t = 60 min
t = 3 min
o
xmax ~ xmax \60/
U)
O. 17
2
ireuH5
0.17
(C-37)
(C-38)
2 Q
(3.14)(2.72)(4.5)Ha
= 0.052 Q
max
0.6
(C-39)
(C-40)
vmax
(3.12 x 10-a)Q
Ha
(C-41)
158
-------
Severity, S = -y- (C-42)
Setting F equal to the primary AAQS for CO or 0.04 g/rn3 yields
S = *•« = (3.1210)0 (c_43)
or
SCQ - 2^ ,0-44,
Hydrocarbon Severity —
The primary standard for nonmethane hydrocarbons is reported for
a 3-hr averaging time.
t = 180 min
tQ = 3 min
o. 1 7
= *max (llo) (C'45)
= 0.5 Xftiax (C-46)
= (0.5) (0.052)Q (c-47)
Xmax - °-^
-------
*max = xmax
0.17
( 1,440 )
= (0.35MO.Q52)Q ((
- = 0.0182 Q
xmax Ha IQ-
For particulates, F equals the primary AAQS or 2.6 x 10-" g/m3,
and
c - X|nax _ 0.0182 Q f
& F (2.6 x 10-«)Ha l
Sp = _ (C-55)
SOx Severity —
The primary standard for SOX is reported for a 24-hr averaging
time. Using t = 1,440 minutes and proceeding as before:
- m 0.0182 Q
xmax Ha
The primary AAQS for SOX is 3.65 x 10~4 g/m3. Therefore,
c _ xmax _ 0.0182 Q
5 " ~F (3.65 x 10-«»)Ha
or
sso. •
NOx Severity —
Since NOX has a primary standard with a 1-yr averaging time, the
Xmax correction equation cannot be used. As an alternative, the
following equation is used:
(059)
A difficulty arises, however, because a distance x, from emission
point to receptor, is included; hence, the following rationale is
used:
v = 2 Q (C-20)
Amax ireuH2
160
-------
Equation C-20, shown earlier is valid for neutral conditions or
when o, approximately equals o .
z y
This maximum occurs when
H = /2ow (C-60)
Z
and since, under these conditions,
o, - axb (C-61)
Z
then the distance, x__ , where the maximum concentration occurs
is max
= (-$-} b (C-62)
\/2aV
For class C conditions, a = 0.113 and b = 0.911. Substituting
these values into Equation C-62 yields:
U1 . O9B
- 7-5 H1'098 (c'63)
Since
oz = 0.113 x°-»ii (C-64)
and
u = 4.5 m/s
and letting x = x , Equation C-59 becomes
xmax x i. »* i ""r i t i — ii **•• ™o j J
where
4 Q „ 4 Q
V 1.911 ~ (7 5 H1 -0*B\ 1.911 I*- °°'
max i/.j n /
Therefore,
expl- i( -ii ) I (c-67)
161
-------
As noted above,
o = 0.113 x°-911 (C-67)
z
Substituting for x yields
or
o = 0.113(7.5 H1-1)0'911 (C-68)
Z
o = 0.71 H (C-69)
z
Therefore,
- _ 0.085 Q
xmax -- H3TT-
1 / H \81
I ^0.71 HJ J
xmax
- (0.371)
3.15 x 10-a Q
Since the AAQS for NOX is 1.0 x 10~u g/m3, the NOX severity
equation is
q _ (3.15 x 10-»)Q (C-73)
SNOX -- 1 x 10-1* H*-1 l JJ
S = 315 Q (c-74)
SNOX Ha--« *C '
AFFECTED POPULATION CALCULATION
Another form of the plume dispersion equation is needed to calcu-
late the affected population since the population is assumed to
be distributed uniformly around the source. If the wind direc-
tions are taken to 16 points and it is assumed that the wind
directions within each sector are distributed randomly over a
period of a month or a season, it can be assumed that the efflu-
ent is uniformly distributed in the horizontal within the sector.
The appropriate equation for average concentration, X, in grams
per cubic meter is then (for 100 m £ x < 1,000 m and stability
class C) [26] .
(C-75)
162
-------
To find the distances at which x/AAQS equals 1.0, roots are
determined for the following equation:
2.03 Q
o2ux
= 1.0
(C-76)
keeping in mind that
ax + c
where a, b, and c are functions of atmospheric stability and are
assumed to be selected for stability Class C.
Since Equation C-76 is a transcendental equation, the roots are
found by an iterative technique using the computer.
For a specified emission from a typical source, x;/AAQS as a
function of distance might look as follows:
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE
The affected population is contained in the area
A = ir(xa2 - xia) (C-77)
the total affected
If the affected population density is D_,
population, P1, is
P' = D-A (persons)
(C-78)
EFFLUENT SOURCE SEVERITY
Various mathematical models can be conceived to describe the
impact of a discharge on a receiving body. Such systems are
complex and not fully understood. Pertinent factors deserving
consideration include the number of discharge streams; the flow
rate and composition (chemical and physical characteristics) of
163
-------
each discharge stream; the hazardous nature of the discharge;
the volume, flow rate, and water quality of the receiving body;
and the ability of the receiving body to detoxify the discharge.
In an effluent stream containing many materials, each species
may have a different environmental impact; in addition, syner-
gestic interactions may occur.
For this assessment study, it was decided to adopt a simplified
approach in which the resultant concentration of a specific
pollutant is compared to an associated hazard factor. Three
simple models can be considered depending on the degree of mix-
ing with the receiving body. In the first case, the source
severity (S ) was defined for each discharge as follows:
SBD - ff
where S__ = severity due to a pollutant in a discharge
stream before dilution
C_ = concentration of pollutant in effluent, g/m3
F = hazard factor, equal to a potentially hazardous
concentration, g/m3
Equation C-79 describes what may be termed the end-of-pipe
severity for the discharge stream. Once an effluent enters a
receiving body, it is diluted by the receiving body water and
the severity decreases. The severity within a mixing zone is
defined as follows:
= (
vp + . vr
where SMZ = severity due to a pollutant in a mixing zone
VD = effluent discharge rate, m3/s
vr = river flow rate, m3/s
FM7 = fraction of river flow in mixing zone;
MZ i.e., 1/3, 1/4
The severity after the mixing zone, S_M_, is given by:
AHZ
where SAMZ = severity due to a pollutant after a mixing zone
These relationships are shown in Figure C-l.
164
-------
u
I
-MIXING ZONE-
-AFTERMIXING ZONE-
DOWNSTREAM 01 STANCE
POINT OF
DISCHARGE
Figure C-l. Change of concentration with distance.
If vr is much greater than V_, then
AMZ
(C-82)
Equation C-82 defines the effluent source severity, Se, used in
this report with one exception. The term vr was replaced with
the minimum river flow rate, VR, to maximize the severity term.
It is important to note that this effluent source severity is
not an aggregate parameter; instead, it refers to one pollutant
within one discharge stream. A more detailed treatment of the
effluent source severity is available in the literature •
165
-------
APPENDIX D
LOCATION OF WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING PLANT AND
POPULATION DENSITIES OF SURROUNDING AREAS
The following table summarizes the number of woven fabric finish-
ing plants, percentage of industry, production and average popu-
lation density around a plant for each state.
TABLE D-l.
SUMMARY OF PREDICAST AND POPULATION DENSITY DATA
(A-l 1970 CENSUS, A-2 PREDICAST)
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Number
of
plants
1
1
10
11
2
2
11
5
2
2
24
2
1
3
58
38
40
2
2
23
22
28
2
1
7
Average population
densities for
counties in which
plants are located
people/km3
23.0
26.3
1,138.4
203.6
340.5
128.3
62.3
1,820.6
505.2
397.5
707.4
371.8
7.8
87.6
1,664.2
11,840.7
104.2
1,016.1
267.8
2,888.2
382.7
44.9
367.6
37.8
32.9
Percentage of
total number
of plants,
percent
0.3
0.3
3.3
3.6
0.7
0.7
3.6
1.7
0.7
0.7
7.9
0.7
0.3
1.0
19.1
12.2
13.2
0.7
0.7
7.6
7.3
9.2
0.7
0.3
2.3
Percentage of
industry
production,
percent
2.07
0.45
2.40
6.16
1.17
0.19
7.37
0.63
0.14
1.36
11.89
0.19
0.15
1.62
16.65
8.86
28.21
1.07
0.54
3.72
7.60
45.16
1.84
0.37
9.64
166
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1. Acenaphthene
2. Acrolein
3. Acrylonitrile
4. Benzene
5. Benzidine
6. Carbon tetrachloride
7. Chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
9. Hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-Dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
12. Hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-Dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
16. Chloroethane
17. Bis(chloromethyl) ether
18. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-Chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
22 p_-Chloro-m-cresol
23. Chloroform
24. 2-Chlorophenol
25. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-Dichloropropane
33. 1,3-Dichloropropene
34. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
38. Ethylbenzene
39. Fluoranthene
40. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. Bis(2-chloroe thoxy)me thane
44. Methylene chloride
45. Methyl chloride
46. Methyl bromide
47. Bromoform
48. Dichlorobromomethane
49. Trichlorofluoromethane
50. Dichlorodifluoromethane
51. Chlorodibromomethane
152. Hexachlorobutadiene
53. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. Isophorone
55. Naphthalene
56. Nitrobenzene
57. 2-Nitrophenol
58. 4-Nitrophenol
59. 2,4-Dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
64. Pentachlorophenol
65. Phenol
66. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. Butyl benzyl phthalate
68. Di-n-butyl phthalate
69. Di-n-octyl phthalate
70. Oiethyl phthalate
71. Dimethyl phthalate
72. Benz(a)anthracene
73. Benzo(a)pyrene
74. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. Chrysene
77. Acenaphthylene
78. Anthracene
79. Benzo(ghi)perylene
80. Fluorene
167
-------
81. Phenanthrene
82. Dibenz(ah)anthracene
83. Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
84. Pyrene
85. Tetrachloroethylene
86. Toluene
87. Trichloroethylene
88. Vinyl chloride
89. Aldrin
90. Dieldrin
91. Chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. a-Endosulfan
96. 0-Endosulfan
97. Endosulfan sulfate
98. Endrin
99. Endrin aldehyde
100. Heptachlor
101. Heptachlor epoxide
102. or-BHC
103. P-BHC
104. 6-BHC
105.
106. Aroclor 1242
107. Aroclor 1254
108. Aroclor 1221
109. Aroclor 1232
110. Aroclor 1248
111. Aroclor 1260
112. Aroclor 1016
113. Toxaphene
114. Antimony
115. Arsenic
116. Asbestos
117. Beryllium
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
123. Mercury
124. Nickel
125. Selenium
126. Silver
127. Thallium
128. Zinc
129. TCDD
168
-------
APPENDIX F
HAZARD FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR USE IN WATER PRIORITIZATION
A Hazard Factor, F, may be a water criterion or a calculated
value. This appendix lists the equations that are used in cal-
culating a Hazard Factor.
Values were calculated by inserting toxicity values into a selec-
ted equation for F. Since specific toxicity indicators were not
always available, several equations were required. The equations
used are listed below in descending order of preference.
F! = 0.05 x LC50 (96-hr) (F-l)
F2 = 0.05 x LC50 (48-hr or 24-hr) (F-2)
F3 = 0.05 x (LCL(J, TDLQ, IC50) (F-3)
F4 = 2.25 x 10~3 x LD50 (oral/rat) (F-4)
F5 = 2.25 x 10~3 x LD50 (other than oral/rat) (F-5)
F6 = 2.25 x 10~3 x
-------
APPENDIX G
HAZARD FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR USE IN SOURCE SEVERITY
CALCULATION OF STATIONARY WATER POLLUTANT SOURCES
170
-------
TABLE G-l.
HAZARD FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR USE IN SOURCE SEVERITY
CALCULATION OF STATIONARY WATER POLLUTANT SOURCES
Pollutant
Conventional and nonconventional
TOD
TSS
Sulfide
Oil and grease
Priority pollutants
Acenaphthene
Chlorobenzene
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene
p-chloro-m-cresol
Chloroform
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-dichloropropy lene
Ethylbenzene
Nethylene chloride
Dichlorobroraome thane
Trichlorofluorome thane
Napthalene
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
BiB(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Anthracene
Pyrene
Toluene
Trichloioe thy lene
d-BHC
Toxicological data, a
mg/kg
None available
None available
None available
None available
TD^ iskin/mus) : 600,000
LC (96) i 29.0 FH
Tin (96): 1
LD, (oral/rat) : 500
LO
LO (oral/rat) : 300
LD (oral/rat): 500
LD (oral/rat) t 500
TLm (96) i 10
LC (96) : 29 BG
LD (oral/dog): 3,000
LD (50) (oral/rat): 5,000
1,000
LC (96) : 150 MF
LD (50) (oral/rat): 480
LC (96): 0.19 FH
None
LD (50) (oral/rat) > 31,000
TLm 96: 100
LD^ (oral/rbt): 1000
LD (oral/rbt): 4,400
LDio (animals): 500
LDio (animals) : 500
LC (96): 44 FH
LD (oral/rat): 4,920
LD (oral/rat) : 88
Equation uaeri
to get a
hazard factor
b
F - Cs - DO
B-6
B-l
B-3
B-6
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-3
B-l
B-6
B-4
Value x 0.05
B-l
B-4
B-l
B-4
B-3
B-S
B-5
B-6
B-6
B-l
B-4
B-4
Hazard
factor,
5.2
25
0.002
0.01
1,350
1.45
0.05
1.12
0.675
1.12
1.12
0.50
1.5
6.75
11.25
50
7.5
1.08
0.0095
0.001
69.8
5.0
2.25
9.90
1.13
1.13
2.2
11.1
0.20
Reference
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
7
7
7
9
7
7
9
7
7
9
19
7
9
9
9
7
7
7
7
7
9
Comments
Quality criteria for vater.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Aquatic toxicity rating TLm 96: 10-1 ppm.
Value for 1,3 dichloropropylenei Aquatic
toxicity rating TLm 96: 100-10 ppm.
Used value for bromochloromethane.
LCso (96).
Quality criteria for water.
Aquatic toxicity rating TLm (96):
1000-100 ppm.
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-l (continued)
Pollutant
Priority pollutants (cont'dl
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromiun
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Other metals
Aluminum
Bariua
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Silicon
Tin
Phosphorus
Titanium
Vanadium
lexicological data,
moAg
LD (oral/rat): 100
Hone available
None available
Hone available
None available
None available
None available
None available
Hone available
None available
None available
None available
ID... (rpl-rat): 90
None
None
LC (96) i 160 HP
TLVi 0.1 mg/m9
None
LD. (oral/dog) i 230
M None
LD (50) (SCU/DUS)! 266
None
TLm (96): >1000
TLV: 0.1 mg/m3
None
15 mg/rn3
1C (96) i 55 FM
Equation used
to get a
hazard factor
B-4
B-5
B-l
B-7
B-6
B-5
B-l
B-7
Value x O.OS
B-l
Hazard
factor,
g/afl
0.225
0.050
0.011
0.010
0.050
1.0
0.005
O.OS
0.002
0.0013
0.05
5.0
0.202
1.0
0.750
8.0
0.008
0.3
0.518
0.050
0.60
250
50
0.01
0.001
0.75
2.8
Reference
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
7
7
10
7
7
9
7
9
7
7
7
7
Comments
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Used value for aluminum oxide.
Quality criteria for water.
Quality criteria for water.
Sand, Aquatic toxicity rating.
Organic tin.
Elemental phosphorus.
Used the value of vanadium peroxide.
"Abbreviations usedi
BG - bluegill
FM - Fathead minnow
KF - mosquito fish
rbt - rabbit
sou - subcutaneous
bCs • saturated dissolved oxygen concentration of the receiving steam
DO • dissolved oxygen freshwater quality criterion • 5 g/m» [71.
10.2 g/ms (assumed for river water at 15»C [8].
-------
APPENDIX H
CHEMICALS USED IN TEXTILE PROCESSING
The textile industry is comprised of many separate processes that
utilize hundreds of different chemicals. A partial list of the
chemicals used during mechanical processing, scouring or.dry
cleaning, finishing, and dyeing follows:
A. Mechanical Processing (Lubricants)
Natural
Mineral oils
Castor oil
Neatsfoot oil
Olive oil
Peanut oil
Sperm oil
Sunflower oil
Synthetic
Polyethylene/propylene oxide copolymer
B. Scouring and Drycleaning
Scouring and Drycleaning
Carbon tetrachloride
Hydrocarbon solvents
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Petroleum solvents
"Shell Clean"
White spirit
1,1-dichloroethylene
Alkylarylsulfonate
Desizing
Bacterial amylase
"Ensize"
Malt extract
Pancreatic amylase
173
-------
C. Finishing
Stiffening/Sizing Agents
Cellulose derivatives:
Alkali-soluble cellulose solutions
Carboxy-methyl cellulose (CMC)
Dispersible cellulosic ethers, etc.
Hydroxyethyl cellulose
Gum and gelatins
Starches (corn, potato, wheat, etc.)
Thermoplastic resins:
Polyacrylate
Polymethacrylate
Polystyrenes
Polyvinyl acetate
Polyvinyl alcohol
Styrene-maleic acid copolymer, etc.
Thermosetting resins:
Dimethylol urea
Melamine-formaldehyde resin
Monomethyl dimethylol urea, etc.
Urea-formaldehyde resin
Talla-base wax
Textile Coating Materials
Formaldehyde resins
Polyvinyl chlorides
Vinyl acetates
Vinyl and acrylic copolymers
Vinyl butyral
Vinylidene chloride
Hygroscopic Agents
Ethylene glycols
Glucose
Glycerol
Urea
Shrink-Resistant Agents
Cyclic alkyl urea-formaldehyde condensates
Glyoxal
Hydroxy ethyl cellulose-formaldehyde complexes
Methylated methylol me1amines
Tetra methylol acetylene diurea
Urea- or melamine-formaldehyde resins
Anti-Slip Finishes
Colloidal silica dispersions
Rosin derivates + zinc acetate
Urea-formaldehyde or melamine-formaldehyde resins
Various vinyl and acryl resins
174
-------
Antistatic Finishes
Cationic quarternary ammonium salts
Fatty amines and their esters
Glycerine
Magnesium chloride
Modified copolymer
Polyalkylene oxide
Polyethylene glycol
Crush/Wrinkle-Resistant Finishes
Ammonium and amine salt (catalyst)
Borates
Cyclic alkyl urea-formaldehyde monomers
Dicyano diamine (malodor inhibitor)
Dimethylol urea
Formaldehyde
Melamine-formaldehyde monomers
Silicates
Stannates
Urea (malodor inhibitor)
Zinc chloride (catalyst)
Flame-Retardant Finishes
Borax + boric acid
Modified synthetic polymer (halogen and/or phosphorus)
Tetrakis hydroxymethyl phosphonium chloride (THPC)
Triethanol amine
Trimethylol melamine
Trisaziridinyl phosphine oxide (APO)
Moth-Proofing Agents
Bis-2-hydroxy-5-chlorophenyl methane (G4)
Cadmium soaps
Copper naphthenates
Cuprammonium compounds
Dieldrin
Halogenated and phenylated phenol (Dowcides)
Naphthalene, camphor, and paradichlorobenzene (repellents)
Phenyl mercurials
Salicylanilide
Shelltox fumigant strip
Sodium, magnesium, or ammonium fluosilicates
Triphenyl methane
Triphenyl phosphines
Zinc chloride
Soil-Resistant Finishes
Acrylate or methacrylate copolymers
Fluoro chemicals
Perfluoro octanol + acrylic acid
Silicones
175
-------
Water-Repellent Finishes
Fluorine containing water and oil repellents
Modified melamine-formaldehyde urea
Silicones with reactive group
Stearamide methyl pyridinium chloride
Stearoxy, methyl pyridinium chloride
Wax alubumin + wax caseine
D. Dyeing
Dye Accelerants or Carriers
Aromatic esters and ethers
Biphenyl
Butyl benzoate
Butyl benzyl benzoate
Chlorobenzenes
Cyclo carboylic acid esters
Methyl salicylate
Methyl or dimethyl phthalates
O- and P-phenyl phenol
Phenyl methyl carbinol
Phosphated esters
Salicylic and benzole acids
Orthophenylphenol
Dye Correctives
Aromatic and alkylated aryl amines
Diaryl- and alkaryl-substituted alkylenediamines
Diphenyl ethylene diamine
Formaldehyde
Glyoxals
Urea- and melamine-formaldehyde resins
Zinc, magnesium, and aluminum salts of acetates and
formates
Dulling Agents
Soap cresylic acid
Soap-pine oil emulsions
Viscosity Stabilizers
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Tetra-sodium pyrophosphate
Thickening Agents for Printing Pastes
Alginates
Cellulose ethers
Copolymer of acrylamine and N-t-butyl acrylamide
Dextrin
Esters of phosphoric acid with oxyethylated wax alchols
Esters of polyethylene glycol with long chain fatty acid
and/or phosphoric acid
176
-------
Ethylene oxide (modifier of starch)
Guar gums
Gum arabic
Gum traga earth
Gum tragaso
Polyacrylamide
Polyaerylie acids
Starches
Antifoaming Agents
Alkylene oxide derivaties
Fatty acid amides
Fatty acids and esters
Higher alcohols
Hydrocarbon oils
Methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC)
Organic phosphates
Terpins
Softening Agents and Detergents
Emulsions of oils, fats, and waxes
Fatty acid condensation products
Soaps
Substituted ammonia complexes
Sulfated alcohols
Sulfonated oil
Nonylphenoxypolyethyleneoxyethanol
177
-------
GLOSSARY
affected population: Number of people living in calculated are
around a plant where a given air concentration is exceeded.
ager: Box in which the dyed cloth is placed after drying to
insure better color value and fastness of the dye.
bleaching: Process which whitens the textile fabric for either
final finishing or light dyeing.
chemical treatment: Final finish in which the fabric is permeated
with special chemicals with little additional added weight.
desizing: Process which removes the heavy size material that is
applied during weaving to prevent thread and yarn breakage.
durable finish: Any finish, most commonly water resistant
finishes which can withstand numerous launderings.
dyeing: Process, with many variations in application procedures,
that gives the appearance of color to fabrics.
hazard factor: Calculated pollutant safety level based upon
established guidelines and predetermined safety factors.
heat setting: Process in synthetic fabric finishing that uses
high temperatures to set the fibers in a given shape which
will be retained until the temperature is exceeded.
J-box: Vertical wooden tunnel built in the form of a printed
letter "J". Cloth enters the top of the "J" and plaits
down to fill up the longer arm. It is gradually pulled
out through the shorter arm in a continuous operation.
A J-box can be used in place of a bin.
jig: Machine in which material is dyed in open-width by moving
from one roll to another through the dye liquor until the
desired shade is obtained.
kier: Equipment in which cotton is boiled with dilute caustic
soda to remove impurities. Also used as a verb to describe
the process.
178
-------
linear yard: Standard measure of production in the textile indus-
try that refers to the length of standard widths of fabric
run through a process. The standard width varies with the
process, depending on the type of equipment used.
^
man-made: Any fiber, of either natural or synthetic composition,
that does not occur naturally in the fiber state.
mercerizing: Process in cotton finishing in which the cotton is
stretched and strengthened using caustic soda.
nondurable finish: Any finish, but most commonly water-resistant
finishes, that cannot withstand numerous launderings without
significant loss of finish characteristics.
padding: Means of saturating the cloth with a liquid; used for
dyeing, washing, starching, and finishing. In dyeing, the
object of padding is uniform saturation of the goods with
with the dye.
plaiting down: Method of piling material into a kier or a J-box.
printing: Process in textile finishing, often performed on a
specialty basis, that adds specialized dye material in
predetermined patterns.
range: Continuous machine consisting of a number of boxes or com-
partments through which cloth passes while operations such
as scouring and bleaching are performed.
representative source: Hypothetical plant, based upon calculation
of industry averages of important parameters, which is used
to evaluate emissions.
resin coating: Final finish in which the fabric is covered with a
heavy resin to give desired characteristics at the expense
of added weight.
scouring: Process in textile finishing in which impurities are
removed from the grey fabrics.
singeing: Process in cotton finishing, sometimes also used in
blend finishing, by which loose fibers are removed by
combustion.
slashing: Process, also known as sizing, by which yarn is coated
(with starch, for example) to prevent chafing or breaking
during the weaving process.
179
-------
source severity: Calculated value based on hazard factors, which
measures the environmental impact of pollutants on the same
relative basis.
special finishing: Final processing steps undergone by textile
fabrics, which include mechanical and chemical treatments
and resin coatings in order to give special characteristics
to the fabric.
synthetic: Fibers, and their fabrics, which are composed of man-
made substances, such as plastics, that are not commonly
found in nature.
tenter frame: Textile finishing drying and curing equipment that
is designed to hold the fabric in place while either hot
air or steam is passed over it.
white bin: Bin in which cloth is piled after being placed in a
bleaching powder solution. There is a slight whitening of
the shade as the cloth comes out of the bleaching solution,
but most of the actual bleaching action takes place while
the cloth lies in the white bin.
woven fabrics: Fabrics formed from threads or yarns by the weav-
ing process as opposed to knitting, etc, the largest portion
of the fabric being broadwoven into long bolts of various
widths of cloth.
130
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES (157)
CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from
Degree Celsius (°C)
Gram/kilogram (g/kg)
Joule (J)
Kilogram (kg)
Meter (m)
Meter (m)
Meter2 (m2)
Meter3 (m3)
Metric ton
Pascal (Pa)
Second (s)
To
Degree Fahrenheit (°F)
Pound/ton
Btu
Pound-mass (avoirdupois)
Foot
Inch
Mile2
Foot3
Ton (short, 2,000 pound
mass)
Inch of water (60°F)
Minute
Multiply by
to,
1.8 tc + 32
^2.000
9.478 x 10-*
2.205
3.281
3.937 x 101
3.861 x 10-7
3.531 x 101
1.102
4.019 x 10~3
1.667 x 10-2
PREFIXES
Prefix Symbol
Exa
Peta
Tera
Giga
Mega
Kilo
Milli
Micro
E
P
T
G
M
k
m
u
Multiplication
factor
1018
1015
1012
109
10s
103
io-3
10-6
Example
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Em
Pm
Tm
Gm
Mm
km
mm
ym
=
=
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
IO18
IO15
IO12
IO9
IO6
IO3
io-3
meters
meters
meters
meters
meters
meters
meter
meter
[57] Standard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation E
380-76e, IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976.
37 pp.
181
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO
EPA-600/2-80-042a
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Source Assessment: Cotton and Synthetic Woven
Fabric Finishing
B REPORT DATE
January 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
W.D. McCurley and G. D. Rawlings
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
MRC-DA-995
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB604 and 1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874, Task 35
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 3/77-1/80
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Max Samfield, Mail Drop 62, 919/
541-2547. EPA-600/2-77-107h is an earlier related report.
16 ABSTRACT
repOrt gives reliable data to enable EPA to determine the need for
developing control technology for air and water pollution emissions from cotton and
synthetic woven fabric finishing plants. The data supplements that in an earlier
state-of-the-art report on the same subject (EPA-600/2-77-107h) and stems from
actual sampling and analysis plus literature sources not available when the earlier
report was published. Plants processing cotton and synthetic fiber blends are inclu-
ded in the study, since finishing of blends includes treatments similar to those used
on the pure fibers. Wool and knit fabric finishing were excluded from the study
since the operations involved are distinctly different from those for cotton and syn-
thetics. Finishing operations for cotton and synthetics include general treatments
such as bleaching, dyeing, and printing and associated operations such as desizing,
setting, and drying. Specialized treatments, such as flameproof ing , mildewproofing,
mercerizing, embossing, and wrinkleproofing are also included.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI Field/Croup
Pollution
Assessments
Textile Finishing
Cotton Fabrics
Synthetic Fibers
Woven Fabrics
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Source Assessment
13B
14B
13H
HE
3 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21 NO. OF PAGES
192
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thispage!
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
182
------- |