xvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office of Air Quality
           Planning and Standards
           Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/2-78-042a
October 1978
           Air
Stack Sampling
Technical Information
A Collection of
Monographs and Papers
Volume I

-------
                                  EPA-450/2-78-042a
Stack Sampling Technical Information
A Collection of Monographs and  Papers
                   Volume I
            Emission Standards and Engineering Division
           U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
           Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                    October 1978

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division,  Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise
and Radiation,  Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement
by EPA Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit
from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, or may be obtained, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Sprinqfield
VA22161.
                     Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-042a

-------
                                 PREFACE


     The Clean Air Act of  1970 requires the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish national emission standards
for new stationary sources  (Section 111) and hazardous air pollutants
(Section 112).  The development of these emission standards required the
concurrent development of reference test methods and procedures.  The
reference test methods and  procedures are published in the Federal Register
along with the appropriate  regulations.                               -

     From time to time, questions would surface concerning the methods and
procedures.  In many cases, specific studies would be needed to provide
informed, objective answers.  The papers and monographs resulting from these
studies were usually distributed to people involved in emission measurement;
a major method of distribution has been the Source Evaluation Society
Newsletter.

     To provide a readily available resource for new and experienced personnel,
and to further promote standardized reference methods and procedures, it has
been decided to publish the  papers  and monographs in a single compendium.
The compendium consists of four volumes.  The Table of Contents for all
four volumes is reproduced  in each volume for ease of reference.

     Congratulations and sincere appreciation to the people who did the
work and took the time to prepare the papers and monographs.   For the most
part the work was done because of personal  commitments to the development
of objective, standardized methodology, and a firm belief that attention
to the details of stack sampling makes for good data.  The foresight of
Mr. Robert L. Ajax, the former Chief of the Emission Measurement Branch and
now the Assistant Director, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, in
providing the atmosphere and encouragement to perform the studies is
gratefully acknowledged.   The skill  and dedication of Mr. Roger Shigehara,
in providing personal  supervision for most of the work,  is commended.
                                          Don R. Go'odwin
                                             Director
                                      Emission Standards and
                                       Engineering Division
                                 iii

-------
                               VOLUME I

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


 Method for Calculating Power Plant Emission Rate                      i

      by R. T. Shigehara, R. M. Neulicht, and W. S. Smith


 Emission Correction Factor for Fossil  Fuel-Fired Steam               in
 Generators (C02 Concentration Approach)

      by R. M. Neulicht


 Derivation of Equations  for Calculating Power  Plant  Emission          20
 Rates  (02  Based Method - Wet and  Dry Measurements)

      by R.  T. Shigehara  and R.  M.  Neulicht


 Summary of F  Factor  Methods  for Determining  Emissions  from            29
 Combustion  Sources

     by R.  T.  Shigehara,  R.  M.  Neulicht, W.  S.  Smith,
                and J.  W.  Peeler


 Validating  Orsat Analysis Data  from Fossil-Fuel-Fired Units          44

     by R.  T.  Shigehara,  R.  M.  Neulicht, and W. S. Smith


A Guideline for Evaluating Compliance Test Results                   56
 (Isokinetic Sampling Rate Criterion)

     by R.  T. Shigehara

-------
                              VOLUME II

                           TABLE  OF  CONTENTS



A Type-S  Pi tot  Tube Calibration  Study                                 1

      by Robert  F.  Vollaro


The Effect  of Aerodynamic  Interference Between a Type-S              24
Pi tot Tube  and  Sampling  Nozzle on the Value of the
Pi tot Tube  Coefficient

      by Robert  F.  Vollaro


The Effects of  the Presence of a Probe Sheath on Type-S              30
Pi tot Tube  Accuracy

      by Robert  F.  Vollaro


An Evaluation of Single-Velocity Calibration Technique as            48
a Means of  Determining Type-S Pi tot Tube Coefficients

     by Robert  F.  Vollaro
Guidelines for Type-S Pitot Tube Calibration                         63

     by Robert F. Vollaro


The Effects of Impact Opening Misalignment on the Value of           89
the Type-S Pitot Tube Coefficient

     by Robert F. Vollaro


Establishment of a Baseline Coefficient Value for Properly           95
Constructed Type-S Pitot Tubes

     by Robert F. Vollaro


A Survey of Commercially Available  Instrumentation for the          104
Measurement of Low-Range Gas Velocities

     by Robert F. Vollaro


The Use of Type-S Pitot Tubes for the Measurement of Low            122
Velocities

     by Robert F. Vollaro

-------
                              VOLUME  III
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

Thermocouple Calibration Procedure Evaluation                         1
     by Kenneth Alexander

Procedure for Calibrating and Using Dry Gas Volume Meters            10
As Calibration Standards
     by P. R. Westlin and R. T. Shigehara

Dry-Gas Volume Meter Calibrations                                    24
     by Martin Wortman, Robert Vollaro, and Peter Westlin

Calibration of Dry Gas Meter at Low Flow Rates                       33
     by R. T. Shigehara and W. F. Roberts

Calibration of Probe Nozzle Diameter                                 41
     by P. R. Westlin and R. T. Shigehara

Leak Tests for Flexible Bags                                         45
     by F. C. Biddy and R. T. Shigehara

Adjustments in the EPA Nomograph for Different Pitot Tube            48
Coefficients and  Dry Gas Molecular Weights
     by R. T. Shigehara

Expansion of EPA  Nomograph (Memo)                                    60
     by R. T. Shigehara

EPA Nomograph Adjustments (Memo)                                     63
     by R. T. Shigehara

Graphical Technique for Setting Proportional  Sampling                65.
Flov; Rates
     by R. T. Shigehara
                                  vii

-------
                               VOLUME  IV
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Recommended Procedure for Sample Trayerses in Ducts  Smaller           1
 Than 12 Inches in Diameter
      by Robert F. -Vollaro

 Guidelines for Sampling in Tapered Stacks                           24
      by T. J. Logan and R. T. Shigehara

 Considerations for Evaluating Equivalent Stack Sampling              28
 Train Metering Systems
      by R. T. Shigehara

 Evaluation of Metering Systems for Gas-Sampling Trains               40
      by M. A. Wortman and R.  T.  Shigehara

 An  Evaluation of the Current  EPA Method 5 Filtration                 49
 Temperature-Control  Procedure
      by Robert F. Vollaro

 Laboratory Evaluation of Silica  Gel Collection Efficiency            67
 Under Varying Temperature and Pressure  Conditions
      by  Peter R. Westlin and Fred C. Biddy

 Spurious  Acid Mist Results Caused by  Peroxides in Isopropyl          79
 Alcohol  Solutions Used in EPA Test Method 8  (Memo)
      by Dr. Joseph E. Knoll

 Determination of Isopropanol  Loss During Method 8 Simulation         80
 Tests  (Memo)
      by Peter R.  Westlin

 Comparison of Emission Results from In-Stack  Filter Sampling         82
 and  EPA Method 5 Sampling
      by Peter R.  Westlin and  Robert L.  Ajax

EPA Method 5  Sample  Train  Clean-Up  Procedures                        98
     by Clyde  E.  Riley

                              vi ii

-------
                      METHOD FOR CALCULATING
                    POWER PLANT EMISSION RATE
                                By
         R. T. Shigehara, R. M. Neulicht, and W.  S.  Smith**
Introduction
     In the final State Implementation Plans submitted by all  50 States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands in response to the 1970 Clean Air Act, most of the regu-
lations for the control of particulate, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxide emissions from fuel burning sources are expressed in pounds of
emissions per million Btu of heat input (lb/10  Btu) .  The Federal New
                            2
Source Performance Standards  regulating the same pollutants from fossil
fuel-fired steam generating units of more than 250 million Btu/hr heat
input are expressed in the same terms.  To arrive at this expression, the
Federal perfromance standard regulations call for the determination of the
pollutant concentration (C), the effluent volumetric flow rate (Qs), and the
heat input rate  (QH).  In addition, the heat input rate must be confirmed by
a material balance over the steam generator system.
     The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative method for arriv-
ing with improved accuracy at the expression of lb/10  Btu called for by the
State and  Federal regulations without  having to determine effluent gas volu-
metric flow rate, fuel rate, or fuel heat content.
 Published in Stack Sampling News  1(1):  5-9,  July  1973
 * Emission Measurement Branch,  ESED,  OAQPS,  EPA
 ** Entropy Environmentalists,  Inc.
                                      1

-------
 Derivation of the F-Factor Method
                                  Standard Method
     In the standard method of calculating emission rates
                               C Qs
 where:   E = pollutant emission, lb/106 Btu.
         C = pollutant concentration, dry basis,  Ib/scfd.
        Qs = dry effluent volumetric flow rate,  scfd/hr.
        QH = heat input rate, 106 Btu/hr.
                                  F-Factor Method
    When  the laws of conservation of mass and energy are applied, the
 following must  hold  true:

where:  Vg =  theoretical  dry combustion products per pound of fuel burned,
              scfd/lb.
        HHV = high  heating  value,  106 Btu/lb.

20 9 - %0
  '	2_  = excess air  correction factor.
    20.9
    Solving Equation 2 for  the  ratio QS/QH and substituting into Equation  1
yields:
                                 u
                          r _ r i  s » ,   20.9   N
                          E ' C (HHV} (20.9 - to

-------
      The  amount  of dry effluent gas  (Vs) generated by combustion of a fossil
fuel  can  easily  be calculated from the ultimate analysis.  The high heating
value can be obtained from standard  calorific determinations.  The ratio, F,
between Vg and HHV can be calculated for various fossil fuels; F is the efflu-
ent gas generated per 10  Btu heat content:

                                 F =
                                     HHV (100)
     Values for F calculated from data obtained from the literature are
summarized in Table I.  Of course, this ratio can be calculated for each
specific case, but the dry effluent per 104 Btu varies no more than about
+. 3%.  For this reason, these ratios will be considered as constants and
will hereafter be called "F Factors."  The use of these F Factors, as will
be discussed later, eliminates the need for ultimate and calorific analyses
A list of average F Factors derived from Table I is shown in Table II.

-------
                     Table I

            F Factors for Fossil Fuels
              (Calculated from Data
                   in Literature)
Fuel
Coal
Lit.
Source

Anthracite 3

Total
or avg
4

•
Bituminous 3







Lignite

Total
or avg
Oil
Crude

5
6
7
8
9
10
4
3
5

•

11,12
4
Residuum 12
Distillate 12
Fuel
Total
or avg
Gas
Natural

11

•

4
13
Commercial 13
Samples,
No.

3
1

4
8
44
38
13
39
26
57
1
1
2

229

6
1
4
2
3

16

1
4
2
scfd/l'64
Btua

101.0
102.8

101.4
97.5
97.5
98.7
98.9
98.6
98.2
98.0
99.3
97.5
99.4

98.2

91.9
92.0
93.1
92.7
91.5

92.2

88.0
86.7
86.8
Max.
(+)

2.4
-

2.0
1.4
2.1
1.4
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.0
-
_
1.0

2.7

1.9
_
1.9
0.5
1.9

2.8

_
0.3
0.1
Dev.
(-)

1.2
-

1.6
1.1
2.4
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
-
_
1.0

3.1

2.6
_
2.1
1.5
1.3

3.0

_
0.5
0.1
propane
Commercial 13
butane
Total
or avg


•
2


9
89.0


87.4
0.3


2.2
0.3


1.2
aStandard conditions are 70°F, 29.92 in. Hg,
 and 0% excess air.

-------
                         Table II.  Average F Factors1
                 Fuel
Coal-anthracite
Coal-bituminous, lignite
Oil-crude, residuum, distillate, fuel oil
Gas-natural, butane, propane
  F Factors
scfd/104 Btub
    101.4
     98.2
     92.2
     87.4
aDerived from Table I.
b70°F, 29.92 in. Hg., and 0% excess air.
Use of F Factors
                        Emission Rate Calculation
     When Qs and QH are not measured or are unobtainable, F Factors can be used
to calculate E.  Substituting Equation 4 into Equation 3 we obtain:

                        E = C F (    209
                        c   u r ^
                                 ^20 9 - 20 '
                                 c.w • y   /o\jt%
     where: F = F Factor from Table II, in scfd/104 Btu.
     Equation 5 shows that E can be obtained by simply measuring the pollutant
concentration and percentage oxygen and by knowing the type of fuel being burned.
Qs and QH are no longer required.
                         Material Balance Check
     If Qs and QH are measured, F Factors can be used to check sampling data by
comparing them with F .

     where:             f  = ^s  I20'9 ~ %02
                         m   Q       20.9

-------
                          Fuel  Analysis  Check
      If ultimate  and  proximate analyses  are  made,  F  Factors can be used

to check the accuracy of such analyses by  comparing  them with VS/HHV which

is the calculated amount of dry effluent gas generated per 104 Btu heat

content.


Discussion

      In the present method  for calculating power plant emission rates, four

separate quantities must be determined,  each of which requires at least two

measurements, as  shown in Table III.


                               Table  III

                      Quantities and  Measurements Required

                         For Calculation  of Power Plant

                       Emission Rates  (Regulation Method)
                Quantity  Used
     1.  Pollutant concentration,  C
      Quantity Measured
     2.  Effluent volumetric  flow
            rate, 0
     3.  Heat input rate,
a.  Pollutant mass
b.  Dry gas volume
a.  Velocity head
b.  Stack temperature
c.  Stack pressure
d.  Dry gas composition
       (Orsat) %C02, %02,  %N~
e.  Moisture content (deter-
       mined during measurement
       of 1 (b))
     4.  Material balance  confir-
            mation
a.  Coal input rate
b.  Calorific analysis of
       coal
a.  Effluent volumetric flow
       rate (determined in
       2(a-e))
b.  Ultimate analysis of
       coal
c.  Excess air (calculated
       from 2(d))

-------
     From Table III, it is obvious  that  the use of F Factors  in  calculating
E requires fewer measurements than  are required by methodology in  current
use.  Because there are fewer measurements, the inaccuracies  attendant to
measuring items 2 through 4 (except for  2d) are not included  in  the final
results.  Granted that those measurements in 2 must be made for isokinetic
sampling, but the errors made do not contribute directly to the emission stan-
dard calculation.

Conclusion
     It has been shown that, for a  given type of fuel, a relationship exists
between the fuel heat value and dry effluent that permits a constant (F Factor)
to be calculated within +_ 3% deviation.

     This implies that: (1) pollutant emissions in lb/106 Btu can be easily
calculated when only pollutant concentration, 02 concentration, and fuel type
are known, thus eliminating the need for measuring effluent volumetric flow rate
and heat  input rate; (2)  the inconsistencies that arise in measuring the heat
input rate are eliminated while at most a maximum error of 3% may be propagated
from the  F Factor to the  pollutant emission rate; and  (3) if effluent volumetric
flow rate (Qs) and  heat input rate  (QH) are measured,  an Fm Factor can be cal-
culated from  those  values and compared with the F Factor as a mass balance check.

     In short, use  of  the F  Factor  provides a method  less complex than the one
now employed  for calculating power  plant emission rates and evaluating the
sampling  data.

-------
                                References
  1.   Duncan.  L.  J..  Analysis of Final  State Implementation Plans -
      Rules  and  Regulations  Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park,  North Carolina  27711, Publication No. APTD-1334 (1972).

  2.   Federal  Register,  Standards of Performance  for New Stationary Sources,
      36:247,  Part  II  (Dec.  23,  1971).

  3.   Perry, John H.,  ed., Chemical  Engineers' Handbook, 4th ed., p. 9-3,
      McGraw-Hill Book Company,  N. Y.  (1963).

  4.   North  American Combustion  Handbook.  North American Manufacturing Co., 13,
      Cleveland  (1965).

  5.   Hodgman, Charles D., Handbook  of  Chemistry and Physics. 43rd ed., 1943 -
      1944,  Chemical Rubber  Publishing  Co.,  Cleveland (1961).

 6.   Analyses of Tipple and  Delivered  Samples of Coal, U. S. Dept.  of Interior,
      U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., Publication No.  USBMRI 7588 (1972).

 7.   U.S. Dept. of interior,  U.S. Bureau  of Mines, Washington, D. C.,  Publica-
      tion No. USBMRI  7490 (1971).

 8.   U.S. Dept. of Interior,  U.S. Bureau  of Mines, Washington, D. C.,  Publica-
      tion No. USMBRI  No.  7346 (1970).

 9.   U.S. Dept. of Interior,  U.S. Bureau  of Mines, Washington, D. C.,  Publica-
      tion No. USMBRI  7219 (1969).

10.  U.S. Dept. of Interior,  U.S. Bureau  of Mines, Washington, D. C.,  Publica-
     tion No. USMBRI 6792 (1966).
                                  8

-------
                        References  (Continued)
11.   Hodgman, Carles D., ed.  Handbook  of Chemistry and  Physics,  43rd  ed.,
     1936,  Chemical  Rubber Publishing  Co.,  Cleveland  (1961).
12.   North  American  Combustion  Handbook, North  American Manufacturing Co.,  31,
     Cleveland (1965).

-------
       EMISSION  CORRECTION FACTOR for  FOSSIL  FUEL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS
                           C02  CONCENTRATION  APPROACH
                                 Roy Neulicht*
   Introduction
       The  Federal  Standards of Performance  for  New Stationary Sources
   regulating particulate  matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide
   emissions from  fossil fuel-fired steam generating units of more than 63
   million kcal/hr (250 million Btu/hr)  heat  input are expressed in terms
   of mass per unit  of heat input,  g/106 cal  (lb/106 Btu).  To arrive at
   this emission rate, the existing method1 requires determination of the
   pollutant concentration (C),  the effluent  volumetric flow rate (Q ), and
   the heat input  rate (Qh).  An F-Factor approach requiring determination
  of the fuel type, pollutant  concentration  (C), and the oxygen concentra-
                               o
  tion (%02) has  been proposed   as the  reference method to replace the
  existing method.
       The purpose of this paper is to  present a third method,  based on the
  F-Factor approach and employing  a dilution correction factor  based on
  measuring the carbon dioxide  rather than oxygen concentration.   This method,
  which will be called the Fc-Factor method,is based on two facts:
       1.  The comparison of the theoretical carbon dioxide produced during
           combustion to  the measured carbon dioxide provides an  exact basis
           for dilution correction.
       2.  Within any fossil fuel  type category, the ratio of the volume of
           carbon dioxide to the calories released is essentially a  constant.
  The method has two advantages:
       1.  Emission rates may be determined from wet basis concentration
           measurements without  recalculation of the F -Factor.
                                                      c
* Emission Measurement Branch, ESED, OAQPS, EPA, RTP, NC
Published in Stack Sampling News 2(8): 6-11, February 1975
                                      10

-------
     2.  Use of COp for correcting for dilution provides flexibility
                                                                      »
         by providing an additional  method for determining  emission
         rates; for example, in some cases measuring COp may be  more
         convenient than measuring CL.
One disadvantage of the C02 correction factor is that it cannot  be used
after control devices that alter the COp concentration (e.g.,  wet scrub-
bers that remove COp) or in situations where COp is added.
Derivation of F -Factor Method
The method calculating emission rates as promulgated in  the Federal

                0
            = C
Register  is:
       where:  E = pollutant emission, g/106 cal  (lb/106Btu)
               C = pollutant concentration, dry basis, g/dscm,  (Ib/dscf)
               Q = dry effluent volumetric flow rate, dscm/hr (dscf/hr)
               QH= heat input rate, 106 cal/hr (106 Btu/hr)
When the laws of conservation of mass and energy are applied, the following
must hold true:
                    vt
                 •~   - —                                    19 i
             2t/   HHV
       where:  V = total theoretical dry combustion products per unit
                   mass of fuel burned, dscm/g (dscf/lb)
              HHV= high heating value, 106 cal/g (106 Btu/lb)
                                  11

-------
            %co2m
               — = dilution correction factor,  ratio of measured car-
                    bon dioxide and theoretical  carbon dioxide produced

                    from combustion,  dry basis

     Solving  Equation 2 for the ratio  QS/QH and substituting into

Equation  1 yields:

                E  =
                    vc
     Substituting   f-  (100)  for %C02t yields:
                     L
                     /vt\
                      HHY
       where:  VG= theoretical volume of carbon dioxide, produced per unit

                   mass of  fuel burned, scm/g  (scf/lb)

Elimination of Vt from Equation 4 and rearrangement yields:
                E = (


     or




                      vc
        where:  FC=  p^y—  , the ratio of theoretical C02 generated by

                     combustion to the high heating valve of the fuel  com-

                     busted, scm/106 cal (scf/106 Btu).

     The high heating value of the fuel combusted can be obtained from
                                   12

-------
standard calorific determinations.   The amount of theoretical  carbon
dioxide generated by combustion can easily be calculated from  the ulti-
mate analysis.  The ratio, FC, has  been calculated for various fossil
fuels from data obtained from the literature; these calculated ratios
are summarized in Table I.  For any fuel type, the ratio is  found to
be a constant with a maximum deviation of +_ 5.9%.  Average  FC  - Factors
for each fuel type are given in Table II.
     Note that Equation 6 for the determination of the pollutant emission
rate (E) has been developed in terms of dry measurements.  However,  it
is a simple matter to show that wet basis measurements may  be  used.   Given
Equation 6 and multiplying both the measured pollutant concentration (C)
and the measured carbon dioxide concentration (%C02m) by the dry mole frac-
tion (D) of the effluent gas yields;

                             f   100
                             i1
                                                         (7)
     or
                                F
                     w           r
                     w  £LU      c
        where:  C = pollutant concentration, wet basis, g/scm (Ib/scf)
                 W
             %C02= measured concentration of carbon dioxide, wet basis,
                    (expressed as percent).
     Equations 6 and 8 show that, using the average F  - Factor approach,
the pollutant emission rate (E) can be obtained by simply knowing the type
of fuel burned and measuring the pollutant and carbon dioxide concentrations
                                 13

-------
               ,
V= 0.200 x lO'4 %C --                          (9)
 on either a wet or dry basis.
 Determination of F  - Factor
 _    c _
      Rather than use an average FC - Factor, the F  - Factor can  be  de-
 termined on an individual case-by-case basis.  As already stated,  the
 high heating value of the fuel is determined from standard calorific
 determinations.   The theoretical carbon dioxide generated by combustion
 is easily calculated from the following equations based  on stoichiometry3
 and on information from an ultimate fuel  analysis:
                                     scm C0
                  c            '
      or
                              scf CO,
                 V  °'321  %c Tb-FUeT                           (10)
         where:   %C=  percent carbon by weight determined  from
                     ultimate analysis.
 Given  the  definition of  the F   - Factor,
                     vc
                 Fc=  HHV                                         (ID
 and substituting  Equations  9 and 10 yields:
                 Fc= — - am/ -  for metric units of        (12)
                          "HV         scm/106 cal
     and
                    0 321  %C
                 Fc=  *HHV -         for En9lisl1  "ni'ts of       (13)
                                      scf/ 10° Btu
 Note:   %C and HHV must be on a  consistent  basis,  e.g., if %C is deter-
mined on an as-received basis,  HHV must also be on an as-received  basis.
                                  14

-------
  Conclusion
       It has  been  shown  that,  for  a  given  fuel  type, a relationship
  exists  between the  fuel  calorific value and  the  theoretical effluent
  carbon  dioxide, which permits an  average  F   -  Factor to be calculated
                                           c
  within  +_ 5.9% deviation.   This provides a method for calculating  power
  plant emission rates  that may be  used  when  the pollutant concentration,
  carbon  dioxide concentration, and fuel  type  are  known.  The equation
  for such a  calculation  is given as  follows:
                                                              (14)

        where:   E =  pollutant  emission,  g/10  cal  (lb/10  Btu)
                C =  pollutant  concentration, g/scm (Ib/scf)
             %COp =  carbon  diox-ide  content by=volume  (expressed  as
                    percent)
               F  =  a  factor representing  a ratio  of  the  volume  of
                    theoretical  carbon dioxide generated  to  the
                    calorific  value of the fuel  combusted.
               Note:  C and %C02 may be  measured either on a wet or
                      dry basis  provided that the  same basis is  used
                      for each.
     Furthermore, average values of F are given for  each fossil fuel
type, and the necessary equations for determining  the F  -  Factor on a
case-by-case basis are presented.
                                 15

-------
                       TABLE  I.  FC  - FACTOR FOR FOSSIL FUELS
Li
Fuel Type
Coal
Anthracite


Average
Bituminous





Lignite

Average
Oil
Crude

Residium
Distillate
Average
Gas
Natural

Average
Propane
Average
Butane
Average
terature
Source
4
5
6

6
7
8
9
10
11
6
4

5
12
12
12

13
4

13

13

Number of
Samples
3
1
3

13
39
15
46
41
58
1
1

1
6
4
2

4
3

2

2

Average
scmaC02
106 cal
0.2202
0.2292
0.2218
0.2222
0.2029
0.2032
0.2065
0.2025
0.2022
0.2011
0.2105
0.2123
0.2027
0.1585
0.1591
0.1655
0.1610
0.1613
0.1160
0.1180
0.1168
0.1351
0.1351
0.1420
0.1420
Max. Dev.,%
+



4.1 4.1








5.9 5.2




5.1 2.2


3.9 2.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0
Standard conditions are 70°F, 29.92  in.
Hg, and 0% excess  air.
                                      16

-------
                     TABLE II.  AVERAGE FC  -  FACTORS
Fuel  Type             scma  COg/106 cal              scfa  C02/106  Btu
Coal
Anthracite
Bituminous and lignite
Oil
Gas
Natural
Propane
Butane

0.222
0.203
0.161

0.117
0.135
0.142

1980
1810
1430

1040
1200
1260
Standard  conditions are  70°F,  29.92  in.  Hg, and 0% excess air.
                                T7

-------
REFERENCES
     1.  Federal Register,  Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources, 36_:247, Part  II, December 23, 1971.
     2.  Federal Register,  Proposed Emission Monitoring and Performance
Testing Requirements for New Stationary Sources, 39_:177, Part II,
September 11, 1974.
     3.  North American Combustion Handbook, North America Manufacturing
Co., Cleveland, 1965,  p.48.
     4.  Perry, John H. 
-------
REFERENCES(Continued)
    12.  North American Combustion Handbook,  North America  Manufacturing
Co., Cleveland, 1965, p.31.
    13.  North American Combustion Handbook.  North America  Manufacturing
Co., Cleveland, 1965, p.35.
    14.  Shigehara, R.T. et al.  "A Method  for Calculating Power  Plant
Emission Rates," Stack Sampling  News,  Volume  1,  Number 1, July,  1973.
                                 19

-------
        DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS  FOR CALCULATING POWER PLANT EMISSION RATES
                    02 Based Method - Wet and Dry Measurements
                         R. T. Shigehara & R. M. Neulicht*
 INTRODUCTION
      The Federal New Source Performance Standards1  regulating particulate matter,
 sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides emissions from fossil  fuel-fired  steam
 generating units are expressed  in terms of mass emissions  per unit of heat input.
                 o
 Shigehara et al.  developed a means of determining  the  emission  rates in  the de-
 sired terms using stoichiometric factors and oxygen (02) measurements.  This pro-
 cedure is expressed in  equation form as follows:

                                           20.9
where:   E  =  emission  rate,  lb/106 Btu
         C  =  pollutant concentration,  Ib/scf
         F  =  fuel  stoichiometric factor,  scf/106  Btu
      %02  =  02  concentration,  percent.
     Initially, the above expression  has  been applied only to dry (moisture free)
based measurements.   However,  because some  automatic instruments are capable of
determining  carbon (C) and  %02 on a wet  basis, questions have been asked about the
derivation of Equation 1 and how wet  based  measurements affect the equation.  The
derivation of the equations for wet and  dry based measurements and a list of average
F-factors are presented in  this text.
DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS
     The basic equation for calculating  emission rate is given by:
                                          C Q,
   Emission Measurement Branch, ESED, OAQPS, EPA. July 1976
                                      20

-------
where:  Qs = effluent volumetric flow rate,  scf/hr
        QH = heat input rate, 106 Btu/hr.
     The product of C and Qg is simply the mass  rate;  thus,  both  C  and  QS  must
be determined on a consistent basis, i.e.  either wet or dry.   To  distinguish be
tween wet and dry based measurements, the  subscripts "w" and "d", respectively,
will be used.
Dry Basis
      If E is calculated from dry based measurements, Equation 2 becomes:
                                   E - !3j!sd                               (3)
                                         4H
Qsd can be written as:
                                  Qsd = Sd + EAd
where:  Sd = dry volumetric flow rate of effluent at stoichiometric condi-
             tions, dscf/hr
       EA. = dry volumetric flow rate of excess air in the effluent, dscf/hr.
     An adjustment factor, Ad, which when multiplied by Qsd would adjust it to
dry  stoichiometric conditions, Sd, can be derived as follows:

                               Qsd Ad ' Sd ' ^sd - EAd
 Since  EAd  =  QQ  /0.209, where  QQ   is the volumetric flow rate of 02 in the
 effluent and 0.209  is  the  fraction by volume of 02 in dry air,
                                       21

-------
                                A  =
                                 d     " 0.209
Noting that QQ /Q d is the proportion by volume of 02 in the dry effluent mix-

ture (02Dd) and Substitutin9 into Equation 7, Ad becomes:
                                  Ad = ] " 0.209


                                    20.9 - %09.

                                  •    30.9                                 (8)


                                        20.9 - %02d
and                            Sd  = Qsd (	2Q^  *°)                        (9)



Substituting Equation 9  into  Equation 2 yields:



                                F  = r  ?d     20.9                          nm
                                  - Cd QH  20.9 - %02d                      *  '



The ratio, Sd/QH,  is simply the dry effluent gas at stoichiometric conditions

generated per  unit of heat input  and can be calculated from ultimate and calori-

fic analyses of  the  fuel.  These  calculated ratios are defined as Frf and are

summarized in  Table  I.   Inserting Fd = Sd/QH>


Equation 10 can  be rewritten  in its  final form as:



                               L, "~ w i  r i  OYY~ ft   mQ?r^                          \ * * /
                                   a   d  20.9  - %0nj
                                        22

-------
Met Basis
     If E is calculated from wet based measurements, Equation 2 becomes:
                                                                             (12)
As before, Q   can be written as:
            sw
     If the combustion air is dry, then EA  = EA. and S,., and Q, will  only
                                          W     Q      W      SW


include moisture derived from the fuel.  It follows that:
                                     Sw ' QSW - EAd
                                           EAH

                                         -Q-^
                                           ysw
                                      0.209
                                                                             (16)
                                          °2PW
                                         1.20




                                     20.9  -  %0
                                              2
                                        20.9




                                         20.9  -
                                Sw  =  Qsw209
                                      23

-------
                                            20.9
                                   w QH  20.9 -
Defining SW/QH as FW,
                                 = P   F
                                  L   h
                                   w  w 20.9 -
     To assume that combustion  air  is dry, however, is obviously not true.
EA  must include moisture so that:
                                          EAH
                                      •   ^                                (22)
where B   is the moisture content  in  the ambient air; the subscript "a" is
       Wot
used to denote the  inclusion of  ambient moisture.  Note also that Q   and S
now include the moisture from  the  ambient air.  Following steps that are similar
to steps 14 through 21:
= Qswa ' EAwa
                                   (24)
                                   (25)
                                     Q - (1-B   )
                                     v    v     wa '
                                          Q02
                                  0.209
                                          24

-------
n „„

0.209 (1 - B
                                                                           (   '
                                  20.9  (1 - B)
                                   20.9


                              Q
                               swa - 20.9  (1 - B
                       E-f   $wa      20'9 (1 - Bwa)                     ,  ,
                                                                           (30)
Defining S  /QH as Flia:
          wo  n     WQ





                                       20-9 (1 - B  )
                               r

                               F
                                                  uia
                                                  via
                            wa  wa 20.9
     The inclusion of ambient air in Fwa, however, is undesirable in that it



becomes a variable.  Written in terms of F , i.e. where ambient moisture is not
                                          W


included, F   can be written as:
           Wa





                                       s  + ThA ' V

                           F   -5wa-  H   T1~r^J

                           Fwa -  QH          (^ -                     (32)
                                     25

-------
                                 Jw .  ThA
                wa
                                          1  - B.
                                               wa
                                                                            (33)
where ThA  is  the theoretical  air required for complete  combustion.  Defining,
as before,  SW/QH as  FW>  i.e.  without ambient air moisture, and ThA/QH as FThA
i.e. theoretical  air per unit of heat input, Equation 33 can be rewritten as:
Fwa " Fw
                                         ThA
                                                 wa
1  - B.
                                                   wa
                                                                           (34)
                              = F.
                                 w
           FThA  (  Bwa
            Fw   V1  - Bwa
                              (35)
Substituting  into  Equation  31  and simplifying yields:
                E • Cwa  F«
                    wa  w
                            1  -  B
ThA
w
(^
( "« VI
0 - *J\
20.9 (1
-Bwa>
20.9 (1 - B } - 5>0~
20.9
    wa
  1.9
                                              (36)
     Consider now the expression  [1  -  Bwa  (1  -  FThA/Fw)"j. Average values of
FThA/Fw are:  coal = 0.960; oil = 0.948; gas  =  0.914.  An extreme case of ambient
moisture content of 6.4% would occur at 100°F and  100% relative humidity.  The ex-
pression cited above under these  conditions would  yield values of:  coal = 0.9975;
                                     26

-------
 oil = 0.9967; and gas = 0.9945.   Therefore, neglecting this  cited expression
 would introduce a positive bias  of no more than o.25 to 0.55%.   Understanding
 this, Equation 36 simplifies  to  its final  form:*
                            =  r    p   	20.9	
                              wa  w *°-9  <*  - Bwa)  -  %02wa
      Average  values of  FW are  listed  in  Table  II.  From Tables  I and  II  it can
 be  seen  that  Fd  factors have a maximum arithmetic deviation of  ± 3.1  percent
 and FW factors,  +3.8 percent.
REFERENCES
1.  Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.  Federal Register.
    (Washington) Part II.  36:247, December 23, 1971.
2.  Shigehara, R. T., R. M. Neulicht, and W. S. Smith.  A Method for Calculating
    Power Plant Emission Rates, Stack Sampling News.  L5-9, July 1973.
*  This equation was originally derived by G. F.  McGowan,  Vice President,
   Environmental Technology Division,  Lear Siegler,  Englewood, Colorado.
                                   27

-------
                 Table I.   AVERAGE Fd FACTORS  FOR FOSSIL  FUELS
Fuel type
Coal
Anthracite
Bituminous, lignite
Oil
Nat. gas, propane, butane
Samples,
No.

4
229
16
9
hd
dscf/106 Btua

10140
9820
9220
8740
Max. dev.,
%

±2.0
±3.1
±3.0
+ 2.2
Standard conditions are  70CF,  29.92  in. Hg, and 0% excess
air.
                Table  II.   AVERAGE F  FACTORS  FOR FOSSIL FUELS
                                    w
Fuel type
Coal
Anthracite
Bituminous
Lignite
Oil
Gas
Natural
Propane
Butane
Samples,
No.

7
129
174
13

7
2
2
wscf/106 Btua

10580
10680
12000
10360

10650
10240
10430
Max. dev.,
%

±1.5
±2.7
±3.8
±3.5

±0.8
+0.4
±0.7
Standard conditions are 70 °F, 29.92 in. Hg, and 0% excess air.
                                      28

-------
                SUMMARY OF F FACTOR METHODS FOR DETERMINING
                     EMISSIONS FROM COMBUSTION SOURCES
               R. T. Shigehara, R. M. Neulicht, W. S. Smith,
                              and J. W. Peeler
 INTRODUCTION
     The Federal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, regulating
 particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from fossil
 fuel-fired steam generating units, are expressed in terms of pollutant mass per
 unit of heat input.  Many State regulations for combustion equipment are ex-
 pressed in the same form.  To arrive at this emission rate, the original method1
 required the determination of the pollutant concentration, effluent volumetric
 flow rate, and heat input rate.  In the October 6, 1975, Federal Register,2 an
 "F Factor" technique, which required only the determination of the fuel  type,
 pollutant concentration, and the oxygen (02) concentration, was promulgated as
 a procedure to replace the original method.  At the same time, an F Factor approach,
 based on either 02 or carbon dioxide (C02) measurements, was promulgated for use
 in reducing the pollutant concentration data obtained under the continuous monitor-
 ing requirements to the desired units.   Recently,  wet F Factors,3 which  allow the
 use of wet basis measurements of the same parameters, and F Factors for  wood and
 refuse have been calculated.
     The purpose of this paper is to summarize the various methods and to present
the calculated F Factor values for the  different types of fuels.  The various
uses of F Factors  and errors  involved in certain applications  and conditions are
also discussed.
SUMMARY OF METHODS
     The first method,  referred to simply as the F Factor Method, is  based on two
principles:
Published in Source Evaluation Society Newsletter 1(4), November 1976
                                     29

-------
     1.  The ratio of the quantity of dry effluent gas generated fay combustion



         to the gross calorific value of the fuel is a constant within  any



         given fuel category.  This ratio is normally called the dry F  Factor;



         however, for purposes of this paper, it will be called the Fd  Factor.



     2.  An excess air correction factor may be expressed in terms of the dry



         oxygen content of the effluent stream.




The use of this method requires dry basis measurements of the pollutant concen-



tration (Cd) and percent oxygen (%02d).  The emission rate (E) is calculated by



the equation:




                              r   p  F  f   20-9

                              fc "  d  d \20.9 - %00
                                       \         £u




     If the moisture content of the flue gas (Bws)  is determined, a natural



derivative of Equation 1, which would allow direct wet basis measurements  of



pollutant and oxygen concentrations, i.e. GW and %02w> respectively, is as  follows
                         E ' Cw Fd
                                            20.9
(2)
     This  equation  has  been approved in principle  by the  Environmental Protection



Agency  and may  be used  if it is demonstrated that  BWS can be  accurately determined



and  that any  absolute error in B^. will not cause  an error of more than +_ 1.5
                                 Wo


percent in the  term                    £0 9	


                                20.9 (i  - BWS; - *u2w  •





      The second technique, called the F  Factor Method,  is based  on  the same two
                                        W


principles as the Fd Factor Method, except that the two  quantities,  the effluent



gas  and the  oxygen  concentration, are determined on a wet basis.   The ratio of
                                       30

-------
 the quantity  of wet  effluent gas  generated  by  combustion  to  the  gross  calorific
 value  of  the  fuel  is called  the wet  F  Factor or  the  F   Factor.   The use of  this
                                                     w
 technique,  however,  requires in addition  to the  wet  pollutant concentration (C  )
                                                                              W
 and oxygen  (%02w)  the determination  of the  fractional moisture content of the
 air (Bwa^ suPP11ed for combustion.   (Guidelines  for  this  determination will  be
 discussed later.)  The equation for  calculating  the  emission rate is:
                        E - Cw Fw
                                           20.9
H  -
                                     (3)
This equation is a simplification of the theoretically derived equation.3  Under
typical conditions, a positive bias of no more than 0.25 percent is introduced.
     The third procedure, the FC Factor Method, is based on principles related
to but slightly different than those for the Fd Factor and F  Factor Methods:
     1.  For any given fuel category, a constant ratio exists between the volume
         of carbon dioxide produced by combustion and the heat content of the
         fuel.  This ratio is called the FC Factor.
     2.  The ratio of the theoretical carbon dioxide produced during combustion
         and the measured carbon dioxide provides an exact basis for dilution
         correction.
This method requires measurement of the pollutant concentration and percent car-
bon dioxide (%C02) in the effluent stream.   Measurements may be made on a wet or
dry basis.   Using the subscripts, "d" and "w",  to denote dry and wet basis mea-
surements,  respectively,  the equations for  calculating E are:

                                       31

-------
 DETERMINATION OF F FACTORS
                             6                   6                      6
     Values of Frf in dscf/10°  Btu,  FW  in wscf/10b Btu, and FC in scf/106 Btu,
may be determined on an individual  case-by-case basis using the ultimate
analysis and gross calorific value  of  the fuel.  The equations are:

     c  = IP6 (3.64 XH + 1.53  XC +  0.57 XS + 0.14 XN - 0.46 XO)
      d                           GCV

        = IP6 (5.57 XH + 1.53  XC +  0.57 XS + 0.14 XN - 0.46 XO + 0.21  %H20*)
      w ~ -—   =*«—	
     F  = IP6  (0.321
      c         GCV

where:  H, C,  S, N, 0, and  H^Q  are  the concentrations by weight (expressed in
percent) of hydrogen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and water from the ulti-
                 *
mate analysis.  (  Note:  The %H20  term may be omitted if %H and %0 include the
unavailable hydrogen and oxygen in  the form of H20.)  GCV is the gross calorific
value in Btu/lb of the fuel and must always be the value consistent with or
corresponding  to the ultimate analysis.
     For determining FW> the ultimate analysis and GCVW must be on an "as received"
or "as fired"  basis, i.e.,  it must  include the free water.  Often in practice,
the ultimate analysis and/or gross  calorific value of a particular fuel  are not
known.  For most commonly used  fuels, tabulated average F Factors may be used in-
stead of the individually determined values.  These average values of F., F , and
FC, calculated from data obtained from the literature,     are given in  Table I.
F Factors for wood and bark are also listed in Table I, and factors for  various
types of refuse are listed  in Table II.
                                        32

-------
ULTIMATE CARBON DIOXIDE
     The ratio of FC to Fd times TOO yields the ultimate percent COp or the
maximum C02 concentration that the dry flue gas is able to attain.  By dividing
this number into 20.9, a ratio called the F  Factor is obtained.  F  values cal-
                                           o                       o
culated from the ultimate analyses of the various fuels are given in Tables I and
II.
     FQ values can also be calculated from C02 and 02 data obtained in the field
by using the following equation.

                                    20.9 - %0
                               Fo =
These calculated FQ values can be used to check Orsat data or other analyses of
C02 and 02 that have been adjusted to a dry basis.  The process simply involves
comparing FQ values calculated from Equation 8 with the values listed in Table I
or II.  Further details of this validation procedure are outlined in Reference 15.
ERRORS AND APPLICATION
     The derivations of Equations 1 through 4 are discussed in References 3, 4,
and 5.  The following discussion gives further explanation of the F Factors and
describes some of the problems and errors that arise in applying the F Factor
Methods.  Several uses for F Factors in addition to calculating emission rates are
outlined.
Deviation in F Factors
     The F Factors were calculated from data obtained from the literature.  In
                                      p
the October 6, 1975, Federal Register.   the values of F. and F  were calculated
by summing all data points and dividing by the total number of samples.   Then the
deviations from the extreme values (highest and lowest) were determined.  The
                                     33

-------
higher of  the  two  values,  termed "maximum percent  deviation from the average
F Factors,"  are  listed in  parenthesis  in  Table  I.   These deviations are pro-
bably due  to differences  in the composition  of  the fuel, and may also include
variations due to  the  analytical methods  and analysts  (laboratories).  The stan-
dard deviations  of the samples  were  not calculated since much of the data were
already averages of several  samples  and there may  have been more samples from
one locale or  of one kind  than  another.
     After publication of  the Fd and FC Factors, it was determined that the mid-
point value  would  be a better value  than  the average for small samples and for
data taken from  the literature.  Therefore,  the F   Factors and the values for wood
                                                 w
and refuse are midpoint values  rather  than arithmetic averages.  The associated
deviations are termed, "maximum percent deviation  from the midpoint F Factor."
     F  Factors  for refuse,  wood, and  wood bark were not calculated because of the
      W
high variability of free moisture contents.   For example, the moisture in bark
may vary from  20 percent  (air dried) to 75 percent (hydraulic debarking).   Free
moisture content variations  of  +_ 15  percent  introduce about 5 percent variation .
However, for lignite,  the  moisture contents  vary only from about 33 to 45 percent.
This range causes  a deviation of 3.8 percent from  the midpoint F  Factor, which
                                                                W
enabled an F  Factor to be established.
             W
Incomplete Combustion
     The assumption of complete combustion is made in the derivation of all
F Factor Methods.   If  products  of incomplete combustion, such as carbon monoxide,
are present  in the effluent stream,  the volume  of  effluent gas and carbon dioxide
per pound of fuel  burned will  differ from the values used in calculating the
F Factors.   However, adjustments to  the measured C02 or 02 concentration can be
made, which  would  minimize the  magnitude  of  the error when applying Equations 1-5.
                                      34

-------
These adjustments are given by the following equations:
                                     .  = %C02 + %CO                        (9)
                                       = %02 - 0.5 %CO                    (10)

By making these adjustments, the error amounts to minus one-half the concen-
tration of CO present.  Thus, if 1  percent CO (an extreme case)  is  present, an
error of minus 0.5 percent is introduced.   Without adjusting the C02 or 02 con-
centration, a combustion source having 11  percent C02, 1  percent CO, and 6 per-
cent 0? will result in about plus 9 percent error for the F  Factor Method and
      £                                                    C
about plus 3 percent for the Fd Factor and FW Factor Methods.
     Similarly, unburned combustible matter in the ash will  cause the volume of
effluent gas and carbon dioxide per unit of heat input to differ from the calculated
F Factor values.  This is true, however, only if the heat input  is  thought of in
terms of the coal input rate times  the calorific value.  If the  heat input rate is
considered as only that calorific value which is derived from the combusted mat-
ter, the F Factor Methods are only  slightly affected.  In other  words, if any por-
tion of the fuel goes through the combustion process unburned, the F Factor Methods
will not include as heat input the  calorific value associated with the uncombusted
matter, and a slight positive bias  will be introduced.
     The positive bias is due to the combustion process, which is said to consist
first of evaporating the free moisture, then the burning of the  volatile matter,
and last the burning of the fixed carbon, with the ash remaining.  The volatile
matter includes hydrogen, which results in a lower F Factor than the calculated
values.  Since a higher proportion  of fixed carbon than volatile matter generally
remains in the ash, the FC Factor Method is affected more than the F. Factor and

                                      35

-------
FW  Factor  Methods.   For example,  assume  that  100  Ib of a coal, which has
55  8%  C, 5.7% H,  1.1% N, 3.2% S,  21.5% 0,  and 12.6% ash (percent by weight, as
received basis),  is  burned and 5  Ib  fixed  carbon  remains in the ash.  About plus
2.3 percent  error is incurred with the Fr  Factor  and less than 1 percent with the
                                         C
Fd  Factor  and FW  Factor Methods.
Effect of  Wet Scrubbers
     When  wet scrubbers are used, a  portion of the carbon dioxide may be absorbed
by the scrubbing  solution.   Therefore, the FC Factor Method will yield an emission
rate higher  than  the actual  rate.  If a  gas stream having 14% C02 before the
scrubber loses  10 percent of the  C02> or 1.4% C02, the error is about plus 13 per-
cent.
     The Fd  Factor Method is also affected by the loss of C02 in the scrubber,
but to a lesser degree than the FC Factor  Method.  If the gas stream has 6% 02 and
1.4% C02 is  lost  in  the scrubber,!the error will  be about plus 2 percent.
     The FW  Factor Method is not  applicable after wet scrubbers since the scrubber
generally  adds  moisture to  the flue  gas, thereby  "diluting" the gas stream.  The
pollutant  concentration will  be lowered  by the same proportion of moisture added
and the 02 concentration will  be  lower than actual, which would tend to yield lower
than true  numbers.
     When  the scrubbing solution  is  lime or limestone, the F  Factor Method may be
used after wet  scrubbers.   It is  generally assumed that due to the optimum operating
conditions,   the  amount of  C02 absorption  is  minimized and, therefore, the applica-
tion of the  FC  Factor  Method will not yield appreciable errors.  However, with
limestone  scrubbers,  there  is  a possibility of C02 being added to the gas stream
due to the reaction  of S02  with the  limestone.  Therefore, the F  Factors must be
increased by  1  percent.
                                    36

-------
Determination of Ambient Air Moisture
     Guidelines have been developed for the determination of B  ,  the moisture
fraction in ambient air, in Equation 3, which will soon be published in the
Federal Register.  The guidelines are presented below.
     Approval may be given for determination of B   by  on-site instrumental mea-
                                                 Wo
surement provided that the absolute accuracy of the measurement technique can be
demonstrated to be within +_ 0.7 percent water vapor.  In lieu of actual measure-
ment, Blia may be estimated as follows:  (Note that the  following estimating fac-
       wa
tors are selected to assure that any negative error introduced in  the emissions
                                  20 9
by the estimating term   9n Q /, — n  \ - 57; -   will  not be larger than -1.5
                         ^u>y u " bwa; "
percent.  However, positive errors, or over-estimation of emissions, of as much
as 5 percent may be introduced depending upon the geographic location of the
facility and the associated range of ambient moisture.)
     1.  B   = 0.027.  This factor may be used as a constant value at any location.
          Wa
     2.  B   = highest monthly average of B,,, that occurred within a calendar year
          wa                               wa
         at the nearest Weather Service Station, calculated using data for the
         past 3 years.  This factor may be used on an annual basis at any facility.
     3-  B,,a = highest daily average of B,,, that occurred within a calendar month
          Wa                             Wa
         at the nearest Weather Service Station, calculated for each month for the
         past 3 years used as an estimating factor for the respective calendar
         month.
Sampling Location and Sampling Points
     Ambient air leakage into an exhaust system may cause variations across the
duct or stack in the relative concentrations of COp and Op.  For this reason,  the
                   2
Federal regulations  specify that COp or Op be measured simultaneously and approxi-
mately at the same point as the gaseous pollutants measurements.

                                          37

-------
     For particulate  emission  performance  tests, which require traversing, it
is specified that the 02  samples  be obtained  simultaneously by traversing the
duct at the same sampling location used  for each run of the Method 5.  This re-
quirement may be satisfied by  attaching  a  stainless steel tube to the particulate
sampling probe and, using a small diaphragm pump, obtaining an integrated gas sam-
ple over the duration of  the run  (of  Reference  1).  The sample should be analyzed
using an Orsat apparatus.
     As an alternative to traversing  the same sampling points of Method 5, a mini-
mum of 12 oxygen sampling points  may  be  used  for each run.  This would require a
separate integrated gas sampling  train traversing the duct work simultaneously
with the particulate  run.
Other Applications
     In addition to calculating emission rates, F Factors have several other uses.
If Q ^j the dry effluent  volumetric flow rate,  or Q   , the wet effluent volumetric
flow rate, and QM, the heat input rate,  are measured, a value of F ., F , or F
                ri                                                 u   W      C
may be calculated.  These equations are  given below:

                                       Qsd 20.9 - %02
                             Fd(calc)  = 6       2O                           (11)
                                        Qcu)  20.9  (1  -  B) - %Q~
                                        Msw            wa'     Zw
                                            _ _ _   _
                              w(calc)    Q^j            2079

                             F        _Qsd *C02d_<>sw   *C02w
                             *"c(calc)  ~  0^~   100 "  Qjj    TOO"

The calculated  values  may then be compared to tabulated values of the F Factors
to facilitate a material  balance check.
                                         38

-------
      If desired,  QH  can  be  calculated  by  using  the  Equations 11  through  13.
 In  the  past,  it has  been observed  that the measurement of Q  has been signifi-
 cantly  greater than  the  stoichiometric calculations rates.  The  discrepancy is
 usually due to errors  in determining Qs-  Due to aerodynamic interferences and
 improper alignment of  the pi tot tubes, higher than  real readings have been ob-
 tained.  Therefore,  errors  in measuring Qg are  positive, which leads to  higher
 than true firing  rates.
     If an ultimate  analysis and calorific determination of a particular fuel
 are made and the  F Factor value is calculated,  the accuracy of the results may be
 checked  by comparison with  the tabulated F Factors.
 SUMMARY
     The various  F Factor Methods have been summarized and calculated F Factors
 for fossil fuels, wood, wood bark, and refuse material have been presented.  In
 addition, some of the problems and errors that arise in applying the F Factor
Method  for calculating power plant emission rates were discussed and other uses
of the  F Factors were outlined.
                                       39

-------
                    TABLE  I.   F  FACTORS  FOR  VARIOUS FUELS2"14'a'b»c
                                            w
Fuel Type
Coal
Anthracite
Bituminous
Lignite
dscf/10° Btu

10140 (2.0)
9820 (3.1)
9900 (2.2)
wscf/10° Btu

10580 (1.5)*
10680 (2.7)
12000 (3.8)
scf/10° Btu

1980 (4.1)
1810 (5.9)
1920 (4.6)
Fo

1.070 (2.9)
1.140 (4.5)
1.076 (2.8)
Oil
9220 (3.0)
10360 (3.5)
1430 (5.1)      1.346  (4.1)
Gas
Natural
Propane
Butane

Wood
Wood Bark
8740 (2.2)
8740 (2.2)
8740 (2.2)
•ic
9280 (1.9)
9640 (4.n
10650 (0.8)
10240 (0.4)
10430 (0.7)




1040 (3.9)
1200 (1.0)*
1260 (1.0)

1840 (5.0)
1Q£D (1 £\
1.749 (2.9)
1.510 (1.2)*
1.479 (0.9)

1.050 (3.4)
1 ftKA It Q}
   Numbers in parenthesis are maximum deviations  (%) from either the midpoint or average
   F Factors.

       To convert to metric  system, multiply the  above values by 1.123 x 10"4 to obtain
   scm/10° cal.


   All numbers below the asterisk  (*) in.each column are midpoint values.   All  others
   are averages.
                                            40

-------
                     TABLE II.  MIDPOINT F FACTORS FOR REFUSE2"14'9'b
Paper and Wood Wastes
Lawn and Garden Wastes
Plastics
    Polyethylene
    Polystyrene
    Polyurethane
    Polyvinyl  chloride
Garbage6
Miscellaneous
    Citrus rinds and seeds
    Meat scraps, cooked
    Fried fats
    Leather shoe
    Heel and sole composition
    Vacuum cleaner catch
    Textiles
    Waxed milk cartons
dscf/10°Btu
9260 (3.6)
9590 (5.0)
9173
9860
10010
9120
9640 (4.0)
9370
9210
8939
9530
9480
9490
9354
9413
wscf/10°Btu
1870 (3.3)
1840 (3.0)
1380
1700
1810
1480
1790 (7.9)
1920
1540
1430
1720
1550
1700
1840
1620
ro
1.046
1.088
1.394
1.213
1.157
1.286
1.110
1.020
1.252
1.310
1.156
1.279
1.170
1.060
1.040
(4.6)
(2.4)




(5.6)








a  Numbers in parentheses are maximum deviations (%) from the midpoint F Factors.
b                                                                      -4
   To convert to metric system, multiply the above values by 1.123 x 10   to obtain
   scm/10  cal.
c  Includes newspapers, brown paper, corrugated boxes, magazines, junk mail, wood,
   green logs, rotten timber.
   Includes evergreen shrub cuttings, flowing garden plants, leaves, grass.
e  Includes vegetable food wastes, garbage (not described).
                                            41

-------
REFERENCES
1.  Standards of Performance  for  New Stationary Sources.  Federal Register.
    36.:247, Part II.   December  23,  1971.
2.  Requirements for Submittal  of Implementation Plans and Standards for New
    Stationary Sources.   Federal  Register.  40_:194, Part V. October 6, 1975.
3.  Shigehara, R. T. and  R. M.  Neulicht.  Derivation of Equations for Calculating
    Power Plant Emission  Rates, (L  Based  Method - Wet and Dry Measurements. Emis-
    sion Measurement Branch,  ESED,  OAQPS,  U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.  July 1976.
4.  Shigehara, R. T.,  R.  M. Neulicht,  and W. S. Smith.  A Method for Calculating
    Power Plant Emissions. Stack  Sampling News. 1_ (l):5-9. July 1973.
5.  Neulicht, R. M.  Emission  Correction Factor for Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Genera-
    tors: C02 Concentration Approach.  Stack Sampling News. 2^  (8);6-ll. February 1975.
6.  Fuels, Distribution,  and  Air  Supply.  In:  C-E Bark Burning Boilers (Sales
    Brochure). Windsor, Conn.,  Combustion Engineering Inc. p.5.
7.  Kaiser, E. R. Chemical Analyses of Refuse Components. In: Proceedings of 1966
    National Incinerator  Conference. The  American Society of  Mechanical Engineers,
    1966. p.84-88.
8.  Kaiser, E. R.,  C.  D.  Zeit,  and  J.  B.  McCaffery. Municipal Refuse and Residue.
    In: Proceedings  of 1968 National  Incinerator Conference.  The American Society
    of Mechanical Engineers,  1968.  p.142-152.
9.  Kaiser, E. R. and  A.  A. Carrotti.  Municipal Refuse with 2% and 4% Addition of
    Four Plastics:  Polyethylene,  Polyurethane, Polystyrene, and Polyvinyl Chloride.
    In: Proceedings  of 1972 National  Incinerator Conference.  The American Society
    of Mechanical Engineers,  1972.  p.230-244.
                                         42

-------
10.  Kaiser, E. R.  The Incineration of Bulky Refuse.  In:   Proceedings  of 1966
     National Incinerator Conference.  The American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,
     1966.  p.39-48.
11.  Newman, L. L. and W. H.  Ode.  Peat, Wood, and Miscellaneous Solid  Fuels.   In:
     Mark's Standard Handbook for  Mechanical  Engineers,  Baumeister,  T.  (ed.).
     7th ed. New York, McGraw-Hill  Book Company,  1967.   Chapter 7,  p.19.
12.  MacKnight, R. J. and J.  E.  Williamson.  Incineration:   General  Refuse Incinera-
     tors.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Danielson,  J.  A.  (ed.). 2nd  ed.
     OAWM, OAQPS, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
     N.  C. AP-40.  May 1973.   p.446.
13.  Steam, Its Generation and Use.  37th ed. New York,  the Babcock  and Wilcox
     Company, 1963.  Appendix 3-A4.
14.  The Ralph M. Parsons Company.   Solid Waste Disposal  System,  Chicago.  Vol.  II
     Study Report Appendices.  Prepared for Bureau of  Engineering,  Department of
     Public Works, City of Chicago.  May 1973.
15.  Shigehara, R. T., R. M.  Neulicht, and W. S.  Smith.   Validating  Orsat Analysis
     Data from Fossil Fuel-Fired Units.  Emission Measurement  Branch,  ESED, OAQPS,
     U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park,  N.  C.  June  1975.
                                       43

-------
         VALIDATING ORSAT ANALYSIS DATA FROM FOSSIL-FUEL-FIRED UNITS
              R.  T. Shigehara, R. M.  Neulicht,  and W.  S.  Smith
 INTRODUCTION
      In  the  September 11, 1974 Federal  Register.1   a  new reference method
 for calculating  the pollutant emissions from fossil fuel-fired steam -
 generating units of more than 250 million  Btu/hr  heat input was proposed.
 This  proposed  method is based on the law of conservation of mass and energy
 and utilizes oxygen (02) concentration  to  compensate  for excess or dilution
 air.   Recently, another method has  been published3 that uses the same prin-
 ciple, except  that carbon dioxide (C02) concentration is used to adjust for
 excess or dilution air.
      The validity of both methods relies heavily  on the accuracy of either
 the 02 or C02  measurement.   Therefore,  it  is desirable to have some criteria
 for validating the data as  soon as they are obtained  in the field.  Since,
 in many cases, both 02  and  C02 measurements are obtained from Orsat analyses,
 guidelines are given for validating  the data from these analyses.
 C02-02 RELATIONSHIP
      Since air is used  for  the combustion  process,  the law of conservation
 of mass demands  that:
                         %Q2 + FQ %C02 = 20.9                           (1)

 where:  %02  =  02 content by volume (expressed  as  percent), dry basis
       %C02  =  C02 content by volume  (expressed as  percent), dry basis
         FQ  =  fuel  factor;  depends on the  type of fuel burned
       20.9  =  02 content in air by volume  (expressed  as percent), dry basis.
Published in Stack Samnlinr Mews 1(2): 21-2r, Aunust l°7fi.
                                   44

-------
Solving for F , we obtain:
          20.9 - %09
     Fo '    %C0
The factor F  is mainly a function of the hydrogen (H)  to carbon (C) ratio
in the fuel.   At zero percent excess air (i.e., when fuel is burned com-
pletely with stoichiometric amount of air), Equation 2 simplifies to:
             20.9
     F  =
          <%CVult
where (^Mult is the ultimate C02 or the maximum C02 concentration that
the dry flue gas is able to attain.  Given the ultimate analysis of the fuel
being burned, this value can be calculated by using the following equation:

UCO )    = _ 0-321 K (100) _____   ,4)
^Vult   1.53 %C + 3.64 %H + 0.57 %S + 0.14 %N - 0.46 %0       ^'
where %C, %H, %S, %N, and %0 are the percent by weight of carbon, hydrogen,
sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, respectively, obtained from the ultimate
analysis .
     Equations 1 through 4 can be used to check Orsat data or other analyses
of C02 and Op that have been adjusted to a dry basis.  The process simply in-
volves comparing F  values calculated from Orsat analyses (Equation 2) with
F  values calculated from the ultimate analyses of the fuels being burned
(Equations 3 and 4).  Alternatively, a graphical approach may be used.  With
C02 as the abscissa and 02 as the ordinate on arithmetic paper (see Figure 1),
a straight line drawn between 20.9% 02 and the ultimate C02 calculated from
the ultimate analysis (Equation 4) represents Equation 1.  The Orsat analysis
                                   45

-------
                    8       10       12
                     C02 (DRY), percent

Figure 1.  Graph construction for checking Orsat data.

                        46
14       16       18       20

-------
 is checked by plotting the data points on this graph.
     Equation 1 or 2 assumes complete combustion of the fuel.  If carbon
 monoxide (CO) is present in measurable quantities, the (L and C02 must be
 adjusted when using the equations as follows:
               = %C02 + %CO                                          (5)
               = %02 - 0.5 %CO                                       (6)

     Since the method of validating Orsat analyses is based on combustion
of fossil fuel and dilution of the gas stream with air, this method will not
be applicable to sources that (1)  remove C02 (e.g., sources that use wet
scrubbers) or 02> or (2)  add 02 and N2 in a proportion different from that
of air or (3) add C02 (e.g., cement kilns).
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE FQ FACTORS AND ULTIMATE C02'S
     When ultimate analyses of the fuel being burned are not available,
averages may be used.  Table I summarizes F  factors and ultimate C02's and
their averages for various type fuels based on ultimate analyses reported in
the literature. "    Some of the average F  factors and (%C02) ,.  were cal-
culated by use of a small number of samples.  It is recommended, therefore,
that the data be updated by users as more information becomes available.  The
manner in which these averages can be used to validate Orsat data will  be ex-
plained later.
FQ and ULTIMATE C02 TOLERANCES
     As mentioned earlier, the purpose for the 02 or CXL measurements is
primarily to adjust the pollutant concentrations for dilution air.  In
                                    47

-------
                            Table  I   FQ  Factors for Fossil Fuels3
             Literature
Fuel type      source
Number of    Average
 samples       F0
rn *
LU;
2ult
         Maximum Deviation, %
Coal
Anthracite


Overall avg.
Bituminous




Overall avg.
Lignite


Overall avg.
Oil
Crude

Residium
Distillate
Overall avg.
Gas
Natural

Overall avg.
Propane
Overall avg.
Butane
Overall avg.

6
7
8

8
9
10
11
12

8
6
16


7
14
14
14


15
6

15

15


3
1
3

13
38
13
39
26

1
1
198


1
6
4
2


4
3

2

2


1.0786
1.0525
1.0671
1.0699
1.1202
1.1407
1.1336
1.1450
1.1435
1.1398
1.0779
1.0791
1.0761
1.0761

1.3628
1.3561
1.3280
1.3464
1.3465

1.7594
1.7349
1.7489
1.5095
1.5095
1.4791
1.4791

19.38
19.86
19.59
19.53
18.66
18.32
18.44
18.25
18.28
18.34
19.39
19.37
19.42
19.42

15.34
15.41
15.74
15.52
15.52

11.88
12.05
11.95
13.85
13.85
14.13
14.13




2.9 2.3





3.6 4.5



2.8 2.8





2.9 4.1



1.8 2.9

1.2 1.2

0.9 0.9
a _. . ...
                           70°F, 29.92 in. Hg, and 0% excess air.

                                            48

-------
evaluating the effect of the inaccuracy of the measurement on the final
result, it is important to consider not only the 02 and C02 relationship,
but also the level of their concentrations.  An explanation follows.
     The adjustment factors for dilution air are:
                      20.9 - KQ
                    =
                'do   20.9 - %02
                       KC
                Fdc = ICO^                                           (8)
where:  FdQ and Fd  = adjustment factors for dilution air based on Op and
                      C02> respectively
          KQ and K  = reference 02 and C02 concentrations, respectively
       %02 and %C02 = percent by volume of 02 and COp, respectively, dry basis
               20.9 = percent by volume of 02 in air, dry basis.
     The relative errors introduced in the adjustment factors by inaccuracies
of the 02 and C02 measurement can be approximated by the following equations
(also shown graphically in Figure 2):
                 do   20.9 -
                      d(25C09)
                Edc = --
where:  Edo and E.  = relative errors introduced in the adjustment factors
                      based on Op and CO^, respectively, percent
                                     49

-------
0        2       4        6        8      10       12
                            LEVEL OF C02 OR 02, percent
Figure 2.  Relative errors resulting from inaccurate CO2 or C>2 measurements.
                                      50
16      18

-------
 d(%02) and d(%C02)  = deviation  from the true value  of  02 and  C02,  respec-
                      tively,  percent by volume.
      If d(%02)'s  and d(%C02)'s  can  be determined  or estimated,  Figure  2
 can  be valuable  in  making  decisions  or evaluations.  For example,  if the
 C02  level  is  about  12 to 14%, Fyrites* that  are capable of measuring C02 to
 within 0.5% would be adequate for making  Fdc  calculations.  If  the C02 con-
 centration  is down  at the  2% level,  however,  it can be seen that to achieve,
 for  example, a 5% accuracy, a measurement to  within 0.1% C02 is required.
 Thus,  Orsats With burettes capable of measuring to within 0.1%  C02, not
 Fyrites, should be  used.
     To estimate  the  tolerances of FQ  and the ultimate C02 for a desired
 accuracy of Ed(J or  Edc> the following  relationship is helpful:

                                                                     (11)

     Equation 11   shows that the tolerance of FQ or (%C02)  lt is the sum of
 Edo and Edc'  With  the understanding that Edo and Ed  can  be a range of plus
or minus values,   however, the tolerance of FQ or (%C02)ult  must be  limited to
the same magnitude of Edo or Edc to ensure that EdQ  or Edc  will  be  less than
that magnitude.    For example, to limit Ed(J or Edc to +_ 5%,  F  or (%COJ
must also be limited to + 5%.
PROCEDURE
     Based on the previous  discussion, the following procedure can  be
established for  validating  Orsat analysis data:
dFo
Fo
d(%co2)ult
(%co2)ult
d(X02)
20.9 - %02
d(%C02)
%co2
= -

100
*  Trade name; not to be considered an endorsement.
                                    51

-------
     1 .  Decide  tolerances  for E.  or  E.  .
     2.  If ultimate  analysis  of fuel  being burned is available, calculate
FQ using Equations  3  and  4  or  (*C°2^ult using Equation 4.  Otherwise, use
average values from Table I.   Then calculate the limits of tolerance for
FQ or  (^C02^ulf   For  examPle>  lf a - 5% tolerance is desired, the tolerance
limits would be 0.95 and  1.05  times the calculated F, or (% COp) ult.   Con-
struct graphs as in Figure  1,  using these tolerance limits.
     3.  To compare field Orsat data, calculate FQ, using Equation 2,  or
plot the data points on the graph.  Values beyond the established tolerance
levels should be rejected and  the analysis run over.
     If average values, rather than the ultimate analysis of the fuel  being
burned, serve as the basis  of  comparison, it should be understood that there
may be exceptions.  If repeated Orsat analyses, including a double-check of
the Orsat apparatus and analyses run by another person, consistently yield
values that are rejected, the  average values should be considered suspect
and the Orsat analyses accepted.
     A graphical nomograph  technique using a +_ 5% tolerance level and  average
values from Table  I is shown in Figure 3.
SUMMARY
     For any given fuel burned with air, a relationship between 02 and C02
must exist.  This  relationship can be used to advantage to validate Orsat
analysis data.  On the basis of ultimate analysis or average values of F  or
(%C02) lt calculated from data in the literature, a procedure has been pre-
sented for validating  Orsat analysis  data.
                                       52

-------
21E 	 £t

20 :

19 :
1 R
17
16
15
14
„
12
i
s. n
^
K
s 10
CM
O

8
7

6

5

4

3

2

~^~~

— •••
I ~
\ —
~ __
£1
20

19

18
"
E_ -|«
^ 	 — —
E_ -|
\- -i
^ 	 — ^
= v -1
E Vvx ANTHRACITE. LIGNITE -
- ^tfx —
	 vv —
= BITUMINOUS '^Vv OIL -
E~ ^b^ BUTANE =
— — ^^OC "^URAL GAS —
E- \ -E
E =
•^^•~> —
— —
r z
- 	 ^
^^^
= 	 ~
— —
— -
• —
__ -
15
14
13
12
11

10

9

8
7
6

5

4

3

2

1
r 3.
Figure 3.  Nomograph for checking Orsat data ± 5% in Edo or
                        53

-------
REFERENCES
     1.  Federal Register, Proposed Emission Monitoring and Performance
Testing Requirements for New Stationary Sources, 39:177, Part II
(September 11, 1974).
     2.  Shigehara, R. T., Neulicht, R. M., and Smith, W. S., "A Method
for Calculating Power Plant Emission Rates," Stack Sampling News, July,
1973, Volume 1, Number 1, p. 5-9.
     3.  Neulicht, R. M., "Emission Correction Factor for Fossil Fuel-
Fired Steam Generators:  C02 Concentration Approach," Stack Sampling News,
February, 1975, Volume 2, Number 8, p. 6-11.
     4.  DeVorken, H., Chass,  R. L., and  Fudurich, A. P., "Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual," APCD,  County of Los Angeles  (1972), p. 96.
     5.  North American Combustion Handbook, North American Manufacturing
Company, Cleveland (1965), p.  48.
     6.  Perry, John H., ed.,  Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw
Hill Book Company, N. Y.  (1963), p. 9-3.
     7.  North American Combustion Handbook, North American Manufacturing
Company, Cleveland (1965), p.  13.
     8.  Steam, The  Babcox and Mil cox  Company,  New York  (1963), p. 2-10.
     9.  Analysis of Tipple  and Delivered Samples of Coal, U. S.  Dept. of
Int.,  U. S.  Bureau of Mines,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Publication No. USBMRI
7588  (1972).
     10.  U.  S.  Dept.  of Interior,  U.  S.  Bureau  of Mines,  Washington, D. C.,
Publication  No.  USBMRI  7490  (1971).
                                     54

-------
     11.   U.  S.  Dept.  of Interior,  U.  S.  Bureau  of Mines, Washington,  D.  C.,
Publication No.  USBMRI 7346 (1970).
     12.   U.  S.  Dept.  of Interior,  U.  S.  Bureau  of Mines, Washington,  D.  C.,
Publication No.  USBMRI 7219 (1969).
     13.   U.  S.  Dept.  of Interior,  U.  S.  Bureau  of Mines, Washington,  D.  C.,
Publication No.  USBMRI 6792 (1966).
     14.   North  American Combustion Handbook,  North America-Manufacturing
Company,  Cleveland (1965), p.  31.
     15.   North  American Combustion Handbook,  North America Manufacturing
Company,  Cleveland (1965), p.  35.
                                     55

-------
             A GUIDELINE FOR  EVALUATING COMPLIANCE TEST RESULTS
                    (Isokinetic Sampling Rate Criterion)
                              R. T. Shigehara
               Emission Measurement Branch, ESED, OAQPS, EPA
Introduction
     The sampling rate used in extracting a particulate matter sample
is important because anisokinetic conditions can cause sample concentra-
tions to be positively or negatively biased due to the inertial effects
of the particulate matter.  Hence, the calculation of percent isokinetic
(I) is a useful tool for validating particulate test results.  Section 6.12
of the recently revised Method 5  states, "If 90 percent <_ I ^IIQ percent,
the results are acceptable.   If the results are low in comparison to the
standard and I is beyond the  acceptable range, or, if I is less than
90 percent, the Administrator may opt to accept the results."
     This guideline provides  a more detailed procedure on how to use
percent isokinetic  to accept  or reject test results when the sampling rate
is beyond the acceptable range.  The basic approach of the procedure is to
account for the inertial effects of particulate matter and to make a
                                                                    2
maximum adjustment  on the measured particulate matter concentration.   Then,
after comparison with the emission standard, the measured particulate matter
concentration is categorized  (1) as clearly meeting or exceeding the
emission standard or  (2) as  being  in a  "gray area" zone.  In the former
category, the test  report  is  accepted;  in the latter, a retest should
be done because of  anisokinetic  sampling conditions.
Procedure
      1.  Check or calculate  the  percent  isokinetic  (I) and the particulate
Published  in  Source Evaluation Society Newsletter  2(3), August 1977
                                       56

-------
matter concentration (c ) according to the procedure outlined in Method 5.
Note that c  must be calculated using the volume of effluent gas actually
sampled (in units of dry standard cubic feet,  corrected for leakage).
Calculate the emission rate (E), i.e. convert  c  to the units of the
standard.  For the purposes of this guideline, it is assumed that all
inputs for calculating E are correct and other specifications of Method 5
are met.
     2.  Compare E to the standard.  Then accept or reject cg using the
criteria outlined below.  (A summary is given  in Table I):
          a.  Case 1 - I is between 90 and 110 percent.  The concentration
c  must be considered acceptable.  A variation of ± 10 percent from 100
percent isokinetic is permitted by Method 5.
          b.  Case 2 - I is less than 90 percent.
               (1)  If E meets the standard, cg should be accepted, since
c  can either be correct (if all particulate matter are less than about 5
micrometers in diameter) or it can be biased high (if larger than 5
micrometer particulate matter is present) relative to the true concentration;
one has the assurance that cg is yielding an E which is definitely below
the standard.
               (2)  If E is above  the standard, multiply cg by the factor
(1/100) and recalculate  E.  If, on the one hand, this adjusted E is still
higher than the  standard, the adjusted cg should be accepted; a maximum
adjustment which accounts for the  inertial effects of particulate matter
has been made and E still exceeds  the standard.  On the other hand, if the
                                      57

-------
adjusted E is  lower  than the standard,  a  retest  should be done.
     c.  Case  3  -  I  is  greater than  110 percent.
         (1)   If E exceeds  the standard,  cg  should  be accepted, since
c$ can either  be equal  to the true concentration or biased low relative
to it; one has the assurance that E  is  definintely  over the standard.
         (2)   If E is below the standard, multiply  c  by the factor
(1/100) and recalculate E.   If, on the  one hand, this adjusted E is still
lower than the standard,  the adjusted cg  should be  accepted; a maximum
adjustment which accounts for the inertial effects  of particulate matter
has been made and E  still meets the  standard.  On the other hand, if the
adjusted E exceeds the  standard, a retest should be done.
                      Table  I.  Summary of Procedure
            Case
                   90 - 110
                                       Category
                            Decision
                                                            Accept
                    < 90
                   >  110
E < Em. Std.
                                          Ead1  > Em.  Std
Cgd/100)-*- Eadi <_ Em.  Std.
E > Em.  Std.
                               cs(I/100)->  Ead. <  Em. Std,
                                                           Accept
                             Accept
 Retest
•      -
 Accept
                            Accept
                                    58

-------
Summary
     A procedure for accepting or rejecting particulate matter test
results based on percent isokinetic has been outlined.  It provides a
mechanism for accepting all data except where anisokinetic sampling
might affect the validity of the test results.  This procedure is one
of several useful  tools for evaluating testing results.
References
     1.  Method 5 - Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources.  Federal  Register.  42_(160):41776-41782, August 18, 1977.
     2.  Smith, W. S.,  R. T. Shigehara, and W. F. Todd.  A Method for
Interpreting Stack Sampling Data.  Stack Sampling News.  1(2):8-17,
August 1973.
                                     59

-------
                                    TECHNICAI REPORT DATA
                            (Mi-asc read Instruction* 
-------