vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/7-78-178
September 1978
Electrified Bed
Evaluation
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
1-1 T r» r-i
-------
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 INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Government, 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-600/7-78-178
September 1978
Bed Evaluation
by
William Piispanen, Robert M. Bradway, and Verne Shortell
GCA/Technology Division
Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
Contract No. 68-02-1487
Program Element No. EHE624A
EPA Project Officer: Dale L Harmon
uiustrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The report gives results of an evaluation of a prototype electrified bed
(EFB) particulate collection device. The 500 cftn unit, which utilizes
mechanical and electrical mechanisms for collection, was installed at an
asphalt roofing plant during the tests. Fractional efficiency was de-
termined with upstream and downstream impactors. Total mass efficiency
was determined with glass fiber filter sampling trains. The mean inlet
loading was 0.2585 gr/dscf and the mean outlet loading was 0.0037 gr/dscf,
for an average efficiency of 98.57 percent. The inlet aerosol has a mass
median diameter of about 1 micrometer, with 90 percent less than 2 micro-
meters. Measurements of volatile hydrocarbons by on-site gas chromato-
graphy showed that the inlet concentration of approximately 100 ppm was
reduced by 20 to 50 percent by the device.
iii
-------
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
List of Figures V11
List of Tables vlii
ix
Acknowledgments
Sections
I Conclusions
2
II Recommendations
III Introduction 3
Background
o
Approach
IV Process Description *
V Equipment and Methods "
Testing Methods "
VI Results 1A
Preliminary Results 1^
Test Results 16
References ^4
Appendices
A Test Schedule and Plant Production Rate 25
B Comparative Size Distributions for Tests on EFB Unit 27
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
C Differential Size Distributions for Tests on EFB Unit 34
D Calculator Input/Output Data 41
E Impactor Data Calibration and Conversions 54
vi
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Schematic of EFB Unit of Bird & Son, Norwood, Mass. 6
2 EFB Plant Operation at Bird & Son, Norwood, Mass. 7
3 Placement and Design of Sampling Trains for EFB Control
Device Evaluation 10
4 Sampling Train Schematic, EFB Control Device Evaluation 12
5 Location of Sampling Points on EFB Control Device 13
6 Fractional Efficiencies of EFB Unit as Measured With
Andersen Impactor 20
7 Fractional Size Distribution of EFB Unit 22
A-l Test Schedule and Plant Production Rate 26
B-l Results of Run No. 5 28
B-2 Results of Run No. 6 29
B-3 Results of Run No. 7 30
B-4 Results of Run No. 8 31
B-5 Results of Run No. 9 32
B-6 Results of Run No. 10 33
C-l Results of Run No. 5 35
C-2 Results of Run No. 6 36
C-3 Results of Run No. 7 37
C-4 Results of Run No. 8 38
C-5 Results of Run No. 9 39
C-6 Results of Run No. 10 40
vii
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Results of Preliminary EFB Tests 15
2 Flue Gas Hydrocarbon Content, EFB Test No. 4 16
3 EFB Test Results 18
E-l Equivalent Aerodynamic Diameters for Tests 5 Through 10 55
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mr. Richard Graziano and Mr. Richard Lent of GCA/Technology Division pro-
vided necessary assistance in the sampling and analysis program. The
advice and information provided by Mr. Gene Riley of the Environmental
Protection Agency regarding sampling methods were greatly appreciated.
Personnel of EFB in cooperation with the plant operators of Bird & Son
provided the collection of plant operation data. Additional information
regarding the EFB unit was provided by Mr. Peter Zieve of E.F.B. Inc.,
Woburn, Mass.
ix
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The results of six tests conducted on the EFB pilot control device indicate
that the unit was an effective means of removing asphalt plant flue gas
emissions. The results of combined upstream and downstream testing with
impactors and total mass trains determined the efficiency of the unit to
be greater than 98 percent for particles less than 2 micrometers diameter.
It was determined that approximately 90 percent of the particles were less
than 2 micrometers in the inlet stream. The mean inlet grain loading was
determined as 0.2585 gr/dscf and the mean outlet loading was 0.0037 gr/dscf
which results in an overall efficiency of 98.57 percent.
The results of the volatile hydrocarbon analyses of the flue gas showed
that the inlet concentration of approximately 100 ppm was reduced up to
50 percent by the device.
While the results of these tests indicate a high efficiency of particulate
removal, the tests cannot be applied to other types of emissions since the
effect of the electrical and mechanical collecting mechanisms of the EFB
unit is unknown for emissions other than those tested. It should be noted
that the results of this testing program indicated a decreasing efficiency
of particulate removal for the larger diameter particles. It is unknown
if this is characteristic of the EFB unit or the result of abnormalities in
the test results due to bed losses in the outlet stream. While this anom-
ally had little effect on the results of this testing program, the problem
may be significant in other applications.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that further testing of a full scale operation be under-
taken to fully evaluate the use of the EFB unit in applications larger
than the pilot operation tested. A more extensive testing program such
as described in "A Method for the Determination of Particulate and Total
Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emissions From the Asphalt Roofing Industry"1 would be
required for a representative sampling of total emissions from a full
scale operation. Since the effect of a full scale operation would change
a number of critical variables related to the efficiency of the unit, it
would be necessary to implement an inclusive testing program to fully
evaluate the full scale operation of the EFB unit.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The work performed in this report is the result of the testing of a pilot
operation of a new control device for industrial emissions. The purpose of
the testing was to evaluate the efficiency of removal of particulate and
hydrocarbon emissions by the EFB Inc. control device at the Bird and Son
Asphalt Plant in Norwood, Mass. Testing was performed in a slip stream
ducted from the asphalt saturator hood duct. The data reported is not
applicable to emissions from the Bird and Son Plant but is used for the
purpose of evaluating the efficiency of the EFB control device.
APPROACH
The efficiency of the EFB control device was determined by comparison of
the inlet and outlet stream parameters. Particulate removal efficiency
was determined as a function of total mass and particle size. Hydro-
carbon content measurements from on-site analysis by gas chromatography
were compared for the inlet and outlet streams to provide an indication of
volatile organic reduction efficiencies. In addition, measurements of the
physical parameters of the inlet and outlet flow streams were made for
each test to provide necessary data for calculation of stream flow rates
and required sampling rates.
EFB is a registered trademark of EFB Inc. Woburn, Mass,
-------
A series of four preliminary tests was performed on 10/27, 11/2, 11/30,
and 12/1 to provide information for the preparation of the test plan. These
tests were designed to provide preliminary efficiency data and also to
test the proposed sampling methods. Problems with plant production rate
variability and also discrepancies in stream flow calculations were en-
countered and subsequently corrected. Test sampling rates and duration
were adjusted to provide representative data for the major testing program.
The original plan for the major testing program was to consist of seven
complete tests of the inlet and outlet streams with correlated plant pro-
duction data. This plan was modified to provide only six tests due to
excessive plant downtime on the last day. In addition, the original plan
was to include the condensation nuclei counter in the testing. This was
omitted due to a malfunction in the instrument. Other testing was as
scheduled except for a reduced number of fixed inorganic gas analyses.
-------
SECTION IV
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The EFB control device was installed as a pilot demonstration unit at the
Bird & Son Asphalt Plant in Norwood, Mass. The Bird & Son Plant manu-
factures asphalt-coated shingles, from which the fumes emitted from the
shingle coating process are collected via overhead hoods and vented into
the plant boiler (see Figure 1).
The EFB device is installed on a slipstream duct off the main duct. The
slipstream flow is controlled by a hand-operated damper, but no means of
monitoring the flow parameters is available.
This EFB control device consists of two beds of slate particles perpendicular
to the flow of the gas stream. Between the two beds of slate is a corona
charger (see Figure 1) which imparts an electrical charge to the gas
stream in order to charge the incoming particulate. The filter beds are
changed as needed from overhead hoppers (see Figure 2). The oil coated
bed particles are removed from below and subsequently disposed or recycled.
Beds were changed in half batches before or after testing but never during
the testing schedule.
For the purposes of this testing, monitoring of production rate was
done by recording the feet-per-minute rate of felt used in the shingle
production. This data was collected by personnel from EFB and relayed
to the GCA sampling team. Other data required for the testing such as
the physical parameters of the gas stream were collected by GCA per-
sonnel prior to each test.
-------
BOILER
FAN
=8
^-HAND OPERATED
DAMPER
y-CORONA
/.CHARGER
II KA
BEDS
I
FUME HOOD
\
SATURATOR
FAN
I
EXHAUST
Figure 1. Schematic of EFB unit of Bird & Son, Norwood, Mass,
-------
Figure 2. EFB plant operation at Bird & Son, Norwood, Mass.
-------
While data was collected from the Bird & Son Plant, the results of this
testing are not representative of any process emissions. The data col-
lected was for the purpose of evaluating the efficiency of the EFB control
device as a pilot demonstration unit.
-------
SECTION V
EQUIPMENT AND METHODS
The EFB control device which was installed as a pilot demonstration unit
at Bird & Son Co. was evaluated for the efficiency in removal of particu-
late and volatile organics from an asphalt fume stream. Total mass sample
and fractional-sized samples were collected before and after the control
device. In addition, samples of the particulate filtered gas were analyzed
for volatile organics. The test program included four preliminary tests
to evaluate the testing methods and to establish operating conditions.
With the results of these tests, a series of six tests was designed to pro-
vide data for the evaluation of the EFB unit.
TESTING METHODS
Four tests were conducted on October 27, November 2, November 30, and
December 1 on the EFB pilot unit at Bird & Son, Norwood, Mass. The
purposes of these tests were to (1) establish typical operating conditions
and parameters of the EFB unit; (2) to investigate the possibility of
anomalous weight gains of the sampling train filters, and (3) to evaluate
the testing methods.
Two types of sampling trains were used in the program. One train consisted
of two 42 mm glass fiber filters connected in a series of stainless steel
holders. The other train consisted of an Andersen 2000 impactor followed
by a 42 mm glass fiber filter in a stainless steel filter holder (See
Figure 3). Both types of trains included an air-tight vacuum pump, a dry
gas meter with a calibrated orifice, and a cylinder of indicating silica
-------
STANDARD
RAC
NOZZLES
SEPTUM FOR GAS CHROMOTOGRAPHY SAMPLES
2mm S.S. FILTER HOLDER
r
42mm S.S. FILTER
HOLDER
*
i i j;
' ^ ( 1
| ity in
^— ANDERSEN
IMPACTOR
NOTE'NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3. Placement and design of sampling trains for EFB control device evaluation
-------
gel (see Figure 4). A pair of magnehelics were used to monitor the
orifice pressure drop and static pressure.
The gas stream flow parameters were measured prior to each sampling with
a standard 3-foot pitot tube and a micromanometer. Temperatures were re-
corded with an in-stack, metal stem, dial thermometer. Pitot readings were
recorded for a total of 12 traverse points located according to Table 1.1
in Standards Methods of Performance for New Stationary Sources.2 Due to
the limited diameter and configuration of the ducting, it was necessary to
locate sampling ports at the best available locations (as diagrammed in
Figure 5). Results of pitot and temperature readings were used to
calculate the inlet and outlet stream flow rates and also to calculate
the required sample train nozzle sizes and sampling flow rates.
Sampling flow rates and times were such that impactor bounce would be
minimized while acquiring a representative sample of the gas stream.
Sampling time for the preliminary tests was between 90 and 180 minutes at
a single point in each of the inlet and outlet streams. The gravimetric
analyses of the train filters, substrates, and acetone washes were used
to calculate total grain loadings and fractional size distribution of
particles in the outlet and inlet streams. Efficiencies of particulate
removal for the EFB device were derived by comparing these results for
each test. Efficiency of removal of volatile organics was obtained by
comparison of gas chromatography analysis of inlet and outlet gases. In
addition, the inlet and outlet flue gases were analyzed by Orsat analyzer
for fixed gas composition and the moisture content of the gas was determined
gravimetrically from the silica gel cylinder in each train.
11
-------
SAMPLING PROBE
SILICA
GEL
THERMOMETERS
CALIBRATED
ORIFICE
Lif-
MA6NEHELICS
FLOW
ADJUSTMENT
VALVES
$=C
DRY GAS
METER
•EXHAUST
AIR TIGHT
PUMP
TO SCALE
Figure 4. Sampling train schematic, EFB control device evaluation
-------
36-
•32.5-
INLET
SAMPLING
POINTS
10.5-
\
EFB
UNIT
7 T
9" 9"
i i
32'
OUTLET
SAMPLING
POINTS
Figure 5. Location of sampling points on EFB control device
13
-------
SECTION VI
RESULTS
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
The results of the preliminary tests which were conducted on October 27,
November 2, November 30, and December 1 are summarized in Table 1.
These tests indicated that the sampling methods could be used for the
final testing program if a number of factors which contributed to the
variability of the data could be minimized.
The problems encountered during these tests included variations in stack
flow rates, and erratic fractional particulate catches. Flow rate varia-
tions were believed to be the result of the ducting design which produced
nonuniform flows and resulted in erroneous pitot readings. At the re-
commendation of GCA, the ducting was redesigned to provide a more uniform
and representative stream for velocity traverses. It was also suspected
that there was some leakage through the unit which was corrected by EFB
personnel.
The leakage in the system also contributed to the erratic fractional
catches in the outlet stream. Particles caught in the outlet sampling
trains were examined by microscopity and determined to be slate particles
from the bed. This problem was remedied by EFB personnel prior to the
major testing program.
The anticipated problem of anomalous weight gains by the filters was not
encountered during this testing. The inlet filters did present a problem
if the sampling time was such that the filters were saturated with
liquid droplets. It was necessary to limit the inlet trains sampling
14
-------
Table 1. RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY EFB TESTS
Test
No.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Sample
train
Impactors
Filters
Impactors
Filters
Impactors
Filters
Impactors
Filters
Inlet
T
stk
(°F)
-
140
145
145
134
134
140
140
Qstk
(acfm)
-
285
243
243
365
365
439
439
Grain
loading
(gr/dscf )
-
0.0379
0.2368
0.2119
0.4105
0.2604
0.1910
0.1387
Outlet
T
stk
(°F)
112
112
125
125
107
107
104
104
Qstk
(acfm)
204
204
413
413
540
540
522
522
Grain
loading
(gr/dscf)
0.0048
0.0004
0.0134
0.0281
0.0086
0.0083
0.0164
0.0125
Efficiency
(percent)
-
98.94
94.34
86.74
97.90
96.81
91.41
90.27
-------
time to 90 minutes or less in order to prevent loss of liquid droplets
emissions from the filters.
Gas chromatography analyses of the inlet and outlet gas streams were in-
cluded in preliminary Test No. 4. Gas samples were taken with a 5 ml
gas tight syringe and analyzed for total volatile hydrocarbon and methane
content. An AID Model 511 gas chromatograph with a 1 ml heated gas
sampling loop and flame ionization detector was used for analysis. The
results of Test No. 4 are reported in Table 2.
Table 2. FLUE GAS HYDROCARBON CONTENT,
EFB TEST No. 4
Total hydrocarbon Methane
Sample (ppmv)a (pprnv)"5
Inlet 119.97 20.43
Outlet 83.40 11.47
Q
3 ft s.s. open capillary.
6 ft x 1/8 in. s.s. porapak Q.
The results of this test indicated that the EFB unit was also capable of
removing volatile hydrocarbon emissions and resultingly the testing
method was included in the major test program.
One additional problem encountered during preliminary testing was the cor-
relation of testing schedule to the production rate. This problem was
remedied by the assistance of EFB personnel who agreed to check line speed-
production rate at regular intervals during the testing of the EFB unit.
This data was not available during the preliminary tests but was made avail-
able for the major testing program of tests 5 to 10 (See Appendix A.)
TEST RESULTS
On the basis of the information obtained during the preliminary testing,
a test plan was developed to evaluate the efficiency of the EFB control
device. A total of six tests were proposed which included total mass
16
-------
emission analysis, fractional size distribution analysis and volatile
organics analysis.
Testing took place from February 21 through February 24 with a total of
six tests completed. Sampling included the total mass filter trains,
Andersen Impactor trains, and gas chromatography analysis. In addition,
velocity traverses were performed to obtain the necessary data to calcu-
late the flue gas flow rates and the required sampling conditions.
Total Mass Testing - The results of the velocity traverses, gas chroma-
tography analyses, and total particulate mass testing are included in
Table 3. The efficiency of particulate removal was determined from the
calculated grain loadings based on the gravimetric analysis of the filters
and train washes from the total mass trains. The average efficiency for
the six tests was 98.02 percent. If the low efficiency results of Test
No. 5 are eliminated, the efficiency of total particulate removal was
98.56 percent and the resulting mean inlet grain loading is 0.2585
gr/dscf with a mean outlet grain loading of 0.0037 gr/dscf.
It is unknown why the grain loadings of Test 5 are significantly higher
than the other tests. It is possible that the lower efficiency of Test 5
was due to a longer run time of the total mass trains. The inlet filter
appeared saturated and resultingly the efficiency may be lower due to
sample loss. Tests of the inlet streams for Nos. 6 to 10 were run for
shorter time periods to minimize this loss.
*
The basis for elimination is that for Tests 5 to 10 the standard devia-
tion (6) of the inlet was calculated as 0.03127 with a mean of 0.26719,
and for the outlet 0 was 0.00395 for a mean of 0.00528. The calculated
grain loadings of Test 5 exceeded "1 9" in both the inlet and outlet,
with P(z >_ 1.39) = 0.0823 for the inlet and P(z _> 1.96) = 0.025 for the
outlet. P(z 21 x - yi) is probability of occurrence.
17
-------
Table 3. EFB TEST RESULTS
oo
Test
No . Date
5 2/21
6 2/22
7 2/22
8 2/23
9 2/23
10 2/24
Sample
location
\ Inlet
f Outlet
i Inlet
'Outlet
llnlet
'Outlet
\ Inlet
/Outlet
\Inlet
/Outlet
llnlet
/Outlet
Q
(scfm)
391.8
416.6
385.0
445.9
390.3
454.1
372.6
471.7
377.7
472.4
295.4
374.0
T
stk
142
113
140
111
136
103
145
113
135
111
129
104
*5
Moisture
(percent)
2.0
1.6
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.6
2.4
1.8
2.7
1.9
Total
hydrocarbon
(ppmv)
99
87.1
97.1
78
-
144
73
—
107
56
Methane
(ppmv)
b
n.m.
14.1
6.8
4.5
-
b
n.m.
b
n.m.
-
20.5
14.3
Grain
loading
(gr/dscf)
0.31061
0.01301
0.21779
0.00391
0.25002
0.0031
0.27630
0.00236
0.26693
0.00357
0.28151
0.00572
Particulate
efficiency
(percent)
95.81
98.20
98 . 76
99.15
98.66
97.97
1From total mass trains results.
No measurement available.
-------
Gas Chroma tography Testing
Table 3 also includes the results of gas chromatography analyses of the
flue gas for tests on each of the days. The results of these tests show
that the inlet flue gas volatile hydrocarbon concentration was approximately
100 ppm and this was reduced by 20 to 50 percent by the EFB device.
With regard to this reported range in this efficiency, it should be noted
that Test 8 and Test 10 used heating tapes around the outlet syringe
sampling septum to equalize the temperature of the inlet and outlet sample
streams. Temperatures of the gas streams were monitored and the heat tape
output adjusted as necessary. This design was included to minimize the
problem of organics condensing on the septum inner surface which could
result in an abnormally-high total hydrocarbon value. Any differences in
sample volumes between inlet and outlet would also be normalized by this
modification. The reason for the variation in reported values for hydro-
carbons is unknown but it would be likely to conclude that the 50 percent
efficiency found in Tests 8 and 10 were more representative of the organic
removal efficiency of the EFB device.
Fractional Size Testing
The results of the Andersen Impactor testing for fractional size distri-
butions and efficiencies is available in tabular form in Appendix D and
is presented graphically in Appendices B and C for each of Tests 5 through
10. Appendix C includes the differential size distribution curves for the
inlet and outlet impactor tests. These graphs represent the relations
between the particle mean geometric diameters and the differential mass
(PI/100 ) ^m
distribution, dm/d Log D (dm/d log D = .^ p - \_(iog D ) where PI
\ s+1/
percent mass collected on stage s, Cm is total mass collected on stages,
D is DSO for stage s).3 From these graphs, the fractional efficiencies
can be calculated for specific mean geometric diameters. Figure 6 rep-
resents the compilation of these calculations for 6 diameters of Tests 5
through 10.
19
is
-------
LE8EMO
S TEST 9 TTEST 8
X TEST t BTEST 9
• TEST T A TEST 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER,^*
Figure 6. Fractional efficiencies of EFB unit as measured with
Andersen impactor.
20
-------
With the exception of Test 5, the results indicate an efficiency of
greater than 99 percent for particles of approximately 1 urn mean geometric
diameter. It is unknown why the efficiency decreases for the larger par-
ticle sizes. It is possible that the increase in outlet particle size
distribution was the result of loss from the slate bed or from gaseous
adsorption by the first stages in the impactor. Another possibility is
that probe and expansion chamber wall losses may alter the values obtained
4
for the larger particle sizes. A third possibility is that particles in
the device may coagulate due to either induced dipole moments or by
kinimatic coagulation.
Regardless of this anomaly, the overall distribution of the inlet aerosol
was shown to consist of 50 percent of the particles with less than 2 micro-
meters mass median diameter. This information is presented graphically
in Figure 7 for Tests 5 through 10. The data presented in Figure 7
was obtained from the graphs of particle size distribution included in
Appendix B.
Figure 7 includes data from only the inlet streams. The graphs in
Appendix B depict the outlet distributions with probe fractions in-
*
eluded and excluded in the calculations. This information is presented
to demonstrate the problem in probe losses for the outlet stream sam-
pling. The problem of probe losses is that the particulate collected
is of unknown size distribution and cannot be included in fractional
distributions. Probe losses can be minimized by the use of straight
nozzles, but in sampling situations which do not permit this orientation
the use of curved nozzles is acceptable. For testing the EFB device,
it was necessary to use the curved nozzles (RAC sampling train nozzles)
*
See Appendix D for reported proble percent used in calculation.
21
-------
too
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
T T
5
u
I
X
o
g
Ul
20
10
9
7
6
5
4
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.2
(98.4)
V
INLET RUN 5
INLET RUN 6
INLET RUN 7
INLET RUN 8
INLET RUN 9
INLET RUN 10
O.I
L
J_
_L
J_
JL
9 10 19 20 3O 40 90 6O 70 60 90 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
96
Figure 7. Fractional size distribution of EFB unit
22
-------
due to the duct orientation and size. The use of these nozzles also
permitted more accurate control of train flow rates and isokinetic
sampling rates. The problem of probe losses was only appreciable in the
outlet stream and not the inlet stream. It is possible that the electrical
charge imparted by the EFB unit on the particles may affect the probe
and wall losses of the impactor. Further testing would have been re-
quired to check this hypothesis.
The probe fractions and any wall adhering particles were presumably col-
lected by the final rinses of the trains. The solvent frequently used
for sampling train rinses is acetone. In this testing program "Distilled
in Glass" grade acetone was used for all tests. In addition, one test
included a second wash of "DIG" methylene chloride as a check for the
efficiency of the "acetone only" wash. The resulting gravimetric dif-
ference between acetone only and acetone plus methylene chloride washes
amounted to 1.99 percent for the inlet stream and 0.4 percent for the
outlet stream. These figures represent a minor degree of error result-
ing from use of acetone only as a train wash.
Other possible sources of error in testing would include the problem of
weighing the oily filters and substrates which were sometimes obtained from
the inlet testing. Filters or substrates which appeared oily were weighed
on pre-tared, nonporous weighing papers. The possibility of volatile
losses was a problem which was not investigated in this testing.
The possibility that the sample data obtained was not a representative
sample should be considered since sampling was at a single point in
the stream. This was necessary due to the duct size and configuration.
Isokinetic sampling rate was maintained as close to ideal as possible to
minimize any size discrimination. Impactor flow rates were also maintained
around 0.4 acfm to minimize reentrainment of particles. Only in Test 5
was overloading of stages suspected as a problem. Tests 6 through 10 are
considered as representative sampling for the pilot operation as tested.
23
-------
Summary of Testing
The results of the six tests conducted on the EFB unit indicated that the
control device was 98 percent or greater in the efficiency of removal of
asphalt emissions of less than 2 urn aerodynamic diameter. The inlet aerosol
had a mass median diameter of approximately 1 urn with 50 percent of the
aerosol as less than 2 um diameter. Volatile organics in the inlet flue
gas were approximately 100 ppm with about 50 percent removal efficiency
by the EFB device. The larger particles in the flue gas do not appear to
be as efficiently removed, but the reason for this anomaly is unknown.
Our conclusion is that the EFB appears to be an effective means of collect-
ing emissions from asphalt saturators. A conventional venturi scrubber
would require at least 70 inches pressure drop to achieve similar efficien-
cies and would result in approximately eight times the operating costs of
the EFB as tested.
REFERENCES
1. Riley, C. A Method for the Determination of Particulate and Total
Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emissions from the Asphalt Roofing Industry.
EPA Report, unpublished.
2. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Code of Federal
Regulations, Method 1 of Appendix A, Part 60, Title 40.
3. Bradway, R.M. and R.W. Cass. Measurement Methods for Particle Size
Distribution. Measurements in Process Streams. 1976.
4. Gushing, K.M., G.E. Lacry, J.D. McCain, and W.B. Smith. Particle
Sizing Techniques for Control Device Evaluations: Cascade Impactor
Calibrations. EPA-600/2-76-280. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
5. Dennis, R. (ed.). Handbook on Aerosols. U.S. Energy Research &
Development Administration. TlO-26608. 1976.
6. Harris, D.B. Procedures for Cascade Impactor Calibration and Operation
in Process Streams. EPA-600/2-77-004.
7. Operating Instructions for Andersen Stack Sampling Equipment.
24
-------
APPENDIX A
TEST SCHEDULE AND PLANT PRODUCTION RATE
25
-------
TEST
. IH
, OUT
. tit
r
TIME 1200 1600
40O
300
i
N>
U
a- 200
Vt
too
« 7
Fl
1200 I6OO
OKTE
1200
TUCS
2/21/78
I6OO
8 •
?F
IO
1200 1600
_i_
JL
1200 1600
THUft
2/23/78
1200 1600
1600
Figure A-l. Test schedule and plant production rate
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPARATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
TESTS ON EFB UNIT
27
-------
100 i
90 l
80
TO
60
90
40
30
20
10
9
E 8
% 7
•c 6
i r
w
a
o
I
o
o
5
4
I
0.9
0.8
0.7
O.6
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
A A INLET RUN 5
O O OUTLET RUN 5
•---• OUTLET EXCLUDE
PROBE FRACTION
198.4)
S 10 15 20 X) 40 30 60 70 80 90 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
98
Figure B-l. Results of run No. 5
28
-------
100
90
80
70
60
90
40
30
20
10
9
E 8
* 7
K 6
u
a
2
<
o
K
til
5
4
I
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
A A INLET RUN 6
O O OUTLET RUN 6
• • OUTLET EXCLUDING
PROBE FRACTION
O.I
_L
J L
_L
J_
_L
_L
_L
S 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
98
Figure B-2. Results of run No. 6
29
-------
& A INLET RUN 7
O O OUTLET RUN 1
- -9 OUTLET EXCLUDING
PROBE FRACTION
8 10 19 20 90 40 50 60 70 80 90 95
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
98
Figure B-3. Results of run No. 7
30
-------
100 i
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
E
ui
2
<
o
£
UI
10
9
8
7
6
3
4
I
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
O.S
0.4
0.3
0.
A A INLET RUN 8
G O OUTLET RUN 8
•—-• OUTLET EXCLUOIN
PROBE FRACTION
S 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 8O 90 95
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
98
Figure B-4. Results of run No. 8
31
-------
A A INLET RUN 9
Q O OUTLET RUN 9
--• OUTLET EXCLUDING
PROBE FRACTION
O.I
90 40 50 60 70 80 an o«
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure B-5. Results of run No. 9
32
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
4O
30
o
-------
APPENDIX C
DIFFERENTIAL SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
TESTS ON EFB UNIT
34
-------
10
10
7
S
I
0.7
0.5
0.2
f 0.07
^ 0.06
4
0.02
0.01
O.OO7
O.OOS
0.002
0.001
INLET
OUTLET
i i i I
J—'
0.1 as as to t s 4 s r 10 to » «o so TO too
PARTICLE MEAN GEOMETRIC DIAMETER,/im
Figure C-l. Results of run No. 5
35
-------
1.0
07
0.5
0.2
0.1
O.O7
OtOS
*£ 0.02
>.
* O.OI
o
9 O.OO7
£ O.OOS
i
aooz
o.oo
a ooo
o.ooos
aooo2
aoooi
-I—r i i i i rn
INLET
OUTLET
0.1 o.t as as to s 3 4 9 T 10 to so 40» n> no
PARTICLE MEAN GEOMETRIC DIAMETER,/tn
Figure C-2. Results of run No. 6
36
-------
O.OO02 -
0.0001
0.1
as as 10 2 s « s r 10 eo so «o» TO wo
PARTICLE MEAN GEOMETRIC DIAMETER,;
Figure C-3. Results of run No. 7
37
-------
1.0
07 h
as
O.I
0.07
aos
o.oz
0.01
0.007
0.009
0.002
O.OOI
O.OOO7
0.0009
O.OO02
i i i > m
T—I I Mill
aoooi
0.1
JNLET
OUTLET
' ' '
I I I 1111
' i i i i
0.1 O3 a9 LO 2 545710 tO 30 40 90 70 100
PARTICLE MEAN GEOMETRIC DIAMETER,/im
Figure C-4. Results of run No. 8
38
-------
*
1.0
0.7 -
as
0.2
O.I
O.OT
0.09
0.02
0.01
O.OO7
0.005
OOO2
O.OOI
O.OOO7
00005
0.0002
O.OOOI
-| 1 1 I t I III
i—i i 11 m
INLET
OUTLET
i i i t
_! I 1 I I I I
O.I 0.2 as 0.3 10 2 3 4 5 r 10 20 30 40 SO 70 KX>
PARTICLE MEAN GEOMETRIC DIAMETER,/tm
Figure C--5. Results of run No. 9
39
-------
ft
r
^c
o"
f
^
i
1.0
07
0.5
0.2
0.1
O.OT
Q09
0.02
0.01
aoor
O.009
aooz
0.001
O.OOO7
0.0005
aooo2
aoooi
-I—I I I I I T|
T—I I I I III
INLET
OUTLET
L.
J.
L.
li
J » I I I I
o.i o.» as as 10 t 3 4 9 r 10 to » «» 10 no
PARTICLE MEAN GEOMETRIC DIAMETER,/ten
Figure C-6. Results of run No. 10
40
-------
APPENDIX D
CALCULATOR INPUT/OUTPUT DATA
41
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
>/>/ I
7f
RUN #
MW
Concentration (grains/ ft ) 0,
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm
Location
(grams)
Time
Vm
Avg. Ps (+"H00) "
i ^-
Avg. To (F)
STAGE
Probe 6^
Expander
Net weight
7o On
Stage
Size Cutoff
(lorn)
Size
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
(urn)
0
0.00*7
CH
0.00*7
f.7%
O.0071
0.0 HC
f/.ot
6.15
.///V7
O.TI
O./ll?
O.Ct
TOTAL
42
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE :
RUN #
1_A
Vm
stu
JLZ
f.sv
, . ,. 3N
Concentration (graLns/It )
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Ttn (F)
Location
E.,0 (grams)
Time
<$*.£
Avg. Ps (+"H00)
Avg. Tj (F)
l/Z.o
t&.o
STAG?'
i
_i
F i: one 6f
Ev pander
Net weight 7 Ou [Size Cutoff) %£ Stated | dm/d log D
0.06553
Geo. Mean
(lam)
0. 601 7f
i fZ^
7.72
i
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
RUN #
Vm
std
37.
/.*/
Concentration (grains/ft ) M
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Q.3Sl5frfe
Avg. Tm (F)
Location
(grams)
Time
Vm
Avg. Ps (+"H20)
Avg. Tj (F)
in* J
STAGE
Probe &
Expander
Net weight
O.6»2/7
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
7. ^Stated
Size
ft.*/
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
0
KJf
0.60399
0.00 /ff
95.
0.606*3
S.77
0,f/
O6/6YT
1.3*
71.1C
O.ft/13
Q'*-3$7/
/.*$
0*17
TOTAL
44
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
RUN #
std
Pb
7.M
/.
MW
Concentration (grains/ft ),
Avg-Pm (-"
O-3
Avg. Tm ( F)
72-
Location ^
(grams)
tj 3
Vm
. 3
Avg. Ps (+"H0) -
Avg.
(°F)
STAGE
Expander
Net weight
0-0
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
(tarn)
%
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
RUN #
Pb
/. £ y
MW
Concentration (grains/ft ) 0.2*730 Avg' Pm ^~"Hg^ /• Y
Avg. Tra
77
Location
£J,
IL^O (grams)
Vm
///.y
Avg. Ps (+"H20)
Avg.
n fr>;J />/^
STAiiK
Net weight
(on)
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
(pm)
Stated
Size
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
(M.m)
Expander
.o tm
0.00 III
6.3*
fO. 10
11.76
$vj
8.3J
0-13
o.ctott
3. ft
0.01111
77. VI
0.//S3J
TOTAL
0. H * 30
-------
ANDERSON IKPACTOR
DATE:
RUN #
1
SI.
Pb
MW
Concentration (grains/ ft )
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
y
O.3 g Of
Avg. Tm
Location
(grams)
/7
iiu
- 17X0
Vm
sy.
9,, T *
•£-
1
Avg. Ps (+"H20)
Avg.
TT
(*•>)
IS/
STACF. Net weight
L-;.. pander
0
J
04 II It
0-600*1
o.oooss
/» On
Stage
7/03
Size Cutoff
il!L
dm/d log D
Size
27./r
0.0607?
Geo. Mean
(M-m)
/a.?/
o.
JL&L
0.00 OTX
0.000 ft
0. 000 65
ml
0.000 if
o. Ooo 36
r
i
TOTAL
10.000 g?-
0. 01 S7/
IO.VTL
0 •&•
6.SC
/.oo
O.ooojf
47
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
RUN #
Vm
st
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
^ A? As
RUN #
Vni
std
. 2366
Pb
MW
Concc-ntration (grains/ft )
3773?
Avg' Pm
Qn
0-335$
Avg. Tm ( F)
Location
(grams)
Time
Vm
Avg. Ps (+"H00)
Avg. 13 ( F)
TT
1*0
STACK Net weight
Probe &
Expander
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
7o< Stated
Size
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
0
6. 00 ft?
0-00103
0.
00337
0.00
0.33
J^L
o.tosvt
0.35
9*36
0.00*71.
0.7*
o.oo
±22-
Ti.TC
S137
0-S7
IV3?
6.96770
/.Of
0.5^
0-6?
TO'L'AL
49
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
RUN #
Vm
std
SSJ
Pb
/.
MW
Concentration (grains/ft )Q QQ
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm ( F)
Loc a t i on
HLO (grams)
Time
Vm
Avg. Ps (+'^0)
Avg. ( F)
111.0
XT
STACK j Net weight
Probe (.*
Expand tT
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
(Mm)
Size
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
IS. 33
0.660SJ
1*7
A 060;?
Aft
0.060 CS
0.6661?
0.60030
a 00057
3.76
TOTAL
50
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
Vm
std
RUN # tf
,£_
Pb
3. //
MW
19. Yt
Concentration (grains/ft ) /^ /&/"l 0 Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
0. 373 /
Avg.
l.oca tion
rrt?^
"2°
(grams)
M./
TLtnt
^Lti
Vm
/IK*
Avg. Ps (+"H20)
,. 0
Avg
XT
STAGK
Net weight
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
(M-m)
%
-------
ANDERSON JMFACTOR
DATE:
RUN
Vni
std
51.19*3
Pb
I.II
MW
Concentration (grains/ft )
6, PCS 57
Avg. Pm (-"Hg)
Avg. Tm ( F)
Location
(grams)
Time
Vm
sa.
tr -
Avg.
(+"H20)
Avg.
(°F)
TT
/fo
STAGE
Net weight
(.qm)
Prci.c G
Expander
o.
% On
Stage
Size Cutoff
% Stated
Size
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
(tarn)
0
6.0*6 )f
27*
7.31
to.15
I6.lt
. 7/
7.37
0.660SO
5.0V
11.17
0.66 O CO
6./0
.^ I
?.?7
7.73
7.06
6.0607 C
0.55
6.006CI
0.7 /
ML
TOTAL
52
-------
ANDERSON IMPACTOR
DATE:
RUN #
Pb
/.35
MW
Concentration (grains/ ft ) rt,
A
,g. Pm (-"Hg) 0 £0
Avg, Tm
Location
tL^O (grams)
rime
.. /y;yr
Vm
Avg. Ps (+"H2C
Avg. T
. /
XT
SIAGT'
Net weight t % On jSize Cutoff
(gni)
Sta^e I
(M-m)
%< Stated
Size
dm/d log D
Geo. Mean
}'irc'l>u &
-/;p antler
jtrs
0.061} I
f.f/
0.
0.00 W>
C-Cf
0.00 9^50
0.6066$
1.01
0.7 *7&
o. iilto
o.C/
7.33
0.01
TOTAL
53
-------
APPENDIX E
IMPACTOR DATA CALIBRATION AND CONVERSIONS
Particle diameters reported are calculated according to the method
described by Seymour Calvert, Charles Lake, and Richard Parker, 1976,
Cascade Impactor Calibration Guidelines, EPA, IERL, EPA-600/2-76-118.
The results thus reported represent the "aerodynamic impaction diameters."
These particle diameters can be related to the classical aerodynamic
diameters by D = D. I——|2 where C is the Cunningham slip factor for
3 1 I \s I DO.
the aerodynamic diameter. The impaction diameter may also be calculated
as the Stokes1 diameter by
where C is the corresponding Cunningham slip factor for a particle of
US
the Stokes diameter D and p is the particle density (approximately equal
s
to No. 6 oil).
These calculations may be approximated by trial fittings or may be cal-
culated by a computer program. Table E-l contains the results of a
computer computation of the equivalent diameters. These results are
3
based on the assumed particle density of 0.99 g/cm . This data was pro-
vided by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
54
-------
TABLE E-l. EQUIVALENT AERODYNAMIC DIAMETERS FOR TESTS 5 THROUGH 10
TEST NO. 5 IN
•.fiiKt S-DIA HIM) /iKi'OMYMAMjr MA (UM) IMHACTION olA dl")
HtNDPY M|H t'r HNIJ^Y MID PT
<*.«?3»< 1 1 .MM ').19^ 1 I ,*3
Mjf! kf »Nf)RY'
IS. ^9 3
1 /. M^ 4,')8R
H. /•'•'. h. 771
3.» 12 * . b 1 ?
1.8?V 1.177
.5HS .437
TEST NO. 6
S-')1A (I|M> AF^'lllVM
f MID PT ' HNOHY
12.W32 id.e«>(i
H..-iMI h.M4]
J.fiMl if.«43
MIP PJ
1 ?.Mrt
J.S43
1.H19
IN
CLASSIC
AMTC ni» (UM)
MIO PT
H . i n f i
S.hiJ
3.632
1.6*1
,9ft?
8NORY "> 1 'I *>T
1 A. ,' <'•
ol-f-Hi >>.71'
1.263 l.«?0
.'i07 .^SH
JMOACT ION iH A (MM)
MMn,r Mf) Pf
in.P7? 1?.')74
4.C6S S.7H
2.950 3. 74<»
1.27» l.<»4?
.HA4 1.0S1
.44T
.414
TEST NO. 6 OUT
Cl
IS
^
tt
s
\
..Nimr
,<*M3
.•JH4
. flVJ
>t>1< |
.H14
. 1H1
. 77H
.041)
Mil) PT HNDBY ''ID PT
1^.403
j^.i-tV 'J.^'H;! l?.^^^
K.^/l '..73Lt w.l?^
b.'t)/1! 4.&67 S."i4«>
3,b'M ^.BOO 3.576
I.M/M 1.17S 1.S14
.VSS) .774 ,»1»3
,'5ik) .43H .S«?
HNPRY "in PT
1"..144
in.t!4 1?.7^H
•i.Hrt3 H.144
it.641 S.6K3
?.90^ i.643
1.261 1.914
.am 1.037
.40R .'-.IM
55
-------
TABLE E-l (continued).
TEST NO. 7 IN
Cl./^MC
MS" If. Ill 1 I IIM)
hMOHY,
1H.^h?
>•: . V S /
1. 175
.771
M1U PT MNIJRY MJO PT
^.h It
3.S«fc ?.791 3.S6ft
l.Hlb l.lf><» 1.807
.IHfl
TEST NO- 7 OUT
HNDBY M[0 PT
<. MO
1 .'
SIOMS-nlft ill"! A> uflOYMAMl
hNUKY Mil) PT PNOfcY
m.-)47 1S.110
i/.h 1 S ]/>.!*/ 4.Shfr
h. 1 1 H 7 .'H ?.691
I.l3n 1.^2 !.!?«
. 74ft .vlV . /41
ir n i A HIM)
urn PT
1 '. 1 Of»
7 .H?*!
5..13S
3.441
1.742
.91*.
T -pen I ON I.I A
PNDWY
is.sss
•). 741 1
ft . h .1 n
4 . S ? 0
?.79H
1 .?! 1
,8?n
IHMI
M 1 O Pi
*. m
4 . .1 17
b.a '»
3.^^b
1 . »4?
.^97
. /I H H
TEST NO. 8 IN
f" u I'll) IT MAM tf
< i UM- s-ii
HNDHY
I 0. 1 ^ti
h.y 14
V . M 7 J
la dirt)
MID PT
H.'.-TJ /
3.b7ll
l.BftU
• 1- "('DYNAMIC
HNUKY
1 n . i 4 *, ]
>i. H 7^
1.147
HJ» liJM) rwPftf'.T ION ^ 1 lv (i|"l
M1U P 1 UNIIHY Mil) PI
i^.s.i^ in!j?v n.r^i
«.Ti* T.O^H M.S/O
3.*-H1 ?!"?6S 3i7h«
. /S) <
TEST NO. 8 OUT
14
1J
''
4
?
\
SlIIKK^-l
HNDWY
.*«M
. if>'i
. 'i«d
. JO 1
. ^ j/3
.imvi
. >Z 1
. •» OS
1 I A (UM I
Mil) H(
J J .MS|
7. /I'M
b.i^'t
3 . J*' *t
l. nu
.fcVU
"
At-OUYNAM
-NDPY
1 A. VP7
W . .1 ] 7
f>. U 1
4.2/<*
? . h 1 ^
1 .091
.717
. .1
1 1 • I>IA
-------
TABLE E-l (continued).
TEST NO. 9 IN ~~ '
SlllKt S-D1 A
rINDPY
1S.H44
4.M44 1?
h. 707 H
4.S4? >>
V . 7M4 j
1 . 1*>S 1
. 7hh
.4.31
III")
MID Pf
.S^'l
.14h
• b^V
• 5b4
.t<0
A^ uilDYWA"! f
BNUBY
IS. 7*4
4.H44
h . 'l 7 1
i*.l,^4
.*. 771
I . ISO
'7-ftp.
.4?o
P 1 A ( UH )
win PT
1 ? . 4 S 7
1. 1 (IS
S.4W4
3,S4)
I . 79?
t*40
.""7?
IMPAI;TION o i »
MNOPY
If.. 00*
10.0?.'.
h . g?0
4,»,4U
?.«77
1 .?45
. M41
.440
(1JM)
Min PT
1 ,j . <- h»^
H.^fcH
S . ^> 3 1
3 . o ' 7
1 .103
1 .0^3,
,h4H
TEST NO. 9 OUT
'slOKHS-
HNUPY
4 . 4 H 7
4 . JbH
1 • I 1 fi
.733
. *» 1 ^
111* (111") BI-POOYNAMlr 014 (ll**l
Mil) PT MNDP.Y Min PT
1)0
1^.0117 4.434 ll.44f)
y.nni h.,^7 7.771
b.t44 ».33fc S.^67
3.41 1 ?.6SS 3.3^.3
1,/^h 1.110 1.717
.904 .729 .«9"*°
?.7ftO i.SOW
J.19S 1.11-0 ,
.807 .<"»?
.47« .h??
TEST NO. 10 IN
CLASSIC AFPODYNAM1C
HIM) AFwOliYMAMK HIA (IJM) INACTION 11 A (IHI
MMIJHY
1H.HII I
11.7SS
7.474
3.333
1.411
.437
. S 3 4
MIll-^T MNIlPY
IB
•V.hrt-, 7
«!?bO 3
?!l6m 1
1 . ISO
. /Ill
.70*
.430
.31*
.403
.03?
.V3S
"I'D PI
l*.79l
'>.<^ 16
t!??9
?. IS?
1 .144
.706
HNDRY M10 PT
1 p. 07A
1 1 . M44 1 S. 0^3
^'cpv h'hi^
3!4?R 4..3S3
1 .493 P.?*?
1 ,fl!4 1 t?30
.(SQO • '«ft
TEST NO. 10 OUT
ci
57
Af-»oiiYNAMic
)
1
s hi" (
WDN1
7 . I 4 7
0 . 7 1 h
7 . / 7 1
.1 '. H 3 1
.H47
S-IHA HIM
MIO PI
1 t.SSS
H , H^ I
S.V'M
1 !4h4
1.1)41
.I-.41
AF.-n.lYNAMl
HIMUSY
17,'if.]
1 0 . *> ^ V
7 .'34
4.V11
1 .27?
.N4?
.4H1
'C IMA (DM)
Mill PI
1 3 . 4 M 7
n. 7H?
•i.'JfiO
3.H4fl
1 .031
. f . 3 7
TMPM-IION n
HNDRY
17.314
1 D.HSO
7 . 1 H 7
S.040
i. 1 ?4
1.360
,9?3
.s*.?
It «IM)
"IT PT
1 .). 7 Oh
^ . 'J S 3
h.10?
3.96H
tf.061
1 . 1 ?0
.714
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR BRITISH AND METRIC UNITS
Ln
00
To convert from
°F
ft
ft2
ft3
f t/min ( f pm)
ft3/min
in.
in.2
oz
oz/yd2
grains
grains/ft2
grains/ft
Ib force
Ib mass
lb/ft2
in. H20/ft/min
Btu
To
°C
meters
meters2
meters3
centimeters /sec
centimeters3 /sec
centimeters
centimeters2
grams
grams/meter2
grams
grams/meter2
grams /meter
dynes
kilograms
grams /centimeter2
cm H20/cm/sec
calories
Multiply by
| (°F-32)
0.305
0.0929
0.0283
0.508
471.9
2.54
6.45
28.34
33.89
0.0647
0.698
2.288
4.44 x 105
0.454
0.488
5.00
o c. n
252
To
centimeters
centimeters2
centimeters3
meters/sec
meters3/hr
meters
meters2
grains
grams / cent ime ter
Newtons
grams
grams /meter2
Newtons /me ter2 /cm/ sec
Multiply by
30.5
929.0
28,300.0
5.08 x 10~3
1.70
2.54 x 10~2
6.45 x 10~U
438.0
3.39 x 10~3
0.44
454.0
4,880.0
490.0
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-178
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Electrified Bed Evaluation
5. REPORT DATE
September 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
William Piispanen, Robert M. Bradway, and
Verne Shorten
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-78-24-G
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA/Technology Division
Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE624A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1487
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
Final; 9/77-7/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Dale L.
2925.
Harmon, Mail Drop 61, 919/
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of an evaluation of a prototype electrified bed
(EFB) particulate collection device. The 500 cfm unit, which utilizes mechanical and
electrical mechanisms for collection, was installed at an asphalt roofing plant during
the tests. Fractional efficiency was determined with upstream and downstream impac-
tors. Total mass efficiency was determined with glass fiber filter sampling trains.
The mean inlet loading was 0.2585 gr/dscf and the mean outlet loading was 0.0037
gr/dscf, for an average efficiency of 98. 57%. The inlet aerosol has a mass median
diameter of about 1 micrometer, with 90% less than 2 micrometers. Measurements of
volatile hydrocarbons by on-site gas chromatography showed that the inlet concen-
tration of approximately 100 ppm was reduced by 20 to 50% by the device.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Filtration
Electrostatics
Granular Materials
Evaluations
Dust
Asphalt Plants
Roofing
Impactors
Glass Fibers
Air Filters
Aerosols
Hydrocarbons
Gas Chromatographv
Pollution Control
Pollution Control
Electrified Beds
Particulate
13B
07D
20C
11G
14B
131
13C
1E,11
13K
07C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
68
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9 73)
59
------- |