EPA/600/R-05/129
January 2006
Environmental Technology Verification
Dust Suppressant Products
SynTech Products Corporation's TechSuppress
Prepared by
Midwest Research Institute RTI International
MRII& KRTI
INTERNATIONAL
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
c/EPA
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
~~ ' INTERNATIONAL
ET
ETV Joint Verification Statement
+ ERTT
^^J M ^^_ M M
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: DUST SUPPRESSANT
APPLICATION: CONTROL OF DUST ON UNPAVED ROADS
TECHNOLOGY NAME: TechSuppress
COMPANY: SYNTECH PRODUCTS CORPORATION
ADDRESS: 520 E. WOODRUFF
TOLEDO, OH 43624
PHONE: 419-241-1215
800-537-0288
FAX: 419-241-6943
WEB SITE: http://www.syntechproducts.com/
E-MAIL: solutions@syntechproducts.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal
by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in
the design, distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder
groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, permitters, and other interested parties;
and with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the
performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs
of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing
data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with
rigorous quality assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are
generated and that the results are defensible.
The Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Verification Center, a center under the ETV
Program, is operated by RTI International (RTI) in cooperation with EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. The APCT Center has evaluated the performance of a dust
suppressant product for control of dust on an unpaved road.
-------
ETV TEST DESCRIPTION
A field test program was designed by RTI and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to evaluate the
performance of dust suppressant products. Five dust suppressants manufactured or distributed
by three firms were tested in this program. The field test for SynTech Products Corporation's
TechSuppress was conducted at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (FLW). A July 2003 test/QA plan
for the field testing was developed and approved by EPA. The test/QA plan describes the
procedures and methods used for the tests. The July 2003 version of the test/QA plan was based
on an October 2002 version and a subsequent test/QA plan addendum (dated February 19, 2003).
The goal of each test was to measure the performance of the products relative to uncontrolled
sections of road over a 1-year period. Field testing was planned quarterly over a 1-year period;
however, some logistical difficulties related to winter weather and then maintenance activities on
the roads of interest arose, and the test/QA plan was revised (Rev 3) to address those issues.
Testing occurred per the test/QA plan for roughly three 6-month periods. Two of those test
periods are summarized below and are considered most representative of product performance;
the third testing period occurred after unexpected road maintenance, and those data may be seen
in the verification report. The verification report also contains 90 percent confidence limits for
the data collected during all of the test periods. Emissions measurements were made for total
particulate (TP), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (|_im) in aerodynamic
diameter (PMio), and for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 [im in aerodynamic diameter
(PM2.5).
The host facility for the field test program, FLW, is a U.S. Army base. The test site used
unpaved Roads P and PA in training area (TA) 236. Roads P and PA are the main access routes
to TA 236 and are traveled by truck convoys, as well as traffic into and out of TA 236.
TechSuppress was applied to test section D, located on Road PA; test section F, located on Road
P, was left untreated as the experimental control. Section 3.1 of the verification report provides a
figure showing the test locations. Testing was conducted during October 2002, May 2003, and
October 2003.
Table 1 presents test conditions for key parameters that may affect the performance of dust
suppressants on unpaved roads.
Table 1. Summary of Test Conditions
Parameter
Initial application rate, 1/m2
Follow-up application rate, 1/m2
Time between application and testing, days
Precipitation during test week, cm
Precipitation during week before testing, cm
Precipitation between application and testing, total, cm
Soil moisture during test weeks, % — uncontrolled road
Soil moisture during test weeks, % — controlled road
Soil silt during test weeks, % — uncontrolled road
Soil silt during test weeks, % — controlled road
FLW,
October 2003
2.3
2.4
105
2.0
1.7
32
0.62-1.5
0.47
1.7-5.3
2.5
FLW,
May 2003
2.3
1.4
79
3.7
3.2
24
0.01-1.8
0.16-0.31
1.6-4.3
1.8-2.1
-------
VERIFIED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
This verification statement is applicable to SynTech Products Corporation's TechSuppress,
which is a dust suppressant product that integrates water-emulsified resins with wetting agents,
surfactants, and emulsifiers. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for TechSuppress is retained
in the RTI project files and may be requested from the company's Web site at
http://www.syntechproducts.eom//orderform/orderform.htm [accessed July 2005].
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The overall reduction in particulate matter emissions achieved by the TechSuppress dust
suppressant compared to uncontrolled sections of road is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Test Results
Test location
FLW, October 2003
FLW, May 2003
Average control efficiency, %
TP
62
84
PM10
43
76
PM25
a
>90
Noted events
Rain events the day before test.b
Rain events the morning of test.0
a No emissions reduction was observed.
b All test sections were wet from rain the previous day. The uncontrolled section was heavily
potholed and another section was used for the test. MRI used traffic to dry the road before
testing.
0 Rainfall in the morning meant that the uncontrolled section of the road was wet and another
section was used for the test.
The APCT Center QA officer has reviewed the test results and quality control data and has
concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol and test/QA
plan have been attained. EPA and APCT Center QA staff have conducted technical assessments
at the test organization and of the data handling. These confirm that the ETV tests were
conducted in accordance with the EPA-approved test/QA plan.
This verification statement verifies the effectiveness of SynTech Products Corporation's
TechSuppress to control dust on unpaved roads as described above. Extrapolation outside that
range should be done with caution and an understanding of the scientific principles that control
the performance of the technologies. This verification focused on emissions. Potential
technology users may obtain other types of performance information from the manufacturer.
In accordance with the generic verification protocol, this verification statement is valid,
commencing on the date below, indefinitely for application of SynTech Products Corporation's
TechSuppress to control dust on unpaved roads.
Signed by Sally Gutierrez
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
9/25/2005 Signed by Andrew Trenholm 9/16/2005
Date Andrew R. Trenholm, Director Date
Air Pollution Control Technology
Verification Center
in
-------
Environmental Technology Verification
Draft Report
Dust Suppressant Products
SynTech Products Corporation's
TechSuppress
Prepared by:
RTI International
Midwest Research Institute
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR829434-01-1
RTI Project No. 09309
EPA Project Manager:
Michael Kosusko
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
January 2006
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Notice
RTI International (RTI) and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) prepared this document
with funding from RTFs Cooperative Agreement No. CR829434-01-1 with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mention of corporation names, trade names, or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific
products.
: RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of all of those who helped plan and conduct the
verification activities. In particular, we would like to thank Michael Kosusko, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) project manager, and Paul Groff, EPA's quality
assurance manager, both of EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance and
participation of Joe Proffitt and staff at Fort Leonard Wood, and of all the SynTech Products
Corporation personnel who supported the test effort. Funding for this verification effort was
provided from multiple sources, including EPA's Environmental Technology Verification
Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and SynTech Products Corporation (the participating
vendor).
For more information on TechSuppress dust suppressant, contact:
Mr. John Leslie
SynTech Products Corporation
520 E. Woodruff Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43624
Telephone: (419)241-1215
(800) 537-0288 (toll free)
Fax: (419)241-6943
Email: solutions@syntechproducts.com
Web site: http://www.syntechproducts.com/
Additional information on analysis of TechSuppress, bioassay data, and previous dust
suppressant evaluation reports may be obtained from SynTech Products Corporation.
For more information on verification testing of dust suppressant and soil stabilization products,
contact:
Ms. Debbie Franke
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2194
Telephone: (919) 541-6826
Email: dlf@rti.org
Web site: http://etv.rti.org/apct/index.html
VI
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Abstract
Dust suppressant products used to control particulate emissions from unpaved roads are
among the technologies evaluated by the Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Verification
Center, part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program. The critical performance factor for dust suppressant verification is
the dust control efficiency (CE). CE was evaluated in terms of total particulate (TP), particulate
matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (|im) in aerodynamic diameter (PMi0), and
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 jim in aerodynamic diameter
SynTech Products Corporation submitted the TechSuppress dust suppressant to the
APCT Center for testing. The test and quality assurance (QA) plan, prepared in accordance with
the Generic Verification Protocol (GVP), addressed the site-specific issues associated with these
1-year verification tests. The 1-year testing was conducted at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,
during October 2002, May 2003, and October 2003. This verification report summarizes the
results of the 1-year test. The verified CE will be based on all tests at each site, as specified in
the test/QA plan. Test conditions were measured and documented.
vn
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Table of Contents
Section Page
Notice v
Acknowledgments vi
Abstract vii
List of Figures ix
List of Tables ix
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations x
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Summary and Discussion of Results 2
2.1 Verification Results 2
2.2 Discussion of QA/QC 4
2.3 Deviations from Test Plan 5
3.0 Test Conditions 6
3.1 General Test Site Conditions 6
3.1.1 Traffic 7
3.1.2 Area Climatic Conditions 9
3.1.3 Background Particulate Concentration 11
3.2 Application of Dust Suppressant 12
3.3 Conditions During Dust Suppressant Test Runs 14
4.0 References 15
Vlll
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
List of Figures
1 Test locations at FLW [[[ 8
2 Application of TechSuppress product at FLW [[[ 13
List of Tables
1 Summary of Test Results for TechSuppress (No Road Maintenance) .................................... 3
2 Summary of Test Results for TechSuppress (After Road Maintenance Occurred) ................ 3
3 DQO versus Final Control Efficiency Variability for TechSuppress ..................................... 4
4 Summary of Test Event Deviations for FLW [[[ 5
5 Weekly Weather for FLW [[[ 9
6 Summary of Precipitation for All Test Periods at FLW [[[ 11
7 Measured Background PM Concentrations at FLW [[[ 11
8 Estimated Background Contribution to Sampler Catch at FLW Compared to Mean
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADT average daily traffic
APCT air pollution control technology
CE control efficiency
cfm cubic feet per minute
CI confidence interval
cm centimeters
DQO data quality objective
DPW Directorate of Public Works
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV environmental technology verification
FLW Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
ft feet
g grams
gal gallons
GVP generic verification protocol
hi-vol high volume
in inches
km kilometer
1 or L liters
Ib pounds
1pm liters per minute
jig micrograms
|im micrometer
m meters
mg milligrams
min minutes
ml milliliters
mph miles per hour
MRI Midwest Research Institute
MSDS material safety data sheet
NA not applicable
PM particulate matter
PMio particulate matter equal to or less than 10 jim in aerodynamic diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 jim in aerodynamic diameter
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RSD relative standard deviation
RTI RTI International
s seconds
TA training area
TP total particulate
yd yard
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
1.0 Introduction
The objective of the Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Verification Center, part
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program, is to verify, with high data quality, the performance of air pollution control
technologies. One such set of air pollution control technologies consists of products used to
control dust emissions from unpaved roads. Dust suppressant products, in general, are designed
to alter the roadway by lightly cementing the particles together or by forming a surface that
attracts and retains moisture. Control of dust emissions from unpaved roads is of increasing
interest, particularly related to attainment of the ambient parti culate matter (PM) standard. EPA
issued a new ambient standard for PM in 1997 that specifies new air quality levels for parti culate
matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (|_im) in aerodynamic diameter
The APCT Center's verification of dust suppression products started with a preliminary
3-month testing program at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (FLW). The objective of this
preliminary test program was to develop a cost-effective technique to measure the relative
performance of dust suppressant products. The more common, but resource intensive, exposure
profiling method to measure fugitive dust was compared to a mobile dust sampler. It was
concluded that the mobile dust sampler could be used for future testing. A total of seven dust
suppressant products were evaluated in the preliminary testing. Seven reports documenting the
performance of these products were finalized in November 2002. 2
After completion of the preliminary study, a 1-year field test program was designed by
RTI and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to evaluate the performance of dust suppressant
products. Five dust suppressants manufactured or distributed by three firms were tested in this
program. One of those dust suppressants was TechSuppress, developed by SynTech Products
Corporation. TechSuppress is a dust suppressant product that integrates water-emulsified resins
with wetting agents, surfactants, and emulsifiers. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for
TechSuppress is retained in the RTI project files and may be requested on SynTech Products
Corporation's Web site (http://www.svntechproducts.eom//orderform/orderform.htm) [accessed
July 2005].
The field test program for TechSuppress was conducted at FLW. In July 2003, the test
and quality assurance (QA) plan for the field testing was developed and approved by EPA.3 The
July 2003 version of the test/QA plan was based on an October 2002 version and a subsequent
test/QA plan addendum (dated February 19, 2003). This test/QA plan describes the procedures
and methods used for the tests. The goal was to measure the performance of the products
relative to uncontrolled sections of road over a 1-year period. Field testing was planned
quarterly over a 1-year period; however, some logistical difficulties related to winter weather
conditions and then maintenance activities on the roads of interest arose, and the test/QA plan
was modified (Rev 3) to address those issues. Testing occurred per the test/QA plan for three
roughly 6-month periods during October 2002, May 2003, and October 2003. Emissions
measurements were made for total paniculate (TP), paniculate matter less than or equal to 10
|j,m in aerodynamic diameter (PMi0), and for PM2 5.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
This report contains only summary information and data from the 1-year test program, as
well as the verification statement related to the dust control efficiency (CE) measured for
TechSuppress during testing at FLW. Complete documentation of the FLW test results is
provided in a separate test report4 and a data quality audit report.5 Those reports include the raw
test data from product testing and supplemental testing, equipment calibration results, and QA
and quality control (QC) activities and results. Complete documentation of QA/QC activities
and results, raw test data, and equipment calibration results are retained in MRI's files for 7
years.
The results of the tests are summarized and discussed in Section 2. The conditions in
which the tests were conducted are presented in Section 3, and references are presented in
Section 4.
2.0 Summary and Discussion of Results
Verification tests were conducted over a 1-year period on SynTech Products
Corporation's TechSuppress dust suppressant as applied to unpaved roads at FLW. Original
plans called for testing to occur on a quarterly basis; however, one quarterly test was abandoned
due to persistently unfavorable wintertime weather at FLW.
The mobile dust sampling system used in this test program provides quantitative
information on relative emissions levels. The mobile system consists of a high-volume (hi-vol)
PMio cyclone combined with a PM2.5 cyclone. The sampler inlet sits above the densest portion of
the dust plume, immediately behind the test vehicle. In this location, the sampler collects PM
that is truly airborne. The hi-vol sampler is operated with a nozzle matched to the test vehicle's
travel speed to best approximate isokinetic sampling. The test plan provides additional details
on the construction and operation of the mobile sampler.
The results of the quarterly tests are summarized in Section 2.1. The results of QC
checks performed during these quarterly tests are summarized in Section 2.2. Deviations from
the test plan are discussed in Section 2.3.
2.1 Verification Results
Tables 1 and 2 present summary statistics for results from each test period. The mobile
sampler provides a test result in terms of particulate mass collected per distance traveled
[milligrams per 1,000 feet (mg/1,000 ft)]. The tables show the number of days after product
application, the mean controlled and uncontrolled emissions values, and the resulting CEs. The
relative standard deviation (RSD) for the emissions values is shown in parentheses.
The uncontrolled and controlled emissions values for the mobile dust sampler are means
of five replicate measurements. Each of the five replicate measurements consisted of twelve
passes over a 500-ft length test section of the treated road segment, to total approximately 6,000
ft of distance covered. Detection limits were set at two standard deviations above the average
filter blank correction for sample mass. Values below the detection limits (quantification level)
were included in the averaging process at half the detection limit.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Table 1 presents data for the test periods when no unexpected road maintenance occurred
between product application and testing. These data are considered the most representative of
the product's performance. Table 2 presents data when unexpected road maintenance occurred.
These data provide an example of performance under the described circumstances.
Table 1. Summary of Test Results for TechSuppress (No Road Maintenance)
Test period
Ortnber 9003a
May 2003C
Uncontrolled
emissions, mg/1,000 ft
(RSD, %)
TP
7.9
(59)
9 1
(14)
PM10
0.68
(78)
1 2
(21)
PM25
1.5
(27)
071
(29)
Time since
last
application,
days
105
79
Controlled emissions,
mg/1,000 ft
(RSD, %)
TP
3.0
(30)
1 4
(21)
PM10
0.39
(20)
028
(81)
PM25
1.6
(12)
<0 069d
(0.0)
Control efficiency, %
TP
69
84
PM10
43
76
PM25
b
>90
a All test sections were wet from rain the previous day. The uncontrolled section was heavily potholed and
another section was used for the test. MRI used traffic to dry the road before testing.
b No emissions reduction was observed.
0 Rainfall in the morning meant that the uncontrolled section of the road was wet and another section was used for
the test.
d All values were below the detection limit.
Table 2. Summary of Test Results for TechSuppress (After Road Maintenance Occurred)
Test period
Ortnhpr 9009a
Uncontrolled
emissions, mg/1,000 ft
(RSD, %)
TP
9 5
(36)
PM10
2O
j
(51)
PM25
2 5
(41)
Time since
last
application,
days
1 97
Controlled emissions,
mg/1,000 ft
(RSD, %)
TP
10
(31)
PM10
2 5
(25)
PM25
2 2
(34)
Control efficiency, %
TP
PM10
PM25
a Unexpected road maintenance activity occurred at FLW in September 2002 prior to the October 2002 test period.
After consideration, it was decided to continue with planned testing; however, in retrospect, the treated surface
evaluated during this test period was not representative, and control efficiency values from the test period should
be viewed as conservatively low.
b No emissions reduction was observed.
The dust emissions CE is calculated as follows:
where
CE= 100x(eum-ecm)/em
Eq. 1
CE = control efficiency (percent)
eum = uncontrolled emissions value, expressed as sample mass divided by the
cumulative length of road traveled by the mobile sampler (mg/1,000 ft)
ecm = controlled emissions value, expressed as sample mass divided by the cumulative
length of road traveled by the mobile sampler (mg/1,000 ft).
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Control efficiencies can vary considerably between test periods, and some of the
variation can be related to two factors: (1) the time since the most recent application and (2) the
application rate of the dust suppressant. A complete history of the test road treatment is given in
Section 3.2. The time since the most recent application is shown in Tables 1 and 2, in addition to
information on road maintenance activities and rainfall. Beyond the application rate and the
time since application factors, additional variation can arise from changing site conditions. For
example, unplanned road maintenance occurred, as noted in Table 2. In addition, precipitation
before or during a field test could cause variation in both uncontrolled and controlled test results.
That is to say, measured emissions could change after precipitation so that back-to-back tests
would not necessarily be "replicates" in the sense of having identical test conditions. MRI
always attempted to dry the road with traffic to the point that it appeared visibly dry before
beginning a test period.
2.2 Discussion of QA/QC
The testing process was based on the approved Generic Verification Protocol for Dust
Suppression and Soil Stabilization Products (GVP);6 and the Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust
Suppressant Products at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Rev 3 (July 24, 2003).3 The MRI task
leader and QA manager verified that the quality criteria specified in the test plan (Sections 3.4
and A4, respectively) were met for the overall test (the within-suppressant and -particle size
fraction variability was often higher than planned). Assessments specified in Section 8 of the
GVP were performed. Reconciliation of the data quality objectives (DQOs) with test results is
summarized in Table 3. Data from all three test periods are included in the analysis, including
those data collected during the test period following unexpected road maintenance.
Table 3. DQO versus Final Control Efficiency Variability for TechSuppress
TP
PM10
PM25
Number
of test
periods
3
3
3
Final CE,
fractional
0.47
0.35
b
90% confidence interval
Lower
limit
0.37
0.23
b
Upper
limit
0.56
0.48
b
Half
width
0.093
0.12
b
DQOa
0.12
0.15
b
Is the half-width
interval less than
the DQO (i.e., DQO
met)?
Yes
Yes
b
3 Final CE DQO is interpolated from Table 6 of the test/QA plans using the equation:
Half width DQO = -0.2295 CE + 0.22972.
b The DQO was not calculated because the CE is less than zero.
In all cases, the testing process and the resulting data for PMio and TP were determined
by the MRI QA manager to have met the specified quality criteria, although there were
significant uncontrollable plan deviations related to field conditions. For PM2.5, low and variable
CE values resulted in "no reduction observed."
The RTI quality manager has reviewed the above information (including the deviations
from the test plan, noted in Section 2.3), has sampled the data against the specified criteria, and
concurs with the MRI assessment that the DQOs were met for the overall test. The APCT
director has determined that the data are usable as intended in the planning documents.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
2.3 Deviations from Test Plan
Significant deviations from the test/QA plan are discussed below and are shown in
Table 4. Changes in the application dates are also summarized in the table.
Table 4. Summary of Test Event Deviations for FLW
Project activities
Unexpected road maintenance
End of 1st test period
Suppressant reapplication
End of 2nd test period
Suppressant reapplication
End of 3rd test period
Suppressant reapplication
Road traffic increased with construction
End of 4th test period
Planned date
Not planned
September 2002
September 2002
January 2003
January 2003
April 2003
April 2003
Not planned
July 2003
Actual date
September 16, 2002
October 12-14, 2002
October 18-28, 2002
Not performed because of
consistently bad weather
March 8, 2003
May 24-26, 2003
June 14, 2003
July 21-October 10, 2003
October 10-12, 2003
Test periods"
Not applicable
(NA)
5U, 5C
NA
None, per modified
Test/QA Plan
NA
5U, 5C
NA
NA
5U, 5C
15U means five uncontrolled replicate measurements; 5C means five controlled replicate measurements.
The test/QA plan stated that background PM concentration values would be collected
from an ambient PM monitor; however, the monitoring station in question collects only
meteorological data and does not contain a PM monitor. Therefore, MRI operated a background
PM sampler at the Range 12 building [located approximately 1 kilometer (km) east of the test
section] where line electrical power was available.
The test/QA plan stated that the CE "will be determined relative to its decay over time
and with traffic." Because the vendor chose to reapply the dust suppressants following each test
period, this was not achievable. At least three test periods between applications would have
been required to calculate a CE decay rate. Moreover, the decay rate would have changed from
application to application because of the increasing inventory of dust suppressant in a specific
road segment.
The projected schedule for the dust suppressant tests called for four quarters of planned
tests starting in June 2002. The time between test periods was originally planned to be
approximately 90 days, to represent seasonal differences in CE; however, not all of the planned
four quarters of testing were conducted. Testing was conducted for three 6-month periods.
The test plan mentioned a pneumatic traffic counter and a data logger for on-site wind
measurements; however, neither of these was deployed during the test program. Instead, training
records supplied by the Army were used to estimate the total convoy traffic during the field
program. Traffic data are described in Section 3.1.1. The Army supplied meteorological records
for both the Forney Army Airfield (located within 5 km of the test site) and the Bailey wind
station (located immediately west of the test site). Meteorological data are described in Section
3.1.2.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Deviations during the individual test period are discussed in the following paragraphs.
October 2002 Test Period. Both the field tests and the reporting of results occurred later
than originally called for in the test/QA plan. The delay in testing was directly due to the
unexpected road maintenance during the week of September 16, 2002, which occurred at the
request of a Directorate of Public Works (DPW) contractor. This action required a delay of
approximately 2 weeks to assess the extent to which the treated surface had been affected and
whether testing of the surface would produce results useful to the program. Based on anecdotal
information from the grader operator as well as photographs of the surface, it was determined
that the surface has been covered with loose material (pulled from the side of the road).
Subsequent discussions between DPW, the product vendors, RTI, and MRI led to general
agreement to continue with conducting a first period of tests in October 2002.
January 2003 Test Period. As noted above, persistently unfavorable winter weather
during January and February 2003 forced the abandonment of the second quarterly test.
May 2003 Test Period. During the field audit conducted on May 26, 2003, it was
determined that the PM2.5 background monitor operated at a flow of approximately 9 liters per
minute (1pm) [0.32 cubic feet per minute (cfm)] rather than the target of 16.7 1pm (0.59 cfm).
Because the background concentration was used only to estimate the maximum contribution that
ambient PM levels could contribute to the mass collected by the mobile sampler, the contribution
for PM2.5 was conservatively estimated using the PMio background level. This point is discussed
further in Section 3.1.
Another deviation concerned the location of the uncontrolled test section during the
May 26, 2003, tests. On that day, a portion of uncontrolled test section (Section F in the test
plan) was still damp from rain during the morning of May 25. For that reason, an uncontrolled
150-m (500-ft) section farther west along the same road was substituted.
October 2003 Test Period. Both the field tests and the reporting of results occurred later
than originally called for in the test/QA plan. The delay in testing was due to rainfall over Labor
Day weekend. Testing was rescheduled for Columbus Day weekend. No quarterly test report
was prepared pending preparation of the final report.
Rainfall on the day before MRI's arrival left all sections damp. In addition, the
uncontrolled test site (Section F) was so heavily potholed that the mobile sampler could not be
safely operated at the designated vehicle speed. Uncontrolled tests were moved to an untreated
section of the same road to the west that exhibited better drainage than Section F. As noted
earlier, MRI used traffic to dry the road before beginning a test period.
3.0 Test Conditions
3.1 General Test Site Conditions
The test/QA plan documents the site and road sections used during dust suppressant
testing. The host facility for the field test program is a U.S. Army base. The test site used
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
unpaved Roads P and PA in training area (TA) 236. Roads P and PA are the main access routes
to TA 236 and are traveled by truck convoys, as well as traffic into and out of TA 236. Test
sections A, B, C, and D are located on Road PA, while test section E is located along Road P.
TechSuppress was applied to test section D. Other products tested during this program were
applied to other test sections. The sixth test section (F), also located on Road P, was left
untreated as the experimental control. Figure 1 shows the test locations at FLW.3
3.1.1 Traffic
All sections of the test site at FLW were exposed to military traffic, consisting of 2.5- and
5-ton trucks, as well as sport-utility type vehicles (such as Chevrolet Blazers). This traffic
occurred during training days (typically Monday through Friday). Based on records supplied by
the Army, an estimated 3,650 convoy vehicles traveled over the test surface during the entire
field program. This does not include other Army-related traffic, for which records are not kept.
Furthermore, additional light-duty vehicular traffic took place due to recreational use of the fort
during weekends. Finally, an additional 60 passes by a Ford F-250 pickup occurred during each
of the test periods. (Note that testing took place on days with no scheduled Army training
activities.)
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Figure 1. Test locations at FLW
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
From July 21, 2003, to the final test period in October 2003, the TechSuppress test
section at FLW experienced additional traffic associated with construction activities in TA 236.
This traffic, which occurred Monday through Friday, averaged 40 loaded (27 ton) dump truck
passes, 40 empty (11 ton) dump truck passes, and 30 to 50 car/pickup passes per day.
3.1.2 Area Climatic Conditions
Table 5 presents the weekly weather over the entire verification period (i.e., from June
2002 when the product was first applied until the final set of tests in October 2003). These data
were collected at Forney Airfield, which is located approximately 5 km (3 miles) north-northeast
from the test section. (Note that the Forney station operating hours were 0600-2100 Monday
through Friday, 0700-1500 Saturday, and 1100-1900 Sunday. The temperature extremes are
officially valid for those timeframes.) A summary of the precipitation for all the test periods is
shown in Table 6.
Table 5. Weekly Weather for FLW
Site weather
Week
beginning
06/02/02
06/09/02
06/16/02
06/23/02
06/30/02
07/07/02
07/14/02
07/21/02
07/28/02
08/04/02
08/11/02
08/18/02
08/25/02
09/01/02
09/08/02
09/15/02
09/22/02
09/29/02
10/06/02
10/13/02
10/20/02
10/27/02
1 1/03/02
11/10/02
11/17/02
Air temp, °C (°F)
Maximum
32 (90)
31 (87)
33(91)
33 (92)
33 (92)
36 (97)
35 (95)
37 (98)
37 (99)
36 (97)
31 (87)
33 (92)
29 (85)
31 (88)
32 (90)
31 (87)
27(81)
32 (89)
20 (68)
18 (64)
19 (67)
11 (52)
22(71)
18 (64)
18 (65)
Minimum
13(56)
14(58)
13(56)
19(66)
20 (68)
20 (68)
18(64)
19(67)
21 (69)
16(61)
18(64)
20 (68)
17(62)
17(63)
14(58)
17(63)
8(46)
16 (60)
5(41)
1(33)
2(36)
0(32)
2(36)
-2 (28)
0(32)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
Liquid
2.2 (0.88)
1.2(0.48)
0(0)
0.61 (0.24)
2.0 (0.79)
1.0(0.41)
0.03(0.01)
2.6(1.0)
0.03(0.01)
0.2 (0.07)
4.1(1.6)
0.89(0.35)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3.6(1.4)
0(0)
0.58(0.23)
0.48(0.19)
0.56 (0.22)
5.0(2.0)
4.1(1.6)
1.8(0.72)
1.7(0.65)
0(0)
Frozen
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(continued)
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Table 5. (continued)
Site weather
Week
beginning
11/24/02
12/01/02
12/08/02
12/15/02
12/22/02
12/29/02
01/05/03
01/12/03
01/19/03
01/26/03
02/02/03
02/09/03
02/16/03
02/23/03
03/02/03
03/09/03
03/16/03
03/23/03
03/30/03
04/06/03
04/13/03
04/20/03
04/27/03
05/04/03
05/11/03
05/18/03
05/25/03
06/01/03
06/08/03
06/15/03
06/22/03
06/29/03
07/06/03
07/13/03
07/20/03
07/27/03
08/03/03
08/10/03
08/17/03
08/24/03
Air temp, °C (°F)
Maximum
16(61)
15 (59)
11 (52)
18 (65)
4(40)
18 (65)
21 (70)
6(43)
13 (56)
19(67)
23 (74)
14 (57)
12 (54)
4(40)
24 (76)
25 (77)
22 (72)
25 (77)
29 (85)
27(81)
29 (85)
22(71)
30 (86)
30 (86)
26 (79)
26 (79)
31 (87)
25 (77)
28 (83)
29 (84)
32 (90)
34 (94)
34 (93)
36 (96)
35 (95)
37 (98)
33(91)
34 (94)
39(102)
37 (98)
Minimum
-6(21)
-9(15)
-4 (24)
1(33)
-12(11)
-7(19)
-6 (22)
-14 (7)
-19 (-2)
-10(14)
-15(5)
-4 (24)
-6 (22)
-14 (6)
-7 (20)
-8(17)
4(39)
0(32)
2(35)
0(32)
9(48)
5(41)
10 (50)
14 (57)
9(48)
9(48)
9(48)
9(48)
13(56)
14 (57)
13(56)
19(66)
17(63)
21 (69)
14(58)
17(63)
18(64)
18(65)
21 (69)
21 (69)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
Liquid
0.03(0.01)
1.7(0.68)
0.38(0.15)
3.7(1.4)
3.4(1.4)
1.3(0.52)
0.43(0.17)
0.33(0.13)
0.43(0.17)
0.38(0.15)
0.69 (0.27)
2.7(1.1)
2.1 (0.83)
1.7(0.66)
0.05 (0.02)
1.7(0.66)
3.6(1.4)
2.0 (0.7)
0.03 (0.01)
4.7(1.8)
0.91 (0.36)
4.2(1.7)
1.7(0.67)
2.3 (0.92)
3.2(1.3)
2.1 (0.83)
1.6(0.63)
3.7(1.4)
6.6 (2.6)
1.5(0.6)
2.6(1.0)
0(0)
1.2(0.46)
3.9(1.5)
0.03(0.01)
4.0(1.6)
0.1 (0.04)
0.03(0.01)
1.5(0.59)
4.2(1.6)
Frozen
0(0)
16 (6.2)
0(0)
0(0)
34(14)
0.8(0.3)
0(0)
4.8(1.9)
4.3(1.7)
0(0)
7.9(3.1)
2.3(0.9)
0.3(0.1)
18(7.2)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(continued)
10
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Table 5. (continued)
Site weather
Week
beginning
08/31/03
09/07/03
09/14/03
09/21/03
09/28/03
10/05/03
10/12/03
Air temp, °C (°F)
Maximum
28 (82)
31 (87)
29 (84)
29 (85)
20 (68)
24 (76)
23 (74)
Minimum
12 (54)
14 (57)
7(45)
11(52)
4(39)
8(47)
8(46)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
Liquid
6.4 (2.5)
2.0 (0.78)
3.3(1.3)
3.8(1.5)
1.7(0.68)
1.8(0.72)
0.2 (0.07)
Frozen
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Table 6. Summary of Precipitation for All Test Periods at FLW
Parameter
Weekly precipitation
range, cm
Precipitation during test week
Precipitation during week before testing
Precipitation between application and testing, total
1.0-3.7
0.58-3.2
17-32
3.1.3 Background Particulate Concentration
During the test period, TP and PMio background concentrations were measured
approximately 1 km (0.6 miles) east of the test site. Background concentration data are
presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Measured Background PM Concentrations at FLW
Concentration, jig/m3
Date
10/12/02
10/13/02
10/14/02
5/24/03
5/26/03
10/11/03
10/12/03
10/13/03
Average
Maximum
PM10
7.1
6.5
9.1
19
19
13
5.7
7.2
11
19
TP
14
16
28
23
38
19
7.9
14
20
38
11
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Because of the previously mentioned problem with the PM2.5 background monitor at
FLW (see Section 2.3), it was not possible to measure background PM2.5 concentrations
accurately. Therefore, the PM2 5 concentration was assumed equal to the PMi0 concentration
value. This yielded a conservatively high estimate for the contribution of background PM
concentrations to the PM2 5 sample mass catches at FLW.
Estimates made of the contributions to net sampler catches at FLW by background
concentrations of TP and PMi0 are also conservatively high because estimates assume a
30-minute (min) sampling period. As noted in the test/QA plan, the hi-vol sampler is activated
only when passing over the test section; 12 passes over a 500-ft test section at 25 mph is only
160 s or 2.7 min. The conservatively high estimates of background contributions to sampler
catches at FLW are compared to blank filter data in Table 8. Background mass contributions
were estimated by multiplying background concentration times flow rate and sampling time to
arrive at a mass collected that could have been contributed by ambient air.
Table 8. Estimated Background Contribution to Sampler Catch at FLW
Compared to Mean Blank Filter Data
Weight, mg
Average estimated background contribution
Average blank filter weight
TP
0.67
2.5
PM10
0.37
2.2
PM25
0.0055
0.029
The estimated background contributions are significantly lower than the mean blank filter
masses collected at FLW. Thus, background PM contributed negligibly to the net catches for the
mobile sampler.
3.2 Application of Dust Suppressant
MRI observed and documented all steps in the various applications of the dust
suppressant to the road test section. TechSuppress is mixed at approximately three parts water to
one part product prior to application. Table 9 presents the application intensity as determined
through use of sampling pans located on a grid each time the product was applied.
12
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Table 9. Application History
Date
June 7, 2002
October 19, 2002
March 8, 2003
June 13, 2003
June 28, 2003
Application intensity
Mean,
1/m2
(gal/yd2)3
2.3 (0.52)
2.5 (0.55)
1.4(0.31)
1.1 (0.24)
1.3 (0.28)
Standard
deviation,
1/m2 (gal/yd2)
1.3 (0.29)
0.42 (0.092)
0.48(0.11)
0.09 (0.02)
0.39 (0.09)
Comments
Applied in five passes, overlapped along center of road.
Applied in four passes, extreme edges of road not covered
by spray.
Applied in three passes, overlapped along center of road.
West half of road less heavily treated than centerline,
which is less heavily treated than east half of road.
Applied in five passes, very even spray pattern.
Applied in five passes.
a The mean is based on the total amount applied to the surface of the road summed over all passes.
A spray truck was used to apply the product. Treatment of the 270-m (900-ft) road
segment required approximately 1 man-hour to mix the product with water and then apply the
solution using the spray truck. Note that two applications were made during June 2003. As
allowed by the test/QA plan, the vendor requested the opportunity to reapply after the June 13,
2003, treatment. Figure 2 shows application of TechSuppress product at FLW.
Figure 2. Application of TechSuppress product at FLW
13
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
3.3 Conditions During Dust Suppressant Test Runs
Table 10 presents the dates and times when dust suppressant testing was conducted at
FLW, including the length of road measured and meteorological conditions during each test run.
As discussed previously, Table 5 presents the climatic conditions for the week during which the
dust emissions tests were conducted.
Table 10. Test Run Parameters
Run
CKO-2
CKO-13
CKO-23
CKO-24
CKO-35
CKO-2 11
CKO-2 12
CKO-230
CKO-23 1
CKO-232
CKO-1022
CKO-1028
CKO-1029
CKO-1030
CKO-1031
CKO-8
CKO-9
CKO-10
CKO-11
CKO-12
CKO-225
CKO-226
CKO-227
CKO-228
CKO-229
CKO-1007
CKO-1008
CKO-1009
CKO-1010
CKO-1011
Test section
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
TechSuppress, D
Date
10/12/02
10/12/02
10/13/02
10/14/02
10/14/02
5/24/03
5/24/03
5/26/03
5/26/03
5/26/03
10/12/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/12/02
10/12/02
10/12/02
10/12/02
10/12/02
5/26/03
5/26/03
5/26/03
5/26/03
5/26/03
10/11/03
10/11/03
10/11/03
10/11/03
10/11/03
Test start
time
10:36
16:50
17:14
9:28
16:21
16:15
16:40
16:16
16:45
17:08
15:35
11:07
11:28
11:49
12:12
14:28
14:50
15:21
15:41
16:03
13:02
13:31
13:49
13:19
14:40
14:06
14:27
14:46
15:08
15:31
Total distance,
m(ft)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
1,800 (6,000)
Temperature,
°C (°F)
22 (72)
23 (74)
13 (56)
13 (55)
19 (66)
24 (75)
26 (78)
26 (78)
26 (78)
24 (76)
24 (76)
21 (69)
23 (73)
23 (74)
24 (76)
27 (80)
26 (79)
25 (77)
24 (74)
23 (74)
24 (75)
24 (75)
24 (76)
22 (72)
22 (72)
22 (72)
22 (72)
22 (71)
23 (74)
25 (77)
Barometric
pressure,
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
745 (29.4)
744 (29.3)
753 (29.6)
749 (29.5)
747 (29.4)
733 (28.8)
733 (28.8)
735 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
737 (29.0)
734 (28.9)
729 (28.7)
729 (28.7)
729 (28.7)
730 (28.8)
744 (29.3)
744 (29.3)
744 (29.3)
744 (29.3)
744 (29.3)
737 (29.0)
737 (29.0)
737 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
732 (28.8)
732 (28.8)
732 (28.8)
732 (28.8)
728 (28.6)
14
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: TechSuppress
Road surface samples were collected on a section each day that section was tested. The
surface samples were analyzed for moisture and silt (i.e., fraction passing 200 mesh upon dry
sieving). Table 11 presents the moisture content and silt content.
Table 11. Road Surface Properties
Test section
Uncontrolled
TechSuppress
Date
10/12/023
10/13/023
10/14/023
5/24/03
5/26/03
10/12/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/12/023
5/26/03
5/26/03
10/11/03
Moisture content, %
0.4
0.63
0.75
1.8
0.01
1.4
1.5
0.62
0.43
0.31
0.16
0.47
Silt content, %
1.6
1.5
1.7
4.3
1.6
3.0
5.3
1.7
3.7
1.8
2.1
2.5
Unexpected road maintenance activity occurred at FLW in September 2002 prior to
the October 2002 test period.
4.0 References
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 50.7, National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. July 18, 1997.
2. ETV. 2002. Reports of 3-Month Test of Dust Suppression Products, Preliminary Testing.
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC and Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
MO. November, http://etv.rti.org/apct/documents.cfm
3. ETV. 2003. Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust Suppressant Products at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, Rev 3 dated July 24, 2003. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC and
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. http://etv.rti.org/apct/documents.cfm
4. MRI. 2005. Test Report for TechSuppress, Section D at Fort LeonardWood, Missouri.
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. Report may be obtained from RTI
International.
5. MRI. 2005. Audit of Data from Testing of Dust Suppressant Products at Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri andMaricopa County, Arizona. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
MO. Report may be obtained from RTI International.
6. ETV. 2004. Generic Verification Protocol for Dust Suppression and Soil Stabilization
Products. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
15
------- |