ynited States EPA-600/R-QO-050
Environmental Protection
Aaenclr June 2000
&EPA Research and
Development
WOOD STOVE EMISSIONS;
PARTICLE SIZE AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
EPA-600/B-00-050
June 2000
Wood Stove Emissions; Particle Size and Chemical Composition
by
Robert C. McCrillis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air. and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control oi pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwaterj and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
NOTICE'
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
In 1995, EPA estimated that residential wood combustion (RWC), including fireplaces,
accounted for a significant fraction of national paniculate matter with aerodynamic diameters '
<2.5 urn (PM2 5) and air toxics emissions. Based on very limited wood stove particle size data, it
has been assumed that the paniculate emissions are 100% PM2.5. This report summarizes wood
stove particle size and chemical composition data gathered to date. Tests are being conducted in
a RWC laboratory burning oak cordwood in a test protocol designed to mimic in-home
operation. Since all RWC wood smoke particles <10 jim (PM,0) are thought to be the result of
condensation, their size distribution and total mass are influenced by collection temperature. In
tests completed to date, no attempt was made to control collection temperature. Thus, these
results probably represent the lower bound. The PM,0 and PM2 s fractions would probably be
higher at typical winter temperatures The particles collected on the first stage (cutpoint ~ 11.7
Hm) are light gray and appear to include inorganic ash. Particles collected on the remainder of
the stages are black and appear to be condensed organlcs. Total paniculate emission rates range
from 4 to 61 g/hr; emission factors range from 2.8 to 41 g/kg of dry wood burned.
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
ABSTRACT
...
................... • • • • ................................... in
LISTOFTABLES ............... . :iv
LISTOFFIGURES
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
RESULTS ......... .
2
Total PM ............... . ................... . , _ 2
Particle size ............ . . ..... . ......... . 7
Chemical analyses ...... , ........... . ...... ... ....... 12
REFERENCES .......... ...... ....... ... ................................... 20
Appendix A Detailed Data Summaries ................................ A-i
Appendix B Derivation of Method 5G to 5H conversion equation ...... ............ B-i
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title page
1 Description of stoves included in laboratory testing project .......... ...... ...... I
1 Summary of total particulate results from each test ... ................. ...... 4
3 Total particulate averages for various bum rates .......... . . .................. 5
Iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title page
1 Typical wood stove test setup ,.,.......,,,.... 3
2 EPA Method 5H PM emission factors and rates for various wood stove technologies ... 6
3 Effect of burnrate on particle size distribution, Pellet Stove (E) in-stack impactor 8
4 Effect of burnrate on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A) in-stack impactor,
seasoned wood ,... 9
5 Effect of burnrate on particle size distribution, Noncatalytic Stove (D) cold start,
seasoned wood i Q
6 Effect of wood moisture on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A) 11
7 Effect of hot vs cold startup on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A) 13
8 Effect of impaetor location on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A), high
moisture wood j/,
9 Effect of impactor location on particle size distribution, Uncontrolled Exempt
Stove (B) m 15
10 Effect of impactor location on particle size distribution, Pellet Stove (E) , 16
11 Effect of impactor location and wood moisture on particle size distribution,
Noncatalytic Stove (D) 17
12 Effect of impactor substrate and precutter on particle size distribution, Noncatalytic
Stove (D) , , 18
13 PAHs quantified in impactor composite filter extracts from Tests 2-10 ,,,, ..... 19
14 Target semivolatile organic compound emission factors for various stove technologies
found in XAD extracts from Tests 1-13 21
15 Individual aldehyde emission factors for various stove technologies, based on
Tests 1-13 22
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
Residential wood stoves, although regulated under the 1988 New Source Performance
Standard (NSPS), remain a significant source of fine paniculate matter (PM2 5) and a major
source of polynuclear organic material (POM). In 1997, EPA estimated that residential wood
combustion (RWC), including fireplaces was the largest category of directly emitted PMIO
emissions excluding open dust sources (e.g., agricultural, roads), and the seventh largest category
of air toxic emissions1. Very limited wood stove particle size data have indicated that wood
stove and fireplace emissions are 100% < 2.5 urn2. This has led to the assumption that RWC
accounts for a significant fraction of national PM25 emissions. Because of the uncertainty in
these data, EPA decided to undertake a sampling project to expand the particle size data base for
RWC emissions and also look at composition as a function of particle size range. This report
summarizes ongoing work which is focused on measuring the particle size distribution and
chemical composition of wood stove emissions. This is a continuing project. Future work will
focus more on identifying unique chemical tracers for wood smoke which can be used to
determine the impact residential wood burning has on distant, ambient air PM2 5 samples.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Five wood stoves were tested; EPA-certified catalytic, noncatalytic, and pellet stoves, a
prototype noncatalytic stove, and an uncontrolled,, exempt stove. The stoves tested are described
in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of stoves included in laboratory testing project
Manufacturer
England's Stove
Works
England's Stove
Works
Aladdin Steel
Products
Aladdin Steel
Products
Pyro Industries
Model
Englander 24ACD
Englander 18TR
Quadrafire 3300
QuadrafireSlOO
Whitfieldn-T
Control technology
Catalytic
Uncontrolled exempt
Prototype noncatalytic
with ECW3 gas pilot
Noncatalytic
Pellet
Stove code
A
B
C
D
E
1 ECW = Enhanced Combustion Wood Stove
The four stick-burning wood stoves were fired with locally grown split oak cordwood.
For Tests 1-10,16,17, and 20, the wood moisture averaged 28% dry basis. For Tests 18,19,
21-23, and 26-30 the wood moisture averaged 14.5% dry basis. Test 31794 was run hi 1994
using 20.5% moisture oak cordwood. All of the other tests were run during 1998. Pellets from
American Hardwood Pellets, Inc., used for Tests 11-13 and 24-25, averaged 5.6% dry basis. The
-------
stick wood stoves were tested over a "homeowner" cycle. For cold-start tests, samplers were
started when paper was lit in a cold stove. For hot-start tests, samplers were started when the
main fuel charge was placed on the kindling coals. All tests ended when the fuel was consumed,
when the weigh scale reading returned to the value displayed just prior to loading fuel at the start
of the test. Pellet stove tests were all hot starts; samplers were turned on after the bumrate had
been stabilized and the stove had ran for a set time period.
Total paniculate matter (PM) and particle size samples were collected in a dilution tunnel
using room air as the diluent, as shown in Figure 1. PM samples were collected following EPA
Method 5G» with the addition of an XAD-2 absorbent trap after the unheated filters to collect
samples for semivolatile analysis. Particle size samples were collected with an Andersen Mark
HI 8-stage impactor with backup filter. The sampler was operated at 23-25 Lpm, depending on
the actual stack velocity; nozzle size was selected to give isokinetic conditions. For half the
tests, the sampler was located outside the dilution tunnel with the nozzle inserted through the
tunnel wall and facing into the air stream. The remaining 50% of the tests were run with the
sampler located inside the dilution tunnel, aligned with the centerline using a straight nozzle. In
this case, the impactor's temperature was allowed to match that of the dilution tunnel gas. Prior
to a test, impactor substrates were desiccated, weighed, and loaded into the clean sampler body.
At ihe conclusion of a test, the entire impactor was placed in the desiccator for 24 hours before
disassembling it to recover the substrates. The recovered substrates were placed back in the
desiccator and allowed to reach constant weight before final weighing. Substrates for Test 22
were clean, polished stainless steel; fiberglass substrates were used for all other tests. For Test
23 the Andersen sampler was fitted with a 10 um precutter. The Andersen sampler was not
operated during the PM blank run reported previously3.
RESULTS
Total PM -
A total of 29 tests were run: 11 on the certified catalytic Englander 24ACD, 3 on the
uncontrolled, exempt Englander 18TR, 3 on the prototype noncatalytic Quadrafire 3300 with the
Enhanced Combustion gas pilot4'5, 7 on the certified noncatalytic Quadrafire 3100, and 5 on the
certified pellet Whitfield H-T. Results for Tests 14 and 15 are not reported; they were
abbreviated tests to investigate the operation of a Cyclade® nested cyclone train instead of an
impactor for collecting particle size samples. PM results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 and
shown graphically in Figure 2.
Certified catalytic stoveiA produced a high emission factor burning high moisture wood
at a high bumrate, a moderate emission factor burning this wood at a low burnrate, and a low
emission factor burning well seasoned wood at high and low bumrates. These results agree with
the general wisdom that catalytic stoves perform best at lower burnrates, and that wood should be
well seasoned for best emissions performance.
2
-------
Roof
To atmosphere
Dampers --""^l
<
44 m
Wood
Sfl,
Weigh
state*
ve
H
*x /
(
A
1
Cooled air inte
(see note)
T DiluHon
(room)
air
.^
^
me
CO
CO.
o»
>
>
^
/
^
*
/
•-"
1
x
/
^**-
^
Impactor
/ probe
Method
/^ 5G probe
Damper
«•••'
^toV«r
jBaor
Note: Cooled dilution air not used for reported tests.
Figure 1. Typical wood stove test setup.
-------
Table 2. Summary of total particulate results from each test
Method 56
Emission
rate
e/hr
34.2
41.3
5.0
22.2
20.7
14.0
14.0
4,9
6,4
5.8
2.8
21.3
16.6
20.1
10.8
10.9
1.1
55.9
36.5
36.2
38.4
34.1
11.5
42.8
3.1
2,7
12.8
7.6
1.7
Emission
factor
e/ke
17.8
19.2
4.0
9.5
6.8
10.3
4.8
3.5
4.9
2.2
2,1
5.0
3.9
5.7
2.2
7.9
0.9
37.3
3ZT
21.1
29.3
20.0
2.8
27.3
3.6
3.2
8.1
4.5
2.2
Method 5H*
Emission
rate
e/hr
Emission
factor
_s/ke
Burn
rate
kg/hr
lest
No.
Andersen
location
Wood
moisture
%
dry basis
39.6
47.0
7.0
26.8
25.2
17.7
17.7
6.8
8.7
8.0
4.1
25.7
20,5
24.4
13.9
14.1
1,8
61,4
41.8
41.5
43.8
39.3
14.8
48.3
4.5
4.0
16.3
10.2
2,6
20,6
21.8
5.5
11.5
8.2
13.0
6.1
4.9
6.6
3.0
3,1
6.0
4.8
6.9
2.8
10.2
1.5
41.0
26.0
24.2
33.4
23.1
3.6
30.8
53
4.7
10.3
6.0
3.4
1.92
2.15
1.26
2,33
3.05
1.36
2.92
1.38
1.31
2.64
1.33
4.29
4.27
3.56
4.97
1,37
1.18
1.50
1,61
1.71
1.31
1.70
4.15
1.57
0.86
0.86
L58
1.69
0.78
1
2
3
4
16
I/
18
19
20
29
30
5
6
28
7
8
3179
4
9
10
2i
22
23
26
27
11
12
13
24
25
external
external
external
external
not used
in-stack
not used
in-stack
in-staek
in-slack
in-staek
external
external
in-stack
external
external
not used
external
external
in-staek
in-staek
in-stack
in-stack
in-stack
external
external
external
in-staek
in-staek
28
28
28
28
28
28
13.5
12.6
28
17.2
14.4
28
28
18.7
28
28
20.5
28
28
13.6
14.1
13
14.9
12,7
5.1
5.1
5.1
6.3
6.3
Comment
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
hot start
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
ECW pilot off,
cold start
ECW pilot off,
cold start
ECW pilot on,
cold start
cold start
cold start
cold start
Stainless steel
substrates, cold
start
10pm
precutter, cold
start
cold start
cold start
hot start
hot start
hot start
hot start
hot start
StOV€
code
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
14 1 he equation Method 5H = i ,632(5G)li -M was used to convert Method 5G results to equivalent Method 5H values (see
Appendix B for derivation).
s ECW = Enhanced Combustion Wood stove.
-------
Table 3- Total particulate averages for various bum rates
Particulate emissions
Method 5G
Emission
rate
g/nr
23.
6.
19,
10.8
10.9
1.
11.5
40.2
10.2
2.5
29.6
9.5
6.4
9.9
4.7
19.0
20.1
11.5
46.2
37.9
Emission
factor
g/kg
10.C
5.0
4.8
2.2
7.9
0.9
2,8
26.1
6.3
3.0
13.3
7.1
4.9
3.5
3.5
4.4
5.7
2.8
30.0
24.4
Method 5Ha
Emission
rate
g/hr
27.^
8.9
23.i
13.9
14.1
1.8
14.J
45.6
13.2
3.7
34.7
12.3
8.7
12.8
6.5
23,1
24.4
14.8
51.6
43.2
Emission
factor
g*g
11.!
6.
S.<
2.
10.2
1.5
3.6
29.6
8.2
4.4
15.5
9.3
6.6
4.5
4.9
5A
6.9
3.6
33.5
27.9
Burn
rate
kg/hr
2.5
1.33
4.0*
4.97
1.37
1.18
4.15
1.57
1.63
0.83
2.36
1.31
1.3
2.78
1.34
4.28
3.55
4.15
1.55
1.57
Stove
Catalytic
Catalytic
Uncontrolled exempt
Noncatalytic ECWb
NoncatalyticECW
Noneatalytic ECW
Noneatalytic
Noneatalytic
Pellet
Pellet
Catalytic
Catalytic
Catalytic
Catalytic
Catalytic
Jncontrolled exempt
Uncontrolled exempt
^oncatalytie
Noneatalytic
Noneatalytic
Comment
High BRb ave.
Low BR ave.
Average
High BR ave.
Low BR ave.
Gas pilot on ave.
3igh BR ave.
Med, BR ave.
High BR ave.
Low BR ave.
High BR, high
moisture ave.
-ow BR, high
moisture, cold
start ave.
U3w BR, high
moisture, hot start
ave.
High BR, low
moisture ave.
^ow BR, low
moisture ave.
ligh moisture ave.
Low moisture ave.
High BR, low
moisture ave.
Medium BR, high
moisture ave.
Medium BR, low
noisture average
The equation Method 5H = 1,632(5G)09M was used to convert Method 5G results to equivalent Method 5H values
(see Appendix B for derivation).
BR = bumrate; ECW = Enhanced Combustion Wood stove.
-------
o\
I
o
"3!
to
1
o>
CL
&
•3 "3)
30
25 -
20
15 -
10
50
- 40
— 30
20
-I 10
5
o
"35
en
1
-------
Exempt uncontrolled stove B produced a low to medium emission factor on wet and well
seasoned fuel, although the emission rates (g/hr) were high because of the high burnrate. This
stove has no burnrate control, other than the fuel load.
Prototype noncatalvtic ECW stove C. with the gas pilot off, produced a low emission
factor burning high moisture wood at a high burnrate and a moderate emission factor burning the
same wood at a low burnrate. With the ECW gas pilot on, it produced a very low emission factor
burning seasoned foel at a low burnrate.
Certified noncatalvtic stove D gave a low emission factor burning well seasoned wood at
a high burnrate. Burning at a medium bumrate produced very high emission factors on high
moisture and well seasoned wood loads. The results for stoves B, C, and D point out the potential
difficulty in obtaining low emissions at lower bumrates in noncatalvtic stoves. In other tests
reported elsewhere5, Stove D was capable of routinely achieving emission factors in the 2-4 g/kg
range burning seasoned oak if operated in a carefully scripted procedure.
Certified pellet stove E achieved a medium emission factor at a high burnrate and a low
emission factor at a low burnrate. As noted later, emissions exhibited a markedly different
character at the low bumrate compared to the high bumrate condition.
Particle size -
The following discussion looks first at possible effects of pource variables and then at
sampling variables. Source variables investigated were stove technology, burnrate, wood
moisture, and cold versus hot starts.
Stove technology and bumrate appeared to have little effect with the notable exception of
pellet technology, shown in Figure 3. At a low burnrate, the pellet stove PM2 5 fraction was only
40%, compared to >90% at a high burnrate and >85% for nearly all the stick stove tests. For
example, see Figure 4. At a high burnrate, the pellet stove size distribution was similar to the
stick stove results. It is hypothesized that this is a result of a much higher combustion efficiency
for the pellet stove at low bumrates. As will be discussed later, the low bumrate test also showed
a marked difference in the chemical composition of the emissions, further evidence of a higher
combustion efficiency at the lower bumrate. The efficiency hypothesis may also explain the less
dramatic but significant drop in the PM25 fraction on the 3100 (>90% at a low bumrate dropping
to -70% at a high burnrate) as shown in Figure 5. On the 3100, the bumrate-efficiency trend is
reversed as evidenced by the PM results in Figure 2.
Wood moisture seemed to have some effect on particle size distribution. A direct
comparison, possible only on Stove A, is shown in Figure 6, where it can be seen that drier wood
produced about the same PMZ 5 fraction but a larger PM, „ fraction. Direct comparisons on the
other stoves are not possible because the impactor was located outside the stack for all the higher
wood moisture tests and inside for all lower wood moisture tests.
-------
100
oo
DJ
"3>
O
3
o
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter, ^ m
100
Figure 3. Effect of burnrate on particle size distribution, Pellet Stove (E) in-stack impactor.
-------
100
O)
*
-------
100
O)
CD
3
o
10
rid 27 (low burnrite)
100
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter, jj,m
Figure 5. Effect of bumrate on particle size distribution, Noncatalytie Stove (D) cold start, seasoned wood.
-------
100
V
4=
O3
1
o
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter, ^ m
100
Figure 6. Effect of wood moisture on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A).
-------
Cold vs hot start was tested only on the catalytic stove (Stove A), where it seemed to
make some difference in particle size distribution as shown in Figure 7. The PM2 s fraction was
about 10% lower for the hot start test, whereas the PM, 0 fraction was higher. Total PM was
lower for the hot start test, indicating that (1) emissions during cold startup are high and/or (2)
cold startup emissions are relatively higher in the < PM2J but > PM, 0 size fractions. Another
factor is that during cold startup, the catalyst is inactive. For the hot start test, the catalyst bypass
was closed immediately after loading the main fuel charge.
Sampling variables investigated were in stack vs external location of the impactor train,
fiberglass vs smooth, stainless steel impactor substrates, and 10 um preeutter on the impactor vs
no preeutter.
In stack vs external impactor location, with the possible exception of stove D, the external
impactor location always measured a smaller weight percent of the particles in the small sizes.
For example, Figure 8, stove A, the in-stack impactor collected -90% in the <2.5 um fraction
compared to the out-of-stack impactor's measurement of 78%. Similar differences can be seen
for stoves B and E, Figures 9 and 10, respectively. Figure 11, stove D, shows a very slight
reverse trend; however, this interpretation is confounded by the variation in wood moisture.
Overall, these data provide strong support for the use of straight nozzles with impactors; a curved
nozzle can act as a sizing step, biasing the final result,
Fiberglass vs smooth substrates and precutters was investigated on stove D, as shown in
Figure 12. It is obvious that the 10 urn precutter did not collect any mass, since its impactor size
distribution curve coincides with the one for no precutter test. The smooth substrate data indicate
a significant effect, with the smooth substrate showing nearly 100% < 2.5 um, compared to the
fiberglass substrate data at 90%. Given the sticky nature of wood smoke, and the absence of any
large particles (as evidenced by the precutter null catch), it can be safely assumed that these data
are not the result of particle bounce. The reason that fiberglass shows a lower percent of fine
particles can be explained by considering the path the gases and particles take through a typical
impactor stage. They enter from the stage above via axial jets. The gases and particles too small
to be collected on that stage must then turn 90° and travel across the face of the substrate to reach
the next set of axial jets. Due to the roughness of the fiberglass, some of the particles are
collected by filtration during this passage and are countered with the particles collected by
impaction. This provides strong justification for using smooth substrates for all future testing.
Chemical analyses -
Chemical analyses were run on extracts of the impactor fiberglass filters, the XAD extracts, and
the DNPH tubes. The impactor filters from Tests 2-10 were aggregated by stage and extracted
(i.e., all stage Is were extracted together) using methylene chloride. The extracts were then
analyzed for a set of target PAH compounds. The results, presented in Figure 13, show that none
of the PAHs appeared until stage 6, which has a outpoint of 1 um. By far me largest quantity
was collected on the backup filter which contains particles < 0.415 um aerodynamic equivalent
diameter. BaP was found on stage 7 and backup filters. The two major compounds on the
12
-------
100
O)
"55
3
O
10
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter, p, m
100
Figure 7. Effect of hot vs cold startup on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A).
-------
100
V
1
O
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter,
100
Figure 8. Effect of impactor location on particle size distribution, Catalytic Stove (A), high moisture wood.
-------
100
V
O)
1
s
ys
(8
3
3
O
10
1 10 100
Equivalent aerodynamic diameters ^m
I
Figure 9. Effect of impactor location on particle size distribution, Uncontrolled Exempt Stove (B).
-------
100
O)
1
0)
o
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter,
100
Figure 10. Effect of impactor location on particle size distribution, Pellet Stove (E).
-------
100
V
O)
"5
0
+3
J5
3
E
3
O
10
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter, urn
100
Figure 11. Effect of impaetor location and wood moisture on particle size distribution, Noncatalytic Stove (D).
-------
CO
1
.1
•«—'
JO
3
O
100
10
1 10
Equivalent aerodynamic diameter, p, m
100
Figure 12. Effect of impactor substrate and precutter on particle size distribution, Noneatalytic Stove (D).
-------
700
Q.
CO
CD
Q.
CC
O
fluoranthene
anthracene
phenanthrene
fluorene
acetophenone
• 2-methyl phenol
D phenol
200
100
1 (10,8)
2(6.75) 3(4.6) 4(3.2) 5(2.0) 6(1.0) 7(0.61i)
Impactor stage number, (outpoint, jam)
S (0.415)
Figure 13, PAHs quantified in impactor composite filter extracts from Tests 2-10.
-------
backup filter were pyrene and fluoranthene. These data clearly show that the hazardous organic
compounds are associated with the submicron particles.
The XAD cartridges from Tests 1-13 have been extracted and analyzed to date. The target
nonvolatile compounds are listed in Figure 14, with the analytical results. Phenol was found in
significant quantities in the emissions from the stick burning stoves; very little was found in the
pellet stove emissions and then only at the high burnrate. There was a large difference in the
sum of the target compounds between the low and Mgh burns on the pellet stove. In quantity, the
high burn pellet stove emission was similar to the higher emission stick burning stove results,'
although the mix of compounds was shifted to higher molecular weight.
The DNPH cartridges were extracted and analyzed for aldehydes. The results (Figure 15)
show that the dominant compound was formaldehyde, followed by acetaldehyde. Even at fairly
low PM emission conditions, such as stove A at a low burnrate, aldehyde emissions are still Mgh.
Stove C at a Mgh burnrate produced one-third the aldehydes as it did at a low burnrate.
Especially at a low burnrate, the pellet stove aldehyde emission factor was relatively low.
REFERENCES
I. Nizieh, S. V., T. Pierce, A. Pope, P. Carlson, and B. Barnard, National Air Pollutant
Emission Trends. 1900-1996. EPA-454/R-97-011 (NTISPB98-153158). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1997.
2. Rau, J. A., and J. J. Huntzicker, "Size Distribution and Chemical Composition of
Residential Wood Smoke," in Proceedings: 78th Annual Meeting of the AWMA, Detroit
MI, June 1985, Paper No. 85-43.3.
3. McCrillis, R.C., and P.Kariher, "Fireplace Emissions Update - New Particle Size Data,"
in Proceedings: Emissions Inventory: Planning for the Future. Research Triangle Park,' '
NC, October 28-30,1997.
4. U.S. Patent No. 5,179,933, "Single Chamber Wood Stove Including Gaseous
Hydrocarbon Supply," Inventors: R.C. McCrillis, N.L. Butts, W.H. Ponder, and J.H.
Abbott, issued January 19,1993.
5. McCrillis, R.C., J.H. Abbott, W.H. Ponder, N.L. Butts, and D.S. Henry, "Enhanced
Combustion Woodstove (ECW) Technology," in Proceedings: Conference on
Environmental Commerce. CONEC'93. Chattanooga, TN, October 17-20,1993.
20
-------
U pyrone m fluorene a 2-methylnaphthalene H acotophenono
g3 fluoranthene B dibenzofuran B naphthalene @ 2-methyl phenol
dl-n*utyl phthalate @ acenaphthene B 2,4-dImethyl phenol Q benzyl alchohol
0 anthracene S acenaphthyleno i3 4-methyI phenol | phenol
phenanthrone
./ .X
Stove code (burnrate)
Figure 14. Target semivolatile organic compound emission factors for various stove technologies found in XAD extracts fiom Tests 1-13
-------
to
V)
CD
1.5 -
T3
£ °
CO ^
•m "O
CD
3
s
0.5
o u
Hexanal
Pentanal
S Benzaldehyde
Propanal
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Stove code (burnrate)
Figure 15. Individual aldehyde emission factors for various stove technologies, based on Tests 1-13.
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Data Summaries
Table Number
Description
Table A-1
Table A-2a
Table A-2b
Table A-2e
Table A-2d
Table A-3
Table A-4
Table A-5a
Table A-5b
Table A-6a
Table A-6b
Summary of semivolatile organic data for all stoves A-l
Detailed results for Stove A, Tests 1 and 2 A-2
Detailed results for Stove A, Tests 3 and 4 A-3
Detailed results forStove A, Tests 16-19 '..'.'.'. A-4
Detailed results for Stove A, Tests 20,29, and 30, A-5
Detailed results for Stove B, Tests 5,6, and 28 A-6
Detailed results for Stove C, Tests 7,8, and 31794 , A-7
Detailed results for Stove D, Tests 9,10, and 21 A-8
Detailed results for Stove D, Tests 22,23,26, and 27 A-9
Detailed results for Stove E, Tests 11 - 13 A-10
Detailed results for Stove E, Tests 24 and 25 A-l 1
A-i
-------
Table A-1 . Su mmary of semlvalaKIe organic data for all sloves
Slow code Stove A Stove A S'.oveB Stove C
high bum low bum Man tan
METHOD 5H PARTICU1AT6S
XAO SEMIVOIATILE ORQANICS
phenol
tJinzjl alchohoi
2-methyI phenol
aceiophsnone
4-methyl phenol
2.4-dimethy! phenol
niphlhalene
2-rnethyInaphltafaie
aoenaphthytena
acenaphlhene
dibenzoftuan
fluotene
phentnthrene
anthracene
dta-bufyl phlhabte
fluoranthene
pyrene
Total
Other campo t/nds
2'«neihyMuran
2-furamwthanol
3-™8iyl-furan
2-furanmelhanoI
1-(acely!(Ky}-2-pfopanone
1 .S-Efun&lhylbeflzene
1 ,2-dTmethvlbenzene
cycJopent-2-en-1,4-dione
phenytethyne
slyrene
2-nwthyt"2"cyelc>penlen-1-0ne
unkftydro
unk hydro
2,5-hexsnedione
unK hydro
2-melhv!-3-pefllanone
1 *{ac@toxy}-2-&ul5nofi e
S"fnelhy!-2-fufaficdftQxaldehyde
benzzidfthyde
unk hydra
1-€lhyl-4-fiie&hyl-&enzefiB
bsnzoiuran
3-melhyl-1,2-cydopH!lanedlne
2-hydroisy-3-2-cyclopenl6n-1-one
3-hydroxy-benzaWehyde
Mans
4~mMhy!b&&zald€]!yde
2-inathoxy-phenol
utik hydro
unk hydra
2-ethyl-phBiol
unk hydro
unk hydro
uRk hydro
meftyMndene
dimelhyl-pheflol
2-msthoxy-4"me!hy!^)hefiol
unkhydnj
2,e-dimeBra)iy-phenol
mefhyt-flaphlhalene
btphenyl
unk hydra
MmMhoxybenzene
1.2,3-WmeUH>jiy-5-nielhy)-b6nze«ie
2-^aph!halenecaffeaxatdeTiyd&
unk hydro
unk hydra'ptilfalalc
ink hydrn/ph'.hatale
unk hydro^^ialsle
unk hydro/phthstste
unk hydro/phtfalale
unk hydto/pblhalaie
unkhydmfphlhalale
unknyoWphthatate
unkhydrorphhalate
unkhydro/phlhalate
unk hydrtt/phthalaEe
Grand total
Seteded POMs torn "1 B" Bsled ir
t*RK Jlelr-dS 441rA^ICt
'«» t
15.00
0.1741
0.0493
0.0099
0.0930
0.0263
O.OTOS
0,0142
0.0151
0.0072
0.0034
0.0062
0.4692
0,114
0,006
0.012
0.010
0.038
0.012
0.026
0.036
0.009
0.023
0.137
0.008
0.015
0.032
0.006
0.010
0,019
0.010
0.026
0.013
0.025
0.013
0.010
6.018
0.036
0.009
0.011
0.008
0.025
0.014
0.031
0.005
0.049
0.052
0.031
0.023
0.007
2.398
0.095
!«fl E
7.68
0.1327
0.0294
0.0048
0.0643
0.01 5S
0.0445
0.0087
0.0095
0.0040
0.0024
0.0048
0.3209
0.083
0.018
0.016
0.018
0.016
0,022
0.023
0.111
O.020
0.012
0.011
0.010
0,026
0.017
o.oi a
0.013
0.017
0.021
0,013
O.OfZ
0.819
0.061
TO V
5.91
0.2404
0.0370
0.0103
0.0756
0.0119
0.1780
0.0261
0.0457
0.0036
0.0190
0.0104
0.0286
0.0051
0.6918
0.039
0.014
0.014
0.025
0.020
0.014
0.019
0.058
0.012
0.003
0.006
0.053
0.012
0.007
0.034
0"14
0.345
0.007
0.005
0.004
0.007
0.008
0.021
0.004
0.008
1.143
O.271
*a
2.81
0.038i
0.0038
0,0111
0,0209
0.0022
0.0036
0.0024
0.003i
0.0863
0.026
0.012
0.012
0.015
^
fl.013
0,164
0.028
Stove C
8*9
10.2?
0.21 04
0.0706
0.0095
0.1296
0.0386
0.0451
0.0102
o.oosa
0.0080
0.0051
0.5328
0.141
0.082
0.069
0.029
0.025
0.036
0.048
0.025
0.023
0.036
0.025
0.039
0.025
0.138
0.033
0.039
0.117
0.058
0.034
1.656
0.056
Stove C
low bum
8*3
1.51
0.0355
0.0002
0.0021
0.0081
0.0010
O.0317
0.0027
0.0050
0.0096
0.0056
0.0008
o 0010
0.0015
O.OBOB
0.0990
0.041
Stove D Stove E Stove E
medium bum hfgft bum low bum
9*S
29.17
Q2772
0.005T
0.1528
0.0156
0.2168
0.1013
0.0585
0.0188
0,0083
0.0072
0.0038
0.0543
0.9Z03
0.074
0 119
0.027
0.093
O.093
o.ios
0.114
0 046
0.053
0.047
0.052
0.062
oms
COST
0.063
0034
0 116
0.091
0044
0.046
0.116
0.211
0.083
2.723
0.125
fl*9 8*9
0.0203 0,0047
0.3846 0.0385
0.0127
0.2031 0.0105
0.0114
0.0413 0.0041
0.6734 0.0578
0.050
0.812 0.058
0.640 0.053
-------
ar$i?i*A,YaKEM«Dd3
156*
ran
64W
iZSS
0*1
ass
K02
ur «ji
I-S 23O1
*•«•§
3.7 ftf
9J02S 6B13
a.11< acts
aaa CMJB
CMS
ecu
6,1 IS
0*21
oca
Tottf ad B333
C.M? asm
oats
aarr
OM «e»
OJlf
6.033
o-Mi oca
0.058 SJS25
B-I3 0531
2*P*iw»»«j*fa(aitiB-u
OtEU GC1*
Udklq^a
UB*.IV*"
mknyOra
n4bp*a
0.03*
9-tStt
B.023
(M3T2
ft DM
CM*
01O
OffiD
&9Z4
-------
Test.** rat &*B,
» KAED
kiftHnf(AEdmaae* JUKI.
Ul
W.15
207
344H
sraoo
Kill*
§60 tfw
w*woaf*L=:
IMS ft™-
Mia [k*t»
Hjaiwt*
H5K£ftt-
USHl^t'
tettniB*
Ba_-k«t Y*
0923
€12
ttlfl
RKS
CS1I
OflJ
aotz
coos
&.W BBS!
0.037 BflfS
0.313 tH?
0.1QB CMS
0.023 0919
&305
toss
JL1S3
01113
COl!
(LtSt
5.0J9
ROT I
OfliS
OKU
(1(95
9J23
0.92
t.m 5115
8301 (LTO
CJE€Z S03S
BjS2l
Ojf&S
sets
OflZS
S.(tl
413
0552
son
BBTS
fljsn
90*9
0223
fl-ISf
6913
0033
CC13
0-I2S
D.S3I3
8.tO3
6.COS
i*3pfc^y.M-cjdc*^n^^
ftB2«
&CS*
0 DM.
OBIS
9JG3I
OS23
9&&T
zxm
-------
Table A-2q Detailed results for Stove A, Tests 16-19
Test #16 Slow bum, no particle sizing, cold slart.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Oak cordwood. Moisture = 28%
no size data
wet wood w
bum time =
M5G part =
M5G part =
M5H part. =
M5H part. =
bumrate =
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate =
% moisture
11,8 kg
3.02 hr
20.7 grtir
6.8 gfcg
25.2 g/hr
8.2 g/kg
3.05 kg/hrdiy
96.1 degF
8.60 ib/hrwel
28.0 %
Test #17 Slow bum, in-stack Andersen, coM slart.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Stage Catch % of total Cum.%< Outpoint
mg % % pm
Oak cordwood, Moisture = 28% Y X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Tola!
wet wood w
bum time =
M5G part. =
M5Gpart =
MSHpart.=
M5H part. =
bumrate =
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate =
% moisture
2.7 . 2.29
1.4 1.18
0.8 0.68
0.7 0.59
2.8 2.37
34.9 29,58
40.9 34.68
21.3 18.05
12.6 10.Si
118 100.00
12.3 kg
7.0B hr
14.0 g/hr
10.3 gfltg
17.7 g/hr
13.0 g/kg
1,36 kg/hrdry
88.9 degF
3.82 Ib/hrwet
28.0 %
97.71
96.53
35.85
§5.25
92.88
63.31
28.64
10.59
0.00
10.8
8.7
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.0
0.61
0.41
0
Test#18 Fast bum, no particle sizing. coM start.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Oak confwood, Moisture = 13.5%
no size data.
wet wood w
bum time =
M5G part. =
M5G part =
M5H part. =
M5H part =
bumrate =
Dil.tun.T =
bumrata =
% moisture
11.7 kg
3.53 hr
14.0 g/hr
4.8' a/kg
17.7 g/hr
6.1 g/kg
2.92 kg/hrdry
68.5 degF
7.29 Ib/hrwet
13.5 %
Test It 19 Slow bum, in-stack Andersen, cold start.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Stage Catch % of total Cum. %< Cuipoint
>"i % % jim
Oak cordwood. Moisture = 12.6% Y X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wet wood w
bum time =
M5G part =
M5Q part =
M5H part. =
M5H part. =
bumrate =
Dit. tun. T =
bumrate =
% moisture
3.6
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
3.2
11.2
17.7
9.1
48.2
7.47
2.28
1.87
1.45
1.45
6.64
23.24
36.72
18.88
100.00
92.53
S0.2S
88.38
86.93
85.48
78.84
55.60
18.88
0.00
11.0
6.8
4.6
3.2
2.0
1.0
0.62
0.42
12 kg
7.75 hr
4.9 g/hr
3.5 g/kg
6.8 g/hr
4.i g/kg
1.4 kg/hrdry
81.9 degF
3.4 Ib/hrwet
12.6 %
A-4
-------
Table A-2d Detailed results for Stove A, Tests 20,29, and 30
Test #20 Slow bum, in-slack Andersen, hot start.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Stage Catch % of total Cum. %< Cufpoint
mg %
Oak cordwood, Moisture = 28% Y
H m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Tola!
wet wood vu
burn time »
M5G part. =
M5G part, =
M5Hpart.=
M5H part. =
burnrafe =
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate =
% moisture
3.4
1
0.5
1
0.6
2.7
13.6
15.9
7.5
46.2
7.36
2.16
1.08
2.16
1.30
5.84
29.44
34.42
16.23
100.00
92,64
90.48
89.39
87.23
85.93
80.09
50.65
16.23
0.00
10,8
6.7
4,6
3.1
2.0
1.0
0.61
0.41
10.1 k§
6.03 hr
6.4 g/hr
4.9 8/kg
8.7 g/hr
6.6 g/kg
1.3 kg/hrdry
84.6 degF
3.7 Ib/hrwet
28.0 %
Test 829 Fast bum, in-stack Andersen, cold start.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Stage Catch % of total Cum.%< Cutpoint
mg % % (im
Oak cordwood, Moisture = 17.2% Y X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
Backup
Total
wet wood w
bum ttme =
M5G part. =
M5G part. =
M5H part =
M5H part =
bumrate =
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate -
% moisture
3.7 10.22
0.1 0.28
0.2 0.55
0 0.00
1 2.76
0.6 1.66
3,7 10.22
10.4 28.73
16.5 45.58
36.2 100.00
12.6 kg
5.6 hr
5.8 g/hr
2.2 g/kg
8.0 g/hr
3.0 g/kg
2.6 kg/hrdry
83.8 dag F
5,0 Ib/nrwet
17.2 %
89.78
89.50
88.95
88.95
86.19
84,53
74,31
45.58
0.00
10.8
6.7
4.6
3.1
2
1
0.6
0.41
Test #30 Slow burn, in-stack Andersen, cold start.
Englander 24ACD catalytic
Stage Catch % of total Cum. %< Cutpoint
rnp tf> % ii m
Oak cordwood, Moisture -14.^1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wet wood w
burn time =
M5G part. =
M5G part =
M5H part =
M5H part. =
bumrate =
DR. tun. T =
bumrate -
% moisture
0,8 2.45
0.4 1.09
0 0.00
0.2 0.54
0 0.00
1,7 4.63
5.8 15.80
9.5 25.89
18.2 4i.59
36.7 100.00
12.4 kg
10.65 hr
2.8 g/hr
2.1 a/kg
4.1 g/hr
3-1 g/kg
1.3 kg/hrdry
78.6 degF
2.6 Ib/hrwet
14.4 %
97.55
96.46
96.46
85.91
95.91
91,28
75.48
49.59
0.00
10.9
6.8
4.6
3.2
2
1
0.62
0.42
A-5
-------
11.3*
utm
KM
an
CM
ttXl 3
ttM
IB) NX
1*30 JTS.it Oil
MJQ *113 a«
«» aw
117*,
3131*,
nil aqi
210 K
*S*i
ZJIi Kr
»* ^fcr
DM5
tt&t
sau
ocst ejin
fiffll (LEST
DO?! a 8«
6S*t 8611
aijz BB3t
OECI DBII
-------
t* ferSssntC, r«»t. K. fc
•238
HUTJ
S2JE3
arts
6 OS!
DDQZ
BOW
IB OKI
ffBlf
atos
em
C.JW
BDiFt
H.113
OD3J
19241
OSXI
ttliJ
asccta
a coma
ocein
JUKCSS
attc&
OWIS4
&OH1I
Dim
8G2S
ami «nn
90tl SOT*
cos* eras
a tn wij
etM an*
-------
*
50
;i
M
m
a
m
&*P*J
|k 91
11
)
2
O«
rM* V*
BSC9
ssai
9*W
MflJ
IIBO
aao
CJWrt
X
It I
_.
2.*
CSS
£}«
«
Fnirjj
aastf.-**
M,WXg* Stg,
O^CERfiKB
MEJ
MKJ
t/J«
HM
««T
)J33
OB^Bwie
TctH
llllll»H1 K.T.
ptKanAiEteaM
Crfr-i
4 IfasS.-, - «
U
j
*
as
M
»
4UfcH—•
f 8s*
eaai oc-
lEtiart- M »*(,
*"-ra»* %i i^nray
O 1^ t«
****** «HCMwf
ViBOsC-jn - IS* *.
QW OS!
-------
Table A-56 Detailed results for Stove D, Tests 22,23,26, ana 27
Test mz Stow bum, in-sta<* Andersen, sfaintess steel substrates
Quadrafira 3100 certified model
Stage Cat* % of tola! Cum.%< Cutpoin!
Oak cordwood. Moisture = 14.1% Y y **
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wet wood w
burn time =
MSGpart. =
M5GparL =
M5Hpart =
MSHpan =
bumrate =
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate=
% moisture
0.6
0.4
0.1
-0.1
0.3
5.7
47.1
50.2
32.4
136.7
0.44
0.07
-0.07
022
4.17
34.46
35.72
23.70
100.00
99.56
9S.27
99.20
99.27
S9.05
S4.88
60.42
23.70
0.00
11.1
6.9
4.7
3.2
2
1
0.62
0.42
0
7kg
4.68 hr
38.4 gfhr
29.3 g/kg
44.0 g/hr
33.6 g/kg
1.31 kg/hrdry
82.8 degF
3.29 IWhrwe!
14.1 %
Test *23 Medium bum, tn-siaek Andereen with 1 0 pjn precu«er
Quadrafire 3100 certified model
Stage Catch % of total Cum. %< Outpoint
«"B % % urn
Oak cortfwood. Moisture = 13% Y X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wet wood w
burn lime =
M5G part. =
M5GparL =
M5Hpart.=
M5Hpart.=
Da. tun. T =
bumrate-
% moisture
t2
1.4
1.7
0.7
3.7
39.4
57.2
27,5
20
163.6
7,33
0.88
1.04
0.43
2.26
24.08
34.96
16.81
12.22
100.00
92.6?
91.81
90.7T
90.34
88.08
64.00
29.03
12.22
0,00
10.S
6.8
4.6
31
2
1
0.61
0.41
0
6.8 kg
3.63 hr
34.1 g/hr
20.0 9*g
39.5 g/hr
23.2 g/kg
1 kgflvrdry
89.1 degF
4.24 Ibflirwet
13.0 %
Test 026 Fast burn, in-stack Andersen
Ouadrafira 3100 cert/tied model
Stage Cat* % of total Cum. %< Ctrtpotnl
™Q "* % u m
Oak cordwood,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wstwcodw
bum lime =
M5Gpart =
M5G part. =
M5Hpart =
M5Hpart.=
bumrate =
tffl.tun.T =
bumrate =
% moislure
Moisture = 14.9% Y X
3.1 13.90 86.10
1.3 6.83 8057
1-3 5.83 74.44
0.3 1.35 7a09
0.6 2.69 70.40
1.6 7.17 63.23
2.7 12.11 51.12
i 22.42 28.70
6-4 28.70
22.3 100.00
7.3 kg
1.53 hr
115 g/hf
2.8 gftg
14.8 g/hr
3.S gftg
4.15 kg/hrdiy
88.8 degF
10.50 Ib/hrwet
14.S %
10.5
6.5
4.4
3
1.9
0.8
0.59
0.4
Test S27 Medium burn, in-stack Andereen
Quadrate 3100 certified mode!
Stage Cat* % of Wat Cum.%< Outpoint
Oak cordwood, Moisture = 12.7%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wet wood w-
bumlima =
MSGpart =
M5G part. =
MSHpart. —
M5Hpart.=
bumrate =
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate =
% moisture
7.8 3.74
1.2 0.59
1.3 0.64
2.5 123
7.3 3.59
65.6 32.25
67 32.94
34 16.72
16.9 B.31
203.4 100.00
6.9 kg
3.9 hr
42.8 g/hr
27.3 g/kg
48.5 g/hr
30.9 g/kfl
1.57 kg/hrdry
94.8 degF
3.89 ib/hrwei
12.7 %
Y X
86.26
95.67
95.03
93.81
9052
57.96
25.02
8.31
0
q & ao ave.
7.05
3.8
3fl.5
24.2
45.1
27.6
1.64
91.1
4.09
13.2
10.7
6.6
4.5
3.1
2
0.9
0.6
0.4
A-9
-------
rVE,tmOf f 1 -13
1321
HT-SS
BOO
3*2*
SIM
B3S
TOM
•WtlHBCdBtK
US6»d«
it »a
Ml*
2M
3ETt*f
3£>lc
• Dlft!
*!»*,
OM.^,^
•ZltefF
1JN 6.%r
-------
Table A-6b Detailed results for Stove E, Tests 24 and 25
Test #24 Fast bum, internal Andersen
WhttfleM II-T Pallet Stove
Test #25 Slow bum, internal Andersen
Stage
Pellets, moisture
1
2
3
4
5
B
7
S
Backup
Total
wet wood wf, =
bum time =
M5G part. =
M5G pat. =
M5Hpart.=
M5Hpart =
bumrate =
Oil. tun. T=
bumrate =
% moisture =
Catch % of total Cum. %< Cutpobit
mg %
= 6.3% Y
0.20 1.05
0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00
1.30 6.81
2.20 11.52
3.10 16.23
12.30 64.40
19.10
4.5 kg
2.S hr
7.6 glht
4.5 g/kg
10.2 gftr
6.0 gfltg
1,69 ks/rtrdry
88.7 deg F
3.96 IMirwei
8.3 %
% ji m
X
98.95
98.95
98.95
B8.95
98.9S
92.15
80.63
64.40
0.00
10.9
S.8
4.6
3.1
2
1
0.61
0.41
WhftfMd II-T Pellet Stove
Stage Catch
mg
Pellets, moisture = 6.3%
% of total Cum. % < Outpoint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Backup
Total
wet wood wt. =
bum time =
M56 part. =
M5S part. =
M5Hpart =
M5Hpart.=
bumrate -
Oil. tun. T =
bumrate =
% moisiuriB =
0.7 6.38
0.6 5.45
0.8 7.27
0 0.00
1.3 1182
0.5 4.55
1.7 15.45
2.1 19.09
3.3 30.00
11
2.7 kg
3.25 hr
1.7 g/hr
2.2 g/kg
Z6 g/hr
3.4 glkg
0.78 kg/fir dry
85.8 degF
1.83 Ib/hrwet
6.3 %
93.64
88.18
80.91
80.91
69.09
64.SS
49.0i
30.00
0.00
10.6
6.6
4.i
3.1
2
0.6
0.4
A-11
-------
APPENDIX B
Derivation of Method 5G to SH conversion equation
Table No. Description
B-l Method 5G to 5H correlation data - ALL DATA B-l
Figure No. Description
B-l EPAMethods5G-5Hcomparison(SG = Q- ....
B-2 EPA Methods 5G-5H comparison (5G = 0-20 g/hr) ,...,.....E-5
B-3 EPAMethods5G - 5H comparison (5G = 0 - lOOgte) ..B-6
B-i
-------
Table fi-f. Method 5G to 5H correlation data - ALL DATA
Measured Measured
Prefix Run No. Test bumrate 5G 5H
cods Dale kg/hr g/hr g/hr
EPA/ACUR 42904/29/1993 0.85 016 022
EPA/ACUR 42804/26/1993 0.8? 023 041
EPA/ACUR 726 07/26/19i3 0.86 0,44 QJ3
SCA E4
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
SCA B1
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
OWN W1
OMN S1
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ACUR
SCA B2
EPA/ACUR
SCA B3
OMN R2
EPA/ACUR
SCA E1
SCO 13
OMN P3
EPA/ACUR
OMN W2
SCA B4
OMN Y4
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ES 1B
OMN T1
OMN R4
EPA/ACUR
OMN X4
SCO IS
EPA/ACUR
EPA/ES 38
EPA/ACUR
OMN Y1
EPA/ACUR
OMN W3
OMN S2
EPA/ES 2T
EPA/ACUR
511 05/11/1Si3
504 05/04/1993
623 09/23/1993
624 06/24/19§3
510 05/10/1893
615 06/15/1i93
526 05/26/1993
817 08/17/1993
811 08/11/19i3
818 08/16/1993
512 05/12/1993
525 05/25/1993
506 05/06/1393
818 08/18/1993
602 06/02/1993
422 04/22/1993
601 06/01/1993
415 04/15/1993
806 OB/06/1993
812 08/12/1993
414 04/14/1993
609 06/09/1993
524 05/24/1993
421 04/21/1993
914 09/14/1983
901 09/01/1893
824 08/24/1993
419 04/19/1993
520 05/20/1993
1.36
1.00
1.04
0.80
0.88
O.S7
0.85
0.76
0.87
0.83
2.34
0.85
0.92
0.9
2.75
1.12
0.83
1.21
0.95
0.85
0.96
O.i2
0.81
1.09
0.75
0.77
0.34
0.78
1.17
1.22
3.26
0,45
0.46
0.46
0.5
0.50
0.53
0.58
0.66
0.73
0.75
0.86
0.87
0.97
0.98
1.05
1.16
1,17
1.2
1.22
1.25
1.25
1.34
1.51
1.64
1.65
1.71
1.81
1.82
1.83
1.89
2.00
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.06
2.16
2.30
2.32
2.58
2.6
2.7
2.74
2.8
2.9
2.91
3.02
3,16
3.21
3.22
3.30
3.37
3.39
1.20
0.97
1.01
0.81
0.83
1.12
0.94
1,29
1.21
1.35
1.27
1,65
1.79
1.95
1.28
2.08
1.79
2.04
2.24
2.09
2.11
2.39
1.7
3.17
3.72
3.05
3.93
2.23
2.90
2.5
3.20
2.10
2.74
3.12
3.75
2.26
4.20
4.38
3.44
3.05
4.66
2.24
4.8
3.44
2.50
4.74
3.70
4.37
3.63
3.53
7.55
4.19
In 53
-1.8326
-14697
-0.8210
-0.7985
-0.7765
-0.7765
-0.6931
-0.6931
-0.6349
-0.5447
-0.4155
-0.3147
-0.2877
-0.1508
-0.1393
-0.0305
-0.0202
0.0488
0.1484
0.1570
0.1823
0.1989
0.2231
0.2231
0.2827
0.4121
0.4947
0.5008
0.5365
0.5933
0.5988
0.6043
0.6366
0.6931
0.7031
0.7031
0.7031
0.7227
0.7701
0.8329
0.8424
0.9478
0.9555
0.9933
1.0080
1.0296
1.0647
1.0682
1.1053
1.1506
1.1663
1.1694
1.1939
1.2140
1.2208
5H predicted 5H predicted by
hi 5H All data Federal Register
S/hr g/hr
-1.5141 0.31 0.40
-0.8916 0.43 0.54
-0.3147 0.78 0 a?
0.1823
-0.0305
0.0100
-0,2107
-0.1863
0.1133
-0.061 i
0.2546
0.1906
0.3001
0.2390
0.5008
0.5822
0.6678
0.2469
0.7324
0.5822
0.7129
0.8065
0.7372
0.7467
0.8713
0.5306
1.1537
1.3137
1.1151
1,3686
0.8020
1.0647
0.9163
1.1632
0,7418
1.0080
1.1378
1.3218
0.8154
1.4351
1.4761
1.2355
1.1151
1.5390
0.8065
1.5686
1.2355
0.9147
1.5560
1.3083
1.4748
1.2892
1,2613
2.0218
1,4327
0.79
0.81
0.81
0.87
0.87
0,92
1.00
1.12
1.23
1.28
1.42
1.44
1.59
1,60
1.71
1.87
1.S8
1.92
1.95
2,00
2.00
2.12
2.37
2.55
2.56
2.65
2.79
2.80
2.82
2JO
3.05
3.08
3,08
3.08
3.13
3.27
3.46
3,49
3.84
3,87
4.00
4.05
4.13
4.27
4.28
4.42
4.61
4.68
4.69
4.79
4.88
4.91
0.94
0.96
0.96
1.02
1,02
1,0?
1 ifi
1. ID
1 9Q
I i£,y
1.40
1.43
1.61
1.62
1.77
1.79
1.90
2.06
207
fm,*\JI
2,12
2.15
2.19
? 1Q
£. IJJ
2.32
2.56
2.74
2.76
2,84
2.98
2,99
3.01
3,09
3.24
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.32
3.45
3.63
3.66
4.00
4.02
4.15
4.20
49ft
**.£O
4.40
4.42
4.55
4.73
4.79
4.80
4.90
4.99
5.01
B-1
(continued)
-------
Table B-1. Method 5G to 5H correlation data - ALL DATA
Prefix
code
OMN
OMN
SCO
EPA/ACUR
SCA E3
EPA/ES SF
OMN
EPA/ES
OMN
OMN
EPA/ES
EPA/ES
OMN
OMN
OMN
OMN
OMN
OMN
EPA/ES
OMN
OMN
OMN
OMN
EPA/ES
OMN
OMN
SCO
EPA/ES
OMN
SCO
EPA/ES
OMN
OMN
EPA/ES
SCO
OMN
OMN
SCO
SCO
EPA/ES
SCO
EPA/ES
OMN
SCO
OMN
SCO
OMN
SCO
SCA
SCO
SCO
SCO
SCO
OMN
EPA/ES
Run No.
Q1
Y2
12
U3
IT
R1
P6
4B
SB
N4
O1
R3
P2
Y3
P4
4F
O2
P5
X3
XI
1H
X2
P1
J3
2B
M1
(4
4H
N2
V2
1H
J2
N3
N1
11
J7
2H
J5
3F
U1
J4
L1
J6
U2
J1
E2
K1
K3
J8
K2
L2
3H
607
Measured Measured
Test bumrate 5G 5H
Date kg/hr
06/07/1993 0.99
0.55
0.6
1.64
OJ5
1.46
2.77
1.08
1.46
0.54
1.58
0.6
9/hr
3.39
3.41
3.60
3.81
3.93
4.17
4.20
4.257
4.31
4.44
4.50
4.97
5.02
5.51
5.53
5.73
5.75
5.81
6.24
6,32
6.57
7.06
7.09
7.1
7.71
7J5
8.2
8.56
8.86
8.80
9.10
9.48
9.73
9.85
9.9
9.94
10.13
11.3
12.10
12.15
12.30
13.35
14.14
14.2
14.67
15.00
15.22
15.40
16.00
16.40
16.40
16.90
17.50
17,92
1§,68
g/hr
4.63
4.55
6.30
6.02
7.10
4.63
4.85
8.01
6.99
6.45
7.98
3.00
6.57
8.82
12.02
7,27
8.7
4.70
20.33
9.10
8.87
9.97
8.83
8.76
7.58
7.B6
11.9
10.51
10.45
22.20
8.49
11.52
12.06
9.39
19.5
13.65
9.48
17.6
2i.40
21.22
18.00
15.96
21.35
17.8
13.93
15.90
20.89
18.00
23.50
19.30
20,60
22.00
23.30
22.16
6,ii
InSG
1.2208
1.2267
1.2809
1.3376
1.3686
1.4277
1.4351
1.4486
1.4609
1.4907
1.5041
1.6032
1.6134
1.7066
1.7102
1,7457
1.7492
1.7596
1.8311
1.8437
1.8825
1.9544
1.9587
1.8601
2.0425
2.0732
2.1041
2.1470
2.1815
2.1861
2.2087
2.2492
2,2752
2.2875
2.2925
2.2966
2.3155
2.4248
2.4932
2.4973
2.5096
2.5916
2.6490
2.6532
2.6858
2.7081
2.7226
2.7344
2.7726
2.7973
2.7973
2.8273
2.8622
2.8859
2.9798
5H predicted 5H predicted by
In 5H AH data Federal Reoisier
1.5326
1.5151
1.8405
1.7951
1.9601
•i.5317
15790
2.0807
1.8445
1.8641
2.0769
1.0989
1.8825
2.1770
2.486S
1.9838
2.1633
1.5476
3.0121
2,2083
2.1827
2.2996
2.1782
2.1702
2.0268
2.0360
2.4765
2.3525
2.3468
3.1001
2.1388
2,4441
2.4899
2.2396
2.9704
2,6137
2.2471
2.8679
3.3810
3.0550
2.8304
2.7700
3.0611
2.8792
2.6340
2.76S3
3.0393
2.8904
3.1570
2.9601
3.0253
3.0910
3.1485
3,0983
1.9402
g/hr
4.91
4.94
5.18
5.46
5.61
5.92
5.96
6.03
6.10
6,27
6.34
6.84
7.00
7.61
7.64
7.89
7.91
7.99
8.52
8.62
8,92
9.52
9.56
9.57
10.31
10.80
10.§0
11.33
11.89
11.74
11.98
12.43
12.72
12.86
12,92
12.97
13.19
14.56
15.49
15.54
15.72
16.92
17.83
17.89
18.43
18,80
19.05
19.25
19.93
20.38
20.38
20.94
21.61
22.08
24.02
g/hr
5,01
5.04
5.27
5.52
5.67
5.85
5.99
6,06
6.12
6.27
6.34
6.89
6.94
7.50
7.53
7.75
7.77
7.84
8.32
8.41
8.68
9,22
9.25
9.26
9.92
10.17
10.44
10.81
11.13
11.17
11.38
11.77
12.03
12.15
12.20
12.24
12.44
13.62
14.41
14.46
14.61
15.64
16.40
16.46
16.91
17.23
17.44
17.81
18.18
18.55
18.55
19.02
19.58
19.97
21 .38
B-2
(continued)
-------
Table B-1. Method 5G to 5H correlation data - ALL DATA.
Preflx
code
EPA/ES
EPA/ES
OWN
EPA/ES
SCA
SCA
EPA/ES
EPA/ES
SCA
SCA
SCA
SCA
SCO
SCA
EPA/ES
SCA
Measured Measured
Test bumrate 56 SH
Date kg/hr gflir g/hr
3.1
1,51
0.89
2.02
1.17
17.17
20.43
22.05
23.88
27.27
28.1
29.1
30.30
33.70
34.10
38.30
42.90
53.6
69.10
83.80
96.80
125.70
25.95
26.88
39.31
28.19
30.2
41
29.09
33.64
43.90
50.10
66.90
69
73.80
103.70
61.30
196.00
inSG
3.0170
3.0931
3.1730
3.3058
3.3358
3.3707
3.4111
3.5174
3.5293
3.6454
3.7589
3.9815
4.2356
4.4284
4.572S
4.8339
5H predicted 5H predicted by
In 5H AM data Federal Register
g/hr g/hr
3.2561
3.2913
3.6715
3.3739
3.4078
3.7136
3.3703
3.5157
3.7818
3.9140
4.2032
4.2341
4.3014
4.6415
4.1158
5.2781
24.85
26.62
28.61
32.25
33.13
34.19
35.47
39.03
39.46
43,82
48.54
59.35
74.64
88.84
101.18
128.09
22.26
23.72
25.34
28.29
29.01
29.86
30.88
33.73
34.06
37.51
41.21
49,58
61.21
71.84
80.97
100.58
Run No.
5H
2G
V1
16
F1
F2
1F
3G
61
G3
G2
F3
J9
F4
46
G4
Footnotes for table (relate to Run number):
EPA/ES = data from: Cottone, L.E. and E, Messer, Test Method Evaluations and Emissions Testing for Ralina
Woodstoves." EPA-600/2-8S-100 (NTIS PB87-119897), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Eneroy
Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1986.
SCA prefix = data from Shelton California project
SCO prefix = data from Shelton Colorado project.
SCA and SCO data contained in memo from P.R. Westlin to J. Kowalczyk, My 31,1986.
OWN _ prefix = data submitted by OMNI Environmental Services. Inc. to the Reg-Neg Committee.
EPA/ACUR— 3-digil run number = data taken on Quadraflre 3101M prototype noncat stove during development of
gas-enhanced secondary combustion (GEW) technology.
B-3
-------
Figure B-1. EPA Methods 5G - SH Comparison
Ail data.
Ail data regression: 5H = 1i632(5G)A0.903
x
LO
2.5 -
2 -i=
CL
UJ
1
0.5
0
EPA/Acurex
Shelton
A OMNI
A EPA/ES
All data regression
FR regression
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
EPA Method 5G
g/hr
2.5
B-4
-------
Figure B-2. EPA Methods 5G - 5H Comparison
All data.
AH data regression: 5H = 1.632(5G)A0.903
20
T3
o
CL
li!
15 -
10
0
EPA/Acurex
Shelton
A OMNI
A EfWES
AIL data regression
regression
0
5 10 15
EPA Method 5G
g/hr
20
B-5
-------
Figure B-3. EPA Methods 5G - 5H Comparison
AH data.
Air data regression: 5H = 1.632(5G)A0.903
100
10
O)
Q_
HI
80
60
40
20
0
EPA/Acurex
Shelton
A OMNI
EPA/ES
All data regression
regression
0
20 40 60
EPA Method 5G
g/hr
80
100
B-6
-------
1, REPORT NO
EPA-600/R-00-050
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Insirucliom on the reverse before c
PB20QO-105890
I. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Wood Stove Emissions: Particle Size and Chemical
Composition
S. REPORT DATE
June 2000
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
190
Robert C. McCrillis
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
AME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
See Block 12
1t7 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)
kGtNCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1/94 - 12/98
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
NOTE
Aufchor McCriUis js no longer wifch thg ^gency, For details, C
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Technology Transfer and Support Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label
tear off; and return te the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving these technical
reports, CHECK Wfflf D; tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
Publication No. EPA-eoo/R-oo-oso
------- |