Sistes EPA-600/7-86-038
Protection
October 1986
vvEFy\ Research and
Development
ASPHALT!C CONCRETE INDUSTRY
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS:
SOURCE CATEGORY REPORT
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
of the Off»ce of and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protectors Agency, grouped into Trtest nine broad cate-
gories were to facilitate further application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional iroujjing consciously
planned to transfer a maximum interface in
The nine
1, Environmental Health Research
2. Environmental Protection
3,
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeeonormic Environmental
S. Scientilic and Technical fSTAR)
7, Energy~Environment aocf Development
8. "Special"
i, Reports
This has to the 1NT6RAGENCV ENERGY-ENVIftONMENT
RESEARCH AMD DEVELOPMENT series. in mis the
effort funded the 17-ageney Energy/Environ merit
Development Program. These to EPA's mission to the
health welfare from ad«rs« effects o* poJluitnts with sys-
The of the Program is 10 the development of domestic
energy sypplies m an environmentaiEy-compatibte manner by providing the nec-
essary and control tecrinology. enaly-
sea of the tranipod of ene^gy-feiated poHutants- and the^r and
of, ol, control lechnologits for
and integrated of a of energy-related environ-
mental
EPA
Thts has rtviewtU by the Federal Agencies.
lor publication. Appnjvif not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views tncJ policies of the Government, nor mention of or
commercial products constitute indorsement or recommendation for
is me National Technicii informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA- 600/7- 86-038
October 1986
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE INDUSTRY
P ARTICULATE EMISSIONS:
SOURCE CATEGORY REPORT
by
John S. Klnsey
Midwest Research Institute
425 Yolker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158
Technical Directive No. 18
EPA Project Officer: Dale L. Harmon
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (HRI) for the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Technical Directive
No. 18. Dale Harmon was the Project Officer for this study. The work
was performed 1n MRI's Air Quality Assessment Section ( Chatten Cowherd,
Head). The report was authored by John Kinsey. Gregory Muleski
was responsible for the computer software used in the study, and Julia
Poythress was involved in data compilation and analysis.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Preface ii
Figures. ..... iv
Tables vi
1.0 Introduction ..... 1
2.0 Industry Description . 2
2.1 Raw material 2
2.2 Process description 5
2.3 Control technology 19
3.0 Data Review and Emission Factor Development. ....... 24
3.1 Literature search and screening. ........ 24
3.2 Emission data quality rating system 25
3.3 Particle size determination 26
3.4 Review of specific data sets 32
3.5 Development of candidate emission factors. ... 51
4,0 Chemical Characterization 89
5.0 -..Proposed AP-42 Section . go
Appendices
A. Reference 1 and Supporting Data A-l
B. Reference 3 B-l
C. Reference 8 and Supporting Data .... ..... C-l
D. Reference 12 0-1
E. Reference 23. E-l
F. Reference 26. F-l
G. Reference 27 G-l
H. Complete Listings of JSKPRG, JSKRAW, and JSKLOG ...... H-l
I. Description of TI-59 Program to Compute Log-Normal Particle
Size Distribution I-l
J. Computer Printouts and Hand Calculations J-l
K. Emission Calculations for Drum-Mix Asphalt Plants ..... K-l
111
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 General process flow diagram for batch-mix asphalt
paving plants ... 8
2-2 Effect of drum gas velocity on the production capacity
for rotary dryers ............ 9
2-3 Effect of drum gas velocity on dust carryout for rotary
dryers 10
2-4 General process flow diagram for continuous-mix asphalt
paving plants 12
2-5 General process flow diagram for drum-mix asphalt
paving plants 14
3-1 Example output of "JSKPRG" 53
3-2 Example output of "JSKRAW" 54
3-3 Example output of "JSKLOG" 55
3-4 'Size-specific emission factors for conventional asphalt
plants _._ _!_••• 81
3-5 Particle size distribution and size-specific emission
factors for drum-mix asphaltic concrete plants. .... 82
-------
TABLES
Number
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
of Process .
the Asphalt
Specifications for Asphalt Cements .....
Specifications for Emulsified Asphalts . . .
Composition of Asphalt Paving Mixtures . . .
Distribution of Asphalt Paving Plants by Type
Primary and Secondary Control Devices Used in
Concrete Industry ,
Equations Used for Particle Size Conversions
Guide to Particle Size Measurement
Summary of Particle Size Data - Reference 1. ......
Size Data for Test No. C-393 . . . .
Size Data for Test No. C-426 . . . .
Size Data for Uncontrolled Emissions
Summary of Particle
Summary of Particle
Summary of Particle
Reference 3, . .
Summary of Particle Size Data for the Dust Exiting the
Primary Collector - Reference 3
Summary of Particle Size Data for Sloan Construction
Company. .............
Summary of Particle Size Data for Harrison, Inc
Summary of Particle Size Data for Test C-537 -
Reference 12
Summary of Particle Size Data for Reference 26
Particle Size Test Data Collected at the
Inlet - Reference 27
Particle Size Test Data Collected at the Bag-
Reference 27
Concentrations (Condensables Testing) -
Summary of
Baghouse
Summary of
house Outlet -
Particulate Mass
Reference 27 ... .........
Comparison of Computer Programs
Calculated Particle Size Distributions and Controlled
Emission Factors for Reference 1 - Scrubber Inlet. . .
Calculated Particle Size Distributions and Controlled
Emission Factors for Reference 1 - Scrubber Outlet . .
Calculated Particle Size Distribution and Controlled
Emission Factors for Reference 1 - Test No. C-393. . .
Calculated Particle Size Distribution and Controlled
Emission Factors for Reference 1 - Test No. C-426. . .
Stoke1s Diameter versus Settling Velocity for Particles
of Varying Density - Reference 3
Calculated Particle Size Distributions and Uncontrolled
Emission Factors for Reference 3 - Dryer Exhaust . , .
Page
3
4
6
18
20
29
31
33
35
36
38
40
43
43
45
46
48
49
50
51
57
58
59
60
61
62
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
3-22 Calculated Particle Size Distributions arid Controlled
Emission Factors for Reference 3 - Outlet of Primary
Collectors -. 63
3-23 Calculated Particle Size Distributions and Factors for
Reference 8 - Sloan 64
3-24 Calculated Particle Size Distributions and Emission
Factors for Reference 8 - Harrison 65
3-25 Calculated Particle Size Distributions and Emission
Factors for Reference 12 - Test No. C-537 66
3-26 Calculated Particle Size Distribution and Associated
Controlled Emission Factors for Reference 26 -
Baghouse Outlet 67
3-27 Calculated Emission Factors for Reference 27 - Baghouse
Inlet 68
3-28 Calculated Emission Factors for Reference 27 - Baghouse
Outlet 69
3-29 Emission Factors for Condensable Organics * Reference 27 . 70
3-30 Candidate Particulate Emission Factors for Uncontrolled
Conventional Asphalt Plants. .... 73
3-31 Candidate Emission Factors for Cyclone Oust Collectors in
Conventional Asphalt Plants 74
3-32 Candidate Particulate Emission Factors for Conventional
Asphalt Plants Controlled by Multiple Centrifugal
Scrubbers . 75
3-33 Candidate Particulate Emission Factors for Conventional
Asphalt Plants Controlled by Gravity Spray Towers. ... 76
3-34 "Candidate Particulate Emission Factors for Conventional
Asphalt Plants Controlled^by a Baghouse Collector. . . . 77
3-35 Candidate Particulate Emission Factors for Drum-Mix
Asphalt Plants Controlled by a Baghouse Collector. ... 78
3-36 Summary of Candidate Emission Factors for Conventional
Asphalt Plants 80
3-37 Range of Source Operating Characteristics Applicable to
the Candidate Emission Factors . 84
4-1 Chemical Composition of the Particulate Emissions from an
Asphalt Batch Plant Controlled by a Baghouse Collector. 89
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of re-
viewing the pertinent technical criteria and data bases to determine whether
the establishment of a revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for particulate matter based on particle size is warranted. Upon adoption of
such a standard, the Clean Air Act requires that each state develop and sub-
mit revisions to their State Implementation Plan (SIP) which outline how they
will attain and maintain the standard. These revisions to the SIP would ne-
cessitate the collection and use of information related to size-selective
participate emissions from new and existing sources. Thus, a need exists to
initiate development of an emission factor data base to meet such objectives.
Since 1972 the document entitled "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors" (AP-42) has been published by the EPA. This document contains a
compendium of emission factor reports for the most significant emission
source categories. Supplements to AP-42 have been published both for new
source categories and for updating existing emission factors as more infor-
mation about sources and the control of emissions has become available. Up
to this point, however, little information has been provided in AP-42 with
regard to particle size characteristics of particulate emissions.
To address the requirement for size-specific emission factors, the EPA
is currently conducting research to characterize the emissions of fine par-
ticles in the inhalable particulate (IP) size range for a variety of indus-
trial sources. The purpose of this research is to develop emission factors
to be used if revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for par-
ticulate matter are made to address fine particles. As part of this program.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) has prepared this report which reviews the
existing emission data base for asphalt concrete* plants based on particle
size and provides a revised AP-42 Section (8.1) for that industry category.
Included in the revised Section 8.1 are the available size-specific emission
factors for asphalt concrete plants presented according to the type of pro-
cess and control technology used.
This report is organized by section as follows:
Section 2.0 - Industry Description
Section 3.0 - Data Review and Emission Factor Development
Section 4.0 - Chemical Characterization
Section 5.0 - Proposed AP-42 Section
Section 6.0 - References
The term "asphalt concrete" is used everywhere in this report except for
the proposed AP-42 section where "asphaltic concrete" has been substi-
tuted. Asphalt concrete is the term most commonly accepted by experts
working in the industry.
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
Asphalt paving (concrete) consists of a mixture of well graded, high
quality aggregate and liquid asphalt cement which is heated and mixed in
measured quantities to produce bituminous pavement materials.1 Hot mix as-
phalt paving can be manufactured by any of the following basic processes:
batch-mix, continuous-mix, and drum-mix.
In this section, the raw material used in the formulation of asphalt
concrete is described, along with the basic processes available for its pro-
duction and the technology employed by the industry to control particulate
emissions.
2.1 RAW MATERIAL
2.1.1 Asphalt Cement
Asphalt is a dark brown to black thermoplastic cementitious material
composed principally of bitumens which come either from naturally occurring
deposits or is derived from crude petroleum. Chemically, asphalt is a
hydrocarbon consisting of asphaltenes (small particles surrounded by a resin
coating), resins, and oils. The asphaltenes contribute to body, the resins
furnish the adhesive and ductile properties, and the oil influences the vis-
cosity and flow characteristics of the asphalt.2
Asphalt cement is a highly viscous material available in many standard
grades,3 Originally, penetration tests^were used to specify grades of"
asphalt cement. More recently, viscosity is becoming the standard char-
acteristic to specify grades.3 Specifications for asphalt cement are based
on a range of viscosity at a reference temperature of 60°C (14G°F). A min-
imum viscosity at 135°C (275°F) is also specified. These temperatures were
chosen because 6Q°C (14Q°F) approximates the maximum temperature of asphalt
pavement surfaces in the United States while 135°C (275°F) approximates
mixing and laydown temperatures for hot mix asphalt pavements. Specifica-
tions for the various grades of asphalt cement are presented in Table 2-1.3
In some areas, emulsified asphalts are used for the production of hot
mix paving. Emulsified asphalts are dispersions of colloidal size globules
of asphalt in water (or visa versa) that are prepared using high speed mixers
or colloid mills. Small quantities of surface active agents or emulsifiers
are added to the asphalt to aid dispersion. Anionic and cationic emulsified
asphalts are two commercially available asphalt emulsions.1 Specifications
for the various grades of emulsified asphalts are presented in Table 2-2.3
-------
TABLE 2-1, SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASPHALT CEMENTS3
Characteristics
Penetration, 77°FS 100 g, 5 sec.
Viscosity at 275°F
Saybolt Furol , SSF
Kinematic, Centistokes
Flash point (Cleveland Open Cup), °F
Thin film oven test
Penetration after test, 77°F
100 g, 5 sec. , % of original
Ductility:
At 77°F, cm
At 60°F, cm
Solubility in carbon tetrachloride, %
General requirements
J«l *
AASHTO
test
method
T49
-
—
T 48
T 179
T 49
T 51
T 44C
h
ASTM Industrial
test and
method special
D 5 40-50
E 102 120+
D 445 240+
D 92 450+
-
0 5 52+
0 113 100+
-
D 4C 99.5+
The asphalt shall be
shall be uniform in
to 350°F.
60-70
100+
200+
450+
_
50+
100+
-
99.5+
prepared by
character
Grades
85-100
85+
170+
450+
_
45+
100+
-
99.5+
Paving
120-150 200-300
70+ 50+
140+ 100+
425+ 350+
_ _
42+ 37+
60+
60+
99.5+ 99.5+
the refining of petroleum. It
and shal
1 not foam when heated
. American Association of State Highway
American Society of Testing & Material
Transportation Organizations.
s.
Except that carbon tetrachloride is used instead
of carbon disulfide as solvent.
Method
No. 1 in AASHTO Method
d T 44 or Procedure No. 1 in ASTM Method D 4,
-------
TABLE 2-2. SPECIFICATIONS FOR EMULSIFIED ASPHALTS3
Characteristics
Tests on Emulsion
Fural viscosity at 77°F, sec.
Fural viscosity at 122°F, sec.
Residue from distallation, %
Settlement, 5 days, %
Demulsibility:
35 ml of 0.02 N CaCl2, %
50 ml of 0.10 N CaCl2, %
Sieve test (retained on No. 20), %
Cement mixing test, %
Tests on Residue
Penetration, 77°F, 100 g, 5 sec.
Solubility in carbon tetrachloride ,e %
Ductility, 77°F, cm.
AASHTOa ASTMb
test test Rapid
method method RS-1
20-100
-
57-62
3-
T 59 D 244
60+
-
0.10-
—
T 49, D 5 . 100-200
T 44° D 4° 97. 5+
T 51 D 113 40+
Medium Slow
settling settling settling
RS-2 MS-2 SS-1
100+ 20-100
75-400
62-69 62-69 57-62
3- 3- 3-
50+
30-
0.10- 0.10- 0.10-
2.0-
100-200 100-200 100-200°
97.5+ 97.5+ 97.5+
40+ 40+ 40+
k American Association of State Highway Transporation Organizations.
American Society of Testing & Materials
,
For some special uses, such as dilute Emulsified Asphalt fog seal coats,
by preferable. In such cases, the Penetration of Residue at 77°F shal
d designated as SS-lh.
Except that carbon tetrachloride is used instead of carbon disulfide as
a lower penetration residue may
1 be 40-90 and the grade shall be
solvent, Method No. 1 in AASHO
e Method T 44 or Procedure No. 1 in ASTM Method D 4.
This solvent is being reevaluated for replacement due to its toxic and carcinogenic properties.
-------
2.1.2 Aggregate
Asphalt pavement mixtures are produced by combining mineral aggregates
and asphalt cement. Aggregates constitute over 92% of the total mix-
ture.2 Aside from the amount and grade of asphalt used, mix characteristics
are determined by the relative amounts and types of aggregate used.
Aggregate is generally sized in three groups: coarse -aggregate (ma-
terial > 2.36 mm), fine aggregate (material passing < 2.36 mm), and mineral
filler (material < 74 urn).1 Coarse aggregate can consist of crushed stone,
limestone, gravel, slag from steel mills, glass, oyster shells, and material
such as decomposed granite (or other fractured material), or highly angular
material with a pitted or rough surface. Fine aggregate consists of natural
sand, crushed limestone, slag, or gravel or any mixture of these materials.
Mineral filler or mineral dust consists of crushed rock, limestone, hydrated
lime, portland cement, fly ash, or other nonplastic mineral matter which is
either added to the mix or is indigenous to the aggregate itself. A minimum
of 70% of this material must pass through a 74-pm sieve.1 All aggregate
should be free of clay and silt. Table 2-3 lists the composition for the
various types of asphalt paving mixtures specified by the American Society
of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation 3515.1
Generally, a single natural source cannot provide the required grada-
tion; thus, the mechanical combination of two or more aggregates is often
necessary. Aggregates may also be blended because of limited supplies, for
economic reasons, and to control particulate emissions. Blending techniques
include trial and error, mathematical, and graphical blending methods.4
State transportation departments are usually responsible for specify-
ing the percentage of each aggregate size in a given mix. State and local
specifications .for aggregate properties which are required for a sound mix
take into account variations in locally available supplies.4'5 In practice,
the plant operator develops a job-mix formula to produce the particular grade
of paving material necessary to meet customer specifications based on the
characteristics of the available aggregate.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
2.2.1 Batch-Mix Process
Crushed and screened raw aggregate is stockpiled near the plant where
the moisture content will stabilize between 3 and 5% moisture by weight for
the total aggregate blend (fine aggregate contains the highest amount of
moisture).6 The aggregate is transferred by front-end loader from the stor-
age piles and placed in the appropriate hoppers of the cold feed unit. The
material is metered from the hoppers onto a moving belt and conveyed by
bucket elevator or belt conveyor into a direct-fired rotary dryer fueled by
gas or oil, or lately by coal or coal/oil slurries.
The dryer is a revolving cylinder usually ranging from 0.9 to 3.5 m (3
to 12 ft) in diameter and from 4.5 to 12 m (15 to 40 ft) long, in which ag-
gregate is dried and heated by an oil, gas, or combination oil-gas burner.
-------
TABLE 2-3, COMPOSITION OF ASPHALT PAVING MIXTURES
Asphalt Concrete §*«* A
Asphalt Asphalt
Sieve Size ^'* Designation and Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregate
1 Vi in, I in. Yi in. '/i in.
(2A) (3A> (4A) (5A>
(37.5mm) (25.0mm) (19.0mm) (12.5 mm)
-Urn, No. 4 No. 16
(6A) (7A) (8A)
(9.5mm) (4.7$ mm) (1,18 mm)
Grading of Total Aggregate (Coarse Plus Fine, Plus Filler if Required)
Amounts Finer Than Each Laboratory Sieve (Square Opening), weigh! percent
2V* in. (63 mm)
2 in. (50 mm)
1 V* in. (37.5 mm)
1 in. (25.0 mm)
fc in. {19.0 mm)
Vi in. (12.5 mm)
H in. (9.5 mm)
No. 4 (4.75 mm)
No, 8' (2.36 mm)
No. 16 (1.18 mm)
No. 30 (600 urn)
No. 50 (300 urn)
No. IOO(150Mm)
No. 200* (75 pm)
100
90 to 100
60 to 80
20 to 55
10 to 40
. . «
2 to 16
. . .
Oto5
100
90 to 100
60 lo 80
25 to 60
15 to 45
. * .
3 to 18
I to 7
100
90 to 100
60 to 80
35 to 65
20 to 50
3 to 20
2 to 8
100
90 to 100
45 to 70
25 to 55
. . .
5 to 20
2 to 9
100
90 to 100
60 to 80
35 to 65
. » .
6 to 25
2 to 10
100
80 to 100
65 to 100
40 to 80
20 to 65
7 to 40
3 to 20
2 to 10
...
. . .
100
95 to 100
85 to 100
70 to 95
45 to 75
20 to 40
9 to 20
Asphalt Cement, weight percent of Toial Mixture*'
3'/ito8 4to8Vj 410 9 4Wio9W 5 to 10 7 to 12 8V* to 12
Suggested Coarse Aggregate Sizes
4 ind 67
5 and 7
or 57
67or68 7or78 8
or • . .~
6 and 8
aln considering the total grading characteristics of an asphalt paving mixture the amount
passing the No. 8 (2.36 mm) sieve is a significant and. convenient field control point between
fine and coarse aggregate. Gradings approaching the maximum amount permitted to pass the
No. 8 (2.36-mm) sieve win result in pavement surfaces having comparatively fine texture, while
gradings approaching the minimum amount passing the No. 8 (2.36-mm) sieve will result in
surfaces with comparatively coarse texture.
^The material passing the No. 200 (75-jUm) sieve may consist of fine particles of the
aggregates or mineral filler, or both. It shall be free from organic matter and clay particles and
have a plasticity index not greater than 4 when tested in accordance with Method 0423 and
Method D424.
cThe quantity of asphalt cement is given in terms of weight percent of the total mixture.
The wide difference in the specific gravity of various aggregates, as well as a considerable
difference in absorption, results in a comparatively wide range in the limiting amount of asphalt
cement specified. The amount of asphalt required for a given mixture should be determined by
appropriate laboratory testing or on the basis of past experience with similar mixtures, or by a
combination of both.
Used by permission of the Asphalt Institute.
*U.S.A. Standard sieve designation is 38,1 mm,
6
-------
The cylinder is equipped with longitudinal troughs or channels called
"flights" that lift the aggregate and drop it in veils through the hot
gases. The slope of the cylinder, its rotation speed, diameter, length,
and the arrangement and number of flights control the length of time re-
quired for the aggregate to pass through the dryer (residence time). The
dryer performs two functions; it vaporizes and removes the moisture, and it
heats the aggregate to mixing temperature.
The most commonly used oil burner in dryers atomizes the fuel oil with
low pressure air. There are also medium and high pressure gas burners,
combination oil and gas burners, and liquid petroleum gas (LPG} burners.
As it leaves the dryer, the material drops onto a bucket elevator and
is transferred to a set of vibrating screens where it is classified by size
into four or more grades. The classified aggregate then drops into four or
more large bins. The bins provide a substantial amount of surge capacity
for the dryer system. The operator controls the aggregate size distribution
by opening one of the bins and allowing the classified aggregate to be de-
posited into a weigh hopper until the desired amount of material is obtained.
The doors of this bin are then closed, another bin is opened, and so on.
After all the material is weighed out, the mixture is dropped into a pug-
mill mixer and mixed (usually dry) for about 15 sec. The action of the two-
shafted pugmill is similar to that of an egg beater except that the paddles
are mounted on horizontal shafts instead of vertically. The asphalt cement
is pumped from a heated storage tank (or tanks) into the pugmill and thor-
oughly mixed with the aggregate for 25 to 60 sec to form asphalt concrete.
The hot mix is then deposited in a truck and hauled away to the job site.
A flow diagram of the batch-mix process is shown in Figure 2-1.s
As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, asphalt batch
plants have two major categories of particulate emissions: those which are
vented to the atmosphere through some type of stack, vent, or pipe (ducted
sources) and those which are emitted directly from the source to the ambient
air (fugitive sources) without the aid of such equipment. Ducted emissions
are usually captured and transported by an industrial ventilation system
with one or more fans or air movers and emitted to the atmosphere through a
stack. Fugitive sources, on the other hand, can either be process fugitives,
which are emissions associated with some form of physical or chemical change
in the material being processed, or open dust sources where no such change
occurs.
The most significant source of ducted emissions from asphalt batch
plants is the rotary dryer. The amount of aggregate dust carried out of
the dryer by the moving gas stream depends upon a number of factors, in-
cluding the gas velocity in the drum, the particle size distribution of the
aggregate, and the specific gravity and aerodynamic characteristics of the
particles. The most significant of these factors is the gas velocity in
the dryer.6 Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show the effect of increasing dryer gas
velocity upon production capacity and dust carryout as determined by a study
conducted by the Sarber-Greene Company.6'7 It should be noted that a 50%
increase in gas velocity will allow about a 30% increase in production while
causing a 150% increase in dust carryout. Of course the increase in drum
velocity also results in higher air volumes drawn through the dryer which
subsequently increases the amount of oxygen available for combuston.
-------
00
UGINP
y—* Mule* fatal
(o) OwiW (irinlm
(ff) hecM fuBill.. Enlntam
foq Of.n Dmi
Fine Aggregate
Storage Pile
Coarie* Aggregate
Storage Pile
Feeders
Figure 2-1. General process flow diagram for batch-mix
asphalt paving plants."
-------
1
0
e
u
u
D
0.
a
c
u
•o
o
100
90
80
70
60
50
. 40
Used by permission of Barber-Greene Company.
30
20
10
29.1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Drum Gas Velocity, % Increase
600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Drum Gas Velocity, FPM
100
1200
Figure 2-2. Effect of drum gas velocity on the production capacity
for rotary dryers.^
-------
Used by permission of Barber- Greene Company
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drum Gas Velocity, % Increase
600 700 JOO 900 1000
Drum Gas Velocity, FPM
80 90 100
1100 1200
Figure 2-3. Effect of drum gas velocity on dust carryout for rotary
dryers,'
10
-------
In general, if the Stoke's settling velocity of an aggregate particle is of
the same order of magnitude as the gas velocity through the dryer, the par-
ticle will probably be entrained in the gas stream and swept out of the
dryer,s
The major source of process fugitives in asphalt batch plants comes
from enclosures over the hot-side conveying, classifying, and mixing equip-
ment which are vented into the primary collection equipment along with the
dryer gas. These vents and enclosures are commonly called the "fugitive
air" or "scavenger" system. The scavenger system may or may not have its
own separate air mover-depending on the particular facility.
The particulate emissions captured and transported by the scavenger
system consist mostly of aggregate dust but may also contain a fine aerosol
of condensed liquid particles. This liquid aerosol is created by condensa-
tion of the organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement in the pug-
mill.8 The amount of liquid aerosol produced depends to a large extent on
the temperature of the asphaltic cement and aggregate entering the pugmill.
There are also a number of open dust sources associated with asphalt
batch plants. These include the fugitive dust generated by vehicular traf-
fic on paved and unpaved roads, the dust created by the storage and handling
of the aggregate material, and similar operations. The number and type of
fugitive emission sources which are associated with a particular plant de-
pend on whether the equipment is portable or stationary, whether it is lo-
cated adjacent to a gravel pit or quarry, and the inherent aggregate moisture.
To illustrate the various sources of particulate emissions associated
with asphalt batch plants, the type and location of each emission point
throughout the process flow are shown in Figure 2-1.
2.2.2 Continuous-Mix Process •
The continuous-mix process is generally similar to that of batch plants
with the exception that slight modifications have been made to the hot-side
conveying equipment. In a continuous plant, the classified aggregate drops
from the vibrating screens into a set of small bins. The purpose of these
bins is to collect and meter the classified aggregate to the mixer; thus,
they do not provide a large amount of surge capacity. From the hot bins,
the aggregate is metered through feeder conveyors to a second bucket elevator
and into the mixer. Hot asphalt is metered into the inlet end of the mixer,
and the mix is conveyed through the unit by the action of the rotating pad-
dles. Retention time is controlled (and some surge capacity provided) by
an adjustable dam at the end of the mixer trough. The asphalt concrete
flows out of the mixer into a surge hopper for loading into trucks.
In some plants, surge capacity is provided by a set of separate hot
mix storage bins. These bins, which may be either heated or nonheated, are
often sealed from contact with the ambient air to prevent oxidation. If
storage bins are used, the mix is conveyed from the mixer to the storage
bins and trucks are loaded from the bins. A flow diagram of the continuous-
mix process is shown in Figure 2-4.
11
-------
tmlniw felril
OucM fxlubn
fioc.n FujHIW. Inlulom
OfMiiOutl tnlnlon
Fine Aggregate
Storage Pile
Cold Aggregate Blra
Exhaust la
Atmosphere
UJ
., Draff For* ( Location
I t ^7—v Dependent Upon
^~*t Type of Secondary)
Primary Dull
Feeders —^
Coarse Aggregate
Storage Pile
• Elevators
Heater ^Asphalt lruck
Storage
Figure 2-4. General process flow diagram for continuous-mix
asphalt paving plants.
-------
The participate emissions from continuous-mix asphalt plants are gen-
erated in the same manner as for batch plants, except that an additional
hot-side conveyor is used which would tend to increase the amount of dust
collected by the scavenger system. Otherwise, there are no substantial
differences in the mechanisms which produce the emissions. The various
sources of particulate emissions associated with continuous-mix asphalt
plants are identified in Figure 2-4.6
2.2.3 Drum-Mix Process
The third type of process utilized for the production of asphalt pav-
ing mixtures is the drum-mix process. This process is relatively new to
the industry and is becoming increasingly more popular due to its lower
capital and operating costs and its simplified production process. The
most significant difference between the drum-mix process and the others de-
scribed above is that the aggregate is dried, mixed, and combined with the
asphalt cement inside a single unit (rotary drum mixer) thus eliminating a
substantial amount of mechanical equipment.9
During normal operation, proportioned aggregate from the cold feed
bins is transported by belt conveyor to either a vibrating screen where the
larger material is rejected or directly to the drum mixer. The already
combined aggregate is then introduced into the uphill end of the rotating
drum mixer where it passes through the hot gases and is heated to a tempera-
ture of 300°F to remove moisture. The aggregate is tumbled by the flights
as it travels the length of the drum in parallel flow with the combustion
gases from the burner. This is opposite to the batch process where a counter-
flow arrangement is used. Asphalt cement from a heated storage tank is
introduced from the opposite end of the drum where it is mixed with the
heated aggregate to produce hot mix asphalt paving. The point at which the
asphalt cement is injected varies from plant to plant but is generally more
than halfway down the length of the drum. The asphalt is protected from
coming into direct contact with the burner flame not only by distance but
also by the dense curtain of falling aggregate. In a few cases, a metal
barrier (flame shield) is installed in the drum to provide additional pro-
tection for the asphalt cement. The hot mix (120 to 140°C)10 is discharged
from the drum mixer and transported by inclined belt conveyor to storage
silos for eventual loading into trucks and transport to the job site. A
diagram of the drum-mix process is shown in Figure 2-5.
Inside the drum mixer four basic processes occur. These are bulk
moisture removal; asphalt injection with partial coating; foaming (which
completes the coating process); and rapid temperature rise of the mix.10'11
Upon entering the dryer, the aggregate is directly exposed to radiant heat
which vaporizes most of the moisture in the aggregate. As the aggregate
continues down the length of the drum, out of contact with the flame, it
reaches the asphalt injection point. At this point, the liquid asphalt is
injected by a shielded pipe. In some plants, chemical additives (e.g.,
liquid silicon added at the refinery or by the distributor) are injected
along with the asphalt to improve the distribution of the spray and its
adhesion to the aggregate surface.9'10 After asphalt injection, the ag-
gregate attains a temperature high enough to vaporize the remaining moisture
13
-------
Fine Aggregate
Storage Pile
Coarse Aggregate
Stcuaga Pile
©
Aggregate Feed flim
(
Truck load-Out
Figure 2-5. General process flow diagram for drum-mix asphalt paving plants.
-------
in the pores of the rock. As this water vapor reaches the surface, it
escapes by foaming through the asphalt coating, which is thought to in-
crease its uniformity of film thickness. Near the discharge end of the
drum, sufficient heat is absorbed in the aggregate itself to increase the
mix temperature, since the bulk of the moisture has already been vaporized.
The total residence time ranges from 3 to 5 min.10'11
As with the other two processes used for the production of asphalt
concrete, the major ducted source of particulate emissions is the drum
mixer itself, but emissions are significantly lower than in batch and con-
tinuous plants. This overall reduction in emissions is due to the coating
of the finer particles with the asphalt cement. The emissions from the
drum mixer consist of a gas stream containing a substantial amount of par-
ticulate matter and lesser amounts of gaseous organic compounds of various
species.9 The particulate generally consists of fine aggregate particles
entrained in the flowing gas stream during the drying process. The organic
compounds, on the other hand, are a result of the heating and mixing of the
asphalt cement inside the drum, which volatilizes certain components of the
asphalt. Once the volatile organic compounds have sufficiently cooled, they
condense to form a fine liquid aerosol or "blue smoke," the quantity of which
depends on the type of asphalt cement and temperature.9'10 Filaments of
asphalt cement can also be produced through a similar process.
A number of measures have been introduced in the newer plants to re-
duce or eliminate blue smoke, including the installation of flame shields,
rearrangement of the flights inside the drum, adjustments in the asphalt
injection point, and other design changes.9'10 These modifications have
resulted in significant improvements in the elimination of blue smoke.
The process fugitive emissions from the hot-side screens, bins, ele-
vators, and pugmill normally associated with batch and continuous-mix plants
have been eliminated in the drum-mix process. There may be, however, a cer-
tain amount of fugitive liquid aerosol produced during the transport and
handling of the hot mix from the drum mixer to the storage silo if an open
conveyor is used. Otherwise, the remaining open dust sources are similar
to those found in batch or continuous plants. The location of each emis-
sion point throughout the drum-mix process is shown on Figure 2-5.
2.2.4 Recycle Processes
In recent years, a new practice has been initiated in the asphalt con-
crete industry. This practice involves the recycling of old asphalt paving.
Recycling significantly reduces the amount of new (virgin) rock and asphalt
cement needed to repave an existing road base. The various recycling tech-
niques include both cold and hot methods. Since this report addresses only
hot-mix asphalt processes, discussion will be limited to recycling at a
central plant.
For recycling, old asphalt pavement is broken up at the job site and
removed from the road base. This material is then transported to the plant,
crushed, and screened to the appropriate size for further processing. It
15
-------
is then heated and mixed with superheated new or virgin aggregate (if appli-
cable) to which the proper amount of new asphalt cement is added to produce
an adequate grade of hot asphalt paving suitable for laying.
There are basically three methods which can be used for heating of re-
cycled asphalt paving (RAP) prior to the addition of the asphalt cement.10*12
These methods are direct flame heating, indirect flame heating, and super-
heated aggregate. Each is discussed in the following subsections.
2.2,4.1 Direct Flame Heating--
Direct flame heating is typically performed with a drum mixer wherein
all materials are simultaneously mixed in the revolving drum. The first
experimental attempts at recycling used a standard drum-mix plant and in-
troduced the recycled paving and virgin aggregate concurrently at the burner
end of the drum. Numerous problems with excessive blue smoke emissions led
to several modifications to the process, including the addition of heat
shields and the use of split feeds.12
Heat dispersion is a method used for recycling. A heat shield i.is in-
stalled around the burner and additional cooling air is provided to reduce
the hot gases to a temperature below about 430 to 650°C (800 to 1200°F),
thus decreasing the amount of blue smoke.12 However, the heat shield also
accounts for a higher gas velocity and turbulence due to the restriction in
the free flow of the burner gas.13 This type of equipment can successfully
recycle a mixture of up to approximately 70% recycled asphalt concrete.12
The concept of a drum within a drum has also been successfully utilized
for recycling . This process ii based on a small diameter drum
being inserted into a conventional drum-mix unit. Virgin aggregate is intro-
duced into the inner drum where it is superheated to approximately 150 to
260°C (300 .to 500°F).12 Reclaimed material is introduced into the outer
drum through a second charging chute. The reclaimed material and the heated
virgin aggregate meet at the discharge point of the inner drum where heat
transfer-occurs.—This type of-equipment-can successfully recycle mixtures
containing up to about 50 to 60% recycled bituminous materials.12
Split feed drum mixers were first utilized for recycling in 1976 and
are now the process used most often. New'aggregate 't±s introduced'
at the flame end of the drum where it is superheated to 150 to 260°C (300
to 500°F).12 At about the midpoint of the drum the recycled bituminous
material is introduced by a split feed arrangement and heated by the hot
gases as well as by heat transfer from the superheated virgin aggregate.
This type of equipment can successfully recycle mixtures containing up to
about 60 to 70% recycled bituminous material.1^
The last type of direct flame method involves the use of a slinger con-
veyor to throw recycled asphalt into the center of the drum mixer from the
discharge end. This arrangement is sold as a kit for the retrofit of exist-
ing plants. In this process, the RAP material enters the drum along an arc
landing in the appropriate area of the asphalt injection point. A slinger
conveyor should be capable of recycling mixtures containing about the same
amount of RAP (i.e., 50 to 70%) as the other direct flame methods mentioned
above.12
16
-------
2.2.4.2 Indirect Flame Heating-
Indirect flame heating has been performed with special drum mixers
equipped with heat exchanger tubes- These tubes prevent the
virgin aggregate/recycled paving mixture from coming into direct contact with
the flame and the associated high temperatures. These plants are capable of
processing up to 100% recycled bituminous material but account for lower pro-
duction for similarly sized dryers.12
2.2.4.3 Superheated Aggregate—
Superheated aggregate can also be utilized to heat recycled bituminous
material. As noted above, two of the direct flame methods also make use of
this concept to a certain extent to partially heat the recycled material.
In standard batch or continuous mix plants recycled paving can be in-
troduced either into the pugmill or at the discharge end of the dryer, at
which point the temperature of the material is raised by heat transfer from
the virgin aggregate. The proper amount of new asphalt cement is then added
to the virgin aggregate/recycled paving mixture to produce high grade
asphalt concrete. The percentage of recycled pavement is ususally below 30%.
Tandem drum mixers can also be utilized for heating of the recycle mate-
rial. The first drum or aggregate dryer is used to superheat the virgin ag-
gregate, and a second drum or dryer is provided either to heat only recycled
paving material or to mix and heat a combination of virgin and recycled paving
material.12 It is possible to use the exhaust gas from the first dryer as a
heat source for the second unit. The recycling technique utilizing super-
heated aggregate is limited to about 50% recycled bituminous material.
There are a number of process-related variables affecting the generation
of emissions from asphalt recycling processes. These include the method of
heating the RAP, the percentage of RAP versus virgin material used, and the
introduction of chemical additives to the mix. The exact nature of how each
variable affects the quantity of emissions produced or how recycle emissions
compare with plants utilizing 100% virgin aggregate is not yet known.
2.2.5 Industry Distribution
There were approximately 4,500 asphalt concrete plants operating in the
United States during 1981 which produced 264 million metric tons (290 million
short tons) of hot mix paving.13 Of the various processes described above,
batch-mix plants are currently the most common. However, most of the plants
being sold as either new installations or as replacements to existing equip-
ment are of the drum-mix type. To illustrate the distribution of asphalt
paving plants by type of process, Table 2-4 presents data on the percentage
of plants by process, production capacity, and those equipped for recycling
for calendar years 1979 and 1980.13 Comparing the information contained in
Table 2-4 with that presented in a 1977 EPA study,2 it was determined that
the percentage of drum-mix facilities has increased from 2.6% to 15% of the
total plant population over a 5-year period (1975 to 1980). Due to the sig-
nificant economic savings associated with the drum mix process, it is ex-
pected that the trend toward an increased usage of this type of equipment
should continue in the future.
17
-------
TABLE 2-4. DISTRIBUTION, OF ASPHALT PAVING PLANTS BY TYPE OF PROCESS1
Percentage of
< 150
Type of process 1979
Batch mix 21%
Drum mix 2%
£ Continuous mix 3%
h
tons/hr
1980
20%
2%
3%
asphalt plants
by production
capacity
Percentage of
plants equipped
150-300 tons/hr
1970
505
&
1980
49%
7% 8%
2%
2%
300-400
1979
8%
3%
1%
tons/hr
1980
8%
4%
1%
> 400
1979
1%
1%
1%
tons/hr
1980
1%
1%
1%
for
1979
2%
2%
-
recycling
1980
4%
4%
—
:c
Per reference No. 13. No data available on the number of uncontrolled facilities.
No data available for plants < 150 ton/hr production capacity.
-------
2.3 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
2.3.1 Ductedand Process Fugitive Emissions
Particulate matter from the dryer (or drum mixer) and the scavenger
system is removed from the gas stream prior to being discharged into the
atmosphere by one or more air pollution control devices. In the case of
batch and continuous mix plants, two dust collectors are usually arranged
in series. The primary collector is a low efficiency device which essen-
tially removes the larger particles, with a secondary collector being em-
ployed to complete final cleanup of the stack gas to the required degree
(Figures 2-1, 2-4, and 2-5).
Almost every plant has at least a primary dust collector which was
originally used to prevent dust nuisance, protect the air handling equip-
ment downstream from the dryer, and for product recovery. Such equipment
proved to be economically attractive as the aggregate it recovered could be
recycled. Generally, the primary collector cannot meet current particulate
emission regulations but does considerably reduce the load on the secondary
collector.
Secondary collectors are used to achieve final control of emissions to
the atmosphere in batch and continuous plants. These collectors are more
efficient than primary collectors and are able to remove particles in the
smaller size ranges. Material recovered from the secondary collector may
be recycled (baghouse) or discarded (scrubber) depending on economic feasi-
bility. Secondary collectors may be further subdivided into wet and dry
types.
It is currently standard practice in drum-mix plants to utilize only
one high efficiency collector for gas cleaning purposes though primary col-
lectors are on the rise (Figure 2-5). In those cases where a baghouse is
used and the aggregate contains only a small percentage of < 200 mesh (74
material, primary collectors are of little use since the rate at which the
dust cake builds up on the filter bags is not sufficient to enhance particle
collection between cleaning cycles. In addition, drum-mix plants generally
have a lower overall mass loading which allows a smaller capacity control
system to be used.9'10'11
Particulate control technology for asphalt concrete plants can be
classified into the following categories: gravity settling or expansion
chambers (knock-out boxes); centrifugal collectors (cyclones); wet scrub-
bers; and fabric filters (baghouses).
For batch and continuous mix plants, settling chambers and cyclones
(single or multiple) are typically employed as primary collectors, and wet
scrubbers and baghouses are used for secondary control. The types of wet
scrubbers utilized in such facilities include gravity spray towers, wet
fans, and centrifugal (cyclonic), orifice plate, and venturi scrubbers.
For drum-mix plants, venturi scrubbers and baghouses are the predominant
control technology. A number of good references are available which dej
scribe the theory and operation of the control devices listed above,2'14 16
19
-------
The type of device or combination of devices installed on a particular
plant depends on the process and whether it is classified as a new facility
required to meet applicable New Source Performance Standards (0.04 gr/dscf)
or whether only state and local regulations apply. Table 2-5 presents the
overall distribution of primary and secondary control devices used in the
asphalt concrete industry as published in a 1977 EPA report.2 From this
table it was determined that a dry centrifugal collector (cyclone) followed
by a baghouse (fabric filter) is the most common type of air pollution sys-
tem utilized at the time which the subject report was published. Such a
distribution may or may not be the case at present, since the percentage of
drum-mix facilities which have generally no primary collector, has increased
significantly since 1975,2*13
TABLE 2-5. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICES USED IN
THE ASPHALT CONCRETE INDUSTRY2
Type of control equipment
Percent of industry5
Primary collectors
Settling or expansion chambers
Single cyclone dust collectors
Multiple cyclone dust collectors
Other
4
58
35
3
Secondary collectors
Gravity spray tower
Cyclone scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Orifice scrubber
Baghouse (fabric filter)
Other
8
24
16
8
40
3
An accelerating trend from gravity spray towers and cyclone scrubbers
towards venturi scrubbers and baghouses has been observed since 1975.
A survey conducted in 1983 of a limited number of plants showed that
wet collectors were used in 52.2% of the facilities and fabric filters
in 47.8% of the plant population surveyed. A heavy bias towards scrub-
bers was observed in the Central and Southern regions of the country.
20
-------
2.3.2 Open Dust Sources
As stated previously, there are a number of open dust sources associ-
ated with asphalt concrete plants, including vehicular traffic on paved and
unpaved roads, conveyor transfer points, aggregate storage piles; and batch
load-in operations. There are many alternative methods which could poten-
tially be employed to control emissions from such sources. Wet suppression
is sometimes used for the control of fugitive dust from open dust sources in
asphalt plants.17 Other more sophisticated measures such as enclosed silos,
conveyors, etc., and capture and collection systems are also used to control
emissions from open dust sources but are generally not common in these
facilities.17
In general, wet suppression involves the application of water or a
water solution with a chemical additive (surfactant, foaming agent, or chem-
ical binder) to the dust-producing surface to prevent the finer particles
from becoming airborne as a result of some type of mechanical disturbance.
Although it is the exception rather than the rule, water may be applied to
unpaved roads in the plant area by a tanker truck. In arid areas such as
the southwestern United States where the mineral aggregate moisture is be-
low 2%, spray nozzles are sometimes installed to wet the material before it
is conveyed from one belt to another.17 Enclosures at transfer points also
may be used in conjunction with or in place of wet suppression. Watering of
storage piles can be used if dust emissions from wind erosion and materials
handling (i.e., load-in, load-out) become a problem.
In actual practice, the use of water during the transfer and handling
of the aggregate material is generally avoided wherever possible because
whatever additional moisture that is added to the material prior to pro-
cessing must eventually be removed by the dryer in order to meet mix speci-
fications. An overall control strategy for a facility generally consists
of at least watering of unpaved roads, with additional measures being em-
ployed on a case-by-case basis. The specific controls used at a particular
plant depends on individual requirements imposed by the applicable regula-
tory agency.
21
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. A Brief Introduction to Asphalt and__Spme of Its Uses, Manual Series
No. 5 (MS-5), Seventh Edition, The Asphalt Institute, College Park,
MQ, 1977.
2. Z. S. Khan, and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Asphalt Hot Mix,
EPA-6QQ/2-77-lQ7n, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
3. The__Asphalt Handbook, Manual Series No. 4, The Asphalt Institute,
College Park, MD, March 1960.
4. Asphalt Plant Manual, Manual Series No. 3 (MS-3), The Asphalt Institute,
College Park, MD, March 1979.
5. Model Construction Specifications for Asphalt Concrete and Other Platrt-
Mix Types, Specification Series No. 1 (SS-1), Fifth Edition, The Asphalt
Institute, College Park, MD, November 1975.
6. J. A. Crim, and W. D, Snowden, Asphaltic Concrete PlantsAtmospheric
Emissions Study, EPA-APTD-Q936, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1971.
7. Dryer Principals, Sales Manual, p. 9205, Barber-Greene Company, Aurora,
IL, November 1960.
8. T. D. Sear!, et al.. Asphalt Hot-Mix Emission Study, Research Report
75-1 (RR 75-1), The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, March 1975.
9. J. i. Kinsey, "An Evaluation of Control Systems and Mass Emission Rates
from Dryer-Drum Hot Asphalt Plants," JAPCA, 26(12):1163-1165, December
1976.- .._ _ _ ._. ~~"~T" _. .._. ._ _____
10. T. W. Beggs, Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds from Drum-Mix
Asphalt Plants. EPA-600/2-81-026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, February 1981.
11. JACA Corporation, Preliminary Eva!uation ofAir PollutionAspects of
the Drum-Mix Process. EPA-340/1-77-004, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., March 1976.
12. Interim Guidelines for Recycling PavementMaterials, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, TX, July 1978.
13. Written communication from Fred Kloiber, Fred Kloiber and Associates,
College Park, MD, to John Kinsey, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, MO, May 3, 1982.
14. Control Techniques for ParticulateEmissions from Stationary Sources -
VglumeI. EPA-450/3-81-005a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1982.
22
-------
15. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources_-_
Volume II. EPA-450/3-81-005b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1982.
16. S. Calvert, et al. , Wet Srubber System Study. Volume I: Scrubber
Handbook, EPA-R2~72-118a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.
17. Written communication from Fred Kloiber, Fred Kloiber Associates, Col-
lege Park, MD, to John Kinsey, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
MO, January 16, 1984.
23
-------
3.0 DATA REVIEW AND EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING
The first step of this investigation was an extensive search of the
available literature relating to the participate emissions associated with
asphalt concrete plants. This search included data collected under the cur-
rent inhalable participate characterization program, information contained
in the computerized Fine Particle Emission Inventory System (FPEIS), back-
ground documents for Section 8.1 of AP-42 located in the files of the EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (QAQPS), and other reliable
sources including MRI's own library. The search was thorough but not
exhaustive. It is expected that certain additional information may also
exist, but limitations in funding precluded further searching.
Some 27 reference documents were collected and reviewed.1 27 At the
end of this section, each document is listed in chronological order with an
indication as to whether the document contains particle size data.
To reduce the large amount of literature collected to a final group of
references pertinent to this report, the following general criteria were
used:
1. The information contained in the report must characterize the emis-
— sions by particle size. Documents were eliminated from considera-
tion if only total mass emissions were determined. (This included
most_of the original data base utilized to_derive _the existing
emission factors in Table 8.1-3 and Table 8.1-5 of AP-42.)
2. Source testing must be a part of the referenced study. Some re-
ports reiterate information from previous studies and thus were
not considered.
3. The document must constitute the original source of test data.
For example, a technical paper was not included if the original
study was already contained in a previous document. If the exact
source of the data could not be determined, the document was
eliminated.
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough re-
view of the pertinent reports, documents, and information according to the
three criteria stated above. This set of documents was further analyzed to
derive candidate emission factors according to particle size.
24
-------
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
As part of MRI's analysis of the available data, the final set of eight
reference documents (References 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 23, 26, and 27) were eval-
uated as to the quantity and quality of the information contained in them.
The following data were always excluded from consideration.28
1. Test series averages reported in units that cannot be converted
to the selected reporting units.
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods.
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device
is not specified.
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified
and described.
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions mea-
sured were controlled or uncontrolled.
If there was no reason to exclude a particular data set, each was as-
signed a rating as to its quality. The rating system used was that speci-
fied by the OAQPS for the preparation of AP-42 Sections.28 The data were
rated as follows:
A - Multiple tests performed on the same source using sound methodol-
ogy .and reported in enough detail for adequate validation. These
tests do not necessarily have to conform to the methodology spe-
cified in the IP protocol documents, although such methods were
certainly used as a guide.
8 - Tests that are performed by a generally sound methodology but
lack enough detail for adequate validation.
C - Tests that are based on an untested or new methodology or that
lack a significant amount of background data.
D - Tests that are based on a generally unacceptable method but may
provide an order-of-magnitude value for the source.
The following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for
sound methodology and adequate detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is
well documented in the report. The source was operating within
typical parameters during the test.
2. Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a gen-
erally accepted methodology. If actual procedures deviated from
accepted methods, the deviations are well documented. When this
occurred, an evaluation was made of how such alternative proce-
dures could influence the test results,
25
-------
3. Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data
are documented in the report. Many variations can occur without
warning during testing and sometimes without being noticed. Such
variations can induce wide deviations in sampling results. If a
large spread between test results cannot be explained by informa-
tion contained in the test report, the data are suspect and were
given a lower rating.
4. Analysts and cajculations. The test reports contain original raw
data sheets.The nomenclature and equations used were compared
to those specified by EPA (if any) to establish equivalency. The
depth of review of the calculations was dictated by the reviewer's
confidence in the ability and conscientiousness of the tester,
which in turn was based on factors such as consistency of results
and completeness of other areas of the test report.
3.3 PARTICLE SIZE DETERMINATION
There is no one method which is universally accepted for the determina-
tion of particle size. A number of different techniques can be used which
measure the size of particles according to their basic physical properties.
Since there is no "standard" method(s) of particle size analysis, a certain
degree of subjective evaluation was used to determine if a test series was
performed using sound methodology. The following is a brief explanation of
how particle size is defined and the various methods available for particle
size measurement.
3.3.1 Particle Size Definitions
Examination of particles with the aid of an optical or electron micro-
scope involves the physical measurement of a linear dimension of a particle.
The measured "particle size" is related to the particle perimeter or to the
particle projected area diameter. Particle size measurement in this manner
does^not account for variation in^particle~density or^shape.29
All laws describing the properties of aerosols can be expressed most
simply for particles of spherical shape. To accommodate nonspherical par-
ticles it is customary to define a "coefficient of sphericity" which is the
ratio of the surface area of a sphere with the same volume as the given par~
tide to the surface area of the particle.29 An estimate of particle volume
can be obtained from microscopic sizing, and by assuming a density, one can
obtain an estimate of particle weight.
Because of large variations in particle density and the aggregated na-
ture of atmospheric particles, it is useful to define other quantities as a
measure of particle size based on their aerodynamic behavior. The Stoke's
diameter is defined as the diameter of a sphere having the same settling
velocity as the particle and a density equal to that of the bulk material
from which the particle was formed, or30:
26
-------
is vs n
°s = \/ g e C(DS) ^r Re < 0.5 (1)
where:
D = Stoke1s diameter (cm)
V = terminal settling velocity of a particle in free fall (cm/sec)
H = viscosity of the fluid (gm/on-sec)
g = gravitational constant (980.665 cm/sec2)
& - density of the particle (gra/cm3)
C(DS) - Cunningham's slip correction factor for spherical particles
of diameter D (dimensionless)
(2)
A = a + p exp(-y DS/2A) (3)
a = empirical constant (dimensionless) =.1.23 - 1.246
P = empirical constant (dimensionless) = 0.41 - 0.45
Y = empirical constant (dimensionless) = 0.88 - 1.08
A. = mean free path of the fluid at stated conditions (cm)
= X0 (q/n0) (T/T0)°'5 (pQ/p) (4)
A = mean free path at reference conditions (cm)
H = gas viscosity at stated conditions (gm/em*sec)
gas viscosity at reference conditions (gm/cm«sec)
T = absolute temperature (°K)
T = reference temperature = 296.16°K
P = absolute pressure (kPa)
p _ reference pressyre = 101.3 kPa
Re = Reynold's number (dimensionless)
For particles greater than a few microns in diameter, a less rigorous
form of Equation 1 can be used with reasonable accuracy according to the
rel ationship: 31 )32
27
-------
- e')g
Re < 0.05
(5)
where:
i 9» DS» and n
as defined above; and
' = density of air at the appropriate temperature and pressure
(gm/cm3)
Since dispersion and condensation aerosols are usually formed from many
materials of different densities, it is more useful to define another param-
eter called the aerodynamic diameter, which is the diameter of a sphere havin
the same falling velocity as the particle and a density equal to 1 g/cm3.29'3
The classical aerodynamic diameter differs from the Stoke's diameter only
by virtue of difference'in density, assumed equal to unity, and the slip
correction factor, which, by convention, is calculated for the aerodynamic
equivalent diameter. From Equation I:30
gC(DAe)
(6)
where 0. = "classical" aerodynamic equivalent diameter (cm), with n»
'Ae
g, C as previously defined in Equation 1.
Equations required for interconversion between Stoke1s and aerodynamic
diameters are presented in Table 3-1.30
3.3.2 Particle Size Measurement
As
certain
inertia!
characteristics.
either directly
stated previously above, particle size is determined by measuring
physical properties of the particulate being analyzed, such as its
, light scattering, sedimentation, diffusional, and electrical
The size distribution of an aerosol can be determined
at the source (i.e., stack or vent) or indirectly by the
collection of a bulk sample of the material for subsequent analysis in the
laboratory. In either case, the instrument(s) utilized to make such a de-
termination can be manual or automated depending on the individual tech-
nique.
The five basic methods for the direct measurement of particle size are:
1. Aerodynamic separators (cascade impactors, cyclones, elutriators,
etc.)
2. Light-scattering optical particle counters
28
-------
TABLE 3-1. EQUATIONS USED FOR PARTICLE SIZE CONVERSIONS30
Diameter definition
(given)
Stoke1
s diameter
Stoke 's
diameter (D )
1.0
Conversion equation
Classical aerodynamic
equivalent diameter (D. )
"pC(
n - n
°Ae °s CTD
Ds)1 W
Ae}.
Classical
aerodynamic
diameter (0A ) D-D.
Ae s Ae
" C(DAe) "
. PC(Ds) -
j./t
1.0
Notation: D = Stoke's diameter (um)
D. = Classical aerodynamic equivalent diameter (pm)
p = Particle density (g/cm3)
C(D ), C(D/. ), = Slip correction factors (dimension!ess)—
see Equations 2, 3, and 4,
3. Electrical mobility analyzers
4. Condensation nuclei counters
5. Diffusion batteries
All of the above are extractive methods, with the exception of certain aero-
dynamic separators.
Indirect methods for the determination of particle size include:
1. Sieving (wet, dry, sonic)
2. Sedimentation
3. Centrifugation (inertia! separation)
4. Microscopy (optical and electron)
5. Others (acoustic, thermal, spectrothermal emission)
29
-------
Table 3-2 provides a guide as to the various methods for the determina-
tion of particle size based on certain physical properties of the particu-
late and notes the size range in which each is generally applicable.33
In most respects instruments that fractionate an aerosol on the basis
of the aerodynamic properties of its components probably give the best prac-
tical assessment of size. Once flow conditions have been selected for the
device, the terminal settling velocities of the particles collected in each
stage or part of the instrument can be determined, even though particle spe-
cific gravity and shape factor are unknown.30 Unless the particle shapes
are extremely irregular, the details of precise geometric form can be by-
passed and the likelihood of the particle's capture by a dust-collecting
system can still be determined. Because the correct assessment of particle
size properties is essential for the development of appropriate emission
factors, an assessment by aerodynamic techniques was emphasized in review-
ing and rating the individual data sets for sound methodology.
Examples of aerodynamic particle sizing instruments are centrifuges,
cyclones, cascade impactors, and elutriators. Each of these instruments
employs the unique relationship between a particle's diameter and mobility
in gas or air to collect and classify the particles by size. For pollution
studies, cyclones and impactors (primarily the latter) are more useful be-
cause they are rugged and compact enough for j_n situ sampling. j[n situ
sampling is preferred because the measured size distribution may be dis-
torted if a probe is used for sample extraction. In the following two sub-
sections, methods of using impactors and cyclones are discussed.
3.3.2.1 Cascade Impactors—
Cascade impactors used for the determination of particle size in pro-
cess streams consist of a series of plates or stages containing either small
holes or slits with the size of the openings decreasing from one plate to
the next;-. In each stage of an impactor, the gas stream passes through the
orifice or slit to form a jet that is directed toward an impaction plate.
For each--stage-there-fs a characteristic particle^diameter that-has a 50%
probability of impaction. This characteristic diameter is called the cut-
point (Den) of the stage. Typically, commercial instruments have six to
eight impaction stages with a back-up filter to collect those particles
which are either too small to be collected by the last stage or which are
reentrained off the various impaction surfaces by the moving gas stream.34
The particle collection efficiency of a particular impactor jet-plate
combination is determined by properties of the aerosol such as the particle
shape and density, but the viscosity of the gas, and by the design of the
impactor stage. There is also a slight dependence on the type of collec-
tion surface used (glass fiber, grease, metal, etc.). Reentrainment, or
particle bounce, is a significant problem with cascade impactors especially
in the case of high particulate loadings. This problem can ba partially
solved by using a preseparation device ahead of the impactor to reduce the
overall loading of coarse particles.
30
-------
TABLE 3-2. GUIDE TO PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENT33
Diameter of
applicability
Method (urn)
Optical
Light imaging 0.5+
Electron imaging 0.001-15
Light scanning 1+
Electron scanning 0.1+
Direct photography 5+
Laser holography 3+
Sieving 2+
Light scattering
Right angle 0.5+
Forward 0.3-10
Polarization 0.3-3
With condensation 0.01-0.1
Laser scan 5+
Electrical
Current alteration 0.5+
Ion counting, unit charge 0.01-0.1
Ion counting, corona charging 0.015-1.2
Impaction 0.5+
Centrifugation 0.1+
Diffusion battery , 0.001-0.5
Acoustical
Orifice passage 15+
Sinusoidal vibration 1+
Thermal 0.1-1
Spectrothermal emission 0.1+
31
-------
3.3.2.2 Cyclone Separators--
TraditionaHy, cyclones have been used as a preseparator ahead of a
cascade impactor to remove the larger particles. These cyclones are of the
standard reverse-flow design whereby the aerosol sample enters the cyclone
through a tangential inlet and forms a vortex flow pattern. Particles move
outward toward the cyclone wall with a velocity that is determined by the
geometry and flow rate in the cyclone and by their size. Large particles
reach the wall and are collected.
A series of cyclones with progressively decreasing cut-points can be
used also instead of impactors to obtain particle size distributions. The
advantages are that larger samples are acquired, particle bounce is not a
problem, and no substrates are required. Also, longer sampling times are
possible with cyclones, which can be an advantage at very dusty streams,
but a disadvantage at relatively clean streams. One such series cyclone
system was developed by an EPA contractor specifically for the IP program.38
3.4 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
The following is a discussion of the data contained in each of eight
primary reference documents. The documents are presented according to the
Reference number indicated at the end of this section and their date of
publication.
3.4.1 Reference 1 (I960)
Reference lisa technical paper published in the Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, which presents the results of 25 tests con-
ducted by personnel of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District
beginning in 1949. Included in this document are emissions data for batch
and continuous mix asphalt plants controlled by either a multiple centrifugal
scrubber or a baffled spray tower. In five of these tests, a particle size
distribution was obtained at both the inlet and outlet of the scrubber.
The~information"contained in Reference 1 was^later repubtished in the first
(1967) edition of the Air Pollution Engineering Manual (EPA document AP-40).
The data were again included in a second edition of the same document in
1973. A summary of the five tests which contain particle size data is shown
in Table 3-3, and a copy of the paper itself is contained in Appendix A.
There were a number of deficiencies noted in the data contained in
Reference 1. The main problem was that a test method was not specified for
either total mass emissions or particle size. In addition, data were not
available on the operation of the process, the raw material used, or the
exact configuration of the plants tested. As far as could be determined,
only one set of samples was collected during each test included in Refer-
ence 1.
The data published by Los Angeles County have been cited repeatedly in
numerous reports on the emissions from asphalt concrete plants. An attempt
was therefore made to supplement the information contained in Reference 1
by both written and verbal communication with personnel of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (formerly the Los Angeles County
32
-------
TABLE 3-3. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE DATA - REFERENCE la
Data Rating: D
'•
Test
series
No.
C-393
C-369
C-372A
C-372B
C-422(l>
a c
Fro.e:
Inlet dust
loading.
(Ib/hrf
4,260
352
76
121
-
Tables I and
Outlet dust
loading.
(Ib/hr)
26.9
24.4
10.0
19.2
26.6
II. p. 31 of
Type of
scrubber
T
C
C
c
c
Ingel, et at.
Production
rate .
(tons/hr>a
92.3
113.0
158.0
142.9
198.0
, "Control of
Inlet
0-10 Jin
13.0
76.4
78.0
91.0
80.48
Asphaltic
particle
10-20 ua
71.1
6.3
18.0
9.0
18. 6«
Concrete
size (X weight)6
20-44 [in > 44 (in
9.6 6.3
2.8 14,5
2.0 2.0
0 0
l.O9 O8
Plants In Los Angeles
Outlet
0-10 |.m
99.3
79.9
83.0
82.0
73.2
County," J.
particle
10-20 (in
0
3.8
5.0
3.0
5.1
size (%
20-44 i
0
2.0
1.0
2.0
4.5
weight)6
in > 44 [ta
0.7
14. 3f
11. Of
13. Of
17.2
Air Pol Hit. Control Assoc. ,
1011}:29-33, Feb. 1960 (Appendix A). .
b 1 Ib/hr = 0,454 kg/hr.
C = multiple centrifugal spray scrubber; T = baffled spray-tower.
Assumed to be short tons (2,000 Ib) per hour of asphalt paving produced. 1 short ton/hr = 0.907 metric tons/hr = 0.907 (10)° gm/hr.
SLoke's diameter.
Microscopic examination Indicated agglomerated particles.
" Data not used for emission factor development.
-------
Air Pollution Control District) to obtain copies of the original reports
for the subject tests,36 Only in two cases (Nos. C-393 and C-426) was this
effort successful.37'38 Upon reviewing the two reports supplied by the
SCAQMD, it was concluded that there was still insufficient information con-
tained in the documents from which to ascertain the exact equipment and pro-
cedure used to determine the total mass emissions from each plant and the
particle size distribution. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 summarize the data obtained
from Tests C-393 and C-426, respectively, with copies of the original test
reports included in Appendix A.
To fill in the gaps in the available information, a telephone conver-
sation was held with Mr. William Krenz, Manager of Source Testing and Moni-
toring for the SCAQMD.39 It was learned from Mr. Krenz that the sampling
apparatus used by Los Angeles County during that time period to measure the
total mass emissions from a process was similar to the standard EPA Method 5
sampling train with the exception that the filter was installed downstream
of the wet irapingers. According to his best recollection, the particle size
distribution was obtained by introducing a sample of dried particulate mat-
ter caught in the impingers of the sampling train into a commercially avail-
able instrument called a "Micromerograph." The Micromerograph consists of
a sample feeder and deagglomerator installed atop a gravity sedimentation
column at the bottom of which is an electronic torsion balance. This in-
strument measures the size distribution of the sample according to the
Stoke's settling velocity of the particles. Both the sampling train and
the Micromerograph are described in a source test manual published by the
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).40 A technical
paper describing the Micromerograph and its operation has also been in-
cluded in Appendix A.41
The information obtained from Reference 1 and that subsequently ob-
tained from the SCAQMD is somewhat sketchy. It would also be expected that
the method used to determine the particle size distribution may not provide
data that are entirely representative of the actual emissions from the pro-
cess-since the finer particle'" fraction wou1thbe~ collected on the "filter and
not in the impinger train. The size distribution could also be affected by
agglomeration of the particles during preparation of the sample prior to
analysis. Based on these factors and taking into consideration the time
period during which the data were collected, a data quality rating of D was
assigned to the information contained in Reference 1.
3.4.2 Reference 3 (1967)
Reference 3 is a technical paper published in the English version of
Staub-Reinhalt, Luft outlining the results of a major research program con-
ducted in West Germany of the emissions from asphalt concrete plants. Some
35 individual tests were conducted at 10 different facilities during the
sampling program. These data were then compared against 83 additional tests
at 27 other facilities as performed by other investigators. During the pro-
gram, measurements were made of the total dust loading in the dryer exhaust
as well as at the discharge of the primary and secondary dust collectors.
In every case but one, the control system generally consisted of multiple,
large diameter cyclones arranged in parallel followed by a single, low
34
-------
TABLE 3-4. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR
TEST NO. C-39337
Data Rating: D
Particle size range
(umsr
0-10
10-20
20-44
> 44
Percent
Inlet to
scrubber
13.0
71.1
9.6
6.3
by weight
Outlet from
scrubber
99.3
-
-
0.7
Stoke1s diameter.
Data taken from page 5 of Reference 1 (Appendix A).
c Baffle plate scrubber. Inlet to scrubber = outlet
from a single large diameter cyclone collector.
Outlet data not used for emission factor development.
35
-------
TABLE 3-5. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-42638
Data Rating: 0
iize
200 mesh (74 jjm) deter-
mined by sieve analysis was also assumed to be Stoke1s diameter.
Data taken from page 9 of Reference 1 (Appendix A). Data for par-
ticles > 60 umS not input to SPLIN2 program (see Section 3.5.2).
Inlet to multiple centrifugal scrubber. Includes combined effluent
from cyclone and vent line.
Scavenger control system vent line. Includes hot side elevator,
screens, bins, and weigh hopper.
Data not input to SPLIN2 program (see Section 3.5.2).
36
-------
energy wet scrubber. The particle size distribution was determined on the
uncontrolled emissions from the dryer and at the exit of the primary collec-
tor. Exactly how such samples were obtained is not specified in the document.
A copy of Reference 3 is provided in Appendix 8.
As far as can be determined, the particle size data included in Refer-
ence 3 was obtained by taking a dry sample of the dust caught in the sample
train and analyzing it utilizing a Gonell air elutriator according to VDI
Directive 2031, "Fineness Determination of Technical Dusts." The Gonell
elutriator consists of a long brass tube with a conical base.42 The sample
is placed in the inlet cone with an upward stream of air blown through the
column at varying velocities to achieve separation. The theory is that as
the air moves vertically upward it carries with it particles whose gravita-
tional settling velocity is less than the velocity of the carrier gas. The
amount of material remaining in the instrument is weighed and the test re-
peated to complete the particle size analysis. A summary of the particle
size distribution of the uncontrolled emissions from the plants tested is
shown in Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 provides the size distribution of the
dust exiting the primary collector.
Although the data contained in Reference 3 were derived from plants
located in West Germany, it is felt that these data can also be considered
as characteristic of U.S. facilities as well. This opinion is based on the
fact that in many cases the, Germans utilize plant equipment which is manu-
factured in the United States.43 In addition, the type of aggregate and
asphalt cement used is also reasonably similar to that which is avail-
able in this country.43 For the above reasons, the data included in Ref-
erence 3 were included in the development of candidate emission factors for
conventional asphalt plants.
The emissions data in Reference 3 are of fairly good quality even
though there are significant gaps in the sampling protocol used. As with
the data contained in Reference 1, the size distribution of the particulate
was determined indirectly through the use of a laboratory instrument, which
can cause a certain degree of bias in the test results. Due to the lack of
sufficient documentation on the exact methods used to collect and analyze
the samples and detailed information on the process operating parameters of
the plants tested, it is difficult to ascertain the representativeness of
the results obtained. For these reasons, a rating of C was assigned to the
data included in Reference 3.
3.4.3 Reference 8 (1971)
Reference 8 presents the results of a study conducted by an EPA con-
tractor, of the atmospheric emissions from batch and continuous mix asphalt
concrete plants. In this study, original source tests were conducted of the
total mass emissions from five individual plants using both EPA Method 5 and
a sampling train developed by the Los Angeles County APCD.40 An industrial
survey was also conducted as part of the study to obtain whatever data were
available from other sources on both mass emissions and particle size.
37
-------
CO
TABLE 3-6. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS - REFERENCE 3(
Data Rating: C
i I
Dust in the drum
exhaust gases
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
2.1
For washed raw
material In
manufacture of
Fine asphaltic
concrete 0/8
Binder 0/18
Base 0/35
For half-
washed raw ma-
terial in the
manufacture of
Fine asphaltic
concrete 0/8
Plant
10 No.
A4
01
112
A
I2d
ft
13d
02
Cl
C2
Raw dust
concen-
tration
Raw naterial (g/«» STP)
Moraine * Rhine sand
Basalt + natural
sand
Basalt + line +
natural sand
Basalt + lime +
blast furnace slag
Line + Rhine sand
Basalt + natural sand
Basalt * moraine +
Rhine sand
28.6
33.4
26,2
39.1
29.3
29.9
69.9
69.5
Waste
gases per
metric
ton (a*h
STP/MT)
330
630
470
540
SOO
630
520
520
Uncon-
trolled
ealsslgn
factor
(kfl/HT)
9.
21,
12.
21.
14.
18.
36.
36.
4
0
3
1
7
8
3
1
particle
Particle
density
(B/CB»)
2.4
2.6
2,6
2.9
2,7
2,9
2.5
2.5
< 0.2
cm/sec
10.5
7.0
8.7
10.8
13.7
15.1
6.9
7.6
< 0.4
cm/ sec
16.7
13.1
17,0
14.0
29,1
25.0
13.8
16.9
Raw dust in the drus waste gases
size distribution by settling velocity intervals
(wetqht proportion in %)
< 0.8
cm/ sec
23.2
18.2
23.4
17.2
40.9
41.1
22.0
24.9
< 1.6
cm/ sec
28.6
22.6
27.6
25.1
49.2
58.1
29.6
31,7
< 3.2
cm/sec
34.3
26.7
33.4
34.5
58.1
65.4
37.2
37,4
< 6.4
cm/ sec
39.7
28.8
36.2
38.5
64.7
67.0
45.9
42,6
< 12.8
cm/sec
46.0
32.0
45.9
47.2
70.2
69.1
54.7
50.9
< 25.6
en/sec
57.1
38.2
59.1
64.1
80.9
73.3
74.1
58.9
> 2576
cm/sec
42.9
61.8
40.9
35.9
19.1
26. 7
25.9
41,1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-6. (concluded)
10
Dust in the drura
exhaust oases
3. for unwashed
raw material
in the nanu"
facture of
3.1 fine asptialtic
concrete 0/B
3.2 Binder 0/12
3,3 Base 0/30
Base 0/35
Plant
10 No,
B3
04
F3
G2
K4
Cl
Bl
F2
Raw Material
Blast furnace slag *
Rhine sand
Basalt
LI ae stone
Li lies tone
Linestone
Diabase * line
Gravel
Rhine gravel
Raw dust
concen-
tration
(fl/n' SIP)
133.5
116.5
119.1
117,0
111.2
103.2
53.1
52.0
Uait«
gases per
•elHc
ton {»*.
sip/tnr
350
640
310
260
460
270
300
280
Uncon-
trolled
eaisstgn
factor
(kft/H?)
46.7
74.6
36.9
30.4
51.2
27.9
15.9
14.6
particle
Partict*
dens 1 ty
(g/c«>)
2.6
2. a
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.S
2.5
2.5
< 0.2
cm/ tec
4.2
15.9
11.0
8.3
1.5
5.9
3.6
16. 5
< 0.4
ca/sec
7.7
26.8
19.8
20.1
2.1
16. S
S.I
24.0
Raw dust in the dri» waste gases
siie distribution by settling velocity intervals
(
< 0.8
CB/sec
12.5
41.5
27.7
37.0
2.9
29.1
7.0
32. S
weight proportion in X)
< 1.6
CB/sec
18. 3
53.8
35.5
50.2
3.8
3S.1
8.9
41.S
< 3.2
CB/SCC
25.4
61.5
43.2
59.6
4.6
43.8
10.9
45.6
< 6,4
CB/sec
32.7
67.6
48.9
66,7
6.3
53.9
12.8
48.5
< 12. B
CB/sec
41.4
72.0
57.6
72.1
10.5
66.0
16.3
53.0
< 25.6
en/sec
56.7
80.6
66.9
82.5
16.3
81.9
23.7
60.4
> 25.6
CB/sec
43.3
19.4
33.1
17.5
63. 7
18.1
76.3
39.6
Data taken froa Tables 3 and 8, pgs. 12 and 20 at Reference 3 (Appendix B). Assumed to be dryer exhaust only. Minor differences in raw dust concentration
noted between Tables 3 and 8 for Plant ID's B3, C2, and D4.
b Assumed to be metric tons (NT) of asphalt concrete produced. 1 MT 3 1.1 short tons a 2,200 Ib = 10° g*.
c Calculated from data In two previous columns. For example: 28.6 jf X 3JO g| x |-||^ • = 9.4 kg/Hi
Same tests as J2 and J3 shown In original reference dacunent.
-------
TABLE 3-7. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR THE DUST EXITING THE PRIMARY COLLECTOR -
REFERENCE 3a
Data Rating: C
•
Total mss
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
2.1
Oust in the driu
waste gases
For washed raw mate-
rial in the manu-
facture of
Fine asphalttc con-
crete 0/8
Binder 0/1B
Base 0/35
For half-washed raw
material In the Manu-
facture of
Fine asphaltic
concrete 0/8
Plant
10 No.
A4
Dl
H2
12°
n9
D2
Cl
C2
cone. Total gas
exiting volumetric
collector flow rate .
Raw eater lal (g/m1) (101 aVlir)
Moraine * Rhine sand
Basalt + natural sand
Basalt + lloe +
natural sand
Basalt + UM + blast
furnace slag
Line + Rhine sand
Basalt + natural sand
Basalt * moraine »
Rhine sand
0.673 17.0
3.23 48.6
1.70 21.2
0'.B2 27.5
2.12 26.4
4.90 46.2
2.39 44.3
2.72 45,3
Production
rate
(HT/hr)c
25
60
35
40
40
60
60
60
Emission
factor.
(kg/Ml)0
0.458
2.62
1.03
0.56
1.40
3.77
1.77
2.05
Proportion of dust
Intervals (Stoke
0-10
23.2
18.2
2S.4
17.2
40.9
41.1
22.0
24.9
\m 10-20 |IB
11.1
8.5
10.0
17.3
17.2
24.3
15,2
12.5
In particle
's diameter]
20-40 un >
11.7
5.3
12.5
12.7
12.1
3.7
17. S
13.5
|tze
40 UB
54.0
68.0
54.1
52.8
29.8
30.9
45.3
45.3
No. of
cyclone.
eleaents
4
2
IB
20
20
2
6
6
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-7. (concluded)
Oust in the drum
waste gases
Total mass
cone. ' Total gas
exiting volumetric Production Emission
Plant collector flow rate . rate factor.
ID (to. Raw material (g/B*) (10» •Vhr) (MT/hr) (kg/MT)
Proportion of dust in particle size
intervals (Stoke* s diameter)
0-10 urn 10*20 n»
20-40 |tn :
» 40 |in
No. of
cyclone,
elements
3. For unwashed raw mate-
rial in the manufacture
of
3.1 Fine asphaltfc
concrete 0/fl
3.2 Binder 0/12
3. 3 Base 0/30
Base 0/3S
*T 8 Multiple cyclone dust
significant figures.
At actual temperature
c Assumed to be metric
Calculated from data
* Density assumed equal
" C«fttrt Tik1~ 1 ^ 1A *
83 Blast furnace
Rhine sand
D4 Basalt
F3 Limestone
G2 Limestone
K4 Limestone
slag + 2.
12.
6.
10.
3.
Gl Diabase + line 8.
Bl Gravel 0.
F2 Rhine gravel
collectors. Data taken
and pressure.
27
9
10
3
08
3
916
3.12
from Table 3, p. 12, and
tons (HT) of asphalt concrete produced.
in three previous columns
to 2.6 B/cm».
For example:
1 HT s 1.
0.673 J
34. i
44.5
27.0
26.3
43.0
30.8
34.4
25.6
Table 9
1 short
1 x 17.0
64
55
70
90
75
80
70
70
, p. 22 of the
ton s 2,200 Ib
(ioj» g x 5r
1.22
10.4
2.35
3. OB
1.77
3.20
0.449
1.14
Reference 3
= 108 gm.
Iffi j, J k9
HT * 1.000 g
12.5
41.5
27.7
37.0
2.9
29.1
7.0
32.5
(Appendix B).
' °-45a $
12.9
20.0
15.5
22.6
1.7
14.7
3.9
13.1
16.0
10.5
14.4
12.5
5.9
22.2
5.4
7.4
Calculations rounded
58.6
28.0
42.4
27.9
89.5
34.0
83.7
47.0
to three
21 * 12*1
2
6
4
6
21 * 12h
6
Same tests as J2 and J3 shown In original reference document.
Two sets of cyclones In series.
-------
Four particle size distribution curves are presented in Reference 8
with two of these curves representing plants with centrifugal scrubbers and
the remaining data representing plants with spray towers. There is no in-
formation contained in the report on either the plants tested or the methods
used to determine the particle size distributions, A copy of Reference 8
is provided in Appendix C.
To augment the particle size information contained in Reference 8, the
EPA contractor who performed the study was contracted to extract the orig-
inal data used to prepare the four particle size distribution curves men-
tioned above from the project files.44 From this effort, three separate
test reports were supplied to MRI consisting of data collected by CMI Sys-
tems of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Two of these tests were determined to be
suitable for the development candidate emission factors.45'46 Summaries of
these data are shown in Tables 3-8 and 3-9, respectively, with copies of
the original reports provided in Appendix C.
The two CMI documents mentioned above provide the results of particle
size tests conducted at two batch-mix asphalt plants controlled by a single
cyclone dust collector, followed by a wet scrubber. One of these plants
was equipped with a spray tower (Sloan) and the other a centrifugal scrub-
ber (Harrison). Samples were collected both downstream of the cyclone (in-
let to the scrubber) and from the exhaust stack (outlet of the scrubber)
utilizing an Andersen nine-stage, in-stack cascade intpactor. This equip-
ment is not fully described in the test reports themselves but is explained
in some detail in the third document received from the EPA contractor,47
As far as could be determined, two sets of samples were collected at the
Sloan plant and one set at the Harrison facility. The sampling duration
for all particle size tests was 5 min.
The tests conducted by CMI Systems were generally based on accepted
methodology but do lack documentation on process operation, type of raw
material utilized, and certain key information with regard to the collec-
tion -and analysis-of--the samples.—In addition, the small number—of--test
runs and their short duration would somewhat decrease the overall repre-
sentativeness of the data over the entire range of process operating con-
ditions. Due to these considerations, a rating of B was assigned to the
information contained in Reference 8 and the supplementary test reports
supplied by the EPA contractor.
3.4.4 Reference 10 (1972)
Reference 10 is a report of a source test conducted by Glen Ode 11,
Consulting Engineer, of an uncontrolled Shearer process drum-mix asphalt
plant owned by Page Paving Company. This plant is unusual in that the as-
phalt cement is added to the aggregate before it enters the drum mixer.
The total mass emissions from the process were determined utilizing a modi-
fied version of EPA Method 5 with the filter installed downstream of the
third impinger. This modification was made to reduce plugging of the fil-
ter with asphaltic material, which occurred in the normal configuration. A
crude determination of particle size was made by microscopically examining
a sample of the particulate collected on one of the filters (Run 1). A
42
-------
TABLE 3-8. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR SLOAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY44
Data Rating; B
Particle size
Inlet to scrubber
Percent by
weight
Emission rate
(Ib/hr)
Outlet from scrubber
Percent by
weight
Emission rate
(Ib/hr)
30 and larger
9.2
5.5
3.3
2.0
1.0
0.3
0
30
9.2
5.5
3.3
,0
.0
2.
I.
1 - 0.3
Total
27.7
19.0
14.8
13.3
12,2
9.5
2.3
0.7
596
409
318
286
262
204
50
15
54.8
9.2
8,3
4.7
4.4
4.9
8.0
5.7
2,135
181.0
Aerodynamic diameter.
Downstream of a cyclone collector. Data taken from page 8 of test re-
port (Appendix C).
Outlet of a spray tower. Data taken from page 8 of test report (Appen-
dix C).
TABLE 3-9. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR HARRISON, INC.45
Data Rating: 8
Particle size
(umA)
30 and larger
5.5-30
2.0-5.5
Smaller than 2.
Total
Inlet to
Percent by
weight
23.1
26.9
35.1
0 14.9
100
scrubber
Emission rate
(Ib/hr)
396.2
461.3
602.0
255.5
1,715.0
Outlet
Percent by
weight
3.0
2.2
6.8
88.0
IoT~
from scrubber
Emission rate
(Ib/hr)
1.9
1.4
4.3
55.4
SO
Aerodynamic
diameter.
£* «. £ 4i «. -. 4* w.-*
port (Appendix C).
Outlet of a centrifugal scrubber. Data taken from page 6 of test report
(Appendix C).
43
-------
log-normal distribution was constructed from this particle size data using
a number of somewhat questionable assumptions.
The information contained in Reference 10 is well documented and in-
cludes adequate detail for evaluation. The method used to determine parti-
cle size is, however, inappropriate for any type of quantitative analysis.
For this reason, Reference 10 was not used in the development of candidate
emission factors, and no copy of such is included in this document.
3.4.5 Reference 12 (1973)
Reference 12 is the 1973 version of the Air Pollution Engineering Manual
published by the Los Angeles County APCD. This document contains one addi-
tional data set (Test No. C-537) which was not included in Reference 1.
This data set provides a characterization of the emissions from a 6,000-lb
capacity asphalt batch plant equipped with a low efficiency cyclone, a mul-
ticyclone (multiple small diameter cyclones), and a multiple centrifugal
scrubber. The particle size distribution was obtained for the dryer ex-
haust, the vent line from the scavenger system, downstream of the primary
cyclone, and at the inlet to the scrubber. A summary of the data for Test
No. C-537 contained in Reference 12 is provided in Table 3-10 with applica-
ble sections of the document included in Appendix D.
Since the particle size data contained in Reference 12 is of the same
vintage as that described previously for Reference 1, an identical rating
of D was assigned to it.
3.4.6 Reference 23 (1976)
Reference 23 is a report of source tests conducted by an EPA contractor
to measure the emissions from an experimental drum-mix plant processing re-
cycled asphalt pavement. Particulate emissions from the plant were con-
trolled by a venturi scrubber and associated inertia! separator for mist
-elimination.—Concurrent-tests were conducted at both the inlet and outlet
of the scrubber using EPA Method 5 or a modified version of EPA Method 8.
Three separate operating conditions were tested. The first operating
scenario (one test) consisted of the introduction of the recycle material
at the midpoint of the drum mixer. During the second operating condition
(three tests) recycle material was introduced at the burner end of the drum
along with the virgin aggregate. The final operating condition (three tests)
consisted of injection of the recycle material at the burner end but with
the inclination of the drum increased from 2 to 2.98 degrees. ParticTe siz-
ing was performed during the second and third conditions using an Andersen
9-stage cascade impactor and a standard EPA Method 5 sampling train.
The only data in Reference 23 which are applicable to current process
technology for the recycling of asphalt pavement are that obtained during
the first operating condition (see Section 2.2.4). Since no determination
of particle size was conducted during this test, only the data for total
mass would be of value in this analysis. Due to the fact that the plant
was experimental in nature and only one test was actually conducted for
44
-------
TABLE 3-10. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR TEST C-537 - REFERENCE 1226
.Data Rating: Da
Ul
Inlet to
Particle sige
range (urn)
0-5
5-10
10-20
20-50
> 50
Vent line
(wt %)
18.8
27.6
40.4
12.1
1.1
Dryer exhaust
(wt%)
9.2
12.3
22.7
49.3
6.5
primary ,
cyclone
(wt %)
6.2
9.4
13.8
22.9
47.7
Inlet to
multi clone
(wt %)
19.3
31.9
31.6
15.1
2.1
Inlet to
scrubber
(wt %)
57.0
34.0
8.8f
0.2r
Nil
Assumed identical to Reference 1.
Stoke's diameter.
Includes only particles < 200 mesh (74 |jm). Data taken from Table 94, p. 328 of
reference document.
Combined effluent of dryer exhaust and vent line. Data taken from Table 96, p. 333 of
reference document.
Data taken from Table 96, p. 333 of reference document (Appendix D).
Percentage of particles 20-50 |jmS in diameter are reported in Table 96 (Appendix D)
as 9.2%. This is obviously a typographical error since the total calculates out to be
109%. Appropriate correction has been made in the analysis for particles in this size
range.
-------
total mass, the information contained in Reference 23 was not used in the
development of candidate emission factors. Although the data are generally
unsatisfactory, the test results may be somewhat useful in estimating the
emissions from this type of facility. Therefore, a copy of the test data
for Reference 23 has been included in this report as Appendix E.
3.4.7 Reference 26 (1978)
Reference 26 is a study of the fine particle emissions from a variety
of sources in the South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles), conducted by a con-
tractor to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). One test included in
this study was of the emissions from an asphalt batch plant controlled by a
cyclone collector followed by a baghouse. Only one test run was performed
during the sampling program with concurrent measurements made at the inlet
and outlet of the baghouse collector.
The size distribution of the particulate was determined at each sam-
pling location using either of two sampling trains equipped with a series
of three individual cyclones having nominal cut-points of 10, 3, and 1 umA,
respectively. For inlet testing, a standard EPA Method 5 (Joy) train was
adapted for the program by installing the three cyclones and a backup fil-
ter in the oven section of the impinger box. For testing at the outlet,
the Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) was used. The data obtained
from the CARB study were entered into the EADS system from which a printout
was obtained. A summary of the data contained in Reference 26 is provided
in Table 3-11 with a copy of the pertinent sections of the draft report in-
cluded in Appendix F. Upon checking with the contractor it was learned that
the test data for run 29S were not changed in the final report from that in-
cluded in the draft shown in Appendix F.48
TABLE 3-11. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR REFERENCE 26a
Data-Rating: B
Test Sampling. Percent of particles in stated size range0
No. location > 10 umA 10-3 yinA 3-1 un,A < 1 umA
29S Outlet 60 6 4 30
k From page 4-165 of Reference 26 (Appendix F).
Location relative to baghouse collector.
Aerodynamic diameter.
From the analysis of Reference 26 it was determined that the particle
size measurements were made using sound methodology, and it does contain
adequate information for validation. The only significant problem found
46
-------
with the data was that the cyclone train at the inlet to the baghouse be-
came overloaded with material, which could significantly affect the valid-
ity of the test results. This fact was learned from a review of the test
report itself rather than from the EADS printout. For this reason, the data
collected at the inlet of the baghouse were not used in the development of
candidate emission factors. Since only one test run was conducted at the
outlet of the baghouse, a rating of B was assigned to the data.
3.4.8 Reference 27 (1982)
Reference 27 is a report of the tests conducted by MRI, under the IP
program, of a drum-mix asphalt plant controlled by a baghouse collector.
The drum mixer was equipped to process recycled asphalt paving utilizing a
split feed arrangement. Particulate matter contained in the exhaust stream
was sampled at both the inlet and outlet of the baghouse with measurements
also made of the condensation aerosol which would theoretically be formed
upon release into the atmosphere (condensable organics).
The general sampling protocol used in this study was that developed
for the IP program.35 At the inlet, the total uncontrolled emissions from
the process were determined from a six-point traverse utilizing EPA Method 5.
The particle size distribution was obtained from samples collected by an
Andersen High Capacity Stack Sampler equipped with a Sierra Instruments
15-umA preseparator. Four particle size tests were conducted at each of
the four sampling quadrants for a total of 16 test runs.
At the outlet from the baghouse, the total mass emissions from the plant
were determined utilizing proposed EPA Method 17, with two tests being con-
ducted at each of four sampling quadrants. The particle size distribution
was likewise obtained using an Andersen Mark III cascade impactor and Sierra
Instruments 15 jjniA preseparator utilizing an identical test protocol.
Condensable organics testing was also performed during the study utiliz-
ing the Dilution Stack Sampling System (DSSS) developed by Southern Research
Institute.49 This system extracts a small slipstream of gas from the stack
which, after removing particles > 2.5 pmA in diameter, is mixed in a dilution
chamber with cool, dry ambient air. A standard high-volume air sampler is
installed at the discharge end of the chamber which collects a combination
of the fine parti cul ate (< 2.5 urn) extracted from the stack and any new par-
ti cul ate matter formed by condensation. The loadings obtained from the DSSS
are then compared to those measured by a second sampling train without the
dilution chamber to determine the amount of condensable organics formed.
Three separate tests were conducted at the outlet of the baghouse collector
during the sampling program.
Tables 3-12 through 3-14 provide a summary of the results of this study
with a copy of applicable portions of the document included in Appendix G.
Since the tests in Reference 27 were conducted according to the protocol
developed for the IP program and are well documented, a rating of A was as-
signed to the data.
47
-------
TABLE 3-12.
*»
QQ
SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE TEST DAI A COLLECTED AT THE BAGHOUSE INLET
REFERENCE 27a
Data Rating: A
15-|im Cyclone
Test Run No.
No
I
3
4
( source- run-quad]
I-l-l(B)
1-1-2
I~l-3
1-1-4
I-2-l(C)b
1-2-2(8)
1-2-3
1-2-4
1-3-1
1-3-2
1-3-3
1-3-4
1-4-1
1-4-2
1-4-3
1-4-4
Hass
(n>g)
4,775.2
6,088.7
6,345,5
10,607.6
212.91
5,881.3
4,157.7
9,068.9
5,718.0
6,113,0
3,086.1
10,346.7
2,149.4
3,242,0
7,794.4
9,585.9
060 size
(t«i)
14.8
1S.5
15,1
15.2
14.5
15.6
15.4
15.0
15.7
15.5
15.4
15,2
15.5
15.4
15.4
15.5
Cum. %
less
than
stated
size
30.2
25.0
19.2
17.6
26.7
25.7
22.9
22.9
22,3
23.5
33.5
19.8
35.8
27.8
20,2
21.4
: Stage 1
Hass Dso size
(ing) (n»)
95.2 11.4
125.0 11.8
68,5 11.5
179.5 11.6
45.6 11.2
127.0 11.7
60.4 11.7
406.6 11.5
364.8 11.7
81.6 11.7
62.2 11.6
170.5 11.6
48.4 11.7
78.4 11.7
89,3 11.6
178.5 11.7
Cum. X
less
than
stated
size
28.8
23.5
18.3
16.2
25.1
24.1
21.7
19.5
17.4
22.5
32.1
18.5
34,4
26,00
19,3
20.0
Hass
(nig)
617.5
566.6
399.4
750.9
221.8
621.1
362.7
767,3
200.5
505.7
393.8
888.7
301.8
348.8
550.6
873.4
Stage 2
Oso size
(H»)
6.3
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.61
6.6
6.6
6.6
Cum. X
less
than
stated
size
19.7
16.5
13.3
10.4
17.5
16.2
15.0
12.9
14.7
16.2
23.6
11.6
25.4
18.2
13.6
12.8
Hass
(BB)
1,091.0
1,143.3
906.8
977.9
446.3
1,061.0
746.8
1,038.8
975.1
997.5
937,4
1,062.2
671.9
642.8
874.2
785.0
Cyclone
D50 size
(|»)
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
i.a
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
2,0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
Cum. %
less
than
stated
size
3.8
2.4
1.7
2.8
2.1
2.8
1.2
4.1
1.4
3.7
3.4
3,4
5.3
3.9
4.7
6.4
Filter
Mass
(ng)
258.0
198.0
134.3
356.5
60.8
222.6
62.4
481.7
104.1
294,8
169.4
435.3
177.1
175.2
456.6
777.3
060 size
(l»)
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 1.8
< 2.0
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 2.0
< 2.0
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 2.0
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 2.0
a
b
Reproduced from Table 4.4, p.
49 of Reference 27
. „. » i
(Appendix G).
„ *
it . *
-------
TABLE 3-13.
SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE TEST DATA COLLECTED AT THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET
REFERENCE 27a
Data Rating: A
15-m Cyclone
Test
No.
j
2
Test
No.
.
"
-
Run No. Mass
(source- run-quad) (mg)
0-1-lfB) 37.96
0-1-2° 84.91
0-1-3° 39.29
0-1-4 72.37
0-2-1 21.93
0-2-2 49.78
0-2-3 61.54
0-2-4 71.68
Run No. Mass
(source- run-quad) (ng)
0-1- MB) 8.45
0-1-2* 5.43
0-1-3" 2.97
0-1-4 0.00
0-2-1 5.68
0-2-2 7,91
0-2-3 7.04
0-2-4 8.35
Reproduced from Table 4.5,
D60 size
(M»)
14.9
14.7
14.9
14.8
15.2
15.0
14.6
15.4
Stage 4
Oso size
(no)
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.8
Cum. X
less
than
stated
size
42,1
21.0
26.0
31.6
56.7
35.7
32.8
37.0
CUB. X
less
than
stated
size
12.9
6.8
10.2
12.7
21.0
13.6
8.9
9.0
p. 50 of Reference
Stage 0
Mass Dso
(ng) (
0.41
0.51
0.00
0.61
1.60
0.67
3.52
7.79
Mass 0
(80 size
(MB)
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.0
6.3
Stage 7
OBO size
(Wl>
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.57
0.61
Cum. X
less
than
stated
size
33.9
16.0
21.1
28,1
41,2
29.4
21.6
22.1
Cum. X
less
than
stated
size
0.56
0.29
0.24
0.20
2.8
0,26
0.14
0,63
Mass
(s>s)
5,30
4.44
2.82
16.29
4.56
4.33
4.58
6.57
Mass
(ng)
' 0.37
0,31
0,13
0.21
1.40
0.20
0,13
0.72
Stage 3
D50 size
(MS)
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.3
Filter
Oso size
(MS)
< 0.59
< 0.58
< 0.58
< 0.59
< 0.60
< 0.59
< 0.57
< 0.61
CUB. X
less
than
stated
size
25.8
11.9
15.8
12.7
32.2
23.8
16.6
16.3
-------
TABLE 3-14. PARTICIPATE MASS CONCENTRATIONS (CONDENSABLES TESTING) - REFERENCE 27a
Data Rating: A
Cyclone X
> 15 u
Run No.
1 IP
1 SDSS
2 IP
2 SOSS
3 IP
3 SDSS
4 IP
4 SDSS
Average IP
Average SDSS
mg/dscra
5. 78
19.03
18.76
14.92
36.74
25.61
9.70
14.47
17.75
18.51
gr/dscfc
0.00252
0. 00831
0. 00819
0.00652
0.16
0.112
0.00424
0.00632
0.00775
o.ooaoa
Cyclone III
2.5-15 WB
mg/dscra
1.57
2.80
0.94
2.01
4.36
5.52
2.14
2.13
2.21
3.11
gr/dscfc
0.000686
0.00122
0.00041
0. 000878
0.0019
0.00241
0.000935
0.00093
0.000983
0. 00136
Filter Filter plus wash
< 2.5 pa < 2.5 (in condensable* % Total emissions
ng/«Jsc« gr/dscfc mg/dscn
1.59 0.000694
-
1.49 0.000651
15.78
1.66 0.000725
19.79
2.42 0.00106
27.81
1.79 0.000782
21.13
gr/dscf Condensable* Rg/dscra
8.94
-
21.19
0.00689 43.7 32.71
42.76
0.00864 36. 6 50.92
14.26
0.0121 57.2 44.41
21.79
0.00923 45.3 42.68
gr/dscfc
0.0039
-
0.0093
0.0143
0.0187
0.0223
0.0062
0.0194
0.0095
0.0187
Reproduced from Table 5.4, p, 81 of Reference 27 (Appendix G), . Tests conducted during the processing of ~ SOX recycled asphalt
paving.
Nil If grans per dry standard cubic meter.
e Grains per dry standard cubic foot.
-------
3.5 DEVELOPMENT OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS
3.5.1 Data Analysis Methodology
The information contained in Tables 3-3 through 3-11 was reduced to a
common format using a family of computer programs developed especially for
this purpose (as shown in Table 3-15). These programs are fundamentally
BASIC translations of the FORTRAN program SPLIN2 developed by Southern Re-
search Institute.50 The particular version translated is one that MRI
earlier modified to operate utilizing as few as three data points. Addi-
tional changes were made to produce emission factors as functions of the
aerodynamic particle diameter.
TABLE 3-15. COMPARISON OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS
Fitted size JSKPRG JSKRAW JSKLOG
distribution Spline Spline Log-normal
Input requirements:
particle size data Cumulative mass Largest particle Completed log-
fractions; particle diameter; incre- normal size
density mental mass frac- distribution
tions; particle
density
process data Process and emis- Process and ends- Process and emis-
sion rates sion rates sion rates
- or - - or -
emission factor emission factor
Output: — Size-specific emission factors
(English and metric units)
for selected aerodynamic particle
diameters
51
-------
As mentioned above, SPLIN2 is the central portion of the program which
uses the so-called "spline" fits. Spline fits result in cumulative mass
size distributions very similar to those which would be drawn using a French
curve and fully logarithmic graph paper. In effect, the logarithm of cumu-
lative mass is plotted as a function of the logarithm of the particle size,
and a smooth curve with a continuous, nonnegative derivative is drawn.
The process by which this smooth cumulative distribution is constructed
involves passing an interpolation parabola through three measured data points
at a time. The parabola is then used to interpolate additional points be-
tween measured values. When the set of interpolated points are added to
the original set of data, a more satisfactory fit is obtained than would be
the case using only the measured data.
The primary addition to the spline fitting procedure is the determina-
tion of size-specific emission factors once the size distribution is obtained
by a spline fit. The user is prompted to input process and emission rate
data. The program determines a total particulate emission factor by:
ETP = -f- (?)
where: Eyp = total particulate emission factor (Ib/ton)
e-j-p = total particulate emission rate (Ib/hr)
R = process weight rate (tons of asphalt paving produced/hr)
Emission factors for each size range are then obtained by multiplying ETP by
the mass-fraction associated with that range. The programs automatically
convert the size-specific emission factors obtained from English units
(Tb"/ton")~tb the appropriate metric units "(kg/metric ton),~whTcfT'is tabulated
as a part of the output format (1 kg/metric ton = 1 kg/106 g = 1 kg/Mg).
As an additional function, each program has the capability of convert-
ing from Stoke1s diameter to aerodynamic diameter using the appropriate
density correction (Table 3-1). For data reduction purposes, a density of
2.4 g/cm3 was assumed unless otherwise specified in the reference document.
Some of the programs also require that a largest particle diameter be
provided to complete the size distribution. A maximum size of 74 urn
(Stoke1s diameter) was assumed unless other data were available (see Sec-
tion 3.5.2). This value was selected due to the apparent correlation of the
amount of material < 200 mesh contained in the aggregate with the total mass
emissions from the process.51 It was likewise assumed that particle sizing
by dry sieving generated data by Stoke's rather than physical diameter. A
complete listing of each program is provided in Appendix H with sample
outputs shown in Figures 3-1 to 3-3.
52
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST IBS EXAMPLE OUTPUT OF "JSKPRG"
INPUT DAT At
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 100 TONS PROD*/HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 100 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.44 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT< URi) CUM. % < CUT
15
10
20
30
50
25
34
50
OUTPUT DATA!
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 1 LB/T ( ,5 KG/MT )
CUT ( unA)
.625
1
1.25
2,5
5
10
15
20
CUM* 7. < CUT
1,78801
2.3787
2.73215
4.25364
6.74744
10.9053
14,567
17.9582
£ND OF TEST SERIES
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) tKG/MT)
,0173801
,023787
,0273215
.0425364
.0674744
,109053
t14567
.179582
S.94Q06E-Q3
,0118935
.0136607
.0212682
.0337372
.0545267
.0728348
,0897908
Figure 3-1. Example output of "JSKPRS."
53
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST ID: EXAHPLE OUTPUT OF "JSKRAU"
INPUT DATA!
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 100 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 100 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,44 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (u») RAW % < CUT CUM* 7. < CUT
15
10
20
30
50
74
15
10
9
16
50
25
34
50
100
OUTPUT DATA: TP EMISSION FACTOR = i LB/T c ,5 KG/MT)
CUT < uroA)
CUM, % < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) (KG/MT )
,425
1
1,25
2,5
5
10
15-
20
1*78804
2.37873
2,73218
4,23366
6,74745
10,9053
14,567
17,9581
,0178804
,0237873
,0273218
.0425366
,0674745
.109053
.14567
,179581
END OF TEST SERIES
Figure 3-2. Example output of "JSKRAW."
8.94021E-03
.0118937
,0136609
.0212683
,0337373
,0545267
,0728348
,0897907
54
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST IBJ EXAMPLE OUTPUT OF "JSKLOG"
INPUT DATA;
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 100 TONS PRQO./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 100 LB/BR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.44 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(utii) CUM. % < CUT
15
10
20
30
50
34
50
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR =
LB/T ( .5 KG/MT)
CUM. % < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) (KG/MT)
CUT < uaA)
.625
1
1,25
13
20
THIS DATA SET WAS FIT TO A LOG-NORMAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION
1,788
2,379
2,732
4,254
6,747
10.9
14,57
17,96
.01788
.02379
,02732
.04254
,06747
,109
,1457
,1796
8.94E-03
,011895
.01366
,02127
.033735
.0545
,07285
,0893
Figure-3-3. Example output of "JSKL06."
55
-------
Since the spline fit routine was originally designed for a cascade inr
pactor data reduction system, its application to noninertial particle siz-
ing methods may not always be entirely appropriate. Often a large scale
extrapolation (i.e., order of magnitude) of the data will result in a nega-
tive slope of the cumulative size distribution curve. In such cases,
JSKIQG was used in its place. In JSKIOG, the data input to the program
have already been fitted to a standard log-normal distribution utilizing a
separate program written for the Texas Instruments Model 59 (TI-59) pro-
grammable calculator. This program was used whenever a spline fit was de-
termined not suitable to represent adequately the distribution in the
smaller particle size ranges. A complete description and listing of the
TI-59 program used to compute the necessary log-normal distributions are
provided in Appendix I.
3.5.2 Results of Data Analysis
Each of the specific data sets described above were processed through
the appropriate computer program to obtain both the particle size distri-
bution and size-specific emission factors for selected particle diameters.
Copies of the individual computer printouts have been included in Appendix J,
with the results of the computer analyses summarized in Tables 3-16 through
3-29. Any calculations needed to convert the raw data to the proper format
for input to the computer were conducted manually, and copies of such cal-
culations are also included in Appendix J. In the case of Reference 27,
the test results were already analyzed by the spline routine as part of the
study and thus, no further data reduction was necessary. The tabular data
presented in the test report were simply reproduced in Tables 3-27 and 3-28.
A number of notations should be made regarding the particle size data
shown in Tables 3-16 through 3-29. First, only data for particles larger
than 2.5 urn (aerodynamic diameter) have been reported even though the spline
equation-was asked to predict values below that size range. This particular
lower cut off was selected since the last measured data point was, in most
cases,-5 or 10 urn.— Extrapolating the size distribution below 2.5 nm-without
the benefit of actual data is questionable and cannot be considered good
engineering practice. In addition, the size-specific emission factors cal-
culated from the test data have also been reported in each table even
though they were not actually used in the development of the candidate
emission factors for the process. These values have been included only for
the sake of comparison.
In the case of test No. 426 (Reference 1), only selected portions of
the raw particle size data were used as input to the SPLIN2 program. The
data for > 60 umS and for 3 and 4 uraS were intentionally deleted from the
computer analysis. Only data for particles < 60 umS were used since the
remainder of the distribution was derived from a sieve analysis of the
coarse particles which does not yield test results which are based on a
true Stoke's diameter. For 3 and 4 umS particles, the data were deleted
since they were generally so closely spaced that the spline fit routine may
not have yielded physically valid results. It is felt that the above de-
letions did not introduce any significant bias in the output from the SPLIN2
program since the entire size distribution was essentially log-normal.
56
-------
TABLE 3-16. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND CONTROLLED
EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 1 - SCRUBBER INLET3
Data Rating: D
Cumulative mass % equal to
or less than stated size
Test .
ID No.
2.5
umA
5.0
umA
10.0
umA
15.0 20.0
umA umA
Cumulative emission
or less than stated
2.5
umA
5.0
pmA
10.0
umA
15.0
umA
factor
size
20.
equal to
(kg/Mg)a
Total mass
0 emission
factor
C-369 49.5 60.6 70,8 75.9 79.0 0.771 0.943 1.10 1.18 1.23 1.56
C-372A 19.2 37.7 62.1 76.6 85.7 0.0461 0.0907 0.149 0.184 0.206 0.241
C-372B 46.4 64.3 81.7 90.2 95.0 0.196 0.272 0.346 0.382 0.402 0.423
a From computer printouts included in Appendix J, pages J-3, 5, and 7.
Measured at inlet to a multiple centrifugal scrubber. Test C-422(l) not included due
to lack of size-specific test data.
c Aerodynamic diameter.
Kilograms of particulate matter per 106 g (Mg) of asphalt concrete produced.
-------
TABLE 3-17.
CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND CONTROLLED
EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFERENCE I - SCRUBBER OUTLET3
Data Rating: Q
Ul
00
Cumulative mass % equal to
or less than stated size
Test .
ID No.
C-369
C-372A
C-372B
C-422(l)
2.5
umA
62.9
57.1
69.5
56.4
5.0
umA
70.3
68,3
74.9
63.1
10.0
umA
76.6
78.0
79.5
69.5
15.0
umA
79.6
82.6
81.8
72.9
20.0
HtnA
81.5
85.2
83.2
75.1
Cumulative emission factor equal to
or less than stated size (kg/Mg)
2.5
umA
0.
0.
0.
0.
0679
0181
0467
0379
5.0 10.0
umA umA
0.0758 0.0827
0.0216 0.0247
0.0503 0.0534
0.0424 0.0467
15.0
umA
0.0860
0.0261
0.0549
0.0490
20.0
umA
0.0879
0.0270
0.0559
0.0505
Total mass
emission
factor
0.108
0.0316
0.0672
0.0672
''
From computer printouts included in Appendix J, pages J-4, 6, 8, and 9.
Emissions to atmosphere from a multiple centrifugal scrubber.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Kilograms of particulate matter per 106 g (Mg) of asphalt concrete produced.
-------
TABLE 3-18, CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND CONTROLLED EMISSION
FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 1 - TEST NO. C-3933
Data Rating: D
Particlehsize
(MmA)D
Cumulative mass
% equal to or
less than stated size
Total mass emission factor
Cumlative emission
factor equal to or
less than stated
size (kg/Mg)c
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
1.12 (10)
0.0449
2.8
13.9
30.8
2.59 (10)
0.0104
0.646
3.21
7.11
23.1
From computer printout included in Appendix J, page J-13. Measured at
the inlet of a baffle-plate scrubber. Outlet data eliminated from
analysis.
Aerodynamic diameter.
c Kilograms of particulate matter per 10s g (Mg) of asphalt concrete
produced.
59
-------
TABLE 3-19. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND CONTROLLED EMISSION
FACTORS FOR; REFERENCE 1 - TEST NO. C-426a
Data Rating: D
Cumulative emission factor equal to or
Cumulative mass % equal to or less than stated s 1 ze (kg/Mg)
less than stated size Total mass
Measurement 2.5 5.0 10.0 1510 20.0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 emission
location pmA [jmA |jmA (.imA . jJinA pmA jjmA pmA pmA jjmA factor
Cyclone 0.803 4.56 13.7 20.4 25.2 0.148 0.839 2.53 3.76 4.64 18.41
inlet
os Cyclone H 0.833 2.93 6.92 9.96 12.6 0.0600 0.211 0.500 0.717 0.908 7.20
0 outlet*1 |
I
Vent 1.63 8.87 26.0 38-4 47.7 0.00896 0.488 1.43 2.11 2.62 5.49
line6
a From computer printouts included in Appendix J, pages J-10 through J-12.
Aerodynamic diameter.
c Kilograms of particulate matter per 106 g (Mg) of asphalt concrete produced.
Inlet to multiple centrifugal scrubber. Includes effluent from cyclone and vent line.
g
Effluent from scavenger system.
-------
TABLE 3-20. STOKE'S DIAMETER VERSUS SETTLING VELOCITY FOR
PARTICLES OF VARYING DENSITY - REFERENCE 3a
Settling
velocity.
(cm/sec)
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.6
3.2
6.4
12.8
25.6
Stoke 's
2.4
g/cm3
5.3
7.5
10.6
15.0
21.2
30.0
42.4
60.0
diameter for particles of
2.5
g/cm3
5.2
7.4
10.4
14.7
20.8
29,4
41.6
58.8
2.6
g/cm3
5.1
7.2
10.2
14.4
20.4
28.8
40.8
57.7
2.7
g/cm3
5.0
7.1
10.0
14.1
20.0
28.3
40.0
56,6
specified density0
2.8
g/cm3
4.9
6.9
9.8
13.9
19.6
27.7
39.2
55.4
2.9
g/cm3
4.8
6.8
9.6
13.6
19.2
27.2
38.4
54.3
From calculations included in Appendix J, pages J-15 through
19.
Assumes dry air at 20°C and 760 mm Hg.
c Calculated from Eq. (5) with n. = 1814 (10)" g/cm• sec;
"g = 980.665 cm/sec2; p1 = 1.2046 (10)" g/cm3; and p = to the
values shown in each column.
61
-------
TABLE 3-21. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND UNCONTROLLED
EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 3 - DRYER EXHAUST
Data Rating: C
:' Cumulative emission factor equal to
less than stated size (kg/Mg)
Cumulative mass % equal, to
or less
than stated size
Plant
ID
A4
01
H2
12
13
D2
a, Cl
10 C2
B3
D4
F3
G2
Gl
Bl
F2
2.5
umA
0,774
0.0803
0.0576
3.03
0.0502
2.68
0.138
0.0259
0.197
1.25
0.219
0.0633
6.72(10)
0.956
2.96
5.0
umA
4.29
1.67
1.78
6.86
2.34
7.39
1.81
1.24
1.40
6.33
3.07
3 1.54
0.647
2.13
8.76
10.0
|jmA
13.9
10.4
13.3
12.6
22.0
20.2
10.4
12.4
6.02
21.8
15.8
14.0
11.0
4.38
20.5
15.
0 20.0
pniA umA
21.
16.
21.
16.
38.
36.
19.
6 26.3
9 20.9
9 25.7
1 21.5
0 45.7
7 52.2
7 26.3
22.8 28.8
11.
37.
25.
1 15.6
7 48.9
6 32.1
32.3 44.9
25.
6.
30.
9 32.5
47 8.06
1 38.0
2.5
umA
0.0728
0.0169 3
7.08(10)"
0.639
_3
7.38(10)
0.503
0.0500 3
9.34(10)"
0.0919
0.933
0.0807
0.0192 3
1.88(10)
0.152
0.432
5.0
(juiA
0.403
0.351
0.219
1.45
0.344
1.39
0.656
0.448
0.655
4.72
1.13
0.469
0.180
0.338
1.28
10.0
umA
1.31
2.18
1.63
2.66
3.23
3.80
3.78
4.49
2.81
16.2
5.84
4.25
3.08
0.696
2.99
15.0
umA
2.02
3.55
2.69
3.40
5.59
6.90
7.16
8.24
5.19
28.1
9.46
9.82
7.23
1.03
4.40
20.0
umA
2.47
4.38
3.16
4.53
6.72
9.81
9.55
10.4
7.30
36.5
11.8
13.6
9.06
1.28
5.54
or
Total
mass
emission
factor
9.4
21.0
12.3
21.1
14.7
18.8
36.3
36.1
46.7
74.6
36.9
30.4
27.9
15.9
14.6
From computer printouts on paqes
of
Appendix J.
Uncontrol
J-20
. 22. 24.
led emissions from the
26, 28, 30 3?
dryer only.
34, 36
, 38, 40
4?
44, 46,
and 48
Aerodynamic diameter.
C un
A.JS . 1 _ i. _
nfi _ /»a_\
_ ^ »_ _ 1 i,
-------
TABLE 3-22. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
REFERENCE 3 - OUTLET OF PRIMARY COLLECTORS
Data Rating: C
Cumulative emission factor equal to or
less than stated size (kg/Mg)
Cumulative mass % equal,
than stated size
Plant 2.5
ID
A4
Dl
H2
12
13
02
Cl
C2
B3
D4
F3
G2
K4
Gl
Bl
F2
pmA
5,00
2,38
7,45
0.397
7.13
1,55
2,68
5.31
0,622
4.48
3.85
d 2'48
U
9.74
1.74
5.14
5.0
jjfliA
9.60
6.02
11.8
2.23
15,7
7.40
6.60
10.4
2.29
12.5
9.16
8.63
-
14.6
3.02
12.0
10.0
pmA
16.7
12.4
17.9
8.52
29.2
23.5
14.1
18.5
6.74
27.6
18.6
22.5
-
22.0
5.04
23.1
to or less
15.0
pmA
22.1
17.3
22.5
15.6
39.1
38.2
20.7
24.7
11.5
39.3
26.2
34.6
-
27.9
6,67
31.1
20.0
umA
26.5
21.0
26.2
22.2
46.4
49.6
26.3
29.7
16.0
48.1
32.3
44.2
-
33.0
8.07
36.8
2.5
umA
0.0229
0.0624
0.0767
0.00222
0.0998
0,0583
0.0474
0.109
0.00759
0.465
0.0905
0.0764
-
0.312
0.00782
0. 0586
5.0
umA
0.0440
0.158
0.121
0.0125
0.219
0.279
0.117
0.213
0.0279
1.30
0.215
0.266
-
0.468
0.0136
0.136
10.0
MfliA
0.0767
0.325
0.184
0.0477
0.409
0.886
0.250
0.379
0.0823
2.87
0.437
0.694
-
0.703
0.0226
0.263
15.0
(jmA
0.101
0.453
0.231
0.0876
0.547
1.44
0.366
0.506
0.140
4.09
0.616
1.07
-
0.892
0.0299
0.354
Total
mass
20.0 emission
umA
0.121
0.549
0.270
0.125
0.650
1.87
0.465
0.609
0.195
5.00
0.760
1.36
-
1,06
0.0362
0.420
factor
0.458
2.62
1.03 '
0.560
1.40
3.77
1.77
2.05
1.22
10.4
2.35
3.08
-
3.20
0.449
1.14
a
b
c
d
From computer
of Appendix J
printouts
on oaves
J-21.
23. 25.
Emissions from dryer controlled
27, 29, 31,
by multipl
33, 35
. 37 39
e cyclone dust
, 41, 43
. 45. 47.
and 49
collectors.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Kilograms of
I") -* 4- -, »n4- j*J A H A
particulate matter
fr ***
per 106
g (Hg)
of asphalt
concrete produced.
-------
TABLE 3-23, CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND
FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 8 - SLOAN3
Data Rating: B
Cumulative
mass % equal
to or less
Cumulative emission factors equal to
or less than stated size
Particle
size
umA
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Total mass
than stated size
Washer
inletc
17.6
35.6
54.7
61.7
65.9
emission
Washer
exhaust
20.5
26.6
36.5
38.9
40.6
factor
Washer
lb/tond
1.67
3.38
5.19
5.86
6.25
9.49
in!etc
kg/Mgd
0.834
1.69
2.59
2.93
3.13
4.74
Washer
lb/tond
0.165
0.214
0.294
0.313
0.327
0.804
exhaust
kg/Mgd
0.0825
0.107
0.147
0.156
0.163
0.402
From computer printouts on pages J-51 and J-52 of Appendix J. Based
on test data from Sloan Construction Company. Emissions controlled
by a spray tower scrubber.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Exit from a single cyclone collector.
Pounds of particulate matter per short ton (assumed) of asphalt
concrete produced or kilograms of particulate matter per 106 g
(Mg) of asphalt concrete produced.
64
-------
TABLE 3-24. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND
EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 8 - HARRISON'
Data Rating: B
Cumulative
mass % equal
to or less
Cumulative emission factors equal to
or less than stated size
Particle
size
umA
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
than stated size
Pre-wash
entrance
20.7
45.5
62.6
68.1
71.7
Washer
exhaust
89.8
94.3
95.8
96.2
96.5
Pre-wash
lb/tond
1.97
4.34
5.97
6.48
6.83
entrance1"
kg/Mge
0.986
2.17
2.98
3.24
3.41
Washer exhaust
lb/tond
0.314
0.330
0.335
0.337
0.338
kg/Mge
0.157
0.165
0.168
0.168
0.169
Total mass emission factor
9.53
4.76
0.350
0.175
From computer printouts on pages J-53 and J-54 of Appendix J. Based on
test data from Harrison, Inc. Emissions controlled by a centrifugal
scrubber.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Measured at exit from a single cyclone collector.
Pounds of particulate matter per short ton (assumed) of asphalt
concrete produced.
Kilograms of particulate matter per 10s g (Mg) of asphalt concrete
produced.
65
-------
Ch
TABLE 3-25. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND EMISSION
FACTORS .FOR REFERENCE 12 - TEST NO. C-5373
Data Rating: D
Cumulative mass % equal to or
than stated size
Test Measurement 2,5 5.0
No. location jjrnA umA
C-537 Inlet to 0.726 2.94
primary
cyclone
C-537 Inlet to . 1.33 7.93
multiclone
C-537 Inlet to 11.7 34.6
scrubber
10.0
umA
8.91
28.9
70.3
15.0
umA
14.9
48.9
89.1
less
20.0
umA
20.0 0.
63.2 0.
95.6 0.
Cumulative emission factor equal to or
stated size (kg/Mg)
2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
umA umA umA umA umA
115 0.464 1.41 2.35 3.16
0584 0.350 1.27 2.16 2.79
0400 0.118 0.240 0.305 0.327
less than
Total
particulate
15.8
4.41
0.342
a From computer printouts on Pages J-56
Aerodynamic diameter.
Includes drier exhaust and vent line.
d
, 57,
and 58
of Appendix
J.
Outlet from a multiple cyclone collector.
Kilograms of particulate matter per 106 g (Hg) of asphalt concrete produced.
-------
TABLE 3-26. CALCULATED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBU-
TION AND ASSOCIATED CONTROLLED
EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFERENCE
26 - BAGHOUSE OUTLET3
Data Rating: B
Particle
s1zeb
(MmA)
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative
mass % equal to
or less than
stated size
33.2
35.8
40.4
46.8
53.9
Cumulative
emission
factor
( kg/Mg)
0.00412
0.00443
0.0050
0.0058
0,00668
Total mass emission factor 0.0124
From computer printouts on page J-61 of
Appendix J. Inlet test data not processed.
Aerodynamic diameter.
c Kilograms of particulate matter per 10s g
(Mg) of asphalt concrete produced.
67
-------
TABLE 3-27. CALCULATED EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 27 - BAGHOUSE INLETC
i Data Rating: A
Test Run No.
Ho. (source-run-quad)
Matching
ia*f run
Total Bass
emission rate
(Jb/h)
Production
r«tec
(ton/h)
Total uss .
•Isslon factor
(ID/ton)
Size-specific eaiision factors
< 2.5
< 15 pa
(llj/ton) (kg/Kg) {Ib/ton) (kg/Mg) {Ib/ton} (kg/Hg)
00
I-l-l(fl)
1-1-2
-1-3
-1-4
-2-1(8)*
-2-2(8)
-2-3
-2-4
-3-1
-3-2
.-3-3
-3-4
-4-lb
-4-2.
-4-3*
-4-4b
-7
-KC)
-2
-KC)
one
-2
-7
-5
-8
-7
-8
-7
None
1-6(8)
None
None
7,480
8,190
6,930
8.190
6,930
7.480
7,180
5,840
7,480
5,840
7,480
5,720
22S
217
162
217
162
225
195
215
225
215
225
205
33.3
37,7
42. B
37.7
(30.9)
42.8
33.3
36.8
27.2
33.3
27.2
33.1
(30.9)
27.9
(30.9)
(30.9)
2.1
1.6
1.4
1,5
1.3
1.9
0.8
2.0
0.75
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.5
1.6
1.9
2.2
1.1
0.80
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.95
0.4
1.0
0.38
0.90
0.80
0.75
1.3
0.80
0.95
1.1
9.1
8.3
7.S
5.6
7.4
9.5
6.8
6.6
4.5
7.1
8.3
5.7
10.0
6.8
5.6
5.6
4.6
4.2
3,8
2.8
3.7
4.8
3.4
3.3
2.3
3.6
4.2
2.9
5.0
3.4
2.8
2.8
10.2
9.4
8.3
6.7
8.5
10.9
7.6
8.5
5.8
7.8
9.1
6.6
11.0
7.7
6.3
6.6
S.I
4.7
4.2
3.4
4.3
5.5
3.8
4.3
2.3
3.9
4.6
3.3
5.5
3.9
3.2
3.3
Total average
Non-
Batching
•ass runs
1-3
1-4
5,620
3,850
6.350
223
237
210
25.2
16.3
30.9
1.7
0.85
7.2
3.6
8.2
4.1
Results of SPLIN2 analysis reproduced from Table 4.6, p. 51 of the lest report (Appendix 6). Orusralx process. Does not Include any
tests conducted during the processing of recycled asphalt paving.
Ha paired Mass run for this particle sizing run, :Used the average total nass emission factor of all elghtaass runs (30.9 Ib/ton) to
calculate site-specific emission factors.
Average plant production rate during Bass test run. Tons (2,000 Ib) of asphalt concrete produced per hour.
Pounds of participate Batter per short ton of asphalt concrete produced or kilograms of participate Matter per 10*/g (Hg) of asphalt
concrete produced.
-------
TABLE 3-28. CALCULATED EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFERENCE 27 - BAGHOUSE OUTLET*
Data Rating: A
Total MISS Production
Test
No.
* Results
b
Run Ho.
source- run- quad
0-1-UB)
0-1-2^
0-l-3d
0-1-4
Average
0-2-1 '
0-2-2
Q-2-3
0-2-4
Average
Total average
of SPUN2 analysis
Mission rate
(Ib/h)
11.5
12.7
16.6
9,6
12.6
9.6
7,3
24.7
10.0
12.9
12.8
reproduced fron
A I
rate .
(ton/l»r
164
226
216
237
211
174
216
195
178
191
201
Table 4.7,
Total »ass Ratio of total MSI
emission factor cone, to particle
(Ib/ton) size train cone.
0.07
0.066
0.077
0.041
0. 061 0. 59
0,055
0.034
0.127
0.056
0.068 0.65
0.065
p. S2 of the test report (Appendix G).
Size specific emission factors'*
< 2
(Ib/ton)
O.OOB
0.004
0.007
0.004
0.006
0.011
0.004
0.011
0.004
0.008
0.007
drum nix
.5 H*
(ko/ng)
0.004
0.002
0.004
D.002
0.003
0.006
0.002
0.006
0.002
0.004
0.004
process.
< 10
(Ib/ton)
0.028
0.011
0.019
0.013
0.018
0.028
0.012
0.035
0.016
0.023
0.021
V*
(kg/Mfl)
0.014
0.006
0.010
0.007
0.009
0.014
0.006
0.018
0.006
0.012
0.011
< 15
{ Ib/ton)
0.03
0.012
0.021
0.013
0.019
0.031
0.012
0,044
0.021
0.027
0,023
yn
(kg/Ma)
0.0 IS
0.006
0.011
0.007
0.01D
0.016
0.006
0.022
0.011
0.014
0.012
c Founds of parttcutate natter per short ton of asphalt concrete produced or kilograos of participate natter per 10* g (Hg) of asphalt concrete produced.
Test conducted during the processing of - 30X recycled asphalt paving.
-------
TABLE 3-29. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONDENSABLE ORGANICS - REFERENCE 27a
Run No,c Date
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
SDSS wmi
suss 10/8/ai
SDSS 10/9/fll
SDSS 10/9/Bl
Ratio of total
stack flow rate
to sampler
flow rate
62,200
71,500
70,300
85,400
71,100
81,500
80,200
84,800
uaia nanny, n
,
Average . Total mass
Total emissions production rate enission factor
15
(Ib/ton)
0.0016
0.0069
0.0055
0.013
0.0087
0.0045
0.0066
U*
(kfl/Ha)
0.0008
0.0035
0.0028
0.0065
0.0044
0.0023
0.0033
2.5-15
(Ib/ton)
0.00043
0.00035
0.00075
0.0016
0.0019
0.00098
0.00098
MB
< kg/Mg)
0.00022
0.00018
0.00038
0.00080
0.00095
0.00049
0.00049
factor
< 2.5
(Ib/ton)
0.00044
0.00055
0.0057
0.00060
0.0066
0.0011
0.013
l«
(kfl/H8)
0.00022
0.00028
0.0029
0.0003
0.0033
0.00055
0.0065
2 a Reproduced from Table 5.5, p. 82 of Reference 27 (Appendix G). Dria-alx process with split feed. All tests conducted during the processing of ~ 3OX
recycled asphalt paving.
Average production rate for test period except for Run 2 where the daily average was used to calculate the enission factor. Short tons of asphalt
concrete produced per hour.
c IP - Sampling train consisting of a dual cyclone plus standard back-up filter.
SDSS * Sampling train consisting of a dual cyclone followed by an atoospherfc dilution chamber and back-up filter.
-------
Another notation which should be made is in regard to the information
derived from Reference 3. In this case, the particle size data for the
uncontrolled emissions from the dryer were expressed in terms of their set-
tling velocity rather than particle size. Calculations were, therefore,
made to convert the data from the applicable settling velocity to Stoke1s
diameter using Equation 5. A summary of such a determination is provided
in Table 3-20 with the calculations themselves included in Appendix J.
3,5.3 Development of Candidate Emission Factors and AP-42 Background
The ideal situation would be to average a large number of A-rated data
sets to obtain a single-valued emission factor which would represent a
broad cross section of the asphalt paving industry. As outlined in the
above discussion, such data were not available for this particulate study.
In the case of batch and continuous plants, there were no A-rated data con-
tained in the information collected and only three 8-rated data sets con-
sisting of a total of four individual test runs at three different facili-
ties. For drum-mix plants, only one A-rated test at a single facility is
included in the entire data base. This lack of high quality data makes the
development of appropriate size-specific emission factors for asphalt con-
crete plants very difficult.
According to the OAQPS guidelines, A- and 8-rated data should not be
combined with C- or D-rated data to develop emission factors for a particu-
lar source. However, in the case of conventional plants it was found nec-
essary to combine a small amount of 8-rated data with a substantial C- and
D-rated data base in order to improve the overall quality of the emission
factors. This was deemed appropriate since the total number of B-rated
tests was so low that the inclusion of the C- and D-data would significantly
enhance the overall applicability of the emission factor to a larger number
of facilities utilizing a greater diversity of raw material.
To derive each emission factor, the information contained in Tables
3-16 through 3-29 was tabulated according to the type of process and
control equipment, and the arithmetic mean and standard deviation were
calculated wherever possible for each particle size increment. The arith-
metic mean was calculated from the data in each column according to the
relationship:
•t n
x, (8)
where: x = arithmetic mean
n = number of measurements
x. - individual measurements
71
-------
The standard deviation was calculated according to the relationship:
n-1
1/2
(9)
where:
a - standard deviation with x.
and n as defined in Equation (8)
The geometric mean and standard deviation were also calculated, with
the standard geometric deviation being indicative of the overall variance
in the data. The geometric mean was calculated from the data in each column
according to the relationship:
exp -
n
E
1=1
In
xi
(10)
where: x = geometric mean with x. and n as defined in Equation (8)
The standard geometric deviation was calculated according to the relationship:
1/2
or * exp
" n
E
.1=1
In x.
- In x
n-1
2"
(11)
where: " 0*.= standard geometric deviation with x- ~and n~as defined-in —
9 Equation (8) 1
Rather than utilizing the emission factors actually derived from each
study, the candidate emission factor for each size increment was obtained
by applying the particle size distribution from the various data sets to
the existing AP-42 emission factor (if any). This approach was used to
take advantage of the significant data base which already exists for the
total mass emissions from asphalt concrete plants. It was felt that this
was superior to utilizing emission factors based on limited data of some-
times marginal quality and would produce emission factors much more repre-
sentative of the total industry. The results of this analysis are shown in
Tables 3-30 through 3-35.
Since both the batch and continuous process use similar mechanical
equipment (and thus would have similar emissions), data for these plants
were combined under the generic category of "conventional asphalt plants,"
and emission factors were calculated for each type of control equipment for
which data were available.
72
-------
TABLE 3-30,
—I
U)
CANDIDATE PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED CONVENTIONAL
ASPHALT PLANTS
EirVjssltmFactor Rating: Da
Reference
No.
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
12
Test
ID
No.
C-4266
A4
Dl
H2
12
13
02
Cl
C2
B3
04
F3
G2
Gl
Bl
F2 ,
C-537'
Summary data
K
table No.
3-19
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-21
3-25
Data
qua) i ty
rating
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
Arithmetic Mean (x)
Geometric
Standard
Mean (xg)
Deviation
Std. Geometric Dev.
3 See Section 3.5.
b T .,
-3 n» 1 . t.J— *l 1
(o)
(ofl)
4 for rationale.
_ , ,t» 2 «t^ *,§»
Cumulative
less than
2.5
umA
0.803
0.774
0.0803
0.0576
3.03
0.0502
2. 68
0.138
0.0259
0.197
1.25
0.219
0. 0633
0. 00672
0.956
2.96
0.726
0.825
0.269
1.06
6.13
5.0
|inA
4.56
4.29
1.67
1.78
6.86
2.34
7.39
1.81
1.24
1.40
6.33
3.07
1.54
0.647
2.13
8.76
2.94
3,46
2.71
2.48
2.07
J -i_ & _
mass equal to
or
stated size <%)*•
10.0 15.0
|inA (i«A
13.7 20.4
13.9 21.6
10.4 16.9
13.3 21.9
12.6 16.1
22.0 38.0
20.2 36.7
10.4 19.7
12.4 22.8
i.02 11.1
21.8 37.7
15.0 25.6
14.0 32.3
11.0 25.9
4.38 6.47
20. 5 30. 1
8.91 14.9
13.6 23.4
12.6 21.4
5.17 9.23
1.54 1.59
20.0
|inA
25.2
26.3
20.9
25.7
21.5
45.7
52. 2
26.3
28.8
15.6
48.9
32.1
44.9
32.5
8.06
38.0
20.0
30.1
27.5
12.3
1.59
Cumulative particulate emission ,,
factor less than stated size
2.5
(jraA
0.181
0. 174
0.0181
0.013
0,682
0.0113
0.603
0.0311
0.00583
0.0443
0.281
0.0493
0.0142
0.00151
0.215
0.666
0.163
0.185
0. 0604
0.238
6.13
5.0
|imA
1.03
0.965
0.376
0.401
1.54
0.527
1.66
0.407
0.279
0.315
1.42
0.691
0.347
0.146
0.479
1.97
0.662
0.777
0.610
0.556
2.07
10.0
|inA
3.08
3.13
2.34
2.99
2. 84
4.95
4.55
2.34
2.79
1.35
4.91
3.56
3.15
2.48
0.986
4.61
2.00
3.06
2.83
1.17
1.55
15.0
lioA
4.59
4.86
3.80
4.93
3.62
8.55
8.26
4.43
5.13
2.50
8.48
5.76
7.27
5.83
1.46
6.77
3.35
5.27
4.82
2.08
1.59
(kg/Ma)"
20.0
jimA
5.67
5.92
4.70
5.78
4.84
10.3
11.8
5.92
6.48
3,51
11.0
7.22
10.1
7.31
1.81
8.55
4.50
6.79
6.20
2.77
1.60
Total mass
emission factor
(kg/Ha)
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
Aerodynamic diameter.
Based on a total mass emission factor of 22.5 kg/Mg per Table 8.1-3 of AP-42. Results of calculations rounded to three significant figures,
Includes dryer emissions only.
Includes emissions from dryer and scavenger system (vent line).
-------
TABLE 3-31.
CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CYCLONE DUST COLLECTORS IN CONVENTIONAL
ASPHALT PLANTS
Emission Factor Rating: Da
Test c . .
Reference ID Sunraary data
Ho. Mo. table No.
1 C-426*
1 C-393T
3 A4
3 Ul
3 H2
3 12
3 13
3 02
3 Cl
3 C2
3 B3
3 D4
3 F3
3 G2
3 Gi
3 Bl
3 F2 ,
8 Harrison
8 Sloan!
12 C-5371
Arithmetic Mean (it)
Geometric Hean (xg)
Standard Deviation (a)
Std. Geometric Oev. (og)
3-19
3-18
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22 ,
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-24
3-23
3-25
Data
Cumulative: mass equal to or
j £
less than stated size (X)
quality 2.5 5.0
rating iimA jJtoA
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
B
B
D
0.833 2.93
0.0112 0.0449
5.00 9.60
2.38 6.02
7.45 11.8
0.397 2.23
7.13 15.7J
1.55 7.40
2.68 £.60
5.31 10.4
0.622 2.29
4.48 12.5
3.85 9.16
2.48 8.63
9.74 14.6
1.74 3.02
5.14 12. 0|
20.7 45.5
17.6 35.6
1.33 7.93
5.02 11.2
2.44 6.60
5.51 11.0
5.15 4.12
|imA
6.92
2.80
16.7
12.4
17.9
8.52
29.2
23.5
14.1
18.5
6.74
27.6
18.6
22.5
22.0
5.04
23.1
62.6
54.7
28.9
21.1
16.5
15.2
2.16
15.0
9.96
13.9
22.1
17.3
22. S
15.6
33.1
38.2
20.7
24.7
11.5
39.3
26.2
34.6
27.9
6.67
31.1
68.1
61.7
48.9
29.0
24.7
16.6
1.83
20.0
(iraA
12.6
30.8
26.5
21.0
26.2
22.2
46.4
49.6
26.3
29.7
16.0
48.1
32,3
44.2
33.0
8.07
36.8
71.7
65.9
63.2
35.5
31.1
17.7
1.75
Cumulative particulate emission factor
equal to or less than stated size (kg/Mg)
2.5
0.00708 7
9.52(10)"
0.0425
0.0202
0.0633
0.00337
0.0606
0.0132
0.0228
0.0451
0.00529
0.0381
0.0327
0.0211
0.0828
0.0148
0.0437
0.176
0.150
0.113
0.0478
0.0185
0.0488
13.0
5.0
umA
0.0249 4
3.82(10)"
0.0816
0. 0512
0.100
0.0190
0.133
0.0629
0.0561
0. 0884
0.0195
0.106
0.0779
0.0734
0.124
0.0257
0.102
0.387
0.303
0.674
0.125
0. 0629
0.159
4.58
10.0
|imA
0.0588
0.0238
0.142
0.105
0.152
0.0724
0.247
0.200
0.120
0.157
0.0573
0.235
0.158
0.191
0.187
0. 0428
0.196
0.532
0.465
0.246
0.179
0.140
0.129
2.16
15.0
0.0847
0.118
0.188
0.147
0.191
0.133
0.332
0.325
0.176
0.210
0.0978
0.334
0,223
0.294
0.231
0. 0567
0.264
0.579
0.524
0.416
0.247
0.210
0.141
1.83
20.0 e
0.107
0.262
0.225
0.178
0.223
0.188
0.394
0.422
0.224
0.252
0.136
0.409
0.275
0.376
0.281
0.0686
0.313
0.609
0.560
0.537
0.302
0.264
0.150
1.75
Total mass
mission factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
See Section 3.5.4 for rationale. j
|
Table included in this report from which the raw data was taken.
Aerodynamic diameter. :
Based on a total mass emission factor of 0.85 kg/Mg per Table 8.1-3 of AP-42. Results of calculations rounded to three significant figures.
Includes exhaust from a single cyclone and the scavenger system (vent line).
Single cyclone collector.
-------
Ul
TABLE 3-32. CANDIDATE PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT PALNTS
CONTROLLED BY MULTIPLE CENTRIFUGAL SCRUBBERS
Emission Factor Rating: D
Cumulative
Test Data
Reference ID quality
No. No. rating
1 C-369 0
1 C-372A 0
1 C-372B 0
1 C-422{1) 0
8 Harrison B
Arithmetic Mean (x)
Geometric Mean (xg)
Standard Deviation (a)
Std. Geometric Oev. (ag)
iess than
Summary data
table No.
3-17
3-17
3-17
3-17
3-24
-
-
2.5
MO*
62.9
57.1
69.5
56.4
89.8
67.1
66.1
13.7
1.21
5.0
(""A
70.3
68.3
74.9
63.1
94.3
74.2
73.5
12.0
1.16
mass equal to
Stated
10.0
'**
76.6
78.0
79.5
69.5
95. 8
79.9
79.4
9.69
1.12
OC
Cumulative part icul ate emission
factor equal to or less, than
size (X)"
15.0 20.0
ufflA
79.6
82.6
81. B
72.9
96.2
82.6
82.3
8.50
1.11
!«A
81.5
85.2
83.2
75.1
96.5
84.3
84.0
7.80
1.09
2.5
uoA
0.022
0.020
0.024
0.020
0.031
0.023
0.023
0.005
1.20
stated
5.0
(imA
0.025
0.024
0.026
0.022
0.033
0.026
0.026
0.004
1.16
size (kg/Ha)"
10.0
|imA
0.027
0.027
0.028
0.024
0.034
0,028
0.028
0.004
1.13
15.0
|ifflA
0.028
0.029
0.029
0.026
0.034
0.029
0,029
0.003
1.10
20.0
|unA
0.029
0.030
0.029
0.026
0.034
0.030
0.030
0.003
1.10
Total nass
emission factor
(lcg/«9)
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
-
Aerodynamic diameter.
Based on a total nass emission factor of 0,035 Kg/Mg per Table 8.1*3 of AP-42 for nultlpte centrifugal scrubbers. Results of calculations
rounded to two significant figures.
Table included In this report from which the raw data was obtained.
-------
TABLE 3-33. CANDIDATE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONVENTIONAL
ASPHALT PLANTS CONTROLLED BY GRAVITY SPRAY TOWERSa
Emission Factor Rating: 0
Cumlative emission
Cumulative mass factor equal to or
Particle, size % equal to or less than stated
(uraA) less than stated size size (kg/Mg)
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Total mass emission factor
20.5
26,6
36.5
38.9
40.6
_
0.041
0.053
0.073
0.078
0.081
0.20
a Based on data contained in Reference 8 for Sloan Construction Company
(see Table 3-23). Data Rating: B.
Aerodynamic diameter.^ __ _ _.
c Based on a total mass emission factor of 0.20 kg/Mg per Table 8.1-3 of
AP-42 for spray towers. Results of calculations rounded to two sig-
nificant figures.
76
-------
TABLE 3-34. CANDIDATE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONVENTIONAL
ASPHALT PLANTS CONTROLLED BY A BAGHOUSE COLLECTOR9
Emission Factor Rating: D
Cumlative emission
Cumulative mass factor equal to or
Particle^size % equal to or less than stated
(untA) less than stated size size (kg/Mg)
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Total mass emission factor
33.2
35.8
40.4
46.8
53.9
-
0.003
0.004
0.004
0,005
0,005
0.01
a Based on data contained in Reference 26 (see Table 3-26). Data Rating; 8.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Based on a total mass emission factor of 0^01 kg/Mg per Table 8.1-3 of
AP-42 for baghouses. Results of calculations rounded to one significant
figure.
77
-------
TABLE 3-35. CANDIDATE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM-MIX ASPHALT
PUNTS CONTROLLED BY A BAGHOUSE COLLECTOR3
Emission Factor Rating: D
Cumulative mass
or less 1
Parti cle.size stated siz«
(umA)D
2.5
10.0
15,0
Total mass
Condensabl
Uncontrolled
5.5
23
27
emission factor
e organics^
annai +n Cumulative participate emission factors
.jjquai to equgl t(j Qp 1@ss th&n stated s1ze
-------
A summary of the size-specific emission factors for conventional asphalt
plants is shown in Table 3-36 and graphically in Figure 3-4 by drawing a
smooth curve through the various data points.
In the case of drum-mix plants, there is no applicable factor pub-
lished in AP-42 for the total mass emissions from plants controlled by a
baghouse collector. To calculate the various size-specific emission fac-
tors contained in Table 3-35, the overall collection efficiency for the
baghouse as determined during the testing program (99.8%) was applied to
the uncontrolled emission factor (2.45 kg/Mg) published in AP^42 to obtain
a controlled emission factor for total particulate (0.0049 kg/Mg). The
percentage of the total mass in each particle size increment (< 2.5, < 10,
and < 15 umA, respectively) was then used to calculate each of the size-
specific emission factors using the total mass emissions as determined
above. The results of such a determination are also shown graphically in
Figure 3-5. Copies of appropriate calculations are contained in Appendix K.
Table 3-35 also contains an emission factor for condensable organics
as determined from Reference 27. This factor is based on data taken directly
from the report with no further manipulations. Since the data base used to
derive the total mass emission factor for drum-mix plants theoretically in-
cludes only measurements of the particulate matter contained in the exhaust
of the drum mixer at stack temperature and pressure, it was deemed inappro-
priate to use the published factor for any determination of condensable or-
ganics.
3.5.4 Emission Factor Quality Rating
The quality of the average emission factors contained in Tables 3-30
through 3-35 was rated utilizing the following general criteria:28
« ~-A - Excellent: Developed only from A-rated test data taken from
many randomly chosen facilities in the industry population. The
source category* is specific enough to minimize variability within
the source category population.
B - Above average: Developed only from A-rated test data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is
evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a
random sample of the industries. As in the A-rating, the source
category is specific enough to minimize variability within the
source category population.
C - Average: Developed only from A- and B-rated test data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is
evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a
random sample of the industry. As in the A-rating, the source
category is specific enough to minimize variability within the
source category population.
Source category: A category in the emission factor table for which
an emission factor has been calculated (generally a single process).
79
-------
TABLE 3-36. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT PLANTS
Emission Factor Rating:D
emulative Bass equal to or less than stated
Particle
size Cyclone f
(umA) Uncontrolled collectors
2.S uraA
5.0 ufflA
10.0 umA
15.0 |imA
20.0 itraA
0.825
3.46
13.6
23.4
30.1
5.02
11.2
21.1
29.0
35.5
slze'(%)
Multiple Gravity
centrifugal spray, Baghouse .
scrubbers8 towers collector
67.1 20.5
74.2 26.6
79.9 36.5
82.6 38.9
84.3 40.6
33.2
35.8
40.4
46.8
53.9
Total mass eaission factor
Cumulative
Uncontrol led
kg/Hg TbTton
0.185 0.370
0.777 1-55
3.06 6.12
5.27 10.5
6.79 13.6
22.5 45.0
particulate emission factor equal
Cyclone
collectors
kg/Mg Ib/ton
0.048 0.096
0.13 0.26
0. 18 0. 36
0.25 0.50
0.30 0.60
0.85 1.7
Multiple
centr 1 f ugal
scrubbers
kg/Mg
0.023
0.026
0.028
0.029
0.030
0.035
Ib/ton
0.046
0.052
0.056
0.058
0.060
0.070
to or less than stated size
Gravity
'spray towers
ka/Mg
0.041
0.053
0.073
0.078
0.081
0.20
Ib/ton
0.082
0.11
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.40
Baghouse,
collector
kg/Mg Ib/ton
0.003 0.006
0.004 0.008
0.004 0.008
0.005 0.01
0.005 0.01
0.01 0.02
a Aerodynamic
Rounded to
c Rounded to
d Rounded tc
From Table
frnm Tahla
diameter.
three significant figures
two significant
one significant
3-30.
figures.
figure.
, Unit weight of partlculatt natter per unit weight of
Unit weight of partlculate natter per
Unit weight of partlculate natter per
asphalt concrete
produced.
unit weight of asphalt concrete produced.
unit of weight of
asphalt concrete
produced.
1 ton
1 ton =
1 ton
= 2,000
Ib.
2,000 Ib.
= 2,000
Ib.
8 From Table 3-32.
h From Table 3-33.
From Table 3-34.
-------
10.0
-* 1.0
•u
o
o
u
e
0.!
0.01
0.001
0.1
TTT
I I I I 111
1. Boghoujea
2. Centrifugal Scrubbers
3. Spray Towers
4. C/cionai
5. Uncontrol led
I I I II
1
10.0
1.0
O.I
"3
e
c
o
u
0,01
1.0 10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Dicmef*r (^i
O.OOt
100.0
Figure 3-4. Size-specific emission factors for conventional
asphalt plants.
81
-------
"a
o
3
u5
J
e
i-
o
o
ro.o
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.
.* 1 till l~FF~
-
-
-
-
^
-
W
-
mm
_ U m Uncoitfrollad
„ C - Saghous*
* tii iTLi4n-iLnL
i I 11(111
- X*
X ~~~*
^
C S^ '
*—/ ''
/ /
* — u /
//
/
I 1 1 I * " I t
I i 1 1 1 I I U,
«*•* "*
^-»
p "^
*~*
-
1 1.0 10.0 10C
1 .U
1
o.i 7
N
I/I
1
*/*
c
a
"Z,
J
e
0.01 J
3
•ff
2
u
o
e
w
"I
0.001 "J
3
u
0.0001
.0
Aerodynamic Portiela Diameter
Figure 3-5. Particle size distribution and size-specific emission
factors for drum-mix asphalt plants.
82
-------
D - Below average: The emission factor was developed only from
A- and B-rated test data from a small number of facilities, and
there is reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent
a random sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of
variability within the source category population. Limitations
on the use of the emission factor are footnoted in the emission
factor table.
E _- Poor: The emission factor was developed from C- and 0-rated
test data, and there is reason to suspect that the facilities
tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There
also may be evidence of variability within the source category
population. Limitations on the use of these factors are always
footnoted.
The use of the above criteria is somewhat subjective depending to a large
extent on the individual reviewer.
In the case of both uncontrolled conventional plants and those equipped
with cyclones, it was found necessary, in some instances, to apply lower
quality (i.e., C- and 0-rated) particle size data to a B-rated emission
factor. Because of this large difference in data quality, it became dif-
ficult to ascertain what the overall rating of the resultant emission fac-
tor should be. Theoretically, a B emission factor has been calculated from
only A-rated data sets which should not be combined with C or D particle
size data. For this reason, a certain amount of good engineering judgment
was employed to rate the quality of the various emission factors obtained.
Even though the particle size data were sometimes only marginally acceptable,
they were applied to a high quality emission factor. It would be expected,
therefore, that something better than an order-of-magnitude estimate would
be provided by such a procedure. For this reason, it was determined that a
minimum of D would be the most appropriate rating for the resulting emission
factors where large differences in data quality existed.
Because the overall quality of the emission factors determined in this
study is generally low, it is helpful to define the range of process operat-
ing parameters and raw material characteristics to which the factors are
most applicable. Table 3-37 provides information extracted from each ref-
erence document relative to the number of facilities tested compared to the
total plant population in the United States, the number of tests conducted
at each plant, the range of production rates tested, and the range of mineral
filter (% < 200 mesh) content in the aggregate used in each study. From
the available data, no good correlation could be derived which relates emis-
sions to mineral filler content even though it is expected that such a rela-
tionship does actually exist. The information contained in Table 3-37 should
give at least a general idea of what the process operating conditions were
during testing and thus, where the above emission factors can be applied
with at least a marginal degree of confidence.
83
-------
TABLE 3-37. RANGE OF SOURCE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS APPLICABLE
TO THE CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS
No. of
Reference No. and type particle size
Percent
of total
population
Range of
production
rates
Range of
mineral filler
content in wet
No. of plants tested tests/plant3 by process type tested (TPH) aggregate (% wt)c
00
-P-
\ 6-conventional
3 10-conventional
8 2-conventional
12 1-conventional
26 1-conventional
27 1-drum-mix
1
1 to 3
1 to 2
1
1
16
0.16
0.26
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.2%
92 - 198
28 - 147
180 - 225
173
170
138 - 372
1.6 - 2.9
2 - 10
N/A
1.6
N/A
1.5 - 5.4
Either controlled or uncontrolled tests - not total number of runs.
TPH - tons (2,000 Ib) of asphalt concrete produced per hour.
N/A - not available.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
*1. R. M. Ingels, et al. , "Control of Asphaltic Concrete Plants in
Los Angeles County." JAPCA, 10(l);29-33, February 1960.
*2. Resources Research, Inc., Gujjje_for Air Pollution Control Hot-Mix
Asphalt Plants, Information Series 17, National Asphalt Pavement
Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.
*3. P, Wiemer, "Dust Removal from the Waste Gases of Preparation Plants
for Bituminous Road-Building Material," Staub-Reinhalt, Luft, 27{7):
9-22, July 1967.
*4. H. E. Friedrich, "Air Pollution Control Practices at Hot-Mix Asphalt
Paving Batch Plants," JAPCA. 19(21):924-928, December 1969,
5. Environmental Pollution Control at Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants, Information
Series 27, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1970,
*6. A. E. Vandegrift, et al.. Particulate Pollutant System Study. Volume III:
Handbook of Emission Properties, EPA Contract No. CPA-22-69-104, Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1971.
*7. L. J. Shannon, et al., Pajti^ulate Pollutant System Study, Volume II:
Fine Particle Emissions. EPA Contract No. CPA-22-69-104, Midwest Re-
search Institute, Kansas City, MO, August 1971.
*8. J. A. Crira and W. D. Snowden, Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric
Emissions Study, EPA-APTD-0936, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Trfangle Park, NC, November 1971.
*9. Background Information for the Establishmentof National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Asphalt Batch Plants, Draft Report, EPA
Contract No. CPA-70-142, Task 2, Environmental Engineering, Inc. ,
Gainesville, FL, March 1971.
*1Q, G. F. Odell, Particulate Emissions from a Orum Mixer Portable Asphalt
Plant Near Estacada, Oregon, F, Glen Ode11, Consulting Engineer,
Portland, OR, 1972.
*11. L. C. Hardison, and C, A, Greathouse, AirPollution Control Technology
and Costs in Nine Selected Areas, EPA-APTD-1555, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Durham^ NC7 September 1972.
*12. J. A. Danielson, and R. S. Brown, "Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants,"
Chapter 7, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, EPA-AP-40, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.
85
-------
13. L. L taster. Atmospheric Emissions from the Asphalt Industry, EPA-650/
2-73-046, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
December 1973.
14. BackgroundInformation of Proposed New Source Performance Standards:
Asphalt Concrete Plants Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels. Second-
ary Lead Smelters and Ref1ner_i_es^Br_ass._pr Bronze Ingot Production
- Plants. Iron and Steel Plants, and Sewage TreatmentPlants; Volume I,
Main Text, APTC-1352a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
*15. J. D. McCain, Evaluation of Centrifield Scrubber. EPA-650/2-74-129z,
U.S. Environmental ProtectTonAgency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
*16. T. D. Searl, etal., Asphalt Hot-Mix Emission Study, Research Report
75-1 (RR 75-1), The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, March 1975.
*17. J. Robert, et a!., Air Pollution Emissions and Control Technology,
Asphalt Paving Industry. EPS 3-AP-74-2, Combustion Sources Division,
Air Pollution Control Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, April 1975.
*18. R. G. Lock, Dust Control in Portable Asphalt Plants. The University
of Calgary, Department of Chemical Engineering, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, September 1975.
19. G. B. Frame, Emission Survey for Huron Construction Company, Ltd.,
Chatham, Ontario. Beck Consultants, Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
October 1975.
20. G. B. Frame, Emission Survey for Warren Bitulithic Division, Ashland
Oil Company, Ltd., Oownsview,Ontario, Beak Consultants, Ltd., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, October 1975.
217 JACA Corporation, Preliminary Evaluation of-the Drum-Mix-Process, EPA-
340/1-77-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. ,
March 1976.
22. A. J. Chandler, and G. B. Frame, EmissionSurvey for Huron Construction
Company, Ltd., Chatham, Ontario, Beak Consultants, Ltd., Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada, September 1976.
*23. E. W, Stewart, and W. Smith, Source Sampling Report, Experimental
Asphalt Concrete Recycling Plant in Iowa. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3172,
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October
1976.
24. A. J. Chandler, Emission Survey for Huron Construction Companyt Ltd.t
Chatham, Ontajrki7 BeakConsultants, Ltd.. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada,
September 1977.
*25. 1. S. Khan, and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Asphalt Hot Mix,
EPA-600/2-77-107n, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, December 1977.
86
-------
*26.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
H. J. Taback, et al., Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and
Miscellaneous Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, KVB 5806-783,
KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, February 1979.
T. J. Walker, et,
Emissions from a
al., Characterization of Inhalable Particulate Matter
Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158,
8, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
Technical Directive
February 1983.
Technical Procedures for Developing AP-42 EmissionFactors and Prepar-
ing AP-42Sections, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, April 1980.
S. Calvert, et al., Wet ScrubberSystems Study, Volume I: Scrubber
Handbook, EPA-R2-72-118a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.
J. B. Galeski, Particle Size Definitions for ParticulateData Analysis,
EPA-600/7-77-129, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., November 1977.
J. P. Sheehy, et al.. Handbook of Air Pollution, 999-AP-44, U.S. De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Durham, NC, 1968.
H. L Green, and W. R. Lane, ParticuJate^CJpuds: Dusts, Smokes and
Mists. E.F.N. Spon, Ltd., London, 1964.
R. Dennis, Handbook on Aeroso1s, TID-26608, Energy Research and De-
velopment Admirn strati oni, Washington, D.C., September 1978.
W. 8. Smith, et al. , Technical Manual: A Survey of Equipment and
Methods for Particulate Sampling in Industrial Process Streams, EPA-
600/7-78-043, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triang1e
Park, NC, March 1978.
R. R. Wilson, and W. B. Smith, Procedures Manual for Inhalable Particu-
late Sampler Operation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3118, Southern Research
Institute, Birmingham, AL, November 1979.
Written communication from John S. Kinsey, Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, MO, and William Krenz, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, El Monte, CA, May 4, 1982.
H. E. McMahon, and W. C. Rogers, Test Conducted at Griffith Company,
1601 Alameda Street,Wilmington, California, on July 23, 1957
Division Report No. C-393, County of Los Angeles Air Pollution
District, Los Angeles, CA, September 1957.
Research
Control
R. M. Burl in, and H. W. Linnard, Test Conducted at GHffith Company
Hot Asphalt Paving Batch Plant, 1380E. Arrow Highway, Irwindale,
Cal i forma, on February 7_f 1958, Research Division Report No. C-426,
Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles,
County of
CA, March
Los Angeles
1958.
87
-------
39. Telephone communication between William Krenz, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, El Monte, CA, and John Kinsey, Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO, June 1, 1982.
40. H. Devorkin, et al., Air Pol1_utip_n^_Sgurce Testing Manual, Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, CA, December 1972.
41. F. S, Eadie, and R. E, Payne, "The Micromerograph A New Instrument
for Particle Size Distribution Analysis," British Chemical Enaineering,
October 1956.
42. E. Q. Laws, et al., "Classification of Methods for Determining Particle
Size," Analyst, 88:156-187, March 1963.
43. Written communication from Fred Kloiber, Fred Kloiber Associates, Col-
lege Part, MD, to John Kinsey, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
MO, January 16, 1984.
44. Telephone communication between Wesley Snowden, ASA Consultants,
Bellevue, WA, and John Kinsey, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, MO, May 1982.
45. W. N. Smith, and J. Campbell, Air Pol 1 ution Test, December 1, 1970,
Sloan Construction Company, Liberty, South Carolina. CMI Systems,
Chattanooga, TN, December 1970.
46. Source Test Data for Harrison, Inc., Haryville, Tennessee, CMI Systems,
Chattanooga, TN, May 1971.
47. W. N. Smith, and G. Catlett, Air Pollution Test, Minot Paving Company.
Mi not. North Dakota. CMI Systems, Chattanooga, TN, June 1971.
48. Telephone communication between Hal Taback, KVB, Inc., Irvine, CA,
and^John Kinsey,^Midwest"Research"Institute, Kansas City, MO, -February-
1983.
49. A. D. Williamson, Procedures Manual for Operation of theDilution Stack
Sampling System. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3118, Southern Research Institute,
Birmingham, AL, October 1980.
50. J. W. Johnson, et aj., A Computer-Based Cascade Impactor Data Reduc-
tion System. EPA-60Q/7-78-042, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., March 1978.
51. Dryer Principals. Sales Manual, p. 9205, Barber-Greene Company, Aurora,
IL, November 1960.
Indicates those documents found in the original literature search which
contain particle size data (see page 27).
88
-------
4.0 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
The only data available which chemically characterize the participate
emissions from asphalt concrete plants are those included in Reference 26
as described in Section 3.0 of this report. A compilation of these data
for the emissions from the baghouse collector is shown in Table 4-1 (Appen-
dix E, Table 4-59). No such data were collected far the plant tested under
the IP program (Reference 27).
TABLE 4-1. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM
AN ASPHALT BATCH PLANT
CONTROLLED BY A BAGHOUSE
COLLECTOR25
Type of element
or compound
WT % OF CUT
mf ANALYSIS
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Potassium
Silver
(Sulfur)
Titanium
TOTAL3
Sulfates, H20 sol13 .
(sulfur, from S04 )
Nitrate (H20 sol}6
TOTAL ANALYZED
BALANCE
Percent
cyclone
62.1
t
t
2,4/0.3
t
3.S/0.5
1.5/0.5
t
(< 8)
t
8
2
(t)
t
10
90
100%
by weight
Filter
3.57
-
-
10/3
-
1/0.1
-
-
(< 4}
t
11
11
89
100*
t = Detected 1n concentration of < 1%.
( } - Not included in total—sulfur and sulfates
are accounted for in sulfur XRF analysis.
a Analyzed by x-ray fluorescence.
Analyzed by wet chemistry.
Calculated from sulfates (sylfurssylfate/3) to
compare with sulfur from XRF.
89
-------
5.0 PROPOSED AP-42 SECTION
The proposed revision to Section 8.1 of AP-42 is pre-
sented in the following pages. It should be noted that the
terms "asphaltic cement" and "asphaltic concrete" are used
in this section in place of "asphalt cement" and "asphalt
concrete" as is more common in the industry. This was
done to be consistent with the current version of Sec-
tion 8.1 of AP-42. Such terminology has not been used
elsewhere in this report.
90
-------
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
8.1.1 General1'2
Asphaltic concrete paving is a mixture of well graded, high quality ag-
gregate and liquid asphaltic cement which is heated and mixed in measured quan
tities to produce bituminous pavement material. Aggregate constitutes over
92 percent by weight of the total mixture. Aside from the amount and grade
of asphalt used, mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts
and types of aggregate used. A certain percentage of fine aggregate (% < 74 p
in physical diameter) is required for the production of good quality asphaltic
concrete.
Hot mix asphalt paving can be manufactured by batch mix, continuous mix
or drum mix process. Of these various processes, batch mix plants are cur-
rently predominant. However, most new installations or replacements to ex-
isting equipment are of the drum mix type. In 1980, 78 percent of the total
plants were of the conventional batch type, with 7 percent being continuous
mix facilities and 15 percent drum mix plants. Any of these plants can be
either permanent installations or portable.
Conventional Plants - Conventional plants produce finished asphaltic
concrete through either batch (Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure 8.1-2)
mixing operations, fiaw aggregate is normally stockpiled near the plant at a
location where the bulk moisture content will stabilize to between 3 and
5 weight percent.
As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is
hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the appropriate hoppers of the
cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt
and is transported into a gas or oil fired rotary dryer. Because a substan-
tial portion of the heat is transferred by radiation, dryers are equipped with
flights designed to tumble the aggregate to promote drying.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator
and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens and classified into as many
as four different grades (sizes). The classified material then enters the
mixing operation.
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into four large bins
according to size. The operator controls1 the aggregate size distribution by
opening various bins over a weigh hopper until the desired mix and weight are
obtained. This material is dropped into a pug mill (mixer) and is mixed dry
for about 15 seconds. The asphalt, a solid at ambient temperature, is pumped
from a heated storage tank, weighed and injected into the mixer. Then the
hot mix is dropped into a truck and is hauled to the job site.
In a continuous plant, the dried and classified aggregate drops into a
set of small bins which collect the aggregate and meter it through a set of
feeder conveyors to another bucket elevator and into the mixer. Asphalt
is metered through the inlet end of the mixer, and retention time is
Mineral Products Industry 8.1-1
91
-------
I
fO
H
en
en
n
i
H
O
UCfNP
„ — < U
O^., IKnl liHulo*
Coarse Aggregate
Storage Pile
Aggregdle
Pile
Feeders C
Figure 8.1-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix
asphalt paving plants.
-------
X
H-
P
re
o
a.
ft
u
p
(X
en
rt
UGINO
>>_* f irfnlBt folrti
Op,
Fine Aggregate
Storage Pile
Cold Aggregate Bins
Exhaust lo
Atmosphere
u
. Draft Fan ( Location
/T__r Dependent Upon
Type of Secondary)
Primary Dust
Collector
4®
Feedari
Coarse Aggregate
Storage Pile
Conveyor
Aspha 1 1
Storage
Tlucl<
00
*~*
I
Figure 8.1-2. General process flow diagram for continuous mix
asphalt paving plants.
-------
controlled by an adjustable dam at the opposite end. The hot mix flows out
of the mixer into a surge hopper, from which trucks are loaded.
Drum Mix Plants - The drum mix process" simplifies the conventional pro-
cess by using proportioning feed controls in place of hot aggregate storage
bins, vibrating screens and the mixer. Aggregate is introduced near the
burner end of the revolving drum mixer, and the asphalt is injected midway
along the drum. A variable flow asphalt pump is linked electronically to the
aggregate belt scales to control mix specifications. The hot mix is dis-
charged from the revolving drum mixer into surge bins or storage silos. Fig-
ure 8.1-3 is a diagram of the drum mix process.
Drum mix plants generally use parallel flow design for hot burner gases
and aggregate flow. Parallel flow has the advantage of giving the mixture a
longer time to coat and to collect dust in the mix, thereby reducing partic-
ulate emissions. The amount of particulate generated within the dryer in
this process is usually lower than that generated within conventional dryers,
but because asphalt is heated to high temperatures for a long period of time,
organic emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) are greater than in conven-
tional plants.
Recycle Processes - In recent years, recycling of old asphalt paving has
been initiated in the asphaltic concrete industry. Recycling significantly
reduces the amount of new (virgin) rock and asphaltic cement needed to repave
an existing road. The various recycling techniques include both cold and hot
methods, with the hot processing conducted at a central plant.
In recycling, old asphalt pavement is broken up at a job site and is re-
moved from the road base. This material is then transported to the plant,
crushed and screened to the appropriate size for further processing. The
paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable),
to which the proper amount of new asphaltic cement is added to produce a
grade of hot^asphalt paving~~suitable for laying." "~
There are three methods which can be used to heat recycled asphalt pav-
ing before the addition of the asphaltic cement: direct flame heating, in-
direct flame heating, and superheated aggregate.
Direct flame heating is typically performed with a drum mixer, wherein
all materials are simultaneously mixed in the revolving drum. The first ex-
perimental attempts at recycling used a standard drum mix plant and introduced
the recycled paving and virgin aggregate concurrently at the burner end of
the drum. Continuing problems with excessive blue smoke emissions led to
several process modifications, such as the addition of heat shields and the
use of split feeds.
One method of recycling involves a drum mixer with a heat dispersion
shield. The heat shield is installed around the burner, and additional cool-
ing air is provided to reduce the hot gases to a temperature below 430 to
650°C (800 to 12QO°F), thus decreasing the amount of blue smoke. Although
now considered obsolete, a drum within a drum design has also been successfully
8.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS
94
-------
H-
O
a
T)
H
O
e
n
I
01
Fine Aggregate
Srorage Pi 10
Coarse Aggregate
Storage Pile
Aggregate Feed Bins
( V
Exhaust
Slack
Heated Asphalt Storage Tank
Truck Load-out
oo
Figure 8.1-3. General process flow diagram for drum mix asphalt
paving plants.
i
Ln
-------
used for recycling. Reclaimed material is introduced into the outer drum
through a separate charging chute while virgin material is introduced into
the inner drum.
Split feed drum mixers were first used for recycling in 1976 and are now
the most popular design. At about the midpoint of the drum, the recycled
bituminous material is introduced by a split feed arrangement and is heated
by both the hot gases and heat transfer from the superheated virgin aggregate.
Another type of direct flame method involves the use of a slinger conveyor to
throw recycled material into the center of the drum mixer from the discharge
end. In this process, the recycled material enters the drum along an arc,
landing approximately at the asphalt injection point.
Indirect flame heating has been performed with special drum mixers
equipped with heat exchanger tubes. These tubes prevent the mixture of
virgin aggregate and recycled paving from coming into direct contact with the
flame and the associated high temperatures. Superheated aggregate can also
be used to heat recycled bituminous material.
In conventional plants, recycled paving can be introduced either into
the pug mill or at the discharge end of the dryer, after which the tempera-
ture of the material is raised by heat from the virgin aggregate. The proper
amount of new asphaltic cement is then added to the virgin aggregate/recycle
paving mixture to produce high grade asphaltic concrete.
Tandem drum mixers can also be used to heat the recycle material. The
first drum or aggregate dryer is used to superheat the virgin aggregate, and
a second drum or dryer either heats recycled paving only or mixes and heats a
combination of virgin and recycled material. Sufficient heat remains in the
exhaust gas from the first dryer to heat the second unit also.
8.1.2 Emissions and Controls
Emission points at batch, continuous and drum mix asphalt plants dis-
cussed below refer to Figures 8.1-1, 8.1-2 and 8.1-3, respectively.
Conventional Plants - As with most facilities in the mineral products
industry, conventional asphaltic concrete plants have two major categories of
emissions, those which are vented to the atmosphere through some type of
stack, vent or pipe (ducted sources), and those which are not confined to
ducts and vents but are emitted directly from the source to the ambient air
(fugitive sources). Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported
by an industrial ventilation system with one or more fans or air movers,
eventually to be emitted to the atmosphere through some type of stack.
Fugitive emissions result from process sources, which consist of a combina-
tion of gaseous pollutants and particulate matter, or open dust sources.
The most significant source of ducted emissions from conventional as-
phaltic concrete plants is the rotary dryer. The amount of aggregate dust
carried out of the dryer by the moving gas stream depends upon a number of
factors, including the gas velocity in the drum, the particle size distribution
8.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS
96
-------
of the aggregate, and the specific gravity and aerodynamic characteristics of
the particles. Dryer emissioas also contain the fuel combustion products of
the burner.
There may also be some ducted emissioas from the heated asphalt storage
tanks. These may consist of combustion products from the tank heater.
The major source of process fugitives in asphalt plants is enclosures
over the hot side conveying, classifying and mixing equipment which are
vented into the primary dust collector along with the dryer gas. These vents
and enclosures are commonly called a "fugitive air" or "scavenger" system.
The scavenger system may or may not have its own separate air mover device,
depending on the particular facility. The emissions captured and transported
by the scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain
gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOC) and a fine aerosol of condensed
liquid particles. This liquid aerosol is created by the condensation of gas
into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphal-
tic cement in the pug mill. The amount of liquid aerosol produced depends to
a large extent on the temperature of the asphaltic cement and aggregate
entering the pug mill. Organic vapor and its associated aerosol are also
emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck loadout,
from the bed of the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from
the asphalt storage tank, which also may contain small amounts of polycyclic
compounds.
The choice of applicable control equipment for the drier exhaust and
vent line ranges from dry mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric col-
lectors. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little
success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment like
large diameter cyclones, skimmers or settling chambers. These chambers are
often used as classifiers to return collected material to the hot elevator
and to combine it with the drier aggregate. Because of high pollutant levels,
the primary collector effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device.
Table 8.1-1 presents total particulate emission factors for conventional
asphaltic concrete plants, with the factors based on the type of control
technology employed. Size specific emission factors for conventional asphalt
plants, also based on the control of technology used, are shown in Table 8.1-2
and Figure 8.1-4. Interpolations of size data other than those shown in Fig-
ure 8.1-4 can be made from the curves provided.
There are also a number of open dust sources associated with conven-
tional asphalt plants. These include vehicle traffic generating fugitive
dust on paved and unpaved roads, handling aggregate material, and similar
operations. The number and type of fugitive emission sources associated with
a particular plant depend on whether the equipment is portable or stationary
and whether it is located adjacent to a gravel pit or quarry. Fugitive dust
may range from 0.1 micrometers to more than 300 micrometers in diameter. On
the average, 5 percent of cold aggregate feed is less than 74 micrometers
(minus 200 mesh). Dust that may escape collection before primary control
generally consists of particulate having 50 to 70 percent of the total mass
being less than 74 micrometers. Uncontrolled particulate emission factors
for various types of fugitive sources in conventional asphaltic concrete
plants can be found in Section 11.2.3 of this document.
Mineral Products Industry 8.1-7
97
-------
TABLE 8.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL PARTICIPATE
FROM CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3
Type of control Emission factor
kg/Mg Ib/ton
b c
Uncontrolled *
Precleaner
High efficiency cyclone
Spray tower
Baffle spray tower
Multiple centrifugal scrubber
Orifice scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Baghouse
22.5
7.5
0.85
0.20
0.15
0.035
0.02
0.02
0.01
45-0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02
References 1-2, 5-10, 14-16. Expressed in terms of
emissions per unit weight of asphaltic concrete pro-
duced. Includes both, batch mix and continuous mix
.processes.
Almost all plants have at least a precleaner follow-
ing the rotary drier.
Reference 16. These factors differ from those given -
in Table 8.1-6 because they are for uncontrolled
.emissions and are from an earlier survey.
Keference 15. Range of values = 0.004 - 0.0690 kg/Mg.
Average from a properly designed, installed, operated
and maintained scrubber, based on a study to develop
New Source Performance Standards.
References 14-15. Range of values = 0.013 - 0.0690
fkg/Mg.
References 14-15. Emissions from a properly de-
signed, installed, operated and maintained bag-
house, based on a study to develop New Source Per-
formance Standards. Range of values = 0.008 - 0.018
kg/Mg.
8.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS
98
-------
TABLE 8.1-2. SUMMARY OF SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Cumulative
emulative
Particle
«l2cb
(ittA) Uncontrolled
2
H-
P 2,5 |i«A 0.83
(D
Q 5.0 (laA 3.5
10.0 l«iA 14
0 15.0 M"A 23
^ 20.0 M">* 30
rt
CO Total mags emission factor
M '
D. "Reference 23, Table 1-36.
fj Aerodynamic diaaeter.
Cyclone
paniculate eminion factor i atated (ize
•«<* $ stated lite (X)
Multiple
centrifugal
col lectori «c rubbers
S.O
11
21
29
36
Rounded
67
74
80
83
84
to two significant
Gravity
spray Bagbouac Uncontrolled
towers collector kg/Kg
21
21
3J
39
41
figures.
33
36
40
47
54
0,19
0,78
3.1
5.3
6.8
23
Ib/ton
0.37
1,6
6.1
11
14
4S
Cyclone
collector!
kg/Mg
o.os"1
0,13
o.ia
0.25
0.30
0.85
)b/lon
0.104
0.26
0,36
O.SO
0.60
1.7
Multiple
centrifugal
•crubbera
fcg/Hg
0.023
0,026
0.028
0.029
0.030
0.035
Ib/ton
0.046
O.OS2
0.056
O.OS8
0.060
0.070
Gravity
•pray lowers
kg/Kg
0,041
0.053
0.073
0.018
0.081
0.20
Ib/ton
0.082
0,11
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.40
collector
kg/Hg
0.003
0.004
0. 004
0.005
0.005
0.01
Ib/too
0.006
0.008
0.008
0,010
0.010
0.02
Rounded to one significant figure.
00
I
IO
-------
10.0
—
!
VI
I
o
o
OJ
s
3
u
0,1
0.01
0.00
1. Soghoum
2. Centrifugal Scrubb«rt
3. Spray Towars
4. Cyclonei
S._Uficoflfroll«
-------
Drum Mix Plants - As with the other two asphaltic concrete production
processes, the most significant ducted source of particulate emissions is the
drum mixer itself. Emissions from the drum mixer consist of a gas stream with
a substantial amount of particulate matter and lesser amounts of gaseous VOC
of various species. The solid particulate generally consists of fine aggre-
gate particles entrained in the flowing gas stream during the drying process.
The organic compounds, on the other hand, result from heating and mixing of
asphalt cement inside the drum, which volatilizes certain components of the
asphalt. Once the VOC have sufficiently cooled, some condense to form the
fine liquid aerosol (particulate) or "blue smoke" plume typical of drum mix
asphalt plants.
A number of process modifications have been introduced in the newer plants
to reduce or eliminate the blue smoke problem, including installation of flame
shields, rearrangement of the flights inside the drum, adjustments in the
asphalt injection point, and other design changes. Such modifications result
in significant improvements in the elimination of blue smoke.
Emissions from the drum mix recycle process are similar to emissions from
regular drum mix plants, except that there are more volatile organics because
of the direct flame volatilization of petroleum derivatives contained in the
old asphalt paving. Control of liquid organic emissions in the drum mix re-
cycle process is through some type of process modification, as described above.
Table 8.1-3 provides total particulate emission factors for ducted emis-
sions in drum mix asphaltic concrete plants, with available size specific emis-
sion factors shown in Table 8.1-4 and Figure 8.1-5.
TABLE 8.1-3. TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DRUM MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of control Emission factor
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Uncontrolled
Cyclone or mul tic lone ,
Low energy wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
2.45
0.34
0.04
0.02
4.9
0.67
0.07
0.04
3.
Reference 11. Expressed in terms of emissions per
unit weight of asphaltic concrete produced. These
factors differ from those for conventional asphaltic
concrete plants because the aggregate contacts and
is coated with asphalt early in the drum mix pro-
.cess.
Either stack sprays, with water droplets injected
into the exit stack, or a dynamic scrubber with a
wet fan.
Mineral Products Industry 8.1-11
101
-------
TABLE 8.1-4. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DRUM MIX ASPHALT PLANTS CONTROLLED BY A BAGHOUSE COLLECTOR3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Cumulative particulate emission factors
Cumulative mass i stated $ stated size
size (%) jd
b £
(MtnA) Uncontrolled Controlled kg/Mg Ib/ton 10 J kg/M$»
2.5 5.5 11 0.14 0.27 0.53
10.0 23 32 0.57 1.1 1.6
15,0 27 35 0.65 1.3 1.7
Total mass
emission
factor 2.5 4.9 4.9
Condensable
organics^ 3-9
10"3 Ib/ton
1.1
3.2
3.5
9.8
7.7
^Reference 23, Table 3-35. Rounded to two significant figures.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Expressed in terms of emissions per unit weight of asphaltic concrete produced. Not
.generally applicable to recycle processes.
Based on an uncontrolled emission factor of 2.45 kg/Mg (see Table 8.1-3).
Reference~23. Calculated using an "overall" collection efficiency of 99.8% for a
baghouse applied to an uncontrolled emission factor of 2.45 kg/Mg.
Includes data from two out of eight tests where ~ 30% recycled asphalt paving was
processed using a split feed process.
Determined at outlet of a baghouse collector while plant was operating with ~ 30%
recycled asphalt paving. Factors are applicable only to a direct flame heating
process with a split feed.
8.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
102
-------
100.0
s
-Q
1
VI
* 10.0
i
«
>
jj
3
U
1.0
0.1
0
1 1 — 1 1 i| IT
.
-
M
U = Uneontroi lad
C = flaghowe
1 1 — ; i i m
/—
C /''
* — u /
//
/^
1 I 1 ! 1 I 1 I
1 1 — r-TTTTC
-
r*^*
'
,-— "*
I L < 1 1 i 11
.1 1.0 10,0 lOf
°'' 1
N
•a
u
s.
ist
VI
0.01 2
u
a
1
J
".2
J
3
0.001 U
0.0001
3.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter
Figure 8.1-5. Particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for drum mix
asphaltic concrete plants.
Mineral Products Industry
103
8.1-13
-------
Interpolations of the data shown in Figure 8.1-5 to particle sizes other thaa
those indicated can be made from the curves provided.
Process fugitive emissions normally associated with batch and continuous
plants from the hot side screens, bins, elevators and pug mill have been
eliminated in the drum mix process. There may be, however, a certain amount
of fugitive VOC and liquid aerosol produced from transport and handling of
hot mix from the drum mixer to the storage silo, if an open conveyor is used,
and also from the beds of trucks. The open dust sources associated with drum
mix plants are similar to those of batch or continuous plants, with regard to
truck traffic and aggregate handling operations.
8.1.3 Representative Facility
Factors for various materials emitted from the stack of a typical
asphaltic concrete plant are given in Table 8.1-5, and the characteristics of
such a plant are shown in Table 8.1-6. With the exception of aldehydes, the
materials listed in Table 8.1-6 are also emitted from the mixer, but in con-
centrations 5 to 100 fold smaller than stack gas concentrations, and they
last only during the discharge of the mixer.
Reference 16 reports mixer emissions of SO , NO , and VOC as "less than"
values, so it is possible they may not be present at all. Particulates,
carbon monoxide, polycyclics, trace metals and hydrogen sulfide were observed
at concentrations that were small relative to stack amounts. Emissions from
the mixer are thus best treated as fugitive.
All emission factors for the typical facility are for controlled opera-
tion and are based either on average industry practice shown by survey or on
results of actual testing in a selected typical, plant.
An industrial survey16 showed that over 66 percent of operating hot mix
asphalt plants use fuel-oil for^combustion. Possible-sulfur oxide emissions—
from the stack were calculated, assuming that all sulfur in the fuel oil is
oxidized to SO . The amount of sulfur oxides actually released through the
stack may be attenuated by water scrubbers, or even by the aggregate itself,
if limestone is being dried. Number 2 fuel oil has an average sulfur content
of 0.22 weight percent.
Emission factors for nitrogen oxides, nonmethane volatile organics, car-
bon monoxide, polycyclic organic material, and aldehydes were determined by
sampling stack gas at the representative asphalt hot mix plant.
8.1-14 EMISSION FACTORS
104
-------
TABLE 8,1-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED GASEOUS POLLUTANTS
FROM A CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANT STACK3
Material emitted
Sulfur oxides (as S02)d'e
Nitrogen oxides (as H02)
Volatile organic compounds
Carbon monoxide
Polycyclic organic material
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde
2-Methylpropanal
( is obutyr aldehyde)
1-Butanal
(n-butyr aldehyde)
3-Methylbutanal
(isovaleraldehyde)
Emission
Factor
Rating
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Emission
g/Mg
146S
18
14
19
0.013
10
0.075
0.65
1.2
8.0
c
factor
Ib/ton
0 . 292S
0,036
0.028
0.038
0.000026
0.02
0.00015
0.0013
0.0024
0.016
.Reference 16.
Particulates, carbon monoxide, polycyclics, trace metals and
hydrogen sulfide were observed in the mixer emissions at con~
centrations that were small relative to stack concentrations.
^Expressed as g/Mg and Ib/ton of asphaltic concrete produced.
"Mean source test results of a 400 plant survey.
Reference 21. S - % sulfur in fuel. S02 may be attenuated
r5Q% by adsorption on alkaline aggregate.
Based on limited test data from the single asphaltic concrete
plant described in Table 8.1-6.
Mineral Products Industry
105
8.1-15
-------
TABLE 8.1-6. CHARACTERISTICS OF A REPRESENTATIVE
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANT SELECTED FOR SAMPLING**
Parameter Plant sampled
Plaat type Conventional, permanent,
batch plant
Production rate,
Mg/hr (toos/hr) 160.3 ± 16% (177 ± 16%)
Mixer capacity,
Mg (tons) 3.6 (4.0)
Primary collector Cyclone
Secondary collector Wet scrubber (venturi)
Fuel Oil
Release agent Fuel oil
Stack height, m (ft) 15.85 (52)
Reference 16, Table 16.
References for Section 8.1
1. Asphaltic^oncrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study, EPA Contract No.
68-02-0076, Valentine, Fisher, and Toinlinson, Seattle, WA, November 1971.
2. Guide for Air pollution Controlof Hot Mix AsphaltPlants, Information
Series 17, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.
3. R. M. Ingels, et al., "Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in
Los Angeles County", Journal of the Air^Pollution Control Association,
10(1):29-33, January 1960.
4. H. E. Friedrich, "Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot
Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, ^£(12):924-928, December 1969,
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.
6. G. L. Allen, et al., "Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes
in Los Angeles County, California", Information Circular 7627, U. S. De-
partment of Interior, Washington, DC, April 1952.
8.1-16 EMISSION FACTORS
106
-------
7. P. A. Kenline, Unpublished report on control of air .pollutants from chem-
ical process industries, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, May 1959.
8. Private communication on particulate pollutant study between G. Bailee,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, and U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1970.
9. J. A. Danielson, Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants, Los
Angeles Comity Air Pollution Control District, Presented at Air Pollution
Control Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA,
November 1966.
10. M. E. Fogel, et al., Comprehensive Economic Study of Air PollutionCon-
trol Costs for Selected Industries and SelectedRegions, R-OU-455, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February
1970.
11. Preliminary Evaluation of Air Pollution Aspects of the Drum Mix Process,
EPA-340/1-77-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, March 1976.
12. R. ¥. Beaty and B. M. Bunnell, "The Manufacture of Asphalt Concrete Mix-
tures in the Dryer Drum", Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Technical Asphalt Association, Quebec City, Quebec, November 19-21, 1973.
13. J- S. Kinsey, "An Evaluation of Control Systems and Mass Emission Rates
from Dryer Drum Hot Asphalt Plants", Journal of the_ Air Pollution Control
Association, 26(12):1163-1165, December 1976.
14. Background Information for ProposedNew Source Performance Standards,
APTD-1352A and B, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, June 1973.
15. Background Information for NewSource PerformanceStandards, EPA 450/2-74-
003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 1974.
16. Z. S. Kahn and T. W. Hughes, SourceAssessment: Asphalt Paving Hot Mix,
EPA-600/2-77-107n, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
December 1977.
17. V. P. Puzinauskas and L. W. Corbett, Report on Emissions from Asphalt Hot
Mixes, RR-75-1A, The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, May 1975.
18. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321,
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.
19. J. A. Peters and P. K. Chalekode, "Assessment of Open Sources", Presented
at the Third National Conference on Energy and the Environment, College
Corner, OH, October 1, 1975.
Mineral Products Industry 8.1-17
107
-------
20. Illustration of Dryer Drum Hot Mix Asphalt Plant, Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, 1978.
21. Herman H. Farsten, "Applications of Fabric Filters to Asphalt Plants",
Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, Houston, TX, June 1978,
22. Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds from Drum Mix AsphaltPlants, EPA-
6QQ/2-81-G26, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
February 1981.
23. J. S. Kinsey, Asphaitic Concrete Industry - Source Category Report, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3999, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
September 1985.
EMISSION FACTORS
108
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCE 1 AND SUPPORTING DATA
A-l
-------
Control of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
in Los Angeles County*
Used by permission of JAPCA.
RAY M. INGELS, Air Pollution Engineer, NORMAN R. SHAFFER
Inrermedfeta Air Pollution Engineer and JOHN A. DAN1ELSON Senior
Air Pollution Engineer, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District
Introduction
The phenomenal growth of population
in Southern California during the last
tiro decades has resulted in large de-
mands for asphaltic concrete. To meet
these demands, in Los Angeles County
alone, 48 asphaitic concrete plants have
been built which produce an average of
14,000 tons per day.
Prior to the installation of well-
designed air pollution control equip-
ment, dust losses from asphaitic con-
crete plants were nearly 25 tons per day.
In 1949, the Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict of Los Angeles County adopted a
rule which limited the discharge of dust
from each of these plants to 40 pounds
per hour.1 To meet this prohibition, it
became necessary to" install dust collec-
tion equipment capable of high collec-
tion efficiencies. "This was accom-
plished by the use of centrifugal or im-
pingement type scrubbers which pro-
Tided collection efficiencies, in most
cases, of 90 percent or greater. The de-
sign of these control devices has im-
proved over the years, and as described
later in this paper, total emissions have
decreased substantially in spite of in-
creased production.
Description of Basic Equipment
Generally, an asphaitic concrete plant
consists of a rotary dryer, screening and
classifying equipment, an aggregate
weighing system, a mixer, storage bins
and conveying equipment. Sand and
aggregate are charged from bins into a
rotary dryer. The dried aggregate at
the lower end of the dryer is mechani-
cally conveyed by a bucket elevator to
the screening equipment where it is
classified and dumped into storage bios.
* Preheated at the 52nd Annual Meeting
of APCA, Statler Hotel, Jima 21-2S,
1950, Los Angeles, Calif.
hbnntry I960 / Voium* 10, Numb.r 1
Weighed quantities of the sized prod-
acts are then dropped into the mixer
along with asphalt where the batch is
mixed and dumped into awaiting trucks
for transportation to the paving site.
The combustion gases and fine dust
from the rotary drier are exhausted
through a precieaner which is usually a
single cyclone, but twin or multiple
cyclones and other devices are also used.
The precieaner catch is then discharged
back into the bucket elevator where it
continues in process with the "lain bulk
of the dried aggregate. The air outlet
of the precieaner is vented to air pollu-
tion control equipment.
Air Pollution Control Equipment
In Los Angeles County two principal
types of control equipment have evolved
from many types etaployed over the
years—the multiple centrifugal" "type
spray chamber and the baffled type
spray tower.*Of these two types, the
multiple centrifugal type spray chamber
(Fig. 1) has proved to be the more effi-
cient. It consists of two or more inter-
nally fluted cylindrical spray chambers
in which the dust-laden gases are "ad-
mitted tangentially at high velocities.
Each of these chambers is identical in
size and has dimensions approximately
Rg. I. Typieol muillpla centrifugal ryp« ioray diamb«rurviitg on aiphalhc eanerel* plan*.
A-2
-------
RS» 2. -Typical baffled fyp« »pray low« itrring an cnphaitfe concrete plane.
saamt IMUI oust uuamo —
Rg. 3. Reiationinip between urvbbw M«r dint
loading and tcnibbw collection
30
Rf, 4, Effect of lOvboer »afer-gai ratio
on stack cfnisiioni at average aggregate dn«i
ret* in ihe dryer feed,
A-3
6 ft diam x IS ft long. Usually five to
10 spray nozzles are located evenly
spaced within each chamber. Water
rates to the nozzles are usually in the
range of 70 to 250 gpm at 50 to 100 psi
and the water generally Is not recireu-
tated. In the baffled type spray tower
(Fig, 2), there have been many vari-
ations in designs, but fundamentally,
each consists of a chamber which is
baffled to force the gases to travel in an
S-sfaaped pattern, encouraging impinge-
ment of the dust particles against the
sides of the chamber and the baffles.
Water spray nozzles are located be-
tween the baffles and water • rates
through the spray heads usually vary
between 100 to 300 gpm at 50 to 100 paL
In addition to venting the dryer, the
dust collection system also ventilates
several other dust sources which include;
(1) the lower end of the dryer where the
stationary burner box attaches to the
rotary dryer; (2) the aggregate screen-
ing and classifying system; (3) the
bucket elevator; (4) the aggregate stor-
age bins; and (5) the weigh hopper.
Asphaltic concrete plants vary in size
with the majority capable of producing
100 to 150 tons per hour. However, in
the last two or three years, several plants
have been installed in Los Angeles
County which are classified as 6000-
pound plants, capable of producing 200
to 250 tons per hour.
The major source of dust originates
from the rotary dryer. Very little work
has been done in the study of dust emis-
sions from rotary dryers. Friedman
and Marshall1 obtained data showing
that dryer dust emissions, expressed aa
percent of feed, increase with air maqg
velocity, increase with increasing rate of
rotation, are independent of dryer
slope, and decrease with increasing feed
rate. The absolute amount of drver
OU*Mftf¥ OP HNii I
B MlMI IM QIVT* RIO — kA"* X
fte. J. Effect of aggregate Hne< rate an track
•flihtian* at average wafer-gai ratio.
Journal of the Air Peifurfon AiKxiatlan
-------
TabN I—T«s* Pqtq from Atphglttc Concrete Plants Controlled by Scrubbers
UJ
a
HI
Inlet Dust Emission, lines Kate,* Ratio,
TV* Loading, Lb/Hr, Lb/Hr XW', Gal/1000 set,
;""::;- 940 20.7 9.55 8.62
•~£r 427 3S.6 4,46 3.34
••bfi 4iio 37.1 8.3S 6.38
••«A 2170 47.0 14.00 6.31
m$ 32UJ 2O Ol ITS!
*CiHS 1640 2lJ S\22 li^ifl
• H — 31.0 8.8S 20.40
UiitAto lab. — 33-5 7.52 11.01
<'"t79 3850 30.3 8.50 5.92
C-SH" 308 13.6 2.51 11.11
C-234 372 21.2 2.53 5.70
C-428 2820 25.5 10.20 7,75
C-U7 560 39.9 3.05 2.94
&425 485 32.9 2.89 4.26
OuUtdelab. — £5.5 6.59 6.60
C485 212 17.5 4.89 4.56
C433 266 11.0 5.96 8.12
£422Ci) — 28.6 7.14 4,90
tSitSJ — 37.0 3.34 3.02
C-118 3400 30.8. 9.35 8.90
Totals 667,4 146.93
Avtrages 29.7 5.9
Type Type Effluent
of of Production, Volume,
Log xi Scrubber* Fuel Tons/Hi sefin
0.82 C Oa 183.9 23,100
0.60 C Oil 96.9 19,800
0.81 C Oil 174.0 26,200
0.83 C Oil 209.1 25,700
1.04 C OU 142.9
1 05 C >ft* 158.0
1~Q8 T Otl 92.3 19.500;
— 09 T da no rjm
1.29 T Oil 137.8 18,700
1.31 T Oil 184.2 17,000
1.04 T Oil 144. ft 23,700
0.77 C Gaa 191.3 28,300
1.05 C Oil 114.6 24,300
0.86 T Gas 124.4 15,900
0.78 T Gaa 42.0 17,200
0.89 C' OU 182.0 22,000
0.47 C Oil 138.9 24,600
0.63 C OU 131.4 18,000
0.82 C CM 131.7 18,200
0.68 C Oil 174.3 20,000
0.91 C Gaa 114.5 19,600
n RO C Oil WR 0 21.000
0.48 C Oil 152.0 22,200
0.95 T Oil 116.5
21.33
0.85
17,100
* Quantity of finea (minus 200 mesh) in dryer feed.
1 C •• Multiple centrifugal type spray chamber. T — Baffled tower scrubber.
dust, in weight per unit time, increases
with feed rate. Dust emissions depend
to a large extent on the particle size dis-
tribution of the dryer feed. While the
dust from the rotary dryer is un-
doubtedly the greatest source, the dust
collected from the vibrating screens, the
backet elevator, the bins and the weigh
hopper is also considerable in quantity.
In one plant, 2000 Ib/hr of particu-
late matter containing 39.7 percent of
0 to 10 micron material was produced by
these secondary sources."
Study of Stock Test Dale
In the process of granting permits to
operate, many stack tests were con-
ducted by the District to insure that
each plant was operating in compliance
with air pollution laws. Aa these data
became available, a study was made to
determine which variables were most
jognifiamt in affecting emissions to the
atmosphere. A preliminary observa-
tion disclosed that the water scrubber
efficiency varied with the scrubber inlet
dust loading as shown in Fig. 3. Higher
dust collection efficiencies were obtained
at the higher inlet dust loadings.
Plants with less effective cyclone pre-
nlpnning had, on the average, larger par-
ticles entering the water scrubber, and
consequently better scrubber collection
efficiencies were obtained. In fact,
scrubber efficiency was so dependent
upon the degreeTof precleaning^that the
effect of other variables on collection
efficiency was completely masked in the
available data. However, the frac-
tional collection efficiency of particles
larger than 10 microns in diameter
proved to be 99.7 percent. Conse-
quently, the variables and operating
conditions which affect the amount
and collection efficiency of the 0 to 10
micron fraction should be refiected in
the absolute stack emissions. This was
found to be the case. The magnitude
of the stack emissions were found to de-
pend mainly upon the scrubber water-
gas ratio, the type of fuel used in the
rotary dryer, the type of scrubber, and
the quantity of minus 200-mesh material
(minus 74 microns) processed in the
dryer.4 It would be expected that the
particle size distribution of the minus
~2QO-mesh"~fraetion of ""the dryer-feed-
would have a large effect on stack losses,
but sufficient data were not available
to investigate it.
Twenty-five source testa of asphaltic
concrete plants were available (from
some US testa which have been per-
Tabl* II—Collection Efficiency Data far Scrubber* Serving AsphalHc Concrata Plants
1
CO
UJ
09
1 —
a
UJ
ZD
h-
Dwrt
Particle
Size,
Microns
0-10
10-20
20-44
44+
Dust
Furtiek
Size,
Microns
0-10
10-20
1-44
44+
. Test
Inlet,
%
13.0
n.i
9.6
6.3
Report Series,
Outlet,
%
99,3
0.0
0.0
0.7
r— XC31
91.0
9,0
0.0
0.0
C-333
JtlSiCIGQC^f
%
95.2
100.0 '
100.0
99.3
Outlet,
82.0
3.0
2.0
13.0-
• Teat
Inlet,
%
76.4
6.3
2.8
14.5
Report Series,
Outlet,
%
79.9
3.8
2.0
14,3"
Efficiency,
85,7
99.4
C469 .
SfflciftEcy,
%
92.8
98.0
95.0
93.1
Inlet,
80.4
18.6
1.0
0.0
— — Teat Report Series,
Inlet, Outlet,
78.0 S3,0
18.0 5.0
2.0 1.0
2.0 11.0*
Outlet,
73,2
5.1
4.5
17.2
C-372A — .
Efficiency,
85.0
96,2
93.3
26.5
Efficiency,
—
* Microscopic examination indicated that toe outlet mm plea wen agglomerated.
February I960 / Vdum«.10,
A-4
31
-------
•Dr-
I JL
i
-J40
on. HBO omi
J_
_L
J I
J_
I I
J_
I
I
29 ~
* i ifl 11 i* i* a 3 « » i to u M it
QUANTITY Of NNEt (MNUS 200 MSH} IN MYO TOO — Itf/H* X 19"'
tdktfon curYoj for muitfpl* e«ntttfugal icrabfawi Mrring ojphclHe caner*t» plontt.
fanned since 1949} which bad sufficient
data to attempt to correlate the major
variables affecting stack losses. Aggre-
gate feed rates, screen size analyses,
scrubber water and gas rates, as well as
particuiate matter emissions to the at-
mosphere were obtained during each of
these tests. The data are tabulated in
Tables I and II. Ths aggregate dryers
were fired with PS 300 or heavier oik
during 19 of the tests and natural pa
fired during six. Seventeen of these
teats were performed on multiple cen-
trifugal type scrubbers with-spirai baffles
and tangential entrances. The other
eight tests were performed on simple
baffled tower scrubbers. A curvilinear
multiple correlation was required to
represent the data satisfactorily. Eze-
lael's* graphical procedure of successive
approximations was used to it the
curves (see Appendix for correlation
methods).
Hroct of Variables on Scrubber
Emissions
The effect of scrubber water-gas ratio
on stack emissions is shown in Fig. 4,
for multiple centrifugal type scrubbers
and baffled tower scrubbers, with the
aggregate fines rate (the minus 200-
mesh fraction) held constant at the
average. Low scrubber water-gas ra-
tios are more than proportionately
less effective than higher ratios. Pos-
sibly, the water rate waa insufficient for
good spray coverage for ratios in the
lower ranges.
The effect of aggregate fines rate on
stack emissions at constant water-gas
ratio is shown in Fig. 5 for multiple
centrifugal type scrubbers and baffled
tower scrubbers. Stack emissions in-
crease linearly with an increase in the
amount of minus 200-mesh material
processed.
w
M
^
on. HMO ova
J I
t I I
§
"I
0 ! * 4 » 19 12 I* 14 gJ J 4 ~j"
OU*NHTY OP NN€S (MINUS 200 M«K> IN 0»VW fttO —OS/Hi X 10"*
Hfl. 7. Enrisikm pradictign e«r»«» fof baffled Iaw«- icruober. iwvinQ aipheitie conertt* planrt.
32
Stack emissions were 5.1 Ib/hr higher
when the dryer waa oil fired, rather
than gas fired. The difference is be*
lieved to represent paniculate mat-
ter in or formed by the fuel oil, rather
than additional dust from the dryer and
mixer. It has been similarly observed
that burning heavy fuel oils in other
kinds of combustion equipment results
in higher emissions of particukte mat-
ter. For example, glass furnaces dis-
charge significantly more particukte
matter when fired by PS 300 or heavier
fuel oils than when natural gas or light
fuel oils are used.*
As expected, centrifugal type water
scrubbers were more effective than sim-
ple baffled tower water scrubbers. The
difference averaged 5.0 Ib/hr at con-
stant aggregate fines rate and constant
water-gas ratio.
The data, even when corrected for the
variables studied, tend to scatter rather
badly. However, the results do repre-
sent average trends of plants operating
in the Los Angeles area. Curves are
presented in Fig. 6 and 7 from which the
most likely stack emissions can be pre-
dicted for oil and gas fired plants with
either multiple centrifugal or baffled
tower scrubbers. These cunts present
emissions for various scrubber water-gas
ratios and aggregate fines rates.
During the course of conducting sev-
eral particle size analyses of scrubber in-
let and outlet dust, an unusual obser-
vation waa made. In all of these tests
as shown in Table II, the fractional col-
lection efficiency of the 444- micron
material was less than for the 10-20 and
the 20-44 micron fractions, which of
course is opposite to what would nor-
mally be expected. However, micro-
scopic examination of the samples indi-
cated that the particles in the scrubber
outlet were agglomerated. Apparently,
the fine particles agglomerate writhin the
scrubber, but part of the resulting ag-
glomerates escape to the atmosphere.
This potentially recoverable material
constitutes five to 10 percent of the
scrubber emissions. However, these
emissions are minor and even perfect col-
lection of this material would not reduce
total emissions over 3.5 Ib/hr.
Survey of Dust Emissions in Las
Angeles County
In order to evaluate the effect of the
control program on dust emissions from
the aaphaltic concrete industry, it was
necessary to acquire information con-
cerning the number of plants in oper-
ation, emissions of dust to the atmos-
phere, amount of aspludtic concrete
produced, and volume 01 air handled.
To obtain the data on production,
number of plants, types of controls and
operating schedules, a questionnaire waa
devised and sent to each company oper-
ating an jisphaitic concrete plant". The
data obtained from this survey indicated
that in IS5T there were 19 companies
Journal or tt»» Air Pollution Aiwa'ofion
-------
(tj>rraCinn 4S plants in Los Angeles
County. These plants produced a total
of 14.000 tons per day. The data also
indicated tliat asphaltic concrete was
produced over a 13-hr day with a maxi-
mum hourly output of 1200 tons.
To augment the data obtained from
this survey aod to make comparisons
ivith data'obtauied from previous sur-
veys, the analytical test data in the
District's files on asphaltio concrete
plants were studied. From these
studies, average yearly dust emissions
to the atmosphere were determined.
During the early stages of the develop-
ment of the control program, many
stack tests disclosed emissions of dust
in excess of the weight per hour allowed.
As the design of control equipment im-
proved, violations became less frequent.
During recent years, excessive emissions
conld be traced to either poor experi-
mental scrubber designs, or more fre-
quently to poor maintenance. It was
observed that even well-designed scrub*
bers would emit excessive dust if a
sound maintenance program was not
being enforced.
Figure 8 illustrates the effect of the
increasing efficiency of the control equip*
meat from 1948 to 1958. Prior to the
development of the control program,
little or no control devices were installed
and an average of five pounds of dust
were emitted per ton of asphaltic con-
crete produced. As the control pro-
gram progressed and the efficiency of
control equipment was increased, dust
emissions were reduced until today only
0.15 pound is emitted per ton of asphal-
tic concrete produced. The major re-
duction of dust was accomplished be-
tween 1948 and -1950. During this
period, an average reduction of 150
Ib/hr per•- plant was achieved. -From
1950 to the present time, an average
reduction of 12 lb/hr per plant has been
accomplished due to improvements in
controls and better maintenance pro-
pains. '
The increased efficiency of the control
equipment was accomplished even
though the average volume of gasea
handled per plant has increased from
13,000 standard cubic feet per minute
in 1951 to 21,000 standard cubic feet
per minute in 1958. Figure 9 illustrates
this increase in volume. A reduction in
volume between 1048 and 1951 is be-
lieved to be partially due to conser-
vation of ps volume to allow smaller
control devices to be installed. Subse-
quent to 1951, better control of dust
emissions from sources other than the
dryer required an increase in gas volume.
.Moreover, plants have increased in size
in recent years.
The data.obtained from surveys con-
ducted periodically on the asphaltic con-
crete industry show that production has
increased since 194S from an average of
10,000 tons per day to more than 14.000
tons per day in 1957 (Fig. 10), an in-
crease of 40 percent. During the same
period, dust emissions decreased from
25 tons per day to I ton per day, a de-
crease of 96 per cent overall.
Conclusion*
In conclusion, it. is emphasized that
the variables studied only represent
average trends of asphaltic concrete
plants in Los Angeles County. With
this point in mind, it can be concluded
that;
1. Multiple centrifugal scrubbers
have proved to be more efficient than
baffled towers.
2. Scrubber water-gas ratio is equally
important in both types of scrubbers.
The best utilization of water is achieved
up to a ratio of six gallons per 1,000
standard cubic feet of gas. Above this
ratio, efficiency still increases within the
bounds studied, but at a lesser rate.
3. Scrubber stack emissions increase
linearly with an increase in the amount
of minus 200-mesh material charged to
the dryer.
4. The hummg of PS 300 or heavier
fuel oils rather than natural gas results
in higher stack emissions. Under con-
stant conditions, an increase of approxi-
mately five pounds per hour was ob-
served. Although the available data
are not conclusive, it appears that dust
emissions are significantly decreased
when PS 200 oil is substituted for PS
300 oiL
Through the use of scrubbers, dust
emissions from asphaltic concrete plants
have been reduced from a total of 25
tons per day to 1 ton per day. If this
is related to the increase in production
over the 10-year period then the control
program is responsible for a net removal
-of 34 tons per day of dust from the Los
Angeles County atmosphere.
REFERENCES
1. Rule 54- Rules and Regulations of the
Los Ansjelea County Air Pollution Con-
trol District. In essence, this rale
limits tha amount of dust and fumes
discharged to the atmosphere in any
one hour from any source baaed upon
the process weight. For example, u*
100 tons per hour of sand and aggregate
are charged to the dryer of tut aaptulltic
concrete plant, the process weight la
then 200,000 lb/hr. The rule states
that for process weights of 60,000 lb/Kr
or more, the minimum weight of dust
and fumes discharged to the atmosphere
shall not exceed 40 lb/hr.
2. 3. J. Friedman and W. R. .Marshall,
Jr., "Studies in Rotary Drying," CAem.
Eng. Prog., 45:3, p. 482 (August, 1049).
3. Los Angeles Countv Air Pollution Con-
trol District, Teat fteport Series C-428,
unpublished reports.
4. R. M. Ifljels and G. 3. Richards, Los
Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District, unpublished report.
5. M. Ezekiel, Methods of Correlation
Analyiai, 2nd Edition, p. ±M. John
Wiley and Sons. New York (1041).
tt. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Con-
trol District, Teat Report 8«rie» C-372,
unpublished report.
8. Redwafa" of dvxt «mi«kxu from «»
phattfe concrete plant! In lot Angela County
dudng Hi* period 1948 to 1953.
I
I «
8 m
s
Fig. 9. Aipholtie concrete plant average
Kruab,w *{Ry*n« •xoluai* in lot Anfleiet Cosirty
during Hie period 1948 to 1938.
i*s» 1,1*
Fig. 10. Avoreq* daily production and fetal
4
-------
i" No.
C-W
6 ^
O
Z.O
1,0
2.0
0.1
/7Z.
-------
South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT L
HEADQUARTERS,
ANAHEIM OFFICE,
CARSON OFFICE.
COUTON OFFICE,
»130 C, FUAIR OR., *I- MONTK. CA »I731
Kid E. 9A 1.1. HO., ANAHEIM. CA taiOS . (714) 1*1-7200
»SO OOVUIN ft... SFACE €, CAR3ON, CA *074« . (SUl 51.--
Z2»50 COOUCV OM.. COUTON, CA 11324 . I7I4| tlflttO
%3&$g^%-'*!& W v -~- V--* -,: *-
t£*-?*&z>&&~'ri. ri>' '
-------
HR
JM COHISOL DISTRICT - COOHTT Off "6
..^I EEDRG STSESI - IDS AHCSISS £,, CAIZFOHitli
TEST GOUDUCTED
GRIFF3SH ' COHPAHI
l£01 1IJMSDA SflSET
, CIAXTFOBNIL
1EBD2E
CiT TEE
1METSES OF THE DISGHABGS
FROM A MUSE SCEQaBSa SEH7IB5
JLH02 ASIHJCEE ELAaT DHEBIG
on.
H. I. McMfflON
W. C. EOGESS
BI
HE FOLUJTICK EiGBEEE
AIR K3LEOHOH EIGINSSR
BESEA1CH DIfTSION 1SB3ET HO. G-393
A-9
-------
From
Elevates?
Outlet
a - Baffin
yy&ya
3 - Spray
Nozalea
Wat
Station
t
DUST QOHI&OL B2UZFHBIIT
nor AaHiAiff1 Mfoimia HAIW
ORXEVHI! GOMPAlff
Vfcter
fo
I
£
a
a
;i.»
a
a
o
q
v-
!*-*
-------
AIB POLLUTIof"CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY ( LOS ANGELES
SUMMARY SHEET
Page
.of.
of
Location of
Griff ith
.Test
1601
St.a wnm',Tigton, Cal±g
23, 195?
NO
voa ¥ater scrubber
Collection Equipment Yea T.
Specific Equipment Tasted. ¥ater scrobbiag tcwer serving hot asphalt.plant
Length of Process Cj>gi» T\mm Cycle R«*g>"
Total Process- Weight ; P.W./hr. I81t>560
Sample- Statton • • . " Inlet ;
Time of Test Begin ; 1;15 P> H. 31:CO A, ff.
End
Elapsed Ttm» (Test)
Gas Volume SCFM {Standard Conditions)
Material Coi lee-ted
Srains/SCF at 1251 C02-
Loss per hour In pounds.
Allowable- Loss Lbs. per hour
Percent Moisture In Gases
Orsat Analysis iDry Basis)
Percent: C02
Q2
CO
N2(8y dlff.
Coribtistibles — percent
1:31 P. H.
1:31 P. M.
16
53 si
20900
1950Q
Particolate Matter
23.8
Ii260
26,9
as. I s 1
3.2
2.6
15.9 17.0
1 0.0
80.9
2.6
- percent
O.C
80 JL
7.1
99 Ji
Approved By.
Cand. fly
Data Co«p.
-------
HE FOfflT" M COIHROI DIST2ICT - CCTUTt OlT JS I11GSE2S
Test Mo. C-393 Page 5
Jxily 23, 1957
Particle Size Analyses of Samples
Sediaseataticn Method)
0-lOp*
Outlet
Wt. gns.
0.3286
1*7977
0.21*16
0.1593
2.5272
Ws. %
13.0
71.1
9-6
6.3
100.0
Wt » gins »
0.3535
- •
-
0.0029
c.3561t
¥t. a^
99.3
-
-
0.7
100.0
(THESE DATA USED IN TABLE 3-4)
A-12
-------
SIEVE ANALYSES OP AGGREGATE
Percent of Sample by Weight
SIEVE
SIZE
+ 10
Mesh
- 10
+100
Hash
-100
+200
Me ah
-200
l-bsh
TOTAL
CONVENOR
No. 1
12sl5 PH
80 Ji
16.H
1.6
1.6
100.0
No. 2
12$3lj PM
60.3
33.3
3.5
2.9
100.0
Ho»J
IslS PM
83.6
12.9
1,6
1.9
100.0
Mof l^
2s05 PM
72 .a
22.5
2,lj
2.3
100.0
HOT BINS
No. 1
12s30 PM
22.7
66.2
6.0
5.1
100.0
No, 1
IsOO PM
10.9
70.0
8,0
11.1
100.0
No, 2
12i30 PM
95.5
U.1
0.1
0.3
100.0
No. 2
ItOO PM
93,7
5.8
0.2
0.3
300.0
*?°t ?
12 1 30 PM
98 .I|
1.0
0.2
o.h
100.0
No« ?
s
liOO PM
98.0
1.2
0.1
0.7
100.0
Ho. k
12i30 PM
99.7
0,1
0,0
0.2
100,0
No, 1^
liOO PM
99.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
100.0
o
B
o
i
IE.
fa
M
ui
-------
A!8 POWhiON CONTROL DISTRICT - LOS ANCEIES COUNTY
Page 7
Statement of Proea*» Weight
GOPr .My 23', 1957
Firm w«—> Griffith Comacy _
-
2t08 PH
^A ---- 1601 H.
Tina of' complete-operating cycle- in m-t™rt:»a— ._ . _l] 60 3BJn»_
(see 2 J. Rules & Regulations)
Raw material charged during
tills- time - • Material It. is. lbs.
id MatMrtal Wt-ia
W1-. 1-n Thm.
do Material _ It. in Ibs,
Solid fuel charged in pounds Material •**- in Ibs.
Total pounds
F.W.* Tqtal potinda y 6Qa t SO 9 Iba.
Total minutes
-P.W. for- lat-.prftoeding cycle UTm3^
P.W. for 2nd preceding cycle g
P.W. for 3rd preceding cycle *:
J. ^
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE AXB POlfflTlCIN CONTSQL DISIHICT
HEG01AT10H I. GENERAL SSOVISIONS RJILS 2. DEF]2HTIONS
j. Procewi weight per hour. "Process weight" is the total weight
of all materials, including aolid fuels, introduced into any apec-
ifio process, which process may cause any discharge into the atmos-
phere. The "process weight per hour* will be derived by diriding
the total process weight by the number of hours in one complete
operation from the beginning of any given process to the completion
thereof, excluding any time during which the equipment" is idle.
A-14
74J4070S3
-------
^.
AIH POLLUTION^. JNTBQL DISTHICT - COUNTY ( LOS ANGELES
(L
MO.
23, 1351
SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS
AME OF f i R M Griffith GoEpany
ESC
1.
2.
3.
S.
6.
7.
10.
II.
12,
3.
•filPTiON OF FO,J1PMFNT TF^TFH ^ater scrobbing tower serving the
*i3n v* a
Phase of Process Cycle Covered by Test,- ..— ..
Sampling Station 1 fir at i on
Av». Gas Vel. at Sampling Station (Ft/Sec),
FUi* Gas Vn'M"ie (SCFM) ....
Sampling RateT at Mater (CFM)
E lapsed Time- of Test (Minutes)
Mfttsr Vacuum - Average ("Hg) .__ __
Meter T*?™p»r»tyre - Average (OF)
Volume of Gas Sampled, Meter Conditions (CF)
Water Vapor Condensate (ce), ,r-
Water Vapor Volume, Meter Conditions (CF)
Total Sampled Voiumfl, Meter Conditions (CF)
flnrrerted Sample Volume - (S(!P).,
Material Collerterf
Weight (3m. ) a. Wfaataaa thi-ribls
|j Water residtte
c. .,
Total Weight (gm. )
Concentration grains/SCF S 12$ C(>2
Calculated Loss (Lbs. per hour) „
Inlst
20900
8 inn
0.96
US
7.6
88
15 -Wt
30
2.0
17 Ji
12.3
Partictilate
0.059
IS .8879
1S.5U7
23^
Ii260
bot asphalt
Otifclst
19500
15 If.ldi
0.50
53
2.2
79
26J4S
35
1*8
28.3
25.3
Matter
0.006
0.2576
0»261i
0.161
26.9
COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY
(If Collector Installed)
16.
17.
18.
15,
Total material to collector (Ibs. per hour).
Total loss to atmosphere (Lbs. per hour)
Tota! material collected (Lbs. per hour)
Percent efficiency_ ,
U260
If2?.!.
29_Ji.
A-15
TEST CONO. BY HEc - RT -X-15.
-------
AH "f VOIIOK CONTROL DISTRICT - COOR-lf' TF IDS AHSSIES
SbufS SAX FSDEO SSaEEf - LOS MGEDaa 13, CUZFQRMIA
TSST
CQHDUC7SD IT
GC2-3Pilir HOT jKjpHATfl1 PATUB BS3JCH HAHf
1380 BA3Z iSSCi EIGBW2J
cn
7, 1558
DOST ICSS,. F1KTICIE SIZE DISfRISOEOS
AHD GCEI2CTICM EFFTDUSCT GF
- .cc«samKc--3icssiffi!s OF
EOS ISPESIff PATHS 1SICH
BT
R* M» EQBIEf ISTEBlEDIJeffiE AXE FCEUJTIGN SIGUEES
H» tC» I3IKMRB AIR POECDTIQI i
HSPCRT MO.
ISSUED a
A-16
-------
(
,
5EE2IC BLICSiH C?
AiS PlTSsG BSHH Hil-S
Wash Hs±ss» ta
Statics f fx>-/
-•* j( y/"--\,--i*^>A>* »^»^^.Vi^^t'>^/«^-wv»7\;-"^r*'
" *~
/
f}
,, — ™_ —•»••
/ ! ^ j ,. » t -*•-"" *~ Sta;
x
•jj.-*
^^«»^>
St-aca
:Cc? So,,
lasd 2
H js. H=s
A-17
-------
A1RV. .illfflON CONT7JOL DISTRICT - LOS A;( ,LES COUNTY
Statement of Proeoss Weight Page 7
(CQEI) Date Febrmsy 7, 1958
Firm Mama Griffith. Co, Time Cycle
Started
Address' • 1380 tew %f.
Time of complete operating cycle la
(see 2 j. Rules & Regulations}
Raw material charged during
this time Material __i_MS _ Wt. in Ibs,
do Material
do' ' Material __2_££ Wt.in Ibs. __JlIi£.
do Material ^ It, in Ibs.
Solid fuel charged in pounds Material _ _ Wt.ia Ibs.
280
Total pounds . ggCO Ibs.
T^tal jptmdajtJ^Qa _ j_^Q, a Iba./hr. 182 TEH
Total minutes
P.W. "for 1st' preceding~cycle
P.W- for 2nd. preceding cycle
?.W. for 3rd preceding cycle
Plant Foresaa.
ROTES AND HEC30LAHONS OF
THE AIS POUimON CONTSOL DISTRICT
HEGOLAHOT I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 2. DEFINITIONS
j. Process weight per hour, "Process weight" is the total weight
of all materials, including solid fuels, introduced into any spec-
ific process, which process may cause any discharge into the atmos-
phere. The "process weight per hour" will be derived by dividing
the total process weight by the number of hours in one complete
operation from the beginning of any given process to the completion
thereof, excluding any time during which the equipment is idle,
A-18
76 S 407 C 3-52
-------
AIR POLl£ ION CONTROL DISTHICT - Caf T OF LOS ANGELES
SUMMARY SHEET
"IIM of Ft rm GriUTfitli CoEtosrjT"
i^atr^r, ^ QHnt l?flO B. Arrow Higtafay, Irmadale, Calif.
T-=* N« C-ii26
n=* a Febrttarr 7» 195-3
fniiaf +!,?,, equipment Ye« I N« Typ* Cyclone and water scrabber
5p^»-ifj*. pq,, | pmo «* Tasted Oyclsne and water s crabber
Total Process Weight , ., J P.W. /hr. ,
Cyclone ¥eafc
T!m» of Test Beqfn . . 12sC5 1:33_
End 2sO? 2:07
^^SSJIHQ^^^LjJCP*
s£ji2uiipujEi!sff ^'Tjfiisi fflrf y^ _ ot? *s/i
Sa« Vnlym, 5CPU. f^t^n^afH C^n«1 f t f 1M > IJ^OOO, 2800
Material Col 1 acted ,. Dost
^M M J3^ O
'rntfn^/SCF 3i.fc yj-.o
G«»|i1.f/5r,P ^* 12* CO,,.,.. .,.
Losfl p^r hou1" i« pflMnd*? 6,700 2000
Percent Moisture In Gases 17 »6 —
Orsat Analysts (Dry Basis) „ . ..'
Q2 ..,
r-n
N2< By d I f f . )
Stack Gas feaperatirra, °F (Jar.) 200 21$
Stack Gas Telocity, ft/sec. (Av») ii9»7 70.2
Collection Efficiency: Cyclone - 91%
Sibber- 99% Tfs< c<
A-19
Aoorot1*^ Pv - - - - - -- , Dttl? Camp, and Ch*t
36IuQOO
Scarabbeir Stack
Inlet Cutlet
12:05 12:C5
1:20 1:20
60 60
28,000 22,000
10.9 0.135
2*620-. 25.5
bo
16.6 10.5
1U7 119
143.2 lli.3
,«^_ fly
•had fiy ERG - EL
-------
UR POpHTZCH CORBQL DISTRICT - COOMIT/T? LOS JMGSLBS
Teat Ho. C-U26
Page 9
Pebrnary 7» 1953
Particle Size Distribution,
Weight %
£es3 ttaii
10 rcmgh
(1651 micrana)
u£t ^BiBtSuOLf
I ^W** IHfl Jf*Tp'WM:W. I
100 mesh
• I it 7 f||^ /»«j^|«|«p|«^| i
200 mesh,
SDnrtcmiti
. -t,.--.,
30. nicreas
20 microns
13 nicrcns
5"^
1^ micrtffls
,3 Illiilt: OnZ"^'^'"^ ?
2 ICiCffOHS
1 micron
SAHPIS STATTOW-
Drier Feed
29.2
9.4
2.8
Bin HP. 1 '
92.7
31.8
8.4
Bia Ho. 2
6.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
Cyclone
Inlet
200.0
98.0
83.0
57.8
56.6
53.5
itf-7
1(0.8
32.1
27.8
21.1
10 .1
7.2
U.3
1.5
0
Cyclone
Outlet
200.0
98.5
81*0
54.0
51.1
liU-6
33.8
25.4
17-8
14.3
10.3
5.4
U.4
3.0
1.3
0
Teat
Line
200.0
98.9
95.7
89.2
88.0
85.8
81.6
TluO
60.7
52.7
39.7
19*3
14.3
8.5
3.0
0
(THESE DATA USED IN TABLE 3-5)
A-20
ED3 - EL
-------
,
@
«w*TfT»*
SHA .\Utiii2.
301
20,.
101
-»«J
22..G
2*9 2a9
6.T,
8.7
Sysisze
30{
fe
«3j
I
20}
«1
10.5
J3?i
30-
204
5-0
A-21
-------
AIR POLLlf ON CONTROL DISTRICT - COU^ -' OF LOS ANGELES
TEST »» - JMC£___.OF _ PA-
February 7. 19
SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS
NAME
DESC
1.
2.
3.
1.
6.
7.
,*•»
**
—•«/
10.
11.
12.
1.5.
16.
17.
18.
19.
r np PIBM , Griff Itli Connanr _
•flfPTiQN op pQy | PMFNT TF.STEO- J2Pffi,,,ll!,t^
aaohaltle concrate batch, plant
CoH fired) tdlth 12* dia, cyclone and triple-tiibe centrifugal wet scicbber.
Phase of Process Cycle Covered by Test-
-------
APPENDIX B
REFERENCE 3
B-l
-------
J»lf,
Used by permission of Staub-Reinhalt, Luft.
(IDC S2S.5U.h» tiyg^fff^tiaifl knowledge in so gxzfisiive
and complex a sphere. .Maay individual experiences ire
contradictory and tome concluiioaa do not apply to
tioas elsewhere. Finally, (iie possibilities and limits o! dust
removal are nee assessed correctly, even today.
1,300. A representative cross section through all these plants
according to statistical principles was sot possible for various
reasons. Consequently, die glafits to be investigated wete
selected by locality, raw material, size and differing levels of
equipment, to that the measurements wen sure to provide an
extensive view of practical working conditions. Maximum
drum load was agreed upon witjj {be operators for the purpose
of this investigation, and test days wets adapted to include
whatever were regarded as the most Interesting mixtures.
Investigating the waste gases of drying drams
In 1S63, the two Trade Associations of operators of such
equipment (the "Sundetfachabteilung Scrassenaau" In the
"Hiiiptverbaad der deutschen Sauindustrle,* and the "Sundes-
jrbeitsgemeinicSaft der Vereintguag der Tew- and Asphalt-
makadam herstetlenden Fumea'1 initiated research to resolve
these basic problems. The project was offered to the "Haupt-
abteiluag ivirme- nod Ktaftwicnchai't des Ttl v SJieinlind,'
This large-icale protect was intended to ex am inc. unprejudiced
by, and independent of, all hitherto known data, ihe expected
dust content in the drum vaste gases, their dependence on
starting material and the manufactured mixture, the specific •
properties of these dim? and, finally', dust removal, as prac-
ticed id Tar. - The problem of dram utilization, the resulting
waste-gas quantities and conditions, etc., were included.
The measurements were carried out in 1964 according to a
standardized program. In 1963, the results were used to pre-
pare the draft for VDI Directive 2233 -Emission limits, pre-
paration and mixing plants for bituminous road building ma-
terials." The final version will appear this year.
The number of such preparation plants operated in West
Germany by these associations is estimated at some 1.700 to
Test results
Tie results of these first systematicaUy planned and •
Implemented series investigation, a total of 35 individual
studies it 10 plants, are represented.in Tables 1 to 3, They
-provide a clear view of the dusts leaving the drums with the-
waste gases, being subsequently almost completely retained
in the dust collectors of the first and second itage, a small
residue being flaiily emitted into the free air.
These series investigations having been completed, it was
of Interest to compare their results with data obtained tram
.numerous other studies in similar plants. They ire values
obtained at many places in emission measurements performed
at the behest of the authorities. Table 4 shows the results of
83 such studies in 27 plants. These measurements were made
available to the authoc by various institutes.. The many
blank fields in this table (Table 4) which was cam piled
according to the same scheme as Table 3. emphasize the
incompleteness c;' our knowledge, a situation which is quite
inevitable when evaluation is based on conventional emission
data which, though numerous, carry too little information.
The series investigation has the further advantage of noting the
occasionally high dust content in the raw gas.
9
B-2
-------
TA8L£t. Drum sizes of the plants and existing lust collectors
Cornec.
Mo.
1-3
S
1
8
10
11
14
13
14
ia
18
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
23..
30"
31
32
33—33
riant
No.
and test
No.
A1-A3
32
3
1
Cl
2
01
4
2
3
13
1
2
Fl
3
2
4
G2
I
HI
2
3
4
11
2
3
4
K4
K1-K3
Mixture tnaao/actund
Fine asph. concr, 0/3
Fine asph, coser. 0/3
* * * *
Base 0/30
Fine asph. coocr. 0/8
Fine Asph, concr. 0/3
• « • -
Base 0/33
* *
Binder 0/12
Sase 0/23
* »
Fine asph. concr. 0/8
Base 0/33
* *
Fine asph. concr. 0/8
Binder 0/12
Fine asph. concr, 0/8
Base 0/2S
•• * * m
Fine asph. concr. 0/8
Siader 0/18
* *
Fine atph. concr. 0/S
Bass 0/33
Drum dimensions
Dlam.
(at)
1.S
1.8
2.0
1.23
2.0 .
w
2,0
1.8
«
2.1
Length
(m» -
S
%
8
8
8
IS
13
9
f
6.1
Raced
(*/ hr>
30/40
go/so
80/80
80/80
80/80
73/100
90/120
37,3/30
43/60
103/130
Dust collector
1st stage
4 cyclones. 7000
21 cyclones, 41 0«
*12 cyclones. 600 «
8 cyclones. 1,320 «
2 cyclones, 1420 *
Surface cooler
8 cyclones, l.QQOd
4 cyclones, 1. 190 «
18 cyclones
20 cyclones
8 cyclones; 990 $
2nd stage
Wet scrubber
None
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
w« scrubber
Dust generation in die drams
Wbett enumerating the factors which if feet 4uu contest in
tie wute gases of the drum, the sequence U quite immaterial.
for all practical purposes, these factors act simultaneously and
U Is not immediately clear which are the more important
ones, it is, however, certain cnat content increase* wieh the
quantity of finely granulated raw material entering the drum.
TMs quantity Is determined by its percentage in the starting
material and In the mixture turned out, as well as by the ex-
tent of production. Furthermore, the type of rocks which
crack vSea heated, ire easily ground down by the motion of
Che drum tad tend to farm a great deal of dust. Finally, the
excess air wits which drums are operated plays a role. The
quantity of waste gas is not only dependent on the material
load of the drum, but also cm die CDj content the equipment
tus bees id ins ted to.
There is na uniformity is the terminology concerning rocks
and their granulations, raw material and the finished product.
The operators refer to the finished product as hates, binder.
and fine concrete, respectively, ta the 'Technical Specifica-
tions and Directives for the Construction of Sicuminous Road
Covers," the so-called TV bit 3/64' Issued by the federal
Miaistiy ol Transport. Road Building Division, the following
ire distinguished:
10
B-3
-------
Uft
m.1 SvHf, tMf
TABLES. The granulation components of rocks in the mixtaca manufactured during (he test
(balance up co 1001* U made up by filler tad binder)
'Uni
A
•
C
0
£
Typaaf racdt
A1.M
Meate eUeptogf, VMM
tBffHKIlliy*
SUMMWi
A 1.3
Slut fura»c« iUg chtppurgi. wasted
« * « * •
ttiMMBd.
91,$
SUM tea. il*g chlppiap. aswiibwl
* * * scvK8flift£ii
(thiivmoil
U,
Gnvtt
C1.J
Batatt. awaited
* •
Mama*. MdHtd
01.4
fault cfiippwgi, «ul»4
" Krttaings * U*aimnl
nii«
0X4
BauU chippingi
... * «
# «
* icrtenu ji * 12% oa. >aa4
«J
iualc chippiajj. iun a9*
2/9 » 28*
0.09/3 - 38*
0/0.09 * t*
8«« 0/33
12/33" 43*
0.09/1 * Ji*
8Un!*t 0/12
1/12 • 20*
3/6 « 17*
J/8 • ig*
0.09/2 • 27*
* - 10*
UwO/U
• 12/29 - 31*
8/13 • iy%
J/i - Jt*
9/2 »13*
a/a
Plaai
f
H
-t
K
Typ« o/ rod
Fi.8
Umcuon* thippiogi
* *
ri,*
Kline gr»v«i
Gl
Unotoiw cMppiafi. vul»ti
* • «
* lct««aiiigi,i»nwi»h«J
°i
DUb«M etU^ioji, wu&Ml
UmcKOM * *
* (cmoiagi. unvuiied
m.a
Siult ettlpshnjj. wute4 '
UIBOUM KnttUnp. v«ilM4
Nctwal land
H 3.4
Li23€f£OQtt dlippiQSS
* *
Odemtrnd
U.S
fault cWppio^i. wutwd
Umcscnom iciMaiagi. wu&«d
£3.*
Limcitona cMppingj, wuheU
» * »
RUM land
K 4
Umtaaas chippin^i
* *
Uraenaew lemniogi
K 1.2,3.
LUncauuia ttreenln^i
C'lauticum component
Fln« uptutt coocr. 0/8
5/8 * 30* •
«/S%30*
0/3 * 39*
8«MO/33
5/i»l»
FlM UpiUlt COBQ. 0/8
3 /a * 43*
l/S« -
9/3*48*
SlodCfO/U '
a/12 * is*
3/8 « 11*
2/3 « U*
0/3 .40*
J/8 iTT*
J/8 «2i*
0/2 » «Kb
0/t»J3*
SaMO/23
ia/25«30*
S/I2 % 20*
3/8 *20*
0/3 130*
nac uphali concr. 0/8
$/a > zs*
2/5 *ZO*
0/2 • 24*
Binder Q/ 18
12/18 *30*
«/12 * 20*
Z/S*1S*
0/3 >30*
ftam uptuU coocf. 0/8
a/8 « is*
2/3 *23* •
0/7 »H3*
S4MO/3&
19/^ft * -*-^g-
1/12 • as*
3/8 * 8%
fl.03/2 • 18*
11
B-4
-------
TABLES. Reiuln of ictlei la veulg«i lont 35 uudlei at 10 pliou with iiaadardlzed meaiuriag program, identical
Innrumcnu anil pciionncl. Plant and raw material according to Tablet 1 and 8.
w
M
o
J5
u
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
I
14
II
11
11
14
II
II
It
II
II
10
11
11
11
14
11
11
»
M
10
11
11
14
N
0
36
§
ta
9
0
1
a!
At
„ j
i
i
•i
i
1,
„ t\
I
Dl
i
}
I
11
1
1
ri
i
1
HI
1
HI
4
Jl
i
1
4
,t
1
1
fr-
1
U
£
I
11
w
10
M
14
'f
W
W
M
u
to
to
M
M
10
la
10
TO
•o
ft-
11
11
41
41
40
10
40
1%
111
114
111
Upui. of the dull collector
O >-<
•u
iii
144
111
Hi
J»t
,.111
Ml
iii
-Jl.*
11*1
i >6M
1011
' 111
If 1.
Ill
I'1
III
_Jf 11,
till
till
—It-It—
ilif
J01
}H
in
»»•!
Dull c
I/m"
14.1
14.0
164
111
HI -
411
\\\
no
111- -
—111—
ttl
tsi
Ml
lit
' Hi
lit
111
111
lit
101
111
144
Jii~_
PI
III
114
111
111
III
onient
gAn'STP
lit
14.1
21.1
11.1
lilt
111!
--HI
Pi
f llf
in „
»i
Ml
111
114
III
II (L
411
ma
|6|-1
114
lit
iii
in
lit
Ml
111
III
, 111,1
111!
1(0.1
1161
Duit collector In itige (dry)
dowaiirei m of the collector
b
11
ill
114
ill
Mi
in
Hi
_4li_
IM
'1
11
—'lOO
IM
ua
"4
114 '
Iii .
m ,,
ii
i?
11
w
M
M
|l
II
1J1__
111
111
»•
d
112
ill
116 •
Hi
141
144
44]
ill
!H
ill
• 411
Cooler!
luit- lad
>UC. lit
in
Hfl.
ill
ill
. m
11.1
_UJ_
in
114
11 (
111
114
fit
41.1
411
411
Duit c
8/IH*
eiti
Olll
1.011
i.it
i >i
ODI
111
3.11
111
t| 1
4M
1.11
410
410
14.4
-
an
241
10. 1
il
in
111
IM
Oil
SJi_
ill •
l.il
TCP
ill
414
441
onient
g^i^STI
IM4
1114
1411
Mil
2.11
111
1.411
400
411
411
111
1.11
161
MO
101
411
111
114
111
lit
lit
441
111
1 U
1011
IM
1M
411
l.tl
111
Hi
Efficiency «, %
MS
110
114
US
111
11.4
IU
11,1
111
111
DO
»•
111
U.I
Ml
II.I
Ml
111
M4
•1.4
111
114
M4
11.1
Ml
111
Ml
Ml
. 144
Ml
Collector 2nd itaga (wet)
dowmu.of the collector
Waste-gat quan-
tity, l&m*fls
in
in
HI
ut
in
DuttC
g/BI1
tIM
lilt
6111
Olll
Olll
ooteni
«.iii
t!4l
• IM
1.041
Efficiency , , % '
41.*
411
111
414
IIS
noaeBtiilfig
in
IM
414
411
41.1
410
411 '
411
411
ill
in
in
111
114
111
101
100
Ml
111
ll.t
ill
110
141
41.1
111
41.1
11.1
Olll
a in
Olll
tut
A 101
Olll
6 Ml
tan
6611
am
6114
am
Olll
Oil]
114
OHO
0114
0411
0111
0114
01 JO
am
ana
6011
0011
a DM
atM
am
•.in
6161
Olll
6011
Oil!
0.1 M
0*44
• 101
t.ll
I.M
•114
ftlll
OMI
0110
0114
• HI
OMI
ftlll
OOJJ
owo
ftIM
0611
111
112
Ml
Ml
HI
til
Ml
III
111
Ml
440
111
114
III
M.I
Ml
MO
•1.1
III
110
111
IM
114
Ml
Ml
116
j
1
K
•1.1
in
Ml
til
111
•1*
114
111
Ml
Ml
114
114
lit
lie
Ml
Ml
Ml
114
Ml
111
Ml
111
•11
11.1
110
lit
Ml
III
M.I
Ml
Ml
Ml
Upmeam of the iticl
i
s,
1
101
101
101
161
161
141
III
111
II
M
4t
11
41
41
11
II
II
11
It
11
U
It
M
M
M
41
11
14
11
41
41
fl
11
II
fc*
§
ff
-
11
II
11
10
11
10
1.0
10
I.I
M
01
I.I
11
21
1.1
11
41
41
4.4
11
11
11
1*
11
11
1.1
14
II
11
1.)
101
101
Waite-gM quan-
tity. 10* re* STJVte
14
11
ii
ii
14
11-1
111
212
111
II.I
HI
111
116
110
311
111
141
111
111
111
11.1
lit
141
III
111
III
HI
III
261
•144
211
111
»4
a
f
(These Data Used in Tables 3-6 and 3-7)
-------
y, Ulf
1. asphalt binder
2. coarse upoaltie concrete
3. flue atfhaltie concrete, low chipping* content (20—35*
chipping!) '
4. fine asphaltie concrete, high chipping! content (35 —«S*
cMppiags)
5. sand asphalt.
The following raw materials am processed!
S and; i. s,, mineral substances which pan die 2 mm-
mesh screes and an retained by the 0,09 nun
screest*
Chippings: Le.. crushed rock, sizes 2— 29mm.
Fillet: Le.. mineral substances which pan die 0.09 mm
mesh screen*
IB these investigations the fine concrete had a particle
smeaire of 0/8 mm, the binder 0/12 — 0/13 mm, anil the
bates 0/2S—0/3Smm. Toes* moat will be retained below.
Effect of me processed rock and la granulation
The fine particle component of (tie rock mixture to be dried.
as id jutted far the prescribed particle structure of a gives mix-
ture, can be taken from die data of Table 2. If these values
are correlated with toe dim-content figures la Table 3, U Is
jeen that tee resulting Table 3 shows only a minor increase af
dust content with rising fine panicle component. This becomes
understandable, when noting that the raw material as
mentioned Ln Table S ii washed.
The range of fine particles with a lower limit at zero cannot
be assessed with certainty, since neither the proportion of the
near-ten particles, nor their actual proximity to tero are
known. However, if we separate the so-called filler, i. e..
the proportion between zero and 0.09 mm from the fiae range
0 — 2 ram (achieved by washing the land), the granulation of
the residue can once again be clearly defined. Measurements
show that this granulation doesjiot apparently have a greater
thare in dost formation than other coarser paniculate*. It ' ' ~
makes no difference whether the material-mixture rua through
the dram is for the base, the binder, or the fine asphaitie
concrete; dait content remains approximately equal if only
washed material is used.
• As can be seen from further evaluations, die assumed in-
fluence of rock type and of the granulations processed are of
secondary importance, compared to the question as to whether
the raw material Is free of the smallest particles of the filler
size, through having beea fed either after washing, or else with-
out addition of filler, whether the latter procedure cormltutes a
genuine alternative to washing remains to be proved. Toe
measured values for du« content ia drum waste gases, which
in Table 3 itiil appear as a eon/using jumble, assume a clearly
discernible order when separated according to whether washed
or unwashed raw material wax used (Table i). The first
column corresponds to the data from Table S. in the third
column, which represents unwashed material, a remarkable
difference appears. The dust contents are all much higher and
increase in ascending order, i.e., from "base* via "binder"
to 'fine concrete," Compared to these values, the dust con-
tent for washed material is almost insignificant. High dust-
content values are therefore apparently associated with ihe we
of unwashed raw material. A horizontal comparison of values
ia Table 8, with two measured values for half-washed material
la the fine-concrete column U very interesting. The trend
toward dust Increase with rising fines is clearly recognizable.
if the high dust content of unwashed raw material is due to
the finest, pulverulent particles, an identical or at least
similar situation should logically occur, whea a certain quan-
tity of filler is added to washed raw material. This was in-
vestigated In the test series 01 and 04. The raw material of
the high chippings content fine concrete had die following
composition:
1. basalt chipping*, washed
2. basalt chippings. washed
3. basalt chippings * IS* natural
sand, unwished
natural sand, unwashed
filler
' In test Dl. the last two materials, jointly constituting 2S*.
were only added to the mixture downstream of the drum, in
test 04 they were present In the mixture from the beginning.
If, for die sake of simplicity, we term them finest components,
the following can be stated; dust content of drum waste gases
when manufacturing fine concrete with partially washed raw
material was
. without finest component 33.4g/nrlSTP,
with finest component US .3 g/m5 STP.
la fact, this relation attains the same order of magnitude
as that rewittag for washed aad unwashed starting material.
If the filler is added to the dram, the dust content of the drum
waste gases cart thus be compared with that arising for un-
washed naiting material.
Measured values related to the type of rock used appear in
Table ?. The following materials were used for the compari-
son}" . ' -
4.
5.
3/8 ram
2/S mm
0,8/2 mm : 20*
0.09/O.Smm ; IS*
0/0.09 mm : 1*
a 'it a
Mix manufacture
Figure 1. Waste-gas quantity of the drying drums as a function
of rout production
13
B-6
-------
TABU 4. Results of cmliiion measuiemeniii 83 itudiei In 2? ioitalliiloni, carried out at ibe bebcti of ilic tuperviiory
autliaililei by various iniiUuict with dtffeiing meaiurlng Iniirimicoii
OS
-4
o*
i*
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
~47
48
49
60
61
62
63
64
Ts
66
67
66
69
60
"it
62
61
64
65
£6
67
0
3
i
o
a
m
Kit
2
KM!
2
KN1
2
KOI
2
KM
2
KQ1
Kflt
2
KS1
2
KI1
2
KU1
2
KV1
2
KWI
2
KXt
2
KYI
2
3
4
KWL1
2
KWMt
2
Mixture
manufac tmed
Bate 0/35 gravel
p n M
Bate 0/35 gravel
Date Q/a$ baialt
*t m o
Base 0/35 gravel
W » M
Base 0/25
Fine aipli. carter , 0/B
Has* 0/3S gravel
date 0/35 gravel
Base 0/35 gravel
Oate 0/35 gravel
— T-J J- *
Bad: 0/115 gravel
Fitifi ji|>li. cmicr. 0/H
Base 0/35 gravel
Qase 0/35 gravel
F. aipti. toner. 0/8 giv
UHC fl/;iA gruvul
Oiu«ki 0/25 gravel
Fiife aiph. concr, 0/d
• - (moraine)
Bate 0/35 gravel
**
*
fi
30
32
20
20
16
16
63
66
30(60%)
10(50%)
67
36
40
4S
46
46
60
43
41
10
66
34
34
80
90
28
30
30
30
40
40
60
60
Upstream of the
dud collector
Watte -gas quant iliy.
10*0]* SI? /te
10.4
110
103
0,7
20
2.2
167
166
261
246
122
12.1
140
141
12.6
134
11.9
119
12.2
11.9
MS
149
286
303
11.2
102
166
170
Di
con
m
e
DO
6.21
66S
207
196
235
12.8
4.49
8.97
144
too
1013
14.70
IS!
lent
06
6.78
264
37.9
3&1
28.2
16.7
293
12
9.6S
27.4
18.9
1493
21.46
| Temperature, C
• —
—
246
*
i
i
U
6.6
4.7
Dun callecicx lit stage
downiu.of ilw collector
j Temperature, C
140
136
299
250
229
220
170
172
246
238
170
163
200
191
as
92
184
170
83
110.
66
90
V
S.5
~f <~>
16.9
16.7
134
133
4.2
4,2
28.7
27.7
303
303
19.6
19,3
266
266
203
21.4
22.0
21.7
16.2
14.7
198
20.3
49.1
600
162
16.1
196
226
Uu
cant
t
1.35
1.22
0.933
0809
0.7S4
0.903
187
1,77
413
362
091
1.127
2.36
1.13
0.694
0.793
622
0.447
tl ,
eat
M
2.0S
1.84
1065
1 182
1.661
1.731
3.43
3.16
6.70
437
316
1.266
1JOS
447
2,11
0.676
1.168
0.278
0662
Efficiency , , $'
82.1
84.4
91,0
81.0
lij
72.4
890
824
81.1
83.7
86.7
841
84.1
Dust collector 2nd Mage
dowotu. of the collector
Waiie-gaj quantity.
IcPrnVto
136
14,2
D
can
0094
0.118
USI
tent
6
0.116
0.142
*
r
s
§
84.1
91.8
nonexliiing
Qoniixiiiiug
22.4
22.1
03«fl
0.234
0.462
0.307
none Kisiing
83.0
89.4
378 1 0.164| 0.243 1 91.8
Doncilsitng
nw.enis.iHg
IBS
19.6
166
164
0.281
0.440
0605
0686
0.416
0643
0.613
0096
627
44.6
.W.M:«iHi»,,5
16.3
386
388
16.4
16.4
21.6
21.6
O.OS7
0058
0194
0.199
0.262
0.131
0083
0.112
0.160
0,126
0.062
0.106
0070
0.072
0.2SB
0.268
0.314
0,161
0.101
0.132
0.210
0.180
0.076
0.128
1st aad 2nd uage. %
SB 7
890
99.1
86*
Upttieam of the
slack •
Wane-gas temperature.
C
61
69
77
87
2SS
260
B7
i4
63
60
86
170
172
246
236
129
124
74
66
6S
66
66
66
63
88
48
61
42
48
106
110
66
66
«,*
I
. §
u
U
4.2
3.8
6.6
6.1
O.B
1.2
2.1
6.1
4,4
06
O.4
1.9
2.2
43
4.8
20
3.6
2.6
2.6
68
6.9
38
3.6
1
11.1
11.7
169
16.8
26.1
24.6
266
14.0
141
126
134
12.3
12.4
~12~F
11.9
14.4
MB
29.1
29.1
11.0
11.0
179
179
i
V
I
-------
o
89
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
70
79
BO
at
62
63
B4
85
86
87
~ii
89
BO
at
92
S3
84
• 98
96
97
98
89
100
101
102
10)
104
IDS
106
107
108
109
110
lit
112
113
114
116
116
117
tie
HUH
2
HMM1
2
3
HMN1
1
HMOt
2
3
4
HNLI
2
3
4
6
6
7
a
HNMl
a
2
4
HNNt
2
3
Silt
2
3
4
&
6
SlMl
2
3
4
&
6
7
SlMl
2
3
4
6
fit
2
3
4
6
6
fine aiph. concr. 0/8
Binder 0/15
' o/ia
Mixture 0/8
Fine aiph. conci, 0/6
Fine aspE, concr, 0/2
Dindci D/2S
fine asph. concr. 0/8
MM M m
•* H Ml Ml
Hinder 0/15
•* H
Fine gravel 0/3
Binder O/ 18
fine, gravel 0/3
Bate 3/2S
«* «
Fine atph.concf. 0/B
« » « «
Base 0/2S
•» w
Fine asph.conct. 0/2
*•
Hinder 0/2 diabase
Fine aiph.conci. 0/8
diabase
Bate 0/3 i llnrniane
• <• •
K *• M
Base 0/35 gravel *
• « "
" 0/28 "
Fine atph, conci. 0/8
w * mm
Dindet 0/12
Date 0/3S
" 12/25
40
40
28
3S
as
61(60%)
120
42
40
43
44
47
63
72
48
48
78
65
£8
60
60
80
60
10
to
to
40.6
4l.ft
42.S
45
40
43
BS
92
73
93
107
94
88
76
75
76
68
88
66
65
66
60
80
65
13.1
11.8
8.1
8.1
8.8
635
103
20.7
200
200
III
11.8
118
110
IIS
118
176
17.6
17.1
18.8
183
18.3
18.2
24.4
27.7
187.0
163.0
86.6
Cold proc.
M
M
102.4
98.8
966
66.4
1020
1460
876
BBS
61 6
640
76.0
64.0
612
126
118
122
122
243
237
237
2S4
236
137
ia>
187
196
188
214
200
204
81
6.1
6.1
6.4
67
6.2
4.1
4.0
3.7
32
36
37
34
4.9
4.7
4.2
31
1,6
82
aa
112
102
tot
il
84
73
70
80
80
116
160
60
18.7
16.7
17.4
17.1
17.1
67.1
262
27.1
26.6
26.0
286
257
193
26.6
7.41
2.86
68
106
14.44
1.34
1.88
2.04
26.6
20.4
3.62
18.2
M3
18.6
1068
4.60
14.9
19.8
26.0
1.68
6.1
62
6.1
6.3
6.8
6.0
6.6
61
6.0
6.0
•3.7
80.4
•6.7
883
03.8
•2.9
834
810
94.1
94.3
91.0
832
80.7
91.7
aonexlulng
346
28.8
263
24.6
214
20.8
21.7
20.6
23.9
244
242
24.6
26.0
64
8.4
3.2
31.6
31.7
31.8
31.8
32.2
31.3
0.492
0.304
0.663
0.624
0.746
063
2.01
2.73
1.68
018
0207
0.616
0.204
0.279
0223
0.663
0.301
0.416
0296
05H
0376
0140
0.664
0413
0.914
0890
too 1
0.222
0269
0770
0260
0.330
0.260
0.910
20
2.8
2.3
1.7
26
3,4
0.3&S
0.3S9
0381
0353
0361
0.346
0.320
0.124
0137
0.096
0187
0.183
0.3&9
0.484
0.3S6
0.612
0.462
0.160
*y
pedal
80.7
60.7
A8.2
81.3
384
16.2
2S.O
39.8
12.8
13.0
838
83.1
04.2
83.7
96.1
94.3
26.0
94.6
84,8
950
996
99,6
994
99,4
996
996
996
990
99.2
788
988
99,1
117
168
3t8
239
220
70
49
84
101
tie
tio
31
33
33
29
• 63
89
67
7i
47
42
102
126
122
123
130
117
116
60
60
60
66
68
60
6fl
82
65
64
fil
60
62
60
62
62
66
40
1.6
40
7.2
4.2
3.4
1.6
6.8
3.8
6.0
6.4
4.6
llo 3
**
*«
**
*i
M
36
**
Ml
1 102
M
13.1
11.6
6.1
9.1
aa
63.6
29.4
t94
184
173
169
191
20.3
188
192
19.3
rse
162
203
19.0
19.4
19.6
196
4.6
4.6
2.3
24.6
24.6
24.6
23.7
24.7
24.8
21.8
218
216
209
20.8
20.8
208
193
20.7
20.7
21.6
21.6
266
26.8
266
266
26.9
27.2
a
f
-------
%t Mf. IMT
TABLES. Effect of th« particle components 0—2mm as dust content
Mixture manufactured
Classification (mm)
Particle sizes
< 2 mm taw material 05>)
Dust content
far washed raw material
(g/rfSTP)
Floe itphal
low chipp, COM.
(J/8
64 to S3
394
tic concrete
high cbipp. coat.
a/a
48 to 30
to 28.2
Binder
0/12 to 0/11
40 to 30
29,3 n 22.4
Base
0/25 to Q/3S
30 to 19
29.9 to 23.3
TABLES. Measured dust content la the drum waits gas«s for washed aad unwashed raw
Oust content
Measured values from —
fine asphaltic concrete
Binder
8as*
to
0/8
0/12
0/18
0/29
0/30
0/35
Washed
4
Mia.
28.2
—
22.4
—
—
23.3
l/nfST?}
Max.
39 J.
—
29.3
—
—
29.9
Half-washed
•(g/ra'STP)
Mia. Max.
69.3 69.9
— —
— , —
— —
_ • —
— —
Unwashed
(g/ar1 STPJ
Mia. Max.
117.0 W3.0
89.S 103.2
— —
72.4 93.7
53a T
43.1 52.0
TABLE 7. Effect of rock type oa dust content
Flue Hfhaitic concrete 0/8
low caipplngj content
Fine atpoaltie concrete 0/8
low caippingj content
floe asphalric concrete 0/8
Ugb chippingj content
Ftoe upnaitlc concrete 0/8
high chipping! content
Pine asphaltic concrete 0/8
high chipping! content
Binder 0/13
Base 0/3S
Raw material, washed
Proportion
0— 2mm
*
•34
34
35
SZ
49
30
21
*
32
32
32
32
IS
20
29
23
24
24
30
21
Type of rock
(In proportion of dust content)
Moraine, icreeoiap
Bftii^n iand
Blast ftuoace slag, screenings
Raise sand
Moraine, screenings
Rhine land
LifnestQQC icreeaiafft
Natural sand
limestone, screening!
Blast furnace slag, screening!
Rhine land
Basalt, screenings, with V* natural
tand
Oust content
g/irr*STP
28 J to 28.S
23,3 to 31.7
3S.9
20.2 to 26.4
32.3 to 39 J.
22.4 to 29 J
233 to 29.9
16
B-9
-------
1M.ZI MB.T Mf. 1H7
Basalt, blast furnace slag, llmeaone. motaiae, natural
find. limestone.
To ettrntoate Interference by tecondary effect], washed ttw
material was once again used as a basa. Despite wide!'/ differ-
ing proportloni of the fine-granulate range from 0 — 2 ram la
toe tfaitlfif material, tile measured dust contests scarcely
deviate. Tais means not only that. In this respect, cite dif-
ferences between the rock types themselves ace snail, but aisa
that, in the absolute T*HT*. meir additional effect on dust
generation Is quite Insignificant, Tills could also be ,
flflBattoa of tiie identical suitability of thes« rocte.
Tne material load of thi drain
Toe dram dimensions of tin ten plants studied In the pro—
gnn ate known, as Ls taelr 5*erforrnancc during meaiuremeot. .
Ttie fEteil capacities In Talite 1 are based oil 40(i
Figure 4. Particle size distribution of dust la tee manufacture
of bases 0/30 — 0/35 mm
17
B-10
-------
loft VM.2T N*.;
r. 1HT
The waste gu laid of the dnun
It is alto Important to relate the measured quantities of
waste gases la the dram to (he quantity of material processed.
If gaa quantities are plotted *i. production, we obtain Figure l,
which ihowi a considerable scattering of measured values. A
mean relation Is indicated by the two limiting lines, and may
by useful for rough calculations. However, cite question re-
mains of whether a cause for the considerable scattering can
be seen from the measured results. The CO| content
which was also measured, and which could, conceivably ssrra
as a measure [of Che material load/waste gas relation], was
found to differ, greatly.
The drying process in the drams Is sustained by combustion,
Excess air Is calculated from the measured CO, content and the
theoretical km** value which, for the commonly used tight
reel ail EL, can be set as approximately 16*1. Upon calculation,
excess air It found shockingly high. However, It man be regarded
solelyui connection with the specific working process, namely
drying and heating of the material for subsequent bituminixaiion,
Ere eg air simultaneously serves for cooling and for protec-
tion against as impermisiibly high heating of the material.
Nevertheless, In average installations, excess air quantities
can sometimes reach ten times the values of somo very good
modem units, of which one was also included is the tesr pro-
gram.
If the waste-gas quantity it divided by the quantities of the
manufactured mix, the effect of the varying CO, cuuteiu is illus-
trated quite clearly (Figure 2% The specific w«te-g»j quantities
were: in low-efficiency units (1% CO,), about 600 nr'STt'/th;
in average units (3% CO]), 900 —400 m: STP/th, and in the
best units (10% COj), about 200 of STP/th, Differences in
the quantity of waste gases are thus not only due to differing
production volumes, but mainly to the mode of operation of
the drum. This realization is significant for conclusions to be
drawn later.
Figure 1 can be complemented by lines for which CQj con-
tent ii the parameter. These then indicate the waste-gas
quantities for which, in the individual case, waste-gas ducts,
dust collectors, suction fan and stack would have to be cal-
culated (Figure 3).
Panicle sizes of dusts
The dust samples collected during measurement were sub-
sequently analyzed for particle lize using Gonell classifiers.
In accordance with VDC Directive 2031 'Fineness Determina-
tion of Technical Oust." the dusts were classified according to
their sealing velocities in steps from 0.2 to 33.Scm/see.
Specific weight (density or apparent density) was determined
by the pyknometric method. This permits conversion of the
settling velocity to particle size by means of the aforemen-
tioned directive.
The results of air classification are given in Table 3. Scat-
tering is great, and it is not easy to tell the significant from
> 12 era/see
1 "S
Settling velocity
diameter for 7 »2.8g/cms > 40ji
o
Figure S, Particle- size distribution of dust in the manufacture
of binders 0/12—0/18 mm
the nonsignificant values. The uncertainties am created by
the fact that the values of the dust samples at the dram outlet
must partly be formed from the perceatual summation of
separated dost and clean -3 as dust of the first collector stage.
As is known, tfag
aking of a pBBrgs
average sample
ttatn a great aaantirv of separated dust Is difficult.
Plotting the particle lines produces a confusing multitude of"
curves. However, since these are residue curves (for defini-
tion see VBI 2031}. the extremely high curves can be neglected
as less Important for subsequent dost removal. The problem
is not how coarse, but how fine the dusc is. The residue
corves for fine dast, however, tie lower.
As shown la Figures 4, S, and S, the particulates of the
other dusts are practically all in a range which, for an apparent
density of 2,$g/cm*. can be given approximately as follows;
Residue
> 10(1: 53 to 78%
> 20pt 33 to 63%
> 40fis 28 to $4%
Passage
> 10|i; 43 to 22%
> 200: S3 to 33%
> 40|i: 72 to 48%
la case, of mese large intervals, usually quite adequate in
practice, the numerical data apply both to the dust during the
manufacture of bases and binders, and to fine concrete. '
With the latter, this is not quite true for washed starting ma-
terial, the dusts from which contain less fine conponents, ts
is evident from figure S.
Dust removal
The dust content of drum waste gases is occasionally so
great that the waste-gas flow is held to be comparable to
pneumatic dust conveying and dust removal to separators used
with such conveyers. Such comparisons do not apply to our
measured values, showing maximum dust contents of
l60g/m*$TP. Average dust emission of the drams for
B-ll
-------
>* 'V > 12 on/iee
(l , Settling velocity
MV *at irucie diameter tor 7=2.6 g/eirr* > 4Qu
a
Figure i. Particle tixe dUiriburioa a/ dust downstream of the
dram in the manufacture of One? wphalttc concrete 0/8 mm
31 measurements at 10 instillations is 23 kf of dun per ton of
miMd material, i. a,. 2.31k The lowest value was Q.9<% and
(he highest, 7.5%.
While, in the past, planet wens exclusively equipped with
centrifugal collectors, modem plants ire provided almost only
with two-flag* dust removal, Cyclonei serve as preseparators
In the first stage, the second stage being frequently a wet
scrubber, fabric at bulk layer filters being also used increasingly,
ix axe sometimes special electrostatic precipitaton.
Of the 10 units in the test program. 3 were equipped with
two-stage dry-wet collectors. Toe number and dimensions at
available cyclones can be seen In Table 1. One installation
had only a fabric Alter with preliminary surface coaler, and
one was only equipped with a relatively large number of
medium-size cyclones. The e/Ticieaciei meaiured at die pi an u
ace gives in Table 3, separately for each stage, and altogether
for the entire dust removal unit. Re/erring to the 10 plants
investigated, the following can be concluded:
1, Cyclonei of the first stage
vol. IT tta.f Mr, Oil
3. loth stages together
No, of plants
1
1
Z
1
2
I
3 cyclones + wet scrubbers
1 fabric filter
' " 1 with cyclones only
Efficiency (°k)
(temporary)
99.9
> 99.5
> 9S.O
> 98.3
> 98.0
> 97 ,3
-> 99.3
> 97.0
No. of plants
4
2
3
1 (without cyclone)
2, Wet scrubbeti of the
No. of plants
1
2
1
2
1
t
2 (without wet scrubber)
Efficiency {<%)
(temporary)
> 99
> 90
> as
—
second stage
Efficiency (%
(temporary)
> 98
> 98
> 90
> as
» TO
> so
_
19
B-12
As eaa be wen. dust removal la alt 10 plants was quite
satisfactory. However, jt should be noted thai; jftq test pro-
gfann did aqt |peludei thejerv went a tana. The differences
between very good and merely good dust removal become
oaly obvious and, la fact, tuikiag. when clean gas dust con-
tent after ifie second stage is examined (In Table 3). An
efficiency for the entire installation of less than 991k oa longer
appears so exemplary. However, this is already in anticipa-
tion of the recommendations of the recent Emission Directive
VOI 2213 for new piano reported elsewhere.
Tn« reliability of cyclone collectors u generally recognized.
Although their efficiency has a natural limit when the particles
become coo small, it is quite sufficient for many practical
tasks. Cyclones must have specific dimensions and be sub-
jected to (he correct load. The manufacturers guarantee
graded efficiencies for their cyclones, often formulated as
follows for known dttsts is known stausioass
Panicle sizes (jij
Iffieieaey
Ota 10
1Q to 20
20 to 40
above 40
70
n
98
99
Apart from uncertainty for the lowest particle sizes, the
validity of these data was repeatedly confirmed in'innumerable
acceptance tests. If these data are assumed as given also in
this case — &e*high density of dust particles according to
VOI 2031 of in average 2.Sg/cmJ favors such an assumption —
they can be used to establish evaluation factors to assess the
efficiency of these collectors.
In T*Mf t[ the to|jil efficiencies. a« aenially measured at
the cyclones, are related ro the theoretically aossijale bv
m^frqi of the particle analyses ia Table 8. It is seen that in
11 of 17 analyzed investigations the calculated values were,
at times exceeded in practice. Also, the effect of particle
size in the individual stages on the final result is clear. The
average of the theoretically possible total efficiency is 91.2?*,
the lowest value is 36% and the highest. 97.7%. Among mea-
sured values the average^!* 91.4f»: (ha lowest. 11.3f« and the
-------
TAULE8, Panicle inilyili of the duic lampiei In the ten program
Ob
Duit la the drum wane gaiet
1. For washed raw mateiial
In the manufacture of
1,1 Fine asphalltc
canciete 0/8
™**>i^*fc*fc **/ B
1.2 Binder 0/18
1.3 Bate 0/3S
2. For half-waihed raw
material in the manufac-
ture of
2,1 Fine aiphaltlc
concrete 0/8
3. Pot unwashed law material
In the manufacture of
3.1 Fine asphalltc
concrete 0/8
3,2 Binder 0/12
3,3 Bate 0/30
Base 0/35
0*
z
1
E
A4
Dl
H2
12
13
D2
Cl
C2
B3
D4
F3
G2
K4
Gl
Bl
F2
,
Raw material
Moraine «Rhlne sand
Wan feimee-ilAB « Shine i»ml
Basalt* natural sand
Baialt t lime « natural land
Basalt tlline + blast futnaceilag
Lime t Rhine sand
Basalt * natural sand
Basalt * moraine + Rhine land
Blast furnace slag •» Rhine sand
Basalt
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Diabase t lime
Gravel
Rhine gravel
1 I U
"1 1^
8 II I •-
0
u
§
I"
a-s.
CO
28.6
33.4
26,2
39.1
29.3
29.9
69.9
89.5
133.5
116.5
119.1
Ico, I
1 f
i* 1
11
M
i
2ir
1W
1C
A
1
B.Ol
fl.l 1
15.2 1
111.0 f 4,4 1
111. 2 II 3. 9 1
103,2 I S.I 1
i.
<* 21
s t>
S"e
330
630
410
S40
500
630
520
520
350
640
310
260
460
210
53,1 I 3.3 U 300
52,0 f 4.4 1 280
"B
u
to
*,
1
u
a
2.4
C.4
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.5
2.S
2.S
Raw gai dust in the drum waue gases
Panicle size dltitibutlon by settling velocity Intervals
Weight proportion In %, itttling velocities in cm/sec
<0.2
10.5
l-fft
7.0
8.7
io.a
13,7
15.1
8.9
1.8
4.2
15.9
11.0
8.3
1.5
5.9
3,8
16.5
<0.4
16.1
lit n
13.1
11.0
14.0
29.1
25,0
13.8
16.9
1.1
26.6
19.8
20.1
2.1
16.5
i.l
24.0
-------
loft Voi.2t NO.T July. MM
bigness, tt.4%. Mean and maximum of the manured total
efficiency just about equal the mean and maximum of the
theoretically possible,
Wet scrubbers as a second stage are widely used because of
their applicability also fas fine dusts la die clean gu of the
cycioaes, and because of their simple design and operation.
Particle size i* leas decisive to attainable efficiency th^n the'
weoiblllry of die dun and the degree of probability with which
toe particles can be brought into contact wita water. The
simplicity of design can easily disguise these true difficulties.
TBB§ sot *U wet secaeben can be regarded as truly efficient,
a It eat enough co spray water through nowies into a dust-
y 40
Weignt %
45 co 22
20 to 13
1 WU
28 to 54
Deviations were only observed towards the coarser range. -
The density of the durt panicles according to VOI 2031 was,
ia the average, about S.Sg/cm1,
Given toe capacities of modern cyclone collectors U can be
expected that some 35 — 92<$ of the dust of this composition
21
B-14
-------
My. l»Tt
TABLE 9, Comparison of (be measured efficiencies of cyclones, installed as preseparators at the
lime of the tests, with the efficiencies theoretically attainable according to the guarantees
of the manufacturers
I
N"\
LLl
Plant
No.
A4
3
01
HZ
J2
J3
i2
C1
2
•a
04
. F3
"_
_.X4
JL1
it
n
Dua
panic
(
0 to
iOu
*
212
2X4
ii.2
.,fU
17.2
*aa
41.1
2ZO
24J
US
41 .5
27.7
37.0
"j
^AL
,-7-o
A4
t propci
•le-tize
• «2.3
10 to
20ji
*
11 1
S.S
3.S
10.0
17.3
1Z2
244
112
1XS
1U
20.0
1S.S
22.6
1.7
14.7
19J
13.1
rtioa la
totem
g/cm1)
20 to
40«
*
1L7
14.7^
u
,_!*-s .
1Z7
12.1
17
17.8
13.5
ISO
10,5
14.4
12.3
*r*_
211
__**.
13
iii
>40
|I
*
S40
S3.1
48-0
S*.i
S2.I
29.8
~~S£S~
413
4&4
Sfl.8
2S.O
*!.*
27.9
_!aS_
;*3
33.7
4TiT^
Total
efficiency
eyelont;.!''
measured
*
95.4
33-3
•7.1
91.3
97.2
90J
77.3
S4J
9X3
87.0
S2.1
^SJ
38.1
St9 ^
97.2
90.3
c
0 to
10|i
*
70*
Jraded
guarani
Rianuf<
10 to
20u
*
95%
efficies
eed by
icoirer
20 to
40u
*
98%
cy
>40
(J
%
39%
Toi
0 to
100
*
1SJ
i&a
12.7
ia.4
ira
28,8
2SJ
114
17.4
48
ra.o
134
25.8
2.0
2O4
4J
22.7
Mefflt
accor
8^
10 to
20fi
*
ma
u
8.1
JJ
16.3
1«J
211
14,4
11.3
12-2
19.O
14.7
21 J
1.8
t4J>
i7
txs
:ieacy c
iiag to
lorantet
20 to
40U
^fc
itj
14.4
U
113
12,4
11.3
18
17J
133
tSJ
1&3
14.1
12.3
9J
21. S
U
73
lalculat
tbese
a
>40
II
«b
S3J
sxi
€7,4
S3.S
S2.4
29.8
30.6
444
«a.s
58.0
27.7
41.9
27.i
88.5
33.8
810
4&S
ed
Totai
*
31.3
31.1
9X4
it.7
1X3
88.4
S8.1
91.3
SI -2
14.7
S8.0
sat
wa
97,7
89.8
M.3
89.0
Oeviai
(mtu
guira
*
*xs
*1a
*X9
•4.1
•IS
*it
*2J
*1.0
*2JJ
• 04
»1J
aon-tn *fc
lured —
meed)
-8-3
-0.4
-13
-U
-U
-ZJ
Q
LLJ
in
CD
HI
will be retained In tile first stage. Efficiency icrmnes wita
Ificreuifla coarsfi compaaeau up to a possible 93%.. Siace,
furrhennore. the dasa ire relatively heavy ind toe guaranteed
4«U of the manufacturer mostly refer co densities of ouiy
Zg/era3. given tbe bigh dust contents, the higher efficiencies
are certainly attainable.
18 good wet sentbben. racii as am frequemly used as a
second ttage. residual dust from'ine fine stage.Gt separated with
.efficiencies of 93—96%, in special cases even up co 9t —9*9%.
Fabric or bulk layer /Liters used, instead of wet scrubbers can
attain efficiencies above 99%, when properly secured against
unsuitable waste gas conditional
The present ticiacion with regard to dust removal in prepara-
tion plants is thus largely clear. A detailed investigation of
the processes of dust generation, though beyond the framework
of this article, would bo of great interest for the further deve-
lopment of preparation plants, concerning problems of dust
load and its removal.
for particles of about 10 and 200 the settling velocities ate
only 0.8 and 3.2 cm/sec. Even coarser particles of 40|i settle
only at some 12Jem/sec. Being stirred up by tipping pro-
cesses in the drums, such panic lea are easily emitted with {he
gases. The drag of waste gases Is still to great that 53 — 70«i,
and sometimes even up to 90% of ail dust panicles in the
waste gases are larger than 40u. •
Given the tendency rewards economical maximum per-
formance, Uie future will ttardly bring large; drums for (he
same, capacities. Consequently, dusts capable of being air-
borne will continue to leave the drams, unless watte gas quan-
tities can be greatly reduced. This is possible. Even if spe-
cific dust content is to remain equal (In test series K of the
programs this was the case. In spice of 10% CO,), a reduction
of excess air to the Unit of the possible could lead to further
improvement of dust removal. The smaller waste gas quan-
tities could permit the use of specifically more expensive
types of collectors at the same cost. It is possible chat deve-
lopment will move in this direction, and that ao teasoos for
controversy will remain also concerning the very last residues
of dust in waste gases emitted by the stacks.
Bibliography
1. Waiter, E. Causes of the Oust Situation at Mixing
Plants for Bituminous Road Building Materials and Measures
for Improvement, — Scrassenbau. S7th year of puni.. No. 5,
pp.297-305. 1986.
2. W a 11 e r, S. The Dust Situation at Mixing Plants for
Bituminous Road Building Materials in the German
Federal Republic, — Staub-aeinhalt. Luft, Vol, 26, No. 11,
pp.34 -41. 1966 [English ganilartnnl.
Summary
/Cost in waste gas from preparation plants for. road building
depends on many chanctuisric factors. This ii-7sh"d for the
dust it the drying drum outlet and also for clean gas dust at the
chimney inlet. The crude gas dust is naturally influenced by
the properties of raw material, whilst clean gas dust is also
influenced by the dust removal method used. These problems
ate discussed on the basis of a wide range of numerical data.
22
B-I5
-------
APPENDIX C
REFERENCE 8 AND SUPPORTING DATA
C-l
-------
.ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
A1MDSIHEHIC EMISSIONS STUDY
EPA COOT1ACT #68-02-0076
Prepared for
E8VHONMEHTAL i IOTECTIQH AGENCY
OIHCE OF AIR PSDGRAMS
Research Triangle Park,. North Carolina 27711
Prepared by
VALENTINE, FISHER & TOHLIH50K
Consul ting Engineers
. 520 Lloyd Building
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 623-0717
Authors
J.A. Crim
Grim Engineering
Seattle, Washington
tf.D. Snow den
Valentine, fisher & Tomlinson
November 1, 1971
C-2
-------
IftO
9
CO
*M *« f i •» *J i i
-------
MM
fl».l IM WJ M
-------
«J *t (.1 Ml Ml
9
en
-------
9
01
-------
CONSULTANTS
AIR, WATER, ENERGY, HYGIENE & MANAGEMENT
May 14, 1982
Midwest Research. Institute
425 Volker Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64110
Attni Mr» John Kinsey
Dear John,
Ret Original Particle Size Data from EPA Asphaltic Concrete Plants
Emissions
The original '• field data to the subject report is enclosed. May I provide any
clarification? Ifiank you for having us help you on your study.
Yours truly,
&Ca0Sjpm ^
^^^^^^^
Wesley 0. Snowden, P.E.
Enclosures
7
C-7
180S - 136th Place N.E. Suite 104, Seilevue. WA 98005, (206) 641-5130
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICE (APCQ)
ASFHALT BATCHI2IG PLANT EMISSION DATA COMPILATION
PART I - PLANT INFORMATION
DATA IDENTIFICATION Sloan Constrtjotloir Co.
FLAhT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION Libertv. S^C^.
TZPE. OF EAB MATESIAL PROCESSED Crushed granite and sand aggregate
PtAST CAPACITY TO. ftOOff' Barber-Greene
ILAST PRODUCTION BATE (DURING EVALUATION) 225 tons/hr
TYPE OF CONTROL SYSTEH CyQlpj^e^ a^oV vet washer
AIR fLOW SATE (cfm) 37.900 t 510 *F &
Static across the fan
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POiO: (NOTE OBSTRUCTIONS)
J[> Washer inlet2. Richaust. g-fcaelr at washer
" sq. duct 6 foot dian - 2 ports at 15 foot
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION downstream from stack Inlet
See attached sheet
PRESSURE DROP
BRAND- AND SIZE OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT
.WATER USAGE, ETC,
PARTTCLS SIZE DISTRIBUTION (WEIGHT OR COUNT) See attached renort
AVAILABLE COST TNFORHATION Mot available
PURCHASE COST
OPERATING COST*
HADJTENANCE COST
EVAPORATION LOSSES
COMMENTS: " '
The system described was replaced in the early part of 1971
with a DP-710 Dynamic Precipitator System furnished by CMI
Systemsf Chattanooga, Tennessee.
.
M^26 1971
YAIE-ITIHE. FiSHEH 3 TQMUH
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTF.CTION AGENCY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICE (APCQ)
ASPHALT BATCHING PLANT EMISSION DATA COMPILATION
PART II - SAMPLE INFORMATION
DATA Identlficacion (Pore, Etc.)
TYPE OF STACK GAS SAMPLING TRAIN Anderson - See attaf!hgd
DRY. GAS VOLUME' RECORDED ON GAS METER (FT3) 'f1",' m= : 3
PRESSURE OF METER (laches Hg)
AVERAGE- TEMPERATURE- OF DRY GAS METER (*R) _^_
VOLUME OF H^G COLLECTED IN TRAIN (ml) - ' \ ;': 1 J : --,
VOLUME OF WATER VAPOR PASSING: THROUGH DRY GAS METER (FT3 § METER
TEMPE1ATU1E AND PRESSURE)
* MOISTUEZ IS STACK GAS (%} 11?° F.D.B./1150 F.M.B.
MDLECDLAR WEIGHT OF DRY STACK GAS"' (LS/LB HOLE)
2C02
202
ICO ~
STACK.'PRESSURE AT SAMPLING PORT (Inches Hg)
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE ("R) AND PITOT TUBE READING ("HzO) S EACH
TRAVERSE POINT :^' — f ;• J/.^-'- -" ' * - ].-m . ^ ' * "
4 -3, "ST W-2 j 3 Q & __; #17 '.^^_ S
^3 /. *•;• & .-3 " j ^8 •'..-'j _ & 3. J:T ff!3 •. ". C & #18
g9 ~ J &• *, ;." 114 . :• / & . *19 l ^ t &
'."O & - -0 #15 / • ',-^ &
TYPE PITOT TUBE USED W/ COEFFICIENT Stvt?e WITH ).82
AREA OF STACK @ PORT (FT2) 28.1 .'« .'^ -c^
SAMPLING TIME (MIN.) 5
TOTAL PARTICULATE (LESS BLANKS ON CLEAN-UP MATERIALS)
FILTER FINAL WT. (rag) - TARE (og)
TYPE OF FILTER
ACETONE RINSE OF PROBE £. PREFILTER (tag)
ETHER AND CHLOROFORM EXTRACTION ON
BUBBLERS & IHPINGER WATER (mg)
120 EVAPORATION FROM IMPINGERS AND BUBBLERS
ACETONE RINSE OF GLASSWARE (mg)
TOTAL PARTICULATE (rag) OQ. ^ on all plates
COMMENTS:
C-9
-------
Air f olltition Test
December I, 1970
Sloan Construction Company
Liberty, South Carolina
Date Performed; December 1. 1970
Report by: w. Konnan Smith, P. E.
Test Conducted By:
Norman Smith
Jim Campbell
C-10
-------
A DIVISION OF Oil COIIIKJKATION
P.O. iox 6249 * 1617 W.
Cftattanooga. Tenntsa
(61S)
X. INTROPPCTIOgr
purpose of the air pollution tests was to determine
the emission rates and particle size distribution at the hot
mix asphalt plant owned by Sloan Construction Company, Liberty,
South Carolina. A study of the present equipment and the equip-
ment necessary to conform to the State of South Carolina Air •
Pollution codes were, additional primary objectives.
By taking test samples at the air washer entrance and
exit.,, the performance of the air washer could be evalutated.
She Anderson Stack Sampler was used as a fractionating
device to determine the particulate distribution as well as
emission rate.
C-E
-------
HI. TEST PROCEDURE
Each of-the test locations were tested according to the
following -procedure:
1. The average velocity of the gas stream was determined
using a special Pitot tube and an inclined manometer
to traverse the duct. The flow rate of the gas stream
* was then calculated using the average velocity and the
caross-section area of the duct. Test points were
located as recommended by Bulletin WP—50, Joy Man-
ufacturing Company. The correction factor of 0.82
as determined for previous calibration tests was used.
'. The temperature of the gas stream was taken periodically
to- use in calculating density.
2. IV reference station was selected to use as the point
at which the sample was to be taken. The reference
station velocity pressure was taken and the velocity
. calculated. In order to obtain an isokinetic sample
the velocity into the sampling nozzle must be the
same as the gas stream at the point of the sample.
Using the known area of the sampler nozzle and the
desired velocity, the required sampler flow rate
was calculated.
3. The sampling apparatus consisted of a probe to insert
into the gas stream with a nozzle on the probe of
arknown size, an Andersen stack sampler, a vaccum pump,
and a flow meter to measure the__total. air _flow_ through
tbe^samplerv '
•*. The samples were taken for periods that varied depending
on the loading. Two samples were taken at each location.
The sampler was heated while the sample was being taken
to prevent condensation of water vapor on the sample
plates. After allowing the plates to cool to room
temperature the gross and the tare weight of each plate
was recorded. The flow rate through the sampler
which was determined from previous calculations and
recorded.
• 5. Velocity traverse calculations were made as outlined by
Bulletin WP-50, Joy Manufacturing Company.
C-12
-------
SOMMARY OF DATA
1. Location. - Air Washer Exhaust "Stack
Emission Rate ............. ......._..,........., .181 #/hr
Grains per cubic foot ( Std. Cond. ) . ....... . ..... 0. 695
^-
Dry Bulb Temp ,. 115° F
Wet Bulb Temp.. 115° F
Mr 'Flow at Duct Cond. ...................32,600 ACFM
Mar Flow at STD Cond 30,400 SCFM
No. of Samples ......2
J» location. -'Entrance to Air Washer,
Emission Rate. 2135 f/hr
Grains per cubic foot (Std. Cond).... ..8.2 Gr/c.f.
Miorogromc pn~ Qubi.j. HAL-.' [C'uiiU Camel] .10i7 -i 1QP
Dry Bulb Temperature . 210<=- F
Wet Bulb Temperature. .»210° F
Air Flow At Duct Cond 37,900 ACFM
Air Flow At STD. Cond 30,400 SCFM
No. of Samples 2
O13
-------
3» Fan Data:
Clarage Size 141XL
Motor • 100 H.P.
Motor RPM - 1760
Motor Full Load AMPS - 116
Motor Operating Loan AMPS - 90
Fat* EFK - 650
Operating Static Pressure Across Fan - 9.0 in. W. C,
014
-------
ZZ7
7 /
J
8
(THESE DATA REPRODUCED IN TABLE 3-8)
C-15
-------
Control Equip. Descrip,
Single cyclone
2.
50 foot
Horizontal
Air Washer
Pressure Drop
- 4 in. ¥.C.
3 - 5 in. W.C.
iranit & Size of Equip,
Esstee - 9 foot
Diameter
7 foot
Diameter x
50 feet long
Water Usage
None
150 - 200 GPM
C-16
-------
II. EQUIPMENT
1. Special Pitofc Tube
2v Dryer Inclined Manometer
3. Andersen Stack. Sainpler
4. Dry and1 Wet Bulb Thermometer
5. Vacuum Pump and Sampling Train
£_ Storbal Precisian Balance
(Accurate to i/10,OQQ gram)
CWHER*S EQUIPMENT TESTED
1. Barher-Greetie Batch. Plant
2. Cyclone Dust Collector
3. 'Clarage 141XL, Exhaust Fan
4-. HorizcmtaL Air. Washer
C-17
-------
EHVI10KMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MR POLLUTIOM CONTROL OFFICE (APCO)
ASPHALT SATCHHK; PLANT EMISSION DATA COMPILATION
PAST I - PLAHT IHFORMAT1QN
DATA IBENTIFlCATiaS Harbison. Inc. . .
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION Marwille. Tennessee
OF HAW MAIESIAL BI0CESSEB Limestone and sand
FLAHT, CAPACITY 6.000 lb. batch
PLANT F80DUCTIQH SATE (DDSIHff EVALUATION) 180 tons per hour
TIPS OF COSTEOL SYSTEH. Prv cvc^onej |>re-washer and cent, washer
AIR. 1LQW BATE (cfm) TI.SOO f 70 *7 & ' _
LOCATIOS OF SAMPLING PORT (HOTE OBSTRUCIIOHS) Two ports at QQQ in a six
foot diameter exh^yst stack app*ro?clrnatelv- 20 fi»<>t dotim^ifr^am f?-nm
•tiae stack inlet.
I. CONTHOL EQUTPHEXT DESCRIPTIOS Centrifugal sprav washer - vertical
PHESSTJRE B10P 1 in. W.C. _
SSASD AMD SIZE OF CONTROL EQUIPHEXT Slm^ijiity - TO foot rt-iameter-
HAIIR aSAGE,, ETC. 150 - 200 GPM _ ; _
See attached sheet for items 2 and 5.
FABUCLE SIZE DISTSIBUTIOK OreiGHT OE COllNT} See attached chart
AVAILABLE COST ISH3RMAIIOK
PtJRClASE COST
OfESATBIG COST"
MAIKTENAMCE COST
WAPORATIOS LOSSES
COMMENTS:
This system when tested was emitting 6j lbs/hr which was over the
Tennessee code. The contractor has now installed a CMI Systems
DP-71Q which is a Dynamic Precipitator System. I will be glad
to furnish the test information to you as soon as it is complete.
O18
-------
PROTECTION ACQJCY
POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICE (AFCQ)
ASPHALT HATCHING PLAJfT EMSSIOK DATA COMPILATION
?ABX II - SAMPLE ISFOBIlAllQSJ
3AXA Id«QClficaciott (Pore, Etc.)
XffE OF STACK GAS SAMPLING TRAIN _An_derson
i""i
BBX GAS VOLUME 5ECOROED OS GAS 'METER (FT3) ^ , 5 '.* 7_-'; '_ "
RESSOTEE OF KETEE (laches
ATOSAGE TSff'EEAlUSE OF OR! CAS METES (*B)
OF I20 COIiECTEB DT TSAZK (ml)
OF WATER 7APOR. PASSING W10IICS DE? GAS MEISR (FT3 i METER I < .. V : j
AHD PSESSUSE) ^1*_* 2"
MOISTtffiE Dt STACK CAS (Z)
0.B. Temp * 112°F V.I. Temp « 112<»P
MOLECULAR UEICMT OF DRT STACK CAS (LS/L3 HOLE}
JC02 _
202 _ _
• 3SCO ___
STACK PRESSURE AT SAMPLING PORT (laches Ig) t
STACK. GAS TEHPlSATtUffi (1)' AOT PITOT TOTE READING ("BlQ) @
TJSAVERSE POIHT;
12 ^
^•j &>
17 J -JZ &
#12 5 . ? J i
fl? &
13 1,l£" & #8 2_'}~)'^ & 113 & #18 4
#4 ;
15 S:
UPS
. ~.3 &
j"l- &
PITQT TOTE
OF STACK f
19 -• - ,' 3 &
110 3 i'i &
US'ED W/ COEFFICIENT
PORT err2) lar?' so
ii4 &
#15 &
S Time WITH
. ft.
IIS &
#20 i
.81
/ * » i **r' ' '
SJIHPLIMC TIME (MIN.) ? ainutes
TOTAL PARXIOILATE (LESS BLANKS ON CLEAH-UP
FISAL WT. (mg) _ - TAtE (mg)
TYPE OF FlLfEE _
ACETONE RINSE OF PROBE & PREFILTER (rag)
ETHER AND CHLOROFORM EXTRACTION OS
BUBBLERS & IHPIKGER WATER
EVAPORATION FROM IHPIHGEKS AMD 8U3SLERS
ACETONE RINSE OF GLASSWARE («g) t
TOTAL PARJICULATE (»G)
C-19
-------
ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES
Harrison, Inc.
Alcoa, Tenn.
!!>!££. II, f/Hr, stftito Pun
to Collecting System
efficient
Co wet collector
B Diameter X
approx
Material to dryer
ZOO weah
collected
collected
Dryer Discharge
\60 TPII to plant
Mute I
I, Emission rotes may vary from those
shown. However these valyea are an
estimate based on actual reaulte
and with material which weights
100 lbi./cu. ft.
2. Exhnuat fan for draft not ahown
-------
2. Control Equipment Description: Pre-washer
Pressure drop 5 in. ¥.C.
Brand and size of equipment Simplicity - 7 foot
Water usage 30 • 50 GPM
3. Control Equipment Description: Cyclone
Pressure drop 4-5 in. V.C-.
Brand and size of equipnent Simplicity - 9 foot dlam.
Water usage None
021
-------
N,. IKC. - MAHYVIT.LK, TENN.
PIUS-VASII ENTRANCE.
VASHEIl EXHAUST
MJCHOK SIKE % #/tm % ,f/Hll
30 & larger
5.5 to 30
2.0 to 5.5
Smaller lhaa
^0 23.1 : 396.2
.V -2(5.9 • ;• ' 461.3
; > . 35.1 "* r 602.0
2.0 1A.9 ,' . 255.5
1715.0
OVERALL EFF. =1715 -
3.0
2.2
6.8
83.0
6j s 1652
1.9
1.4
'i.3
55. i»
63-0
» 96. 355
EFF.
9&.9%
99.73
99.3S
78.355
1715 1715
(THESE DATA REPRODUCED IN TABLE 3-9)
C-22
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE 12
D-l
-------
AIR POLLUTION
ENGINEERING MANUAL
SECOND EDITION
Compiled and Edited
by
John A, Daniilson
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
May 1973
D-2
-------
CHAPTER 7
MECHANICAL EQUlPMENf
HOT-MIX ASPHALT PAVING
BATCH PLANTS
INTRODUCTION
Hot-mix asphalt paving consists of a combina-
tion of aggregates* uniformly mixed and coated
with asphalt cement. An asphalt batch plant is
used to heat, mix, and combine the aggregate and
asphalt in the proper proportions to give the de-
sired paving mix. After the material is mixed, it
is transported to the paving site and spread as a
loosely compacted layer with a uniformly smooth
surface. While still hot, the material is compacted
and densified by heavy motor -driven rollers to pro-
duce a smooth, well-compacted course.
Asphalt paving mixes maybe produced from a wide
range of aggregate combinations, each having par-
ticular characteristics and suited to specific de-
sign and construction uses. Aside from the amount
and grade of asphalt cement used, the principal
characteristics of the mix are determined by the
relative amounts of:
Coarse aggregate (retained on No, S-rnesh sieve),
fine aggregate (passing No. 3-mesh sieve), and
mineral dust (passing No. 200-mesh sieve).
The aggregate composition may vary from a coarse -
texturedmixhaving a predominance of coarse ag-
gregate to a fine-textured mix having a predomi-
nance of fine aggregate. The Asphalt Institute
{1957)elassifieS'hot-mi3S asphalt paving according
to the relative amounts of coarse aggregate, fine
aggregate, and mineral dust. The general limits
for each mixtype are shown in Table 91. The com-
positions used within each mix type are shown ia
Tables 92 and 93.
Row MoUriaU Used
Aggregates of all sizes up to 2-1/2 inches are ussd
in hot-mix asphalt paving. The coarse aggregates
usually consist of crushed stone, crushed slag,
crushed gravel, or combinations thereof, or of
material such as decomposed granite naturally
occurring in a fractured condition, or of a highly
t$ t ctrm -jtea u aescriae cne solii mineral lo.i
°* -isenalc saving sucn 4* tana- particlos -ind
vel
caojcity*"'* °* -isenalc saving
jf stone. y«"*vel. and so farcn.
angular natural aggregate with a pitted or rough
surface texture. The fine aggregates usually con-
sist of natural sand and may contain added materi-
als such as crushed stone, slag, or gravel. All
aggregates must be free from coatings of clay, silt,
or other objectionable matter and should not con-
tain clay particles or other fine materials. The
aggregate must also meet tests for soundness
{ASTM designation C88) and wearability (ASTM
designation C131),
Mineralfiller is used in some types of paving. It
usually consists of finely ground particles of crushed
rock, limestone, hydrated lirne, Portland cement,
or other nonplastic mineral matter. A minimum
of 65 percent of this material must pass a 200-mesh
sieve. Another name for mineral filler is mineral
dust.
Asphalt cement is used in amounts of 3 to 12 per-
cent by •weight and is made from refined petroleum.
It is a solid at ambient temperature but is usually
used as a liquid at 275° to 325 T. One property
measurement used in selecting an asphalt cement
is the "penetration" as determined by ASTM Method
DS. The most common penetration grades used in
asphalt paving are 60 to 70, 85 to 100, and 120 to
ISO, The'grade used depends upon Che type of ag-
gregate, the paving use, and the climatic condi-
tions.
Basic Equipment
A typical hot-mix asphalt paving batch plant usu-
ally consists of an oil- or gas-fired rotary drier,
^a screening and classifying system, <,veigh boxes
for asphalt cement and -aggregate, a mixer, and
the accessary conveying equipment consisting of
bucket elevators and belt conveyors, Eauipment
for the storage of sand, gravel, asphalt cement,
and fuel oil is provided in most plants. Heaters
for the asphalt cement and fuel oil tanks are also
used.
Plant Operation
Plants vary in size. The majority in Los Angeles
Countyproduce 4, 000-pound batches and ha%*e pro-
duction rates of 100 to ISO tons of asphalt paving
mix per hour. Same ot the newer plants area, 000 -
pound batch size and are capable of producing 150
to 250 tons oer hour.
D-3
-------
326
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Table 91. CLASSIFICATION OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT PAVING
(The Asphalt Institute, 1937)
Paving HUN
M;t \imimi *iv.»'
.iliSl'i-jliili-
normally iu»v•• j ^g-'f.
* " A
K;A
, •
>^'.
-'H^
'.Y*3
j . ACCRKC;
$
*ik
'i'f'-'t
%
GRf"<*a^.ci ,
AND "*5_
^ LEVEL^i
OASE. V^\ ING
Y5/.* MIX Si
HINDER, K^Js
AND
LEVELINC
No- 4 loot
- ' . \
V*
A TK PKOP
THIS ARK
r NOKMAI
KCOMMEN
— KOI? PA
o\
\*\ CO.^H'
*
\
•5
I
oirrrONH
I
DKD •
Vt'MENT — •
niUCTlON
. -\
*" \
"ion
U
y
35
HO «
5
«i
X
f.o 5
H
U
50 5
U
H
40 •<
O
-"1
" I
.9
0
zone - Dxiat contents in this region should
mil he used without a substantial background 01" ex-
perience with such mixes and/or suitable justifica-
tion by laboratory design tests.
Intermediate zone - Dust contents in this region
jometimes usud in surface and leveling mixes as. /
well as in base and binder mixes. >.\,ii»»i!r
0 3 10
% MINERAL DUST {PASSING MO. ZOO SIEVE)
Figure i21 is a Clow diagram of a typical plant.
Aggregate is usually conveyed from the storage
bins to the rotary drier by means of a belt con-
veyor and bucket elevator. The drier is usually
either oil- or gas-Cired and heats the aggregate to
temperatures ranging from 250* to 350°F, The
dried aggregate is conveyed by a bucket elevator
to the screening equipment where it is classified
and d\imped into elevated storage bins. Selected
amounts o£ the proper size aggregate are dropped
from the storage bins to the weigh hopper. The
weighed aggregate is then dropped into the mixer
along %vith hot asphalt cement. The batch is mixed
and then dumped into waiting trucks for transporta-
tion to the paving site. Mineral filler can be added
directly to the weigh hopper by means of an auxil-
iary bucket elevator and screw conveyor.
Fine dust in the combustion gases from the rotary
drier is partially recovered ut a precleaner and
discharged continuously into the hot dried aggre-
gate leaving the drier.
THE AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
The largest source of dust emissions is the rotary
drier. Other sources are the hot aggregate bucket
elevator, the vibrating screens, the hot aggregate
bins, the aggregate weigh hopper, and the mixer.
Rotary drien emissions up to 6,700 pounds per
hour have been measured, as shawm, in Table 94.
In one plant, 2., 000 pounds of dust per hour was
collected from the discharge of the secondary dust
sources, that is, the vibrating screens, hot aggre-
gate bins, the aggregate weigh hopper, and the
mixer.
D-4
-------
Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants
T>Z1
Table 92. COMPILATION OF SUGGESTED MIX COMPOSITIONS (The Asphalt Institute, 1957)
Hyp*
Mia
s
••
tla
. !tb
11 c
IH a
I
| (100 tl)
til b i
IV a. 1 i
[V b
IV c
V »
V b4
V! a
VI If
VII a»
Vtll »
100
100 TO tu 100* -45
j 100 T5
100
7f ro 100 1 ou
too i so
100 SO In IOO! 7fl
so ta ina : ' 60
100 ! 35
! 100 i m to 100)
I 100 ! 85
100
too
40
u looi :o
o "*
0 100
iU
n
a Mi 1*
o lOfll l«
o "01 «0
a JO
to too
1. 4
tu »»i « in ifl '.
0 401 '
i> 41)
0 »«
a *5
a 7*
1 *
ill
in
n
o 70! IS
4S to 65
t*
0* iu HOI «o
; 63 to 30) *O
to 100 I
, •»« to iOOi
i
*M«T bf> «*wl fur b*ii> wh»r» nwr»,- iMn>|iMc » tioi ron
too
Ii ta 100
too
6*
u iO '
,i ifl
0 1* 10 n ii
0 !* 10
£» *O - 1 *
t> «0 13
0*1} 1 <»
«> 4< »7 o »4 i«
u 6* , 17 o *£ , i<
u '•)« *0 »i TO • H
** t»> HO '. 47 u ft It . 10
SO to <»* . 70 o .N<> . M
o* to 100 i M« ii •>* 1 TO
u • *
NH. "iii N<». looixii. inn
!u <> 4
i in
h „ u,
U i" 1 i i
to
40
i »
IN
+01 IH
60
'«
i*
•0
XI
•»«(40
comically av.ti|j*JtU>.
4 tu Ii
(> Ih: i n Ii
•t
n iJ -j
u HI
7
IH
i, who
u If
u in
it 413
t1
in
10
„ 7* '.jo
u if.
,. 16
u iO
„ in
u i'
•1 i*
0
n
,
^
4
4
(J
s
I
,,
;
0 4
A.ph.lt.
4. n » i-O
4. 0
u 4 4.H
II 4
i, *)
ii 4 1 I.f)
n in
! (»
J. *
n ID i t, *
n 1(»
ii in
II 1 J
.. H
4 :u 14
4. O
4. n
•». <
4. <
»,, 0
<« 5,0
o 1,0
o ti.Q
<» o.O
o T, 0
.) T.I)
11 H i
,| 4 i
<» I 1 . 0
Table 93. COMPILATION OF SUGGESTED MIX COMPOSITIONS (The Asphalt Institute, 1957)
Mix
«rp»
i-I/i in.
1-1 /i in.
1 in.
1/4 in.
l/i in.
Ml in.
Mo. 4
,H«. H
M». Id
«n. (0 | Mo. *»
j
N«. ion |N». woj A'^'"-
1 ! ' ._
u«
tt 4
Illb
UI c
:i( it
IV c
IOA
100
ion
JOO
70 lit 110
1(1 II
too
T* «u 100
VO lu 100
70 la 100
7» lu ItMl
T* lu 100
45 u 7*
it) n 40
« lu iO
(* u iiO [J 11 »«l * in iO
SO u H«
1* « «*
so 11 M* ;n u 'fi
44 u 70
ttU ii .41]
ill In \*>
in iu t*
10 o ^oiin tu «
H «i d» 1* lu *(1
I i 0 tu 4 i i, J '.a o. 0
• j i) lu 4 | S. 0 ta 6. 0
10 lo ii ' b tu Ee 4 En Ii E i tu * ; *, 0 ta 6. 0
J i» in " i tu li i tu t i '> i" t i i. a in o. o
« In iO ' 1 lu Ii i In N • <> lu » ! i, H lu 6. t>
1" lu IO | 1 * n> i « J i«. 1 * 1 i» n» ' 1 i. ^ t« T. <)
l^vrlinii
:u b
V !>»
vi b*
i
loo !TS ti. ioa
100 U* la 100
100
01) 10 <*
^ In ;*
iO to l»
n« 10 MOI'iO lu ft*
*« 111 ieiiM j»* iu !fo
it ui ~i
47 lu h*
10 tu ii ! * in Is { 4 tu Ii ; i lu 1 ' i.'J tu B. 3
i«i to 411 IH 1,1 SO M» l«i ifl ! t lu HJ '. 11 lu 7. *
to t,. «* ' in ui 4u n> tu ii j » :n « c -t. ' iu 3, 5
«&«.-
! 3
tt d
U c
Jtlt
III 1!
IV (i
100
JS to JO i 0 u I*
I 100 70 a 100
100 • TO lit EDO SO n -tO
' iflO
100 ! 7« la tOO
100 'HO ta 100
7* u 100
bO ., 11
TO u ••*
i^ !<* bO
i 0 lu *
l=i in '*
i^ tu *l] '• 10 tit 10
' in in
* in in
4* ii, 70 . SO t«i »(l|iO In l«
1(1 li> n« i <() tu ^dlill to t«
IS u. 7% 4< tu -,i
j i j u t., t ! i.n ;.. 4. s
t : tl in 4 1 t. ft tu IT. n
1 i ;i ;u 1 t, i) i., R. i>
» tu io , ; iu ii' i »i * '' •» "" 4 '.i> in >i, •>
*
STACK
;AU —f
vv
£010 JGGREGiTE
3UCSEI ElifiTOS
HOT
9UCXET I
Figure 221. Flow diafram of 3 typical hot-mix asphalt paving batch plant.
D-5
-------
323
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Table 94. DUST AND FUME DISCHARGE FROM ASPHALT BATCH PLAMTS
Test No.
C-426
Drier
21,000
130
6,700
37.2
C-537
Batch plant data
Mixer capacity, Ib
Process weight, Ib/hr
Drier fuel
Type oi mix
Aggre gate feed, to dries, -wt %
+ 10 mesh
-10 to -MOO rnesfa
-100 to -f-200 mesh
-200 mesh
6,000
364,000
PS 3 00
street, su
6,000
346,000
Oil, PS3QQ
Highway, surface
68, I
28.9
1.4
1.6
O
!—)
I
r»n
ui
_i
03
a
ID
Dust and fume data
Gas volume, scfm
Gas temperature, *F
Dust loading, Ib/hr
Duat loading, grains/sc£
Sieve analysis of dust, wt%
*100 mesh
-100 to 4-200 mesh
-200 mesh
Particle size oi -iOO mesh
0 to 5 (A, wt %
5 to 10 (A, wt %
I 0 to 20 n, wt %
20 to 50 p., wt %
> SO fi, wt %
Vent line
2,800
213
2,000
81.
13.3
27.6
40,4
12. 1
1. 1
Drier
22,050
430
4,720
24.98
13.9
32.2
48.9
9.2
12.3
49.3
6.5
UJ
OT
UJ
aVemt line serves hot elevator, screens, bin, weigh hopper, and miser.
Drier dust emissions increase with air maas ve-
locity, increasing rate of rotation,and feed rate,
-hue are independent of-.drier-siope~-(Friedmaa~and
Marshall, 1949). Particle size distribution of the
drier feed has an. appreciable effect on the dis-
charge of dust. Tests show that about 55 percent
of the minus 200-mesh fraction, in the drier feed
can be lost in processing. The dust emissions
from the secondary sources vary with the amount
o£ fine material in the feed and the mechanical con-
dition of the equipment. Table 94 and Figure 222
give results gf source tests of two typical plants.
Particle size of the dust emissions and of the ag-
gregate feed to the drier are also show*.
HOOOtNG AND VfNTILATlON REQUIREMENTS
Dust pickup must be provided at all the sources of
dust discharge. Total ventilation requirements
vary according to the size of the plant. For a
6, OOQ-pound-per-batch plant, 22,000 scfm is typ-
ical, of which 18,000 to 19,000 scfm is allotted
for use in controlling the drier emissions. The
topendof the drier must be closely hooded to pro-
vide for exhaust of the products of combustion and
entrained dust. A ring-type hood located between
the stationary portion of the burner housing and
the drier provides satisfactory pickup at the lower
end of the drier. An indraft velocity of 200 ipm
should be provided at the annular opening between
the"circurnfeTeace^oi the~drier"an«i*the ring-type
hood.
The secondarydust sources, that is, the elevator,
vibrating screens, hot aggregate Dins, weigh hop-
per, and mixer, are all totally enclosed, and hence,
no separate hooding is required. Dust collection
is provided oy connecting this equipment through
branch ducting to the main exhaust system. Ap-
proximately 3,000 to 3,500 scfm will adequately
ventilate these secondary sources.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Primary dust collection equipment usually consists
of a cyclone. Twin or multiple cyclones are also
used. The catch oi the primary dust collector
is returned to the hot bucket elevator where it con-
tinues on with the main bulk of the drier aggregate.
The air discharge from the p-" nary dust collector
is ducted to the final dust collection system.
Two principal types of final control equipment have
evolved from the many types employed over ch«
years: The multiple centrifugal-type spray cham-
ber (Figure 223) and the baffled-type aurav tower
D-6
-------
Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants
TEST C-4ZB
m
vat UMS ISM ^-'"f /" J—.M. ii.
2.009 IB/nr ,
F«0» DRHR —
• w
8. TOO IS.-IK EFFICIENCT
\
SITUfW TB HOT EUmOR
""i. ill iB/nr
j = 30. IS
muifii
CENTS IFUS*l
SCRTJ88ER
EFFICIENCT
s 99, IS
f
f
TEST C-SJT
FM
«»T MHI ii« ih,hf ^— 1
?«] (6/iif
FBOH 08fH " f—
— t hCLOHI
t. 72o"iWlir " k|iiiciyCT
\
BfiTMH TD HOT IIO4TOR
EFFICIEHW \ /
«7» W
wanni
CENTHIFUGAL
SCRU8BER
EFFICIfJICT
* n.j«
1 407 iD/hr
S.K* ii/hr
_Li
b
TCR MB MO
t,49S ts/hr
OUT OUST
TO moment
33.9 ID, Mr
'
*
"*•
RATER MO MUD
34. 5 m/ftr
flHT OUST
Figure 222. Test data an air padutian control equipment serving tva hct-mix
paving plants (vent line serves screens, hot SHIS, weigh hopper, and miner).
223. Typical multiple centrifugal-type scrubber
servings 4,QQB-pound-aatcrt-eapctty tiot-wix asphalt
javing plant.
(Figure 224). The multiple centrifugal-type spray
chamber has proved the more efficient. It consists
of two or more internally fluted., cylindrical spray
chambers in which the dust-Laden gases are ad-
mitted tangentially athigh velocities. These cham-
bers are each about the same size, that is, 6 feet
in diameter by 15 feet in length, if two chambers
are used, and 6 feet in diameter by 9 or 12 feet in
length if three chambers are used. Usually 7 to
12 spraynozzles are evenly spaced within each
chamber. The total water rate to the nozzles is
usually about 70 to 250 gpm at 50 to 100 psi. In
th* baffled -type spray tower, there have been many
variations and designs, but fundamentally, each
consists of a chamber that is baffled to force the
gases to travel in a sinuous path, which encoura'ges
impingement of the dust particles against the sides
of the chamber and the baffles. Water spray nox-
zles are located amonsj the baffles, and the %vater
rate through the spray nozzles is usually between
100 to 300 gpm at 50 to' 100 psi.
In both types of scrubber the water may be either
fresh or recirculated. Settling pits or concrete
tanks of sufficient capacity to allow most of the
collected dust to settle out of the water are re-
D-7
-------
330
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Fiprt 224. Typical baff jad-type spray tower serving
a 4,(KM-paur«J4atcfi-cajiaeity hot-nix asphalt paving
plant (Griffith Company, ViInington, Calif,).
The effect of aggregate fines feed rats on stack
emissions at constant water-gas ratio (an average
value for teat considered) is shown in Figure 225
for multiple centrifugal-type scrubbers and baffled
tower scrubbers. Stack emissions increase lin-
early with an increase in the amount of minus 200-
mesh material processed. '.These losses can be
greatly reduced by using a clean or -washed sarid,
The required fines content o£ the hot-mix asphalt
paving is then obtained by adding mineral filler
directly to the plaat weigh hopper by means o£ aa
auxiliary bucket elevator and screw conveyor.
Most asphalt paving batch plants burn natural gas.
When gas is not available, and if permitted by law,
a heavy fuel oil (U, S. Grade No. 6 or heavier) is
usually substituted. Dust emissions to the atmo-
sphere from plants with air pollution control de-
vices were found to be about 3, 1 pounds per hour
greater when the drier was fired with oil than they
were when the drier was fired with natural gas.
The difference is believed to represent particuU.ce
matter residing in, or formed by, She fuel oil,
rather than additional dust from the drier. Simi-
larly, the burning of heavy fuel oils in other kinds
oCcombustion equipment results in greater emis-
sions of particulate matter.
The amount of water E«d to the scrubber is a very
important consideration. The spray noazles should
quired with a "system using recirculated water.
The scrubber patch is usually hauled away and
-discarded.—It is usually unsuitable for use as min-
eral filler in the paving mix because it contains
organic matter and clay particles. The recircu-
lated water may become acidic and corroaive, de-
pending upon the amount of sulfur in the drier fuel,
and must then be treated with chemicals to protect
the scrubber and stack from corrosion. Caustic
soda and lirne have been used successfully for this
purpose.
VortahUs Afftefing Serttbb«r Enmjions
Inarecentsrudy (Ingels et al. , I960), many source
testa (see Table 95) on asphalt paving plants in Los
Angeles County were used to correlate the major
variables affecting stack losses. Significant var-
iables include the aggregate fines feed rate (the
minus 200-mesh fraction), the type of fuel fired
inthedrier, the scrubber's water-gas ratio,* and
the type of scrubber used. Other, less important
variables were also revealed in the study.
The »4C«r-gas ratio is aeMneo Ji ;ne ioc»l qu*nc
Sf»ra?«a in gallon* oer I.JOO scf of ('flume g«.
ID
_
2,008 4 030 S.JOO MM 19 '
OF FlHCS (JINKS SO «$H) Id 88TES FKB. IB "'
figure 225. Effect of iggrepte fines fwd rate on
stack emissions at averate later-eas ratio (tnesis
et ai.. 1980).
D-8
-------
Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants
331
Table 95, TEST DATA FROM HOT-MIX ASPHALT PAVING PLANTS CONTROLLED BY SCRUBBERS
Test No.
C-3S7
C-32
C-379
C-355
C-372B
C-372A
C-369
C-393
C-J54
C-JSS
C-173
I
C-379
C-3J?
2
C-234
C-426
C-417
C-425
3
C-385
C-433
C -422(1)
€-42,1(1}
C-413
Averages!
Scrubber
inlet dust
Loading,
Ib/hr
940
427
4, HO
2, 170
12!
76
352
4,260
.»
1,640
--.
._
3,350
30S
..
372
2.620
560
485
~
212
266
-_
-_
3,400
Stack
emission,
Ih/hr
20.7
35,6
37. I
47.0
19.2
10.0
24.4
"26.9
2T.3
2S.3
31.0
33.5
30.3
13.6
21.1
21.2
25.5
39.9
32.9
25. 5
17,5
11.0
26.6
37.0
30.3
26,?
Aggregate
fines rate,
Ib/hr
9, 550
4,460
8.350
14,000
2,290
2.840
4.750
4,050
6,370
5.220
3,350
7, S20
6. 500
2. SIO
3.730
2,530
10,200
3,050
2,990
6,590
4,890
5,960
7. 140
3.340
9, 350
5.900
Water-gas
ratio,
gal/ I, 000 scf
6.62
3.94
6.38
6.81
10.99
11. 11
5.41
12.01
6. 10
19.40
20.40
11.01
5.92
11. 11
7.28
5.70
7.75
2,94
4.26
6.60
4. 56
3. 12
4.90
3.02
S.90
Overall
scrubber
efficiency,
wt %
97.3
91.6
99, 1
97.8
84.2
36.3
93.0
99. 3
«...
98.7
--
—
99.2
9S.5
--
94.1
99.0
92. S
93.2
--
91. 7
95. S
..
._
99. I
94.9
Type
of
scrubber
C
C
C
C
(•*
C
C
T
T
T
T
T
C
C
T
T
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
T
Type
of
drier
fuel
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Production
rate,
tons/hr
183.9
96.9
F
Gas
effluent
vulunip,
*cfm
23, !00
1 '',100
174.0 -6, 200
209. 1 45, 700
Oil 142. 9 ! 13, 200
Gas
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
Gas
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
158.0 13,100
m.o 16,100
92.3 19,500
113.4
137.8
7, 720
13.700
134. 2 i 17,000
144.6
191. 3
114. 6
124. 4
42.0
132.0
138. 9
131. 4
131. 7
Oil ! 174. 3
Gas
Oil
Oil
Oil
I 14. i
198. 0
1*2.0
1 16. i
23.700
2S. JOO
24. 300
15,900
17.200
22,000
24,600
13,000
13.200
20,000
19,600
il. 000
22,200
17, 100
*Quantity of finei (minus 200 mesh) in dryer feed.
~~ - Multiple centrifugal-type spray chamber.
3 Baffled Cower scrubber.
be located so a:1- to cover the moving gas stream
adequately with fine spray. Sufficient water should
be used to cool the gases below the dew point. One
typical scrubber tested had an inlet gas at 200 °F
with 16.3 percent water vapor content by volume,
and an outlet gas at 131T with 16.3 percent water
vapor and saturated. The temperature at the gas
outlet of efficient scrubbers rarely exceeds 140'F,
and the gas is usually saturated with water vapor.
Figure 226 shows the effect of the scrubber's water -
gas ratio on dust emissions with the aggregate fines
feed rate held constant (as average value for the
test considered). Efficient scrubbers use water
at rates of 6 to 10 gallons per 1,000 standard cubic
feet of gas. The efficiency falls off rapidly at water
rates less than 6 gallons per 1,000 scf of gas. At
rates of more than 10 gallons per 1,000 set of gas,
the efficiency still increases, but at a lesser rate.
Curves are presented in Figures 227 and 223 from
which probable stack emissions can be predicted
for oil- and gas-f1-ed plants with either multiple
centrifugal or baiiied tower scrubbers. These
curves present emissions for various scrubbers'
water-ga's ratios and aggregate fines rates. Emis-
sion predictions from these curves are accurate
onlyfor plants of the type and desiyn already dis-
cussed.
The operation of the rotary drier is also an im-
portant variable. Oust emissions increase with ar.
increase of air mass velocity through the drier,
Obviously then, care should be taken to operate the
drier without a great amount of excess air. This
care effects fuel economy and reduces dust emis-
sions from the drier.
The firing rate of the drier is determined by the
amount of moisture in the aggregate and by the re-
quired hot aggregate temperature. The greater
the aggregate moisture content, the greater the
firing rate and the resulting dust emissions to the
atmosphere. In some plants, the increase in mois-
ture content of the flue gases may increase the ef-
ficiency of the scrubber sufficiently to offset the
increase in dust emissions from the drier.
Scrubber efficiencies also vary according to the
degree of precleaning done fay the primary dust
collector. Tests (suchas those presented in Table
95) have shown that overall efficiency of the pre-
D-9
-------
332
MECHAOTCA.L EQUIPME?>TT
SO
1 4 8 9 10 12 14 16 !J 20
SC&UIBEB MTIR-eAS S*TI8. jll/I.QOD at
226, Effect of scrutator,!* vatcr-gas-ratta-on
stacfc emissions at average aggrepte fines feed rate
in the drier feed {Ingels et al., I36Q).
cleaner and final collector varies only slightly with
large variations in orecieaner efficiency. Plants
with less effective cyclone precleaning had, on the
average, larger particles entering the scrubber,
and consequently, show greater scrubber collec-
tion efficiencies. The principal advantage of an
efficient precleaner is that the valuable fines col-
lected can be discharged directly to the hot elevator
£or use in the paving mix. Furthermore, leas dust
is discharged to the scrubber, where more trouble-
some dust disposal problems are encountered.
ColUetton Effici«nd«s Attoin«d
Collection efficiencies of cyclonic-type precleanera
vary from approximately 70 to 90 percent OR an
overall weight basis. Scrubber efficiencies vary-
ing from 35 to nearly 100 percent have been found.
Overall collection efficiencies usually vary between
95 and 100 percent.
D-10
0 . -
0 i. ODD M30 (2.000 13,'M
(KJMfflTT OF FINES (MINUS 200 ffiSH) Iff OHTQ FEED. itLlr
Figure 227. Emission prsflictiort curves for multiple cantrifuffl!
ssrubtiers serving aspnaltic concrete plants (Ingels at al.. i960?
-------
Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants
333
= 40
10
4. QUO
10
,000 12.300 18,000 a 4.000
(HJAMTIH OF FINIS (MINUS 200 M6SH) IN DRYfft Fltfl. IS/hr
3,000
IZ.QOO
16,300
Figure 22S, Emission prediction curves for baffled tower scrutoers serving asphaltic
concrete plants ([ngsls et al., 1980).
Collection efficiencies of a, simple cyclone and a.
multiple cyclone for various particle sizes are
shown in Table 96. Multiple cyclones achieve high
efficiencies for particle sizes down to 3 microns,
whereas single cyclones are very inefficient. Cor
particle sizes below20 microns. The particle size
data from this table are plotted on log-probability
paper in Figure 229. TTiis figure also shows the
particle size distribution of the scrubber outlet.
Other data on this installation have already been
presented in Figure 222, test C-537.
Fuiurt Tr»nds in Air Pollution Control Equipment
The air pollution control equipment discussed in
this section has been adequate in Che past for
controlling dust emissions from'hoc-mix aspnalt-
paving batch plants in Los Angeles County, How-
ever, new regulations on dust emissions, adopted
in January 19?2, now require that more efficient
devices than wet collectors be used as final col-
lectors. The batch plants are now converting
from scrubbers to baghouses.
Table 96, COLLECTION EFFICIENCY DATA FOR A CYCLONE AND
A MULTIPLE CYCLONE SERVING A HOT-MIX PAVING PLANT
Dust
particle
size, ji
0 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 50
10+
Dust loading
ib/hr
Test C-S37
cyclone
Inlet,
%
6.2
9.4
13. S
22. 9
47. 7
5, 463
Outlet,
%
19. 3
31.9
31.6
15, 1
2. 1
Efficiency,
%
13. 3
5.4
36. 1
31.6
98.3
1, 325 | 72. 1%
Test C-537*
multiple cyclone
Inlet,
%
19.3
31.9
31.6
15. 1
2. I
1,325
Outlet,
%
37. 0
34.0
3.3
9.2
113. 3
Efficiency,
m
t"
77. 1
91. 7
97.3
no_ a
100. 0
91. '!«•>
See Table 94, test C-337 for plant operating data.
D-ll
o
1—I
I
LU
' _J
BQ
Q
LLJ
<
I—
<
-------
334
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
o.ai
10 20 JO 40 SO 3Q 70 10 30 95
?I8CIHT LESS TMN GtVIN MUTJCtE Sill, flierwi
Figure 229. Plot of particle size of oust at the inlet and outlet of a cyclone and
multiple cyclone front test C-53T.
CONCRETE-BATCHING PLANTS
Concrete-batching plants store, convey, measure,
and discharge fche ingredients tor making concrete
to mixing or transportation equipment. One type
is used to charge sand, aggregate, cement, and
water to transit-mix trucks, which mix the batch
«n route to the site where the concrete is to be
poured; this operation is known as "wet batching. "
Another type is used to charge the sand, aggre-
gate, and cement to flat bed trucks, which trans-
port the batch to paving machines where water is
added and mixing takes place; this operation is
known as "dry batching." A third type employs
the use of a central mix plant, from which wet con-
crete is delivered to the pouring site in open dump
trucks.
WET-CONCRfTE-BATCHING PUNTS
to a typical wet-concrete -batching plant, sand and
are elevated by belt conveyor or ciain
shell crane, or bucket elevator to overhead storage
bins. Cement from bottom-discharge hopper trucks
is conveyed to an elevated storage silo. Sand and
aggregates for a batch are weighed by successive
additions from the overhead bias to a weigh hopper.
Cement is deliveredhy a screw conveyor from the
silo to a separate weigh hopper, The weighed ag-
gregates and cement are dropped into a gathering
hopper and flow into the receiving hopper to the
transit-mix truck.' At the same time, the required
amount o£water is injected int" the flowiiig stream
ot solids. Details and varik-«.iQtis of this generalN
procedure will be discussed later.
TSi* Air Pollution
Dust, the air contaminant from wet-concrete-batch-
ing, results from the material used. Sand and ag-
gregates for concrete piodiiction came directly
from a rock and gravel plant where they are washed,
to remove silt and clay-like minerals. They thus
B-12
-------
APPENDIX E
BEFEREUGE 23
(not used in the development candidate emission factors)
£-1
-------
NTRQPY
IMVIRONMENTAUSTS, INC • A
IN
SOURCE SAMPLING REPORT
EXPERIMENTAL ASPHALT CONCRETE
RECYCLING PLANT IN IOWA
68-01-3172
OCTOBER 1976
P. Q. Sax 1S2S1, Research Triangle Park, Ncrsh Carolina 277G9
Phone S1S-7S1-355Q
E-2
-------
INTRODUCTION
The asphalt concrete industry and state transportation
agencies are looking at the feasibility of recycling old
asphalt pavement in modified drum-mix drier plants. One such
experimental plant located in Kosuth County, Iowa, has concerned
the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality, due to previous
observation of excessive visible emissions from a similarly operated
plant. EPA Region VII was requested by the Iowa DEQ for technical
assistance to determine if the plant was complying with the
state- air pollution regulations.
As part of its continuing study of new asphalt concrete
technology trends and their impact on the Federal New Source
Performance Standards, the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement of EPA agreed to provide assistance to the Iowa
DEQ. "••
Source sampling was performed at the Everds Brothers, Lie.
asphalt recycling plant located near Titonka, Iowa, on two
separate occasions, under three different plant operating con-
ditions.
Briefly, the first two conditions involved changes in the
location of the recycled material injection. Only one set of
simultaneous particulate tests at the inlet and outlet of the
wet scrubber control equipment was made on September 29, 1976,
because of problems encountered with the conveyor equipment used
to introduce the recycled material midway in the drier. Three
sets of simultaneous inlet-outlet particulate tests and one set
of particle sizing tests were made on September 30 and October
1-3
-------
1, 1976 (after process changes were made to feed all of the
recycled asphalt material into the drier at the elevated end,
along with the virgin material). In addition to the par-
ticulate tests, air samples "before and after the scrubber were
taken for a hydrocarbon analysis.
The last condition constituted a change in the type and
rate of production of asphalt mix produced and an increase in
the rotary drier's angle of elevation. The asphalt mix was
changed from 66% recycled/34% gravel at a production rate of
18S to 204 tons per hour to 701 recycled/301 limestone at 245
to 2SO tons per hour, while the drier slope was increased from
2° to 2,98° Three particulate tests were run at the separator
outlet on October 6, 1976; three venturi-scrubber inlet
particulate tests were performed on October 7, 1976 along with
a set of inlet-outlet particle sizing tests.
During all the testing, water samples were taken at the
scrubber water pump inlet and at the separator water discharge
for a water analysis.
Present during the testing were Ronald Kolpa of the Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality and Robert Farnhan and Lee
3inz from Barber-Greene Company, the manufacturers of the plan-
facility.
The measurements made for stack gas flow rates and partial
emissions were made according to the Iowa Department of Eaviroi
mental Quality's recommendations and generally followed the U.>
Environmental Protection Agency's requirements. Due to the
sampling problem of plugging filters encountered during the ?re^
vious tests, a modified Method 3 sampling train was used in an
E-4
-------
attempt to alleviate the problem.
Following sections of this report treat the summary of
results, a brief descrition of the process and its operation,
and the sampling and.analytical procedures used.
E-5
-------
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of the particulate testing program are
summarized and presented below in Table 1. The values used in
computing the averages presented below were reasonably consists
considering the nature o£ the process and the control equipment.
Table 1
AVERAGE PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
grains/dscf
Venturi Inlet
"Seoaratar Cutlet
uperaciiig
Conditions*
#
1
2
3
EPA S
Only
2.04
S.35
CNA
ImDingers
2,35
S.-S4
20.67
Test
Set #
1
2-4
1-3
EPA S
Only.
0.22
0.43
DMA
EPA S *
IntDingers
0.31
0.57
0.88
Corresponl
Table ?'s|
2-3
4-3
a-?
* See "Process Description and Operation" for details
Table.s 2-7_,,. as no-ted above, -are summations" of t"h~e~
individual test results from the particuiate testing. Since
a modified Method 3 sampling train was used in making the inlet-
outlet tests during the third operating condition, no* ""EPA
5"results are available - a Method 8 train eliminates the filter
between the probe and the water-filled impingers. For this
reason, only "EPA * Ispinger" results are presented in Tables
6 and 7, and in Table 1, under condition 3. Flow rate dctermina-
cion.s 1*01' clio .scrubber outlet stuck appear to be higher than real
hnr.ovt *JU (:!ui c;i i cu I .'i rcni vnn r.u r i - ncruhiH: c iuiot. f* I DW r:»i-<:. Tlic,
hiuluM' ViiSiio 1 r. |i I'lihiili I / 'I i >f ('= nnn • \>n t'n ( I « I l'|(»w in Hi" -.1 m-r.
E-6
-------
(most probably tangential). Generally, the results would be lower
than real due to sampling over isokinetically; however, due to
the extremely small particle sizes as acted below, there probably
was a negligible effect.
Results of the particle sizing tests on conditions two and
three are given in Tables 8-11; no particle sizings were made
under the first operating condition of the plant. During the
second and third conditions, the aerodynamic diameter of 301
of the particles was less than the following sizes - second con-
dition: inlet, S.5 microns; outlet, 0.43 microns; third condition
inlet, 991 greater than 10 microns; outlet,7.1 microns.
Analysis for gaseous hydrocarbons on the air samples taken fr
the venturi inlet and scrubber outlet during condition two results
in values for the .inlet only. The.outlet bag samples developed
a leak during shipment, resulting in dilutions and lower figures.
By -assuming the amount of carbon monoxide to be constant from
the venturi inlet to the scrubber outlet, the total hydrocarbon
content reported at the outlet was recalculated and found to be
approximately the same as at the inlet. The inlet data was
reported as follows: total hydrocarbons, 468 parts per million;
methane, 18 parts per million; carbon monoxide, 2065 parts per
million. On the total hydrocarbon measurement, an apparently
very heavy hydrocarbon was present since the relative decay of
a portion of the total was very slow. If heated lines were used
to bring the sample from the stack directly into the instrument,
the total hydrocarbon results might have been much higher.
-------
Analysis of the water samples resulted in the values
reported in Table 12. Because the analytical method used
in determining the dissolved solids is designed for concen-
trations lower than those found, the results for the dissolved
solids are questionable.
No visible emissions data was taken because of the nature
of the steam dissipation in the plume. In general, however,
the opacity was noted to be approximately 2S-3QS.
E-8
-------
APPENDIX F
REFERENCE 26
F-l
-------
UJ. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Haticnii Technical information Service
PS-293 923
Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary
and Miscellaneous Sources in the
South Coast Air Basin. Final Report
KVB, Inc, Tustin, CA
California State Mr Resources Board, Sacramento
Feb 79
F-2
-------
TABLE 4-1,
Qf ¥WVP TEST
i t
in
ui
m
o
CTi
M
03
:6
*
j^l««i«t«t», -t
!!!Sl
5M
sop
SIS
soo
516
SOO
iOO
512
4sa
14
99.5
|38
9,1
122
7?
99
9tt
ua
119
BU
103
91
124
i
54.2
22.1
61.7
26.4
36
3.4 i
?.S|»
20.2
2.6
11.2
S.S
17.0
10.0
W|»
ClClOM
630.8
79.. 5
256. J
36.8
26B.P
36.7
-
3.4 *
5. On*
14.6
2.7
a.4
3.6
26. 5
126.2
fiff (cul^l. H«(«M*. mn
u
ciflif!rt
1 l> llUVftllBftWItl
cvcio.. 1 ctMhli^/af,.
10I.»
?|4.0
a. 9
?34.9
IS.)
M6.?
3.1
-
1.0 D
Jill1"
9.6
3-1
a.a-
1.4
9.2
$14. Q
143.6
11.)
149.|
4.0
126.9
1.5
-
1.2 6
Ml™
6.)
B.2
t.)
1.2
3S.3
1 00.0
S6S.3
»?.i
2?5.t
15. <
277.'
»"]
124.4
3.3
100.1
24.2
29. 8
1.2
89. 9
146.7
816
160.5
44. 3
20.9
390.9
139,1
39.2
ITIinlli 1 •""
nTa
1014.4
30. B
24.1
4.T
63
41. 6
-
-
883. B
!U.i
47-Q
4i
-------
TABLE ^-
? t
-p. Oi
Ul
CD
o
CD
f**i &•
•**€»
»*i*
OB,
•In!
ri»t
**/!» L
is
la
2S
2,,
IS
3J
315
3*
169
164
7S
7.1
15J
SS
552
fit
520
520
476
476
476
411
8W1
aial
247
247
5248
5966
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2-5
2.4
2.5
6.17
8. 11
2.1
2.1
12.5
•"
16.6
4.0
9.O
14.*
14. t
3.7
4.3
202.5
35
272
92
leo
60
60
15
240
240
240
211.2
240
110
I
8736
8716
0736
0716
6570
8736
f r^iAcrjf */fi Jfc/»» | wiMtv
ftiei. cottBustJojj
0.0672
0.0896
0.0285
0.0278
O.OSi
0.0365
O.O66
0.0179
0.0201
O.OOU7
0.0427
0.0200
a. oioi
0.15»
6.2
2.7
0.4
0.2
4.5
15.7
1.120
1.331
1.128
1.124
1.210
1.149
1.270
1.071
1.41
a, 61
0.090*
0.0424
1.J6
8.17
0.0998
0.} 322
0.041
0.042
O.O77
0.549
0.099
0.0270
0.0431
0.0184
0.0600
O.O281
0.0995
0.214
**(»•! at r«rllcl«<
* lnu| ia»i|i 1 I-IK
' IB
l|
IS
9
1}
11
36
-
-
2.5
0.?
0.6
O.a
4
0.3
10
S
1)
" t
6
4
20
-
o.a
O.9
.15
O.4
2
4.45
l*
<
i
»*
12
1
2
20
-
o.a
1.4
0.35
0.6
2
4-45
63
56
66
65
?*
58
-
-
96
97
99.1
98.4
92
74
Control
Iff*
ton*
V
»
t*
*»
n
"
H
II
*
Hone
H
*
Hone
*
»_,k.
1450 kW
-------
u»
Ln
CD
o
CTv
I
-4
CO
1,1
.(*f<*«y/ln4>>*t«y
t»p«
Utility
flnllar ||
Utility
Boll«r
"
«
H
<•
H
It
M
-
M
M
*•
M
T»I; »>.
*l*P
IM
129
UJ
US
|1|
213
2)J
24S
UJ
32S
«J
1)3
31J
M««
11/14
1970
1/14
197*
l/M
lf?A
1/16
1978
1/16
1978
1/10
ISM^
I72TT
1970
1/24
1970
1/26
42M-
1/26
191tt
1/6
1978
1/6
1978
T7T~
1978
j/e
1978
t— !')• Vol.
P*?
»4.l
22)
91 S
222
If 06
100
099
194
946
212
772
77Q
88)
227
user
1027
2*5
996
244
15}3
JJ*
977
214
1024
211
BS2
BS!
9H3
245
t>*H'ta
«•»
tut*
WTP!
4..1
1.02
4-1
1.01
4-2
1.06
4.24
0.93
4.2
0.9U
4-i
1. 01
4.1
l.Dfc
, laE*****'*- *r
^<*ck
275
?15
2B4
275
201
27}
297
290
222
220
29S
292
286
2B6
*1f'W
91
81
94
81
02
77
eo
BO
111
95
»4
79
75
79
9*f«
4.06
389
392'
109
3BU
)4i
390
155
400
299
177
)S1
IBS
18)
»
|y^!9r
»58
161
l&S
}S*
H9
1)2
76
07
77
88
92
92
100
101
*«**
fS!S6
29.5
11.7
U
3.6
t2.|
4.0
157-1
10.6
10.4
18. *
49.7
81.)
11.9
21.1
10 V
CveloM
*M
M-4
1|.2
M-J
19.8
J.i
35.6
10.9
41-7
§.8
26.9
S.S
SZ.fe
19,4
r>r<|cu|tt> ItalghlB. mf
1 f
CyclMt*
|1.9
»-4
?S.|
2.6
64.8
0
29.2
1.2
)-4
1.5
6.?
J5.1.
2B.4
1.0
1 »
CIC|M>«
10.6
2-6
9.6
Z.7
3.0
0.9
5.1
3.6
1-4
0.9
3.4
11.4
6.9
7.0
rot»»
C.«ck
98 ^
24.8
96,0
24.6
IB). 4
29.8
116. 9
2S.S
96.8
24.5
64.5
60.0
100.3
29.5
l*pi***f
IjO/Ori.
125.7
50.«
26,1
29.6
215.7
i§.4
25.7
lO.f
2107.8
0
122.2
10.2
1174.1
'T67.2
47.1
6.5
49&.C
17.4
in1:!
Wi
407, S
£2.4
195. S
14. <
427.1
60.0
60.1
54.!
|»l*|
5S6.B
112.6
429.0
8). 9
!471.0
170.6
686 0
105.6
686.1
19U.7
621.1
4)1.6
751.2
las.u
-------
f*»t *>.
lls
11J
12S
.12J
13S
1U
23S
234
24S
24J
32S
32J
3 IS
33.J
tuck
M*
833731
B3)73(
8961 Vi
Q9U17I
913231
913231
B494 3
64941
4810H
40101!
79S98
79598
05504
65504
8,,
4-e
4.8
5.9
5.9
6.3
6.2
6-4
6.4
6.5
6.5
4.7S
4.75
6.0
6.0
00
10.0
to.o
10.0
10.0
10.5
10.6
10,5
10.5
10. C
10. C
10.2
10.2
10.7
10.7
•In*.
2|0
240
240
240
'36Q
316
230.5
229.6
240
240
206.9
828.5
240
238.6
^U
8736
a? 36
8736
0736
0736
0736
8736
8736
8736
8736
07)6
8736
8736
U/36
Col ••!<>••
^r/PScf
O.OOfl
0.007,
O.0072
a. 005 a
0,0271
a. 0088
0.0289
0.0064
0.0112
0.0144
O.0124
o.ooaf.
0.0132
O.ulll
f/rr
284
243,
24.2
196
W
399
921
268
202
259
369
256
423
427
TB7SF
65. o:
55.6
$5,5
44.a
II?, 4
68.5
21Q.8
61.3
46.2
19.3
114. 5
SB. 7
96.9
H7.7
Ilt/MBta
0.0154
0.0132
0.01 JO
0.0105
0.050
0.0162
0.0554
0.0161
0.0114
0,0275
0.0211
0.0147
0.0244
0.0246
r.[C..t ei *(i|
* T5»
1.0
9
4
9
o.|
?
1.5
1O
5
5.5
3.5
O.I
4
A
10' 1)1
2.5
I
1
|
0.9
0
M
1.0
i
o.s
1.5
0.7
4
*
I' H>
2
10
7
"i
3
o
2. a
1.5
1
0.6-
*
4
S.
2
< In
91.5
76
04-°
80.0
95. S
98
95
P7.5
91.0
96. S
94
95
U7
BO
Gualrel
»W*
Horn
-
*
•
'
9
Horn
•
H
•
•
-
m
*
filial**!
1
1 412 HA
\
1
1
1
1
1
| 4SO
I
X3U
I
1
1 "455
1
1
i
t
Cu
III
oo
o
en
M
CD
-------
TftBLE $-1 (cont'ej.)
T t
in
CD
o
CD
U)
:a*f>«|/lB4ilttff
t»M___ '..
utility
Boiler 12
.
II
-
_It« J9-.
2ia
21J
22S
22J
P*1*
1/16
1970
1/16
1910
T/ll
1978
1/18
1970
i^tiii
PSFT
774
151
ma
250
JwJU.
HSCf
a§i
111
1231
277
»«,.»,.
n>~
lui«
nscnf
4.6
1.00
4,1(9
0.994
f««^«f«Ki
Crc|«*«
4.1
1.2
t.l
2.0
t »
C|0lcux
4-P
0.6
37.3
1.7
1 »
C|^c|o«i|i
*.?
0.9
9.8
2.6
flU.r
C*td|
50.9
12.2
82.7
19. S
.
l*l>i*f*f
1,4/Gtl
211.6
66,6
45.9
_, 0,4
"119.0
34.1
13" 0
8.4
— , -
«w_
l»l*{
460.7
73.4
608.2
75. B
-------
CO
t
Ul
Oi
o
en
^i
00
lo
f*l| fa.
218
214
223
22J
-i*ar
Ml*
nscn
178394
178394
21512,
21512-
f***tf
e
1.0
a.o
8.0
CO
9.6
*.*
9.5
9.S
» (««»
•in.
IBS
116
281
279
|0|i
-1
1.2
O.I
1.4
rc*»t a
10* l|i
0,75
0.6
i.t
I.I
1 r.rll
'"'If
1.6
0.7
S.fl
1.9
:!••
< In
|7. S
97.S
91
96
c>
TVP»
w~
H
"
•
Milial
1
(IIIClMt
»»ltt«
-------
(coot»4,J
o»l>««y/ iNtxf *C|
til*
Gyp a urn
Brick
Urick
Ceneiit
Ceuwnt
Glass
Glass '
Glass
Glaaa
Glass
Pib«rglaaa
rtbergl&fia
Aa|.)ialt
Hoofing '
Asphalt
HaaciiiG> ,,'•
/ / .
R&tch | '
Batch ^ .
*•" "»•
w
ea
83
93
IBS
203
204
28S
3SS
154
jaa
3BJ
25S
2SJ
29S
29J
ftfl
10/16
1977
«/*
liii
u/j
1917
11/1
1977
12/16
1977
1/12
1976
I/U
197B
2/1 £
I97a
1/16
lf?f
3/16
197A
3/2B
Jt7^
1/28
1970
1/31
J97S
1/31
1970
2/21
197B
2/21
137B
i»wN
W*»
30&
£99
11$
942
940
990
194
125
370
170
91S
230
991
234
Ui4
76
y«i-
WCf
507
701
117
965
992
1062
217
361
410
106
963
241
996
219
an
92
»-i"i«l«
n-~
IL.I.
vscni
4.03
1.91
0.98
3.99
1.1}
5.14
0.97
3.6
3-7
0.94
3. a
O.96
4.15
0.99
3.9
0.05
f_l>*fck
4H
85
7S
365
381
420
1001
019
815
035
154
15*
13Q.B
119
175
1B6
Ncttt | Ov«»
HlHEBAl.
»0«
95
04
?«
92.)
W.T
76
9.1
100
US
104
101
94
05
92
. B6
404
202
205
395
398
383
174
397
3BU
397
399
179
iea
249
400
244
»
l«4!f.
«»
i
94
51
IP
89.5
H&
90
ai
94
MO
105
101
102
103.5
113
too
rr«*«
(tick
12-1
1S.S
105,4.
31. S
35.4
5.6
7.5
75.4
48.f
S*.4
M-a
11.3
25, 6
0.8
18. 3
804.7
19 V
fl«f**»
56$. S
110.9
8501,5
98.5
M5-9
7-1
5.6
13.3
90. a
24.0
7-6
1-1
19.3
3.1
261.2
10911.6
rtttlmlit* IMI*M
) M
Cycioa*
506.4
!?.»
14.-9
124.9
165.1
<•»
2-4
12. »
49.0
16.9
2.2
1.4
18.7
M
15.2
1092B.3
1 >'
7Kl«M
80.2
1.7
5.2
J4-1
53. e
5-4
Hl.l
34.7
62.1
256.9
1-1
1.5
5.1
1.7
B.7
2162.9
mw*
C«lth
ai.fi
1.6
?.s
19.5
a?. 6
ia.7
26f.7
947.6
93B.4
181,0
120. a
30.0
2.2
0
15.0
121 12J
uvtH*r
**>(•*%•
145. C
32.5
39.5
89. C
1.5
(
32. (
V.4
151.;
6.«
359.1
2.1
56.1
9.4
191.!
19.1
4?2.^
16.1
IMJ
47.!
820. £
43.?
141. 1
11.1
64.-
349.1
11.!
9i.;
fiV 2
47,4
3.1
l.fc
P?»»»
1395.5
291.0
1713 O
342.7
6O6.4
396.5
457.5
1291.7
lf2S.7
715.6
1011.4
203.7
485.0
110. 1
420. i
i696fi.*
Ul
03
o
-i
GO
LJ
-------
ffH •>.
6S
as
aj
9S
IBS
JOS
20J
285
3SS
3SJ
38S
3BJ
2SS
2SJ
293
2W
!"<:»
flo-
«*(•
oscni
4508
6435
213!)
laisai
146121
34959
27484
13610
iiooa
liuea
65779
65779
45349
44697
65089
5055,7
VMtt*
0^
19.0
Alt
*tf
14.1
14.3
12.7
12.3
8.6
11,0
11. 0
20.0
20.0
6.4
6.4
10.2
17.4
°°>
0.5
—
—
7-3
10.4
s.e
S.9
6.5
6.0
6.0
o.s
o.s
0.4
0.4
3.5
2.0
•x?
pl«-
10S
i«s.a
{20
340
240
240
223
90.1
100
180
240
240
240
240
210
90
ri««
<4»«>t|o«
**»• ";
hf/W
67 J 6
2475
?475
7728 ,
772£|
8736
8736 ,
8400
U400
6400
0736
8736
7072
7072
720
720
' lfei»iCMI*
f r^nscr Ir/ic '("JLAr" f "IE7««»nr
MINERAL
0.0558
O.Q064i
1.169
Q.0056C
O.OO99:
0.0061^
0.0364
0.0612
0.0594^
0.0649
0.0170
O.Ol J6
0.0075<
0.00?»
0.00771
11.4US
9.4
0.4
26.6
23,6
4.«
8.C
37
30.2
25. b
27-t
84.0
67.2
10.-I
10. i
1.S6
U7SLS
2,16
0.354
21.5
5. as
12.47
I. as
a. S3
7.19
6.06
fa, 63
19.24
15.4
2.94
2.9U
4..34
5777.!)
I>A
m
NA
NA
HA
I1A
HA
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
Hk
HA
HA
NA
frrcmt of t«tlelf*
1 lOu
I?
44
9B.6
B.O
a.o
M
o.s
O.6
4.-2
1.2
0.6
0.2
2.3
O.SS
60,
—
10- Ip
3».5
1
0.85
«
2f
0.6
.°-1
0.7
3
1.3
0.2
0.2
2.8
0.2
6
—
- i:W
34
,<
0.30
40
34
»
0.5
1.3
4
2
0.2
0.4
4
0.3
4
~
€, !*? ^
22
18
0.15
20
M-o
91
98.6
97.4
88
95
98.9
99.2
91
99
,to
~
CaMrol
rrr»
tag-
XiUSV
"»
Hot
Mot
ESP
ESP
Nc
Ik
He
iatei
:urt£
list
;llni
^
ltt|-
){)%1%€
1
KOcI.xt
f?.^
f»-§
Teftoi]
Toatet)
98.24
iollda 01
9B.24
ia
la
te
Hot
in Tea tec
tot Toeu
lator
«
99.9
•«•.<»•
la^liousa
i*lt
Inlet
'uej - fan
r'uel -coal
;SP outlet
'X-
;sp inlet
inissiona
jiven fur
bo tb ducts
a
Ul
a>
o
en
-4
on
u>
-------
I I
in
CD
O
to
U)
-^/.-Ml.,
Rica
Mica
CARJtCOA
CAAACOA
Heat Treat
Steel
lloat Treat
Staal
Sand Blast
Steel
Sand Blast
Steel
Aluminum
Foundry
Aluainua
Foundry
Sinter
Plant
Sinter
Plant
Open Dearth
Steal
Open Hearth
Steel
48
4-1
37i
37.1
10
W
• 34S
3«
10S
103
26S
26J
36S
36J
10/11
1977
10/U
1977
3/23
11/29
1977
11/29
1977
3/14
1978
1/14
1978
11/10
1977
11/10
1977
2/2
197B
2/2
1970
3/21
1978
1/21
1970
•W
973
190
232
762
178
9)6
164
1220
334
954
206
690
170
-ss?
996
197
241
772
1BO
941
164
1341
3&1
1023
213
181
189
**(*
5.00
0.99
1.0 Ut
0.99
4.06
0.91
4.0
1.03
4.30
1.22
4.2
0.9'J
3, a
0.9C
Mich \ n»t»t | <»«>
»
FOOU AMP ACHICULTlIRt;
87
06
Saaple
US
100
91
pue
i0i
202
205
To
4OO
117
M4
•U91.
122
METAL FABRICATION
139
180
75
66
114
117
103
as
397
391
399
351
84 '
97
100
117
H£TM.LUJu; I CAL
1141
1141
229
245
422
4B6
105
97
87
02
107
101
404
382
316
339
402
401
8}
6»
108
122
93
98
»•«*>«
_£*!£&_
37.5
16.6
Teapot a
4 BO. 3
16.5
59.2
0.2
61.3
57.0
12.0
JS.l
727.8
173.1
227.9
10 |t
327.,
141,*
ture
301-9.
12.5
96.7
14.2
9BS3.B
12.1
4-3
85.1
142.1
70.1
268. 9
"" 1 V
M.»
2.2
l.o
14-8
73.7
3.1
262.4
8.4
1.0
36.7
2B.9
66.1
99.1
I 1*
?,*
1.0
84
«M
26). a
1.0
186.6
5.1
• «.0
14.1
319.3
161.0
505.2
fUi«f
1.0
0.7
2.1
10.2
147. J
1.2
17.3
47.0
6.t
100.3
U8(M
251.1
883.3
S/2J'
57.6
94.3
6.8
1.9
iia^i.
174.1
59.6
16. B
10.3
36.2
13.2
20.4
_a*a.
feQ.J
51.1
27.7
2.2
15.7
2345.2
224.5
180.4
135.9
722.8
16.0
165.0
54.0
IWtl
590.7
190.3
1069. a
140.1
685. 0
53.3
20446.5
20B.4
45.8
2841. Ci
2735. i
1660.4
2283.4
-------
-J (cont'4.
T**' "••
48
4J
17S
17J
14S
14J
148
34J
10S
10J
26S
26J
163
16J
suck
oscni
124901
1249O1
162C
4519C
20761
16623
11571
HOC
iia«
118761
9605!
17551
19791
*•••»»
»*
16
Wr
Air
Air
Air
Air
5.7
5.7
16.1
is. a
9.5
8.5
CO
—T
—
—
—
"
__
__
6.8
6.8
4.4
5.0
10.5
11.5
ft**.
• In.
W3.2
1*8.51
233
190
190
231
159
114-1
104.1
240
225
iai
177
~H-
700
700
2000
4oao
4000
1040
1040
4774
4774
8320
0320
0064
8064
f
t/OSCT j T/ff Ib/hr lb/MK»lu
t
fUOU JH4D A<*|ifCl)l«fUR£
0.00915
0.0154
0.0711
3.5
5-8
2.0
10.03
16.5
2.0
KA
M*
W*
HCTM. rAWIC«,0N
0.00293
0.0593
o.oooao
1.922
2.»
21.6
0.07
99.4
1.10
10.58
0.125
191.2
—
__
—
—
i Nfmouiwicu.
O.O0263
o. '002 11
0.0459
1
0.
205
0.0366
0.
206
!
0.17
0.14
19S
709
22.3
141.4
Q.D72
O.O50
46.02
170.4
5.53
35. 08
HA
NA
N»
II*
—
—
, „
"* ISM
1*
89
41
4
5
«
93
S
9.5
2
6
2.2
a
10- 1(1
M
a
1
a
7
6
3.S
4
3
1.2
1
i.a
3
l»1u
»?
1
»
1
M
10
*
1.7
S
2
M
1
7
4
* |u
3Q
9
57
74
76
74
1.8
06
86
95
92
87.5
82
OMltVl
TW
—
-!•
iftci
lost
_
Jag-
iouai
ioua«
*>»*
HI
an
ESP
p
t
not tea^i
—
buvn«f
tent
—
90|
90*
99.9
oolidi 01
97. i
84.2
90.1
-------
TAULE 4-1 Jcont'4,)
:«>|>Uf / 1 *d u • t f y
f»J»
Spray Booth
S|>ray Booth
Spray Uootli
Spray Ikxtth
Boric Reid
porij ftcij
fertilizer
Plant
fertt liter
plant
Sending
Sanding
Sanding
H«sawlnfh»f *|U!2| *f
tltcl. }fMt.r Ip-fft
1
I tot la.
OfiGAlUC SOLVENT USE
69
60
71
71
112
136
118
M7
BB
68
90
06
CUtMIC
111
95
90
as
'* 34
233
24.?
26(
U.
40(
370
198
202
101
106
102
101
95
231
113 .
91
MOOD PRIX ESS I JIG
78
78
77
75
75
94
75
78
ai
92
ao
76
70
66
70
94
82
130
1O&
59
PETROLEUM
460
525
aa
98
407
300
117
91
Not*
C*tcb
76.7
ll.o
<9.P
20.4.
10.5
1301.5
H
27.5
13.4
4.9.6
235.4
41.0
699.1
21.6
1293.6
19 M
C|Cl|cMMfl
41.5
2.0
6.6
3,, a
153.4
*M-2
i.I
0980.9
10.1
12.3
1365.1
110.9
1504.7
14-8
750.5
r«rtlc*fft* ««I*M
1 B
Cycta«h>
' 5.|
<•?
J.«
2.fl
5.5
0.6
>.6
0.4
2.6
21.3
_.
H.S
2.3
5.6
93.1
1 V
C|clao*
7-6
8.1
6.J
M
»-6
1,5
0.5
0.5
0.8
23-B
—
—
4.5
4.4
132.5
« ?* „
r*Ii*r
_c*i£fc.
a. i
o.«
4.8
0
a.6
«,B
0.3
0.7
2.2
0.7
230.6
1.9
—
1.5
52. a
>»f|»7>r
l&fo*%_
SsP-
44.5
6.0
7.1
^1:?-
60.9
4.0
11.7
1213.7
10.4
ifl-j
11.9
148.2
11.4
..Bl.l
22.7
24. B
55.4
3.9
4.2
IB. 2
4.S
13.0
19.9
1.5
S.I
11?, 1
57.2
eu^.s
61,3
P"!!
W.fc
39.9
152.3
43.0
JU60.1
1999.7
173.5
1113.8
109.1
135. 6
JB54.0
201.2
2217.4
252.4
1070.:
UI
-------
TABU2 j-\ (coot»4.)
I ^
*-" i-l
*- s
U)
m
o
a\
03
27S
27J
31S
31J
17S
IW
19S
194
30S
304
30 |5
39S
39J
40S
4IS
rt~«
MCtfl
9HOO
91400
m.40^
»5,40,
10948
1690|
46B8
1979
4179
4206
4384
*546
6703
16216
11399
f»«ft
Air
All
Air
Air
20,9
20.9
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
3.9
0.9
€»
—
—
--
—
..
—
—
—
__
--
—
—
-.1
10.7
Ttt-
193
«9
240
240
240
5*
193
195
192.3
120
70
240
120
240
240
CKHIMlUfl
?»••
4000
4000
27SO
2750
8736
B736
2000
2000
2080
2080
2000
2000
20UO
B736
8400
«t/0SC7 1 t/J"if
OMCAH1C t
0.00171
0.0032S
Q. 00241
0.002U2
0.0237
0.610S
O.002ttC
0.7154
5,9
5.1
6.9
7-8
CHE
9.74
389
a. i
12.2
Ib/lw
OM/PH
2.«
2.56
5.0
S.7
HICAU
2.33
88,7
o.u
12.16
ID/mM(U
• usp:
HIV
HA
MA
m
—
—
_.
HOOD PMOCeSSIIIG
O.O022
0.0168
0.931
O. 00311
0.366
0.1
0.6
16. 5
0.2
21
0. 070
0.601
35. OS
0.3
20.0
PCfKOLUIH
a. 00424
0.055
2.6
>2.33
O.S9
14.84
HA
HA
NA
—
--
O.0062
—
*• c*n at f«rtl
'^OJi
n
s
&
10
IS
4
98.6
Q
37
__
60
99
4.S
62
10- iH
S
IH
M.
'3
o.s
1
3
P.2
3
4
_.
11
0.3
2
5
l-tp
5
15
3
8
0.5
0
1
0
3
12
__
9
0.3
1.5
5
< III
19
to
»1
«»*
Af
»4
1.2
86
36
—
20
0.7
91
52
c
tw
r-
—
BH
811
Ml
BH
Bll
—
;yclc
Vcl0
M
Mane
tSP
Mtn>l
1
tKUIwt
97 $
97. &
99. |
99.1
96.3
M 98.4
« «»•«
99.0
Hot Test
pmit
tnlat
Exit
Inlet
Bayhouso
En It
laQhouae It
at, Cycloi
tjsli
:yclona
Inlot
Cyclone
Outlet
Cycloii;
Inlet '
ed
-------
4.2.12 ' Asphaltic_Cencrete Batch Plants,
A. • Process Description (Ref. 4-20 & 4-21)—
Plants produce finished asphaltic concrete through either batch or
continuous aggregate mixing operations. Different applications of asphaltic
concrete require different aggregate size distributions, so that the raw
aggregates are crushed and screened at the quarries. The coarse aggregate
usually consists of crushed stone and gravel, but waste materials, such as
slag from steel mills or crushed glass, can be used as raw material.
As processing1 for either type of operation (batch or continuous)
begins, the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and placed in the
appropriate hoppers of the cold-feed unit. The material is tnetered from the
hoppers onto a conveyor belt and is transported into a gas or oil-fired rotary
dryer.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator
and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens where it is classified by
size into as many as four different grades. At this point it enters the
'mixing operation.
In a batch plant, which was the type tested in this program, the
classified aggregate drops into one of the four large bins. After all the
material is weighed out, the sized aggregates are dropped into a mixer and
mixed dry for about 30 seconds. The asphalt, which is a solid at ambient
temperatures, is pumped from heated storage tanks, weighed, and then injected
into the mixer. The hot, mixed batch is then dropped into a truck and haulec
to the job site. Figure 4-48 illustrates a batch plant similar to the one
tested and indicates the location of particulate sources in the operation,
There are many sources of fugitive particulate emissions as shown in the
sketch. In this program the ducted emissions controlle _ by a baghouse.were
characterized,. as were .the partially controlled emissions entering the
baghouse.
4-160 K7B 5306-783
F-15
-------
atation
SASS train
Sampling station
Joy train
Primary dust
collector
cyclone
Exhaust to
atmosphere
Coarse
aggregate
storage pile
fine
aggregate
storage pile
Feeders
Weigh hopper
mixer
Conveyor
Figure 4-48, Batch hot-mix asphalt plant. "P" denotes particulate emission points.
KVB 5806-783
-------
B. Participate Test Set-up—
Two trains were used simultaneously to sample the inlet and outlet
of the baghouse. The inlet station was located on the vertical duct
approximately 12 ft ahead of the bend entering the haghouse. The velocity
profile of the inlet duct was taken through the three 3" diameter ports
provided. The velocity profile in the inlet and exit ducts of the baghouse
are listed in Table 4-58-
The outlet sample station was located on the horizontal section of
the duct about, eight ft upstream of the fan. In the interest of the safety
of the crew, the velocities were not taken through the vertical port. There-
fore Velocity Points 10 through 15 were obtained by swinging the pitot tube.
A 7/16"' nozzle was used at Velocity Point #3 on the outlet duct and a 5/16"
nozzle was used at Point #3 of the inlet duct.
C.
Partictilate Test Results—
The results of the two tests (Test 29S and 29J) discussed in this
section are listed in Table 4-1. Elemental composition, sulfate, nitrate,
and carbon analysis were determined for all fractions of parciculate catches
which contained weights in excess of 100 Big, The details for these procedures
are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Due to the very heavy loading on the inlet
side of the baghouse, the cyclones aad filter in the small sampling train had
filled to total capacity and caused a pressure drop during sampling which
resulted in stopping the sampling.
D.
Discussion of Test Results—
1, Efficiency, of the, baqhouse-~qsing the solid satch data (i.e. without
the impinger catch) from both sampling trains for the inlet and exit, the
baghouse efficiency was calculated to be 99.95%. Using the total catch,
the efficiency would, be 99.92%.
2. Partiele_ slate distribution—Figure 4-49 is a plot of particle size
(Uffl) vs accumulated weight percent, the latter plotted on 3 probability scala
as explained in Section 3.2.3 B. Two sets of curves are presented, one
including the iaspinger catch, the other ignoring it. Considering the large
amount of material collected upstream of the filter, it would seem that the
4-1.62
IC7B 5SQ6-783
F-17
-------
TABLE 4^38., VELOCITY PBOFILE—ASPHALT BATCH PLAMT (TEST 29)
r
/
1 4 1 U
***JLia*««J_
niae ~P"« — .,.1-,
jrt»" w**i«' ^^D ' li
S«"
2 fr ID
P- 1 s *
M?:ir ~ /«
1- poet
}"M« IS* - ^ ( 2* *»«P
Inl«t to a*9botts«
rw«*mun> iso*r
SMU.C FT»»«UT«l -4.J- IQ
itstance from Velocity Velocity
ad of Port Point * ft/sec
8" 1 30.2
20" 2. 30.2
32" 3 34.1
44" 4 37.2
8" " 5 31.9
~~ 20" '~ ., S. ""36^7
32" 7 38.2
44" 8 41. 8
8" 9 37.2
20" 10 34.1
32" 11 28.9
44" 12 28.3
Average: 34.1 ft/sec
75337 scf
^~ *^
toopJU l>ouit ^ ^^. m
1/16' na«i«X -X^k X
f\^\ \ "
l/\ in \
\\ j(y< KJS * IB
r yore. i >< " / J
r M* N^^^ N. 14 / /
Outl«t of u^nou**
T«p«t»t.ux«i 160*7
StBCle l»r»»»ur«: -ll*M.O
Distance from Velocity velocity
Ead of fort Point t ft/sec
5" 1 53.8
9-3/8" 2 76.3
14-5/8" 3 35.3
22-3/8" 4 85.3
33" R ' 95.4
43-5/8" ~*~ V ""95.4"
51-3/8" 6 85.3
56-5/8" 7 85.3
61" 8 81.0
37" 10 95,4
35" 11 ai.O
34" 12 89. S
34" 13 85. 3
•35" 14 73.9
37" IS 68.8
Average? 84.6 ft/sec
75354 scf
F-18
KVB 3806-783
-------
0.01 0,1 0,5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40506070 80 iO 95 98 99 99.3 99.39
WEIGHT, PESCEOT LESS THAN STATED SI2E
Joy Mfg. Sampling Train with Impinger
Joy Mfg. Sampling Train Without Inspinger
SASS Train With Impinfer
SASS Train Without laipinger
Figure 4-49. Particle size distribution for asphaltic concrete
batch plant (Test 29)
4-164
KVB 5306-"S3
F-19
-------
effects of pseudo particulates would be insignificant. Therefore, the
Stinger catch, was believed to be properly included in the measurements of
the suspended particulates froa asphaltic concrete plants. As a result of
the filling of the cyclones in the Joy train, a particle size distribution
curve could not be made. It is estimated from visual examinations that
»he mean particle size for the inlet is greater than lOOyn. The breakdown
cf the particle size distribution for the baghouse outlet including the
is as follows:
Controlled
Test 29S
0. 00 776
1.56
4.34
0.02
0.1
Uncontrolled
Test 29J
11.485
2079.9
5777. S
34
45
LU
to
Percent of Particles
Greater than lOya 10-3van 3-lura Less than lym f£
test 29S 60 6 4 30
U
ae -mean particle size for the baghouse outlet is approximately SOya. p:
f >—'
Although the baghouse has a high efficiency some of the coarser particles
still penetrate, no doubt due to small leaks in and around the bags.
3. Chemicalcomposition of particulates—Table 4-59 lists the results
from the chemical analysis of the particulate fraction for the tests dis-
jsssed in this section. Although silicon is not detected with XRF (sae
Action 3.2.2 B) , it is. clear that silicon is the most abundant element in
these samples. The unanalyzed portion of Table 4-59 is primarily SiO. and
other compounds*- of silicon,
4. Enissicns and emission factors—Eg" gg jQ"g and emission factors^ can — • —
ie listed with several different units. The following lists some of these
missions and-factors for these tests:
Dnits
gr/OSCF
T/yr
Ib/hr
Us/ton produced
li/ton produced (Ref. 4-22)
4~163 KVB 5306-733
F-20
-------
TABLE 4-59. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF PAKTICULATE SAMPLES
IN PERCENT FOR ASPHALT BATCH PLANTS (TEST 29)
SAMPLE f
WT. PERCENT OF CUT
XRF ANALYSIS
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Potassium
Silver
(Sulfur)
Titanium
TOTAL1
Sulla tes, H_0 sol2
(Sulfur, from SO4") "
Nitrate EH.,0 sol)2
lOym
Cyclone
29S-25
62.1
t
t
2.4/0.3
t
3.6/O.S
1.5/O.S
t
(<8)
t
8
2
It }
t
lOyn
Filter Cyclone
29S-5S 29J-2S
3.57 54.3
t
10/3 1.9/0
t
1/0.1 4.3/0
1.5/0
(<4) (<33
t t
11 8
.3
.5
.2
2
Total Carbon
(Volatile Carbon)
(Carbonates)3
• TOTAL ANALYZED
BALANCE
10
90
100%
11
39
100%
(t )
8
92
100%
d*t«et*4 in oooe«ntr»tian of <1%
Analyzed fey x-ray fluor»»c«nee— Saetion 3.2,2 t
«naly«5d by w*t eh*mi«try— Section 3.2.2 A
«n*ly**d by Oe»MOqs»phy carton &nalyt«r— S«ct:±oft 3.2.2 A
2
3
4
5
( }
ealeuiatml fsraa «ul£*tai {iulfiit-««alf«a!/3> co eoatp«r« with
from XBF
tor
stewn »« X/t, X i« % Of tfca «iea»nt pr«i«a« and If is th«
not inelaiad In tacai— aoifae *nd «ulfate* ar« mccomtad for in sulfur
«T «nalyii» «nd volmtil* esxbon uwl cKtoonat* ara «ceoun*od for In
totii c*rbon
4-166
F-21
KVB 5305-TS3
-------
APPENDIX G
REFERENCE 27
G-l
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF INHALABLE PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS
FROM A DRUM-MIX ASPHALT PLANT
by
Thomas M. "Walker
George R. Cobb
Hack D. Hansen
John S. Kinsey
VOLUME I
FINAL REPORT
Contract No. 68-02-3138, Technical Directive No. 8
HRI Project No. 4S91-L(84).
February 16, 1983
For
Industrial Environmental Research, Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Attn; Mark Stutsraan
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 8t6 753-7600
G-2
-------
and is deposited in a hopper located beneath the collector. The collected
dust is returned to the drum from the hopper using a. positive flow pneumatic
system.
2,2 FIGCESS OPERATION
As an integral part of the field sampling program, data on the oper-
ation of the plant were obtained which characterized the various parameters
affecting the generation of emissions. Such data included the plant pro-
duction rate, the raw material throughput, the asphalt content of the mix,
the ratio of recycle material to total aggregate, and the temperature of
the hot mix and the effluent gas from the drum mixer. This information was
collected in the form of hard copy printouts from the computerized system
controlling plant operation. The printouts were obtained approximately
every 30 m-in throughout each sampling period. A summary of the process op-
erating data collected dtiring the program is presented in Table 2.2, and
photocopies of the original printouts are provided in Appendix S.
During the period when testing was being conducted at the Bowen plant,
a number of different types of asphalt paving were produced depending on
individual customer requirements. Each type of nix is designated according
to its job mix number, as shown in Table 2.2. The job mix number specifies
the type and quantity of aggregate and asphalt cement required to produce
a particular grade of asphalt paving. In the process, the proper amount of
material from each of the cold feed bins (including the recycle feed bin)
is provided to supply aggregate of the appropriate gradation. Hot asphalt
cement is also metered to the process according to the job mix specifica-
tions. Allowances have been made in the job mix formula to account for
the asphalt content of the old asphalt concrete when recycled material is
used.
Table 2,3 provides a summary of the job nix specifications available
for each type of paving produced by the Bowen plant as a function of the
aggregate gradation and asphalt content.
7
G~3
-------
TABLE 2:2. SIjMMiRY OF PROCESS OPESATI2TG DATA, AT SOFTEN .CONSTRUCTION COUP ANT
Baca
10/7/81
io/a/8ie
10/9/11
10/16/81
io/w/81
10/20/81
10/21/81
fiM
CM
13:30
14:00
1*8 32,
13:00
-
08:30
09: IS
10: CO
10:30
11:00
tl:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14s30
13:00
12:30
10:30
11:03
08:00
08*30
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
12; 00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
08:00
38:30
09:00
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:23
08:30
09: 13
09:45
10:15
11:13
12:00
12:30
Saw malarial . Secycl* uts-
throuttrout (tons/h) rial/ toe* I
Tatti Arpoait frotiaction jits Aapdalt content Job Biz afgrtfiu
a(jTej»« ce*«at {wiu/h) of "ti (vt. 2) So. (•)
362
316
314
322
-
309
309
311
316
304
312
306
300
322
174
249
243
233
-
237
262
255
«
274
27S
233
•-..243
226
213
233-
250
171
22S
21S
223
222
216
212
214
263
278
298
304
243
211
230
245
239
190
195
113
185
10.3
11. 1
11.2
10.9
-
10.9
10.3
t.S
8.s
J.I
8.8
9.1
$.0
10.4
11.4
9.2
S.8
8.3
7.2
13.7
8.9
8.?
-
8.7
8.6
!.i
S.6
5.3
9,4
3,3
3.2
8.3
7.o
11.7
7.9
7.7
11. i
7.1
6.6
8.6
».3
10.2
10.9
8.1
8.7
7.9
12.3
12. 4
9.3
9.8
10.3
10. 1
372
327
323
333
290
320
320
330
323
313
321
313
308
332
283
238
234
244
-
271
271
274
.
283
284
281
234
263
222
- -261
268
ISO
236
230
231
230
227
219
221
272
288
308
314
233
220
138
238
231
200
20S
193
195
4.56
4.64
4.64
4.61
-
4.33
4.7!
3.38
3.94
-
3.93
4.10
3.78
3.77
3.03
$.40
S.01
4.97
3.77
S.03
4.4$
4.41
.
4.37
4.49
4.33
4.37
4.33
4.20
— . - - 4, 63
4,33
4.54
5.17
4,95
4.53
4.6i
4.95
4.4J
4,6$
4.37
4.61
4.53
4.61
4.37
4.33
4.61
4.97
4.39
4.73
4.31
4.98
3.14
a
s
8
8
8
t
S
9
3
S
8
9
9
8
I
8
a
8
3
S
8
8
8
8
8
$
a
3
5
_j
a
3
a
s
s
$
5
3
5
3
8
S
8
S
a
8
6
0
6
0
k
4
28.2
30.4
29.0
30.7
-
30.4
29.4
29,9
29.4
29.3
30.8
30.4
28.3
29.8
3S.1
30.3
29.3
28.1
-
0
30.9
31.3
.
32.1
32.7
31.2
27.3
30.9
a
31.2
31.5
2.3
33.1
0
30.0
29.7
0
31.1
29.0
31.6
30.2
30.5
31. &
29.3
17.3
29.1
0
9
0
0
0
0
lot, oix
txie leaf.
CT)
320
293
292
303
-
304
307
287
308
305
307
301
306
296
298
297
291
311
288
301
239
293
.
298
297
298
Z60-
318
318
303-
307
299
302
311
312
317
307
307
316
306
316
293
293
314
307
236
197
296
302
313
314
314
Orftr its
axis. ifoa.
err
338
330
334
342
345
359
236
363
361
331
362
356
339
334
340
363
331
356
337
335
379
139
_
133
363
362
379
264
343
• 342
332
337
361
341
361
363
34e
34i
338
349
365
332
331
367
331
343
321
331
345
343
33S
335
(continued)
8
G-4
-------
TABLE 2.2. (concluded)
Oat*
10/22/81
10/26/81
10/27/81
10/30/81
11/6/81
TIM
(B)
97:45
08<3Q
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:30
13:30
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:20
14:00
14:30
13:00
08:00
08:30
09:00
09:30
10:30
11:00
14:00
14:30
08:00
08 -.30
09:00
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
Saw >»i
EJsromirouc
Total
atirttaU
146
161
160
147
160
163
189
ISO
190
194
137
132
134
163
136
191
180
212
215
234
238
192
206
107
199
209
183
203
134
131
- 193
136
189
183
136
186
188
167
163
160
143
264
268
263
261
248
iMM/hr
Aspiult Production r»t«
cement (tra*/h)
7,9
9.0
8.8
8.1
8.8
8.8
10.3
9.9
10.3
10.4
8.1
7.9
8.1
8.4
8.0
10.0
9.8
11.0
11.7
12.2
12.9
12.4
10.9
11.1
11. 0
10.8
9.6
10.7
7.0
6.9
10.0
9.9
9. a
9.9
9.9
10.0
9.9
a. 7
a. 7
8.7
7.1
8.4
3.3
8.8
8.7
8.0
134
170
169
135
169
172
199
190
200
204
163
160
162
171
164
201
190
223
217
246
231
284
217
218
210
220
195
214
141
138
203
196
199
198
196
196
198
176
172
169
151
272
277
274
170
236
Recycle «•<*-
Aapbalt content Job six »jjref»e«
of adx (•*. 1} »o. (i)
3.18
S.14
5.14
5.14
3.14
5.10
4.94
5.14
S.10
5.10
S.03
5.03
4.93
4.99
4.99
$.07
5.03
4.99
4.39
4.99
$.03
5.19
4.99
5.03
4.99
4.93
5.19
4.83
4.93
4.93
5.81
4.98
3.01
4.98
4.93
4.S5
4, as
4.83
5.01
4.98
5.06
4.21
4,45
4.43
4.42
4.43
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
S
• 5
5
$
5
5
3
5
S
5
5
5
3
5
S
5
2
10
10
10
IS
10
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
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
29.9
20.2
29.8
29.9
30.6
lot ai*
•sic top.
323
326
313
333
331
32S
315
324
320
323
327
318
315
317
322
309
334
324
332
307
323
329
339
340
335
329
341
332
127
344
337
330
316
333
323
313
333
342
330
323
332
308
303
309
310
312
3ryer gaa
340
343
334
345
341
333
333
35?
329
333
333
336
348
336
3*3
330
332
353
363
337
337
374
373
362
366
363
371
338
339
346
341
343
331
348
235
361
339
331
347
333
342
367
372
378
360
334
* fatal iggrtifica a virgin uttcial * rtcyelad Mpiu.lt p*7eaett.
Me»»ured
-------
TABLE 2.3. JOB HIX SPECIFICATIONS
o
Coarne aggregate
Jab mix Na. (% > 8 mesh)*
4 36.5
5 47.8
6 47.8
8C 45.8
Aggregate gradation
Fine aggregate Mineral filler
(% < 8 mesh) (.% < 200 meah)a
63.5 3.6
52.2 3.4
52.2 4.0
54.2 5.9
Asphalt content .
of mix (% weiglit)
5.2
5.0
4.9
4.9
9 Not Available
10C 54.6
45,4 5.7
5.1
lY-rt:ent of total aggregate.
Percent of total mix.
Includes recycled asphalt paving.
-------
It should be noted that the mineral filler content shown la Table 2.4
is that percent of the total aggregate (or recycle) below 200 mesh which is
indigenous to the material itself aad should aot be misinterpreted as sup-
plementary mineral filler added to the aggregate.
la addition to collecting process data, samples of both the virgin ag-
gregate and the recycled asphalt concrete being used as raw material were
collected. These samples were taken front the appropriate belt conveyor just
prior to being transferred into the drum mixer. The samples were stored in
polyethylene bottles in the field for transport back to the laboratory for
analysis. These samples were then analyzed gravimetrically for surface
moisture. The virgin material dried in a- laboratory oven at 110°C for 24 h;
and the recycle- material at HO°C for 1.5 h. The raw data sheets of the
moisture analyses are contained in Appendix C. The aggregate and recycle
samples were then graded according to size by dry sieving using standard
MSHTO test methods. Since MRI's nest of sieves does not contain a tfo. 8
screen, which is the cutoff between coarse and fine aggregate, the percent
in each of these ranges was obtained through a linear regression analysis
of the entire aggregate size distribution. Again, it should .be noted that
the mineral filler content is that which is indigenous to the material it-
self and not added to the mix. The results of the raw material analyses are
provided-in Table 2.4. The raw data of the dry sieve and moisture analyses
are provided in Appendix D. Also contained in this appendix are the graphs
plotted to determine the cut point, between coarse aad fine aggregate.
Included in the data collected during the sampling program was an
analysis of the asphalt cement used by Bowen in their process. This cement.
was a standard 60-70 paving asphalt manufactured by the Amoco Oil Company at
their refinery in Sugar Creek, Missouri. An analysis of the asphalt cement
is contained in Table 2.5. This information was supplied by Amoco Oil
Company.
11
G-7
-------
TABLE 2.4. SU1WARY OP RAH MATERIAL ANALYSES
Q
i
GO
Date
collected
10/7/tl
10/9/81
10/19/81
10/20/ftl
JO/21/81
IO/22/BI
10/26/81
IO/27/S1
10/30/8!
11/6/81
a
Tyiie of r
Ti«e "VlriTT"
00 aggregate
SoBI Run II X
SoHl Hun 13 X
15:30 x
13:30 X
OSilS X
13:30 X
09:00 X
08:30 X
12:00 X
1I;OU X
13:15 X
08:40 X
I4i20 X
08:50 X
IOsI5 X
aw iMterljll
Recycle! Coarse friction*
paving (J > a Hush)
44.3
X ?2.l
JJ.6
X 8). 3
£9.0
X 61.1
61.5
x n.i
65.2
X ?5.2
51.?
X 79.1
49. 5
24.4
28.3
41.0
49.1
53.3
57.3
59. a
72.1
X 66.8
~ . — -.—^ .. __..__
Fine fracUuu8
(1 < 8 «oal,)
55.1
27.3
22.4
12.?
31,0
38.9
38.5
25.3
34. a
24. B
42.3
20.9
50.5
75. 6
71.7
5'J.O
50. 9
46.7
42.7
40.2
27.9
31.2
Hlner.l filler*
(X < 200 «esh)
5.4
0.1
1.4
0.1
2.2
0.8
4.2
0.2
2.7
0.2
3.5
0.7
3.1
2.3
2.9
4.5
3.9
2.5
2.2
1.5
4.1
O.I
Surface auiature
(«t. t)
2.1
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.3
0.8
2.5
I.S
2.5
1.7
2.4
1.5
2.5
4.0
5.4
4.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.3
2.0
3.2
J'crccut of laid! material.
-------
TABLE 2.5. ANALYSIS OF ASPHALT CEMENT
Parameter
fenetratioa (at 77 °F)
Flash, point
Ductility (at 77 °F)
Solubility
Specific gravity
Specification
0.6-0.7 mm
450°F
100 on
99%
-
Test results
0.62 ran
615°F
150* cm
99.96%
1.035
Source: Amoco Oil Company.
13
G-9
-------
3.3 SAMPLING FROC22UBIS
The preliminary inlet, and outlet test data taken prior to performing
the actual emission tests at the asphalt plant are contained in Appendix F.
The preliminary inlet data contain an attempted Hethod 17 run using 43 sam-
pling points (traversing 24 points per port). However, only two points were
sampled because of the high loading. The testing strategy decided upon is
discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.2. Also contained in Appendix F are
toe dry molecular weight determinations used in the final calculations, The
dry molecular weight of the stack gas was determined daily at the inlet and
outlet of the baghouse.
3.3.1 Pretest Prepargtipqa
3.3.1.1 "larticulate Hass—
3-3,1.1.1 ETA Method 5 train—Four-inch diaaeter Type A/E (Gelman Sci-
ences, Inc.) glass fiber filters were used .for particulate collection sub-
strates in the EPA Method 5 train used at the baghouse inlet. The filters
were placed in numbered 4-3/4 in. diameter by 3/16 in. deap aluminum weighing
pans. The filters and weighing pans were then placed, in a constant humidity
and temperature room for 24 h» after which each filter and its corresponding
numbered weighing pan were weighed on a Mettler Model AK 160 electronic bal-
ance to the nearest 0.1 mg. The filters and weighing pans were again, equili-
brated for 6 h and weighed. This procedure was repeated until two consecutive
weighings agreed within 1.0 rag. The Method 5 filter tare weights are found
in Appendix G. After completion of weighings, the filters were placed in
plastic petri dishes for transport to the test site.
23
G-10
-------
Two-hundred and fifty milliliter capacity glass beakers were used for
recovery of mass train samples. The beakers were first washed ia Alconox
detergent and the rinsed with tap water. After the beakers were numbered
with a lead pencil on the etched surface of the beaker, they were rinsed
with distilled water. The beakers were then heated in an oven to 500°F for
1 h to burn off any organic material present. The beakers were transferred
using beaker tongs to an equilibration, room and equilibrated for 24 h. The
beakers were then weighed on a Mettler Model AK 160 electronic balance to
the nearest 0.1 ing. The beakers were equilibrated for 6 h and then re-
weigned. This procedure was repeated until two consecutive weighings agreed
within 1.0 mg. Tare weights for 250 ml beakers are presented ia Appendix G.
After completion of weighing, the beakers were placed in sterile plastic
Whirl-Pak containers and put into their original box for shipping.
3.3-1.1.2 SPA Method 17 train—Gelman type A/E 47-tam diameter glass
fiber filters were used for particulata collection substrates in the EPA
Method 17 train used at the baghouse outlet location. The filters were
placed in numbered 57-ona .diameter aluminum weighing pans. The equilibration
and weighing procedures used on these filters were identical to the proce-
dures used for the EPA Method 5 filters. Method 17 filter tare weights are
presented" ..in Appendix G. Plastic petri dishes were used as shipping con-
tainers .
One-hundred and fifty milliliter capacity glass beakers were used far
recovery of EPA Hethod 17 samples. The beakers were cleaned, equilibrated,
and weighed according to the procedures described above for the EPA Jletaad 5
beakers. Tare weights for the ISO-mi beakers are presented in Appendix G.
These beakers were transported in sterile plastic Wuirl-Pak containers.
3.3.1.2 Particle Size—
3.3.1.2.1 Andersen high capacity stack sanroler_with 15_-ua preseg-
arator—The entire Andersen HCSS iarpactor and 15-ym preseparator systea and
nozzles were washed ia detergent and rinsed with, tap water, distilled water,
and acetone. The acceleration and vent tubes were cleaned with a high pres-
sure air stream.
24
G-ll
-------
A 1-1/2 in. diameter by 4-3/4 in. long aluminum tube was used as a con-
tainer for each, glass fiber thimble filter. The aluminum tube also served
as a weighing container. The thimble filter and aluminum tube were prepared
for field use as follows:
Aluminum tubes were numbered with an engraver.
Aluminum tubes and lids were washed in Alconox detergent.
* Aluminum tubes and lids were first rinsed with tap water, then
with deionized, distilled water.
Aluminum tubes and lids were heated in an oven to 500°F for 1 h
to remove any potential organic contaminants. After heating, the
aluminum tubes were handled only with beaker tongs. The aluminum
lids were handled with latex surgical gloves since they were not
weighed.
The aluminum tubes and lids were removed from the oven and allowed
to cool.
"A thimble filter was placed in each container.
The thimble filter and aluminum tube were placed in a constant
humidity room for 24 h at ambient temper a cure and pressure.
The aluminum tube and thimble filter were weighed to the nearest
0.1 gag on a Mettier Model AK 160 electronic balance. The aluminum
tube lid was not desiccated or weighed.
The aluminum tube and thimble filter were desiccated for 6 tu
The aluminum tube and thimble filter were weighed a second time.
25
G-12
-------
' Weighings were repeated until two consecutive weighings agreed
within. 1.0 mg,
* The lid was placed on the aluminum tube.
* Aluminum tubes were wrapped in aluminum foil and placed in plastic
Whirl-Paks for shipment.
Aluminum weighing pans 57 am in, diameter and 20 mm deep were used in
recovering samples from the first four impactor stages. Each weighing pan
was numbered with a metal engraver. The aluminum weighing pans were then
desiccated and weighed according to 'the procedures used for the aluminum
tubes and thimble filters. The aluminum weighing pans were placed in 100 mm
diameter by 20 mm deep plastic petri dishes used as shipping containers.
Thimble filter and aluminum weighing pan tare weights can be found in Ap-
pendix G.
3.3.1.2.2 Andersen Mark III lapactor with15-ym preseoarator—Ten
3-in. aluminum foil squares were cut to serve as holders for each filter
set. The aluminum foil squares were folded in half, labeled, and the ap-
propriate . glass fiber filter substrate (Andersen 2000) placed iaside. the
equilibration and weighing procedures used were as follows:
The,filter sets were equilibrated in a constant humidity room
for 24 h.
The filter and its aluminum foil holder were weighed on a Cahn
Instruments Model 27 eleetrobalance to the nearest 0.01 tug.
The filter sets were equilibrated for another 6 h.
The filters were weighed a second tine.
26
G-13
-------
The equilibrmtioa and weighing procedures were repeated until two
consecutive weighings agreed within. 0.05 ng.
* Each, complete filter set was placed in a glassine envelope for
shipping.
Andersen Hark III impactor substrate tare weights are found in Appen-
dix 6.
3.3.2 Testing Strategy
The Southern Research Institute "Procedure Manual for Inhalable Particu-
late Sampler Operation," Hovember 30» 1979, prepared for H& (SoRI-EAS-79-761,
4181-37), was used to determine most of the sampling criteria for both the
particle sizing and mass tests. Four individual sampling points were used
rather than a standard traverse of the duct, except for the inlet. Also,
the criterion for isokinetic sampling was expanded to ± 20% rather than the
standard ± 10%.
3.3.2.1 Baghouse Inlet—
According to the procedures manual cited above, the recommended sam-
pling points for circular and square or rectangular ducts can be determined
using Figure 3.7. However, due to the duct configuration and the extremely
high loading at the inlet, it was decided to deviate from the recommended
sampling points for the total mass tests. Instead of sampling at one point
during a run, it was decided to traverse six points. A traverse o£ the duct
was necessary to obtain total mass data that would be unbiased by stratifica-
tion. Six points were chosen because of the short sampling time dictated by
the high loading of the inlet. The particle sizing tests were conducted us-
ing normal inhalable particulate testing procedures. (Refer to Figure 3.2.)
3.3.2.2 Baghouse Outlet—
The testing strategy used in testing the outlet employed normal inhal-
able particulate testing procedures for both particle sizing 'and total mass
tests.
G-14
-------
r
b/4
__!___
Figure 3.7. Rscomoended sampling points.
Source: Southern Heseareh Inscicuta,
"Procedure Manual for Irthaiabla
Particuiate Sampler Operacior.,1'
prepared for EPA, Soveuifaer 30,
1979. (SoRI-SAS-79-75i, iiSl-37)
G-15
-------
SECTION 4.0
SUMMARY OF BESUITS
Results of the testing program at the Bo wen Con.stnict.ioa Company as-
phalt plant are summarized in this section. The tabular and graphic pre-
sentations that follow were derived from reduction of the raw field data
found in Appendix I and the laboratory and analytical data found in Appen-
dix 5. The raw data were combined and reduced by a computer program devel-
oped by MRI to produce the printouts found in Appendix J. The information
contained in these computer printouts was used in the construction of the
graphs and tables in this section.
Only data that have met specific acceptance criteria are summarized in
this section. These criteria, as obtained from "Procedures Manual for In-
halable Particulate Sampler Operation," prepared by Southern Research In-
stitute for EJA, are:
1. Each total mass and particle sizing run must be within ± 20% of
isokinetic.
2. The particulate grain Loading from the total mass train (EPA
Method 5 or Method 17) and the corresponding particle size train (Andersen
HCSS or Andersen Hark III with 15 M^ preseparator) must be within ± 50%.
The data that has net this criteria is in Table 4.1. Two total mass and
four particle sizing tests consisting of four runs per test (one run per quad-
rant on particle sizing) were conducted at the baghouse inlet test site. Two
total mass and two particle sizing tests consisting of four runs each (one run
per quadrant) were conducted at the baghouse outlet test site.
G-16
-------
TABLE 4.1. SUIttAKY OF UACUOUSE INLET AND OUTLET ACCEPfANCE CRITERIA RESULTS
™- ~. - — — .^»~.~,... — „, „_ — . .. n _
Yiiul Him Ho.
Ho. soitt't:i:~ruu-iju«t| Test date
itilel I'iirtlcle
2
3
a
i
•^ 4
-1-1(10
-1-2
- 1-3
-1-4
-2- lit)
-2-3
-2-4
-3-1
-3-2
-3-3
-3-4
-4-1
-4-2
-4-3
-4-4
(iutltl I'jillclt.
O-l-t(tt)
, 0-1-2
0-1-3
II- 1-4
0-2-1
, 0-2-2
0-2-3
0-2-4
a
Sizing Train
10/26/81
10/21/81
10/22/81
10/21/81
ii/o6/8i
10/22/81
10/26/81
IO/22/fll
10/27/Bi
10/26/81
10/27/81
10/26/81
10/30/81
10/27/BI
10/30/8 1
10/30/81
Sizing train
10/21/81
iu/1'j/ei
IO/20/B1
10/22/81
10/30/81
10/22/81
10/27/81
10/26/B1
I'itrl liul j| e
% loading
iBoklitetlc gr/ilscf*
94,9
93,2
95.1
101.6
89.7
96.0
99.1
III. 2
90.9
95.4
09.9
98.8
110,1
111.2
93.6
109. S
120.1
117.7
104.4
114.3
105,8
101.2
100. B
92, S
15.1
21.2
17.5
33.6
6.6
IB. 6
12.7
26.1
16. »
18. «
10,4
32.5
7.6
10.1
17.5
22.1
O.U298
0.0310
O.OIBB
0.0467
d.UV.H
0 , 040!)
0.0419
... »..,_. . . _.„ .
_k % fcuw Him Ma.
1-1 U-)
21.9 22
1-2
J-3
16.0 II
1-4
1-5
19.7 9
1-6(8)
I-J
14.3 20
1-8
* = 18.0
0-1-1
0-1-2
0 .0316 S 0-1-3
-------
To further scrutinize the particle sizing data an average grain loading was
determined for the 16 inlet runs and the 3 outlet runs. This average was
compared to the average grain loading of each test. If the average varied
by more than 50%, runs within that test would be compared to the grain load-
ing found in the corresponding mass run. If these values disagreed by less
than 50%, the deviation probably indicated a high degree of stratification
and all data were retained.
4.1 rSIAlAELE PMTICUIATE (II) EMISSION FACTORS
The IP emission factors for a typical source were calculated for 15.0,
10.0, and 2.5 pa particles as follows:
A total mass emission factor, indicating the amount of particulata mat-
ter released into the atmosphere per unit of asphalt concrete produced, in
pounds per ton was calculated for each run of each mass test. The total
mass emission factor (Ib/ton) was derived by dividing the total mass emission
rate (Ib/hr) calculated from the mass train data, by the production rate (tons/
hr). Froduction data for the plant was provided by the Bowen Construction
Company as described in Section 1. The calculation for a single run was based
on the assumption that the average stack velocity during the run was the same
as the velocity measured at the sampling point of the quadrant being sampled.
—In.-addition—the individual^ emission"f actors £of "each~~run~ we re "calculated "
based on the plant production rate during the period when the samples were
collected with no adjustment being made for other variations in process
operating conditions. The IP emission factors were calculated using the
total mass emission factor derived from the Method 5 and Method 17 data
rather than a factor which could have been calculated from the total mass
collected by the particle sizing device.
The total mass collected during a run in the particle sizing device,
and the mass collected on each individual stage was entered into a computer
program along with the criteria to determine the actual D50 of each stage.
G-18
-------
The Dgo of a stage is the particle" diameter at which the stage achieves 50%
efficiency; one half of the particles of that diameter are captured and one
half are not. The computer printouts of the particle sizing tests in Appen-
dix J indicate cumulative percent greater than the stated Dso, whereas the
graphs and tables indicate Dso as cumulative percent less than stated size,
The cumulative percent less than stated size vs. the stated size (Dgo) were
then plotted for each, of the four runs that constitute a test. Mote: The
cumulative percent less than stated size is determined by subtracting the
numbers found in the row labeled "cum.% with filter" from 100.
To determine exactly what percentage of the total mass was less than
2.5, 10, and 15 microns, the cumulative percent greater than stated size and
DSQ fxom the abovementioned computer printouts were entered into a spline
equation. A program for handling 'impactor data using a spline fit has been
developed by J. E. Johnson et al. ("A Computer Eased Cascade Impactor Data
Reduction Systen," EIA-60Q/7-78-042, March 1978). An improvement to this
program has recently been completed by MRI and was used in this study to de-
termine emission factors. . IP emission factors were calculated by multiply-
ing the percentage of the total mass derived by the spline equation for the
desired Dgo hy the total mass emission factor (Ib/ton). The particle diameter
upper limit was set at 50.0 (jmA for the calculations using the spline fit.
4.2 CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR THE IHLET AMD CUTLET OF THE BAGEQUSE
Due to the extremely high loading at the inlet, a deviation from normal
IP protocol was used to calculate these emissions. The outlet emissions
were calculated using the normal IP methods discussed earlier. The total
mass runs were matched with the particle size runs as shown in Table 4.2
and 4.3.
All total mass samples taken at the inlet were collected using a six
point traverse instead of being collected from one point at the center of a
quadrant. Because of this, the mass and particle sizing runs could not be
matched quadrant by quadrant. Total mass runs were matched with particle
sizing runs according to time and day (see Appendix A). The last 2 days of
G-19
-------
TABI£ 4.2. BAGHOtJSE OUTLET TOTAL MASS
AND FARTICLE SIZING
COORDINATION
Particle sizing nm Total atass run
Q-l-l(B) 0-1-1
0-1-2 (recycle) 0-1-2 (recycle)
0-1-3 (recycle) 0-1-3(B) (recycle)
0-1-4 0-1-4 (recycle)
0-2-1 (recycle) 0-2-1
0-2-2 0-2-2(B)
0-2-3 . 0-2-3
0-2-4 0-2-4(C)
G-20
-------
TABLE 4.3. BAGHOaSE DUET TOTAI MASS
AND PARTICLE SIZING
COORDINATION
Particle sizing run
None
Kone
1-1-4
1-1-2
1-1-3
1-2-2(8)
1-2-4
1-2-3
1-3-2
I-l-l(B)
1-3-4
1-3-1
1-3-3
1-4-2
1-4-1
1-4.3
1-4-4
I-2-1CC) (recycle)
Total mass run
1-3 (recycle)
1-4 (recycle)
I-KC)
1-2
1-5
1-7
1-8
1-6 (B)
None
G-21
-------
testing no total mass runs were conducted. The average total mass emission.
factor (lb/ton)» calculated from all eight of the inlet mass runs (Table 4.3)
was applied to the particle sizing runs conducted on that day,
4.3 DATA PRESENTATION I01MAT
Stannary tables for both the baghouse inlet and outlet test locations
are presented as follows:
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 present impactor particle size run sampling data
including mass (mg) , D50 values, and the cumulative percent less than stated
size for each stage of the impactar.
Tables 4,6 and 4.7 present the total mass emission factors (Ib/ton)
and the IS emission factors for 2.5-, 10.Q-, and lS-(Jm particles. An aver-
age ratio of the grain loading determined from the particle sizing train to
the grain loading determined from the mass train, is presented in table 4.7.
This ratio was not included in the data for the inlet (Table 4.6) due to the
six-point traverse (instead of quadrant sampling) used to obtain the sample.
The .computer results of the modified IPA Method 5 and Method 17 train
field data containing the calculated grain loading and the emission rate in
pounds per hour, are presented in Appendix J. If emission factors for both
the inlet and the outlet are summarized in Table 4.8.
The data results are also presented in graphic form for both the bag-
house inlet and outlet test locations, These graphs are presented as
follows;
Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 present the results of each
individual test, which consisted of four separate runs (one per quadrant).
The data presented include particle size (Egg) versus cumulative percent
less than stated size and emission factors for 2.5, 10.0, and 1S.O urn.
G-22
-------
TABLE 4.4. PARTICLE SIZE RUN TEST SAMPLING DATA, BAGIIOUSE INLET
to
La
" ' "' " - - -- '
15-|H» Cyclone Stage I
T«jst Him Ho.
Haaa
D«o «1«
Nu. Bourn.1-! iu|-qua
95.2
125,0
68.5
179.5
45.6
127,0
60.4
406.6
364.8
81.0
6Z.2
170. S
48.4
78.4
69.3
178.5
(|*>
11.4
11.8
11.5
ll.fi
11. 2
11.7
11.7
11.5
11.7
11.7
11.6
11.6
11.7
11.7
11.6
11.7
Cuw. I
less
than
stated
size
28.8
23.5
18.3
16.2
25.1
24.1
21.7
19.5
17.4
22.5
32,1
18.5
34.4
26.00
19.3
20.0
MM*
(«8)
617.5
566.6
399.4
750.9
221.8
621.1
362.7
767.3
200. S
505.7
393.8
888.7
301.8
348.8
550.6
873.4
Stage 2
(|*»>
6.3
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.61
6.6
6.6
6.6
Cum. 1
le«i
tbun
uiza
19.7
16.5
13.3
10.4
17.5
16.2
15. ft
12.9
14.7
16.2
23.6
11.6
25.4
18.2
13.6
12.8
Ham
(.8)
1,091.0
1,143.3
906.8
977.9
446.3
1,061.0
746.8
1,038.8
975.1
997.5
937.4
1,062.2
671.9
642.8
874.2
785. 0
Cyclone
(fa)
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
Ciua. %
less
lltun
Bize
3.8
2.4
1.7
2.8
2.1
2.8
1.2
4.1
1.4
3.7
3.4
3.4
5.3
3.9
4.7
6.4
fl!i£f__
Hans Dga size
(ttg)
258.0
198.0
134.3
356.5
60.8
222.6
62.4
481.7
104.1
2U4.8
159.4
435.3
177.1
175.2
4S6.6
777.3
(M
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 1.8
< 2.0
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 2.0
< 2.0
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 2.0
< 1.9
< 1.9
< 2.0
(Data Reproduced In Table 3-12)
-------
TABLE 4.5. PARTICLE SIZE TEST SAMPLING DATA, BAGHOUSE OUTLET
CJ
IS-IH Cyclone Stage t) Stage 1
let I Hun Hi.
Ha. source- riili-i|uail
0- -HU)
0- -2
0- -3
0- -4
0- -1
2 0- -2
n-2-3
0-2-4
Test KUII No,
tlo. nutirce-run-<|uail
O-I-I(H)
. W-l-2
0-1-3
tt-l-4
CJ-2-1
ti-'i-'l
0-2-3
0-2-4
Cum. %
lew
tli an
: CtlM. %
teas
tliau
Haas D60 ilze slater! HJES |IBU uize utated Mas* D6O s|ze
(wg) (|>») site (og) (|liu) lit lie (ma) (|ttn)
37.96 14.9 42.1 0.41
84.91 14.? 21.0 0.51
39.29 14.9 26.0 0.00
72.3} 14.6 31.6 0.61
21.93 15.2 56,7 1.60
49.78 15.0 3S.7 0.67
61.54 14.6 32.8 3.52
71.68 IS. 4 37,0 7.79
Stage 4
Cu». X
ictm
til Ml
14. I 41. 5 i.34 9.1
14.4 20.5 0.89 9.0
14.6 26.0 0.63 9.1
14.7 31.1 0.73 9.2
14.9 53.1 1.88 9.3
14.7 34.9 0.8S 9.2
14.3 28.9 1.98 8.9
15,0 30.1 3.38 9.4
Stage 5 Stage 6
Ciui. f
letta
Mian
Mann Bs<) *tze alultJ Milan II60 clze tl«li:4 HiiBK 05U size
<»«) (}l») alii: (ing)
B.45 2.7 12.9 5.71
5.43 2.6 6.8 4,74
2.97 2.7 10.2 3.26
0.00 2.7 12.7 12.4
5.68 2.7 21.0 5.09
7.91 2.7 13.6 6.63
7.04 2.6 ».» 5.0'J
8.35 2.8 9.0 6,07
(|ou) ilxe dog) (|u)
.3 4.2 2,07 0.80
.3 2.4 1.71 0.78
.3 4.1 1.81 0.79
.3 1.0 0.00 41,81
.3 II. 0 2.60 U.8I
.3 5.1 2.95 0.80
.3 3.3 2,45 (1.78
.4 3.7 2.51 0.82
Cum. %
lens
ill an
atatetl
size
3'J.S
19.7
24.8
30.4
49.8
33.8
26.8
27.2
Hans 1
Ug)
3.65
3.94
1.95
2.36
4.33
3.36
4.77
5.75
§i»8S 2 • Stage 3
J&o »1
(H8)
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.0
6.3
Cum- 1
leSI
Iban
• tateil
• izc
33.9
16.0
21.1
28.1
41.2
29.4
21.6
22.1
Has*
(«gl
5.30
4.44
2,82
16.29
4.56
4.33
4.58
6.57
Cum. I
til Hll
Dm lize ctuteil
(|Jg) size
4.2 25.8
4.1 11.9
4.2 15.8
4.2 12.7
4.3 32.2
4.2 23.8
4.1 16.6
4.3 16.3
Stage 7
CMS. X
lean
than
stated
size
l.i
0.82
0.64
1.0
5. a
1.3
0.64
1.4
hast!
(-1)
0.33
0.57
0.21
0.88
1.54
0.77
0.46
0.91
0&0
nize
(V8>
0,
0.
0.
0.
59
58
SB
59
11.60
0.
0.
o.
59
57
61
Cum. 1
leu
than
•tated
• ize
0.56
0.29
0.24
0.20
2. a
0.26
0.14
0.63
Has*
(»8)
0.37
0.31
0. 13
0.21
1.40
0.20
0.13
0.72
Filter
l>60 alzu
(l'8>
< 0.59
< 0.58
< 0.58
< 0.59
< 0.60
< 0.59
t 0.57
< 0.61
(Data Reproduced In Table 3-13)
-------
TABLE 4.6. BAGHOUSE INLET HUSSION FACTORS HASE0 ON TOTAL MASS AND IHPACTOR SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Nu ,
Titlill Btiitcti
Kim No. Hu idling «;iiiittsii»u rule*
tircu-rtiu-iniitij w.iiti run llt/li
I-I-I(U) 1-7 7.48U
1-1-2 !-!(«:) B.I'JO
1-1-3 1-2 6.U30
1-1-4 l-l(tf) B.i'jo
1-2-1(8)* NuiM
1-2-2(11) 1-2 fe,!»au
1-2-3 1-7 ?,4BO
1-2-4 i-S 7.1*0
1-3-1 1-8 5,840
1-3-2 1-7 7.4BO
1-3-3 l-fl 5.B4U
1-3-4 1-7 7,480
i-4-l* Huuc
1-4-2 1-6(11) 5,720
I -4-3 Nunc
1-4-4* NUMO
Ntiit-
tt*i I citing
tout** runs
i-tl 5.620
1-4 a. 115(1
"' ^"^ 6'J5°
Product fun
i alt:
luil/li
225
217
162
217
-
162
225
195
215
225
215
225
_
205
-
-
223
237
210
- - , .
Tola! mat. a
utttlus ion faclor ^
Ib/luu (1
33.3
37.7
42.6
37.7
Avg, 37.9 Aug.
(30.9)
42. a
33.3
36.8
Avg. 40.0 Avg.
27.2
33.3
27.2
33.3
Avg. 30.3 Avg.
(30. !J)
27.9
(30.9)
(30.9)
Avg. 30.2 Avu.
;»5,2
16.3
(30.'J)C
IP CMll
2.5 |ta <
l>/luu) (]
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.65 Avg.
1.3
1.9
o.a
2.0
1.5 Av|.
0.75
i.a
1.6
1.5
1.4 Avg.
Z.i
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.1 Avg.
1.7
is ion
10 |im
lt>/ ton
9.1
8.3
7-5
5.6
J.6
7.4
9.5
6. a
6.6
7.6
4.5
7.1
i.3
5.7
6.4
10.0
6. a
5.6
5.6
7.0
7.2
< 15 |M
) (Ul/lUli)
10.2
9.4
a. 3
6.7
Avg. B.7
B.5
10.9
7.6
a. 5
Avg. 8.9
5. a
7. a
9.1
6.6
Avu . ?.3
11.0
7.7
6.3
6.6
AWJJ. 7.9
a. 2
IM.:; A (.uliiuiu
"Hall.. »l lutdl M,,bb i:uur. lu
ilut: lu ||ii> littV«!li»iiig ui UK: w.j^i i»iti> i.ilhur lluii .juj.lrjul
Nu jMirutl injt.1. inn |i<4 llii^ |i.u(icli! uiiing run. UiiuJ ilm .ivti\.
^ m:i&a ruiiti (30.9 ll>/lun) It, t.il.nl.Ui: 11- i:wj^i,iuii (ailuii
t Avt:i-aK>i |ilaul |>ru>lufl iuii i.ilu ilm jag t».its, leal inn.
Tlliti iivurilgl.' WJS i|.:ilu.:.l Ililui I la: ulgltl w.lktt IllltH ill D'allli! 4.3.
cowt," It. uul liitli.JeJ oil Ibla tulili: due
wpl i»g.
lulal wjs-i. uwistiiuu tai:lor ut dl
(Data Reproduced In Table 3-27)
-------
TAUUi 4.7. llAGHOUSIi: OUTLET EMISSION FALTOUS BASED ON TOTAL MASS ANI> IMPACTOR SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Tut. l
«u.
1
2
Hull Ha.
Total
MSB PrOduC)
ton Total mu»»
emiuttluu rule ralti emiimioii fuctor
nuurce-ruii-<|liail (ll»/li) (luu/l
0-1-KB)
0-1-2
0-1-3
0-1-4
Average
0-2-1
0-2-2
0-2-3
0-2-4
Avur-ue
Tumi uverage
II
|2
16
9
12
9
24
10
12
12
,5 164
.1 226
6 216
.6 21}
.6 211
6 1*4
3 . 216
7 195
0 118
9 191
6 201
) ClMtot)
o.ai
0.056
O.OJ)
0.041
0.061
0.055
Q.U34
0.121
0.056
0.06B
0.065
Httllu of itari-icle
IP c.
UllCK Iflllll Id lutlll < 2.S |W
••MB train cant:. (Ib/tou)
0
0
a
0
0 VJ 0
0
0
0
0
0.65 , 0
0
.008
.004
,00}
.004
.006
.011
.004
.011
.004
.OOB
.00}
ilcnloii fuel
< 10 |W
(Ib/iou)
0.02U
0.011
0.019
0.011
0.018
0.028
0.012
0.035
0.016
0.023
0.021
can
< IS |M
(II.
a
a
o
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/iwii
.03
.012
.021
.011
.019
.031
.012
.044
.021
.021
.023
a
to
Average |iUni |>ra
-------
The data for particle size (Dgo) versus cumulative percent less Chan
stated size data have been plotted for each of the four separate rims. The
average of the results from the four runs have also been presented as a line.
This line was generated from the results of the spline fit of the selected
particle diameters (2.5, 10,0, and 15.0 JJJB) •
The calculated emission, factors foe 2.5, 10.0, and 15.0 \m are pre-
sented both as an. average of the faux runs and as a range of values for the
four runs. The average of the four runs is presented as a line, whereas the
range of values is presented as a vertical line at the selected diameters.
Figures 4.7 and 4.3 present the average of the results of all tests
conducted at each testing location. There were four particle sizing testa
of four runs per test conducted at the ialet location and two particle siz-
ing tests of four runs per test conducted at the outlet location.
. The avenge particle size (Dgg) versus cumulative percent less than
stated size for all teats is presented graphically. The plot was con-
structed by averaging all test data generated by the spline fit for the se-
lected diameters of 2,5, 10.0, and 15.0 yaa. The ranges of the individual
test averages are also presented at the selected diameters .
The average emission factor for all tests is also represented by a
line. The line was constructed by averaging the average of individual test
results at the selected diameters of 2.5, 10.0, and 15,0 jjoi. The ranges
of the individual test averages are presented at the selected diameters.
G-27
-------
SECTION 5.0
CONDINSABLES TESTIHG RIStHTS
This section summarizes tests for condensable emissions conducted by
Southern. Research Institute (SoRI) at Bowen Construction Company. The tests
were conducted during the week of October 5 to 10, 1981. The IF condensable
testing was performed using the EPA Stack Dilution Sampling System (SBSS)
according to IS protocol. Both the sampling equipment and the protocol used
are described in this section, followed by a presentation of test data and
a brief discussion of the- teat, results.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF OISTRTIMENT AND TEST PROCESSES
5.1.1 Design of Stack Dilution Saaoling System (SPSS)
A diagram of the najor components of the SDSS is shown in Figure 5.1.
In operation, gases from_the process stream_are drawn_,througli_the If Dual
Cyclone Sampler in which particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater than
IS M» and those in the range 2.5 to 15 M» are removed in two stages. The
stack gas containing the fine particle fraction (< 2.5 Mm) and condensable
vapors passes through the heated probe and flexible sample line and is in-
troduced axially into the bottom of the cylindrical dilution chamber. At
this point the stack gases are mixed with cool, dry dilution air to form a
Simulatad plume which flows upward through the dilution chamber. A standard
20 x 25 cm hi-vol filter is installed at the discharge end of the chamber
which collects the fine particulate including any aew particulate formed by
condensation. The diluted stream is exhausted by a 1-hp blower or optionally
by a standard hi-vol blower. Stack gas flow rate is measured by an orifice
G-28
-------
Ill VOL IMPACTOR
AND/OR FILTER
PROCESS STREAM
o
to
vD
SAMPLING
CYCLONE
}.(Cli\
/
EXHAUST BLOWER
.DILUTION
CHAMBER
1=
TOULTRAFINE
PARTICLE SIZING
SYSTEM (OPTIONAL)
DILUTION AIR
"EATER
DILUTION AIR
BLOWER
TO HEATERS, BLOWERS
TEMPERATURE SENSORS
ICE BATH
TO ORIFICE
PRESSURE TAPS
©
MAIN CONTROL
FLOW, PRESSURE
MONITORS
Figure 5,1,
uf stack dlludun Baubling system.
-------
at the base of the dilution chamber. Dilution and exhaust flow are measured
by orifices in the inlet and outlet lines, respectively,
Ambient dilution air is drawn through a blower and forced through aa
ice bath condenser. In this condenser the air is cooled to 5 to 8°C (41 to
46°T), depending on the flow and ambient temperature. Hare significantly,
the dilution, aiz humidity is reduced to about Q.57% by volume, correspond-
ing to saturated air at the ice point. After the condenser, the air is re-
heated as required to reach 21,1°C (7Qa?) at the dilution chamber inlet,
filtered through a HEPA-type absolute filter, and introduced into the dilu-
tion chamber, the dilution air eaters a single tangential inlet at the
base of the dilution chamber and passes through a set of flow straightening
screens into the annular region surrounding the sample gas inlet. The ratio
of the areas of the two inlets is such that for sample gas at room temper-
ature the velocities of the sample and dilution streams are equal. Sample
gas at stack temperature will be injected at a higher velocity proportional
to the thermal expansion of the heated gas stream. This was judged the
best simulation of a buoyant plume injected into stagnant air.
5.2 SPECIFICATIONS
The geometric and flow specifications were set by several constraints.
The sample flow rate was set by the flow requirements of the If cyclone-
sampler. Ideally, to approximate the conditions found in actual plumes,
the dilution ratio should be high (approaching 103 to 104) and the mixing
times long (tens of seconds). The actual dilution conditions represent a
compromise dictated by limitations on the size of a portable field iascm-
mcat. Geometric and flow specifications are given in Table 3.1.
Since the effect of varying dilution air temperature and humidity can-
not be easily predicted for all typical process streams, standard conditions
of 0.57% moisture by volume at 21.1°C (corresponding to about 24% relative
humidity at 70°f) were chosen. This relatively dry dilution air should not
be subject to water condensation for normal stack samples, yet is more
realistic than totally dry air.
C-30
-------
TABLE 5.1. SPECIFICATIONS FOR DILUTION SAMPLING SYSTEM
Geometric
* Active length, of dilution chamber: 48 in. (122 cm)
* Diameter of dilutioa chamber: 8.4 ia. (21.3 cm)
* Diameter of sample inlet tube: 1.68 in. (4,27 cm)
• Active dilution volume: 1,54 ft3 (43,600 on3)
Flow
* Sample flow (determined by inhalable
particulata cyclone train): 0.6 ftVmia
(~ 17 liters/mia)
• Sample velocity: 0.86 ft/sec
., (~ 27 cm/sec)
at 302°F (15Q°C)-
• Dilution airflow: 15 ft3/min
(425 liters/min)
* Dilution air velocity: 0.66 ft/sec
(20 cm/sec)
• Dilution ratio: - 25:1 (up to 40:1
possible)
« Residence time: 6.2 sec
Gasconditions
• Sample gas: T < 250°C; particles > 2.5 Mm removed by cyclones
• Dilution air: 1 = 21.1*C; relative humidity 24%, filtered ambient
air
Sample collection
* Particulate collected on glass fiber filter
* Optional impactor gives cuts at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 pm
* Optional extraction of diluted stream for sizing by optical counter,
electrical mobility analyzer, condensation nuclei counter, etc.
G-31
-------
5.3 OPERATING PROCEDURE
The in-stack IP dual cyclone train is the intended precutter for the
SDSS. This device is fully described in. the "Procedures Manual for Inhal-
able Partieulate Sampler Operation" cited earlier. The flow rate of stack
gas entering the dilution system is determined by the necessity to obtain a
DSo of IS pm (50% collection efficiency at 15 MO) for the initial IP cyclone
(SB1-X). This flow rate, which varies with temperature, can be determined
from the experimental calibration data for the cyclone train. Nominally,
23 1,/raia (0.8 fta/min) is required for standard air at 1SO°C (30QaF). Over
the entire operating temperature range of the sampler, Cyclone SHI-HI ob-
tains 50% collection efficiency at 2.5 + 0.5 M° foe the flow rate determined
by cyclone SRI-X. Particulate with aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 pm
(the fine particulate fraction) passes into the SDSS and provides the nuclei
for the accumulation of condensable material in the dilution/cooling process,
Since the fine fraction of the in-stack particulate is collected along
with the condensable emissions, a second dual cyclone IP train with a stan-
dard in-stack filter is used to measure simultaneously the in-stack parti-
culate without condensation effects. The setup and operating procedures for
both cyclone trains are essentially identical and are described in full in
the SoRI procedures manual. In brief, the stack gas temperature,' velocity,
and "composition" are measured, and" the gas~~vUscosity~ calculated". Using~cali-
bration data for Cyclone X of the dual cyclone IB sampler, a flow rate is
selected to obtain a D50 of IS urn for this device. Nozzles are selected for
isokinetic sampling, and the sampling trains, after warmup, are inserted at
different points in the stack that are demonstrated not to have dramatically
different loadings due to stratification of emissions. The protocol for the
SDSS calls for sampling at a minimum of two points in a duct rather than a
minimum of four as specified for the dual cyclone train. In either case,
sampling points are chosen at the centroids of quadrants of the duct. When
the minimum two-point measurements are taken, as they were in this test, the
dual cyclone train is used to sample at one point while the SDSS is used at
the other, la. alternate runs, the sampling trains are switched, especially
if stratification is noted.
G-32
-------
After sampling, the cyclones ace unloaded and tile cyclone catches ace
collected according to the procedures manual for the dual cyclone train.
The probe, heated hose, and sample gas inlet assembly of the SDSS are
washed with a suitable sol-rent, usually acetone. The rinses are evaporated
to dryness and the residue weighed as in EPA lefereace Method 5. The probe
wash, weights are included with the SDSS filter in calculating the fine par-
ticulate plus condensable emissions fraction.
5.4 TEST CONDITIONS
The sampling crew from SoRI arrived on-sita with the SDSS on Monday,
October 5, and began setup. Due to delays in obtaining electrical power,
the first run could not be made until Wednesday, October 7, A second run
was performed on Thursday, October 8; in order to make up. for the lost run
on Tuesday, two runs were made on Friday, October 9.
All samples were taken from the outlet of the baghouse with the plant
utilizing recycled paving material. A cross-section of the stack is shown
in Figure 5.2. Samples were taken at points 2 and 4 of Figure 5.2. These
points lie 105 on (41.0 in.) from the entrance of each port along the diam-
eter of the stack; in other words, at the centroids of the quadrants of the
stack cross section which lie away from the baghouse. Stack velocities
were measured at quadrant centroid points 1 to 4 and averaged to select
sampling aozzle sizes. Gas composition (dry basis) was measured by Orsat
and determined to be 15% 02, 3% C02, and 82% Jf2, respectively. Stack mois-
ture as determined at the end of all IP runs varied from 14 to 19% by vol-
ume. Obviously, this figure will vary with production rate and the moisture
content of the aggregate, but it was roughly constant except for Run 4.
Other relevant variables are presented in Table 5.2.
To provide a "clean" substrate for any future chemical analysis,.
Zefluor Teflon membrane filters (GHIA, Inc.), 2-ym pore size, were used
for all SDSS runs. For the in-stack backup filters on the conventional IP
train, preweighed 4?-mm glass fiber filters were employed. "So pressure
G-33
-------
East Port
•6" ID Ports-
Outlet Cross Section
West Port
Figure 5.2.
Cross section of baghouse ouclec stack.
.Quadratics nuebered as for cemdeosables
testing.
G-34
-------
TAULE 5.2. RUN CONDITIONS FOK TNIIAI.AULB PAK'tTCULATE AND STACK DILUTION SAMPLING SYSTEM
TESTS AT IIOWEH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
him Slack
time temperature
Hun No. Start tine Date («iu) (»C)
! suss I2i4° ""»• I0/l/81 isa IM
2 IL 1 '»«!>•". 10/S/SI ^J 154
5foss .,3..... ,..,.., £
4 suss 2:0a p*"* I0'9 8I !oa l49
Actual Uteri per »lnute.
Actual cubic feet per Minute.
Dry Blaiulard cubic melect.
Dry utJuJurJ cubic feet.
*
Stick Sample Sample
•tolaturc (low rate voliuoe .
volume (1) ala («cfB) iiscn"~ (dacf)
. 20.12 (0.732) 1,765 (62.3)
17.91 (0.635) 1,559 (55.0)
,„ „ 21.39 (0.155) 1.6SI (59.4)
8 17.61 (0.622) 1.315 (48.6)
,, , 21.38 (0.155) 2.104 (74.3)
10 '' 18.66 (0.659) 1.104 (60.2)
. . 18.73 (0.661) i.155 (40.0)
11.10 (0.625) 1.112 (39.3)
Average Eat tinted total
•tack velocity . stack flow .
•/*ec (h/aec) a*/-!"1 («cf»)
18.4 (60.2) 1,290 45,4(10
21.5 (10.5) 1.500 53,100
21.7 (11,2) 1,520 53,100
21.4 (70.3) 1,500 53,000
'
et |>er accoitil.
Actual cubic meter* per
Actual cubic feet |>er •iniilc.
-------
drop problems were acted with either filter. The SOSS filter from Run 1
was dropped after the run and was contaminated thus voiding the results.
All other filters, including one blank filter of each type, were kept pro-
tected in covered containers.
5,3 RESULTS
The weights of the cyclone and filter catches are presented in
Table 5.3. The cyclone catches were weighed after desiccation on a Cahn 27
balance at Soli. All filter weights represent the results of replicate
weighings in the controlled humidity weighing room at'MRI. The variation
of all replicate weighings was insignificant except for the loaded SDSS
Teflon filters. The filters from Runs 2 to 4 showed a steady loss of weight
with tine, as shown in Figure 5-3. A blank SDSS filter which was taken to
the test site and returned for weighing showed no such variation. For rea-
sons discussed below, this loss was interpreted as evaporation of condensed
organic compounds collected on the filter of the diluted stream. Ho similar
weight loss was noted on Che glass filters used for the in-stack cyclone
train. The variations in the weights of these filters were within the
0.2-mg reliability of the Hettler AKlfiO balance used and were not nonotonic
with time. Chrer the 3- or 4-day weighing period, the glass filters were as
likely to ..gain weight as to lose weight between reweighings. Thus, we con-
cluded that the systematic weight lass was real and unique to the_f.ilter
samples taken with the SDSS. Therefore, the weights reported for these fil-
ters in Table 5.3 are not averages, but rather the individual weights as
measured 1 day after sampling. The rationale for this decision is discussed
below.
Inspection of the data in Table 3.3 reveals that the two parallel cy-
clone trains collected roughly comparable amounts of dust for the runs in
this teat. For all pairs of cyclone catches except those in Run 1, the
deviation from the mean is less than 30%. In Run 1, the SDSS cyclone X was
significantly higher than the standard IB train with a deviation of 43%
above the mean, but this is still within reasonable limits for simultaneous
G-36
-------
TABLE 5.3. RAW WEIGHTS FROH TN1IALADI.E PAHTCULATE STACK DILUTION SAMPLING SYSTEH
TESTS AT UOWEN CONSTRUCTION COHPANY
o
Run No.
1 IP
2 IP
2 SDSS
3 IP
3 SDSS
4 IP
4 SDSS
15 \isa D80
cyclone
SRI X
10.21
31.53
20.51
77.31
43.63
11.20
16.09
2 5 ym i)
cyclone
SRI HI
2.77
1.58
2.77
9.17
9.40
2.47
2.37
Uncorrected
filter
wt.
2.8
2.5
14.69
3.5
25.21
2.8
24.64
8%
Corrected
filter Total weight
wt. Wash collected
15.78
35.61
15.87 5.4 43.37
89.98
27.23 6.0 84.24
16.47
26.61 4.0 47.1
Corrected
total
wt.
44.55
86.26
49.07
. Ail weights in Diilligratus.
Filter from SDSS Rim 1 was contaminated.
-------
30
26
I
20
i—i—r
i i r
Q
u>
OQ
§
O IB
DC
10
TT-
O RUN 2
O RUN 3
A RUN 4
• BLANK
10
20
30
GO
TIME, lir
60
70
80
00
Figure 5.3. Variation of partleuluta muss on filter from stuck dilution sampling
uystuiu with time after
100
-------
single-point samples. In. contrast, the SUSS filter catches were factors
of 6 to 9 higher than the in-stack filters even before the probe washes were
included. This extra mass, coupled.with the steady weight loss of the SDSS
filters, indicates that the diluted flue gas contained a substantial amount
of condensable material with enough volatility to reevaporate at room tem-
perature. The most likely candidate species appear to be lower molecular
weight aliphatic hydrocarbons from the asphalt, mix, but analyses of the
material would be necessary to confirm this speculation.
The evaporation of the SDSS filter samples results in some difficulty
in assigning a unique loading to the filters. Obviously, the weights of
the filters immediately after sampling would give best lower bounds to the
samples, but there were technical problems in obtaining these data. First,
it is aot always desirable to take an appropriate balance-to the field site.
Second, it is customary to equilibrate filters for several hours ia a con-
stant humidity atmosphere or a desiccator before weighing to avoid artifacts
due to adsorbed moisture. In this test, prompt weighings were available
only for lun 4. However, for all three runs weighings were in the vicinity
of 24 h after sampling. Since this was the earliest period after sampling
for which accurate weights could be reported for all runs, and since the
filters should have equilibrated with the weighing room atmosphere by the
end of the day, these weights were chosen for Table 5-3.
To obtain a more realistic comparison of the weight losses of the
three SDSS filters, all sample weights were normalized to the 1-day weights.
These normalized data are presented in Figure 5.4. It is noteworthy that
the relative weights of the three samples lie along the same curve. Ex-
trapolating this curve, it is estimated that the filter catches immediately
after sampling are 5 to 10% higher than the 24-h value and that up to 20%
of this mass is lost after 4 days. To calculate mass concentrations at the
time of emission, the 1-day weights given in Table 5.3 should be Increased
by approximately 8%.
G-39
-------
1.2
1.0
0.8
> 0.6
P
r> UJ
O DC
0.4
0.2
P
i r
10
Figure 5.4.
20
i r
30
i r
O RUN 2
D RUN 3
A RUN 4
i i i i
I __l
60
70
80
80
10 EO
TIME, Jir
Relative variation of participate iaass on SDSS filter with time after
sampling. All data for each run are normulized with respect to muss
measured 1 day (21 tu 26 li) after sampling.
100
-------
The mass coucen.trati.oiis calculated from the test data are presented in
Table 5.4. Concentrations have been calculated from the data in Tables 5.2
and 5.3. The fine particle plus condensable fraction has been corrected by
the 8% fraction mentioned earlier, and the concentration of particles formed
by condensation alone has been calculated by subtracting the fine particu-
late concentration measured by the standard IS train from the corresponding
fraction from the SDSS data. This value, divided by the total emissions
concentration measured in the SDSS, is tabulated as percent condensable.
As can be seen, on the average 45% of the particulate measured in the SDSS
at this source was formed by condensation.
The total mass concentrations in Table 5.4 are listed in taetric and
English units and have been converted to emissions factors in pounds per
hour using the stack volume flow listed in Table 5.2. This number is based
on a four-point velocity average rather than a full pitot traverse,
Table 5.5 presents the IB emission factors that were calculated from
the condensables testing data. The IF emission factors were determined by
first calculating a total mass emission factor (pounds/ton). The total
mass emission factor was calculated by multiplying the ratio of the stack
flow rate to the sampler flow rate by the total weight collected in the
sampler and converting to pounds per hour. Pounds of emissions per ton of
product were calculated by multiplying the average production rate (tons
per hour) during the test period by the total emissions (pounds per hour).
In order to calculate emission factors for >1S, 2.5 to 15, and <2,5 M01
(pounds per ton), the ratio of the individual stage weight (Table 5.3) to
the total weight collected was multiplied by the total oass emission factor
(pounds per ton).
One final word of caution: The condensable emission factors measured
in the SDSS must not be equated with volatile organic carbon measurements
made with other sampling trains. It has been demonstrated that the SDSS
does not retain all the oore volatile hydrocarbons that fall in the vola-
tility range corresponding to the TCO fraction Level 1 organic analysis.
These more volatile hydrocarbons will not be retained by the SDSS filter,
G-41
-------
TABLE 5.4, PAMTICUI.ATE MASS COHCENTRATlOtlS (COHDENSABLES TESTING)
?
*»
Cyclone X
> IS |l
Run Ho.
1 If
1 SUSS
2 IF
2 ems
3 If
3 SUSS
4 IF
4 sosa
Average IF
Average SOSB
Cyclone III , Filter Filter pl'io wash
2.5-15 tim • < 2.5 l*a < 2.S |M coiidcimalilet X total ealgglons
mS/d»cmm tt/Ancf" »«/d*cO gr/d.el ai/dic. tr/Jacf -i/d.**
5.7*
19.03
18.76
14.92
36.74
2s. 61
9.70
14.17
17.75
IB. SI
0.00253
0.00831
O.OOBI9
0.00652
0.16
0.112
0,00424
0.00632
0,00775
o.ooeoa
1.57
2.80
0.94
2.01
4.36
5.52
2.14
2.13
2.25
3.11
0.000686 1.59 0.000694
0.00122
i
0.00041 1.49 0.000651
0.000878 IS. 78
0.0(119 I,fi6 0.000725
0.00241 19-79
0.000935 2.42 0.00106
0.00093 27.81
0,000903 1.19 0. 00(1782
0.00)36 21.13
tr/dicl Condensable* «•/
-------
TABLE 5.5, EMISSION FACTORS
* SUSS
Total B*K*
eujiikiou fjictor
(Ib/lou)
0.00247
-
0.012
0.0155
0.0172
0. 00655
0.0202
-0.0081
-0.016
If euiMsloii factor
> IS t»
X Comlciiyable (Ib/laii)
0.0016
-
43 -1 2:SSS
35*6 0.0087
0.0045
31 "* 0.0066
-45.5 -0.0065
-0.0069
2.5-15 ilis
(ib/tou)
0.00043
-
0,00035
0.00075
0.0016
0.0019
o.oou'ja
O.OOOM
-0. 00004
-0.0012
< 2-5 |£»
(Ib/tou)
0.00044
-
0.00055
0.0057
0.00060
0.0066
0.0011
0.013
-0. 00067
-0.0084
. ,
Average |irudui:tioii rate for tent period except t'ur Him 2 wliurc tlic daily nverage wa* utcj to calculate the eaUaion
(Data Reproduced in Table 3-29)
-------
as they will not remain la the condensed particulate in the actual plume of
a stack. To obtain values o£ total organic emission, a sampling train such
as the Source Assessment, Sampling System is recommended. The present re-
sults are representative of the particulate emissions as they would exist
in the near-stack ambient environment, after emission, including that frac-
tion of the volatile emissions found in the condensed phase.
G-44
-------
APPENDIX H
COMPLETE LISTINGS OF JSKFRG. JSKRAW, AMD JSKLOG
H-l
-------
:2 REH PROGRAM "J8KPRG"
10 CLEAR 4000
12 REH CLEAR REGISTERS FOR NEW RUN
15 OG=LOG( lO)U2=OtXX=OlXD=0tX2=OtYP=OtST=0;NZ=QtXM=OtLX=OtSi=GtYL=QtYM=OtDM=Ot
=0 IL2=0IL3=OIL4=QIL5=Q
16 Ld=OJKl=OIK2=OtK3=OiK4=OlK5=OtK6=OSJY=OIJ9=OJIT=0;iJ=0;iH=OtIl=0
17 K2=On3=OlTL=OtKS=OtBfti=Ot3A=OtIQ=OtIX=OtI2=QtJX=OtIA=Otie=OtIB=Q
20 DIM XN< iO)tYO< 10 >»X< 53 >»A< 16 )»B< 4 >»CO< 50»3 )»Yl< 53 >?XD< 15)>XQ< 10>50)>YO( 10*50
Y2< iO)»ID*< 50 )» JX<50 )yJY(50)»GG< 10»5Q)»JGK 10)f JU( 10 )
30 PRINT"PROGRAM SPLIN2 FROM FORTRAN ORIGINAL 02/22/82 VI"
31 LPRINT TAB<6H " "tLPRINT " "tLPRINT " "tLPRINT " SPLIN!
PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml"tLPRINT" "tLPRINT " "
39 REM NUMBER OF DATA SETS AND REQUESTED OUTPUT —
40 INPUT-ENTER * OF DATA SETS"iQW
45 PRINT"ENTER DSO'S IN INCREASING SIZE"
50 INPUT"ENTER NUMBER OF POINTS"»NF
52 REM INPUT PRODUCTION* EMISSION DATA
55 FOR QV»1 TO QU
58 INPUT"SI£T ID»"1ID'* CUM LOADING FOR EACH POINT* JQGK I»QV >»YGK I»QV >:X8< I f GW >=JW< R
*QQ< I»«M)INEXT I
80 PRINT"SET *"rQV'.NEXT QM
81 INPUT-ENTER * OF DSO'S TO BE DETERMINED FOR ALL SETS"iLA
82 FOR 1 = 1 TO LAJINPUT-ENTER AERODYNAMIC D50"iXD»" TONS PROIU/HR" ILPRINT TAB< 24 )? "TOTi
PARTICULATE EHISSION RATE =")JY( QM)»" LB/HR"SLPRINT TAB<24 )»"PARTICLE DENSITY
»Jtt< QV)J" G/CC"
85 LPRINT " "tLPRINT TAB<6)I"MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION"tLPRINT " "
86 LPRINT TAB<6-)» "CUT(um) CUM, % < CUT" tLPRINT " "
88 FOR 1 = 1 TO NF'tLPRINT TAB(6)J QQJNEXT It'LPRINT" "ILPRIi
89 HN=8'.RR=NN',N=4*,R=N
90 NP=<(NF-2 )*N)+NN+1
91 aE=JY(Qrv')/JX"$ LPRINT" "tLPRINT " " tLPRINTTAB< 41 )»"EMISSION FACTOR"
93 LPRINT TAB<6)i"CUT (umA) CUM. % < CUT C LB/T ) < KG/MT )" tLPRINT
93 «EM SPLINE FIT OF MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION -
96 REM BASIC TRANSLATION OF "SPLIN2" Ml 02/22/82
100 N2=NF-2
110 FOR 1=1 TO N2
120 JJ=N-1
130 IF N2-KO THEN 150
140 00=N+2
150 H=< 1-1 )*N+1
160 X< M )=LOG< KN( I ) )/OG
170 YKM)=LOGCYO< I) )/OG
1BO XI=< LOG< XN< I + l ) )/OG-LOG< XN< I ) )/QG >/R
190 FOR 11=1 TO 3
200 HM=I-1-HI
210 B< 11 )=LUG( Y0< MM ) )/QG H_5
220 K=3*
260 NEXT atNEXT II
-------
280 (JQSUB 5000
290 FOR j=l TO 2
300 8L=B< 2 )+2*B« 3 )$LGG< XN< I+J-1 ) )/QG
310 IF SL>=0 THEN 350
320 B< 2)=/QG+J*XI
390 Yl< K >=B< i )+B< 2 )*XC K )+B< 3 )*X< K )C2
400 NEXT J5 NEXT I
410 FOR 1=1 TO 3
420 K=3*< 1-1)
430 FOR J=l TO 3
440 K*i+=0 THEN 600
530 FOR 1=1 TO 3tA< I)»I:NEXT i
540 A< 4 )=X< 1 )-( X< N+l )-X< 1 ) )
550 AC 7 )=M4>C2
560 FOR 1 = 1 TO 2tK=s3*i:FOR 4=2 TO 3
570 M=H-«J-2)*W>:A*X< I )Ct J-2)
690 NEXT a
700 B( 2)=COINEXT J
730 B( 3 )=Y1< 1+2 )
740 FOR J»l TO 3tL«l+< J-1)*3:A
-------
930 GOSUB 7000
¥35 N3--NN+2
940 FOR 1=1 TO N3
950 J=M-ItX=X<
960 If XCJKZS THEN 1000
970 Yl< J >=LOG< Y0( NF ) )/OG
980 GOTO 1100
iOOO H;EM
1010 YKJ )=B( I )
1020 FOR K=2 TO 4
i030 Y11 --I >=YU .3 >+B< K >*X< J >C < K-1 > IMEXT K
1040 YK J >=LOG< Yi< J ) )/OG
iiOO NEXT I
illO IIsNP-NN-2
1120 XN=NP-1
1130 GOTO 630
1140 I5=NP-i
1160 FOR 1 = 1 TO LA
1180 i:ti=LQGX(J> THEN 1300
1220 XS=d-i
1230 J=MP
1300 N£XT J
1310 IF XS<1 THEN I5=1
1320 YB»CO< ISf 1 )+CO< IS»2)*D1+CO( IS>3
1330 BY»iOCYB
1340 LPRINT TABC6HXBaO THEN 5150
5120 BA-W I..I)
Si30 XK=I2
5150 NOT 12
5160 IF ABS(BA)-TL>0 THEN 5200
5170 KS=i
5180 -J 2=3: GOTO 5393
5 2 00 11 = J2f 3*( .] 2-2 )
3210 rr=IH-J2
5220 FOR K2=J2 TO 3
5230 i;i=IH-3iI3=Ii-fIT
5240 SA=A< li )
5250 A-; II )=
-------
S3 40
3350
3360
3370
3380
3390
5392
5393
3398
3400
5410
5430
5440
5450
3460
5470
5480
5490
5500
7OOO
7005
70X0
7020
7030
7040
7050
7060
7070
7080
7090
7100
7120
7 130
7140
7145
7150
7160
7170
7130
7190
7200
7210
7230
7260
7300
7310
7320
7330
7350
7400
IZ=IG+IX
:r.T=-J2-IX
FOR JXsJY TO 3
XX=3*< JX-i HIX
,n=xx+rr
A< XX )*A< XX )-< AC 12 >#A< JZ ) UNEXT JX
B< IX)=B#BC 1C)
IA=IA-3
IOIC-11NEXT K2tNEXT J2
RETURN
REH ROUTrNE OSCFIT
PRINT " 7000" » TIME*.
NZ-NZ+i
LisXD-XXtL2s-Li:L3=Ll*LUL4=l.2#L2
L5»L3*LilLA=L4*L2
K1=YL/L3
K2=-2*YL/L5
K3=YH/L4
K4=-2*YH/L6
K5=DH/L3
BU)=K2+K4tK5
»< 3 )=< K14-K3-( 2*XX+XD )*< K2+K5 )-< 2#XIH-XX >*t K4 ) )
B< 2 )=< ( K2+K5 )*< C XX*XX )+2*XD*XX )-K K4 )*< ( XD*XE )+2*XB*XX ) )
B< 2)aB<2)-2*Kl*XX-2*K3*XD
B< 1 )=( Kl*( XX*XX )+K3*( XD*XD )-XD#< XX*XX )*< K2+K5 ) )-i XK*XD )*XX*( K4 )
X2=XB-S1
FOR 12=1 TO 100
X2=X2fSl
IF X2>XX THEN 7250
YP»3#B<4 )#< X2*X2)+2*B( 3 )*X2+B< 2 )
W4=OtlF
NEXT 12
IF U4=i
IF NZ=1
XX
IF
YP<0 THEN XX=XX-ST t 12=100 tW4=l
THEN U 4=0 1 GOTO 7030
THEN 7400
XX+STtST=ST/10
ABS
-------
ii REH ---------- PROGRAM "JSKRAU" ----------------
3 CLS
10 CLEAR 4000
13 OG=LOG( 10>:i2»o:xX=0:XB»OJX2=Q:YP*OiST=OiNZ=0:XM=QlLX=0:Sl=QJYL=0:YM=QiDM=0;i
=OlL2~OtL3=OSL4=QlL5=Q
16 L6=OiKi=OtK2=OtK3=OJK4=OJK5=OtK6=0;.JY=OJ.J9=OtIT=OUJ=OtIH=OJIi=0
17 K2=o { 0=0 :TL=O : KS=O rsft=o : SA=O t IQ=O i ix=6 : 12=0 MX=O ; I A=O i ic=o t IB=O
20 DIM XM< iO)iYO< 10 )»X< 33 )» A< 16 )»B( 4 )iCQ< 50 > 3 )» Yl( 53>rXD< 15 ) » XCK 10»5Q )r YQ< 10, 50 1
Y2< 10 )»ID1K50)» JX<50 >»JY<50)»QCK 10»5Q)»JGK 10)»JW( 10 )
30 PRINT'PRQGRAM SPLIN2 FROM FORTRAN ORIGINAL 02/22/82 VI"
31 LPRINT " "ILPRINT " "i LPRINT TAB< 22 )» "SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Vl"tLPRINT "
40 INPUPENTER * OF DATA SETS"»QW
45 PRIMT"EWTER B50' S IN INCREASING SIZE"
46 PRIN^'The last entry inputted MUST be the largest psrliele diemeter using t
e density entered"
SO INP'Uf" ENTER NUHBER OF POINTS" JNF
35 FOR UV*1 TO UV
58 INPUT" SET ID=" ? IC$( tW )t INPUT "PROCESS yGT. RAT E< tons P3VinS/hr )=" MXC QM )tINPt
" TP EMISSION RATE < Ib/hr )=» MY( QM )
59 INPUT "ENTER PARTICLE DENSITY ( S/ec > =" > JQ( QV ) 5 JW( QM )=SQR( JQ( QV ) )
60 POR 1=1 TO NF
70 INPUfENTER QSO» RAW LOADING FOR EACH POINT" »QQ< I»QV )»YQ( I »QV ) tXQ< 1 jQU >=JU< Q1,
80 PR1NT"SET *"»QMtNEXT QM
81 INPUT" ENTER % OF 050' S TO BE DETERMINED FOR ALL SETS"»LA
82 FOR 1=1 TO LAtINPUT"£NTER AERODYNAMIC B50" i XD< I )tNEXT I
S3 FOR «V*1 TO UUIFOR 1 = 1 TO NF UN( I )=XQ< I >QV ) tY2( I )=YQ< I»QV )JNEXT I
84 PRINT TIHEttLPRINT TAB<6)»"TEST IDt " i ID$< QM )t LPRINT " " ILPRINT TAB(6)I"INPU
DATAt PROCESS WEIGHT RATE ="»JX» "EMISSION FACTOR"
93 LPRINT TAB<6)f»CUT < U8iA ) CUM, % < CUT (LB/T) ( KG/HT )" JLPRINT" '
100 N2=NF-2
110 FOR 1 = 1 TO N2
120 JJ-N-1
130 XF N2-KO THEN 150
140 JJaN+2
150 M-(I-1 )«N+1
X 60 X< H )=LOG< XN< I } )/QG
1 70 Y it M }=l,OG< Y0< I ) )/OG
ISO XI=< LUG( XN< 1 + 1 ) )/OQ~LOG( XN< I ) )/OG )/R
190 FOR 11 = 1 TO 3
200 Mrt=I~l-HI
210 E« II >*LOG< Y0< MM ) )/OG
220 K = 3*< 11-1 )
230 FOR J = l TO 3
240 M3=I-1+J
250 A< K+J )=i LOQ( XH< H3 ) )/OG )C( II-U H~6
260 NEXT JtHEXT II
270 KS=0
280 GOSU0 3000
290 FOR .J = l TO 2
-------
310 IF SL>=0 THEN 330
320 B< 2)=< LOG< ¥0< 1 + 1 )/YOC I ) »/QG/< LOGC XNC 1+1 >/XN< I ) )/QG KB( 1 )=LOG< Y0( I ) VOG-BC 2 >*
LOGtXNC I))/OG
330 £K 3)=OtJ=2
'350 NEXT a
360 FOR J = l TO JJ
370 K=KKJ
"380 X< K)s»LUG< XNC I 5 >/OG+J*XI
390 Yl< K >=&< 1 )+B< 2 )*X< K )+B< 3 )#X< K )C2
400 NEXT J I NEXT I
410 FOR i = i TO 3
420 K«'i»< X-l)
430 FOR 4 = 1 TO 3
440 M=1-K J-i)#N
450 A*NIB< I >*Yl(M>iNEXT I
490 KS=0
500 QOSUP 5000
SiO SL=B< 2 H2«E<3 )#X< 1 )
520 IF SL>=0 THEN 600
330 FOR 1 = 1 TO 3JA< D=itNEXT I
340 A( 4 )«X< 1)-( X< N+l )-X< 1))
550 A< 7)-A< 4)C2
560 FOR 1 = 1 TO 2iK*3*ItFDR J=2 TO 3
570 «=!+(( J -2) *M)IM KtJ )=X( H )C It NEXT JJNEXT I
580 B< 1 )=Y1<1 )
590 FOR 1=2 TO 3tH=l+( t 1-2 )*N )SBC I )=Y1( H KNEXT I
5c/5 KS=O;GOSUB sooo
6OO FOR 1 = 1 TO 3
6 i 0 C<>( 111 )=B< 151 NEXT 1
615 11=1
620 1N=NP-N«-1
630 FOR l = U TO IN
640 JJ=i:BU)=0
6SO FOR J»2 TQ 3
660 K-I-I
670 IF 1*1 THEN K=I
680 B( 1 )=£« 1 )-f (.J-l )« C0< K> J ) )#X< I )C ( J-2 )
690 NEXT ,j
700 B< 2)»COC< J-l >:NEXT'J
730 B< 3>sYKI+2 )
740 FOR 0 = 1 TO 3JL=1-K J-l )#3JIFJ*1THEMA( L )=OELSEA( L )=( J-l >*X< I )C< J-2 )
745 NEXT J
730 FOR J = l TO 3:K=J-1IKK=3*K:A/OG
820 XI»08/RR
830 «=< HF-2 )*N+1
840 XD=tUOJ( XN< NF-1 ) )/OGiXH=LOG( XM( NF ) )/OG
850 NL=NP-NN
860 YL = 10tYl
-------
¥40 FOR 1 = 1 TO N3
950 0««tX JXt J )=X( H >+I*XI
¥60 IF X(JXZS THEN 1000
¥70 Yl< 0)=LOGO'Q/QG
V80 QOTQ 1100
1000 REM
1010 Yi(0 >=1C 1 )
1020 FOR K*2 TO 4
1030 Yl( 0 )=ri< J H-B< K )#X< J )C ( K-l ) tNEXT
1040 Yi< •) )-LOG< Yi( J 3 )/OG
1100 NEXT 1
iliO II=NP-NN-2
13.20 XN=NP-i
1130 UOTO 630
1140 I5=NP-1
iidO FOR 1=1 TO LA
1 .ISO ttl*LOU( XD< I 5 )/OG
1190 X3=NP-1
1200 FOR J = l TO NP
1210 IF D1>X(J) THEN 1300
1220 IS=J-1
1230 .Jt=NP
1300 NEXT J
1310 IF IbXl THEN IS=1
1320 YD=CO< ISrl )+CO< ISf2)*DH-CO< IS*;
1330 DY=HOCYB
1340 LPRINT TAB<6)»XD< I )»TAB< 20 )5BY»TAB< 36 )>DY*JE/100ITAB< 50 )»0.005*DY«JE
1350 NEXT I
1360 LPRIMT11 "tLPRINT" " I NEXT QV
1362 LPRIHT rAB<6)5"END OF TEST SERIES"
1365 PRINT TIMEf
1370 PRINT "END OF RUN"; END
3000 RE« ROUTIWE SIMQ
5010 TL=0
5O20 t\S=0
3030 09=-3
5040 FOR 02=1 T.Q 3
5O50 OY=02-H
5060 09=09+341
5080 IT=09-J2
5090 FOR 12=02 TO 3
sioo i.j=rr+i2
Si 10 IF ABS( BA )-ABS< A( 1J))>=0 THEN 5150
5120 BA=W U)
5i30 iH=I2
5150 NEXT 12
5i60 IF ABS(BA)-TL>0 THEN 5200
5170 KS=1
5i80 02=31 QOTO 5395
5200 I1-J2+3K J2-2 )
5210 IT=IM-02 ' '
5220 FOR K2=,J2 TO 3
5230 Xl=Ii+3:i3--Il + IT
5240 SA=A< II }
5250 Adi )=A< 13)
5260 A(I3)«SA
3270 Adi )=M 11 )/BAiNEXT K2
5280 SA=Bf Ih)
52VO E« IH )=»<: J2)
5300 BU'2)aSA/BA H-8
5310 IF .J2=3 THEN 5395
5320 Itt=3*( 02-1 )
5330 FOR JX=.JY TO 3
3340 IZ
-------
5360 FOR JX=JY TO 3
3370 XXs3Hr-< A< IZ )*A( JZ »: NEXT JX
5392 BUX)«BUX)-B<02)*A< IZ>{NEXT IX
5395 NEXT -J2
5398 IF KS=1 THEN 5500
5400 NY=3-i
S410 IT-3*3
S420 FOR .;«2=1 TO NY
5430 Xft=IT-J2
5440 IB=3-J2
3430 IC=3
5460 FOR K2=l TO J2
5470 &aB>=8«: IB)-A< IA )*B( 1C )
5480 IA=IA-3
5490 IOIC-UNEXT K21NEXT J2
5500 RETURM
7000 H'EM ROUTINE OSCFIT
7005 PRINT VOOOHfTIHEtJ
7010 W2=0*,ST=,lJXX=XrtlLX=XM-XD
7020 81=U/9?!G8=0
7O30 NZ-NZ-H
7040 Li=XB-XXtL2=-LltL3=Li5ScLllL4=L2#L2
7050 L5-L3*Llf,LA=L4*L2
7060 K1=YL/L3
7070 K2=-2*YL/L5
7080 K3»YH/L4
7090 K'4=-2¥YH/L6
7 100 K5=»J1/L3
7120 B<4)=K2+K4+K5
7 130 B(3 )=< Kl+K3-< 2*XX+XB )*< K2+K5 )-( 2*XD+XX )**< K4 ))
7140 B< 2 )=< < K2+K5 W ( XX*XX )+2*XB*XX )f < K4 )#( < XD*XD H2*XB*XX ) )
7145 B< 2)»B<2)-2»K1*XX-2*K3*XD
7150 B< 1 )«< Kl«< XX*XX H-K3W XE'STXIi )-XH*( XX*XX )*< K2+K5 ) )-< XDXXD )*XX*:( K4 )
7160 X2=XD-S1
7170 FOR I2=i!Q 100
7180 X2=X2+S1
7190 IF X2>XX THEM 7250
7200 YP=3#B< 4 )#( X2*X2 )+2*P( 3 )*X2-i-B< 2 )
7210 y4=0?!F YP<0 THEN XX=XX-ST5I2=iOOlU4~l
7250 MEXT 12
7260 IF W4=l THEN W4»OSGOTO 7030
7300 XF NZ=1 THEN 7400
7310 XX=XX+STtST=ST/iO
7320 IF ABS
-------
2 REM
3 REM Pro sir am " JSKLOG" f 10/04/82
4 REM For use in the asphalt category report
5 REM in those cases that 3 los-normal size ciistri-
6 REM bution is used to characterize data.
10 CLE1AR 4000
=OtL2~OtL3~QtL4=OtL5=0
17 R2=0t 13-0 tTL=OtKS=QtBA=OtSA=OtIQ=QtIX=0; 12=0 tJX=OtIA=Q;iC=OJIB==0
20 »IN XN( 10)rYO< 10 )»X< S3)fA( 16)»B<4)»CO< 5Qi3 )»Yl( 53 >»XD( 15 }»XQ( 10.50 )»YQ< 10»50)
Y2( 10 )»IB*< 5Q)»JX<50)fJY<50>fM( 10f50 )».JQ( 1Q)»4W( 10)
30 PRINT-PROGRAM SPL1N2 FROM FORTRAN ORIGINAL 02/22/32 Ml"
31 LPRINT TAB(TAB<36)}DY*.JE/iOO»TAB<50)JO,005*DY*JEtNEXT Q%
V5 LPRINT "THIS DATA SET yAS FIT TO A LOG-NORMAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION" t EN£<
H-10
-------
APPENDIX I
DESCRIPTION OF TI-59 PROGRAM TO COMPUTE
LOG-NOIMAL PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
1-1
-------
Particle size data fitting a log-normal distribution yields a, straight
line when plotted on log-probability graph paper. To graphically determine
the mass fraction of particles smaller than 15 \jt,m. in diameter, the data
points would have to be plotted. Then, the best-fit Line would be drawn
through the data points and the I? fraction determined. Such a graphical
approach is time consuming and requires a subjective judgment in drawing
the best-fit line through the data points.
Aa analytical technique utilizing the TI-59 programmable calculator
was developed as part of chis study. The program transforms both coordi-
nates into a linear format, as shouts in Figure o» and then performs a stan-
dard linear regression analysis to find the slope and intercept of the least
squares line fit to the data* The ordinate is linearized by taking the log-
arithm of the aerodynamic particle diameter* The abscissa or the probabil-
ity function is represented by the integral
C2/2
dt
This* integral can not be solved explicitly, but can be approximated by
0 < F < 0.5 x • -t + CQ -t- elt + c2t2 + e(F)j
1 4- d^t 4- d2tz 4- d3tj
0.5 < F < 1.0 x = t - C° * Clt ^ °2t + c(P),
1 4- d^t 4- d2t2 4- d3t3
The constants needed for the probability function approximation are given
in Table A-l. __ ..._ . ,
167
TABLE A-l. CONSTANTS USED IN THE LOG N01MAL DATA ANALYSIS—
h
Q
O
0
» 0.31938153
» -0.356563782
- 1.781477937
» -1.821255978
= 1.330274429
^0
C2
r
« 2*
= 0.
- 0.
» 0.
515517
802853
010328
2316419
d
d
d
C
3 "
I.
0.
0.
432788
1892 S9
0013 08
:)| < 7.5 x 10"3 |t(F)| < 4.5 x 10
-4
1-2
-------
Once the data points are transformed co linear coordinates, the stan-
dard linear regression function of the TI-59 is used to determine the slope
and intercept of the least squares line fie through the data points. The
mass median diameter is the anti-log of the y-intercept, as shown in Fig-
ure 6, and the geometric standard deviation is the anti-log of the slope.
the linear correlation coefficient is also calculated*
To find the nass fraction of particles smaller than IS urn, the log of
15 (y -coordinate) is entered and the corresponding value of the x-coordinate
is computed using the least squares line previously determined. This pro-
gram can be modified very easily if the mass fraction for another particle
cut size is desired. The computed x -coordinate value is then converted
back to a mass fraction using Che following formulas:
""J *S / Cf
x < 0 F - f (x)[bLt -I- b2e 4- b3e +• b4e + bjt ] 4- « 0 F = I - f (x)[blt 4- b2t +• b3t -f- b4t 4- b3t] 4 e
-------
Tm e
PROGRAMMER
.PAGEJ OF A Ti Ftogrammable ,J^
/a.**-?*- Program Record
Partitioning (Op 17) I . . - » I Library Module /T?4 * 4u.
5e.ru.
,, e.. i
Printer _ Cards J ( 5iJ{£iJ
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
TgamfruHttPD TO A
!T
S-A T/afi do^e
USER INSTRUCTIONS
STEP
PROCEDURE
ENTER
PRESS
DISPLAY
0Amrr: S/urei.
-LI
Ml.
trA_A//UT
4*.
f,
af"
4 / /US IP
DAtA
USER DEFINED KEYS
DATA REGISTERS (GSJ Bi )
LABELS (Op 08)
i-Ct*
L ^PVs
s. < a <
^u
12
7'
CS_B_S] _® _ISJ_CS3.
fTTl f^tj 558 rued sttSi i~rri
rag _,_ rn . m ___ rgg ap , nn
i"SS [ si . {*1!t H!CT BJH _ WTM _
^^i ^^ JSI ^9X ^^1 ^^| ^^ ^^|
^3 • iQB __ i^S«_ ^3«—. ^3—i!^i _
BH y^} _BS_«IH — HBl _ HBH _
^^3 ^^9 _^^B E^B PS ^31
•2' 6-
FLAGS
3H77T«tt»
1-4
10I4964-1
-------
TITLE
1 O<3L~AJo- I P*«/m^T«M)L
! 7 ^ '
IsLCm^.r^O-
4- «/2T"i
Q-f J)
1
¥= J
4-r x
A)/^7,r*/fl'if
••
'
DATA
HEGISTEFIS(S3IBI)
9
I
2
3
4
$
i
7
t
1
2
3
9
'
2
3
4
S
«
7
i
1
4
5
LABELS (Op 08)
C
1
I
3_3si_i3SL
_SSt _fiElI SJJ _
i] CO— LT3— GEI_i!l 3_
3_E— SI S_S_CZ] _
a
m
IB
_i
E
_UkUI — fci»_«Ui __
^jl f^f f^f Culi
Hi 13 El B9
ffiB FB IR9 i^l I^H 32}
i
i
1
H __B3 - *3 ,
?
_Ba sa m
i i
1-5
-------
im g
PROGRAMMER
.PAGE_J OF.
_DATE o.-">!
Tl Programmable
Coding Form
LOG
CODE)
i
&-
il
'iY
.£•
12.
41
U3U
.°L
£.5:
74
•sf
^
-2J_
KEY"
\3
-AS-
*4
_L3
J-/5
Law
I
_S1
"? J-flw
15LU/X.
0.
\p(
sE_£ft^l*_
«• •ISft
T«
C4wPj£C£_
Jl_
.X^_d.a
LOG
CODE
-.13—
f-3
J31_
iC..
33_
•71
SJ.
74
ai
Ji.
.If.
J,3_
II
y.
U2-
fx
jiji
_,_
JPSL
KSY
dl
jf
»/« ,.^ .
07
,J5ra_
_2«_.
.JJ.H-
sro
^U>^
I—S/..r-
__ti_
i
5T5
Jra.
S_J_it
i/
COMMENTS
|WT8 _A
..Qf—
33.__X«i.
LOG
CODE
U
iV
'f
-_L1_._
a?
2£_
5.51
-ti.
x*
.."a...
*«L_
J^_
-151
351
KEY
. &__
31
X
/O
03 „
iwy iaii
,1T4
_J
-------
TTTLE
PHOQRAMMiH
"Tr\
.PAGE.
.DATE,
.OF.
TI Programmable
Coding Form
LOG
ODE
KEY
COMMENTS
LOG
CODE
KEY
COMMENTS
LOG
CODE} KEY
COMMENTS
JA—Jkl.
*SL
ll
1 1
n
55"
•5-
Tf
3iAi£
.liXlSbL
JA.I
at
*•-
!«•
11
STb
if
40
fl
71
(1
LX
il
33
(1.
S.3
AS.
H
**•
IT
e
« J?
a_a
11
XO.
sra
5T6
ll
<3
jfl.
MERGED CODES
?af^] 13 asisa sg
33 Da O ^^j 13 34 Bin
E1 92fTSvi »w
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS
1-7
-------
APPENDIX J
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS AND HAND CALCULATIONS
(Included In Tables 3-16 through 3-26)
J-l
-------
REFERENCE 1 DATA
(Ftom Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5)
J-2
-------
TEST
INPUT DAT AI
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 Ml
COUNTY SUMMARY TABLE TEST C-369 SCRUBBER INLET
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE =113 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PART'ICULATE EMISSION RATE = 352 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY * 2.4 C/CC
PARTXQ.E SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
CUT < u»A)
15
CUM. '/. < CUT
2S.6371
35.2163
38.5441
49.4708
60,3947
70.8298
73,9369
79.0119
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) (KG/HT)
.392744
1.097
1.20067
1.34104
1.88735
2.20633
2.36547
2,46123
.446372
.548502
.600333
.770318
.943776
1.10319
1.13273
1.23063
OK TEST SERIES
3-3
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
TEE'L IB I LA COUNTY SUHMARY TABLE TEST C-369 SCRUBBER OUTLET
XKPili" DATftt
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE =113 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION 'RATE = 24,4 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,4 G/CC
CUT (urn.)
20
74
OUTPUT CATAI
BARTXCI.E SIZE DISTRIBUTION
RAW 7. < CUT CUM. % < CUT
79,9
3.8
2
14.3
79.9
83.7
13.7
100
TP EMISSION FACTOR = ,213929 LB/T < ,107965 KG/HT)
CUT <
CUH. % < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
C LB/T ) < KG/MT >
..A23
i
i,25
2.5
S
i<< . .
is
20
44,9872
52,4434
55,0381
62.9364
70,2577
76,3667
79,6239
81.4592
.101459
,113241
.113843
,135898
.151707
.16533
.171931
.175894
.0307295
.0566205
.0594217
.067949
.0758534
.082665
,0859636
,0879471
END .Or' TEST SERIES
J-4
-------
3PI.IN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST mi LA COUNTY SUMMARY TABLE TEST C-372A SCRUBBER INLET
IHI*\J f & AT A*.
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE a 138 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 76 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.4 5/CC
HCABIWSD PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (um) RAW '/. < CUT CUM. % < CUT
78
96
98
100
i<>
2u
44
74
78 ,
18 .
2
2
&ATAI
TP EMISSION FACTOR
.431013 LB/T ( .240504 KG/MT )
CUT (umA)
CUM. Y. < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
3PLJCN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
TEST X»l. LA COUNTY SUMMARY TABLE TEST C-372A SCRUBBER OUTLET
XN»»ur DATA: PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = iss TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULARS EMISSION RATE = 10 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,4 G/CC
tis£A;iLi«£r< PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAM % < CUT CUM* % < CUT
44
74
83
33
33
39
100
OUT PUT BAT Ai
TP EMISSION FACTOR - ,0632911 LB/T ( ,0316456 KG/MT)
CUT < u»A)
20
CUM. V. < CUT
34.8733
42,0797
45»6662
37,1342
63,3063
78*0367
32.60O4
83.1924
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
3PLIN2 PftQGRftH - 02/22/82 VI
TEST X&i LA COUNTY SUMMARY TABLE TEST C-372B SCRUBBER INLET
XHr'iJ? riATAl PROCESS WEIGHT RATE a 142.9 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE a 121 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.4 G/CC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT RAM % < CUT CUM, % < CUT
.to
20
44
74
9
*.0i
*.0i
90.9818
99,93
99.99
100
r BATAI TP E?iis3iQN FACTOR » ,344744 LB/T c ,422373 KG/«T>
CUT < urn A )
.623
'.'0
•>•* w
CUH. % < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
LB/T > (KG/MT)
ia.496a
26.2783
30 '.6033
46»37o9
64 » 3333
81,7232
90,2349
95.0498
.156621
,222512
,259177
,392695
. 544736
,692005
.76406
.804331
.0733103
.111256
.129533
.196347
.272393
.346003
.33203
.402415
OF TEST SERIES
* Model will not accept zero values.
J-7
-------
3PLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
TEST IB I LA COUNTY 3UMNARY TABLE TEST C-372B SCRUBBER OUTLET
ItoVrUf ft AT A i
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE » 142.9 TONS PROD. XHR
TOTAL PARTICULARS EMISSION RATE - If.2 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,4 G/CC
PARTICLE SIZE BX3TRIBUTIQN
cur RAy •/. < CUT CUM, % < CUT
82
85
87
100
iu
20
44
74
82
3
2
13
OUTPUT DATA I
TP EMISSION FACTOR
.13436 LB/T < ,0471799 KC/MT)
CU?
uraA )
CUH* 7.
CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
LB/T 5 ( KG/MT )
.623
;i.
:U25
2.S
',1
iu
_i5 .
20
37.3976
61 .6263
63.6338
69.5435
74.9027
79.2144
• ai-W-912
83.1956
.0771192
.0823412
.0355043
.0934334
.100639
. 10633S
.109894-
.111731
.0335596
.0414206
.0427524
.0467192
.0503195
.0534176
..—..0549472,
.0558907
IIWO (Vf TEST SERIES
J-8
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST XJ>i LA COUNTY SUMMARY TABLE TEST C-422< 1) SCRUBBER OUTLET
XHr-Uf &ATAI
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE - 198 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE =26.6 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.4 G/CC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
r.ur" RAW y. < CUT CUM. % < CUT
iu 73.2 73.2
.20 3.1 73»3
44, 4.5 32*3
74 ... 17.2 100
flUfPUf DATA!
TP EMISSION FACTOR = ,134343 LB/T C .0671717 KG/MT)
GUf < umA
CUH. 7.
CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T )
-------
3PLIM2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST ID', i960 LOS ANGELES COUNTY TEST*C-426 VENT LINE
INPUT DATAI
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE * 132 TONS PRQB./HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 2000 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,4 S/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUTCusn)
CUM. % < CUT
10
15
20
30
40
50
60
19.3
39.7
52.7
60.7
74
81.6
85.8
88
OUTPUT DATA: TP EMISSION FACTOR = 10.939 LB/T < 5.49451 KG/MT)
CUT (uis.A>
.625
1
1.25
•2.5
13
20
CUM. X < CUT
9.34642E-03
.0701322
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
TEST IDS i960 LOS ANGLES COUNTY TESTiC-426 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA: PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = tS2 TOMS PRGD./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 2620 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.4 G/CC
* MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUTCunO CUM. 7. < CUT
10
15
20
30
40
50
60
5.4
10.3
14.3
17.8
23.4
33,8
44 .6
51.1
OUTPUT OATAt
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 14.3956 LB/T < 7. If 78 KG/MT)
CUT CumA)
CUM.
CUT
.625
1
1.25
'2.5
5
10
15
20
.0221413
.0894864
.163537
.833455
2.9282
6.92055
9.95612
12.6159
END OF TEST SERIES
* Particles > 60 pmS and 3-4
of text) ..
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) (KG/MT)
3»18737E-03
.0128821
.0235494
.119981
.421532
.996256
1,43324
1.81613
1.59368E-03
6.44105E-03
.0117747
.0599904
.210766
.498128
.716622
.908065
not used as Input to model (see Section 3.5.2
J-ll
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82
TEST ID: I960 LOS ANGELES COUNTY TEST*C-426 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 132 TONS PROO./HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 6700 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.4 G/CC
* HEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(un»)
10
IS
20
30
40
50
60
CUM, % < CUT
1.5
10,1
21,1
27*8
32,1
40.8
47.7
53.5
56.6
OUTPUT DATA',
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 36.3132 LB/T < 18.4066 KG/MT)
CUT (umA)
,625
i
•1.25
Z..5 _
5
10
15
20
CUM. % < CUT
4.02547E-03
.03184
.07707
.....80332-
4,55354
13.7273
20,4088
2S.2256
END OF TEST SERIES
EMISSION
(LB/T)
1.4819E-03
,0117213
.0283719
..295728
1,67315
5.05344
7,51313
9,28636
FACTOR
60 fmS and 3-4 pmS not used as input to model (see Section 3.5.2
of text) .
J-12
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
TEST IDt i960 LOS ANGELES COUNTY TEST*C-393 SCRUBBER INLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS UEIGHT RATE =92.3 TONS PRQB./HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 4260 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.4 C/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUTCuni) CUM, % < CUT
10
20
44
74
13
84*1
93.7
100
OUTPUT DATA: TP EMISSION FACTOR = 46*1533 LB/T < 23.0/6? KG/MT>
CUT CumA)
,625
i
5
10
15
20
CUH» 7. < CUT
2»16E-09
4E-08
1.12E-04
.0449
2»8
13.9
30.8
EMISSION
(LB/T }
1.02E-12
9.96923E-10
1.84615E-08
5*16923E-05 '
.0207231
1.29231
6.41538
14.2154
DATA SET WAS FIT TO A LOG-NORMAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FACTOR
(KC/MT)
5.1E-13
4.98462E-10
9.23077E-09
2.58462E-05
.0103615
.646154
3.20769
7.10769
J-13
-------
REFERENCE 3 DAfA
(Froa Tables 3-6 and 3-7)
J-14
-------
cT
-ts
A
,v
- 0-Z
vi
ft/ I J I \ / f /
QZ
0.8
\.L
U
12 5
2£.k
"**m^i -^
IO.L,
K.o
42-4-
60.0
•
J-15
-------
^ O-2
X _
\lel°c4,
D.4-
O-S
•% *\.«~.
= 0-2.
0.7-
O-4-
0.6
IL
f <*"
4J.6,
x~ ,
^' I x<^S.
- "X
C
J~16
12.
40.6
-------
' ^ ' Jdr O "7-7 x,
&\ * }fti**&+t* -*S>S \^ — ^. / £?;
^ \ ,1
(fi*r
\-
/ S
(z 7- a
az.
as
3-2.
IZS
(^(^U^< ^UA
- O-Z
S.O
/4I
zao
40,0
p* 2.5
V
Ve/^c-4
/
az.
as
9-8
6.4-
5
12?
Z77
-------
\4- cxz
-- J
^ 43
(
az
0-8
5-2.
45
IIL
27-2.
^8.4-
J-18
-------
o ^
- u
r
s
N
N
r
N
1£ J:
' CO oD
-3
7
tvi
Q -^
sj ^"~
N
Ml
Nil
4-J
-2 * M
.
-O
t< 2
O M q
CM
c4
^1 Q r-J
^ V £7
Q
c>
CO
N
J-19
H
cD ^
Q 03 o .r^
-f PO
&
^
CM
V3
V
~2 cv
-S7
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID I GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. A4 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA*
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE - 0 TONS PRQB./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.4 G/CC
HEASUREII SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT76074E~04
3.33E-03
7.69273E-03
.0727647
.402899
1.30589
2.02467
2.46845
END OF TEST SERIES
J-20
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE* EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST lOt GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO, A4 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DAT At
PROCESS UEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/'HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT zu
5
10
15
20
CUM, 7. < CUT
1,01021
1.81471
2,35923
4,99792
9,60428
16.7416
22,1483
26,4721
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EHISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IB! GERMAN STUBY PLANT ID NO, 01 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATAJ
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PRGD./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,6 C/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT< urn)
5*1
7v2
.10.2
14.4
20.4
28*8
40.8
57.7
74
CUM
CUT
7
13.1
18.2
22.8
26.7
28*8
32
38*2
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 42 LB/T ( 21 KG/MT )
CUT (umA )
,623
1
1.25
5
10
15
20
CUH. '/» < CUT
4.90417E-06
2.26465E-04
1.14969E-03.
,0303031
1.67117
10.362
16*3908
20.8641
EMISSION FACTOR
2.05975E-06
9.51154E-05
4.3287E-0.4
.0337273
.70139
4,35205
7.09415
8,76291
1.02988E-06
4.75577E-05
2.4U35E-04-
.0168637
.350943
2,17602
3,54708
4,38146
END OF TEST SERIES
J-22
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST iDt GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO, Di' CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD* /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,6 C/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAW % < CUT CUM, 7. < CUT
10
20
40
74
18.2
8.5
5.3
68
13*2
26.7
32
100
OUTPUT DATA: TP EHISSIQN FACTOR = 5.24 LB/T c 2,62 KG/MTJ
CUT < umA )
»625
1,25
2,5
10
15
20
CUM. % < CUT
.203426
.512838
,770132
2,3319
6.0183?
12.4233
17.2S45
20.9505
EMISSION FACTOR
tLB/T ) ( KC/MT )
.0106595
.0263753
.0403549
.124811
,315364
,650982
.905708
1,09781
5.32977E-0;
,0134377
.0201775
.0624057
.157682
.325491
. 452854
.548904
END OF TEST SERIES
J-23
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE* EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID*. GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. H2 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATAJ
PROCESS UEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD./HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.6 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(urn )
5.1
7.2
10.2
14.4
20.4
28»8
40.8
57.7
74
CUM* % < CUT
8.7
17
23.4
27.6
33*4
36.2
45.9
59.1
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 24.6 LB/T ( 12.3 KG/MT)
CUT < uiftA )
1
1.25
2.5
5
10
15
20
CUM. 7. < CUT
8.47661E-07
6.96892E-05
.0575943
1.78027
13.2326
21*8806
25*7017
- EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) (KG/MT)
2.08525E-07
1.71435E-05
TT10635E=04
.0141682
.437947
3.26751
5.38262
6.32261
1.04262E-07
8»57177E-06
5.53175E-05"
7.08409E-03
.218974
1.63376
2.69131
3.16131
END OF TEST SERIES
J-24
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IDt GERMAN STUBY PLANT ID NO. H2 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATAt
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
-------
SPLIH2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
PROCESS DATA MOT AVAILABLE* EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST 101 GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. 12 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT D
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE » 0 TONS PRQB,/HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EHISSION RATE a 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY * 2,9 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUTCutn) CUM. X < CUT
4,8
6.3
9,6
13.6
19,2
27,2
38.4
54.3
74
10,8
14
17.2
25.1
34.5
38*5
47,2
64,1
100
OUTPUT BATAt TP EMISSION FACTOR = 42,2 L3/T ( 2J.I KG/WTJ
CUT
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Mi
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID? GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO* 12 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.6 G/CC
HEASUREH PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAW % < CUT. CUM, % < CUT
10
20
40
74
17*2
17*3
12.7
52,3
17.2
34,5
47.2
100
OUTPUT DATAJ
TP EMISSION FACTOR
1.12 LB/T
.56 KG/HT )
CUT < umA )
.625
2,5
5
10
15
20
CUM* % < CUT
3.99466E-03
.0225395
.0481914
.396545
2,2256
8.51994
15*6471
22.2464
EMISSION FACTOR
( LB/T ) . (KG/MT )
4.47402E-05
2.52442E-04
5.39744E-04
4.4413E-03
.0249268
.0954234
.175247
,249159
2.23701E-05
1.26221E-04
2.69872E-04
2.22065E-03
.0124634
.0477117
.0876236
.12453
END OF TEST SERIES
J-27
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82
PROCESS PftTA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IB I GERMAN STUBY PLANT IB KG. 13 CYCLONE IMLET
INPUT QftTAt
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE - 0 TONS PROB./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.7 G/CC
MEASURES SIZE DISTRIBUTION
UB. )
5
7,1
10
14.1
20
28.3
40
56.6
74
CUM, "L < CUT
13.7
29,1
40.9
49.2
58*1
64.7
70.2
30.9
100
OUTPUT BATAS TP EMISSION FACTOR = 29,4 LB/T ( 14,7 KC/MT)
CUT (unA) .CUM. % < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) (KG/MT)
.425
1 '
— l-*25"
-i. *%*
5
10
15
20
.1»90208E-07
2.68464E-05
--2.17566E-04- "
,0502156
2.33869
21.9781
38,0358
45.6821
5.5921E-08
7.892S4E-06
6.39644E-05
.0147634
,687574
6.46156
11.1325
13.4306
2.79605E-08
3.94642E-06
3.19822E-05
7.3817E-03
,343787
3.23078
5.59126
6.71528
END OF TEST SERIES
J-28
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. 13 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,6 G/CC
MEASURED- PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (UA) RAW % < CUT CUH» 7. < CUT
10
20
40
74
40.9
17.2
12.1
29.8
40.9
58*1
70.2
100
OUTPUT DATAt TP EMISSION FACTOR = 2,3 LB/T < 1.4 KG/MT)
CUT < umA )
.625
1
1,25
2.5
5
10
15
20
CUM. X < CUT
.910363
1,9668
2.76234
7.12934
15•6506
29.2229
39.0639
46.4114
EMISSION FACTOR
( LB/T ) < KG/MT )
.0254902
,0550703
.0773456
.199622
,438218
.818241
1.09379
1.29952
.0127451
.0275352
.0386728
,0998108
.219109
.409121
,546895
.64976
END OF TEST SERIES
J-29
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Mi
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUOY PLANT ID NO* 02 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS yEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROEU/HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EHISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.9 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/S2 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE; EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. 02 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DAT At
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD* /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT RAW 7. < CUT CUM* % < CUT
10
20
40
74
41*1
24,3
3.7
30,9
41.1
65*4
69*1
100
OUTPUT OATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 7.54 LB/T ( 3*77 KG/MT)
CUT (
,625
1 *>*
1 t •£«
2,5
5
10
15
20
CUM. 7. < CUT
.0197552
.104072
.214452
1..54576
7*39811
23.5107
38.2438
49.6107
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS BATA NOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IZU GERMAN STUBY PUNT 10 MO* Cl CYCLONE IMLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PRQB./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,5 G/CC
MEASURES SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT< urn )
CUH, I < CUT
5.2
7,4
10,4
14,7-
20,8
2?, 4
41.6
53.S.
74
6.9
13,8
22
29 .6
37,2
45,9-
54,7
74, t-
100
OUTPUT DATA; TP EMISSION FACTOR - 72.6 LB/T c 34,3 KG/MTJ
CUT
.425
2,5
5
10
15
20
CUH. % < CUT
••6.75344E-05
l'.29393E-03
.13771?
U8074
10.4073
19,7365
2A.2973
ENB OF TEST SERIES
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T)
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLEI EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUBY PLANT ID NO. Cl CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA;
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE * 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2*6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT RAW % < CUT CUM. 7. < CUT
10
20
40
74
22
15,2
17.5
45.3
37.2
54,7
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR « 3.54 LB/T ( 1.77
KG/MT )
CUT (
,625
1
1,25
2,5
5
10
15
20
CUM. %
,290619
.656995
.946186
2.67886
6.59549
14.121
20*6603
26.291
EMISSION FACTOR
CUT (LB/T) ( KG/MT )
,0102879
.0232576
,033495
.0948318
»23348
,499884
,731376
.930703
5.14396E-0;
.0116288
.0167475
,0474159
.11674
.249942
.365683
.465351
OF TEST SERIES
J-33
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM -
02/22/82
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO, C2 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATAS PROCESS WEIGHT RATE - 0 TONS PRQB,/HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE ~ 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.5 G/CC
MEASURED SHE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(uift)
5,2
7,4
10,4
14,7
20,8
29,4
41,6
58,3
74
CUM, 2 < CUT
7,6
16,9
24.9
31,7
37,4
42,6
56.9
58,9
100
OUTPUT D3TA',
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 72.2 LB/T ( 36,1 KG/MT!
CUT (unA)
,625
2t-3
5
10
15
CUM, % < CUT
1.04337E-07
l,41687E-05
1.13451E-04
,0238845
1,23919
12.4481
22,3192
23.8498
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) < KG/MT)
7.53311E-08
1.02298E-05
8.19113E-05
,0186886
,394697
8,98751
16,4754
20,3295
3.76655E-08
5,11489E-06
4.09557E-05
9.34432E-03
,447348
4,49374
8,23772
10,4148
END OF TEST SERIES
J-34
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST int GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO* C2 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD* /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE - 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAM % < CUT CUM. % < CUT
10
20
40
74
24,9
12,5
13,5
45.3
25.8836
38 * 8773
52.9106
100
OUTPUT DATA: TP EMISSION FACTOR = 4.1 LB/T c 2»os KG/MT>
CUT < urnA )
CUM. 7. < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
LB/T ) ( KG/MT )
,625
1
1,25
2.5
5
10
15
2.0
1.03112
1.S791
2,45924
5,31454
10.4065
18.4638
24.6679
--- 29,6832
.0422761
.0770431
. 100829
.217896
.426667
,757015
1,01138
1.21701
,021138
,0385216
.0504144
. 108948
.213334
. 378507
,505692
,608506
END OF TEST SERIES
J-35
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82
PROCESS BftTA MOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST 10: GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. BS CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS HEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD./HR
TOTAL PART1CULATE EHISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY » 2.6 G/CC
HEASUREB SIZE BISTRIBUTIQH
CUTCum) CUM. I < CUT
54
7.2
10,2
14.4
20,4
28.3
40,8
57,7
74
4.2
7.7
12,5
18.3
25,4.
32.7
41,4
56.7
100
OUTPUT BftTAJ TP EMISSION FACTOR = 93,4 LB/T ( 46,7 KG/MT)
CUT
1 '
1,25
2.5
10
15
.CUM. % < CUT
-8.4312E-04
6.72639E-03
—,0166124
,196869
1,4032
6.01537
11.1082
15.6364
EHISSIQN FACTOR
(LB/T) (KG/HT)
7.87474E-04
6»23245E-03
"7015316
.133875
1,31059
5.61335
10,3751
14.6044-
3.93737S-04
3.14123E-03
7.7530"IE-0~3~
.0919377
,655294
2,30913
5,18753
7.30213
OF TEST SERIES
J-36
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAH - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS HATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IB: GERMAN STUBY PLANT IB HO. B3 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT BATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAW % < CUT CUM, % < CUT
12.5
10
20
40
74
12.9
16
58.6
12.5
25.4
41.4
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR * 2.44 LB/T ( 1.22 KG/MT)
CUT
,625
t
1.25
2.5
5
10
15
20
CUM. % < CUT
.0237498
.0793193
.13571
.622023
2.28689
6.74413
11.4626
15.9533
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) < KG/MT)
5.79495E-04
1.93539E-03
3.31132E-03
.0151774
.0558001
.164557
.279687
.389261
2.89748E-04
9.67696E-04
1.65566E-03
7.58863E-03
.0279
.0822784
.139843
.19463
END OF TEST SERIES
J-37
-------
SPLIN2 PRQGRAH - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE; EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IDt SERHAM STUDY PLANT ID HO, B4 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DMA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE * 0 TOMS PRQD./HR
TOTAL PARTICUUTE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY a 2,3 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE SISTRIBUTIQN
CUT(um)
4,9
6,9
9,3
13,9
19,6
27,7
39,2
55,4
74
CUH» I < CUT
15,9
26,8
41,5
53.8
61,5
67,6
72
80,6
100
OUTPUT DATA; TP EMISSION FACTOR = 149,2 LB/T < 74.6 KC/MT>
CUT (unA)
,625
1
1,25
2,5
3
10
15
20
EHB OF TEST SERIES
CUM, X < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) ( KG/HT)
-,015282
.0809016
, 167706
1.25014
6,33009
21.7722
37,7312
48.886
,0228008
,120705
,250218
1,86521
9,4445
32.4841
56,2949
72.9378
.0114004
,0603526
1 1*51 rtQ
. ii.JJ.UT •
,932606
4,72225
16,2421
28.1474
36,4689
J-38
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
PROCESS DATA HOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IB; GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO* B4 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA;
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD* /HE
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
CUT
.625
1
1,23
2.5
5
10
15
20
CUH. % < CUT
,282783
,80161
1,26568
4,47531
12,5012
27.5872
39.295
48.0945
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) ( KG/MT )
,0588189
, 166735
,263261
.930364
2.600
25
5,73815
8.17336
10,0036
,0294094
.0833675
,131631
.465432
1,30012
2.86907
4,08668
5,00182
END OF TEST SERIES
J-39
-------
SPLIM2 PRQGRAil - 02/22/82 VI
PROCESS BATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY 1MPUT
TEST tat GERMAM STUBY PLANT IB MO, F3 CYCLONE IMLET
INPUT DATA!
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE s 0 TONS PRQD,/HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,4 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(uin)
5,3
7,5
10,6
15
21,2
30
42.4
40
74
CUM, 2 < CUT
11
19,8
27,7
35,5
43.2
48.9
57,6
id,9
100
OUTPUT BATAJ TP EMISSION FACTOR = 73,8 LB/T ( 36,9 KG/MT)
CUT UotA)
1
1-25
2,5
5
10
15
CUM. % < CUT
-5.50136E-05
U43158E-03
-5.72483E-03
,218311
3,0718
15,8391
25,6354
,32,1089
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) {KG/MT)
4.06E-05
1.05651E-03
4;22492E-03
,161483
2,26699
11,6893
18,9189
23.6963
2.03E-OS
5.2S253E-04
.0807414
1,13349
5,34463
9,45946
11,8482
ENB OF TEST SERIES
J-40
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 Mi
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE, EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IB! GERMAN STUBY PLANT ID NO. F3 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA!
PROCESS yEIGHT RATE = 0 TOMS PROD* /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EHISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.6 G/CC
MEASURES PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (un) RAW % < CUT CUM, % < CUT
10
20
40
74
27,7
15.5
14,4 '
42,4
27,7
43.2
57.6
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR » 4,7 LB/'T < 2.35 KG/MT )
CUT (unA)
i.;
5
10
15
20
CUM, % < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) < KG/MT )
,426108
.964353
1 . 38577
3.85301
9,15894
18.6134
26.2079
32.3403
,0200271
.0453248
•0651313
.131092
,43047
,374832
1.23177
1.52
.0100135
,0226624
.0325657
,0905458
.215235
.437416
.615885
.759998
END OF TEST SERIES
J-41
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ul
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID*. GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. G2 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE » 0 TONS PROD./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.5 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUCY PLANT ID NO, G2 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2,6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAW X < CUT CUM. 7, < CUT
10
20
40
74
37
22,6
12.5
27*9
37
59.6
72.1
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 6.16 LB/T < 3,08 KG/MT)
CUT ( urnA )
CUM. % < CUT
,625
i
1,25
2,5
,5
10
15
20
.0868022
.307537
.533432
2.43041
8.62957
22.5476
34 , 6296
44.2443
EMISSION FACTOR
< LB/T ) (KG/MT)
5.34702E-03
.0189443
.0329826
,152793
.531582
1,38893
2.13318
2.72545
2.67351E-03
9.47215E-03
.0164913 •
.0763967
.265791
.694466
1,06659
1,36273
END OF TEST SERIES
J-43
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE; EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST I0t GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO, Gl CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS yglGHT RATE = 0 TONS PRQD./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.5 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(uffi) CUM, % < CUT
5.2
7.4
10.4
14.7
20.8
29.4
41.6
38,8
74
3.9
16»5
29.1
35.1
43.8
53*9
66
81.9
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 55,8 LB/T ( 27.9 KG/MT)
CUT C umA )
.625
t.23
2,3
10
15
20
CUM. % < CUT
4.0479E-09
1.12921E-06
1.238S9E-OS
—A-.7.2062E-03-
.646657
11.0338
25.9301
32.4878
EMISSION FACTOR
( LB/T ) (KG/MT )
2.25S73E-09
6.30101E-07
6.91134E-06
-3»7501-1-E-03
.360834
6.15684
14.469
18.1282
1.12936E-09
3.1505E-07
3.45567E-06
1.87305E-03
.180417
3.07842
7.2345
9,06411
END OF TEST SERIES
J-44
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IDt GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. Gl CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD* /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.6 G/CC
HEASUREB PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE! EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IDJ GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. Bl CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATA;
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROO./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.5 G/CC
HEA3UREB SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT(im) CUM. % < CUT
5*2
7.4
10.4
14.7
20.8
29.4
41*6
58.8
74
3.6
5.1
7
8.9
10.9
12.8
16.3
23.7
100
OUTPUT DATA: TP EMISSION FACTOR = 31.3 LB/T < 15.9 KG/MT)
CUT (
.625
1.
1.23
-2T5
5
10
15
20
CUM. 7. < CUT
,152491
.294359
.397183
.956238
2.12832
4.37859
6.47235
8.06365
EMISSION FACTOR
( LB/T ) (KG/MT )
.0484921
.0936062
.126304
-.3041
.676805
1.39239
2.05S21
2.56424
.024246
.0468031
.0631522
VI5205
.338402
.696196
1.0291
1.28212
END OF TEST SERIES
J-46
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 VI
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE* EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST in: GERMAN STUBY PLANT ID NO. Bl CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (um) RAW % < CUT CUM» % < CUT
10
20
40
74
7
3.9
5.4
83.7
7
10.9
16.3
100
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = .898 LB/T ( ..449 KS/MT )
CUT < urnA )
.623
1
5
10
15
20
CUM, 7. < CUT
.51156
.789009
.962941
1.74073
3.02207
5.03358
6.6685
8.0676
EMISSION FACTOR
.< LB/T ) < KG/HT )
4.S9381E-03
7.08531E-03
8.64721E-03
.0156319
.0271382
.0452464
.0598831
.0724471
2.29691E-03
3.54265E-03
4.3236E-03
7.8I395E-03
.0135691
.0226232
.0299416
.0362235
END OF TEST SERIES
J-47
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST ID: GERMAN STUDY PLANT ID NO. F2 CYCLONE INLET
INPUT DATAt
PROCESS yEIGHT RATE = 0 TONS PROD./HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE * 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2,5 G/CC
MEASURED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
m) CUM. X < CUT
16.5
24
32.5
41.5
45.6
48.5
53'
60.4
100 •
5.2
7.4
10.4
14.7
20.8
29.4
41.6
58*3
74
OUTPUT DATA:
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 29.2 LB/T ( 14.6 KG/MT)
CUT < umA )
.623
1
1. ""•"
10
15
20
CUM. % <
.165785
.48994
,7SS83
2.96063
8.76495
20.4681
30.1277
37.9535
CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T )
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
PROCESS DATA NOT. AVAILABLE? EMISSION FACTOR DIRECTLY INPUT
TEST IDt GERMAN STUBY PLANT ID NO* F2 CYCLONE OUTLET
INPUT DATAJ
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE - 0 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICULAR EHISSION RATE = 0 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY - 2.6 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAW % < CUT CUM. % < CUT
10
20
40
74
32.5
13.1
7.4
47
32. S
45.6
33
100
OUTPUT DATA*. TP EMISSION FACTOR = 2.28 , LB/T ( 1.14 KG/MT )
CUT < uniA )
.625
1
1
.25
5
10
15
20
CUM. 7. < CUT
.538796
1.25917
1.82789
5.13696
11.9589
23.0623
31.0338
36.8422
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
SEFER1NCE 8 DATA
(From fables 3-8 and 3-9)
J-50
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 Ml
TEST ID l SLOftii 1971 WASHER IMLET
INPUT
PROCESS UEIGHT RATE * 225 TONS PROD* /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE - 2135 LB/Hft
PARTICLE DENSITY • 1 G/CC
HEASUStl; PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (ur«) RAU 2 < CUT CUH, 7. < CUT
i
1
t,
3,3
5,5
9.2
30
120
2.3
9,5
12,2
13.3
14.8
19
27,7
.703518
3.01508
12*5628
24,8241
38.191
33.0653
72.1408
100
OUTPUT
TP EMISSION FACTOR * 9.48889 LB/T ( 4,74444 KG/HT
CUT
i.23
2.5
iu
13
20
CUB, 2 < CUT
1.46364
3,13023
"4.99144
17.5865
35.5683
54.6757
61.7131
65,3706
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) < KG/HT)
.138883
.297029
,473632
1.66876
3.37504
5.13312
5.85589
6.25039
,0694414
.148514
,236816
.834381
1,68752
2,59406
2.92795
3.12319
EKD Of TEST SERIES
J-51
-------
SPLIK2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
TEST ID I SLQAw 1971 WASHER EXHAUST
INPUT DATAI
PROCESS UEIGHT RATE = 225 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE » 181 LB/HR
PARTICLE SENSITY = 1 G/CC
HEASUREfc PARTICLE SHE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
-------
SPLIH2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
TEST Ifil HARRISON 1971 PRE-UASH ENTRANCE
IftfUT DATA1. PROCESS UEIGHT RATE * 180 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE « 1715 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 1 6/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (UK) RAH I < CUT CUM, % < CUT
5.5
30
120
14,9
35.1
26.9
23.1
14,9
50
76,9
100
OUTPUT DATA I
TP EMISSION FACTOR = 9.52778 LB/T ( 4.76389 KG/MT)
CUT
.625
i
i,25
2.5
5
10
15
CUM. % < CUT
1.S3489
4.3074
6.66173
20.6907
45.5494
62.6il6
68,0623
71.673
EMISSION FACTOR
ILB/T) (KG/MT 5
,146241
.4104
,634714
1.97136
4»33985
5.9655
6,48482
6,32932
.0731205
,2052
.317357
.98568
2.16992
2,98275
3.24241
3.41466
ENB OF TEST SERIES
J-53
-------
SM.IN2 PRQSRAtt - 02/22/82 VI
TEST ID l KARR1SOK 1971 UASHER EXHAUST
iNf'UT DATs I PROCESS UEISHT RATE = ISO TOMS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE * 63 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 1 5/CC
HEASUREU PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT RAU I < CUT CUM, 2 < CUT
5,5
30
120
6.3
2.2
3
94.8
97
100
OUTPUT DATA I TP EMISSION FACTOR * »33 LB/T < .173 KG/WT)
CUT (u;,A) CUH. 'L < CUT
EMISSION FACTOR
(LB/T) (KG/HT)
>i25
*i
4.
i.25
2,5
5
10
13
20"
7S.375
Si .4615
33.7061
39.3065
94.2514
95.831
-96.1975
96.4902
.247312
.285115
.292971
.314323
.32988
.335408
.336698
.337716
.133656
.142558
.146486
,157161
,16494
.167704
.168349
.168858
END OF TEST SERIES
J-54
-------
REFERENCE 12 DATA
(From Table 3-10)
J-55
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/32 Ml
TEST IBS TABLE 94 AP-40 C-537 INLET TO PRIMARY CYCLONE
INPUT DATA! PROCESS WEIGHT RATE - 173 TONS PROD,, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE - 5463 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 2.4 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT < urn) RAy X < CUT CUM. % < CUT
5
10
20
50
74
6.2
9,4
13.8
22,9
47.7
6*2
15.6
29.4
52.3
100
OUTPUT DATAI TP EMISSION FACTOR = 31,578 LB/T < 15.789 KG/MT)
CUT ( umA)
,625
1
1,25
2,5
5
10
15
20
CUM. % < CUT
,0186489
.0734769
, 134485
,726412
2.93389
8.90582
14.3743
19,9991
EMISSION FACTOR
LB/T ) (KG/MT )
5,38895E-03
,0232025
.0424676
,229387
,928044
2,81228
4,69702
6.31533
2.94447E-03
.0116013
.0212338
.114693
.464022
1.40614
2.34851
3,15766
"OF" TEST" SERIES"
J-56
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
TEST IDS TABLE 94 AP-40 C-537 INLET TO SCRUBBER
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 173 TONS PROD. /HR
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION RATE = 118.3 LB/HR
PARTICLE BEMSITY =2.4 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT (urn) RAW % < CUT CUM. '/. < CUT
5
10
20
50
74
34
8.8
.2
57
91
99.8
100
100
OUTPUT DATA? TP EMISSION FACTOR - .633815 LB/T < .341903 KG/MT)
CUT (
,625
1.23
2.5
3
10
15
20
CUM. 7. < CUT
.432684
1,56537
2,71332
11.6883
34.5881
70.3109
89.0992
95,5844
EMISSION FACTOR
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAM - 02/22/82 Ml
TEST IDt TABLE 94 AP-40 INLET TO MULTICLQNE
INPUT DATA:
PROCESS yEIGHT RATE = 173 TONS PROC. /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE = 1525 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY =2.4 G/CC
MEASURED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT ( un) RAW % < CUT CUM. % < CUT
10
20
50
74
19.3
31.9
31.6
15.1
2.1
19.3
51.2
82.8
97.9
100
OUTPUT DATAt
TP EMISSION FACTOR - 8.31503 LB/T ( 4.40752 KG/MT>
CUT ( umA)
.625
2.5
10
15
20
CUM, % < CUT
8.3S504E-03
,0582523
.135014
1.32526
7.92999
28.9263
48*894
63.2283
EMISSION FACTOR
( LB/T ) < KG/MT )
7.39144E-04
5.13496E-03
.0119015
.116822
.699031
2.54986
4.3102
5i5736
3.69572E-04
2.56748E-03
5.95076E-03
.0584111
.349516
1*27493
2.1551
2.7868
t£NB OF TEST SERIES
J-58
-------
REFERENCE 26 DATA
(From Table 3-11)
J-59
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
rlOJICT OIVflOPMENT SKETCH
S 0 uilet
pffOJECT NO IV iflL-oH DRAWN >V T APPB . pAff , J ,
\U
Sti
-------
SPLIN2 PROGRAH - 02/22/82
TEST ID; KVB 5806-783 TEST 29S OUTLET
INPUT BATAt
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE = 175 TONS PROD, /HR
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE - 4.34 LB/HR
PARTICLE DENSITY = 1 G/CC
MEASURES PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CUT
-------
APPENDIX K
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FOR DRQM-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
(Results Included in Table 3-35)
K-l
-------
TITIP
V&y
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
mojicr mviiowaiwt WITCH
***'•'»
t^
PROJECT NO-
APPR
PATg
IT/ 52-
\^Wcu4'0*r *.
g.2
•7.Z
ZX xyi-» 4
(oo .
r\,*.^/i
K M~k -
-------
0< .t/^, < ZC
QOT7
- 10.
"i*
Z-4-C
0.
- a
V
'
-------
M
f
U
iu
"TO«^i
JU. _ O.OOObo fes ,
its _ o.oon (u. _
K-4
-------
C D.DD^I 4- O,OCX*0 4
- . (9, 0077 fes
4*.
_
t b / p3
K-5
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fan/actions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/7-86-Q38
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Asphaltic Concrete Industry Particulate Emissions:
Source Category Report
7. AUTMOfHS)
John S. Kinsey
i. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION- NO.
8. REPORT DATE
October 1986
6, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE
REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3158, Task 18
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIO
Task Final; 3/82 - 1C
°/i?6R6D
14, SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL project officer is Dale L. Harmon, Mail Drop 61,
2429.
919/541-
16. ABSTRACT -j^g repOrt describes the development of particulate emission factors
based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the asphaltic concrete industry. After
review of available information characterizing particulate emissions from asphalt
concrete plants, .the data were summarized and rated in terms of reliability. Size
specific emission factors were developed from these data for each of the three pro-
cesses used in the manufacture of asphalt concrete. A detailed process description
is presented, with emphasis on factors affecting the generation of emissions. A re-
placement for Section 8.1 (Asphalt Concrete Plants) of AP-42 was prepared, con-
taining the size specific emission factors developed by the program.
17. KIY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Bituminous Concretes
Asphalt Plants
Dust
Emission
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TIHMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Particulate
Emission Factors
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page}
Unclassified
c. COSATI Pit:l
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Canter for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE.S3OO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA -335
If your address is incorrect, please change on, the above label
tear off; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving these technical
reports, CH[CK HfK£Q; tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
Publication No. EPA-eoo/7-86-038
-------
|