EPA/600/R-07/005
February 2007
Source Sampling Fine Particulate Matter
Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler
Prepared by:
Joan T. Bursey and Dave-Paul Dayton
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
Contract No. 68-D-00-264
EPA Work Assignment Manager:
Lee L. Beck
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (E-343-02)
National Risk Management and Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Section 1 Introduction 1
Description of Testing and Testing Objectives 3
Organization of Report 6
Section 2 Conclusions 8
Section 3 Methods and Materials 13
Description of the Testing Program 13
Description of Testing Equipment 15
Dilution Sampling System 15
Dilution Sampling System Control Instrumentation 19
Sample Collection Arrays 21
Process Description/Site Operation 21
Description of the Oil-Fired Boiler Tested at North Carolina A&T
(Greensboro, NC) 24
Pre-Test Surveys 26
Section 4 Experimental Procedures 32
Preparation for Test Setup 32
Application of EPA Methods 1-4 33
Traverse Point Determination Using EPA Method 1 33
Volumetric Flow Rate Determination Using EPA Method 2 34
Pitot Tube Calibration 35
Calculation of Average Flue Gas Velocity 35
Determination of Volumetric Flow Rate for Stack Gas 36
Nozzle Size Determination 39
Measurement of O2 and CO2 Concentrations 39
Stationary Gas Distribution (as Percent Volume) 40
Dry Molecular Weight of Flue Gas 40
Wet Molecular Weight of Flue Gas 41
Determination of Average Moisture Using EPA Method 4 41
Volume of Dry Gas Sampled at Standard Conditions (dscf) 42
Volume of Water Vapor at Standard Conditions (dscf) 43
Calculation of Moisture /Water Content (as % Volume) 44
Calculation of Dry Mole Fraction of Flue Gas 44
Setup of the Dilution Sampling System 45
Pre-Test Leak Check 53
Orifice Flow Check 57
Determination of Test Duration 57
Canister/Veriflow Blanks 57
ii
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Determination of Flow Rates 58
Sample Collection Arrays: Campaign #1 59
Sample Collection Arrays: Campaign #2 63
Measurement of O2 and CO2 Process Concentrations 65
Operation of the Dilution Sampling System and Sample
Collection Arrays 65
Laboratory Experimental Methodology 90
PM-2.5 Mass 90
Elemental Analysis 90
Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions 91
Elemental Carbon/Organic Carbon 91
Organic Compounds 92
Carbonyl Compounds 93
Canister Analyses: Air Toxics and Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compounds 95
Particle Size Distribution Data 96
Section 5 Results and Discussion 102
PM Mass, Elemental/Organic Carbon, Major Inorganic Ions, and Major Elements ... 102
General Equation for Uncertainty 106
Uncertainty in PM Mass Emission Factor Estimation 107
Uncertainty in PM-2.5 Organic Carbon Concentration 107
Uncertainty in Gas-Phase Semivolatile Organic Species Emission Factors ... 109
Uncertainty in Particle-Phase Semivolatile Organic Species Emission
Factors 109
Uncertainty in PM-2.5 Elemental and Ion Concentrations 110
Speciated Gas- and Particle-Phase Organic Compounds 110
Gas-Phase Carbonyl Compounds 131
Gas-Phase Air Toxics Whole Air Samples 137
Gas-Phase Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds 138
Particle Size Distribution Data 149
Section 6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 158
Carbonyl Compound Analysis 169
Concurrent Air Toxics/Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compound (SNMOC)
Analysis 169
PM Mass Measurements, Elemental Analysis, Water-Soluble Ion Analysis,
and GC/MS Analysis 170
Section 7 References 171
Appendices
in
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
A Table of Unit Conversions
B Example Calculations NMOC, SNMOC, and Carbonyl Emission Factors
C Method Detection Limits
D EPA Method Operating Procedures
ERG Standard Operating Procedures
E Chain of Custody Forms
F Sample Logs for Both Campaigns
G Data Tables for Individual NMOC Samples Campaign #1 Only
H Supporting Data for Air Toxics Analysis
I Supporting Data for Carbonyl Analysis
J Individual PM-2.5 Mass Measurements Both Campaigns
K Example Calculations: PM-2.5 Emission Factors Both Campaigns
L Individual PM-2.5 EC/OC Measurements Both Campaigns
M Individual PM-2.5 Elemental Measurements Both Campaigns
N Individual PM-2.5 Inorganic Ion Measurements Both Campaigns
O Individual or Composited Particle-Phase Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Quartz Filters
P Individual Gas-Phase (PUF) Semivolatile Organic Compounds
IV
-------
List of Figures
3-1 Diagram of the dilution sampler and dilution air conditioning system 17
3-2 Instrumentation for control and analysis of the dilution sampler 20
3-3 Schematic Diagram of Test Boiler Exhaust to Stack Connection 23
3-4 Diagram of the sampling port 27
3-5 Sampling port with cap plate 29
3-6 Ground level access to the test facility 30
3-7 Testing area, ground level 31
4-1 Dilution sampling system elevated on mobile lift for access to the sampling port 46
4-2 Dilution system sampling probe installed in 6 in. i.d. flanged port 47
4-3 Dilution system control module positioned at the sampling location 48
4-4 TSI particle sizer positioned at the sampling location (January 16, 2001) for
Campaign #1 49
4-5 ELPI particle size positioned at the sampling location (July 7, 2002) for
Campaign #2 50
4-6 Dilution system with all sample collection arrays and instruments attached for
Campaign #1 51
4-7 Dilution system sampling module, together with sample collection arrays, for
Campaign #2 52
4-8 Sample recovery area 54
4-9 Sample recovery area 55
4-10 Teflon filter being removed from the holder in preparation for packaging for
transport to the laboratory 56
4-11 Schematic diagram of sample collection arrays used in field test (January 16-18, 2001)
for Campaign #1 60
4-11A Schematic diagram of sample collection arrays used in field test (January 16-18, 2001)
for Campaign #1, showing denuders used on only one test day 61
4-12 Schematic diagram of sample collection arrays used in field test (January 9-11, 2002)
for Campaign #2 64
4-13 Blower flow, Test 1 - Day 1, January 16, 2001, Campaign #1 73
4-14 Dilution flow, Test 1 - Day 1, January 16, 2001, Campaign #1 73
4-15 Venturi flow, Test 1 - Day 1, January 16, 2001, Campaign #1 74
4-16 Blower flow, Test 2 - Day 2, January 17, 2001, Campaign #1 74
4-17 Dilution flow, Test 2 - Day 2, January 17, 2001, Campaign #1 75
4-18 Venturi flow, Test 2 - Day 2, January 17, 2001, Campaign #1 75
4-19 Blower flow, Test 3 - Day 3, January 18, 2001, Campaign #1 76
4-20 Dilution flow, Test 3 - Day 3, January 18, 2001, Campaign #1 76
4-21 Venturi flow, Test 3 - Day 3, January 18, 2001, Campaign #1 77
4-22 Blower flow, Test 1 - Day 1, July 9, 2002, Campaign #2 84
4-23 Dilution flow, Test 1 - Day 1, July 9, 2002, Campaign #2 84
4-24 Venturi flow, Test 1 - Day 1, July 9, 2002, Campaign #2 85
-------
List of Figures (Continued)
4-25 Blower flow, Test 2 - Day 2, July 10, 2002, Campaign #2 85
4-26 Dilution flow, Test 2 - Day 2, July 10, 2002, Campaign #2 86
4-27 Venturi flow, Test 2 - Day 2, July 10, 2002, Campaign #2 86
4-28 Blower flow, Test 3 - Day 3, July 11, 2002, Campaign #2 87
4-29 Dilution flow, Test 3 - Day 3, July 11, 2002, Campaign #2 87
4-30 Venturi flow, Test 3 - Day 3, July 11, 2002, Campaign #2 88
5-1 Graphical presentation of particle size data, SMPS (January 16, 2001) 152
5-2 Graphical presentation of particle size data, SMPS (January 17, 2001) 152
5-3 Graphical presentation of particle size data, SMPS (January 18, 2001) 153
5-4 ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (July 9, 2002) 156
5-5 ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (July 10, 2002) 156
5-6 ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (July 11, 2002) 157
5-7 ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (Three-Day Average) 157
6-1 ERG chain of custody form 168
VI
-------
List of Tables
2-1 Results Summary for Industrial Scale Oil-Fired Boiler
3-1 Sampling Medium Used for Collection of Samples, Analysis Performed, Analytical
Method, and Responsible Laboratory 14
3-2 Analysis of the #2 Distillate Oil Used to Fuel the Institutional Boiler 22
3-3 Fuel Use Data for Testing Days: #2 Distillate Oil 24
4-1 EPA Method 1—Traverse Point Location for Institutional Boiler Exhaust
(A Rectangular Duct) 34
4-2 Campaign-Specific Flue Gas Velocity for Each Traverse Point 36
4-3 Carbon-Based Calculation of Flue Gas Flow Rates 37
4-4 Moisture Recovery for Method 4 42
4-5 Blank Values for Veriflows and Canisters (Campaign #1) 58
4-6 Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #1, Campaign #1 67
4-7 Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #2, Campaign #1 69
4-8 Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #3, Campaign #1 71
4-9 Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #1, Campaign #2 78
4-10 Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #2, Campaign #2 80
4-11 Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #3, Campaign #2 82
4-12 Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography 94
4-13 Air Toxics Compounds Determined by Analytical Method TO-15 97
4-14 Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds Determined According to the
Procedures of EPA Research Operating Procedure "Research Protocol Method for
Analysis of C2-C12 Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air by Gas Chromatography with
Cryogenic Concentration" 99
5-1 Summary of Oil-Fired Institutional Boiler Results 103
5-2 Gas Phase Semivolatiles: Emission Factors from an Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler
(Campaign #2, July 2002) Ill
5-3 Particle-Phase Semivolatiles from an Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler: Mass Fractions
(Campaign #2, July 2002) 118
5-4 Particle-Phase Semivolatiles from an Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler: Emission Factors
(Campaign #2, July 2002) 125
5-5A Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(Campaign #1, January 16, 2001) 132
5-5B Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(Campaign #1, January 17, 2001) 134
5-5C Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(Campaign #1, January 18, 2001) 135
5-6 Total Mass of Carbonyl Compounds for Each Campaign #1 Test Day 137
5-7 Air Toxics Compounds (Campaign #1) 138
5-8A SNMOC (Campaign #1, January 16, 2001) 139
vii
-------
List of Tables (Continued)
5-8B SNMOC (Campaign #1, January 17, 2001) 142
5-8C SNMOC (Campaign #1, January 18, 2001) 145
5-9 Total Mass of Nonmethane Organic Compounds for Each
Campaign #1 Test Day 148
5-10 Particle Size Diameter Measurements, TSI SMPS
(Campaign #1, January 16-18, 2001) 150
5-11 Gravimetric Data, ELPI (Campaign #2, July 9-11, 2002) PM-2.5 Mass
Concentration by Size 155
6-1 Sample Collection Equipment: Quality Criteria 159
6-2 Carbonyl Analysis: Quality Criteria 160
6-3 Air Toxics and SNMOC Analysis: Quality Criteria 162
6-4 PM Mass Measurements: Quality Criteria 163
6-5 Elemental Analysis: Quality Criteria 164
6-6 Water-Soluble Ion Analysis: Quality Criteria 164
6-7 Semivolatile Organic Compounds Analysis: Quality Criteria 165
Vlll
-------
Acknowledgments
Dave-Paul Dayton, Mark Owens, and Robert Martz of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
(ERG) were responsible for conducting sampling at the test site and for preparing collected
samples for transport to the analytical laboratories. Amy Frame, Donna Tedder, Laura
VanEnwyck, Tina Agnew, and Randy Bower of ERG were responsible for the carbonyl and
volatile organic compound analyses. Joan Bursey of ERG provided data analysis and sections of
the report pertaining to the ERG work on the project. Manieta Roman of ERG prepared the
typewritten manuscript.
Michael Hays, Kara Linna, and Jimmy Pau of the EPA were responsible for the analysis
of organic compounds, elements, and ionic species. Yuanji Dong, John Lee, David Proffitt, and
Tomasz Balicki of ARCADIS, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., provided technical support in preparing
the dilution sampling system and sampling substrates, in performing the elemental/organic
carbon analyses, and in extracting organic compounds from the various sampling substrates.
N. Dean Smith was the EPA Project Officer responsible for field testing efforts. Lee L. Beck
was the EPA Project Officer responsible for the Final Report.
IX
-------
Section 1
Introduction
In July 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated new
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ambient particulate matter of
aerodynamic diameter 2.5 |im or less (PM-2.5). Implementation of the new standards has been
delayed to allow EPA time to better understand the factors underlying the observed correlation
between ambient fine PM and adverse human health effects and to better evaluate risk
management options.
States are required under the federal consolidated emission reporting rule (CERR) to
report emissions information to U.S. EPA for inventory and planning purposes, including PM25
and ammonia. The purpose of the CERR is to simplify reporting, offer options for data
collection and exchange, and unify reporting dates for various categories of criteria pollutant
emission inventories. This rule consolidates the emission inventory reporting requirements
found in various parts of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Consolidation of reporting requirements
enables state and local agencies to better explain to program managers and the public the
necessity for a consistent inventory program, increases the efficiency of the emission inventory
program, and provide more consistent and uniform data. One concern with this reporting
requirement is there are no reliable emission factors to use for estimating PM2 5 or NH3. Sources
should be able to provide more accurate emission estimates than are currently available in
emission inventories or AP-42. This is especially concerning to Title V sources that are required
to certify the emissions estimate.
Fine particles can be directly emitted from sources or, like ozone, can be formed in the
atmosphere from precursor gases. The most common source of directly emitted PM25 is
incomplete combustion of fuels containing carbon (fossil or biomass), which produces
carbonaceous particles consisting of a variety of organic substances and black carbon (soot), as
well as gaseous carbon monoxide, VOCs and NOX. Certain high energy industrial processes also
emit primary PM25. Examples of direct PM25 sources include diesel and gasoline vehicles, open
1
-------
burning, residential wood burning, forest fires, power generation, and industrial metals
production and processing. The major gaseous precursors of secondary PM25 include SO2, NOX,
certain VOCs and NH3. Secondary formation of PM25 involves complex chemical and physical
processes. The major sources of secondary PM25 forming gases (SO2, NOX, certain VOCs, NH3)
include nearly every source category of air pollutants. Major SO2 sources in the U.S. include
coal-fired power plants and industrial boilers and smelters. EPA required states upwind of PM2 5
nonattainment areas to control and reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides
(NOX). Measurement of the primary PM25 content and the chemicals that participate in
secondary fine particulate formation is important in PM control and attainment of NAAQS.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that small contributions of pollution transport to downwind
nonattainment areas should be considered significant from an air quality standpoint because
these contributions could prevent or delay downwind areas from achieving the health-based
standards.
In 1999, a national network of ambient monitoring stations was started under the overall
guidance of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to assist the
States in determining regulatory nonattainment areas and to develop State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to bring those areas into compliance with the law for PM-2.5 regulations. One component
of the monitoring network was seven supersites: i.e., urban airsheds in which intensive
coordinated PM-related research was carried out to better understand the atmospheric formation,
composition, and sources of fine PM.
To further support development of better emission factors and an understanding of the
formation of fine particulate after emissions leave stationary sources, the Emissions
Characterization and Prevention Branch (ECPB) of the Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division (APPCD) implemented research to characterize PM-2.5 emissions from specific source
categories. This research focuses on updating and improving source emission rates and profiles
for PM-2.5 with the aim of improving the quality of data used for dispersion and receptor
modeling and of providing quality emissions data for risk management strategies.
-------
This program has concentrated its PM source sampling efforts on the sources and types
of PM-2.5 where data are most needed, with a primary focus on the collection of fine particles
emitted by combustion sources, both stationary and mobile. To ensure that the collected PM is
representative of the PM collected by ambient monitors downstream of the source, PM samples
were collected using a dilution sampling method to simulate the processes of cooling and
condensation that occur when material leaves a stack as hot exhaust gas and to provide a means
to comply with the requirements of the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule.
The mission of the ECPB of the APPCD is to characterize source emissions and develop
and evaluate ways to prevent those emissions. Source characterizations as defined here include
the measurement of PM mass emission rates, source PM profiles (PM chemical composition and
associated chemical mass emission rates), and emission rates of ambient aerosol precursors such
as SOX, NOX, and NH3.
PM mass emission rates are used in emission inventories and as inputs to atmospheric
dispersion models that yield estimates of ambient PM concentrations from considerations of
atmospheric transport and transformation of emitted particles. Source characterization data are
used in receptor models which enable apportionment of ambient concentrations of PM to the
various sources that emitted the particles and in atmospheric dispersion models that compute the
formation of secondary organic aerosols. Source types for testing in this program were selected
on the basis of the quantity of fine PM emitted by the source as determined from existing
emission inventories and on the basis of the quality of existing PM-2.5 source profiles for each
source type. This report presents the results of testing one source type so selected, an
institutional scale oil-fired boiler (SCC 1-02-005-01)1.
Description of Testing and Testing Objectives
This test report describes the measurement and characterization of fine particulate matter
(fine PM) emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from an institutional scale
#2 distillate oil-fired boiler with a rated capacity of 60,000 Ibs/h (18.7 MW, 67.3 GJ/h)1. This
-------
category of boilers was responsible for an estimated 1245.4 kJ (ca. 45.6%) of distillate oil
consumption in the U.S. in 19902. The boiler tested in this study was one of three boilers in a
university power plant that provided space and water heating to a number of buildings on the
university campus. Sampling was conducted in the exhaust duct of one boiler prior to the point
at which all three boiler exhausts were combined into a single exhaust stream to the power plant
stack. The boiler employed low-NOx burners for control of NOX emissions, but no devices for
control of particulate matter were utilized.
The report presents results of the test efforts in two ways:
As mass emission factors (i.e., mass of emitted species per unit mass of fuel
consumed), and
Mass fraction composition of the particle and gas phase emissions.
Mass emission factors are useful for emission inventories and for atmospheric dispersion models
that yield estimates of ambient pollutant concentrations via considerations of atmospheric
transport and transformation of emitted species. Compositional data are used in source-receptor
models to enable the apportionment of ambient air pollutants to the responsible pollutant
sources.
Source-receptor models such as the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) model require as
input both the chemical composition of the ambient air samples and the composition of the
emissions of all major sources contributing to the ambient pollutants. The oil-fired boiler
emission tests described here are among a number of such tests of significant emission sources
aimed at updating and improving the quality of source emission profiles in EPA's source profile
database (SPECIATE), which is available for use by state and local environmental agencies and
others for source-receptor modeling.
Sampling the hot stack gas emissions in the present study involved withdrawing a known
amount of sample from the exhaust duct of the boiler and cooling and diluting the sample stream
4
-------
with cleaned ambient air to near ambient conditions prior to collecting the particle- and gas-
phase emissions. A custom-fabricated dilution sampler following the design by Hildemann et
al.3 was used. This sampler was constructed entirely of electropolished stainless steel and
contained no rubbers, greases, or oils to ensure no introduction of organic contaminants in the
samples. Ambient air used to dilute the stack gas was pre-cleaned by means of a HEPA filter, a
large bed of activated carbon (carbonaceous material contained in a 30-gallon drum), and a
Teflon membrane filter prior to mixing with the stack gas. By sampling in this way, the particle
emissions are deemed to be more representative of the material as it exists in the ambient air
downwind of the source.
The boiler was tested in two separate campaigns. An initial test series (i.e., campaign #1)
was conducted in January 2001. The primary objective of the first campaign effort was to
chemically characterize the fine PM emissions (i.e., PM-2.5, particles equal to or less than 2.5
|im aerodynamic diameter) and to develop emission factors for EPA's SPECIATE data base.
Many past efforts have focused on the coarse fraction of emitted PM (PM-10) or only the
filterable portion of emitted PM. Condensible PM, which can form when a hot exhaust stream is
diluted and cooled with ambient air, has not often been characterized in previous work. Also,
earlier chemical characterization studies of PM were often limited to the elemental composition
of the material with the nature of the organic content of carbonaceous PM unidentified.
This initial test series included a trial run to determine an appropriate test duration and to
ensure all systems were operating properly. The trial run was followed by three replicate
sampling runs, one run on each of three successive days. Samples of gas phase organic
compound emissions were collected concurrently with the fine PM samples in test campaign #1,
and results of these gaseous emissions determinations are also reported here for completeness.
A second test series (i.e., campaign #2) was conducted in July 2002 in collaboration with
the EPA's OAQPS, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division (EMAD). The second
campaign had a dual purpose:
-------
To provide referee comparative data to EMAD to help in the development of a
more compact and portable dilution sampler suitable for routine regulatory
compliance stack gas sampling and for source emissions profiling; and
To compare the PM2.5 results of the two test campaigns conducted at winter and
summer boiler operating conditions, respectively.
A prototype of the EMAD sampler design was operated concurrently with the Hildemann-
designed sampler so that results of the two devices could be compared under the same boiler
operating conditions.
Some of the experimental design matrix was changed for the second campaign to focus
effort on measurements that provided comparison between the Hildemann designed sampler and
the EMAD prototype sampler. Measurements focused on contributions to PM2.5 and its
formation. Semivolatile organic compound sampling and analysis was added to assess a fuller
range of condensible organic compounds. Organic and elemental carbon as well as inorganic
components contributing to particulate formation were included in both campaigns enabling
consistent PM2.5 comparisons between campaigns and between the sampling trains.
This report presents only the results derived from the Hildemann-designed dilution
sampler for the two test campaigns. The EMAD sampling system and procedure can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm.html in conditional test method CTM-039.
Organization of Report
This report is organized into five additional sections plus references and appendices.
Section 2 provides the conclusions derived from the study results, and Section 3 describes the
process operation and the test site. Section 4 outlines the experimental procedures used in the
research, and Section 5 presents and discusses the study results. Section 6 presents the quality
control/quality assurance procedures used in the research to ensure generation of high quality
data. Section 7 presents the references cited in this report.
-------
Section 2
Conclusions
Salient results from both the winter 2001 and summer 2002 test campaigns (campaign #1
and campaign #2, respectively) at the institutional-scale oil-fired boiler are summarized in
Table 2-1. Complete tabulated results with associated uncertainties are provided in Section 5 of
this report, along with the combustion parameters data (i.e., O2, CO, H2O, fuel consumption).
Table 2-1. Results Summary for Industrial Scale Oil-Fired Boiler
Campaign #1 Campaign #2
Test Date
Emission Factors (mg/kg fuel):
PM-2.5 mass3
Particle mass semivolatile organic species
Gas-phase semivolatile organic species
Nonmethane volatile organic compounds
Speciated
Total
Gas-phase carbonyls
Speciated
Total
PM Composition (wt.%):
Elemental carbon (EC)
Organic carbon (OC)
Sulfate
Ammonium
Sulfur
Silicon
1/16/01
26.9
NS
NS
3.0
2.4
0.25
.27
1.8
NQ
58.0
NQ
5.2
NQ
1/17/01
32.1
NS
NS
18.7
18.0
0.30
0.30
10.5
0.5
56.9
NQ
3.4
NQ
1/18/01
39.8
NS
NS
32.7
35.3
0.50
0.55
34.0
NQ
45.5
NQ
8.3
NQ
7/9/02
40.4
1.0
89.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
5.8
43.3
6.8
2.0
2.7
0.89
7/10/02
42.7
0.66
75.4
NS
NS
NS
NS
3.1
45.7
10.7
2.6
3.7
0.75
7/11/02
178.0
7.9
123.1
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.6
63.1
3.5
0.46
1.3
0.24
NQ = below quantitation limit; NS = not sampled
a Filterable only.
-------
The filterable PM-2.5 mass emission factor was fairly consistent throughout both test
campaigns with the exception of one day during campaign #2 (7/11/02) for which the emission
factor was nearly five times higher than the average of the other five test days. Excluding the
single day of markedly higher emissions, the average PM-2.5 mass emission factor was 36.4 mg
per kg of fuel (0.81 |ig/kJ) with a range of 26.9 to 42.7 mg/kg (0.60 - 0.96 |ig/kJ). The single
day of substantially higher PM-2.5 emissions gave an emission factor of 178.0 mg per kg of fuel
(3.99 |ag/kJ). No unusual event on that day was identified to explain the higher PM-2.5
emissions for that test. However, during both campaign #1 and campaign #2 the boiler was
operated at very low load where combustion conditions are difficult to maintain. Under such
conditions, erratic behavior in boiler operation and emissions may occur.
A PM-2.5 emission factor for industrial-scale distillate oil-fired boilers with no PM
emission controls has been estimated by the EPA as 283 - 313 mg/kg of fuel with fuel sulfur
contents ranging from 0.05 - 0.09 wt %, respectively.4 It should be noted that these EPA
estimates do not consider the condensible portion of fine PM. From this study, the average
PM-2.5 emission factor for campaign #1 when the fuel contained 0.09% sulfur was 32.9 mg/kg,
nearly an order of magnitude less than the estimated EPA value. The average PM-2.5 emission
factor for campaign #2 when the fuel contained 0.05% sulfur was 41.6 mg/kg (excluding the
single high emission day) or 87.0 mg/kg with all three test results averaged. These values are 6.8
and 3.3 times less than the current EPA estimated emission factor, respectively.
The PM-2.5 mass emission factor was fairly consistent for both test campaigns, whereas
the composition of the PM-2.5 was very different for the two campaigns. Sulfate comprised 45.5
to 58.0% by mass of the PM-2.5 emitted during campaign #1 but accounted for only 3.5 to
10.8% of the PM-2.5 mass during campaign #2. Conversely, there was much more carbon in the
PM-2.5 emitted during campaign #2, most of which was organic carbon (43.3 to 63.1% of the
PM-2.5 mass). The organic carbon (OC) content of the fine PM was highest for Test Day #3 of
campaign #2 (7/11/02), for which the PM-2.5 emission factor was also the highest of all tests.
-------
Most of the speciated and quantified OC associated with the fine PM was made up of the
C16 through C31 w-alkanes (63.8 wt % of the speciated PM organics). w-Tetracosane (C24) was
the single most prominent w-alkane with the other C16 - C31 species in a near-Gaussian
distribution by carbon number around C24. Benzene di- and tri-carboxylic acids comprised the
second largest category of organic constituents found in the fine PM (21.4 wt % of the quantified
species). Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and w-alkanoic acids made up most of the
remaining 14.8% of the quantified and speciated particle-phase organic compounds. The
benzene di- and tri-carboxylic acids and chrysene were the only semivolatile organic species
confined to the particle phase. All of the other semivolatile species were found in both the gas
and particle phases with the predominant amounts in the gas phase. The only two elements in
the PM found at levels above method quantitation limits were silicon and sulfur.
Two factors may have contributed to this marked difference in PM composition. The
sulfur content of the fuel oil was 1.8 times higher during the campaign #1 tests than during the
campaign #2 tests (0.09 vs 0.05 wt %, respectively). This factor could have contributed to a
higher sulfate content during the campaign #1 tests. During the campaign #2 tests, the fuel feed
rate averaged 37.6% lower than for the campaign #1 tests, and the excess oxygen levels were
much higher (campaign #2 = 15.7 to 20.5%; campaign #1 = 7.6 to 9.2% excess oxygen). During
campaign #1, the boiler was fired at 37 - 42% of its rated capacity; during campaign #2, the
boiler was fired at only 25% capacity. A lower combustion efficiency associated with the low
combustion load during the summertime is likely responsible for the PM emissions being
enriched in OC.
A quantitative analysis of individual organic compounds associated with the organic
carbon content of the fine PM was not possible for the campaign #1 owing to breakthrough of
the organic species in the PM sampling arrays during the tests. For the campaign #1 tests, XAD-
coated annular denuders were used in front of pre-fired quartz filters in an attempt to minimize
adsorption of gas-phase organic species on the quartz filters and a consequent positive artifact in
the PM mass and PM organic carbon content. Polyurethane foam (PUF) plugs were employed
behind the quartz filters to collect any particle-phase semivolatiles that were air stripped from
-------
the filters during sampling. Sampling durations were long (i.e., 10 hours per test) in an attempt
to gather sufficient fine PM for analysis of particle-phase organics. However, the lengthy
sampling periods resulted in exceeding the capacity of the denuders and PUF plugs. Therefore,
an unknown quantity of organic compounds passed through the arrays and could not be
accounted for.
During the campaign #2 test, the denuders were omitted from the sample collection
arrays, and an attempt was made to correct for the positive Organic Carbon (OC) artifact in the
PM collected on the quartz filters by subtracting from each of these filters the amount of OC
collected on a quartz filter placed behind a Teflon membrane filter. This correction was based
on the presumption that the Teflon filter collected particle-phase organic compounds and the
backup quartz filter behind the Teflon filter collected adsorbed gas-phase organics equivalent to
those adsorbed on the undenuded primary quartz filter. Even with this substantial correction, the
PM collected during the summer campaign contained much more OC than the PM collected
during the winter campaign.
Gas-phase organic nonmethane volatile organic compounds (NMOC) and carbonyl
compound emissions were measured only during the campaign #1 tests, when the boiler was
operating at more typical load conditions. For the campaign #1 tests, total NMOC (speciated +
unspeciated) and PM-2.5 mass emission factors increased with increasing fuel consumption rates
(2.42, 17.96, and 35.30 mg/kg for successive test days), but total gas-phase carbonyl compound
emission factors exhibited the opposite trend.
A Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) operated on all three test days during the
campaign #1 tests and collected data on particle size distribution in the range below 2.5 |im (the
range monitored was 10 nm to 392 nm), with one complete scan over the entire range every three
minutes. Both the particle size distribution and particle number count observed on Day 1
(January 16, 2001) differed with respect to the other two test days. The number of counts
observed in each channel was approximately four orders of magnitude lower on Day 1 than on
the other two test days. The SMPS instrumental operating parameters appeared to be normal,
10
-------
and there was no obvious indication of instrumental malfunction. On the second and third test
days, the number counts and distribution profiles were similar to the distributions centered at 46
nm and 50 nm, respectively.
During campaign #2, particle size data were collected using an Electrical Low Pressure
Impactor (ELPI). The particle size distribution suggests bimodal behavior. Note that the SMPS
gives an electrical mobility diameter and the ELPI gives an aerodynamic diameter, so the two
values should not necessarily agree.
Results of this study indicate that the fine PM composition emitted from an institutional-
scale oil-fired boiler can be markedly different depending on the combustion load and the
characteristics of the fuel. Therefore, to the extent possible, source-receptor modeling should
consider these conditions when selecting profiles and fitting species for source apportionment
modeling. In this study, the boiler tested produced a wide variation in particle size and
composition dependent on the fuel combustion and fuel composition. Industrial-scale boilers
used to generate process steam and utility boilers used to generate power may be less susceptible
to changing demand and therefore emit a fine PM with a more consistent composition.
11
-------
Section 3
Methods and Materials
Description of the Testing Program
Two field tests (campaign #1, January 16-18, 2001; and campaign #2, July 7-9, 2002)
were conducted at an institutional-scale boiler fired with #2 distillate oil and located on the
campus of North Carolina A&T University in Greensboro, NC. Quality control procedures were
implemented to obtain source emissions measurements of high and known quality. To simulate
the behavior of fine particles as they enter the ambient atmosphere from an emissions source,
dilution sampling was performed to cool, dilute, and collect gaseous and fine particulate
emissions from the institutional-scale oil-fired boiler. Gaseous and fine particulate material
collected during the sampling was also characterized. ERG coordinated all field test activities;
laboratory testing activities were divided between EPA and ERG according to the scheme shown
in Table 3-1.
The objectives of the testing activities were to evaluate the sampling equipment and to
characterize the fine particulate emissions from an institutional oil-fired boiler. ERG performed
source sampling to collect artifact-free, size-resolved particulate matter in a quantity and form
sufficient to identify and quantify trace elements and organic compounds and to distinguish gas-
phase and particle-phase organic compounds. Total particulate matter mass in the diluted and
cooled emissions gas was size resolved at the PM-10 and PM-2.5 cut points with the PM-2.5
fraction further continuously resolved down to 30 nm diameter using a particle size analyzer.
Fine particle emission profiles can be used in molecular marker-based source apportionment
models, which have been shown to be powerful tools to study the source contributions to
atmospheric fine particulate matter.
12
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Medium Used for Collection of Samples, Analysis Performed,
Analytical Method, and Responsible Laboratory
Sampling Medium
Teflon Filter
Teflon Filter
Teflon Filter
Quartz Filter
Analysis
PM-2.5 mass
Elemental Analysis
Inorganic Ions
Elemental Carbon/
Method
Gravimetric (GRAY)
X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
Ion Chromatography (1C)
Thermal-Optical Evolution (TOE)
Laboratory
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Quartz filter
XAD-4 denuder
PUF
DNPH-impregnated
silica gel tubes3
SUMMA canisters3
Particle Size
Analyzer
Organic Carbon
Organic species
Carbonyl compounds
Air Toxics
Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compounds
Particle Sizes
Gas Chromatography/ Mass EPA
Spectrometry (GC/MS)
High Performance Liquid ERG
Chromatography (HPLC)
Method TO-11A
GC/MS ERG
Method TO-15
ERG Concurrent Analysis
Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer ERG
(SMPS)
Electrical Low Pressure Impactor
(ELPI)
aDNPH tubes and SUMMA canisters were used for campaign #1 only.
To assist in the characterization of the stationary source and to obtain chemical
composition data representative of particle emissions after cooling and mixing with the
atmosphere, ERG performed the following activities at the test site:
Performed preliminary measurements using EPA Methods 1-4 to evaluate source
operating conditions and parameters;
Installed the pre-cleaned dilution sampling system, sample collection trains, and
ancillary equipment at the field site without introduction of contaminants;
Calibrated flow meters before and after sampling, monitoring and adjusting gas
flows (as necessary) throughout the tests;
13
-------
Acquired process data for the test periods, including temperatures, pressures,
flows, fuel consumption, etc.;
Determined the type of combustion fuel and rate of consumption during the
source testing;
Collected six sets of stationary source samples (three per test campaign) as
prescribed in the Site-Specific Test Plans, including field blanks (one per test
campaign); and
Recovered the dilution sampling unit and sample collection trains for analysis for
specific parameters and return of the dilution sampling unit to EPA.
For Test campaign #1, ERG transported the dilution sampling system to the test site to
collect integrated samples, performed whole air analysis of SUMMA-polished stainless steel
canisters and gas-phase carbonyl compounds collected on silica gel cartridges impregnated with
2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), and evaluated particle size distribution data. EPA was
responsible for pre-test cleaning of the dilution system, for analysis of semivolatile organic
compounds from XAD-4 denuders and polyurethane foam (PUF) modules resulting from the test
efforts and for characterization of the particulate-phase emissions and mass loading on quartz
and Teflon filters. For Test campaign #2, ERG transported the dilution sampling system to the
test site to collect integrated samples and evaluated particle size distribution data. EPA was
responsible for pre-test cleaning of the dilution system, for analysis of semivolatile organic
compounds from polyurethane foam (PUF) modules resulting from the test efforts and for
characterization of the parti culate-phase emissions and mass loading on quartz and Teflon filters.
Description of Test Equipment
Dilution Sampling System
The dilution sampling system used in the source test was based on the original design by
Dr. L. M. Hildemann3, modified to incorporate more secure closure fittings and electronic
controls. Automatic flow control and data acquisition capabilities were added to the dilution
14
-------
sampler to improve the ease of operation of the unit. A touchscreen interface connected to the
main controller was used to monitor current conditions and allow setpoints to be entered into the
system readily. A laptop computer was used for continuous monitoring of operating parameters
and logging of the sampler operation.
The dilution sampling system dilutes hot exhaust emissions with clean air to simulate
atmospheric mixing and particle formation. Control of residence time, temperature, and pressure
allows condensible organic compounds to adsorb to fine particles as they might in ambient air.
The sampler is also designed and fabricated to minimize any contamination of samples,
especially organic compound contamination, and to minimize particle losses to the sampler
walls.
Figure 3-1 shows a schematic diagram of the dilution sampling system and dilution air
cleaning and conditioning system. As shown, the dilution air cleaning system provides high
efficiency particulate arresting (HEPA) and activated carbon-filtered air for dilution of source
emissions. Acid gases (if present) will not be completely removed by the dilution air cleaning
system, but the presence of acid gases can be monitored in the dilution tunnel immediately
downstream of the dilution air inlet. The dilution air cleaning system can be modified to add a
heater, cooler, and dehumidifier as needed. Cleaned dilution air enters the main body of the
sampler downstream of the dilution air orifice meter. The key zones of the dilution sampling
system and their function are discussed below.
Sample Inlet Zone—
Stack Emissions Inlet: designed to allow source exhaust gas to be sampled
through an inlet cyclone separator to remove particles with nominal aerodynamic
diameters > 10 |im. The PM-10 cyclone prevents large particles from entering the
sampler to plug or damage the equipment. Three ports are dedicated to sampling
of the dilution air before it mixes with the source gas.
Heated Inlet Line: 3/4" heated stainless steel sampling probe draws source gas
through a venturi meter into the main body of the sampler. Sample flow rate can
be adjusted from 15-50 Lpm (typically 30 Lpm).
15
-------
Turbulent Mixing Chamber
10jjm
CYCLONE
HEATED INLET LINE
STACK
EMISSIONS INLET
LOWER J
-^""^
V
COOLING
UNIT
HE PA
FILTER
ACTIVATED
CARBON
BED
DILUTION AIR
INLET
Figure 3-1. Diagram of the dilution sampler and dilution air conditioning system.
-------
Venturi Meter—
Constructed of low carbon, very highly corrosion-resistant stainless steel;
equipped for temperature and pressure measurement. Wrapped with heating coils
and insulated to maintain the same isothermal temperature as the inlet cyclone
and inlet line.
Turbulent Mixing Chamber—
Consists of an entrance zone, U-bend, and exit zone.
Inside diameter: 6 in., yielding a Reynolds number of-10,000 at a flow rate of
lOOOLpm.
Dilution air enters the mixing chamber in the direction parallel to the flow.
Hot source emission gas enters the chamber perpendicular to the dilution airflow,
4.5 in. downstream of the dilution air inlet.
The combined flow travels 38 in. before entering the U-bend.
After the residence chamber transfer line, the mixing chamber continues for
18 in., then expands to an in-line high-volume sampler filter holder. Collected
particulate has not experienced time to equilibrate with the gas phase at the
diluted condition.
Sample and instrumentation ports are installed on the turbulent mixing chamber at
various locations.
Residence Time Chamber—
The inlet line to the residence time chamber expands from a 2 in. line (sized to
provide a quasi-isokinetic transfer of sample gas from the turbulent mixing
chamber to the residence time chamber at a flow rate of-100 Lpm) within the
mixing chamber to a 7 in. line at the wall of the residence chamber.
The flow rate is controlled by the total sample withdrawal from the bottom of the
residence time chamber and provides a 60-sec residence time in the chamber.
Twelve ports are installed at the base of the residence time chamber:
Nine ports for sample withdrawal;
Three ports for instrumentation.
Sample Collection Zone—
Samples collected from the sample ports at the base of the residence time
chamber have experienced adequate residence time for the semivolatile organic
compounds to re-partition between the gas phase and the particle phase.
17
-------
Since it is very difficult to maintain both isokinetic sampling and a fixed cyclone size cut during
most stack sampling operations, the inlet cyclone may be operated to provide a rough PM-10 cut
while maintaining near-isokinetic sampling. The rough inlet size cut has minimal impact on
sampling operations since the dilution sampling system is mainly used to collect fine particulate
matter from combustion sources and the critical fine particle size cut is made at the end of the
residence time chamber. Typically, the calculated total time the sample spends in the dilution
sampling system ranges from 58-75 sec: 2-3 sec for the turbulent mixing chamber and 56-72 sec
for the residence chamber.
Dilution Sampling System Control Instrumentation
Instrumentation for control and analysis of the dilution sampling system is shown in
Figure 3-2. Differential pressure measurements made across the venturi and orifice meters are
used to determine the dilution airflow rate, the sample gas flow rate, and the exhaust gas flow
rate. Since flow equations used for determination of the flow across venturi and orifice meters
correct for flowing temperature and pressure, the flowing temperature and pressure of the venturi
and orifice meters must be recorded during sampling operations. Thermocouples for monitoring
temperature are placed at each flow meter as well as at the inlet PM-10 cyclone, at various points
on the sample inlet line, at the inlet to the mixing chamber U-bend, and at the outlet of the
residence time chamber. An electronic relative humidity probe is used to determine the relative
humidity of the sample gas. The dilution sampling system is equipped with automated data
logging capabilities to better monitor source testing operations and to minimize manpower
requirements during sampling operations. Dilution sampler flows and temperatures are
monitored and controlled automatically at set points established by the operator using a QSI
Corporation QTERM-K65 electronic touch-screen interface. The dilution sampling system was
operated by three testing staff members during the test at the institutional oil-fired boiler facility.
In operation, the source sample flow, the dilution airflow, and the total airflow (not
including the sample collection arrays) were each measured by separate flow meters and
pressure
18
-------
Key:
TE = Temperature Indicator
PT = Pressure Indicator
RH = Relative Humidity Indicator
D
PM 10
Cyclone
(TE-103
PT-101 (TE-104
Dilution Air
Blower
HEPA Filter Carbon Bed
PT-1021
Exhaust
Blower
Residence
Time
Chamber
Figure 3-2. Instrumentation for control and analysis of the dilution sampler.
-------
transducers. A venturi measured the source sample flow and orifices were used for the dilution
and total flows. A ring compressor was used to push the dilution air through a HEPA filter, a
carbon adsorber, and a final filter into the turbulent mixing chamber. The compressor motor
was modulated by a variable frequency drive to match the desired dilution flow based on a set
point entry. A separate blower (connected to a speed controller adjusted to achieve the desired
sample flow based on a set point entry) at the end of the sampler pulled the source sample flow
through the venturi. Flow through this blower consisted of the dilution airflow plus the source
sample flow not including the flow exiting through the sample collection arrays.
The main controller modulated the power used to heat the sample probe (32 in. long, one
heated zone). The controller switched solid-state relays on and off as needed to maintain the
probe temperature entered by the operator.
Sample Collection Arrays
Virtually any ambient sampling equipment (including filters, denuders, PUF cartridges,
DNPH-impregnated sampling cartridges, SUMMA-polished canisters, cyclones, particle size
distribution measurement instrumentation) can be employed with the dilution sampling system.
The exact number and type of sample collection arrays is uniquely configured for each testing
episode.
Process Description/Site Operation!
With the concurrence of the EPA work assignment manager, an institutional oil-fired
boiler located at North Carolina A&T University in Greensboro, NC, that was used to heat
multiple dormitories was selected as the test site. The boiler, constructed by the Nebraska Boiler
Company, was permitted for operation with either #2 distillate oil or #6 residual oil. For the
duration of both tests (January 16-18, 2001, and July 7-9, 2002), the fuel used during testing was
#2 distillate oil.
20
-------
The watertube boiler tested was one of four boilers used to supply space and water
heating for several university buildings. The test boiler flue gas was connected through a
common duct with the other three boilers to a common exhaust fan and stack as shown in
Figure 3-3. The test boiler had a rated capacity of 67.3 GJ/h, was capable of utilizing either #2
distillate oil, #6 residual oil, or natural gas as fuel, and was equipped with a burner designed to
reduce NOX emissions by reducing the peak flame temperature at the flame base. Low NOX
operation of the burner was accomplished by staging the combustion process with specially
designed fuel nozzle injectors and an air recirculator. There were no control devices for control
of particulate matter emissions from the boiler. Emissions sampling was conducted at a
sampling port located in the exhaust gas duct from the boiler prior to the junction of that duct
with exhaust ducts from the other two boilers. Exhaust gases from all boilers were fed together
to a single stack from the university power plant.
The analysis of the #2 distillate oil used as fuel for the North Carolina A&T boiler is
shown in Table 3-2 for both test campaigns; slight differences in the analyzed values were
observed.
Table 3-2. Analysis of the #2 Distillate Oil Used to Fuel the Institutional Boiler
Component
sulfur
heat value
ash
carbon
hydrogen
nitrogen
oxygen
chlorine
Campaign #1
January 16-18, 2001
0.09%
19,374 BTU per pound
<0.01%
85.93%
13.66%
0.03%
0.26%
Not Determined
Campaign #2
July 7-9, 2002
0.05%
19, 193 BTU per pound
<0.01%
86.53%
12.75%
0.02%
0.65%
303.8ppm
21
-------
Building Roof
Isolation Plate Common Exhaust Duct
Boiler
(Not
operating)
Boiler
(Not in
Use)
Boiler
(Not in
Use)
Test
Point
Location
Exhaust Stack
Figure 3-3. Schematic Diagram of Test Boiler Exhaust to Stack Connection
22
-------
The fuel use for both test campaigns by test days is summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Fuel Use Data for Testing Days: #2 Distillate Oil
Campaign # Test #
1
1 2
3
1
2 2
3
Test Date
1/16/01
1/17/01
1/18/01
7/09/02
7/10/02
7/11/02
Test Duration
(min)
600.33
600.50
600.17
600.60
600.67
600.00
Fuel Use
(gal/min)
3.428
3.615
4.134
2.314
2.331
2.333
Total Fuel
(gal)
2058
2171
2481
1390
1400
1400
Both test campaigns were scheduled to minimize disruption to the normal operation of the test
facility and to enable as much simultaneous data collection important to all parties as possible.
ERG scheduled the sampling test at the chosen facility and obtained permission and cooperation
of the site/institution/management.
Description of the Oil-Fired Boiler Tested at North Carolina A&T (Greensboro, NC)
The burner tested at North Carolina A&T (Greensboro, NC) was manufactured by Forney
Corporation and assembled on a 60,000 Ibs/hr Nebraska D-type water tube boiler. The
NOXMISER Low NOX burner is designed to reduce NOX emissions by reducing the peak flame
temperature at the flame base. The formation of NOX during the combustion process was:
• Exponentially proportional to peak flame temperature;
• Proportional to time duration at peak flame temperature; and
• Proportional to the square root of the number of oxygen molecules available at the
primary zone where the peak temperature occurs.
Low NOX operation is accomplished by staging the combustion process with specially designed
fuel nozzle injectors and an air recirculator. This mode of operation results in lower peak flame
23
-------
temperature yet stable flame with minimum flue gas recirculation and low carbon monoxide
emissions.
The combustion air forced draft fan, a direct-drive high performance airfoil fan designed
for a speed of 3500 rpm, is sized to provide all the required combustion air and flue gas for
recirculation. The combustion air forced draft fan is equipped with a 100% width inlet cone.
The airflow control damper is located between the windbox and forced draft fan; the damper
assembly is linked to the burner jack shaft.
The burner wind box, designed to provide equal air distribution into the air register,
contains the zone divider and the primary and secondary air slide damper assembly. The air
slide damper assembly provides a manual adjustment to the distribution of the total air between
the primary and secondary air zones.
A flame safeguard system, designed to provide proper burner sequencing for safe burner
operation, sequences the burner from purge, low fire ignition of the pilot, and main flame
automatically. The flame safeguard system monitors main flame, limit switches, and boiler
operating interlocks applicable to boiler operation, and interfaces with fuel shutoff valves and oil
pumps.
The burner consists of the subassemblies listed below:
• Basic Burner
- The basic burner is completely assembled with fuel and air control devices
with necessary control linkages and levers. Electrical components are pre-
wired, using Sealtite conduit, to a junction box. Oil and atomizing air
piping trains are a part of the basic burner.
• A burner refractory throat tile seal-welded to the boiler furnace plate, with plastic
refractory packed between the burner refractory throat and the furnace wall;
• Burner positioned to the boiler front plate with support to center the burner with
the refractory throat inside diameter;
24
-------
• Flame safeguard system, in its own enclosure, with a conduit and wiring to the
forced draft fan motor and separate conduits and wiring to junction box #1
(located at the burner) and junction box #2 (located at the gas train assembly), as
well as the boiler limit switches. House power was connected to the flame
safeguard enclosure fuse block;
• Gas train assembly with gas vent lines installed per applicable codes, piped to the
designated safe and nonhazardous location;
• Piping connecting the fuel gas train outlets to the burner flow control valve inlet,
with fuel oil and atomizing medium supplied to the burner on a combination fuel-
firing boiler; and
• A stack gas fuel inlet nozzle located approximately five stack diameters
downstream of the boiler smoke box outlet, with a fuel gas recirculation line
running from the stack inlet nozzle to the flue gas recirculation fan inlet.
Proper burner setup is essential for safe operation and optimum burner performance; the burner
was started up by an authorized service engineer.
Pre-Test Surveys
A thorough survey of the test site was performed prior to each test campaign. The
purpose of the surveys was to determine that the test equipment would fit in the test location, to
identify and gain access to the utilities needed to operate the dilution system and its ancillary
equipment, to arrange for installation of a sample collection port (installation for campaign #1 -
the same port was used for campaign #2), to arrange for installation of power for operation of the
dilution sampling system (installation for campaign #1 only) and to evaluate the means for
positioning the sampler at the desired location. The same sampling location and port were
utilized in both campaigns. A schematic diagram of the sampling port is shown in Figure 3-3; a
photograph of the port, as installed, with cap plate, is shown in Figure 3-4. The relationship of
the sampling port relative to the boiler and the exhaust ductwork is discussed in Section 4.
A new power panel and feeder to provide power to two quad outlets and a 50-amp, 2-pole
circuit, including a breaker in the existing main panel, was also installed prior to campaign #1.
ERG conducted pre-test site surveillance and site preparation to ensure readiness of the site for
25
-------
to
Front View
Port Center
54"
i
Floor Level
v
Side View
Port installed at mark
with center 5 4" above
floor.
Figure 3-4. Diagram of the sampling port.
-------
the start of the scheduled sampling activities. The pre-test survey considered access to utilities
and personnel, as well as legal and safety requirements. ERG obtained source data such as
exhaust gas flow rate and velocity, exhaust gas temperature and water vapor content, and
approximate particulate matter concentration, parameters useful for estimating appropriate
dilution ratios and duration of sample collection.
The sampling port was positioned to allow the dilution sampling unit to sit on a sturdy
hydraulic lift cart, which could be rolled into place and raised to allow the probe access to the
sampling port. The cart sat on the floor of the boiler room, with its wheels firmly anchored.
Access to the test facility was attained by a ground-level door that was sufficiently wide to
accommodate the dilution sampling unit. The two modules (dilution air supply/control module
and sampler module) were positioned at the sampling location, (Figure 3-5), by rolling the units
through the ground-level door at the test facility (Figure 3-6); testing occurred at ground level
inside the facility (Figure 3-7), with the dilution system elevated to allow access to the sampling
port.
27
-------
to
-------
to
Figure 3-6. Ground level access to the test facility.
-------
Figure 3-7. Testing area, ground level.
-------
Section 4
Experimental Procedures
To sample undiluted hot exhaust gas streams, the EPA/ECPB dilution sampling system
(schematic diagram in Figure 3-1), sample collection arrays, sample substrates, and a dilution air
cleaning system were used by ERG. To minimize introduction of contaminants, EPA pre-
cleaned and pre-assembled the dilution sampler and sample collection arrays in a clean
environment prior to transport to the test site. The sampler and dilution air cleaning system were
assembled on separate portable aluminum frames equipped with wheels and tie-down lugs for
transport to and from the site. ERG maintained the sampler and sample collection arrays in a
contaminant-free condition prior to collection of institutional oil-fired boiler samples and field
blanks.
A sampler blank test was run prior to transporting the sampler to the test site for each
campaign to ensure that the system had been cleaned properly and was leak free. The blank test
was run in the laboratory by completely assembling the sampling system, including the sample
collection arrays connected to the residence chamber and all instrumentation. The blank test was
conducted for a time period consistent with the expected duration of the source tests (10 hours).
Following the blank test, the sampler was shut down in reverse order from startup, and all
substrates were unloaded, preserved as appropriate, and analyzed to verify the absence of
contamination in the dilution sampling system.
Preparation for Test Setup
Prior to deployment of the dilution sampling system at the test site and initiation of
sampling with the dilution sampling system and associated sample collection arrays, EPA
Methods 1-45"8 were used to establish key experimental parameters for the test conditions.
Application of EPA Methods 1-4
-------
Traverse Point Determination Using EPA Method 1
EPA Method I5, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources," was used to
establish the number and location of sampling traverse points necessary for isokinetic and flow
sampling. These parameters are based upon how much duct distance separates the sampling
ports from the closest downstream and upstream flow disturbances.
The selected sample collection location did not meet the minimum requirements of EPA
Method 1 for length of straight run or for orientation of the port with respect to the plane of
bends in the ductwork. However, this location was the only position on the duct work with
sufficient space for physical location of the sampling system. The duct work was rectangular.
The inside stack dimensions were length, 48 in.; width, 22 in. The port was located 3 ft.
downstream from the exit of the boiler breech area and 20 ft. upstream of the common exhaust
duct. Traverse point locations are shown in Table 4-1. A table of metric unit conversions is
shown in Appendix A. Sampling at the test site was performed at the point determined by
Method 1 to represent the average velocity in the oil-fired boiler exhaust stack (Figure 3-4).
The absolute pressure of the flue gas (in inches of mercury) was calculated according to
the following equation:
Pg
PS = Pbar + (4-1)
13.6
Where:
PS = absolute gas pressure, inches of mercury
Pbar = barometric pressure, inches of mercury
P = gauge pressure, inches of water (static pressure)
32
-------
Table 4-1. EPA Method 1—Traverse Point Location for Institutional Boiler Exhaust
(A Rectangular Duct)
Fraction of Inside Stack
Traverse Point
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dimension Length
(%)
2.6
8.2
14.6
27.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.4
Inside Stack Wall
(in.)
1.250
3.875
7.000
13.250
16.375
31.500
37.250
41.000
44.125
46.750
from Outside Sampling Port3
(in.)
8.250
10.875
14.000
20.125
23.375
38.500
44.125
48.000
51.125
53.750
a The thickness of the stack wall plus the port flange was 7.0 in.
The value 13.6 represents the specific gravity of mercury (1 inch of mercury = 13.6 inches of
water). For the stack tested, the absolute gas pressure under these conditions was 29.68 inches
of mercury.
Volumetric Flow Rate Determination Using EPA Method 2
Volumetric flow rate was measured according to EPA Method 26, "Velocity — S-Type
Pitot". A Type K thermocouple and S-type pitot tube were used to measure flue gas temperature
and velocity, respectively. All of the isokinetically sampled methods that were used
incorporated EPA Method 2.
Pitot Tube Calibration
The EPA has specified guidelines concerning the construction and geometry of an
acceptable Type-S pitot tube. If the specified design and construction guidelines are met, a pitot
tube coefficient of 0.84 is used. Information pertaining to the design and construction of the
33
-------
Type-S pitottube is presented in detail in Section 3.1.1 ofQuality Assurance Handbookfor Air
Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume III. Stationary Source Specific Methods.9 Only
Type-S pitot tubes meeting the required EPA specifications were used. Pitot tubes were
inspected and documented as meeting EPA specifications prior to field sampling.
Calculation of Average Flue Gas Velocity
The average flue gas velocity for each traverse point is calculated using the following
equation:
Where:
V
APavg
460
Vs = KP * C
I APavg* (460 + Ts)
Ps * Ms
(4-2)
average flue gas velocity, ft/sec
Pitot constant (85.49)
Pitot coefficient (dimensionless), typically 0.84 for Type S
average flue gas velocity head, inches of water
zero degrees Fahrenheit expressed as degrees Rankine
flue gas temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
absolute stack pressure (barometric pressure at measurement site plus
stack static pressure), in. Hg
wet molecular weight, pounds per pound-mole
The flue gas velocity calculated for each traverse point and the average velocity are shown in
Table 4-2.
34
-------
Table 4-2. Campaign-Specific Flue Gas Velocity for Each Traverse Point
Traverse Point
(As Calculated in Table 4-1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average Velocity
Campaign #1
Velocity, ft/min
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
423.3
598.0
792.4
732.3
0.0
0.0
(4-point x) 636.51
Campaign #2
Velocity, ft/min
293.9
339.1
321.0
340.0
366.7
390.3
423.4
298.4
230.7
230.7
(10-point x) 323.42
For campaign #1, the point of average velocity has the closest relationship to traverse point #6.
For campaign #2, the point of average velocity has the closest relationship to traverse point #3.
Determination of Volumetric Flow Rate for Stack Gas
Because stack gas flow rate velocity could be measured at only four often traverse points
for the testing performed for campaign #1 (whereas stack flow could be measured at all ten
traverse points for campaign #2), stack volumetric flow rates could not be determined on the
same basis in both test campaigns. Stack gas flow rates were therefore calculated for both
campaigns on the basis of carbon content of fuel feed, as shown in Table 4-3. The values shown
in Table 4-3 for flue gas flow rate were used in subsequent calculations for emission factors.
35
-------
Table 4-3. Carbon-Based Calculation of Flue Gas Flow Rates
Volume occupied by 1 mole of gas at 273.16 K and 1 atm (29.92 " Hg) [Standard Temperature and Pressure]
PV = nRT V = nRT/P
V= [(1 mol) * (0.082056 L atmK'1 mol'1) * (273.16 K)]/l atm
Molar volume at 273 K, 1 atm
V= 22.4144 L/g-mol
1 ft3 = 28.317 L
Therefore, 22.4144 L/mol = 791.55 ft3/kg-mol, and corrected to the test conditions 849.66 ftYkg-mol.
Parameter
Fuel volumetric flow rate (gal/min)
Fuel density (kg/gal)
Fuel mass feed rate (kg/min)
Carbon in fuel (wt %)
Carbon feed rate (kg/min)
Carbon feed rate (kmol/min)
CO2 in flue gas (vol %, wet)
CO in flue gas (vol %, wet)
Ideal gas conversion (0 °C, 1 atm) (scf/kmol)
Gaseous carbon in flue gas (kmol/scf)
Organic carbon on quartz filter (|ig/cm2)
Elemental carbon on quartz filter (|ig/cm2)
Total carbon on filter" (|ig)
Dayl
3.43
3.19
10.9417
85.93
9.4022
0.7829
16.20
0.03
849.66
0.000191
0.31
0.59
12.105
Sampling Campaign #1
Day 2 Day 3
3.62
3.19
11.5478
85.93
9.9230
0.8623
15.67
0.03
849.66
0.000184
2.39
2.51
65.905
4.14
3.19
13.2066
85.93
11.3484
0.9449
15.47
0.03
849.66
0.000182
2.37
10.31
170.546
Dayl
2.32
3.19
7.4008
86.53
6.404
0.5337
10.70
0.03
849.66
0.000126
20.337
1.47
293.304
Sampling Campaign #2
Day 2 Day 3
2.33
3.19
7.4327
86.53
6.4315
0.5360
10.40
0.03
849.66
0.000123
20.267
0.66
281.468
2.33
3.19
7.4327
86.53
6.4315
0.5360
9.90
0.03
849.66
0.000123
66.04
1.47
908.010
-------
Table 4-3. (Continued)
Parameter
Sample flow (sLpm)
Test ran time (min)
PM concentration at filter (kmol/scf)
Dilution ratio
PM carbon in flue gas (kmol/scf)
Total carbon in flue gas (kmol/scf)
Flue gas flow rate by carbon content (scfm)
Flue gas flow rate by pilot (scfm)
Difference in flow measurements
Sampling Campaign #1 Sampling Campaign #2
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
8.255
600.33
5.785 x 10'11
46.81
2.695 x 10-9
0.000191
4065
4666
-1.3%
8.242
600.50
3.139X10'10
48.67
1.528 xlO'8
0.000184
4159
8.489 8.239 8.195 8.251
600.17 600.60 600.67 600.00
7.891 xlO'11 1.397 x 10'9 1.348 x 10'9 4.323 x 10'10
45.91 44.31 44.37 44.95
3.623 xlO'9 6.191 x 10'8 5.980 x 10'8 1.943 x 10'8
0.000182 0.000126 0.000123 0.000117
4827 3935 4066 4270
2371
39.7%
Tilter area on which paniculate matter was collected was 13.45 cm2.
-------
No structural changes to the ductwork were made between the two test campaigns. The
percent load at which the boiler was operated was different for the two campaigns. During the
campaign #2 tests, the fuel feed rate averaged 37.6% lower than the campaign #1 tests, and the
excess oxygen levels were much higher (campaign #2 = 15.7 to 20.5%; campaign #1 = 7.6 to
9.2% excess oxygen). During campaign #1, the boiler was fired at 37 - 42% of its rated
capacity; during campaign #2, the boiler was fired at only 25% capacity. The differences in load
resulted in different stack velocities for the two campaigns (see Section 4, Table 4-2). As the
point at which the sampling port used for these tests had to be installed (due to physical
constraints) was very close to the breech area exit of the boiler, the upstream and downstream
distances specified in EPA Method 1 could not be attained (see Section 3). Consequently, the
stack gas at the different velocities behaved differently in the duct work resulting in a different
flow profile. As the point of average velocity was determined using EPA Methods 1-4 for both
tests, representativeness and comparability are considered to be appropriate.
Nozzle Size Determination
It is desirable to sample at or near isokinetic velocities at the probe inlet nozzle. The
nozzle size is based on the required sample flow rate. Prior to using an Excel macro to perform
nozzle size calculations according to the procedures of EPA Method 58 (U.S. EPA, 1989d) the
velocity in the stack (feet per minute) must be determined from the pitot traverses prior to the
start of the test run. The additional input required by the macro is sampling rate in liters/minute.
At the average velocity calculated using the four-point average for campaign #1, the
recommended nozzle size was 0.552 in. At the average velocity calculated using the 10-point
average for campaign #2, the recommended nozzle size was 0.505 in.
Measurement of O2 and CO2 Concentrations
The O2 and CO2 concentrations were determined by use of a Fyrite bulb during the
traverse.
Stationary Gas Distribution (as Percent Volume)
38
-------
The following values were measured for the stationary gases:
Campaign #1 Campaign #2
Measured O2 vol % (wet) 6.0 8.1
Measured CO2 vol % (wet) 15.0 11.0
(Provided) CO vol % (wet) 0.03 0.03
The percentage of nitrogen (N2) was calculated according to the following equation:
N2 vol %= 100 - (O2 vol % + CO2 vol % + CO vol %)
= 100-(6.0 + 15.0 + 0.03)
= 78.97 (campaign #1) (4-3)
= 100-(8.1 +11.0 +0.03)
= 80.87 (campaign #2)
Dry Molecular Weight of Flue Gas
The dry molecular weight of the flue gas (Md) was calculated according to the following
equation:
Md = (CO2 vol % * 0.44) + (O2vol % * 0.32) + [(CO vol % + N2 vol %) * 0.28 ]
= (15.0*0.44)+ (6.0* 0.32)+[(0.03 + 78.97) * 0.28]
= 6.60+ 1.92+ 22.12 (4-4)
= 30.64 Ib/lb-mole (campaign #1)
= 30.08 Ib/lb-mole (campaign #2)
Where:
Md = molecular weight of flue gas, dry basis (Ib/lb-mole)
CO2 vol % = percent CO2 by volume, dry basis
39
-------
O2 vol %
CO vol %
N2 vol %
0.44
0.32
0.28
percent O2 by volume, dry basis
percent CO by volume, dry basis
percent N2 by volume, dry basis
molecular weight of CO2, divided by 100
molecular weight of O2, divided by 100
molecular weight of N2 or CO, divided by 100.
Wet Molecular Weight of Flue Gas
The wet molecular weight of the flue gas (Ms) was calculated according to the following
equation:
Ms = (Md * Mfd) + (0.18 * H2O vol %)
= 29.25 wet Ib/lb-mole (campaign #1) (4-5)
= 28.65 wet Ib/lb-mole (campaign #2)
Where:
Ms = wet molecular weight of flue gas, wet Ib/lb-mole
Md = molecular weight of flue gas, dry basis (Ib/lb-mole)
Mfd = dry mole fraction of effluent gas, calculated as [1 - H2O vol % /100]
0.18 = molecular weight of H2O, divided by 100
%H2O = percent H2O, by volume.
Determination of Average Moisture Using EPA Method 4
EPA Method 47, "Moisture Content", was used to determine the average moisture content
of the stack gas. A gas sample was extracted from the source, moisture was removed from the
sample stream, and the moisture content was determined gravimetrically. Before sampling, the
initial weight of the impingers was recorded. When sampling was completed, the final weights
of the impingers were recorded and the weight gain was calculated. The weight gain and the
volume of gas sampled were used to calculate the average moisture content (percent) of the stack
gas. The calculations were performed by computer. Method 4 was incorporated into the
techniques that were used for all of the manual sampling methods used during the test.
40
-------
The measurements shown in Table 4-4 were made on January 15, 2001, for campaign #1
and on July 7, 2002, for campaign #2, using Method 4 to determine moisture recovery.
Table 4-4. Moisture Recovery for Method 4
Measured on January 15, 2001, for Campaign #1
Impinger Impinger
Number Solution
1 Water
2 Water
3 Empty
4 Silica Gel
Impinger Impinger
Number Solution
1 Water
2 Water
3 Empty
4 Silica Gel
Impinger Impinger Tip Final Initial Weight
Contents (g) Configuration (g) (g) Gain (g)
100
100
0
300
Measured on
Weight of
Impinger
Contents (g
100
100
0
300
S&G 702.3 625.1
S&G 672.0 642.1
S&G 597.2 590.0
S&G 749.1 748.3
Total Weight Gain (g)
July 7, 2002, for Campaign #2
Impinger Weight
Impinger Tip Final Initial
) Configuration (g) (g)
S&G 674.5 607.6
S&G 609.0 575.9
S&G 492.7 484.8
S&G 732.3 720.3
Total Weight Gain (g)
77.2
29.9
7.2
3.8
118.1
Weight
Gain (g)
66.9
33.1
7.9
12.0
119.9
Volume of Dry Gas Sampled at Standard Conditions (dscf)
The volume of dry gas sampled under standard conditions was calculated using the
following equation:
V
v
m(std)
v * V
i v
P +
rbar t-
AH
13.6
(4-6)
41
-------
Where:
Vm(std) = volume of dry gas sampled at standard conditions, dry standard cubic feet
(dscf)
Y = dry gas meter calibration factor (0.98)
Vm = volume of gas metered, cubic feet, dry
Pbar = barometric pressure at measurement site, inches of mercury
AH = Sampling rate, measured as differential pressure at the meter orifice, inches
of water
Tm = dry gas meter temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
The constant 17.64 was used for conversion to standard conditions (68°F + 460°R)/29.92 in. Hg;
460 is zero degrees Fahrenheit in degrees Rankine. Using measured values from the field data
sheet, the volume of dry gas sampled at standard conditions (Vm(std)) was calculated to be 43.011
dscf for campaign #1, 42.034 dscf for campaign #2.
Volume of Water Vapor at Standard Conditions (dscf)
The volume of water vapor under standard conditions was calculated using the following
equation:
Vw(std) = 0.04707 * Vlc (4-7)
Where:
Vw(std) = volume of water vapor at standard conditions, dry standard cubic feet (dscf)
Vlc = volume of liquid catch, grams
The constant 0.04707 is the standard cubic feet per gram (or milliliter) of water at standard
conditions. Using the total weight gain for water determined using Method 4 (Table 4-4 above),
the volume of water vapor at standard conditions is calculated to be 5.559 scf for campaign #1,
5.644 scf for campaign #2.
42
-------
Calculation of Moisture/Water Content (as % Volume)
The moisture content of the gaseous stack emissions is calculated using the following
equation:
H2Ovol%= 100 * - — - (4-8)
Vw(std) + vm(std)
Using values measured using EPA Method 4 and values calculated previously, the moisture
content was calculated to be 10.993 percent volume for campaign #1 and 1 1.838 percent volume
for campaign #2.
Calculation of Dry Mole Fraction of Flue Gas
The dry mole fraction of flue gas is calculated using the following equation:
H2Ovol%
M - 1 -
M" !
fd
100
Where:
Mfd = dry mole fraction of effluent gas.
Using the percent moisture determined above, the dry mole fraction of effluent gas is calculated
as 0.8901 for campaign #1 and 0.8816 for campaign #2.
43
-------
Setup of the Dilution Sampling System
The site location was a boiler room at the NC A&T facility, with the 6-inch flanged
sampling port installed in the exhaust duct work to allow the dilution sampling unit to sit on a
sturdy hydraulic lift cart, which could be rolled into place and raised to allow the probe of the
dilution sampling system (Figure 3-2) access to the sampling port. The dilution system control
module, the sampling module, and all ancillary equipment were delivered to the test site by truck.
The two modules (dilution air supply/control module and sampling module) were positioned at
the sampling location by rolling the units through a ground-level door, then elevating the
sampling module to the appropriate height for access to the sampling port using the sturdy
hydraulic lift to raise and lower the sampling assembly. A power panel and feeder to provide
power to two quad outlets and a 50-amp, 2-pole circuit, including a breaker in the existing main
panel, had also been installed by the facility prior to campaign #1.
The location provided convenient access to the stack and sampling port, as shown in
Figure 3-4, and sufficient space for the equipment and personnel for both testing campaigns. The
dilution air system module positioned at the sampling location in the boiler room is shown during
testing operations in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2 shows the sampling probe installed in the 6-in. ID.
flanged port used for sampling. The dilution air supply/control module (Figure 4-3) was located
in the boiler room, approximately 12 feet from the sampling module and around the corner of the
boiler. A TSI SMPS (Figure 4-4), with associated laptop computer, was also connected to the
sampling module (visible behind the TSI display in Figure 4-4), together with the sample
collection arrays for campaign #1. An Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) (Figure 4-5),
with an associated laptop computer, was connected to the sampling module together with the
sample collection arrays for campaign #2. The dilution system sampling module, together with
other sample collection arrays and instruments attached, is shown in Figure 4-6 for campaign #1.
The dilution system sampling module, together with other sample collection arrays and
instruments attached, is shown in Figure 4-7 for campaign #2.
44
-------
I
Figure 4-1. Dilution sampling system elevated on mobile lift for access to the sampling port.
-------
Figure 4-2. Dilution system sampling probe installed in 6 in. I.D. flanged port.
-------
Figure 4-3. Dilution system control module positioned at the sampling location.
-------
oo
Figure 4-4. TSI particle sizer positioned at the sampling location (January 16, 2001) for Campaign #1.
-------
VO
Figure 4-5. ELPI particle sizer positioned at the sampling location (July 7, 2002) for Campaign #2.
-------
Figure 4-6. Dilution system with all sample collection arrays and instruments attached for Campaign #1.
-------
Figure 4-7. Dilution system sampling module, together with sample collection arrays, for Campaign #2.
-------
Figures 4-8 and 4-9 present the recovery area used during both testing campaigns.
Figure 4-9 shows the analyst recovering a PUF sampling module. Figure 4-10 shows the removal
of a filter from a sample collection array prior to packaging for transport to the laboratory.
Pre-Test Leak Check
To perform a pre-test leak check on the assembled dilution system in the field, the inlet
end of the probe was plugged with a Swagelok fitting. Solvent-cleaned solid plates were inserted
in place of the orifice plates at the orifice meter run flanges and sealed off using gaskets on each
side. A new preweighed quartz 8-in. x 10-in. filter was inserted into the filter holder and
carefully sealed in place using screw fittings. A vacuum pump was attached to the residence
chamber and a Magnehelic gauge was attached to an available port. The valve between the pump
and the chamber was opened and the vacuum was monitored as the system was evacuated. As the
reading passed 27 in., the valve between the pump and the chamber was closed. The leak rate
was timed between 25 to 20 in. H2O and again from 20 to 15 in. H2O, and the two times were
averaged. Using the recorded data, the leakage rate in cubic feet/minute was calculated according
to Equation 4-10.
AP
leakage rate = ~~ x V x CF
L\ -L
(4-10)
Where:
leakage rate
AP
AT
V
CF
rate of leakage (ft3/min)
change in pressure (in. H2O)
time increment (sec)
volume of the evacuated dilution sampler (15.3 ft3)
unit conversion factors
- 60 sec/min
1 atm/406.8 in. H,O
52
-------
Figure 4-8. Sample recovery area.
-------
Figure 4-9. Sample recovery area.
-------
Figure 4-10. Teflon filter being removed from the holder in preparation for packaging for transport to the
laboratory.
-------
The criteria for an acceptable leak are <0.1 cfm, or > 1 min 53 sec, equivalent to a pressure
increase of 5 in. H2O. For campaign #1, an average time of 1 min 58 sec was required for a 5-in.
pressure change to occur (resulting leak rate: 0.100 cfm). For campaign #2, an average time of
1 min 59 sec was required for a 5-in. pressure change to occur (resulting leak rate: 0.095 cfm).
These leak rates both met the acceptance criteria.
Orifice Flow Check
Critical orifice flows on the sampling pumps were checked without sample collection
arrays in place using a rotameter to verify that the channels on sample collection array pumps
were at the specified flow rate of 16.7 L/min. Rotameters were calibrated with an NIST-traceable
electronic bubble flow meter.
Determination of Test Duration
To maximize the collection of particulate material, the decision was made to extend the
run time for the longest duration (-10 hours) allowed by the facility.
Canister/Veriflow Blanks
Canisters and Veriflows were utilized only for campaign #1. Prior to deployment in the
field, SUMMA-polished canisters and Veriflow canister filling units were cleaned, and blank
analysis was performed in the laboratory. All units met the cleanliness criterion of < 10 parts per
billion carbon (ppbC, Table 4-5).
56
-------
Table 4-5. Blank Values for Veriflows and Canisters (Campaign #1)
Unit Blank Value, ppbC
Veriflows
Unit #4 18 (Source)
Unit #3 15 (Dilution Air)
ERG-3 (Ambient)
Canisters
3950
3953
4031
4040
3965
1404
4028
4039
4024
5000
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.1
4.4
1.4
1.03
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
3.7
Determination of Flow Rates
A Visual Basic macro was written to process raw data files of flow rate information and
convert this information to actual flow based on temperature, pressure, and calibration data. For
venturi flows, the macro converted the differential pressure into a reported flow rate. The square
root of the differential pressure was then multiplied by a previously determined calibration factor
based on the flowing temperature, and the resulting value was converted to standard liters per
minute (sLpm) using ideal gas law relationships (1 atm, 70°F).
Calibration data for the venturi were generated by placing a dry gas meter at the inlet to
the sample probe. The flows reported by the data acquisition system were corrected to actual
conditions (aLpm) and compared to those produced by the dry gas meter corrected to the venturi
conditions. An Excel macro automatically selected a correct calibration value to be applied based
on the flowing temperature.
57
-------
Since the actual venturi flow was dependent upon the operating conditions, the setpoint
value displayed and entered on the viewing screens needed to be adjusted to achieve the desired
flow. Information to be entered included desired flow, flowing temperature, flowing pressure,
and barometric pressure; the Excel macro automatically selected the correct value to be applied
based on the flowing temperature.
Sample Collection Arrays: Campaign #1
Prior to actual testing (Test Run #1, January 16, 2001; Test Run #2, January 17, 2001;
Test Run #3, January 18, 2001), sample collection arrays were attached to various ports on the
dilution sampling system, as shown in Figure 4-11. Up to ten sampling ports were available,
attached to either the dilution chamber (designated Ports #D1, #D2, and #D3) or the residence
chamber (designated Ports #R2, #R3, #R4, #R5, #R6, #R8, and #R10); the available sampling
ports are shown in Figure 3-1. The following sample collection arrays were used on all three test
days for campaign #1; the sample collection arrays with two denuders in series were used only on
the first test day (Figure 4-11 A):
• Dilution Chamber Sample Collection for Campaign #1
— Dilution Chamber Collection Array Dl
Collection array Dl collects gas phase semivolatile organic compounds,
particle-bound organic materials, and metals. The array consists of a
cyclone separator to remove particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter
greater than 2.5 |im. The gas stream is split into two legs. Leg 1 contains a
quartz filter followed by two PUF units in series. The other leg of
array Dl consists of a Teflon filter.
- Dilution Chamber Array D2
Collection array D2 collects gas-phase carbonyl compounds using a pair of
carbonyl collection cartridges in series in a pump.
- Dilution Chamber Array D3
Collection array D3 collects fine particulate matter and gas-phase organic
compounds. This array consists of a single filter unit followed by a
SUMMA canister.
58
-------
Dilution chamber
Port#D1 Port#D2
Port #D3
SUMMA
I Canister
Total Sample
Substrates
QF
TF-0.5
TF
PUF
Denuder* 6
2
4
7
2
5
14
SUMMA
DNPH
*Denuders collected
one test day only.
Residence chamber
Port #R2 Port #R3
Cyclone
Port #R4
SUMMA
I Canister
Total Field Blank
Substrates
QF
TF
PUF
DNPH
1
1
1
1
Port #R5
Port #R6
Port #R8
Port#R10
Cyclone
Figure 4-11. Schematic diagram of sample collection arrays used in field test
(January 16-18, 2001) for Campaign #1.
59
-------
Dilution chamber
Port #1 Port #2
Port #3
Residence chamber
Port #2 Port # 3
Cyclone
SUMMA
I Canister
Port #4
SUMMA
I Canister
Total Sample
Substrates
QF 7
TF-0.5 2
TF 5
PUF 14
Denuder* 6
SUMMA 2
DNPH 4
*Denuders collected
one test day only.
Total Field Blank
Substrates
QF
TF
PUF
DNPH
1
1
1
1
Port #5
Cyclone
Port #6
Port #8
Port #10
Cyclone
Figure 4-11 A. Schematic diagram of sample collection arrays used in field test
(January 16-18, 2001) for Campaign #1, showing denuders used on only one test day.
60
-------
Residence Chamber Collection Arrays for Campaign #1
- Residence Chamber Collection Array R2
Collection array R2 collects fine particulate matter. The array consists of a
2.5-|im cyclone followed by two identical legs containing Teflon filters.
- Residence Chamber Collection Array R3
Collection array R3 collects fine particulate matter and gas-phase carbonyl
compounds. This array consists of a pair of carbonyl collection cartridges
in series and a pump.
- Residence Chamber Collection Array R4
Collection array R4 collects fine particulate matter and gas-phase organic
compounds. This array consists of a single filter unit followed by a
SUMMA canister.
- Residence Chamber Collection Array R5
Collection array R5 collects fine particulates. The array consists of a
2.5-|im cyclone followed by two identical legs containing Teflon filters.
- Residence Chamber Collection Arrays R6, R8, and RIO
Collection arrays R6, R8, and RIO collect fine particulate matter on quartz
filters for total carbon and elemental carbon analysis. These sampling
arrays consist of a 2.5-|im cyclone followed by two identical legs each
containing a quartz filer followed by two PUF plugs in series. On one test
day, two XAD-4-coated denuders in series will be used with each array to
collect semivolatile organic compounds.
In addition to the sample collection arrays, a TSI continuous particle size analyzer was
used on the residence chamber. The scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) includes a TSI
Model 3081 Electrostatic Classifier in tandem with a TSI Model 3025A Ultrafine Condensation
Particle Counter. This device scanned the range of 9-421 nanometers (nm) in a scan cycle of
approximately 3 minutes, with data collected continuously onto a laptop computer with real-time
data display and saving. The SMPS was connected to the residence chamber at port #R7 to
continuously monitor particle size distribution.
61
-------
Sample Collection Arrays: Campaign #2
Prior to actual testing (Test Run #1, July 9, 2002; Test Run #2, July 10, 2002; and Test
Run #3, July 11, 2002), sample collection arrays were attached to various ports on the dilution
sampling system, as shown in Figure 4-12. Up to ten sampling ports were available, attached to
either the dilution chamber (designated port #D1) or the residence chamber (designated ports
#R2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10); the available sampling ports are shown in Figure 4-12, the schematic
diagram of the dilution sampling system. The following sample collection arrays were used on all
three test days for campaign #2:
• Dilution Chamber Sample Collection for Campaign #2
Dilution Chamber Collection Array Dl
Collection array Dl collects gas phase semivolatile organic compounds,
particle-bound organic materials (both organic and inorganic). The array
consists of a cyclone separator to remove particulate matter with
aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 |im. The gas stream is split into two
legs. Leg one contains a quartz filter followed by two PUF units in series.
The other leg of array Dl consists of a Teflon filter.
• Residence Chamber Collection Arrays for Campaign #2
Residence Chamber Collection Arrays R6, R8 and RIO
Collection arrays R6, R8 and RIO collects fine particulate matter and
semivolatile organic compounds for analysis of elemental carbon/organic
carbon (EC/OC) and speciated organic compounds. The array consists of a
2.5-|im cyclone followed by two identical legs containing quartz filters and
four PUF plugs in series (two PUF modules containing two PUF plugs each
on each leg).
62
-------
Sampling Arrays - Oil Boiler Tests (HC A&T. 62002)
Dilution chamber
Port#D1
I
rn PUF
n
El " [=5 ^
"j c-xcfcr*
V
Total Sample
Substrates
QF 11
TF 5
PUF 26
Residence chamber
Port#R6 Port#R10 Port#R8
Port#R2
V
Port#R4
B8F
H11
V
Figure 4-12. Schematic diagram of sample collection arrays used in field test (July 9-11,
2002) for Campaign #2.
63
-------
Residence Chamber Collection Arrays R2 andR4
Collection arrays R2 and R4 collected PM-2.5 on Teflon filters for
determination of mass, elements and inorganic ions. The Teflon filters are
followed by quartz filters to determine any semivolatile organic
compounds stripped from the Teflon filters during sampling.
In addition to the sample collection arrays, an ELPI was connected to the residence
chamber at port R3 to continuously monitor particle size distribution.
Measurement of 02 and C02 Process Concentrations
For campaign #1, measurements of O2 were made using the certified facility O2 analyzer
every 15 min for the duration of each test day to determine average O2 concentrations during test
conditions. For campaign #2, measurement of O2 and CO2 were made using Fyritebulbs every 30
min across the duration of the tests to determine average O2 and CO2 concentrations during
testing.
Operation of the Dilution Sampling System and Sample Collection Arrays
To prepare the dilution sampling system for a full test run, sampling probe temperature
setpoints were set equal to or slightly above the measured stack temperature. The system was
equilibrated at temperature. Sample collection arrays were loaded with appropriate media, and
flow/leak checks were performed with each sample collection array to ensure that the entire
system would be leak-free in operation. Sampler flows were set just before initiation of the test to
prevent heat loss from the heated probe. The blower and the ring compressor were started to
achieve a slightly positive pressure, then the blower flow was adjusted to cause the stack gas to
flow into the dilution sampling system after the probe was inserted in the stack. Sample
collection array pumps were started, and for campaign #1 valves for the SUMMA canisters were
opened to initiate canister air sample collection. The sampling process was carefully monitored
by the sampling team based on pressure change in the canister to ensure that filters were not
overloaded in the course of sampling. Start time and other pertinent data were recorded. At the
end of the predetermined sampling interval, the sampling process was stopped by stopping the
64
-------
pumps for the sample collection arrays and closing the valves on the SUMMA canisters. The
probe was withdrawn from the stack, the blower and ring compressor were turned off, and heaters
were turned off and allowed to cool. Each sampling array was leak-checked at the end of the
sampling period, and ending flow rates were documented. Experimental parameters for tests #1,
#2, and #3 of campaign #1 are shown in Tables 4-6 through 4-8; blower flow, dilution flow, and
venturi flow for tests #1, #2, and #3 of campaign #1 are shown graphically in Figures 4-13
through 4-21. Experimental parameters for tests #1, #2, and #3 of campaign #2 are shown in
Tables 4-9 through 4-11; blower flow, dilution flow, and venturi flow for tests #1, #2, and #3 of
campaign #2 are shown graphically in Figures 4-22 through 4-30.
At the end of the sampling period, the pumps on the dilution system were turned off, and
recovery of the dilution sampling system consisted of removing the sample collection arrays and
turning off the particle size analyzer. Sample collection arrays were then carried to the recovery
area and disassembled, the parts were carefully labeled, and the components were carefully
packaged for transport to the laboratories.
The sample collection arrays were removed sequentially at the cyclone connection. Each
individual collection array was removed and the ends of the assembly were covered with
aluminum foil. As each sample collection array was removed from the sampling system, the
sampling aperture was covered to avoid introduction of any contaminants into the dilution
sampler. The ends of the sample collection array were capped and the array placed in a secure
container for transport to the sample recovery area.
65
-------
Table 4-6. Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #1, Campaign #1
Test Run #1 (January 16,2001)
Start Time
End Time
Run Time
Barometric Pressure
Nozzle Size
Parameter
Venturi Flow
PT-101
TE-104
Dilution Flow
PT-102
TE-108
Blower Flow
PT-103
TE-105
Dilution Ratio
TE-101
TE-102
TE-103
Sample Flow Rates
Actual Flow
aLpm
17.22
17.07
16.92
16.62
17.22
9:25:09 a.m.
7:25:29 p.m.
600.33 min
29.68 in. Hg
0.390
Average
30.47 aLpm
18.53 sLpm
-0.92 in. WC
205.53 °C
876.58 aLpm
847.89 sLpm
-1.37 in. WC
25.23 °C
918.41 aLpm
839.02 sLpm
-17.59 in. WC
28.20 °C
46.81
189.98 °C
198.11 °C
198.14°C
Corrected Flow
sLpm Notes
16.96 PM 2.5 sample on dilution air: start
16.81 PM 2 . 5 sample on dilution air: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.66 10: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.36 10: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.96 8: start
Average Flow
sLpm
16.88
16.51
16.96
66
-------
Table 4-6. (Continued)
Sample Flow Rates
Actual Flow
aLpm
17.22
16.92
16.62
17.22
17.22
17.22
17.22
0.90
1.05
1.47
1.47
Canisters
#4024, Dilution
#4039, Source
#5000, Ambient"
#1404, Blank
Corrected Flow
sLpm
16.96
16.66
16.36
16.96
16.96
16.96
16.96
0.89
1.03
1.45
1.45
Start Pressure
29.0 in. Hg
29.0 in. Hg
29.0 in. Hg
29.0 in. Hg
Notes
PM 2. 5 sample on residence chamber port 8:
end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
6: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
6: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
4: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
4: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
2: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
2: end
DNPH sample on residence chamber port 3 :
start
DNPH sample on residence chamber port 3 :
end
DNPH sample on dilution air port
3: start
DNPH sample on dilution air port
3: end
End Pressure
5.0 in. Hg
8.0 in. Hg
0.0 in. Hg
29.0 in. Hg
Average Flow
sLpm
16.51
16.96
16.96
0.96
1.45
a The ambient sample was collected on the first test day of campaign # 1 at the inlet of the charcoal scrubber
subsystem of the EPA Dilution Sampling System. The data from the analysis of the ambient canister sample were
reported but no correction of the monitoring data for ambient levels was performed. The ambient information was
supplied to provide an indicator of the performance of the dilution sampling system scrubber efficiency in
removing the ambient background from the air used for sample dilution at the test site.
PT = pressure transducer
TE = thermocouple
aLpm = actual liters per minute
sLpm = standard liters per minute
WC = water column
67
-------
Table 4-7. Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #2, Campaign #1
Test Run #2 (January 17,2001)
Start Time
End Time
Run Time
Barometric Pressure
Nozzle Size
Parameter
Venturi Flow
PT-101
TE-104
Dilution Flow
PT-102
TE-108
Blower Flow
PT-103
TE-105
Dilution Ratio
TE-101
TE-102
TE-103
Sample Flow Rates
Actual Flow
aLpm
17.40
17.25
7:50:00 a.m.
5:50:30 p.m.
600.50 min
29.83 in. Hg
0.390 in.
Average
29.37 aLpm
17.88 sLpm
-0.96 in. WC
207.51 °C
870.64 aLpm
848.35 sLpm
-1.34 in. WC
24.57 °C
877.00 aLpm
833.41 sLpm
-13.30 in. WC
27.67 °C
48.67
194.54 °C
207.63 °C
209.57 °C
Corrected Flow Average Flow
sLpm Notes sLpm
17.39 PM 2.5 sample on dilution air: start 17.3 1
17.24 PM 2.5 sample on dilution air: end
16.49
16.49
17.10
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.48 10: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.48 10: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
17.08 8: start
16.48
17.08
68
-------
Table 4-7. (Continued)
Sample Flow Rates
Actual Flow
aLpm
17.10
16.49
16.49
17.10
17.10
17.25
17.10
0.99
0.93
0.93
0.93
Canisters
#4031, Dilution
#4040, Source
Corrected Flow
sLpm
17.08
16.48
16.48
17.08
17.08
17.24
17.08
0.99
0.93
0.93
0.93
Start Pressure
29.0 in. Hg
29.0 in. Hg
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
8:end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
6: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
6: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
4: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
4: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
2: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
2: end
DNPH sample on residence chamber port 3 :
start
DNPH sample on residence chamber port 3 :
end
DNPH sample on dilution air port
3: start
DNPH sample on dilution air port
3: end
End Pressure
5.0 in. Hg
4.0 in. Hg
Average Flow
sLpm
16.48
17.08
17.16
0.96
0.93
PT = pressure transducer
TE = thermocouple
aLpm = actual liters per minute
sLpm = standard liters per minute
WC = water column
69
-------
Table 4-8. Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #3, Campaign #1
Test Run #3 (January 18,2001)
Start Time
End Time
Run Time
Barometric Pressure
Nozzle Size
Parameter
Venturi Flow
PT-101
TE-104
Dilution Flow
PT-102
TE-108
Blower Flow
PT-103
TE-105
Dilution Ratio
TE-101
TE-102
TE-103
Sample Flow Rates
Actual Flow
aLpm
17.36
17.36
16.60
16.60
17.20
7:35:06 a.m.
5:35:16 p.m.
600.17min
29.74 in. Hg
0.390 in.
Average
3 1.26 aLpm
19.02 sLpm
-0.99 in. WC
206.60 °C
875.34 aLpm
850.66 sLpm
-1.39 in. WC
24.44 °C
885.81 aLpm
836.70 sLpm
-14.68 in. WC
27.44 °C
45.91
196.98 °C
203.77 °C
206.10°C
Corrected Flow
sLpm Notes
17. 13 PM 2.5 sample on dilution air: start
17. 13 PM 2.5 sample on dilution air: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.38 10: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.38 10: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
16.98 8: start
Average Flow
sLpm
17.13
16.38
16.98
17.20
16.98
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
6: start
16.98
70
-------
Table 4-8. (Continued)
Actual Flow
aLpm
17.20
17.20
17.20
17.20
17.20
1.14
1.14
1.18
1.18
Canisters
#3953, Dilution
#3950, Source
Corrected Flow
sLpm
16.98
16.98
16.98
16.98
16.98
1.12
1.12
1.17
1.17
Start Pressure
29.0 in. Hg
29.0 in. Hg
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
6: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
4: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
4: end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
2: start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port
2: end
DNPH sample on residence chamber port
3: start
DNPH sample on residence chamber port 3 :
end
DNPH sample on dilution air port
3: start
DNPH sample on dilution air port
3: end
End Pressure
5.0 in. Hg
3.0 in. Hg
Average Flow
sLpm
16.98
16.98
1.12
1.17
PT = pressure transducer
TE = thermocouple
aLpm = actual liters per minute
sLpm = standard liters per minute
WC = water column
71
-------
BlowerFlow 1/16/01
5500 .
3500 -
7:OC
-SflO _
|
:
SB
:QO 8:00:00 9:00:00
I
+. ALHM
H SLPM
|
10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 19:00:00
b— ,
20:00:00 21:0
Time
Figure 4-13. Blower flow, Test 1—Day 1, January 16, 2001, Campaign #1.
Dilution Flow 1/16/01
I0 10:00:00 I 1 CIO ::iu liijocici i;i:ii:i:iij I4i:n:ii:in 15 on Lid 1t. iMjijij 17 00 DO 1.:: OLI iy:i lji:i:iu.:i ^u no CIO 21:00:00
oci ";i
Figure 4-14. Dilution flow, Test 1—Day 1, January 16, 2001, Campaign #1.
72
-------
VenturiFlow
- Liu Ci-J rt.uo Ijui •- I.IL, LIU IL.'.LUL lluiliivi
19:00:00 20:00:00 21:00:00
Figure 4-15. Venturi flow, Test 1—Day 1, January 16, 2001, Campaign #1.
B lower Flow 1/17/01
Figure 4-16. Blower flow, Test 2—Day 2, January 17, 2001, Campaign #1.
73
-------
Dilution Flow 1,1701
Figure 4-17. Dilution flow, Test 2—Day 2, January 17, 2001 Campaign #1.
venturlFlon 1/17(01
Figure 4-18. Venturi flow, Test 2—Day 2, January 17, 2001, Campaign #1.
74
-------
B lowerF low 1/18/01
Figure 4-19. Blower flow, Test 3—Day 3, January 18, 2001, Campaign #1.
Dilution Flow 1'18'01
Figure 4-20. Dilution flow, Test 3—Day 3, January 18, 2001, Campaign #1.
75
-------
VenturiFlow 1.18/01
Tim.
Figure 4-21. Venturi flow, Test 3—Day 3, January 18, 2001, Campaign #1.
76
-------
Table 4-9. Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #1, Campaign #2
Test Run #1 (July 9,2002)
Start Time
End Time
Run Time
Barometric Pressure
Nozzle Size
Parameter
Venturi Flow
PT-101
TE-104
Dilution Flow
PT-102
TE-108
Blower Flow
PT-103
TE-105
Dilution Ratio
TE-101
TE-102
TE-103
Actual Corrected
Flow Flow
sLpm aLpm
16.43 17.78
16.43 17.78
16.43 17.78
16.43 17.78
16.58 17.93
16.58 17.93
16.43 17.78
16.43 17.78
8:01:08 a.m.
6:01:44 p.m.
600.60 min
28.79 inches Hg
0.505 inches
Average
30.03 aLpm
18.85 sLpm
-0.77 inches WC
176.89 °C
908.65 aLpm
816.28 sLpm
- 1.42 inches WC
38.82 °C
789. 12 aLpm
680.59 sLpm
-16.54 inches WC
41.37 °C
44.33
171.45 °C
176.73 °C
176.48 °C
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on dilution air-start
PM 2.5 sample on dilution air-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 10-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 10-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 8-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 8-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 6-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 6-end
Average
Flow
sLpm
16.43
16.43
16.58
16.43
77
-------
Table 4-9. (Continued)
Actual
Flow
sLpm
8.91
9.16
16.29
16.14
16.58
16.43
Corrected
Flow
aLpm
9.64
9.91
17.62
17.46
17.93
17.78
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 5-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 5-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 4-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 4-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 2-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 2-end
Average
Flow
sLpm
9.04
16.22
16.51
PT = pressure transducer
TE = thermocouple
aLpm = actual liters per minute
sLpm = standard liters per minute
WC = water column
78
-------
Table 4-10. Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #2, Campaign #2
Test Run #2 (July 10,2002)
Start Time
End Time
Run Time
Barometric Pressure
Nozzle Size
Parameter
Venturi Flow
PT-101
TE-104
Dilution Flow
PT-102
TE-108
Blower Flow
PT-103
TE-105
Dilution Ratio
TE-101
TE-102
TE-103
Sample Flow Rates
Actual Corrected
Flow Flow
sLpm aLpm
16.51 18.00
16.37 17.85
16.37 17.85
16.37 17.85
16.37 17.85
16.37 17.85
7:06:05 a.m.
5:06:45 p.m.
600.67 min
28.67 inches Hg
0.505 inches
Average
30.00 aLpm
18.79 sLpm
-0.80 inches WC
176.03 °C
91 1.02 aLpm
814.43 sLpm
- 1.42 inches WC
39.00 °C
783.42 aLpm
673.14 sLpm
-16.32 inches WC
41.45 °C
44.37
171.71 °C
177.13°C
176.68 °C
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on dilution air-start
PM 2.5 sample on dilution air-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 10-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 10-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 8-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 8-end
Average
Flow
sLpm
16.44
16.37
16.37
79
-------
Table 4-10. (Continued)
Sample Flow Rates
Actual
Flow
sLpm
16.37
9.12
9.25
16.22
16.08
16.37
16.37
Corrected
Flow
aLpm
17.85
9.95
10.08
17.69
17.53
17.85
17.85
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 6-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 5-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 5-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 4-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 4-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 2-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 2-end
Average
Flow
sLpm
9.19
16.15
16.37
PT = pressure transducer
TE = thermocouple
aLpm = actual liters per minute
sLpm = standard liters per minute
WC = water column
80
-------
Table 4-11. Run Time Summary Information, Test Run #3, Campaign #2
Test Run #3 (July 11,2002)
Start Time
End Time
Run Time
Barometric Pressure
Nozzle Size
Parameter
7:17:03a.m
5:17:03 p.m.
600.00 min
28.64 inches Hg
0.505 inches
Average
Venturi Flow
PT-101
TE-104
Dilution Flow
PT-102
TE-108
Blower Flow
PT-103
TE-105
Dilution Ratio
TE-101
TE-102
TE-103
30.02 aLpm
18.78 sLpm
-0.98 inches WC
176.12°C
900.09 aLpm
824.70 sLpm
-1.45 inches WC
31.22°C
774.50 aLpm
681.74 sLpm
-16.20 inches WC
33.61 °C
44.95
169.72 °C
177.18°C
176.86 °C
81
-------
Table 4-11. (Continued)
Sample Flow Rates
Actual
Flow
sLpm
16.41
16.41
16.55
16.41
16.55
16.41
16.70
16.41
9.27
9.02
16.12
16.12
16.55
16.55
Corrected
Flow
aLpm
17.80
17.80
17.96
17.80
17.96
17.80
18.11
17.80
10.06
9.79
17.49
17.49
17.96
17.96
Notes
PM 2.5 sample on dilution air-start
PM 2.5 sample on dilution air-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 10-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 10-End
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 8-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 8-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 6-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 6-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 5-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 5-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 4-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 4-end
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 2-start
PM 2.5 sample on residence chamber port 2-end
Average
Flow
sLpm
16.41
16.48
16.48
16.56
9.15
16.12
16.55
PT = pressure transducer
TE = thermocouple
aLpm = actual liters per minute
sLpm = standard liters per minute
WC = water column
82
-------
Blower Flow 7/9/2002
10X1
CL 600
-200
1:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 19:C3:00
Time
Figure 4-22. Blower flow, Test 1-Day 1, July 9, 2002, Campaign #2.
Dilution Flow 7/9/2002
1400
1200
1000
800
E 600
400
200
:00 9:00:00 10:00:0 11:00:0 12:00:0 13:00:0 14:00:0 15:00:0 16:00:0 17:00:0 18:03:0 19:10:0
0000000001
Time
Figure 4-23. Dilution flow, Test 1-Day 1, July 9, 2002, Campaign #2.
83
-------
Venturi Flow 7/9/2002
eOQOO 7:00:00 8:0000 9:00:00 10:00:0011:00:001200:0013:000014:00:0015:00:0016:00:0017:00:0018:00:0019:00:00
Time
Figure 4-24. Venturi flow, Test 1-Day 1, July 9, 2002, Campaign #2.
Blower Flow 7/10/2002
ea
m
•
,
:
r
?
):00 7:00:00 8:00:00 900:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:0
100
Figure 4-25. Blower flow, Test 2-Day 2, July 10, 2002, Campaign #2.
84
-------
Dilution Flow 7/10/2002
8UU-
6:OC
-9nn -
T
c
I"
I
1: 00 f
I
I
I
I
I
I
58:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:OCTOO 18:0
3:00
Time
Figure 4-26. Dilution flow, Test 2-Day 2, July 10, 2002, Campaign #2.
Venturi Flow 7/10/2002
20
6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00
Time
Figure 4-27. Venturi flow, Test 2-Day 2, July 10, 2002, Campaign #2.
85
-------
Blower Flow 7/11/2002
600
400
200
7:OC
_onn
i
i
):00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:0
0:00
Time
Figure 4-28. Blower flow, Test 3-Day 3, July 11, 2002, Campaign #2.
Dilution Flow 7/11/2002
800 -
7:OC
-9nn -
i
m
8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:(J
F 18:0
0:00
Figure 4-29. Dilution flow, Test 3-Day 3, July 11, 2002, Campaign #2.
86
-------
Venturi Flow 7/11/2002
7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00
Time
Figure 4-30. Venturi flow, Test 3-Day 3, July 11, 2002, Campaign #2.
87
-------
In the sample recovery area, the sample collection arrays were disassembled into the
following components:
Polyurethane foam (PUF) modules were disassembled from the sample collection
array as a module. Both ends of the PUF sampling module were capped, the
module placed in a sealable plastic bag, the bag appropriately labeled, and chain of
custody documentation initiated.
Filters were positioned in specific filter holder assemblies as part of several of the
sample collection arrays. In the sample recovery area, the filter holder assemblies
were disassembled, and the filter was removed with Teflon tipped tweezers and
placed in a pre-numbered custom filter container with a locking lid. The
appropriate label was affixed to the filter container and chain of custody
documentation initiated. The filter holder assembly was re-assembled without the
filter, placed in a plastic bag, and labeled.
Denuders were disassembled, the ends of the sorbent tube closed with Teflon caps
and sealed with Teflon tape, the sealed denuder tubes placed in a plastic bag,
labeled, and chain of custody documentation initiated.
Carbonyl sampling tube assemblies were disassembled. The ends of the individual
tubes were sealed with plastic caps, and the sealed tubes placed in an aluminum
foil packet, labeled to preserve the front/back order from the sample collection
array, placed in a plastic bag, labeled, and chain of custody documentation
initiated.
Canister sampling was terminated by closing the valve on the canister at the end of
the sampling period. The canister with closed valve was disconnected from the
dilution system and capped; chain of custody documentation was generated.
At a later time, extraction of the denuders was performed on-site. The denuders were
rinsed with a mixture of methylene chloride: acetone: hexane in a volume ratio of 2:3:5. The
solvent mixture was added to the denuder and the denuder tube was capped and shaken (four
times). An internal standard was added to the first extraction. The rinses were combined in a pre-
cleaned glass jar for paired denuders, the jar was labeled, sealed with Teflon tape, chain of
custody documentation was initiated for the extract, and the jar was stored over ice. After
extraction, the denuders and caps were dried using high-purity nitrogen and capped until ready for
re-use.
-------
Denuders, PUF modules, and filters were all bagged and stored on site in a chest freezer.
Canisters and carbonyl tubes were transported to the ERG laboratory for analysis; the filters, PUF
modules, and denuder extracts were transported to the EPA laboratory for analysis.
Chain of custody documentation for both test campaigns is supplied in Appendix E; field
sample logs are presented in Appendix F.
Laboratory Experimental Methodology
The analytical methodology used in EPA and ERG laboratories to perform the analyses is
summarized in Table 3-1.
Components of the sample collection arrays, filters, DNPH-impregnated silica gel tubes
used to sample carbonyl compounds, and canisters used to sample volatile organic compounds
were returned for analysis to EPA and ERG laboratories, respectively; the analyses described in
the following sections were performed.
PM-2.5 Mass
Teflon membrane (Gelman Teflo) filters of 2-|im pore diameter were used to collect fine
PM samples for mass determinations. Filters before and after sample collection were maintained
at 20-23 °C and a relative humidity of 30-40% for a minimum of 24 hours prior to weighing on a
micro-balance. Sample mass was determined by the difference in weight of a filter before and
after sample collection.
Elemental Analysis
Individual elements above atomic number 9 (fluorine) were measured using a Philips 2404
wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer running the UniQuant program.
This program gives qualitative and quantitative information on the elements present on a Teflon
membrane filter. The filter to be analyzed was covered with a 0.4-|im thick Prolene film, which
was attached using glue. The glue was on only the outer rim of the filter and did not interfere
89
-------
with the analysis. Only elements which gave amounts greater than one standard error above the
detection limit were reported.
Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions
Teflon filter samples were analyzed for major inorganic anions and cations using a Dionex
DX-120 ion chromatograph equipped with a 25-|iL sample loop and a conductivity detector.
Major ions determined were chloride, nitrate, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
ammonium. Prior to extraction the filters were wetted with ethanol (350-500 |j,L). Two
sequential extractions with HPLC grade water were performed using mild sonication of the filters
followed by filtration of the extracts. The two extracts were combined for analysis.
Anions were separated using an Ion Pac AS 14 (4 x 250 mm) column with an alkyl
quaternary ammonium stationary phase and a carbonate-bicarbonate mobile phase. Cations were
separated using an Ion Pac CS12 (4 x 250 mm) column with an 8-|im poly(ethylvinylbenzene-
divinylbenzene) macroporous substrate resin functionalized with a relatively weak carboxylic
acid stationary phase and a sulfuric acid mobile phase. Ion concentrations were determined from
four-point calibration curves using an external standard method. All samples were extracted and
analyzed in duplicate or triplicate.
Elemental Carbon/Organic Carbon
Elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) content of PM samples collected on pre-
fired quartz filters was determined by NIOSH Method 504010 using a Sunset Laboratory
instrument with a 30-m, 0.32-mm ID. Rtx - SMS (Crossbond 5% diphenyl - 95% dimethyl
polysilorane) capillary column, with a 1 |im film thickness. In this method, a 1.0- x 1.5-cm punch
of the quartz filter sample is placed in the instrument, and organic and carbonate carbon are
evolved in a helium atmosphere as the temperature is raised to 850 °C. Evolved carbon is
catalytically oxidized to CO2 in a bed of granular MnO2, then reduced to methane in a methanator.
Methane is subsequently quantified by a flame ionization detector (FID). In a second stage, the
sample oven temperature is reduced, an oxygen-helium mixture is introduced, and the
temperature is increased to 940 °C. With the introduction of oxygen, pyrolytically generated
90
-------
carbon is oxidized and an increase in the transmittance of a laser light beam through the filter
occurs. The point at which the filter transmittance reaches its initial value is defined as the split
between OC and EC. Carbon evolved prior to the split is considered OC (including carbonate),
and carbon volatilized after the split is considered elemental (EC). Elemental carbon evolved is
similarly oxidized to CO2 and subsequently reduced to methane to be measured by the FID.
Organic Compounds
Individual organic compounds present in the fine PM collected on pre-fired quartz filters
were determined by extracting the filters with hexane (two extractions) followed with a 2:1
mixture of benzene and isopropanol (three extractions). Prior to extraction, the filters were
composited as necessary to achieve a total of approximately 0.5 mg of OC and spiked with a
mixture of isotropically labeled (deuterated) internal recovery standards. These standards were
selected to represent the range of expected solubilities, stabilities, chromatographic retention
times, and volatilities of organic compounds present in the samples. All extracts from the five
extraction steps were combined and concentrated using an automated nitrogen blowdown
apparatus.
An aliquot of the combined extract was derivatized with diazomethane to yield methyl
esters of any fatty acids which might be present. After the methylation reaction was complete, the
methylated extract aliquot was reconcentrated by nitrogen blowdown. A separate portion of the
methylated extract was derivatized a second time using Sylon BFT reagent to convert compounds
such as levoglucosan and cholesterol to their trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives. Both
derivatizations were performed in order to allow the compounds to be separated and eluted from a
gas chromatograph column. Since the TMS derivatives are somewhat unstable over time, the
silylation was carried out just prior to analysis.
Gas chromatography coupled with a mass spectrometer detector (GC/MS) was used to
identify and quantify the individual organic compounds present in the extracts. A Hewlett-
Packard 6890 GC equipped with an HP 5973 mass spectrometer detector was used. A SMS
column (30-m, 0.25-mm diameter, 0.25-|im film thickness) was employed along with an injector
temperature of 65 °C and a GC/MS interface temperature of 300 °C. The initial GC oven
91
-------
temperature was set at 65 °C with an initial hold time of 10 min. The oven temperature was then
ramped upward at 10 °C/min to 300 °C and held at the upper temperature for an additional 41.5
minutes. Helium was used as the carrier gas (1 mL/min), and the GC was operated in the
split/splitless mode.
Positive identification of target compounds was obtained by comparing mass spectra of
the analytes with those obtained from over 100 authentic compound standards. Iso- and anteiso-
alkanes were identified using secondary standards derived from paraffin candle wax. Additional
compounds were identified as "probable" based on a comparison of the GC retention times and
mass spectra with commercially available spectral libraries. Quantification of the individual
compounds involved referencing each compound against one or more of the deuterated internal
standards spiked into the sample to correct for losses of the analytes which may have occurred in
the compositing, extracting, concentrating, and derivatizing steps. An extensive set of standards
of target compounds at known concentrations which also included the deuterated internal
standard compounds was used to establish 3-point or 5-point calibration curves from which the
concentrations of the analytes were determined.
Carbonyl Compounds
Carbonyl compounds were sampled and analyzed in campaign #1 only. Sep-Pak
chromatographic-grade silica gel cartridges impregnated with DNPH were used in series for
carbonyl sample collection; the tubes were used in series to check for compound breakthrough.
Following sample collection in the field, the cartridges and accompanying chain of custody
documentation were transported to the ERG laboratory, where they were logged into the
laboratory sample tracking system. The cartridges were extracted and analyzed for the
compounds listed in Table 4-12 using a modified version of EPA Compendium Method
TO-11A11, "Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed
by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)". The analytical instrument was a Varian
5000 High Performance Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC) with a multiwavelength detector
operated at 360 nanometers (nm). The HPLC was configured with a 25-cm, 4.6-mm ID., CIS
silica
92
-------
Table 4-12. Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
Compound CAS No.
Formaldehyde 50-00-0
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0
Acetone 67-64-1
Propionaldehyde 123-38-6
Crotonaldehyde 4170-30-3
Butyraldehyde 123-72-8
Benzaldehyde 100-52-7
Isovalderaldehyde 590-86-3
Valeraldehyde 110-62-3
o-Tolualdehyde 529-20-4
/w-Tolualdehyde 620-23-5
^-Tolualdehyde 104-87-0
Hexaldehyde 66-25-1
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 5779-94-2
Diacetyl 432-03-8
Methacrolein 78-85-3
2-Butanone 78-93-3
Glyoxal 107-22-2
Acetophenone 98-86-2
Methylglyoxal 78-98-8
Octanal 124-13-0
Nonanal 124-19-6
analytical column with a 5-micron particle size. Twenty-five (25) |j,L aliquots were injected into
the HPLC with an automatic sample injector.
The chromatography data acquisition system was used to retrieve data from the HPLC;
data were processed and peak identifications were made using retention times and relative
retention times determined by analysis of analytical standards. After peak identifications were
made, the concentration of each target analyte was determined using individual response factors
for the carbonyl compounds.
Daily calibration checks were performed to ensure that the analytical procedures were in
control. Daily quality control checks were performed after every ten samples on the days that
93
-------
samples were analyzed, with compound responses within ±15% relative to the responses from the
current calibration curve. Compound retention time drifts were also measured from the analysis
of the quality control check sample and tracked to ensure that the HPLC was operating within
acceptable parameters.
As part of the daily quality control check, if the analysis of the daily quality control
sample was not acceptable, a second injection of the quality control standard was performed. If
the second quality control check did not meet acceptance criteria or if more than one daily quality
control check did not meet acceptance criteria, a new calibration curve (at five concentration
levels) was analyzed. All samples analyzed with the unacceptable quality control checks would
be re-analyzed.
An acetonitrile system blank was analyzed after the daily calibration check and before
sample analysis. The system was considered in control if target analyte concentrations were less
than the current method detection limits.
Canister Analyses: Air Toxics and Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Canister sampling and analysis were performed for campaign #1 only. The combined
analysis12'13 for air toxics and speciated nonmethane organic compounds was performed on a gas
chromatograph(GC)/flame ionization detector(FID)/mass selective detector (MSD), using a
Hewlett-Packard 5971 MSD and a Hewlett-Packard 5890 Series II GC with a 60-m by 0.32-mm
i.d. and a 1 |im film thickness J&W DB-1 capillary column followed by a 2:1 splitter to send the
larger portion of the column effluent to the MSD and the smaller fraction to the FID. The
chromatograph oven containing the DB-1 capillary column was cooled to -50 °C with liquid
nitrogen at the beginning of the sample injection. This temperature was held for five minutes and
then increased at the rate of 15 °C per minute up to 0 °C. The oven temperature was then ramped
at 6 °C/minute to 150 °C, then ramped at 20 °C/minute to 225 °C and held for 8 min. The gas
eluting from the DB-1 capillary column passed through the 2:1 fixed splitter to divide the flow
between the MSD and the FID.
94
-------
The air toxics analysis was performed according to the procedures of EPA Compendium
Method TO-15, "Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in
Specially-Prepared Canister and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS)" for the compounds shown in Table 4-13. The analysis of SNMOC was performed
according to the procedures of "Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of
Ozone Precursors13 " for the compounds shown in Table 4-14. Detection limits for air toxics and
for the speciated nonmethane organic compounds are shown in Appendix C. Method detection
limits were determined according to the Federal Register procedure.14
Particle Size Distribution Data
The SMPS was operated and collected data during both test days. Data were reduced
using the TSI software package.
95
-------
Table 4-13. Air Toxics Compounds Determined by Analytical Method TO-15
Compound
CAS No.
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,3-Butadiene
Bromometnane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
/ra«5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fer/-butyl ether
Methyl ethyl ketone
Chloroprene
cis-1,3 -Dichloroethy lene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-butyl ether
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
ter/-Amyl methyl ether
1,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
c/5-l,2-Dichloropropene
74-86-2
115-07-1
75-71-8
74-87-3
1320-37-2
75-01-4
106-99-0
74-83-9
75-00-3
75-05-8
67-64-1
75-69-4
107-13-1
75-35-4
75-09-2
26523-64-8
56-60-5
75-34-3
1634-04-1
78-93-3
126-99-8
156-59-2
74-97-5
67-66-3
637-92-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
994-05-8
78-87-5
140-88-5
75-27-4
79-01-6
80-62-6
10061-01-5
96
-------
Table 4-13. (Continued)
Compound
CAS No.
Methyl isobutyl ketone
/ra«5-l,2-Dichloropropene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
w-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m-, p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
/w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro-1,3 -butadiene
108-10-1
10061-02-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
124-48-1
106-93-4
111-65-9
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
75-25-2
100-42-5
79-34-5
95-47-6
108-67-8
95-63-6
541-73-1
100-44-7
106-46-7
95-50-1
120-82-1
87-68-3
97
-------
Table 4-14. Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds Determined According to the
Procedures of EPA Research Operating Procedure "Research Protocol Method for Analysis
of C2-C12 Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air by Gas Chromatography with Cryogenic
Concentration"
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -butene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
/ra«s-2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
/ra«5-2-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
w-Hexane
/r
-------
Table 4-14. (Continued)
Compound
CAS No.
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
3 -Methy Ihexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-, p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
w-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
w-Propylbenzene
/w-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Pinene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
w-Decane
1,2,3 -Trimethy Ibenzene
/M-Diethylbenzene
108-08-7
71-43-2
110-82-7
591-76-4
565-59-3
589-34-4
592-76-7
540-84-1
142-82-5
108-87-2
564-02-3
565-75-3
108-88-3
592-27-8
589-81-1
111-66-0
111-65-9
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
100-42-5
95-47-6
124-11-8
111-84-2
98-82-8
80-56-8
103-65-1
620-14-4
622-96-8
108-67-8
611-14-3
127-91-3
95-63-6
872-05-9
124-18-5
526-73-8
141-93-5
Table 4-14. (Continued)
99
-------
Compound CAS No.
^-Diethylbenzene 105-05-5
1-Undecene 821-95-4
w-Undecane 1120-21-4
1-Dodecene 112-41-4
w-Dodecane 112-40-3
1-Tridecene 2437-56-1
w-Tridecane 629-50-5
100
-------
Section 5
Results and Discussion
Analyses for each campaign were performed in either the EPA or ERG laboratories as
shown in Table 3-1, using the analytical procedures described in Section 4. Results of these
analyses are discussed in this section.
PM Mass, Elemental/Organic Carbon, Major Inorganic Ions, and Major Elements
Emissions of PM mass, elemental/organic carbon (EC/OC), major elements, and major
inorganic ions as components of the fine particulate matter are reported in Table 5-1 both as
weight percent and as mass fraction of measured PM-2.5 mass. Results reported in Table 5-1
show the following:
The PM-2.5 mass emission factor was fairly consistent throughout both test
campaigns with the exception of one day during campaign #2 (7/11/02) for which
the emission factor was nearly 5 times higher than the average of the other 5 test
days. Excluding the single day of markedly higher emissions, the average PM-2.5
mass emission factor was 36.4 mg per kg of fuel (0.81 |ig/kJ) with a range of 26.9
to 42.7 mg/kg (0.60 - 0.96 |ig/kJ). The single day of substantially higher PM-2.5
emissions gave an emission factor of 178.0 mg per kg of fuel (3.99 |ig/kJ). No
unusual event on that day was identified to explain the higher PM-2.5 emissions
for that test. However, during campaign #2 (which occurred in July) the boiler
was operated at very low load where combustion conditions are difficult to
maintain. Under such conditions, erratic behavior in boiler operation and
emissions may occur.
Although the PM-2.5 mass emission factor was fairly consistent for both test
campaigns, the composition of the PM-2.5 was very different for the two
campaigns. Sulfate comprised 45.5 to 58.0% by mass of the PM-2.5 emitted
during campaign #1, but accounted for only 3.5 to 10.8% of the PM-2.5 mass
during campaign #2.
101
-------
Table 5-1. Summary of Oil-Fired Institutional Boiler Results
Campaign #1 (1/01)
Campaign #2 (7/02)
o
to
Parameter
Fuel Feed Rate (kg/min)
Fuel Carborf
(wt %)
Fuel Sulfur1
(wt %)
Flue Gas Composition
Flue Gas O2 (volume %, wet)
Flue Gas CO2 (volume %, wet)
Flue Gas CO (volume %, wet)
Flue Gas O2 (volume %, dry)
Flue Gas CO2 (volume %, dry)
Flue Gas CO (volume %, dry)
Flue Gas N2 (volume %, dry)
Excess Air (%)
Test #1
10.94
85.93
0.09
4.8
16.2
0.03
5.4
18.2
0.034
76.4
36.1
Test #2
11.55
85.93
0.09
5.3
15.7
0.03
6.0
17.6
0.034
76.4
41.4
Test #3
13.21
85.93
0.09
5.5
15.5
0.03
6.2
17.4
0.034
76.4
43.6
Test #1
7.40
86.53
0.05
8.1
11.0
0.0
10.2
12.1
0.0
77.6
97.6
Test #2
7.43
86.53
0.05
9.0
10.7
0.03
10.1
11.8
0.034
78.1
94.4
Test #3
7.43
86.53
0.05
8.9
10.4
0.03
9.1
11.2
0.034
79.7
74.8
PM-2.5 Emission Factor
(mg/kg fuel)
26.86 ±3.44
32.09 ±1.89
39.77 ±0.:
40.36 ±1.27
42.67 ±2.51
178.02 ±2.51
-------
Table 5-1. (Continued)
Mean PM-2.5 Emission Factor (mg/kg fuel) 32.91 ± 5.93
Mean PM-2.5 Emission Factor (mg/kg fuel) 87.02 ± 67.3
PM-2.5 Composition (wt %)
Elemental Carbon 1.8 10.5 34.0
Mean Elemental Carbon 15.4 ± 16.6 wt %
Organic Carbon 0 0.5 0
Mean Organic Carbon 0.17 ± 0.29 wt %
Sulfate 58.0 ±6.1 56.9 ± 5.3 45.5 ± 4.2
MeanSulfate 53.5±7.4wt%
Ammonium NQ NQ NQ
Mean Ammonium NQ
Sulfur 5.2 ±2.2 3.4 ±0.2 8.3 ±6.0
Mean Sulfur 5.6 ±3.6
Silicon NQ NQ NQ
Mean Silicon NQ
PM-2.5 Composition (mass fraction)
5.8 ±1.4 3.1 ±0.7 1.6 ±0.2
Mean Elemental Carbon 4.0 ± 2.2 wt %
43.3 ±5.9 45.7 ±12.0 63.1 ±4.3
Mean Organic Carbon 50.7 ± 10.1 wt %
6.8 ±0.2 10.7 ±0.1 3.5 ±0.0
Mean Sulfate wt %
2.0 ±0.2 2.6 ±0.1 0.46 ±0.0
Mean Ammonium l 7 ± 1 0 wt %
2.7 ±0.2 3.7 ±0.1 1.3 ±0.1
Mean Sulfur 2.6 ± 1.1 wt %
0.89 ±0.10 0.75 ±0.10 0.24 ± 0.00
Mean Silicon 0.63 ± 0.31 wt %
Elemental Carbon 0.018 0.105
Mean Elemental Carbon 0.15 ± 0.17 mass fraction
Organic Carbon 0 0.005
Mean Organic Carbon 0.0017 ± 0.0029 mass fraction
0.34
0.066 0.038 0.017
Mean Elemental Carbon 0.040 ± 0.025 mass fraction
0.433 0.452 0.631
Mean Organic Carbon 0.505 ± 0.109
-------
Table 5-1. (Continued)
PM-2.5 Composition (mass fraction)
Sulfate 0.58 ±0.061 0.569 ±0.053 0.455 ±0.042
Mean Sulfate 0.535 ± 0.069 mass fraction
Ammonium NQ NQ NQ
Mean Ammonium NQ
Sulfur 0.052 ±0.022 0.034 ± 0.002 0.083 ± 0.063
Mean Sulfur 0.056 ± 0.025 mass fraction
Silicon NQ NQ NQ
Mean Silicon NQ
0.068 ±0.002 0.107 ±0.001 0.035 ± 0.000
Mean Sulfate 0.070 ± 0.036 mass fraction
0.02 ±0.002 0.026 ±0.001 0.046 ± 0.000
Mean Ammonium 0.017 ± 0.011 mass fraction
0.027 ±0.002 0.037 ±0.001 0.013 ±0.001
Mean Sulfur 0.026 ± 0.012 mass fraction
0.0089 ±0.0010 0.0075 ± 0.0000 0.0024 ± 0.0000
Mean Silicon 0.0063 ± 0.0034 mass fraction
a Fuel was sampled one time per campaign and the results applied to all the test runs in each of the two campaigns.
NQ = Below quantitation limit.
-------
• Conversely, there was much more carbon in the PM-2.5 emitted during campaign
#2, most of which was organic carbon (43.3 to 63.1% of the PM-2.5 mass). The
organic carbon (OC) content of the fine PM was highest for Test Day #3 of
campaign #2 (7/11/02), for which the PM-2.5 emission factor was also the highest
of all tests.
• Two factors may have contributed to the marked difference in PM composition.
The sulfur content of the fuel oil was 1.8 times higher during the campaign #1 test
series than during the campaign #2 tests (0.09 vs 0.05 wt %, respectively). This
factor could have contributed to a higher sulfate content in the campaign #1 tests.
In the campaign #2 tests, the fuel feed rate averaged 37.6% lower than in the
campaign #1 tests and the excess oxygen levels were much higher (campaign #2 =
15.7 to 20.5%; campaign #1 = 7.6 to 9.2% excess oxygen). During the campaign
#1 tests, the boiler was fired at 37 - 42% of its rated capacity, while during the
campaign #2 tests, the boiler was fired at only 25% capacity. A lower combustion
efficiency associated with the low combustion load during the summertime is
likely responsible for the PM emissions being enriched in organic carbon.
Supporting data for Table 5-1 are found in the following appendices:
• Appendix J, Data Tables for Individual PM-2.5 Mass Measurements, Both
Campaigns;
Appendix K, Data Tables for PM-2.5 Mass Emission Factors, Both Campaigns;
Appendix L, Data Tables for Individual PM-2.5 EC/OC Samples, Both
Campaigns;
• Appendix M, Data Tables for Individual PM-2.5 Elemental Samples, Both
Campaigns; and
Appendix N, Data Tables for Individual PM-2.5 Inorganic Ion Samples, Both
Campaigns.
General Equation for Uncertainty
If a result, R, is calculated from a set of measurements, xl5 x2, ..., xn, it can be expressed
as:
R= R(x},x2,...xJ (5-1)
105
-------
The uncertainty in the calculated result, WR, is given as:
WR =
dR
dR
•w, +...+
(5-2)
where wl3 w2, and w3 are the uncertainties in each of the respective measurements.
Uncertainty in PM Mass Emission Factor Estimation
The three-day average emission factor, Ea, is calculated by:
E =
} + E2 + E3
3
(5-3)
where El3 E2, and E3 are the emission factors for Day-1, Day-2, and Day-3, respectively. Thus,
the uncertainty in ER can be obtained as:
Wu =
w,
^'
8F
l/J-'n
+
-w, I + I -w3
(5-4)
where wl3 w2, w3 are the uncertainties in PM emission factors for Day-1, Day-2, and Day-3,
respectively. In this report the values for uncertainties wl3 w2, and w3 are taken to be the standard
deviations (Sl3 S2, and S3) for the daily emission factor averages.
Uncertainty in PM-2.5 Organic Carbon Concentration
The OC concentration in PM-2.5 is given by:
106
-------
cf-ch- c,
OC = — x 100%
(5-5)
where Cf, Cb, and Cd represent the daily average OC concentrations on the primary (front) quartz
filters (QF), backup QFs, and dilution chamber QF, and CP represents the daily average PM
concentrations on the Teflon filters (TF). These concentrations are obtained by dividing the
sample mass by the volume of flow in the sampling array. The uncertainty in the day-average OC
concentration in the PM is then derived as:
WR =
dC
o/^>
oL
(5-6)
'KV.
[UJ
'W*12+
,cj +
( c - c - c V
1 u/ u* u^ 1
c2 Wp
\ *— p J
where wf, wb, and wp represent the uncertainties in day-average OC concentrations in the front
QF, backup QF, and day-average PM concentration. These uncertainties are taken to be the
standard deviations (Sf, Sb, and Sp) of the respective daily averages. There was no standard
deviation associated with the OC concentration for the dilution air sample because of only one QF
and one TF was used to sample the dilution air each day.
The uncertainty for the three-day average of OC concentration is calculated using the
same equation as for three-day average PM emission factor.
Uncertainty in Gas-Pnase SemiVo/afi/e Organic Species Emission Factors
Uncertainties of three-day averages of emission factors for gas-phase semivolatile organic
species analyzed on the PUF samples were calculated using an equation in the same form as that
for the three-day average PM emission factor (Equation 4).
107
-------
Uncertainty in Particle-Phase Semivolatile Organic Species Emission Factors
Since the QF samples were composited for each day of the first two days, the average and
standard deviation of the first two days was first calculated. The three-day average is then given
by:
E1+2 + E3
(5-7)
where E1+2 is the average emission factor for the first two days. The uncertainty for the three-day
average is calculated as:
1+2
dE,
(5-8)
I '
.3Wj+2;
where w1+2 and w3 are the standard deviations for the first two days and for the third day,
respectively.
108
-------
Uncertainty in PM-2.5 Elemental and Ion Concentrations
Element and inorganic ion concentrations in the PM-2.5 for each test day are reported as
averages of replicate samples taken on each test day. Uncertainties reported for these averages
represent the standard deviation of the replicate sample analyses.
Speciated Gas- and Particle-Phase Organic Compounds
Semivolatile organic compounds were not determined during campaign #1 because the
gas-phase semivolatiles exceeded the collection capacity of the XAD-coated denuders and the
PUF plugs. Sampling for ten hours in an attempt to maximize collection of PM for organic
compound analysis resulted in overloading the denuders and PUF plugs so that an undetermined
quantity of gas-phase material was allowed to escape collection and analysis.
For campaign #2, fine PM samples collected on quartz filters and gas-phase semivolatile
organic compounds collected on PUF plugs and organic denuders were extracted from the
collection media with a solvent system consisting of benzene :hexane:isopropanol (for filter
samples) or dichloromethane:hexane:acetone (for PUFs and denuders) followed by GC/MS
analysis of the extracts. Table 5-2 lists those organic compounds which were positively identified
above detection limits and above the amounts found in the cleaned dilution air in the fine PM, all
of which are relatively high molecular weight hydrocarbons. Compositing the quartz filters was
necessary in order to achieve even the results reported; the compositing scheme for the quartz
filters is presented in the Sample log in Appendix F. All PUF plug pairs were analyzed
individually; none were composited. Emission factors for the gas-phase semivolatiles from the
oil-fired industrial boiler are shown in Table 5-2, together with the calculated uncertainty.
Particle-phase semivolatiles expressed as mass fractions are shown in Table 5-3, and as emission
factors, in Table 5-4.
Most of the speciated and quantified organic carbon associated with the fine PM was
made up of the C16 through C31 w-alkanes (63.8 wt.% of the speciated PM organics). n-
Tetracosane (C24) was the single most prominent w-alkane with the other C16-C31 species in a near-
Gaussian distribution by carbon number around C24. Benzene di- and tri-carboxylic acids
109
-------
comprised the second largest category of organic constituents found in the fine PM (21.4 wt % of
the quantified species). Polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and w-alkanoic acids made up
most of the remaining 14.8% of the quantified and speciated particle phase organic compounds.
The benzene di- and tri-carboxylic acids and chrysene were the only semivolatile organic species
confined to the particle-phase. All of the other semivolatile species were found in both the gas
and particle phases with the predominant amounts in the gas phase. The only two elements in the
PM which were found at levels above method quantitation limits were silicon and sulfur.
Supporting data for the semivolatile organic compounds are found in the following
appendices:
Appendix O, Data Tables for Individual or Composited Particle-Phase (Quartz
Filter) Semivolatile Organic Compound Samples; and
Appendix P, Data Tables for Individual Gas-Phase (PUF) Semivolatile Organic
Compound Samples.
110
-------
Table 5-2. Gas Phase Semivolatiles: Emission Factors from an Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler
(Campaign #2, July 2002)
Compound
dimethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
1 -methy Inaphthalene
2,7-dimethylnaphthalene
1 ,3 -dimethy Inaphthalene
2,6-dimethy Inaphthalene
additional dimethylnaphthalenes
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1 -methy Ifluorene
additional methy Ifluorenes (peak 1)
additional methylfluorenes (peak 2)
phenanthrene
additional dimethylphenanthrenes
anthracene
methylanthracene - peak 1
methylanthracene - peak 2
methylanthracene - peak 3
methylanthracene - peak 4
octylcyclohexane
norpristane
decylcyclohexane
pristane
phytane
tridecylcyclohexane
Emission Factor
(mg/kg fuel)
0.000
0.076
0.667
3.688
2.526
3.499
2.561
3.715
2.559
0.047
0.066
0.516
0.857
0.960
0.274
1.258
0.127
0.127
1.188
1.702
0.843
0.672
0.043
3.219
0.338
2.986
2.163
0.040
Uncertainty
(mg/kg fuel)
0.000
0.031
0.167
0.846
0.530
0.514
0.580
0.576
0.466
0.013
0.086
0.114
0.281
0.326
0.096
0.263
0.061
0.253
0.473
0.431
0.222
0.156
0.036
1.593
0.050
1.204
1.314
0.070
111
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Emission Factor Uncertainty
Compound (mg/kg fuel) (mg/kg fuel)
dibutyl phthalate 0.140 0.070
butyl benzyl phthalate 0.078 0.078
6/X2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.063 0.034
dioctyl phthalate 0.074 ND
fluoranthene 0.065 0.041
pyrene 0.058 0.041
chrysene 0.002 0.002
benzo [a] anthracene ND ND
benzo[k]fluoranthene ND ND
benzo[b]fluoranthene
benzo [a]pyrene
nonadecylcyclohexane 0.002 0.003
squalane
indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
benzo[ghi]perylene
coronene
cholestane - peak 1
cholestane - peak 2
cholestane - peak 3
cholestane - peak 4
ABB-2OR-24S-methylcholestane
ABB-2OR-ethylcholestane
17A(H)-22,29,30-/ra(norhopane)
17(B)-21 A(H)-norhopane
17B(H)-21B(H)-hopane
17B(H)-21 A(H)-hopane
17A(H)-21B(H)-hopane
112
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Compound
w-decane (w-CIO)
w-undecane (w-Cll)
w-dodecane («-C12)
n-tridecane (w-C13)
9H-fluoren-9-one
w-tetradecane (w-C14)
n-pentadecane (»-C15)
w-hexadecane (w-C16)
w-heptadecane (w-C17)
1-octadecene
w-octadecane (w-C18)
2-methylnonadecane
3 -methy Inonadecane
w-nonadecane (w-C19)
w-eicosane («-C20)
w-heneicosane (w-C21)
w-docosane (w-C22)
w-tricosane (w-C23)
/5o-docosane (C22)
awte/5o-docosane (C22)
pyrene
anthraquinone
naphthalic anhydride
methylfluoranthene
retene
cyclopenta[c,d]acepyrene
benzanthraquinone
1 -methy Ichrysene
Emission Factor
(mg/kg fuel)
0.014
0.855
0.686
0.127
2.405
6.089
8.948
7.787
0.002
4.242
0.000
0.000
3.331
2.965
2.424
2.034
1.959
0.080
Uncertainty
(mg/kg fuel)
0.011
0.130
0.054
0.028
0.539
1.963
2.201
2.854
0.003
2.384
0.000
0.000
2.032
1.603
1.084
0.689
0.504
0.010
113
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Emission Factor Uncertainty
Compound (mg/kg fuel) (mg/kg fuel)
w-tetracosane (w-C24 0.926 0.231
/5o-tricosane (C23)
anteiso-tricosane (C23)
n-pentacosane (w-C25) 0.501 0.178
/5o-tetracosane (C24)
awtewo-tetracosane (C24)
n-hexacosane (w-C26) 0.405 0.154
/5o-pentacosane (C25)
awtewo-pentacosane (C25)
n-heptacosane («-C27) 0.506 0.228
/5o-hexacosane (C26)
awfe/'so-hexacosane (C26)
/5o-heptacosane (C27)
awte/5o-heptacosane (C27)
/5o-octacosane (C28)
awtewo-octacosane (C28)
w-octacosane (w-C28) 0.609 0.303
w-nonacosane (w-C29) 0.483 0.238
/5o-nonacosane (C29)
awfe/'so-nonacosane (C29)
squalene 0.273 0.382
indeno [ 1,2,3 -cd]fluoranthene
dibenzo [a,e]pyrene
w-triacontane (w-C30) 1.641 0.823
w-hentriacontane(w-C31) 1.317 0.806
/5o-triacontane (C30)
awte/5o-triacontane (C30)
/5-o-hentriacontane (C31)
114
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Emission Factor Uncertainty
Compound (mg/kg fuel) (mg/kg fuel)
awte/5o-hentriacontane (C31)
/'so-dotriacontane (C32)
awtewo-dotriacontane (C32)
n-dotriacontane («-C32) 0.693 0.249
w-tritriacontaine («-C33) 0.438 0.212
w-tetratriacontaine (w-C34) 0.522 0.263
/5o-tritriacontane (C33)
awte/5o-tritriacontane (C33)
w-pentatriacontane («-C35)
n-hexatracontane (w-C36) 0.649 0.223
w-tetracontane (w-C40) 0.145 0.099
hexanoic acid 0.482 0.097
succinic acid 0.040 0.007
octanoic acid 0.522 0.096
glutaricacid 0.012 0.009
nonanoic acid 0.884 0.272
adipic acid 0.002 0.004
decanoicacid 0.412 0.061
undecanoic acid 0.544 0.148
pimelic acid
suberic acid
dodecanoic acid 0.366 0.127
azelaic acid 0.036 0.062
tridecanoic acid
pinonic acid
phthalic acid
1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid
1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid
115
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Compound
Emission Factor
(mg/kg fuel)
Uncertainty
(mg/kg fuel)
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 4-methyl
1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid
benzenetetracarboxylic acid
abietic acid
pimaric acid
sandaracopimaric acid
isopimaric acid
dehydroabietic acid
sebacic acid
tetradecanoic acid
pentadecanoic acid
palmitoleic acid
hexadecanoic acid
heptadecanoic acid
linoleic acid
oleic acid
linolenic acid
octadecanoic acid
nonadecanoic acid
eicosanoic acid
docosanoic acid
tricosanoic acid
tetracosanoic acid
pentacosanoic acid
hexacosanoic acid
heptacosanoic acid
octacosanoic acid
nonacosanoic acid
0.366
0.239
0.151
0.985
0.068
0.030
0.070
0.000
0.525
0.021
0.021
0.054
0.251
0.169
0.238
0.636
0.035
0.018
0.103
0.000
0.226
0.008
0.011
0.027
116
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Emission Factor Uncertainty
Compound (mg/kg fuel) (mg/kg fuel)
triacontanoic acid
Total 96.03 27.76
117
-------
Table 5-3. Particle-Phase Semivolatiles from an Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler: Mass
Fractions (Campaign #2, July 2002)
Compound
additional dimethylnaphthalenes
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1 -methy Ifluorene
additional methyIfluorenes (peak 1)
additional methy Ifluorenes (peak 2)
phenanthrene
additional dimethylphenanthrenes
anthracene
methylanthracene - peak 1
methylanthracene - peak 2
methylanthracene - peak 3
methylanthracene - peak 4
octylcyclohexane
norpristane
decylcyclohexane
pristane
Summer Campaign
Average
Mass Fraction
0.00385
0.01509
0.01376
0.03651
0.04635
0.02841
0.02411
Uncertainty
dimethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
naphthalene
2-methy Inaphthalene
1 -methy Inaphthalene
2,7-dimethy Inaphthalene
1 ,3 -dimethy Inaphthalene
2,6-dimethy Inaphthalene
ND
0.00234
ND
0.00128
0.00064
0.00146
0.00290
0.00140
ND
0.00082
ND
0.00082
0.00036
0.00094
0.00162
0.00088
0.00069
0.00190
0.00112
0.00498
0.00635
0.00354
0.00339
0.00702
0.00132
118
-------
Table 5-3. (Continued)
Compound
Average
Mass Fraction
Uncertainty
phytane
tridecylcyclohexane
dibutyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
6/X2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
dioctyl phthalate
fluoranthene
pyrene
chrysene
benzo [a] anthracene
benzo[k]fluoranthene
benzo[b]fluoranthene
benzo [a]pyrene
nonadecylcyclohexane
squalane
indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
benzo [ghijperylene
coronene
cholestane - peak 1
cholestane - peak 2
cholestane - peak 3
cholestane - peak 4
ABB-2OR-24S-methylcholestane
ABB-2OR-ethylcholestane
17A(H)-22,29,30-/r/Xnorhopane)
17(B)-21 A(H)-norhopane
0.02373
0.01745
0.00848
0.01038
0.04065
0.00191
0.03512
0.00881
0.00490
0.00187
0.00876
0.00887
0.03904
0.00130
0.00358
0.00095
119
-------
Table 5-3. (Continued)
Compound
Average
Mass Fraction
Uncertainty
17B(H)-21B(H)-hopane
17B(H)-21A(H)-hopane
17A(H)-2 lB(H)-hopane
n-decane (w-CIO)
w-undecane (w-Cll)
w-dodecane («-C12)
n-tridecane (w-C13)
9H-fluoren-9-one
w-tetradecane (w-C14)
n-pentadecane (»-C15)
w-hexadecane (w-C16)
w-heptadecane (w-C17)
1-octadecene
w-octadecane (w-C18)
2-methylnonadecane
3 -methy Inonadecane
w-nonadecane (w-C19)
w-eicosane (n-C20)
w-heneicosane (w-C21)
n-docosane (w-C22)
w-tricosane (w-C23)
/5o-docosane (C23)
awte/5o-docosane (C23)
pyrene
anthraquinone
naphthalic anhydride
methy Ifluoranthene
0.00052
0.00069
0.00004
0.00436
0.01469
0.02085
0.05049
0.15462
0.16568
0.20432
0.25152
0.00066
0.00138
0.00008
0.00124
0.00412
0.00564
0.00901
0.04156
0.04720
0.04845
0.03866
0.08036
0.00869
120
-------
Table 5-3. (Continued)
Compound
Average
Mass Fraction
Uncertainty
benzanthraquinone
1 -methy Ichry sene
w-tetracosane («-C24
/5o-tricosane (C24)
anteiso-tiicosane (C24)
w-pentacosane («-C25)
/5o-tetracosane (C25)
awte/5o-tetracosane (C25)
w-hexacosane (w-C26)
/5o-pentacosane (C26)
awte/5o-pentacosane (C26)
w-heptacosane (n-C27)
/5o-hexacosane (C27)
awte/5o-hexacosane (C27)
/5o-heptacosane (C28)
awtewo-heptacosane (C28)
/5o-octacosane (C29)
awte/5o-octacosane (C29)
w-octacosane (w-C28)
n-nonacosane (w-C29)
/5o-nonacosane (C30)
awtewo-nonacosane (C30)
squalene
indeno [ 1,2,3 -cd]fluoranthene
dibenzo [a,e]pyrene
n-triacontane («-C30)
w-hentriacontane (w-C31)
0.41407
0.22033
0.18047
0.13140
0.10031
0.06173
0.09177
0.00135
0.00142
0.03666
0.01569
0.01074
0.00846
0.00794
0.00555
0.03406
0.00097
0.00160
121
-------
Table 5-3. (Continued)
Compound
/'so-triacontane (C31)
awfe/'so-triacontane (C31)
/5o-hentriacontane (C32)
awfe/so-hentriacontane (C32)
/5o-dotriacontane (C33)
awtewo-dotriacontane (C33)
n-dotriacontane (w-C32)
w-tritriacontaine (w-C33)
w-tetratriacontaine (w-C34)
/5o-tritriacontane (C34)
awte/5o-tritriacontane (C34)
w-pentatriacontane («-C35)
n-hexatracontane (w-C36)
w-tetracontane (w-C40)
hexanoic acid
succinic acid
octanoic acid
glutaric acid
nonanoic acid
adipic acid
decanoic acid
undecanoic acid
pimelic acid
suberic acid
dodecanoic acid
azelaic acid
tridecanoic acid
pinonic acid
Average
Mass Fraction
0.00041
0.00064
0.00093
0.00351
0.01805
0.00416
0.01289
0.00578
0.00943
0.00422
0.00803
0.00798
0.00859
0.00674
0.00437
0.01795
Uncertainty
(%)
0.00064
0.00036
0.00043
0.00054
0.00188
0.00051
0.00355
0.00027
0.00520
0.00213
0.00439
0.00083
0.00158
0.00389
0.00093
0.02539
122
-------
Table 5-3. (Continued)
Compound
Average
Mass Fraction
Uncertainty
phthalic acid
1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid
1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 4-methyl
1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid
benzenetetracarboxylic acid
abietic acid
pimaric acid
sandaracopimaric acid
isopimaric acid
dehydroabietic acid
sebacic acid
tetradecanoic acid
pentadecanoic acid
palmitoleic acid
hexadecanoic acid
heptadecanoic acid
linoleic acid
oleic acid
linolenic acid
octadecanoic acid
nonadecanoic acid
eicosanoic acid
docosanoic acid
tricosanoic acid
tetracosanoic acid
pentacosanoic acid
hexacosanoic acid
0.00079
0.04304
0.07511
0.43862
0.11274
0.08921
0.00331
0.00311
0.00267
0.00112
0.00223
0.00351
0.02279
0.01355
0.00879
0.01823
0.13150
0.01520
0.01516
0.00550
0.00743
0.01804
0.05328
0.00328
0.00417
0.00071
0.01976
0.00076
0.00073
0.00203
123
-------
Table 5-3. (Continued)
Compound
Average
Mass Fraction
Uncertainty
heptacosanoic acid
octacosanoic acid
nonacosanoic acid
triacontanoic acid
Total
3.56
0.34
124
-------
Table 5-4. Particle-Phase Semivolatiles from an Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler: Emission
Factors (Campaign #2, July 2002)
Compound
Emission Factor
(jig/kg fuel)
Uncertainty
(jig/kg fuel)
dimethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
1 -methy Inaphthalene
2,7-dimethylnaphthalene
1,3 -dimethy Inaphthalene
2,6-dimethy Inaphthalene
additional dimethylnaphthalenes
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1-methy Ifluorene
additional methylfluorenes (peak 1)
additional methylfluorenes (peak 2)
phenanthrene
additional dimethylphenanthrenes
anthracene
methylanthracene - peak 1
methylanthracene - peak 2
methylanthracene - peak 3
methylanthracene - peak 4
octylcyclohexane
norpristane
decylcyclohexane
pristane
phytane
3.10
0.69
0.36
0.79
1.57
0.76
4.34
14.69
16.01
41.41
52.29
32.39
27.32
7.82
26.02
0.90
0.52
0.61
1.08
0.57
0.81
1.81
1.25
5.21
5.99
3.75
3.60
1.39
4.69
125
-------
Table 5-4. (Continued)
Emission Factor Uncertainty
Compound (ng/kg fuel) (ng/kg fuel)
tridecylcyclohexane 9.66
dibutyl phthalate 13.42 9.71
butyl benzyl phthalate 15.83 9.59
6/X2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 30.13 35.33
dioctyl phthalate
fluoranthene 1.89 1.64
pyrene 37.83 4.26
chrysene 7.90 0.39
benzo [a] anthracene
benzo[k]fluoranthene
benzo[b]fluoranthene
benzo [a]pyrene
nonadecylcyclohexane
squalane
indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
benzo[ghi]perylene
coronene
cholestane - peak 1
cholestane - peak 2
cholestane - peak 3
cholestane - peak 4
ABB-2OR-24S-methylcholestane
ABB-2OR-ethylcholestane
17A(H)-22,29,30-/r/Xnorhopane)
17(B)-21 A(H)-norhopane
17B(H)-21B(H)-hopane
17B(H)-21A(H)-hopane
126
-------
Table 5-4. (Continued)
Compound
17A(H)-2 lB(H)-hopane
w-decane (w-CIO)
w-undecane (w-Cll)
n-dodecane (»-C12)
w-tridecane (w-C13)
9H-fluoren-9-one
n-tetradecane (n-C14)
w-pentadecane («-C15)
w-hexadecane (w-C16)
n-heptadecane (n-C17)
1-octadecene
w-octadecane (w-C18)
2-methylnonadecane
3 -methy Inonadecane
w-nonadecane (w-C19)
w-eicosane (w-C20)
w-heneicosane (w-C21)
w-docosane (n-C22)
w-tricosane (w-C23)
/5o-docosane (C23)
awfe/'so-docosane (C23)
pyrene
anthraquinone
naphthalic anhydride
methy Ifluoranthene
retene
cyclopenta[c,d]acepyrene
benzanthraquinone
Emission Factor
(jig/kg fuel)
0.27
1.09
0.07
4.28
15.52
21.94
46.48
168.23
182.46
225.50
283.78
72.43
Uncertainty
(jig/kg fuel)
0.47
1.89
0.11
1.47
4.84
6.64
9.19
50.85
58.66
55.96
41.33
11.82
127
-------
Table 5-4. (Continued)
Compound
Emission Factor
(Hg/kg fuel)
Uncertainty
(Hg/kg fuel)
1-methylchrysene
w-tetracosane (»-C24
/5o-tricosane (C24)
anteiso-tricosane (C24)
w-pentacosane (»-C25)
/5o-tetracosane (C25)
awte/5o-tetracosane (C25)
w-hexacosane (w-C26)
/5o-pentacosane (C26)
awte/5o-pentacosane (C26)
w-heptacosane (w-C27)
/5o-hexacosane (C27)
awte/5o-hexacosane (C27)
/5o-heptacosane (C28)
awte/5o-heptacosane (C28)
/5o-octacosane (C29)
awte/5o-octacosane (C29)
w-octacosane (w-C28)
w-nonacosane (w-C29)
/5o-nonacosane (C30)
awfe/'so-nonacosane (C30)
squalene
indeno [ 1,2,3 -cd]fluoranthene
dibenzo [a,e]pyrene
w-triacontane («-C30)
n-hentriacontane (w-C31)
/5o-triacontane (C31)
awfe/'so-triacontane (C31)
403.25
209.06
160.30
105.60
81.32
41.14
73.59
1.58
1.56
40.02
16.78
11.33
40.25
1.15
1.90
128
-------
Table 5-4. (Continued)
Compound
/'so-hentriacontane (C32)
awfe/'so-hentriacontane (C32)
/5o-dotriacontane (C33)
awte/5o-dotriacontane (C33)
w-dotriacontane (w-C32)
w-tritriacontaine (w-C33)
n-tetratriacontaine (w-C34)
/'so-tritriacontane (C34)
awtewo-tritriacontane (C34)
n-pentatriacontane («-C35)
w-hexatracontane (w-C36)
w-tetracontane (n-C40)
hexanoic acid
succinic acid
octanoic acid
glutaric acid
nonanoic acid
adipic acid
decanoic acid
undecanoic acid
pimelic acid
suberic acid
dodecanoic acid
azelaic acid
tridecanoic acid
pinonic acid
phthalic acid
1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid
Emission Factor
(jig/kg fuel)
0.65
0.36
0.51
4.16
21.42
4.94
15.30
6.86
11.19
5.01
9.53
7.60
8.47
8.00
2.42
21.30
0.94
36.74
Uncertainty
(jig/kg fuel)
0.76
0.63
2.12
0.58
4.19
0.23
6.16
2.53
5.20
0.32
1.65
4.61
30.13
1.33
0.22
129
-------
Table 5-4. (Continued)
Compound
Emission Factor
(Hg/kg fuel)
Uncertainty
(Hg/kg fuel)
1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 4-methyl
1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid
benzenetetracarboxylic acid
abietic acid
pimaric acid
sandaracopimaric acid
isopimaric acid
dehydroabietic acid
sebacic acid
tetradecanoic acid
pentadecanoic acid
palmitoleic acid
hexadecanoic acid
heptadecanoic acid
linoleic acid
oleic acid
linolenic acid
octadecanoic acid
nonadecanoic acid
eicosanoic acid
docosanoic acid
tricosanoic acid
tetracosanoic acid
pentacosanoic acid
hexacosanoic acid
heptacosanoic acid
octacosanoic acid
64.33
437.83
115.71
10.43
21.64
156.06
18.04
17.99
6.53
101.47
3.93
2.81
3.16
2.12
23.28
15.47
8.81
21.40
63.02
3.84
4.91
0.81
23.19
0.89
0.60
2.40
130
-------
Table 5-4. (Continued)
Compound
Emission Factor
(Hg/kg fuel)
Uncertainty
(Hg/kg fuel)
nonacosanoic acid
triacontanoic acid
Total
3058.78
481.44
Gas-Phase Carbonyl Compounds
Analytical results for the carbonyl field samples for each of the three test days of
campaign #1 are shown in Table 5-5 (A, B, C). The DNPH-impregnated silica gel tubes were
sampled as pairs (in series), using the back tube of each pair as a check for breakthrough. Final
values are reported as the difference between the sum of the paired tubes sampling the residence
chamber and the sum of the paired tubes sampling the Dilution Air. At the bottom of each table,
the entry reported as "Total Speciated" is the total mass (front tube plus back tube) of the sum of
the specifically identified compounds; the final value represents the difference between the
131
-------
Table 5-5A. Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (Campaign #1, January 16, 2001)
Compound
formaldehyde
acetaldehyde
acetone
propionaldehyde
crotonaldehyde
butyraldehyde
benzaldehyde
isovaleraldehyde
valeraldehyde
o-tolualdehyde
/M-tolualdehyde
/>-tolualdehyde
hexaldehyde
2,5-dimethylbenz-
aldehyde
diacetyl
methacrolein
2-butanone
glyoxal
acetophenone
methylglyoxal
octanal
nonanal
Total Speciated
CAS No.
50-00-0
75-07-0
67-64-1
123-38-6
4170-30-0
123-72-8
100-52-7
590-86-3
110-62-3
529-20-4
620-23-5
104-87-0
66-25-1
5779.94-2
431-03-8
78-85-3
78-93-3
107-22-2
98-86-2
78-98-8
124-13-0
124-19-6
Residence
Chamber Pair
(Jig)
0.6150
0.3575
0.3585
ND
ND
0.0560
0.0450
0.0090
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0560
ND
ND
ND
0.0720
0.2730
0.0060
0.0880
0.0140
0.2100
Dilution
Air
(^g)
0.0745
0.1980
0.2260
ND
ND
0.0470
0.0200
ND
0.0015
0.0120
0.0015
ND
0.0560
ND
ND
ND
0.0640
0.1990
ND
0.0700
0.0250
0.2430
2.1600
Residence
Chamber
Minus
Dilution Air
fog)
0.5405 ± 0.06
0.1595 ±0.00b
0.1325 ±0.01
ND
ND
0.0090 ± 0.00
0.0250 ± 0.00
0.0090 ±0.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0080 ± 0.00
0.0740 ± 0.00
0.0060
0.0180 ±0.00
ND
ND
1.2375
% Total3
34.06 ±3.75
10.05 ±0.11
8.35 ±0.35
ND
ND
0.57 ±0.03
1.58 ±0.05
0.57 ±0.08
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.50 ±0.04
4.66 ±0.13
0.38 ±0.02
1.13±0.14
ND
ND
0.9225
132
-------
Table 5-5A. (Continued)
Compound CAS No.
Total Unspeciated
Total Speciated + Unspeciated
Mass emission rate of Speciated Carbonyls
Mass emission rate of Total Carbonyls (Speciated
(1/16/01)
Residence
Chamber Dilution
Pair Air
1.5375 0.8730
3.6975 2.1105
+ Unspeciated)
Residence
Chamber
Minus
Dilution Air
Gig)
0.6645
1.5870
0.84 mg/kg
fuel
1.42 mg/kg
fuel
ND = Not Detected
"Percent of each compound expressed as a percentage of Total Speciated + Unspeciated Carbonyl Compounds.
bCalculated value for analytical uncertainty is less than 0.01.
133
-------
Table 5-5B. Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (Campaign #1, January 17, 2001)
Compound CAS No.
formaldehyde 50-00-0
acetaldehyde 75-07-0
acetone 67-64-1
propionaldehyde 123-38-6
crotonaldehyde 4170-30-0
butyraldehyde 123-72-8
benzaldehyde 100-52-7
isovaleraldehyde 590-86-3
valeraldehyde 110-62-3
o-tolualdehyde 529-20-4
w-tolualdehyde 620-23-5
^-tolualdehyde 104-87-0
hexaldehyde 66-25-1
2,5-dimethylbenz- 5779-94-2
aldehyde
diacetyl 431-03-8
methacrolein 78-85-3
2-butanone 78-93-3
glyoxal 107-22-2
acetophenone 98-86-2
methylglyoxal 78-98-8
octanal 124-13-0
nonanal 124-19-6
Total Speciated
Total Unspeciated
Total Speciated + Unspeciated
Residence
Chamber
Pair
dig)
0.2870
0.2385
0.4085
ND
ND
0.0645
0.0330
ND
0.0045
ND
ND
ND
0.0585
ND
ND
ND
0.0640
0.2370
ND
0.0840
0.0220
0.1550
Dilution
Air
(ng)
0.0890
0.1790
0.2380
0.0005
ND
0.0485
0.0150
ND
0.0015
0.0120
0.0015
ND
0.0450
ND
ND
ND
0.0560
0.1720
ND
0.0590
0.0070
0.1430
1.6565
1.0515
2.7080
Residence
Chamber Minus
Dilution Air
(ng)
0.1980 ±0.02
0.0595 ± 0.00b
0.1705 ±0.007
ND
ND
0.0160 ±0.00
0.0180 ±0.00
ND
0.0045 ± 0.00
ND
ND
ND
0.0135 ±0.00
ND
ND
ND
0.0080 ± 0.00
0.0650 ± 0.00
ND
0.0250 ± 0.00
0.0150 ±0.00
0.0120 ±0.00
1.0520
0.730
1.7825
Mass emission rate of Speciated Carbonyls
Mass emission rate of Total Carbonyls
(Speciated +
Unspeciated)
% Total3
21. 39 ±2.36
6.429 ± 0.07
18.42 ±0.78
ND
ND
1.73 ±0.10
1.94 ±0.06
ND
0.49 ±0.05
ND
ND
ND
1.46 ±0.14
ND
ND
ND
0.86 ±0.07
7.02 ±0.19
ND
2.70 ±0.33
1.62 ±0.00
1.30 ±0.10
0.6045
0.3210
0.9255
0.56 mg/kgfuel
0.86mg/kgfuel
ND = Not Detected
Tercent of each compound expressed as a percentage of Total Speciated + Unspeciated Carbonyl Compounds.
bCalculated value for analytical uncertainty is less than 0.01.
134
-------
Table 5-5C. Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (Campaign #1, January 18, 2001)
Residence
Chamber Minus
Compound
formaldehyde
acetaldehyde
acetone
propionaldehyde
crotonaldehyde
butyraldehyde
benzaldehyde
isovaleraldehyde
valeraldehyde
o-tolualdehyde
/M-tolualdehyde
/>-tolualdehyde
hexaldehyde
2,5-dimethylbenz-
aldehyde
diacetyl
2-butanone
glyoxal
acetophenone
methylglyoxal
octanal
nonanal
CAS No.
50-00-0
75-07-0
67-64-1
123-38-6
4170-30-0
123-72-8
100-52-7
590-86-3
110-62-3
529-20-4
620-23-5
104-87-0
66-25-1
5779-94-2
431-03-8
78-93-3
107-22-2
98-86-2
78-98-8
124-13-0
124-19-6
Residence
Chamber
Pair
Oig)
0.2155
0.2885
0.2230
ND
ND
0.0865
0.0130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0515
ND
ND
0.0630
0.2890
ND
0.0700
0.0060
0.1120
Dilution
Air
(^g)
0.1140
0.2390
0.1910
0.0005
ND
0.0590
0.0200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0545
ND
ND
0.0590
0.2100
ND
0.0650
0.0090
0.1320
Dilution Air
(± Analytical
Uncertainty
(^g)
0.1015 ±0.01
0.0495 ± 0.00b
0.0320 ±0.00
ND
ND
0.0275 ± 0.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0040 ± 0.00
0.0790 ± 0.00
ND
0.0050 ± 0.00
ND
ND
% Total3
(± Analytical
Uncertainty
14.43 ±1.59
7.04 ± 0.08
4.55 ±0.19
ND
ND
3. 91 ±0.23
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.57 ±0.05
11.23 ±0.31
ND
0.71 ±0.09
ND
ND
135
-------
Table 5-5C. (Continued)
Compound CAS No.
Total Speciated
Total Unspeciated
Total Speciated + Unspeciated
Mass emission rate of Speciated Carbonyls
Mass emission rate of Total Carbonyls (Speciated
Residence
Chamber
Pair
(ng)
1.4180
1.4795
2.8975
+ Unspeciated)
Dilution
Air
(ng)
1.1540
1.0400
2.1940
Residence
Chamber
Minus
Dilution Air
(± Analytical
Uncertainty
(ng)
0.2640
0.4395
0.7035
0.23 mg/kg fuel
0.56 mg/kg fuel
a Percent of each compound expressed as a percentage of Total Speciated + Unspeciated Carbonyl Compounds.
b Calculated value for analytical uncertainty is less than 0.01.
residence chamber air and dilution air. At the bottom of each table, the entry reported as "Total
Unspeciated" is the total mass (front plus back tube) of the compounds characterized as carbonyl
compounds but not identified as a specific compound because no analytical standard was
available; the final value represents the difference between residence chamber air and dilution air.
The entry reported as "Total Speciated + Unspeciated" includes the total mass (front tube plus
back tube) of specifically identified carbonyl compounds as well as unspeciated carbonyl
compounds; the final value represents the difference between residence chamber air and dilution
air.
Supporting data showing results for each individual carbonyl sampling tube (blanks, front and
back tubes) are included in Appendix I.
The total mass of the carbonyl compounds (Speciated, Unspeciated, and (Speciated +
Unspeciated) for each test day is summarized in Table 5-6. The speciated carbonyl compounds
decrease with each successive test day, as do the total (Speciated + Unspeciated) carbonyl
compounds. The unspeciated carbonyl compounds decrease from Day #1 to Day #2, but increase
from Day #2 to Day #3. This behavior says that one or more unidentified carbonyl compounds
increase in concentration from Day #2 to Day #3, while the speciated (i.e., identified) carbonyl
136
-------
compounds decrease in concentration. Fuel consumption increases over the three test days as
both
137
-------
Table 5-6. Total Mass of Carbonyl Compounds for Each Campaign #1 Test Day
Test Day
January 16,2001
Emission Rate
January 17, 2001
Emission Rate
January 18, 2001
Emission Rate
Fuel
Consumption
(kg)
6,569
6,934
7,926
Speciated Unspeciated
0.9225 ng 0.6645 \ig
0.84 mg/kg fuel
0.6045 ng 0.3210 \ig
0.56 mg/kg fuel
0.2640 ng 0.4395 \ig
0.23 mg/kg fuel
Speciated +
Unspeciated
1.5870 ng
1.42 mg/kg fuel
0.9255 ng
0.86 mg/kg fuel
0.7035 ng
0.56 mg/kg fuel
speciated and total (Speciated + Unspeciated) carbonyl compounds are decreasing. Emission
rates also show a decline over the three test days, even with increased consumption of fuel.
Gas-Phase Air Toxics Whole Air Samples
Air toxics values were determined only for campaign #1. Analytical results for the air
toxics canister samples are shown in Table 5-7. The ERG concurrent analysis produces analytical
results for both air toxics and nonmethane organic compound ozone precursors; the NMOC
results are presented separately. Table 5-7 shows only the air toxics compounds that were
observed, with the ambient sample analytical data included for reference. By comparison with
the ambient air sample, the concentrations of the air toxics compounds are seen to be very low,
with most of the compounds on the air toxics target list not observed in the field samples at
measurable levels. No consistent trends for the three test days are evident for these compounds.
Samples labeled "Dilution Air (DA)" reflect the dilution air entering the sample dilution system;
this dilution air has not been exposed to the stationary source matrix. The second canister for
each test day is labeled "Residence Chamber Air" and reflects the diluted stationary source matrix
at the end of the residence chamber (RC).
Supporting data for the air toxics analysis are shown in Appendix H.
138
-------
Table 5-7. Air Toxics Compounds (Campaign #1)
Compounds
acetylene
propylene
dichlorodifluoromethane
chloromethane
dichlorotetrafluoroethane
1,3 -butadiene
trichlorofluoromethane
methylene chloride
trichlorotrifluoroethane
methyl tert-butyl ether
methyl ethyl ketone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
toluene
w-octane
styrene
o-xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -trimethy Ibenzene
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
/>-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
CAS No.
74-86-2
115-07-1
75-71-8
74-87-3
1320-37-2
106-99-0
75-69-4
75-09-2
26253-64-8
1634-04-1
78-93-3
71-43-2
56-23-5
108-88-3
111-65-9
100-42-5
95-47-6
108-67-8
95-63-6
106-46-7
120-82-1
Ambient
1.52
2.20
2.45
0.98
0.13
0.16
1.56
0.42
0.65
0.15
12.31
1.29
0.53
2.11
0.22
0.11
0.86
0.31
0.88
0.10
0.28
RC-DA
1/16/01
Hg/m3
ND
0.08
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.05
0.11
ND
ND
ND
0.19
ND
0.08
0.18
ND
ND
0.03
0.18
ND
ND
RC-DA
1/17/01
1.27
0.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
ND
ND
ND
0.33
0.05
0.05
ND
ND
0.04
0.13
0.33
ND
ND
RC-DA
1/18/01
ND
ND
ND
0.12
ND
ND
ND
0.16
ND
ND
ND
0.05
ND
0.05
ND
ND
ND
0.15
0.11
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected
Gas-Phase Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Nonmethane organic compounds were determined only for campaign #1. Analysis of
whole air samples of dilution air and residence chamber air using ERG's concurrent analysis
generated analytical data for speciated nonmethane organic compounds (SNMOC), shown in
Tables 5-8 (A, B, C). Analytical results are calculated as the difference between the weight of the
compound collected from the residence chamber minus the weight of the compound collected
from the dilution air, expressed as micrograms (|J-g). The weight percent of total SNMOC
(Speciated + Unspeciated) is also calculated. Mass emission rates of speciated SNMOC and total
(Speciated + Unspeciated) nonmethane organic compounds are also shown in Table 5-9.
Supporting data for the NMOC analysis are found in Appendix G. Samples labeled "Dilution
Air" reflect the dilution air entering the sample dilution system; this dilution air has not been
exposed to the stationary source matrix. The second canister for each test day is labeled
"Residence Chamber Air" and reflects the diluted stationary source matrix at the end of the
residence chamber. The general profiles of the collected concentrations of analytes do not
139
-------
Table 5-8A. SNMOC (Campaign #1, January 16, 2001)
Compound
ethylene
acetylene
ethane
propylene
propane
propyne
isobutane
isobutene/ 1 -butene
1,3 -butadiene
n-butane
/raws-2-butene
c/s-2-butene
3 -methyl- 1 -butene
isopentane
1-pentene
2-methyl-l-butene
w-pentane
isoprene
/raws-2-pentene
c/s-2-pentene
2-methyl-2-butene
2,2-dimethylbutane
cyclopentene
4-methyl-l-pentene
cyclopentane
2,3 -dimethylbutane
2-methylpentane
3-methylpentane
CAS No.
4-84-0
74-86-2
74-85-1
115-07-1
74-98-6
74-99-7
75-28-5
115-11-7/106-98-0
106-99-0
106-97-8
624-64-6
590-18-1
563-45-1
78-78-4
109-67-1
563-46-2
109-66-0
78-79-4
646-04-8
627-20-3
513-35-9
75-83-2
142-29-0
691-37-2
287-92-3
79-29-8
107-83-5
96-14-0
Residence Chamber
minus Dilution Air ([j,g)
652.00 ±13.02
9.34 ±12.01
136.89 ±10.90
8. 14 ±6.90
18751.70 ±12.24
ND
511.43 ±6.23
48.81 ±4.00
31.20 ±5.90
275.28 ± 11.24
1.45 ±7.23
6.65 ±10.79
ND
191.81 ±16.13
21.81 ±9.01
ND
71.29 ±11.24
ND
11.63 ±9.12
22.03 ± 13.46
ND
38.63 ± 16.46
6.42 ±15.57
ND
26.90 ±7.68
ND
54.24 ± 8.79
80.69 ± 16.80
%Total
2.65 ±0.05
0.04 ± 0.05
0.56 ±0.04
0.03 ±0.03
76.36 ±0.05
ND
2.08 ±0.03
0.20 ± 0.02
0.13 ±0.02
1.12 ±0.05
0.01 ±0.03
0.03 ±0.04
ND
0.78 ±0.07
0.09 ±0.04
ND
0.29 ±0.05
ND
0.05 ± 0.04
0.09 ±0.05
ND
0.16 ±0.07
0.03 ± 0.06
ND
0.11 ±0.03
ND
0.22 ± 0.04
0.33 ±0.07
140
-------
Table 5-8A. (Continued)
Compound
2-methyl-l-pentene
1-hexene
2-ethyl-l-butene
n-hexane
/raws-2-hexene
c/s-2-hexene
methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
benzene
cyclohexane
2-methylhexane
2,3 -dimethylpentane
3 -methy Ihexane
1-heptene
2,2,4-trimethylpentane
w-heptane
methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-trimethylpentane
toluene
2-methylheptane
3-methylheptane
1-octene
w-octane
ethylbenzene
7w-xylene//>-xylene
styrene
o-xylene
CAS No.
763-29-1
592-41-6
760-21-4
110-54-3
4050-45-7
7688-21-3
96-37-7
108-08-7
71-43-2
110-82-7
591-76-4
565-59-3
589-34-4
592-76-7
540-84-1
142-82-5
108-87-2
564-02-3
565-75-3
108-88-3
592-27-8
589-81-1
111-66-0
111-65-9
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
100-42-5
95-47-6
Residence Chamber
minus Dilution Air ([j,g)
ND
17.72 ± 17.01
ND
843.46 ±12.90
ND
ND
153.95 ±10.68
11.74 ±13. 35
137.35 ±8.45
ND
88.42 ± 2.22
2.00 ±11. 12
ND
ND
38.75 ± 11.24
32.77 ±5.67
27.56 ±10.79
ND
37.63 ±7.79
54.04 ±4.45
ND
1.22 ±4.23
ND
14.52 ±2.22
ND
ND
ND
14.30 ±3.00
%Total
ND
0.07 ± 0.07
ND
3.43 ±0.05
ND
ND
0.63 ± 0.04
0.05 ±0.05
0.56 ±0.03
ND
0.36 ±0.01
0.01 ±0.05
ND
ND
0.16 ±0.05
0.13 ±0.02
0.11 ±0.04
ND
0.15 ±0.03
0.22 ± 0.02
ND
0.00a±0.02
ND
0.06 ±0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.06 ±0.01
141
-------
Table 5-8A. (Continued)
Compound CAS No.
1-nonene 124-11-8
n-nonane 111 -84-2
isopropylbenzene 98-82-8
a-pinene 80-56-8
n-propylbenzene 103-65-1
/w-ethyltoluene 620-14-4
^-ethyltoluene 622-96-8
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 108-67-8
o-ethyltoluene 611-14-3
p-pinene 127-91-3
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 95-63-6
1-decene 872-05-9
w-decane 124-18-5
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 526-73-8
/w-diethylbenzene 141-93-5
^-diethylbenzene 105-05-5
1-undecene 821-95-4
n-undecane 1120-21-4
1-dodecene 112-41-4
w-dodecane 112-40-3
1-tridecene 2437-56-1
w-tridecane 629-50-5
Total Speciated SNMOC
Total Unspeciated SNMOC
Total Speciated + Unspeciated SNMOC
Residence Chamber
minus Dilution Air (jig)
21.70 ±2.34
18.27 ±2.34
ND
ND
11.40 ±2.22
90.09 ±5. 12
58.88 ±5.90
51.48 ±3.23
61. 11 ±3.45
ND
100.52 ±3.23
ND
ND
58.88 ±2.67
16.94 ±1.45
ND
ND
140.43 ±2.11
ND
ND
ND
ND
Mass Emission Rate of Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Mass Emission Rate of Total (Speciated
Compounds
+ Unspeciated) Nonmethane Organic
%Total
0.09 ±0.01
0.07 ±0.01
ND
ND
0.05 ±0.01
0.37 ±0.02
0.24 ± 0.02
0.21 ±0.01
0.25 ±0.01
ND
0.41 ±0.01
ND
ND
0.24 ±0.01
0.07 ±0.01
ND
ND
0.57 ±0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
23.40 ng/m3
2.36 ng/m3
25.76 ng/m3
0.25 mg/kg fuel
0.27 mg/kg fuel
"Calculated value less than 0.00.
142
-------
Table 5-8B. SNMOC (Campaign #1, January 17, 2001
Compound
ethylene
acetylene
ethane
propylene
propane
propyne
isobutane
isobutene/1 -butene
1,3 -butadiene
n-butane
/raws-2-butene
c/s-2-butene
3 -methyl- 1 -butene
isopentane
1-pentene
2-methyl-l-butene
w-pentane
isoprene
/raws-2-pentene
c/s-2-pentene
2-methyl-2-butene
2,2-dimethylbutane
cyclopentene
4-methyl-l-pentene
cyclopentane
2,3 -dimethylbutane
2-methylpentane
3-methylpentane
2-methyl-l-pentene
CAS No.
4-84-0
74-86-2
74-85-1
115-07-1
74-98-6
74-99-7
75-28-5
115-11-7/106-98-0
106-99-0
106-97-8
624-64-6
590-18-1
563-45-1
78-78-4
109-67-1
563-46-2
109-66-0
78-79-4
646-04-8
627-20-3
513-35-9
75-83-2
142-29-0
691-37-2
287-92-3
79-29-8
107-83-5
96-14-0
763-29-1
Residence Chamber
Minus Dilution Air ([j,g)
1773.89 ±12.56
1335.54 ±11.60
1974.33 ± 10.52
154.47 ±6.66
2894.27 ± 11.81
ND
39.96 ±6.01
131. 87 ±3.87
ND
82.53 ± 10.84
42.90 ±6.98
48.21 ±10.41
ND
106.50 ±15.57
37.38 ±8.70
ND
64.35 ± 10.84
1.40 ±1.29
26.97 ± 8.80
63.60 ±12.99
ND
126.88 ±15. 89
47.78 ±15.03
ND
37.49 ±7.41
54.59 ±18.36
99.80 ± 8.48
106.18 ± 16.21
ND
% Total
10.80 ±0.08
8. 12 ±0.07
12.02 ± 0.06
0.94 ±0.04
17.62 ± 0.07
ND
0.24 ± 0.04
0.80 ±0.02
ND
0.50 ±0.07
0.26 ± 0.04
0.29 ±0.06
ND
0.65 ±0.09
0.23 ±0.05
ND
0.39 ±0.07
0.01 ±0.01
0.16 ±0.05
0.39 ±0.08
ND
0.77 ±0.10
0.29 ±0.09
ND
0.23 ±0.05
0.33±0.11
0.61 ±0.05
0.65 ±0.10
ND
143
-------
Table 5-8B. (Continued)
Compound
1-hexene
2-ethyl-l-butene
w-hexane
/ra«5-2-hexene
c/s-2-hexene
methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
benzene
cyclohexane
2-methylhexane
2,3 -dimethylpentane
3 -methy Ihexane
1-heptene
2,2,4-trimethylpentane
w-heptane
methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-trimethylpentane
toluene
2-methylheptane
3-methylheptane
1-octene
n-octane
ethylbenzene
/w-xylene//>-xylene
styrene
o-xylene
1-nonene
CAS No.
592-41-6
760-21-4
110-54-3
4050-45-7
7688-21-3
96-37-7
108-08-7
71-43-2
110-82-7
591-76-4
565-59-3
589-34-4
592-76-7
540-84-1
142-82-5
108-87-2
564-02-3
565-75-3
108-88-3
592-27-8
589-81-1
111-66-0
111-65-9
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
100-42-5
95-47-6
124-11-8
Residence Chamber
Minus Dilution Air ([j,g)
84. 16 ±16.42
ND
451. 16 ±12.45
ND
ND
148.22 ±10.31
63.71 ±12.88
157.55 ±8.16
ND
42.47 ±2.15
85. 16 ±10.74
16.79 ±9.02
ND
58.72 ±10.84
84.19 ±5.48
32.50 ±10.41
ND
42.69 ±7.52
61.08 ±4.29
32.18 ±4.19
47.89 ±4.08
ND
226.36 ±2. 15
32.82 ±2.90
40.38 ±4.51
53.31 ±7.41
43.63 ±2.90
ND
% Total
0.51 ±0.10
ND
2.75 ±0.08
ND
ND
0.90 ±0.06
0.39 ±0.08
0.96 ±0.05
ND
0.26 ±0.01
0.52 ±0.07
0.10 ±0.05
ND
0.36 ±0.07
0.51 ±0.03
0.20 ± 0.06
ND
0.26 ±0.05
0.37 ±0.03
0.20 ±0.03
0.29 ±0.02
ND
1.38 ±0.01
0.20 ± 0.02
0.25 ± 0.03
0.32 ±0.05
0.27 ± 0.02
ND
144
-------
Table 5-8B. (Continued)
Compound
w-nonane
isopropylbenzene
a-pinene
n-propylbenzene
/w-ethyltoluene
/>-ethyltoluene
1 ,3 ,5-trimethylbenzene
o-ethyltoluene
p-pinene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1-decene
w-decane
1,2,3 -trimethylbenzene
/w-diethylbenzene
/>-diethylbenzene
1-undecene
w-undecane
1-dodecene
w-dodecane
1-tridecene
w-tridecane
Total Speciated SNMOC
Total Unspeciated SNMOC
CAS No.
111-84-2
98-82-8
80-56-8
103-65-1
620-14-4
622-96-8
108-67-8
611-14-3
127-91-3
95-63-6
872-05-9
124-18-5
526-73-8
141-93-5
105-05-5
821-95-4
1120-21-4
112-41-4
112-40-3
2437-56-1
629-50-5
Residence Chamber
Minus Dilution Air (jig)
100.12 ±2.55
37.39 ±4.29
ND
26.76 ±2. 15
74.33 ±4.94
43.01 ±5.69
126.13 ±3. 11
95. 13 ±3. 33
114.44 ±2.25
174.56 ±3. 11
ND
66.13 ±2.36
78.99 ±2.58
78.03 ± 1.40
67.62 ± 1.61
ND
150.48 ±2.04
93.63 ±4.51
3950.78 ±4.62
ND
93.63 ±4.62
Total Speciated + Unspeciated SNMOC
Mass Emission Rate of Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Mass Emission Rate of Total
Compounds
(Speciated
+ Unspeciated) Nonmethane Organic
% Total
0.61 ±0.01
0.23 ±0.03
ND
0.16 ±0.01
0.45 ±0.03
0.26 ±0.03
0.77 ± 0.02
0.58 ±0.02
0.70 ±0.01
1.06 ±0.02
ND
0.40 ±0.01
0.48 ±0.02
0.48 ±0.01
0.41 ±0.01
ND
0.92 ±0.01
0.57 ±0.03
24.05 ±0.03
ND
0.57 ±0.03
29.48 ug/m3
ND
29.48 ug/m3
0.30 ug/kg fuel
0.30* ug/kg fuel
* More Unspeciated NMOC was found in dilution air than in residence chamber samples. Unspeciated analysis was determined invalid and not
used in this calculation due to an unidentified contaminant.
145
-------
Table 5-8C. SNMOC (Campaign #1, January 18, 2001)
Compound
ethylene
acetylene
ethane
propylene
propane
propyne
isobutane
isobutene/ 1 -butene
1,3 -butadiene
n-butane
/raws-2-butene
c/s-2-butene
3 -methyl- 1 -butene
isopentane
1-pentene
2-methyl-l-butene
w-pentane
isoprene
/raws-2-pentene
c/s-2-pentene
2-methyl-2-butene
2,2-dimethylbutane
cyclopentene
4-methyl-l-pentene
cyclopentane
2,3 -dimethylbutane
2-methylpentane
CAS No.
4-84-0
74-86-2
74-85-1
115-07-1
74-98-6
74-99-7
75-28-5
115-11-7/106-98-0
106-99-0
106-97-8
624-64-6
590-18-1
563-45-1
78-78-4
109-67-1
563-46-2
109-66-0
78-79-4
646-04-8
627-20-3
513-35-9
75-83-2
142-29-0
691-37-2
287-92-3
79-29-8
107-83-5
Residence Chamber
Minus Dilution Air ([j,g)
418.90 ±13. 35
222.76 ± 12.32
ND
268.93 ± 7.07
23162.61 ±12.55
ND
ND
48.57 ±4.11
ND
ND
1.14 ±7.42
ND
ND
ND
11.24 ±9.24
ND
1.83 ±11.52
ND
6.13 ±9.36
ND
ND
12.38 ±16.89
16.57 ±15.97
ND
6.13 ±7.87
7.27 ±19.51
612.16 ±9.01
% Total
1.37 ±0.04
0.73 ± 0.04
ND
0.88 ±0.02
75.68 ±0.04
ND
ND
0.16 ±0.01
ND
ND
0.00a±0.02
ND
ND
ND
0.04 ±0.03
ND
0.01 ±0.04
ND
0.02 ± 0.03
ND
ND
0.04 ± 0.06
0.05 ± 0.05
ND
0.02 ±0.03
0.02 ± 0.06
2.00 ±0.03
146
-------
Table 5-8C. (Continued)
Compound
3-methylpentane
2-methyl-l-pentene
1-hexene
2-ethyl-l-butene
n-hexane
trans-2-hexene
c/s-2-hexene
methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
benzene
cyclohexane
2-methylhexane
2,3 -dimethylpentane
3-methylhexane
1-heptene
2,2,4-trimethylpentane
w-heptane
methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-trimethylpentane
2,3,4-trimethylpentane
toluene
2-methylheptane
3-methylheptane
1-octene
w-octane
ethylbenzene
7w-xylene//>-xylene
CAS No.
96-14-0
763-29-1
592-41-6
760-21-4
110-54-3
4050-45-7
7688-21-3
96-37-7
108-08-7
71-43-2
110-82-7
591-76-4
565-59-3
589-34-4
592-76-7
540-84-1
142-82-5
108-87-2
564-02-3
565-75-3
108-88-3
592-27-8
589-81-1
111-66-0
111-65-9
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
Residence Chamber
Minus Dilution Air (jig)
33.48 ±17.22
ND
2. 17 ±17.46
ND
362.46 ± 13.23
ND
ND
75.13 ±10.95
1.14 ±13.69
33.03 ±8.67
1.48 ±19.40
0.91 ±2.28
ND
ND
41.76 ±9.47
6.70 ± 11.52
22.13 ±5.82
11.47 ±11.07
ND
1.14 ±7.99
ND
ND
ND
ND
43.81 ±2.28
ND
ND
% Total
0.11 ±0.06
ND
0.01 ±0.06
ND
1.18 ±0.04
ND
ND
0.25 ± 0.04
0.00 ± 0.04
0.11 ±0.03
0.00 ± 0.06
0.00 ±0.01
ND
ND
0.13 ±0.03
0.02 ± 0.04
0.07 ± 0.02
0.04 ± 0.04
ND
0.00 ±0.03
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.14 ±0.01
ND
ND
147
-------
Table 5-8C. (Continued)
Compound
styrene
o-xylene
1-nonene
w-nonane
isopropylbenzene
a-pinene
w-propylbenzene
/w-ethyltoluene
/>-ethyltoluene
1 ,3 ,5-trimethylbenzene
o-ethyltoluene
p-pinene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1-decene
n-decane
1 ,2,3 -trimethylbenzene
/w-diethylbenzene
/>-diethylbenzene
1-undecene
w-undecane
1-dodecene
w-dodecane
1-tridecene
w-tridecane
Total Speciated SNMOC
Total Unspeciated SNMOC
Total Speciated + Unspeciated
CAS No.
100-42-5
95-47-6
124-11-8
111-84-2
98-82-8
80-56-8
103-65-1
620-14-4
622-96-8
108-67-8
611-14-3
127-91-3
95-63-6
872-05-9
124-18-5
526-73-8
141-93-5
105-05-5
821-95-4
1120-21-4
112-41-4
112-40-3
2437-56-1
629-50-5
SNMOC
Residence Chamber
Minus Dilution Air (jig)
58.44 ±7.87
12.26 ±3.08
0.91 ±2.40
32.69 ±2.40
1.03 ±4.56
ND
ND
ND
1.14 ±6.04
42.44 ±3.31
21.68 ±3.54
104.39 ±2.40
44.27 ±3.31
ND
56.19 ±2.51
ND
52.19 ±1.48
36.54 ±1.71
ND
11.16 ±2.11
78.29 ±4.79
2067.01 ±4.90
ND
93. 95 ±4.90
Mass Emission Rate of Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Mass Emission Rate of Total (Speciated + Unspeciated)
Compounds
Nonmethane Organic
% Total
0.19 ±0.03
0.04 ±0.01
0.00 ±0.01
O.lliO.Ol
0.00 ±0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.00 ± 0.02
0.14 ±0.01
0.07 ±0.01
0.34 ±0.01
0.14 ±0.01
ND
0.18 ±0.01
ND
0.17 ±0.00
0.12 ±0.01
ND
0.23 ±0.01
0.26 ± 0.02
6.75 ±0.02
ND
0.31 ±0.02
48.28 ng/m3
4.41 ng/m3
52.69 ng/m3
0.50 mg/kg fuel
0.55 mg/kg fuel
"Calculated value less than 0.00.
148
-------
Table 5-9. Total Mass of Nonmethane Organic Compounds for Each Campaign #1
Test Day
January 16, 2001
Emission Rate
January 17,2001
Emission Rate
January 18,2001
Emission Rate
Mass of Fuel
Consumed (kg) Speciated Unspeciated
6,569 1617 mg 163 mg
0.25 mg/kg fuel
6,934 2085 mg Oa
0.23 mg/kg fuel
7,926 3961 mg 361 mg
0.50 mg/kg fuel
Speciated +
Unspeciated
1780 mg
0.27 mg/kg fuel
2085 mg
0.28 mg/kg fuel
4322 mg
0.55 mg/kg fuel
"Weight of unspeciated NMOC in dilution air was higher than the weight of unspeciated NMOC in the residence
chamber air for January 17, 2001.
parallel the results for the carbonyl compounds. Weight % for each analyte was calculated by
dividing the value of that analyte by the total speciated plus unspeciated NMOC value. The
analytical uncertainty was calculated using the standard deviation of the replicate determinations
performed in the determination of the method detection limits. Both the "Total" and "Speciated"
NMOC values are calculated on the basis of subtraction of analyte in the dilution air (DA) from
the analyte collected in the residence chamber (RC) air. Because the EPA dilution sampling
system was operated at a dilution factor of approximately 40 for both campaign #1 and campaign
#2, dilution air in 40-fold excess is present in the final sample. In some instances, when the sum
of the speciated (or unspeciated) analytes in the dilution air is subtracted from the sum of the
speciated (or unspeciated) analytes from the residence chamber, a negative value is obtained. The
total value is obtained by adding the sum of the values for the residence chamber minus dilution
air for speciated analytes to the sum of unspeciated analytes for the residence chamber minus
dilution air. If the (RC-DA) difference is negative, the value for Total NMOC is less than the
value for speciated NMOC (as in data from January 16, 2001 and January 17, 2001). Complete
NMOC calculations are shown in Appendix G for each day; NMOC emission factor calculations
are shown in Appendix B. Note that on January 16, 2001, the mass of analyte in total combustion
air for speciated NMOC is 0.025004 |ig; for speciated and unspeciated NMOC the value is
0.020531 |ig. The total emission factor is therefore less than the speciated emission factor.
149
-------
The mass of total speciated NMOC results and the total speciated plus unspeciated results
have been used to calculate the mass emission rates for SNMOC as well as speciated plus
unspeciated NMOC (Table 5-9). Samples taken from the residence chamber were corrected for
the SNMOC observed in the dilution air to determine the total SNMOC collected. These values
were used to calculate a mass emission rate for SNMOC and speciated plus unspeciated NMOC
for each test day. The supporting calculations are shown in Appendix G.
The profile of the concentrations for the SNMOC differs from the profile of the
concentrations for the carbonyl compounds. Both speciated and total carbonyl compounds show
a decreasing trend over the three test days, while the concentration of the unspeciated carbonyl
compounds increases on the third test day. For all SNMOC (speciated, unspeciated, and
speciated plus unspeciated), concentrations drop on the second test day and reach their highest
level on the third test day. During these compound concentration changes, fuel consumption is
increasing on each test day, as shown in Table 5-9.
Particle Size Distribution Data
The SMPS system was operated on all three test days of campaign #1, collecting data on
particle size distribution in the range below 2.5 |im (the range monitored was 10 nm to 392 nm),
with one complete scan over the entire range every three minutes. The analytical data are
presented in Table 5-10 and are presented graphically as a plot of midpoint diameter of the
particles vs counts (an indirect version of number of particles in each size range) or as midpoint
diameter in nanometers vs number of particles (Figures 5-1 through 5-3).
150
-------
Table 5-10. Particle Size Diameter Measurements, TSI SMPS (Campaign #1,
January 16-18, 2001)
Particle Size Range (10-392 nm)
Channel Range (32 - 83)
Channels per decade: 32
Weighted by number
Units: Counts
Average Values for All Scans
Channel Sample Time Counts Counts Counts
Midpoint Diameter (nm) (1/16/01) (1/17/01) (1/18/01)
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
10.3663
11.1397
11.9709
12.8640
13.8237
14.8551
15.9634
17.1544
18.4342
19.8096
21.2875
22.8757
24.5824
26.4165
28.3874
30.5053
32.7812
35.2269
37.8552
40.6794
43.7144
101.6
75.2
80.3
110.8
80.9
74.1
60.4
505
448.8
271.7
259.1
248.2
324.9
492.6
650.5
689.8
498.1
362
337.5
337.7
341.7
96083.3
156779.5
245424.3
355450.4
484897.1
647382.2
841926
1047940
1247522
1420894
1547679
1593648
1541539
1401504
1188134
924710.5
654602
411559.7
227993.9
109850.2
45115.7
117694.3
201348.7
314480.1
466870.4
659765.6
885842.2
1155580
1451086
1743655
2000971
2221012
2358421
2391306
2292371
2066818
1748867
1364195
978867
638168.4
372354.5
193396.2
151
-------
Table 5-10. (Continued)
Channel Sample Time
Midpoint Diameter (nm)
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
46.9759
50.4087
54.2469
58.2942
62.6434
67.317
83.5363
89.7687
96.4662
103.663
111.397
119.709
128.64
138.237
148.551
159.634
171.544
184.342
198.096
212.875
228.757
245.824
264.165
283.874
305.053
327.812
352.269
378.552
Counts
(1/16/01)
338.1
279
290.8
250
250.8
216.1
210.7
199.5
232.2
206.1
185.4
219.8
167.1
169.2
154.8
164.5
162.6
127.4
146.3
131.3
121.1
130.8
148.5
101.6
94.6
107.2
91.5
109.9
Counts
(1/17/01)
16148
5514.5
2282.8
2159.4
1231
1053.1
822.6
2625.5
2181.4
1297
1258.3
952.2
884.4
914.1
785.7
724.8
668.5
649.4
614
761.2
592.7
3130.4
2964.6
765.9
501.2
454.4
458.9
452.7
Counts
(1/18/01)
89624.2
40419.2
21423.4
16296.9
15712.8
15653.5
17714.2
18073.2
18423.3
18337.5
18547.1
18312.1
17837.9
17157.6
16610.4
15352.5
14226.8
12581.4
11571.9
10084.2
8847.7
7273.6
6256.8
5033.7
4185.9
3394.8
2734.5
2189.1
152
-------
1-16-01
800 i
700 -
600 -
500 -
to
c 400
o
o
300
200 -
100 -
10 13 16 20 25 31 38 47 58 72 90 111 138 172 213 264 328
Midpoint Diameter, namometers
Figure 5-1. Graphical presentation of particle size data, SMPS (January 16, 2001).
1-17-01
1800000 -,
1600000
i^nnnnn
-lonnnnn
1000000
800000
onnnnn
n -
n
n
n
n
L._
10 13 16 20 25
31 38 47 58 72 90 111 138 172 213 264 328
Midpoint Diameter, namometers
Figure 5-2. Graphical presentation of particle size data, SMPS (January 17, 2001).
153
-------
The profile observed on Day 1 (January 16, 2001) appears to be an outlier with respect to
1-18-01
o
o
3000000 -,
9c>nnnnn
onnnnnn -
i^nnnnn -
mnnnnn -
Cflflflflfl
n -
i
1
n
J
J
n
n
n
n
u U n n n
10 13 16 20 25 31 38 47 58 72 90 111 138 172 213 264 328
Midpoint Diameter, namometers
Figure 5-3. Graphical presentation of particle size data, SMPS (January 18, 2001).
the other two test days: the shape of the plot is very different from the plots obtained on the other
two days, and the number of counts observed in each channel is approximately four orders of
magnitude lower on Day 1 than on the other two test days. The SMPS instrumental operating
parameters appeared to be normal and there was no obvious indication of instrumental
malfunction. There is not an obvious explanation for the outstandingly low signal level on Day 1.
On Day 2 (January 17, 2001) and Day 3 (January 18, 2001), the shapes of the profiles appear to
be qualitatively similar. However, the signal maximum on Day 2 is observed at approximately
1.6 x 106 counts, at a midpoint diameter of 23 nm. On Day 3, the signal maximum occurs at
approximately 2.4 x 106 counts (50% higher than the signal level on Day 2), at a slightly larger
midpoint diameter (approximately 25 nm).
154
-------
During campaign #2, particle size data were collected using an Electrical Low Pressure
Impactor (ELPI). The particle size distribution was bimodal. The greatest amount of mass was
found on the second stage, but it is not clear where the peak of the actual mode is located, given
the data collected. ELPI data are shown in Table 5-11 and graphically in Figures 5-4, 5-5, and
5-6. The three-day average is shown graphically in Figure 5-7. Note that the SMPS gives an
electrical mobility diameter and the ELPI gives an aerodynamic diameter, so the two values
should not necessarily agree.
155
-------
Table 5-11. Gravimetric Data, ELPI (Campaign #2, July 9-11, 2002) PM-2.5 Mass
Concentration by Size
Stage
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total Mass
D50
(nm)
30.0
61.0
105.0
645.0
1000.0
1630.0
2480.0
4020.0
6760.0
10260.0
Concentration
Di
(nm)
42.78
80.03
132.82
803.12
1276.71
2010.57
3157.47
5212.98
8328.12
(mg/m3)
Stage Mass Concentration (mg/m3)
7/9/02 7/10/02 7/11/02 Mean
0.0061
0.0064
0.0040
0.0007
0.0003
0.0036
0.0023
0.0017
0.0017
0.0000
0.0331
0.0028
0.0042
0.0017
0.0010
0.0007
0.0014
0.0000
0.0007
0.0012
0.0007
0.0170
0.0172
0.0316
0.0120
0.0005
0.0007
0.0010
0.0002
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0741
0.0087
0.0140
0.0059
0.0008
0.0006
0.0020
0.0008
0.0008
0.0010
0.0003
0.0414
156
-------
Stage mass concentration (Test 7/9/02)
0.007 -,
Onnfi
^2 n nnc:
B)
5 n nn/i
•43
Ł
fi n nm
o
o
(A
(A
n n nrto
Onm
n nnn -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stage No.
Figure 5-4. ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (July 9, 2002)
Stage mass concentration (Test 7/10/02)
0.005 -
n nr\A
co"
"^ n nn^
E
c
IE
c
8
n nnn -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stage No.
Figure 5-5. ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (July 10, 2002)
157
-------
Stage mass concentration (Test 7/11/02)
Mass concentration (mg/m3)
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
n
035 -
rnn -
005
nnn -
] 1 1 ] , i
1234567
Stage No.
9 10 11 12 13
Figure 5-6. ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (July 11, 2002)
Stage mass concentration (Three-Day Average)
0.016 --
u.uit -
CO
^)
c
o
Ł n nna
c
01
u
c
§ 0 006
t/>
in
to
n nnn -
1 ,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stage No.
Figure 5-7. ELPI Mass Concentration by Stage (Three-Day Average)
158
-------
Section 6
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A detailed description of the objectives and activities of the institutional oil-fired boiler
tests is presented in Sections 3 and 4 of this report. Separate quality assurance project plans for
the source sampling and PM-2.5 sample analyses were developed for each of the two testing
campaigns (i.e., QTRAX numbers 9905115 and 9900216) and were approved by EPA/NRMRL.
The testing that was conducted adhered to the specifications of these two QAPPS. QA
procedures for the analyses of gaseous nonmethane organic compounds and air toxics were
followed as prescribed by EPA Compendium Method TO-1512. Analyses of the gaseous carbonyl
compounds adhered to the QA procedures of EPA Compendium Method TO-11 A11.
A summary of the quality control measures, acceptance criteria, and whether these criteria
were achieved is provided in Tables 6-1 through 6-7 for source sampling activities, concurrent
speciated NMOC/air toxics analyses, carbonyl analyses, PM mass measurement, PM elemental
analysis, PM inorganic ion analysis, and semivolatile organic compound analysis, respectively.
Sampling and analytical procedures for critical measurements are presented in Section 4.
In field sampling with the dilution sampling system, the following quality control procedures
were implemented:
• A leak check of the dilution sampling system was performed before field testing
was initiated;
• Pitot tubes and meter boxes were calibrated;
• The analytical balance(s) were calibrated;
• Flow control collection devices for the canisters were calibrated using a primary
flow standard;
• Multipart forms recording field conditions and observations were used for
canisters and carbonyl samples; and
• Strict chain of custody documentation for all field samples was maintained.
159
-------
Table 6-1. Sample Collection Equipment: Quality Criteria
Equipment
Effect
Acceptance
Criteria
Criteria
Achieved ?
Orifice meters (volumetric gas flow
calibration)
Venturi meters (volumetric gas flow
calibration)
Flow transmitter (Heise gauge with
differential pressure)
Analytical Balances
Thermocouples
Relative humidity probes
Sampling equipment leak check and
calibration (before each sampling
run)
Sampling equipment field blanks
Ensures the accuracy of flow
measurements for sample collection
Ensures the accuracy of flow
measurements for sample collection
Ensures the accuracy of flow
measurements for sample collection
Ensures control of bias for all project
weighing
Ensures sampler temperature control
Ensures the accuracy of moisture
measurements in the residence chamber
Ensures accurate measurement of sample
volume
Ensures absence of contamination in
sampling system
±1%
± 1% of
reading
±0.5% of
range
Calibrated
with Class S
weights
±1.5°C
±2%
relative
humidity
1%
< 5.0% of
sample
values
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
160
-------
Table 6-2. Carbonyl Analysis: Quality Criteria
Parameter
HPLC Column
Efficiency
Linearity Check
Quality Control
Check
Analyze SSQC
Analyze 5-point
calibration curve and
SSQC in triplicate
Frequency
At setup and one per sample
batch
At setup or when calibration
check does not meet
acceptance criteria
Acceptance Criteria
Resolution between acetone and
propionaldehyde > 1.0
Column efficiency > 500 plates
Correlation coefficient >0.999,
relative error for each level against
calibration curve ± 20% or less
Corrective Action
Eliminate dead volume,
backflush, or replace
column; repeat analysis
Check integration, re-
integrate or re-calibrate
Criteria
Achieved ?
Yes
Retention time
Calibration
Check
Analyze calibration
midpoint
Analyze midpoint
standard
Once per 10 samples
Once per 10 samples
Relative Error
Intercept acceptance should be
< 10,000 area counts/compound;
correlates to 0.06 mg/mL
Acetaldehyde, Benzaldehyde,
Hexaldehyde within retention time
window established by determining
3 a or ±2% of the mean calibration
and midpoint standards, whichever
is greater
85-115% recovery
Check integration, re-
integrate or re-calibrate
Check system for plug,
regulate column
temperature, check
gradient and solvents
Check integration, re-
calibrate or re-prepare
standard, re-analyze
samples not bracketed
by acceptable standard
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Calibration
Accuracy
SSQC
Once after calibration in
triplicate
Analyze 0.1 |_ig/mL Once after calibration in
standard triplicate
85-115% recovery
±25% difference
Check integration; re-
calibrate or re-prepare
standard, re-analyze
samples not bracketed
by acceptable standard
Yes
-------
Table 6-2. (Continued)
Parameter
System Blank
Duplicate
Analyses
Replicate
Analyses
MS/MSD
Quality Control
Check
Analyze acetonitrile
Duplicate Samples
Replicate injections
Analyze MS/MSD
Frequency
Bracket sample batch, one at
beginning and one at end
As collected
Duplicate samples only
One MS/MSD per 20
samples
Acceptance Criteria
Measured concentration
<5xMDL
± 20% difference
< 10% RPD for concentrations
greater than 1.0 [ig/mL
80-120% recovery for all
compounds
Corrective Action
Locate contamination
and document levels of
contamination in file
Check integration;
check instrument
function; re-analyze
duplicate samples
Check integration,
check instrument
function, re-analyze
duplicate samples
Check calibration,
check extraction
procedures
Criteria
Achieved ?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
>-? HPLC = High Performance Liquid Chromatography
to SSQC = Second Source Quality Control
MDL = Method Detection Limit
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
MS/MSD = Method Spike/Method Spike Duplicate
-------
Table 6-3. Air Toxics and SNMOC Analysis: Quality Criteria
Quality Control Check
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Criteria
Achieved ?
Air Toxics Analysis
BFB Instrument Tune Check Daily prior to calibration check
Five-point calibration
bracketing the expected sample
concentration
Calibration check using mid-
point of calibration range
System Blank
LCS
Replicate Analysis
Samples
SNMOC Analysis
System Blank Analysis
Following any major change,
repair, or maintenance if daily
quality control check is not
acceptable. Calibration is valid
for six weeks if calibration
check criteria are met.
Daily
Daily following tune check and
calibration check
Daily
All duplicate field samples
All samples
Daily, following calibration
check
Evaluation criteria in data system
software; consistent with Method TO-15
RSD of response factors < 30%
RRTs for target peaks ± 0.06 units from
mean RRT
Response factor < 30% bias from
calibration curve average response factor
0.2 ppbv/analyte or MDL, whichever is
greater
IS area response ±40% and ±0.33 min of
most recent calibration check
Recovery limits
70% - 130%
IS RT ±0.33 min of most recent
calibration
<30% RPD for compounds >5xMDL
IS RT ±0.33 min of most recent
calibration
20 ppbC total
Retime mass spectrometer;
clean ion source and
quadrupoles
Repeat individual sample
analysis; repeat linearity
check; prepare new
calibration standards and
repeat analysis
Repeat calibration check;
repeat calibration curve
Repeat analysis with new
blank; check system for
leaks, contamination; re-
analyze blank.
Repeat analysis; repeat
calibration curve.
Repeat sample analysis
Repeat analysis
Repeat analysis; check
system for leaks; clean
system with wet air
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Table 6-3. (Continued)
Quality Control Check
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Criteria
Achieved ?
Multiple point calibration
(minimum 5); propane
bracketing the expected sample
concentration range
Calibration check: midpoint of
calibration curve spanning the
carbon range (C2-C10)
Replicate analysis
Prior to analysis and monthly
Daily
All duplicate field samples
Correlation coefficient
(r2) >0.995
Response for selected hydrocarbons
spanning the carbon range within ±30%
difference of calibration curve slope
Total NMOC within ±30% RSD
Repeat individual sample
analysis; repeat linearity
check; prepare new
calibration standards and
repeat
Repeat calibration check;
repeat calibration curve.
Repeat sample analysis
Yes
Yes
Yes
BFB = 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene
RSD = Relative Standard Deviation
RRT = Relative Retention Time
MDL = Method Detection Limit14
IS = Internal Standard
LCS = Laboratory Control Standard
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
Table 6-4. PM Mass Measurements:
Parameter Quality Control
_ Check
Quality Criteria
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Criteria
Achieved ?
Deposition on Filter Analyze Laboratory
during Conditioning Filter Blank
Laboratory Stability Analyze Laboratory
Control Filter
Balance Stability
Analyze Standard
Weights
Bracket sample batch, one at
beginning and one at end
Bracket sample batch, one at
beginning and one at end
Bracket sample batch, one at
beginning and one at end
Mass within
±15 mg of previous
weight
Mass within
±15 mg of previous
weight
Mass within
±3 mg of previous weight
Adjust mass for deposition
Adjust mass to account for
laboratory difference
Perform internal calibration of
balance, perform external
calibration of balance
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Table 6-5. Elemental Analysis: Quality Criteria
Parameter
Performance
Evaluation check
Quality Control
Check
Freauencv
Analyze Monitor Once per month
Sanmle
Table 6-6. Water-Soluble Ion Analysis
Quality Control
Parameter Check
Linearity Check
System Dead
Volume
Analyze 4-point
calibration curve
Analyze water
: Quality Criteria
Freauencv
At setup or when
calibration check
does not meet
acceptance criteria
Bracket sample
batch, one at
Corrective
Acceotance Criteria Action
< 2% change in each element from previous Recalibrate
measurement
Accentance Criteria Corrective Action
Correlation coefficient Recalibrate
>0.999
Within 5% of previous Check system temperature, eluent, and
analysis columns
Criteria
Achieved ?
Yes
Criteria
Achieved ?
Yes
Retention Time
Calibration check
System Blank
Analyze standard
Analyze one
standard
Analyze HPLC
grade water
Duplicate analyses Duplicate Samples
beginning and one
at end
At setup
Once every 4-10
samples
Bracket sample
batch, one at
beginning and one
at end
As collected
Each ion within ± 5% of
standard retention time
85-115% recovery
No quantifiable ions
Check system temperature and eluent
Recalibrate or re-prepare standard, re-
analyze sample not bracketed by
acceptable standard
Re-analyze
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
165
-------
Table 6-6. (Continued)
Parameter
Replicate Analyses
Quality Control
Check
Replicate Injections
Freauencv
Each sample
Accentance Criteria
< 10%RPDfor
concentrations greater than
1 Ome/L
Corrective Action
Check instrument function, re-analyze
samples
Criteria
Achieved ?
Yes
HPLC = High Performance Liquid Chromatography
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
Table 6-7. Semivolatile Organic Compounds Analysis: Quality Criteria
Quality Control Check
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Criteria
Achieved ?
Oi
Oi
Mass spectrometer instrument
tune check (FC-43)
Five-point calibration
bracketing the expected
concentration range
Calibration check using
midpoint of calibration range
System Blank
Retention time check
Daily prior to calibration check
Following maintenance or repair
of either gas chromatograph or
mass spectrometer or when daily
quality control check is not
acceptable
Daily
As needed after system
maintenance or repair
Daily
Mass assignments m/z = 69, 219, 502
(± 0.2)
Peak widths = 0.59-0.65
Relative mass abundances = 100 %
(69); >30 % (219); > 1% (502).
Correlation coefficient of either
quadratic or linear regression > 0.999
Compounds in a representative
organic compound suite > 80% are ±
15% of individually certified values.
Values > 20% are not accepted.
Potential analytes < detection limit
values
Verify that select compounds are
within ±2% of established retention
time window
Retune mass spectrometer;
clean ion source
Check integration, re-
integrate or recalibrate
Repeat analysis, repeat
calibration curve
Repeat analysis; check
system integrity. Reanalyze
blank
Check inlet and column
flows and the various
GC/MS temperature zones
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Field sampling equipment quality control requirements that were met in the course of preparing
for the field test and execution of testing activities are summarized in Table 6-1.
For this testing program:
No performance evaluation audits were performed for any of the analytical
procedures for the NCA&T field tests. During the development phases of the EPA
dilution sampling system and the associated analytical procedures, PE audits were
conducted, but not on a test-specific basis.
• Collocated sample collection was not feasible as EPA owns only one dilution
sampling system.
Duplicate or replicate sample collection arrays for the measurement of particulate
matter were collected on each of the three test runs for each campaign (see Figure
4-11). However, comparison of individual samples was not achievable because of
the need to composite samples to aggregate sufficient quantities of material to
perform analytical procedures. There were not sufficient sample collection ports
or physical space on the EPA Dilution Sampling System to accommodate duplicate
collection of air toxics or carbonyl samples.
The primary function of testing with the dilution sampling system was collection
of PM for determination of mass collected. There is no commercial source of PM
standards spiked on filters and there is presently no accepted procedure for the
preparation of spiked PM filters.
• TO-15 samples were collected for informational purposes only and the TO-15
results were not used in any calculations of emission factors. A field blank was
collected for the TO-15 samples for campaign #1 as presented in the sample chain
of custody (COC) forms (see Appendix E). TO-15 sampling/analysis was not
performed for campaign #2. Data for the field blanks are presented in Appendix H
[Supporting Data for Air Toxics Analysis]; field blanks for TO-15 are erroneously
labeled as "Laboratory Blanks". These samples are clearly identified.
• A field blank was collected for the TO-11A samples for campaign #1 as
presented in the sample chain of custody (COC) forms (see Appendix E). TO-11A
sampling/analysis was not performed for campaign #2. Data for the field blanks
are presented in Appendix I [Supporting Data for Carbonyl Analysis]; field blanks
for TO-11A are erroneously labeled as "Laboratory Blanks". These samples are
clearly identified.
The inability to conduct robust sampling QC affects the ability to calculate analytical
uncertainties associated with the analysis of individual samples. As a result, uncertainties
associated with individual emission factors for individual test days were calculated by the EPA
167
-------
Work Assignment Manager and reported. It is recommended that procedures for conducting
robust sampling QC be developed for future field testing.
Strict chain of custody procedures were followed in collecting and transporting samples
and sampling media to and from the field sampling location. Sample substrates (filters, denuders,
PUF canister, DNPH cartridges) were prepared in advance in accordance with the number and
types of samples designated in the sampling matrix of the approved field test plan. Clean
SUMMA collection canisters and DNPH cartridges used to collect carbonyl compounds were
prepared and supplied by ERG. The PUF, XAD-4, denuder, and PM-2.5 sampling substrates
were prepared and supplied by EPA. Chain of custody forms (Figure 6-1) were initiated when the
sampling media were prepared each sample substrate was assigned a unique identification number
by the laboratory supplying the substrates. Copies of the chain of custody forms are included in
Appendix E.
Sample identification numbers include a code to track:
Source type;
• Test date;
Sampler type;
Substrate type;
• Sampler chamber (i.e., dilution chamber or residence chamber);
Sampler port;
• Lane/leg;
• Position; and
• Holder number.
For samples to be analyzed in the EPA laboratories, whole sampling arrays were
assembled by EPA, assigned a unique tracking number and used for sample collection. Sample
collection arrays were recovered in the field as a complete unit and transferred to the EPA
laboratory for disassembly and analysis.
168
-------
EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP. INC.
Chain of Custody Record
Page.
of
PROJECT
SITE
COLLECTED BY (Signature)
FIELD SAMPLE I.D.
SAMPLE MATRIX
REMARKS:
RECEIVED BY:
DATE/TIME
DATE
TIME
RELINQUISHED BY:
AIMERS
9Ł
o o
^ r ^
DATE
ANALYSES
TIME
RECEIVED BY:
SAM ID NO.
REMARKS (For lab use only)
DATE
TIME
RELINQUISHED DATE TIME
BY:
RELINQUISHED DATE TIME
BY:
LAB USE ONLY
RECEIVED FOR LABORATORY BY:
DATE
TIME
AIRBILL NO.
OPENED BY
DATE
TIME
TEMP°C
SEAL*
CONDITION
REMARKS:
Figure 6-1. ERG chain of custody form.
-------
After collection, samples were transported to the analysis laboratories by ERG, with
careful documentation of sample collection and chain of custody records for the samples being
transported. Samples were stored in a secure area until they were transported to the laboratories
performing analyses.
Carbonyl Compound Analysis
Quality control criteria for the carbonyl analysis performed by ERG are shown in
Table 6-2. Supporting analytical calibration and quality control data are a part of the project file
at ERG.
Concurrent Air Toxics/Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compound (SNMOC)
Analysis
The analytical system performing the concurrent analysis is calibrated monthly and
blanked daily prior to sample analysis. A quality control standard is analyzed daily prior to
sample analysis to ensure the validity of the current monthly response factor. Following the daily
quality control standard analysis and prior to the sample analysis, cleaned, dried air from the
canister cleaning system is humidified and then analyzed to determine the level of organic
compounds present in the analytical system. Upon achieving acceptable system blank results —
less than or equal to 20 ppbC — sample analysis begins. Ten percent of the total number of
samples received are analyzed in replicate to determine the precision of analysis for the program.
After the chromatography has been reviewed, the sample canister is returned to the canister
cleaning laboratory to be prepared for subsequent sample collection episodes or sent to another
laboratory for further analysis. Quality control procedures for the air toxics and SNMOC
analyses are summarized in Table 6-3; supporting analytical calibration and quality control data
are a part of the project file at ERG.
170
-------
PM Mass Measurements, Elemental Analysis, Water-Soluble Ion Analysis, and
GC/MS Analysis
Quality control criteria for EPA analyses (PM mass, elemental analyses, ion
chromatography analysis, and GC/MS analysis are summarized in Tables 6-4 through 6-7;
supporting data are included in the project file in the EPA laboratory.
Sample collection completeness was 100% (i.e., all planned samples were collected for
both campaign #1 and campaign #2). Most of the solvent extracts of the XAD-coated annular
denuders, quartz filters, and PUF plugs from campaign #1 were subjected to analysis for
semivolatile organic compounds. However, these results are not reported due to the observation
that breakthrough of the sampling substrates had occurred, thus rendering reliable quantitative
measurements impossible. For campaign #2, 99% of the samples were analyzed. Of the samples
not analyzed, two were quartz which were archived and two were PUF extracts which were
misplaced at the EPA laboratory.
171
-------
Section 7
References
1. Alternative Control Techniques Document - Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI)
Boilers, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-453/R-94-022, March
1994.
2. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 1.3, Fuel Oil Combustion, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, April 1993.
3. Hildemann, L. M., G. R. Cass, and G. R. Markowski, A Dilution Stack Sampler for Collection
of Organic Aerosol Emissions: Design, Characterization and Field Tests, Aerosol Science and
Technology, 10, 193-204, 1989.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1996.
5. U.S. Government Printing Office, EPA Method 1, Sample and Velocity Traverses for
Stationary Sources, in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A, pp. 181-
206, Washington, DC, 1989a.
6. U.S. Government Printing Office, EPA Method 2, Velocity -S-Type Pilot, in Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A, pp. 214-253, Washington, DC, 1989b.
7. U.S. Government Printing Office, EPA Method 4, Moisture Content, in Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A, pp. 347-371, Washington, DC, 1989c.
8. U.S. Government Printing Office, EPA Method 5, Determination of Paniculate Matter
Emissions from Stationary Sources, in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60,
Appendix A, pp. 371-443, Washington, DC, 1989d.
9. von Lehmden, D. J., W. G. De Wees, and C. Nelson. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume III. Stationary Source Specific Methods. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/600/4-77/027b (NTIS PB80-112303), May 1979.
10. NIOSH Method 5040, Elemental Carbon (DieselPaniculate). National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM®), 4th
Edition, Department of Health and Human Services (NIOSH) Publication 94-113 (August,
1994).
11. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient
Air, Second Edition, Compendium method TO-11A, "Determination of Formaldehyde in
Ambient Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by High Performance liquid
Chromatography (HPLC)," EPA/625/R-96/010b, January, 1999.
172
-------
12. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient
Air, Second Edition, Compendium Method TO-15, "Determination of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry," EPA/625/R-96/010b, January, 1999.
13. U. S. EPA. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-600/R-98-161, September
1998. No NTIS number available. Document is available from Ambient Monitoring
Technology Information Center (AMTIC) Bulletin Board.
(http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdf)
14. Federal Register. Volume 49, Number 209, Appendix B to Part 136—Definition and
Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit—Revision 1.11, pp. 198-199,
October 26, 1984.
15. Quality Assurance Project Plan; Source Sampling for Fine Particulate Matter, QTRAX No.
99051, Revision No. 2, April 2000, EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Air Pollution Prevention & Control Division.
16. Quality Assurance Project Plan; Chemical Analysis of Fine Parti culate Matter, QTRAX No.
99002, Revision No. 3, December 2000, EPA National Risk Management Research
laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention & Control Division.
173
-------
EPA/600/R-07/005
February 2007
Source Sampling Fine Particulate Matter
Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler
Appendix A
Table of Unit Conversions
Appendix B
Example CalculationsNMOC, SNMOC, and Carbonyl Emission Factors
Appendix C
Method Detection Limits
Appendix D
EPA Method Operating ProceduresERG Standard Operating Procedures
-------
Appendix A
Table of Unit Conversions
-------
Multiply
atmospheres
atmospheres
atmospheres
atmospheres
atmospheres
Btu
Btu
centimeters
cm/sec
cm/sec
cm/sec
cm/sec
cm3
cm3
ft3
fWmin
in.3
m3
ft
ft
ft of water
grams
inches
inches of water
kg
km
km
kilowatts
Unit Conversion Table
By
101.3
29.92
760
33.94
14.70
1054
2.982 x ID'4
0.3937
1.969
0.03281
0.036
0.6
3.53x ID'2
io-3
0.02832
0.4720
16.39
35.31
12
0.3048
0.8826
0.03527
2.540
0.07355
2.20462
3280.84
0.6214
56.92
To Obtain
kilopascals
inches of mercury
mm of mercury
feet of water
lb/in.2(psi)
joules
kilowatt-hours
inches
ft/min
ft/sec
km/hr
m/min
ft3
liters
m3
liters per second
cm3
ft3
in.
m
in. mercury
ounces
cm
inches of mercury
Ib
ft
miles
Btu per min. (Continued)
A-l
-------
Multiply
liters
liters
liters
liters per minute
m
m
m3
miles
miles
ounces
pounds
pounds per square inch
cm2
ft2
ft2
temperature (°C + 273)
temperature (°C + 17.8)
temperature (°F + 460)
temperature (°F-32)
watts
watts
By
0.03531
61.02
io-3
5.855x ID'4
3.28084
39.37
0.02832
5280
1.6093
28.35
453.6
703.1
0.1550
929.0
0.09290
1
1.8
1
5/9
0.05692
44.26
To Obtain
ft3
in.3
m3
ft3 per second
ft
in.
ft3
feet
km
grams
grams
kg/m2
in.2
cm2
m2
absolute temperature (K)
temperature (°F)
temperature (°Rankine)
temperature (°C)
Btu per min.
foot-pounds per min.
A-2
-------
Appendix B
Example Calculations
NMOC, SNMOC, and Carbonyl Emission Factors
-------
Table B-l. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Speciated NMOC (1/16/01)
Test
Analyte
Date
Entry Date
Greensboro A&T
Speciated NMOC
1/16/01
9/17/01
Speciated NMOC
Parameters Required
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air
Mass Fuel Consumed
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average)
Run Time
Venturi Flow Rate (Average)
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average)
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit
Calculations
Total Volume of Air Sampled
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled
Volume of Dilution Air
Dilution Ratio
Mass Flow Rate of SNMOC in Diluted Sample
Mass Flow Rate of SNMOC in Undiluted Sample
Total Mass of Speciated SNMOC in Sampled Air
Speciated SNMOC in Total Combustion Air
Mass Emission Rate of Speciated SNMOC
0.025004
6,568.63
4065
600.33
18.53
847.89
0.007
Units
kg
scfm
min
slpm
slpm
1pm
69102783
11124.115
509013.8
46.75769
0.0059501
0.2782111
3094.8522
19225161
246.20
0.246
liters
liters
liters
• g/liter
• g/liter
•g
•g
•g/kg
mg/kg
Calculation of Mass of Speciated NMOC Collected
Testl 1/16/01
Volume Canister = flow rate into canister * test duration
Test duration 600.33 min
Flow rate, dilution air canister 0.008 1pm
Flow rate, residence chamber canister 0.007 1pm
Mass Speciated SNMOC Collected = [Speciated SNMOC Cone. ]*Volume Canister
SNMOC RC = 145.55 • g/m3 = 145.55 ng/L = 0.14555 • g/L 0.6116462
SNMOC DA = 122.15'g/m3 = 122.15 ng/L = 0.12215 • g/L 0.5866425
Mass Speciated NMOC Collected
Residence Chamber
Dilution Air
Residence Chamber - Dilution Air
145.55 • g/m3
122.15« g/m3
23.40 • g/m3
0.0250037
Volume
4.80264
4.20231
liters
liters
B-l
-------
Table B-2. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Speciated NMOC (1/17/01)
Date
Entry Date
1/17/01
9/17/01
Speciated NMOC
Parameters Required
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air
Mass Fuel Consumed
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average)
Run Time
Venturi Flow Rate (Average)
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average)
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled
Volume of Dilution Air
Dilution Ratio
Mass Flow Rate of SNMOC in Diluted Sample
Mass Flow Rate of SNMOC in Undiluted Sample
Total Mass of Speciated SNMOC in Sampled Air
Speciated SNMOC in Total Combustion Air
Mass Emission Rate of Speciated SNMOC
0.176128
6,934.45
4159.00
600.5
17.88
848.35
0.008333
70720752.38
10736.94
509434.175
48.44686801
0.035197678
1.705217245
18308.81525
120594246.5
300.68
0.30
Units
kg
scfm
min
slpm
slpm
1pm
liters
liters
liters
• g/liter
• g/liter
•g/kg
mg/kg
Calculation of Mass of Speciated NMOC Collected
Test 2 1/17/01
Volume Canister = flow rate into canister * test duration
Test duration 600.5 min
Flow rate, dilution air canister 0.007833 1pm
Flow rate, residence chamber canister 0.008333 1pm
Mass Speciated SNMOC Collected = [Speciated SNMOC Cone. ]*Volume Canister
SNMOC RC = 124.77 • g/m3 = 124.77 ng/L = 0.12477 • g/L 0.6243449
SNMOC DA = 95.29 • g/m3 = 95.29 ng/L = 0.09529 • g/L 0.448217145
Mass Speciated NMOC Collected
Residence Chamber
Dilution Air
Residence Chamber - Dilution Air
0.176127755
124.77 • g/m3
95.29 • g/m3
29.48 • g/m3
Volume
4.7037165
5.0039665
liters
liters
B-2
-------
Table B-3. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Speciated NMOC (1/18/01)
Date
Entry Date
1/18/01
9/17/01
Speciated NMOC
Parameters Required Units
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air 0.334446 • g
Mass Fuel Consumed 7,926.21 kg
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average) 4827 scfm
RunTime 600.17 min
Venturi Flow Rate (Average) 19.01 slpm
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average) 850.66 slpm
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit 0.008667 1pm
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air 82034497 liters
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled 11409.232 liters
Volume of Dilution Air 510540.61 liters
Dilution Ratio 45.748027
Mass Flow Rate of SNMOC in Diluted Sample 0.0642958 • g/liter
Mass Flow Rate of SNMOC in Undiluted Sample 2.9414082 • g/liter
Total Mass of Speciated SNMOC in Sampled Air 33559.208 •§
Speciated SNMOC in Total Combustion Air 241296944 • g
Mass Emission Rate of Speciated SNMOC 499.7 • g/kg
0.50 mg/kg
Calculation of Mass of Speciated NMOC Collected
Test3 1/18/01
Volume Canister = flow rate into canister * test duration
Test duration 600.17 min
Flow rate, dilution air canister 0.008 1pm
Flow rate, residence chamber canister 0.008667 1pm
Mass Speciated SNMOC Collected = [Speciated SNMOC Cone. ]*Volume Canister
SNMOC RC = 256.39 «g/m3 = 256.39 ng/L = 0.25639 • g/L 1.333657 «g
SNMOC DA = 208. Il'g/m3 = 208. llng/L = 0.20811 • g/L 0.999211 «g
Volume
4.80136
5.2016734
liters
liters
Mass Speciated NMOC Collected
Residence Chamber
Dilution Air
Residence Chamber - Dilution Air
0.334446
256.39
208.11
48.28
•g/m3
•g/m3
•g/m3
B-3
-------
Table B-4. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) NMOC (1/16/01)
Test
Analyte
Date
Entry Date
Greensboro A&T
Total
NMOC
1/16/01
9/17/01
Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) NMOC
Parameters Required
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air
Mass Fuel Consumed
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average)
Run Time
Venturi Flow Rate (Average)
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average)
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit
Calculations
Total Volume of Air Sampled
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled
Volume of Dilution Air
Dilution Ratio
Mass Flow Rate of NMOC in Diluted Sample
Mass Flow Rate of NMOC in Undiluted Sample
Total Mass of Total NMOC in Sampled Air
Total NMOC in Total Combustion Air
Mass Emission Rate of Total NMOC
Units
0.020531
6,569
4065
600.33
18.53
847.89
0.007
•g
kg
scfm
min
slpm
slpm
1pm
7E+07
11124.1
509014
46.7577
0.00489
0.22844
2541.21
1.6E+07
271.0
0.27
liters
liters
liters
• g/liter
• g/liter
•g
•g
•g/kg
mg/kg
Calculation of Mass of Total NMOC Collected
Testl 1/16/01
Volume Canister = flow rate into canister * test duration
Test duration 600.33 min
Flow rate, dilution air canister 0.008 1pm
Flow rate, residence chamber canister 0.007 1pm
Mass Total NMOC Collected = [Total NMOC Cone. ]*Volume Canister
NMOC RC = 171.88 • g/m3 = 171.88 ng/L = 0.17188 • g/L 0.72229
NMOC DA = 146.12ug/m3= 146.12 ng/L = 0.14612 ug/L 0.70176
Mass Total NMOC Collected
Residence Chamber
Dilution Air
Residence Chamber - Dilution Air
0.02053
171.88'g/m3
146.12'g/m3
25.76 • g/m3
Volume
4.80264
4.20231
liters
liters
B-4
-------
Table B-5. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) NMOC (1/17/01)
Test
Analyte
Date
Entry Date
Dean Smith #2 (Greensboro A&T)
Total NMOC
1/17/01
9/17/01
Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) NMOC
Parameters Required
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air
Mass Fuel Consumed
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average)
Run Time
Venturi Flow Rate (Average)
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average)
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled
Volume of Dilution Air
Dilution Ratio
Mass Flow Rate of NMOC in Diluted Sample
Mass Flow Rate of NMOC in Undiluted Sample
Total Mass of Total NMOC in Sampled Air
Total NMOC in Total Combustion Air
Mass Emission Rate of Total NMOC
Units
0.168868
6,934
4159.00
600.5
17.88
848.35
0.008333
•g
kg
scfm
min
slpm
slpm
1pm
70720752.4
10736.94
509434.18
48.446868
0.0337468
1.6349282
17554.125
11562349
279.23
0.28
liters
liters
liters
• g/liter
• g/liter
•g/kg
mg/kg
Calculation of Mass of Total NMOC Collected
Test 2 1/17/01
Volume Canister = flow rate into canister * test duration
Test duration 600.5
Flow rate, dilution air canister 0.007833
Flow rate, residence chamber canister 0.008333
Mass Total NMOC Collected = [Total NMOC Cone. ] * Volume Canister
NMOC RC = 133.49 ug/m3 = 133.49 ng/L = 0.13349 • g/L
NMOCDA=106.11ug/m3= 106.11 ng/L = 0.10611 • g/L
Mass Total NMOC Collected
Volume
min
1pm 4.7037165
1pm 5.0039665
liters
liters
0.6679795
0.4991114
0.1688681
Residence Chamber
Dilution Air
Residence Chamber - Dilution Air
124.77 • g/m3
95.29 • g/m3
29.48 • g/m3
B-5
-------
Table B-6. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) NMOC
(1/18/01)
Date
Entry Date
1/18/01
9/17/01
Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) NMOC
Parameters Required
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air
Mass Fuel Consumed
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average)
Run Time
Venturi Flow Rate (Average)
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average)
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit
Calculations
0.36074
7,926
4827
600.17
19.01
850.66
0.008667
Units
kg
scfm
min
slpm
slpm
1pm
Total Volume of Combustion Air
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled
Volume of Dilution Air
Dilution Ratio
Mass Flow Rate of NMOC in Diluted Sample
Mass Flow Rate of NMOC in Undiluted Sample
Total Mass of Total NMOC in Sampled Air
Total NMOC in Total Combustion Air
Mass Emission Rate of Total NMOC
82034497.5
11409.2317
510540.612
45.7480274
0.06935076
3.17266044
36197.6181
260267605
545.33
0.55
liters
liters
liters
• g/liter
• g/liter
•g
•g
•g/kg
mg/kg
Calculation of Mass of Total NMOC Collected
Test3 1/18/01
Volume Canister = flow rate into canister * test duration
Test duration
Flow rate, dilution air canister
Flow rate, residence chamber canister
Mass Total NMOC Collected = [Total NMOC Cone. ]*Volume
Canister
NMOC RC = 269.18 • g/m3 = 269.18 ng/L = 0.26918 • g/L
NMOC DA = 216.491' g/m3 = 216.49 ng/L = 0.21649 • g/L
Mass Total NMOC Collected
Residence Chamber
Dilution Air
Residence Chamber - Dilution Air
600.17
0.008
0.008667
1.40018644
1.03944643
0.36074002
269.18« g/m3
216.49'g/m3
52.69 • g/m3
Volume
min
1pm 4.80136 liters
1pm 5.2016734 liters
B-6
-------
Table B-7. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Speciated Carbonyl Compounds (1/16/01)
Test Greensboro A&T
Analyte Speciated Carbonyls
Date 1/16/01
Entry Date 9/17/01
Parameters Required Units
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air 0.9815 • g
Mass Fuel Consumed 6,569 kg
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average) 4065 scfm
RunTime 600.33 min
Venturi Flow Rate (Average) 18.53 slpm
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average) 847.89 slpm
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit 0.9601 1pm
Calculations
Total Volume of Air Sampled 69659855 liters
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled 11124.11 liters
Volume of Dilution Air 509013.8 liters
Dilution Ratio 46.75769
Mass Flow Rate of Speciated Carbonyls in Diluted Sample 0.001703 • g/liter
Mass Flow Rate of Speciated Carbonyls in Undiluted Sample 0.079623 • g/liter
Total Mass of Speciated Carbonyls in Sampled Air 885.7319 • g
Total Speciated Carbonyls in Total Combustion Air 5546505 • g
Mass Emission Rate of Total Speciated Carbonyls 844.3929 • g/kg
0.844393 mg/kg
B-7
-------
Table B-8. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Speciated Carbonyl Compounds (1/17/01)
Date 1/17/01
Entry Date 9/17/01
Parameters Required Units
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air 0.6050 • g
Mass Fuel Consumed 6,934 kg
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average) 4159 scfm
Run Time 600.5 min
Venturi Flow Rate (Average) 17.88 slpm
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average) 848.35 slpm
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit 0.9592 1pm
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air 76162118 liters
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled 10736.94 liters
Volume of Dilution Air 509434.2 liters
Dilution Ratio 48.44687
Mass Flow Rate of Speciated Carbonyls in Diluted Sample 0.00105 • g/liter
Mass Flow Rate of Speciated Carbonyls in Undiluted Sample 0.050886 • g/liter
Total Mass of Speciated Carbonyls in Sampled Air 546.3607 «g
Total Speciated Carbonyls in Total Combustion Air 3875591 • g
Mass Emission Rate of Total Speciated Carbonyls 558.8891 • g/kg
0.558889 mg/kg
B-8
-------
Table B-9. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Speciated Carbonyl Compounds (1/18/01)
Date 1/18/01
Entry Date 9/17/01
Parameters Required Units
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air 0.2985 • g
Mass Fuel Consumed 7,926 kg
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average) 4827 scfm
RunTime 600.17 min
Venturi Flow Rate (Average) 19.01 slpm
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average) 850.66 slpm
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit 1.1209 1pm
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air 88185640 liters
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled 11409.23 liters
Volume of Dilution Air 510540.6 liters
Dilution Ratio 45.74803
Mass Flow Rate of Speciated Carbonyls in Diluted Sample 0.000444 • g/liter
Mass Flow Rate of Speciated Carbonyls in Undiluted Sample 0.020299 • g/liter
Total Mass of Speciated Carbonyls in Sampled Air 231.5965 «g
Total Speciated Carbonyls in Total Combustion Air 1790084 • g
Mass Emission Rate of Total Speciated Carbonyls 225.843 8 • g/kg
0.225844 mg/kg
B-9
-------
Table B-10. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) Carbonyl
Compounds (1/16/01)
Date 1/16/01
Entry Date 9/17/01
Parameters Required Units
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air 1.6460 • g
Mass Fuel Consumed 6,569 kg
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average) 4065 scfm
RunTime 600.33 min
Venturi Flow Rate (Average) 18.53 slpm
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average) 847.89 slpm
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit 0.9601 1pm
Calculations
Total Volume of Air Sampled 69659855 liters
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled 11124.11 liters
Volume of Dilution Air 509013.8 liters
Dilution Ratio 46.75769
Mass Flow Rate of Total Carbonyls in Diluted Sample 0.002856 • g/liter
Mass Flow Rate of Total Carbonyls in Undiluted Sample 0.133529 • g/liter
Total Mass of Total Carbonyls in Sampled Air 1485.395 • g
Total Carbonyls in Total Combustion Air 9301627 • g
Mass Emission Rate of Total Carbonyls 1416.068 *g/kg
1.416068 mg/kg
B-10
-------
Table B-ll. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) Carbonyl
Compounds (1/17/01)
Date 1/17/01
Entry Date 9/17/01
Parameters Required Units
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air 0.9260 • g
Mass Fuel Consumed 6,934 kg
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average) 4159 scfm
Run Time 600.5 min
Venturi Flow Rate (Average) 17.88 slpm
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average) 848.35 slpm
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit 0.9592 1pm
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air 76162118 liters
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled 10736.94 liters
Volume of Dilution Air 509434.2 liters
Dilution Ratio 48.44687
Mass Flow Rate of Total Carbonyls in Diluted Sample 0.001608 • g/liter
Mass Flow Rate of Total Carbonyls in Undiluted Sample 0.077885 • g/liter
Total Mass of Total Carbonyls in Sampled Air 836.2479 • g
Total Carbonyls in Total Combustion Air 5931896 • g
Mass Emission Rate of Total Carbonyls 855.4237 • g/kg
0.855424 mg/kg
B-ll
-------
Table B-12. Calculation of Mass Emission Rates for Total (Speciated + Unspeciated) Carbonyl Compounds
(1/18/01)
Date
Entry Date
1/18/01
9/17/01
Parameters Required
Mass of Analyte in Total Combustion Air
Mass Fuel Consumed
Combustion Air Flow Rate (Average)
Run Time
Venturi Flow Rate (Average)
Dilution Air Flow Rate (Average)
Flow Rate at Sample Collection Unit
Calculations
Total Volume of Combustion Air
Volume of Combustion Air Sampled
Volume of Dilution Air
Dilution Ratio
Mass Flow Rate of Total Carbonyls in Diluted Sample
Mass Flow Rate of Total Carbonyls in Undiluted Sample
Total Mass of Total Carbonyls in Sampled Air
Total Carbonyls in Total Combustion Air
Mass Emission Rate of Total Carbonyls
Units
0.7380
7,926
4827
600.17
19.01
850.66
1.1209
•g
kg
scfm
min
slpm
slpm
1pm
88185640
11409.23
510540.6
45.74803
0.001097
0.050187
572.5903
4425735
558.3675
0.558368
liters
liters
liters
• g/liter
• g/liter
•g/kg
mg/kg
B-12
-------
Appendix C
Method Detection Limits
-------
Table C-l. Carbonyl Compounds Analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography: Method
Detection Limits
Method Detection Limits
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovalderaldehyde
Valeraldehyde
o-Tolualdehyde
/w-Tolualdehyde
/>-Tolualdehyde
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Diacetyl
Methacrolein
2-Butanone
Glyoxal
Acetophenone
Methylglyoxal
Octanal
Nonanal
CAS No.
50-00-0
75-07-0
67-64-1
123-38-6
4170-30-3
123-72-8
100-52-7
590-86-3
110-62-3
529-20-4
620-23-5
104-87-0
66-25-1
5779.94-2
432-03-8
78-85-3
78-93-3
107-22-2
98-86-2
78-98-8
124-13-0
124-19-6
(jig)
0.0838
0.0916
0.0428
0.0934
0.1283
0.0956
0.0959
0.1076
0.1758
0.1439
0.1439
0.1439
0.1377
0.1337*
0.0154*
0.0125*
0.0125*
0.0412*
0.0250*
0.0244*
0.0100*
0.0182*
*Estimated value.
C-l
-------
Table C-2. Detection Limits (ppbv) for Air Toxics Compounds (Analytical Method EPA Compendium
Method TO-15)
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acetone
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
/ra«5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl ter/-butyl ether
Methyl ethyl ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl ter/-butyl ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
fer/-Amyl methyl ether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
CAS No.
74-86-2
115-07-1
75-71-8
74-87-3
1320-37-2
75-01-4
106-99-0
74-83-9
75-00-3
75-05-8
67-64-1
75-69-4
107-13-1
75-35-4
75-09-2
26523-64-8
56-60-5
75-34-3
1634-04-1
78-93-3
126-99-8
156-59-2
74-97-5
67-66-3
637-92-3
107-06-2
71-55-6
71-43-2
56-23-5
994-05-8
78-87-5
140-88-5
75-27-4
79-01-6
80-62-6
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.21
0.15
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
C-2
-------
Table C-2. (Continued)
Compound
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloropropene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m-, p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
/w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
CAS No.
10061-01-5
108-10-1
10061-02-6
79-00-5
108-88-3
124-48-1
106-93-4
111-65-9
127-18-4
108-90-7
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
75-25-2
100-42-5
79-34-5
95-47-6
108-67-8
95-63-6
541-73-1
100-44-7
106-46-7
95-50-1
120-82-1
87-68-3
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.04
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.18
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.11
C-2
-------
Table C-3. Detection Limits (ng/m3) for Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds (EPA Research
Operating Procedure, Research Protocol Method for Analysis ofC2-C12 Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air by Gas
Chromatography with Cryogenic Concentration)
Method Detection Limits
Compound CAS No. (|ig/m3)
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -butene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
/raws-2-Butene
cis-2 -Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
/ra«s-2 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethy 1-1 -butene
w-Hexane
/raws-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
74-85-1
74-86-2
74-84-0
115-07-1
74-98-6
74-99-7
75-28-5
115-11-7/106-98-0
106-99-0
106-97-8
624-64-6
590-18-1
563-45-1
78-78-4
109-67-1
563-46-2
109-66-0
78-79-4
646-04-8
627-20-3
513-35-9
75-83-2
142-29-0
691-37-2
287-92-3
79-29-8
107-83-5
96-14-0
763-29-1
592-41-6
760-21-4
110-54-3
4050-45-7
7688-21-3
0.50
0.47
0.54
0.44
0.46
0.42
0.43
0.21
0.40
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.45
0.33
0.31
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.46
0.31
0.45
0.32
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46 (Continued)
C-4
-------
Table C-3. (Continued)
Compound
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
w-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-, />-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
w-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
w-Propylbenzene
/w-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
w-Decane
CAS No.
96-37-7
108-08-7
71-43-2
110-82-7
591-76-4
565-59-3
589-34-4
592-76-7
540-84-1
142-82-5
108-87-2
564-02-3
565-75-3
108-88-3
592-27-8
589-81-1
111-66-0
111-65-9
100-41-4
108-38-3/106-42-3
100-42-5
95-47-6
124-11-8
111-84-2
98-82-8
80-56-8
103-65-1
620-14-4
622-96-8
108-67-8
611-14-3
127-91-3
95-63-6
872-05-9
124-18-5
Method Detection Limits
(Hg/m3)
0.45
0.35
0.42
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.51
0.40
0.39
0.51
0.51
0.37
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.47
0.46
0.47
0.40
0.41
0.38
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.38
0.33
0.33 (Continued)
C-5
-------
Table C-3. (Continued)
Method Detection Limits
Compound CAS No. (Hg/m3)
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 526-73-8 0.38
ffj-Diethylbenzene 141-93-5 0.32
^-Diethylbenzene 105-05-5 0.32
1-Undecene 821-95-4 0.49
w-Undecane 1120-21-4 0.50
1-Dodecene 112-41-4 0.49
w-Dodecane 112-40-3 0.50
1-Tridecene 2437-56-1 0.49
w-Tridecane 629-50-5 0.50
C-6
-------
Appendix D
EPA Method Operating Procedures
ERG Standard Operating Procedures
-------
Table D-l. List of EPA Method Operating Procedures
EPA Lab Method No. Method Title
2501 Preparation of Clean Substrates, Glassware, and Other
Materials
2502 Purification of Benzene Solvent
2503 Mass Measurements of Blank and Exposed Sampling
Substrates
2504 Solvent Extraction of Samples and Extract Concentration
2505 Diazomethane Preparation and Extract Methylation
2506 Silylation of Methylated Extracts
2507 GC/MS Calibration and Analysis of Extracts
2508 Denuder Coating, Cleanup, and Extraction
2509 PUF Cleanup and Extraction
NIOSH Method 5040 Elemental/Organic Carbon Analysis
D-l
-------
Table D-2. List of ERG Standard Operating Procedures
SOP
No.
Dept
SOP Title
Rev
Issue Date
All
Prep
VOC
3B VOC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
GC/MS
MS/VOC
GC/MS
GC/MS
All
All
All
All
Prep
VOC
Prep
Prep
GC
All
All
All
20
All
Documentation of Field Recovery Activities
Gravimetric Determination for Paniculate Emissions
Measurements
Field Procedure for Collecting Ambient Air Toxics and
Carbonyl Compounds Samples using the ERG:AT/C
Sampling System
Field Procedure for Collecting Ambient Air Toxics and
Carbonyl Compounds Samples using the ERG:AT/C
Sampling System
SOP for Preventive Maintenance in the Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Laboratory
SOP for the Concurrent GC/FID/MS Analysis of Canister Air
Toxic Samples
SOP for the Analysis of Tenax® Tubes According to EPA
Method TO-I/TO-17
SOP for the Preparation of Review Packages for Mass
Spectrometry Data Sets
Procedure for Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures
SOP for the Operation of the Documentation System
SOP for the Determination of Method Detection Limits in the
GC/MS Air Toxics Laboratory
SOP for Sample Storage and Checkout from
Freezers/Refrigerators at the Laboratory
SOP for Basic Training Requirements for Sample Preparation
Laboratory Personnel
Field Procedure for Collecting Ambient Air Hexavalent
Chromium Samples Using the ERG:CR6 Sampling System
SOP for Sample Preparation Quality Control
SOP for Documentation Procedures for the Sample
Preparation Laboratory
SOP for the Varian 9000 Series High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC)
SOP for Developing, Documenting, and Evaluating the
Accuracy of Spreadsheet Data
Maintaining and Recording Data Records
SOP for Transferring, Storing, and Using Confidential
Business Information (CBI)
SOP for Conducting a Laboratory Systems Audit
0
0
2/26/98
2/26/98
4/18/01
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10/12/99
5/8/03
2/24/00
10/12/99
11/1/01
9/22/99
6/17/99
9/22/99
7/13/99
10/19/03
6/17/99
7/13/99
9/28/99
111191
2/26/98
1/16/98
3/3/98
D-2
-------
Table D-2. List of ERG Standard Operating Procedures
SOP
XT Dept SOP Title
No.
21
22
23
24
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
voc
Prep
All
GC
Chrom Lab
GC
All
GC
GC/MS
Prep
VOC
All
All
All
All
GC/MS,
GC, Prep,
VOC
All
All
All
All
All
Prep
Field Procedure for Collecting Ambient Air Toxics Canister
Samples Using the ERG: AT Sampling System
SOP for the Preparation of Standards in the ERG Organic
Preparatory Laboratory
SOP for the Use of Significant Figures and Rounding Off
Numbers When Reporting Data
SOP for Preparing Aldehyde Derivatizing Reagents and
Extracting Derivatized Samples
SOP for Preparing, Extracting, and Analyzing DNPH
Carbonyl Cartridges
SOP for the Operation of the Rainin High Performance Liquid
Chromatography System
SOP for Documentation: Labeling of Samples and Standards
Prepared in the Laboratory
SOP for the Operation of a Gas Chromatograph
SOP for Quality Assurance/Quality Control in Gas
Chromatography /Mass Spectrometry
SOP for Concentration of Sample Extracts Using the
Kuderna-Danish Concentrates
SOP for Canister Sampling System Certification Procedures
SOP for Cleaning Glassware and Syringes for Organic
Analysis
Statistical Manual Standard Operating Procedure
SOP for Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal
Analytical Chemistry Training at PPK Laboratory
SOP for Analytical Chemistry Training in the ERG
Laboratory
SOP for Quality Assurance/Quality Control
SOP for Laboratory Security
SOP for Chemical Inventory
SOP for Personal Protective Equipment Program
SOP for Maintaining Laboratory Notebooks
SOP for Chemical Storage Facilities
Rev
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
Issue Date
9/16/03
2/2/00
11/5/98
9/28/99
5/8/03
9/28/99
10/12/99
7/13/99
2/23/00
10/4/99
10/4/99
1/24/01
4/18/01
2/2/00
Not Dated
9/22/99
4/18/01
2/15/01
2/23/00
2/2/00
-------
Table D-2. List of ERG Standard Operating Procedures
kJVJi
No.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
47B
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Dept
Optical
GC
GC/MS
GC/MS,
voc
Prep
VOC
VOC
VOC
GC/MS,
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Transfill
Chrom
Lab, LIMS
GC/MS,
CCL
All
All
Transfill
GC
VOC
VOC
SOP Title
SOP for Tracer Gas Release and Integrated Bag Sampling for
Analysis by FTIR Spectroscopy
SOP for the Dionex-300 Ion Chromato graph
SOP for the Analysis of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in
Gaseous Emissions using the SemiVOST Method
SOP for Method 8270C - GC/MS Analysis of Semivolatile
Organics
SOP for Sample Log-in at the ERG Chemistry Laboratory
Field Procedure for Collecting Speciated and/or Total
Nonmethane Organic Compounds Ambient Air Samples
Using the ERG:S/NMOC Sampling System
Field Procedure for Collecting Ambient Carbonyl Compounds
Samples Using the ERG:C Sampling System
Field Procedure for Collecting Ambient Carbonyl Compounds
Samples Using the ERG:C Sampling System
SOP for Cleaning XAD-2® and Polyurethane Foam Cartridges
with Quality Control Measures to Assure Cleanliness
SOP for the Extraction and Analysis of PAH's from XAD-27
Traps
SOP for Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction by EPA
SW-846 Method 3 5 IOC
SOP for Continuous Liquid-Liquid Extraction by EPA S W-
846 Method 3520C
SOP for Acid-Base Partition Cleanup by EPA SW-846
Method 3650B
SOP for Soxhlet Extraction by EPA SW-846 Method 3540C
SOP for Preparation, Evaluation, and Shipping of
Performance Evaluation Samples for Method 24
Sample Extraction and Preparation for Energetic Organic
Material
SOP for Maintenance of NANOpure-A Deionized Water
System
SOP for Daily Maintenance of Cold Storage Units
SOP for Project Peer Review
SOP for Preparing Method 25 Audit Samples Using the
Transfill System
SOP for High Performance Liquid Chromatography
SOP for PDFID Sample Analysis
SOP for Standard Preparation Using Dynamic Flow Dilution
D-4
Rev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Issue Date
6/20/00
5/5/00
1/24/01
5/15/03
2/24/00
4/18/01
4/18/01
10/9/02
2/24/00
7/13/99
7/13/99
8/18/99
9/23/99
01/04
10/12/99
9/22/99
8/18/99
4/24/98
5/5/00
7/8/99
-------
Table D-2. List of ERG Standard Operating Procedures
SOP
No.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Dept
voc
GC
Transfill
VOC, Prep,
GC,MS
Transfill
VOC
All
Transfill
Transfill
GC/MS,
VOC
Optical
GC
Prep
Prep
Prep
GC/MS
GC/MS
GC/MS
GC/MS
Prep
SOP Title
System
SOP for UATMP and NMOC Canister Cleaning
SOP for the Analysis of Ambient Air for Hexavalent
Chromium by 1C
SOP for Shipping Method 6, 7, 8, and 26 Audit Samples
SOP for the ERG Sample Database
Cylinder Recycling
SOP for Producing Standard Mixtures of Organic Compounds
in Air by Liquid Injection
SOP for Refrigerator and Freezer Temperature Monitoring
SOP for Shipping Method 23 Audit Samples
SOP for Storing and Shipping Method 13A, 13B, and 29
Audit Samples
SOP for Documentation Requirements for the GC/MS
Laboratory and for GC/MS Systems in the VOC Laboratory
SOP for Stack Sampling Using FTIR Spectroscopy
SOP for the BCD Wipe Test
SOP for the Preparation of Spiked Sorbent Samples Using
Liquid Spiking into Tenax-GC* Tubes
SOP for the Preparation of Spiked Sorbent Samples Using
Liquid Spiking onto XAD-2®
SOP for the Preparation of Spiked Sorbent Samples Using
Flash Evaporation Spiking onto XAD-2®
SOP for Method 624
SOP for Method 625
SOP for Method 1624C
SOP for Method 1625C
SOP for the Preparation of Spiked Method 8 Samples as
Rev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Issue Date
7/8/99
5/8/03
10/31/01
7/8/99
5/5/00
6/20/00
2/29/00
9/23/99
9/23/99
8/18/99
3/31/03
Stationary Source Audit Materials
D-5
-------
EPA/600/R-07/005
February 2007
Source Sampling Fine Particulate Matter
Institutional Oil-Fired Boiler
Appendix E Chain of Custody Forms
-------
Appendix E
Chain of Custody Forms
-------
Campaign 1
Chain of Custody Forms
-------
Chain of Custody Record
Page ' of '
PROJECT
OIL
SITE
COLLECTED BY (Signature)
FIELD SAMPLE I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX
DATE/TIME
TAINERS
O. OF C
ANALYSES
\L
or
REMARKS
SAM ID NO.
(For lab use only)
• (1801
7P
v/
IB! <$H|
I/
C
H Ai
oo
613
6 A< L
I/
riz L
P 12. tl oo
REMARKS:
*
RELINQUISHED BY:
DATE
TIME
RECEIVED BY:
DATE
TIME
RELINQUISHED BY:
DATE
TIME
RECEIVED BY:
DATE
TIME
RELINQUISHED BY:
PATE
TIME
LAB USE ONLY
RECEIVED FOR LABORATORY BY:
REMARKS:
DATE
TIME
AIRBILL NO.
OPENED BY
DATE
TIME
TEMP'C
SEAL #
CONDITION
-------
Chain of Custody Record
Page
- M
PROJECT
6
OIL
SITE
COLLECTED BY (Signature)
FIELD SAMPLE I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX
DATE/TIME
AINERS
CO
ANALYSES
0V
!L
IL
REMARKS
SAM ID NO.
(For lab use only)
B
1 (00 1
8l
I/
C
6 Bi
o/o8o/
H
V
REMARKS:
RELINjISHED BY:
DATE
TIME
RECEIVED BY:
DATE TIME
RELINQUISHED BY:
DATE TIME
RECEIVED BY:
DATE TIME
9
RELINQUISHED BY:
DATE
TIME
LAB USE ONLY
RECEIVED FOR LABORATORY BY:
REMARKS:
DATE
TIME
AIRBILL NO.
OPENED BY
DATE
TIME
TEMP"C
SEAL*
CONDITION
-------
Chain of Custody Record
Page.
„
PROJECT
SITE
COLLECTED BY (Signature)
FIELD SAMPLE I.D.
&ct /4
SAMPLE MATRIX
DATEATIME
CONTAINERS
NO.
ANALYSES
BY
REMARKS
SAM ID NO.
(For lab use only)
h to A. A
01
A
to k-i A
6
A.
W
01 C
+f
-------
EASTERN RESEARCH CROUP. INC.
PROJECT
sm! ŁfeNJ*BoŁo, NJC
COLLECTED BY (Signature)
FIELD SAMPLE I.D.
SAMPLE MATRIX
DATE/TIME
tl
\
^
1 fa
HzT?
REMARKS:
RECEIVED BY:
DATE
TIME
RELINQUISHED BY:
Chain of Custody Record
OF CONTAINERS
ANALYSES
0/
DATE
TIME
RECEIVED BY:
LAB USE ONLY
RECEIVED FOR LABORATORY BY:
DATE
TIME
AIRBILL NO.
OPENED BY
REMARKS:
V
I/
DATE
TIME
REMARKS
RELINQUISHED BY:
-M
RELINQUISHED BY:
DATE
TIME
TEMP°C
SEAL#
Page.
SAM ID NO.
(For lab use only)
DATE
DATE
TIME
TIME
CONDITION
-------
,1.6
CLEAN SUBSTRATES
Date Substrate Distributed
To Whom Substrate Distributed
FPMCC Lab Personnel
1/11/01
Rob Martz
Yuanji Dong
Total
Denuder
Quartz Filter
KOHQF
Teflo-washed
Teflo
Zeflo
PUF
50
t
-------
11*8
CLEAN SUBSTRATES
Date Substrate Distributed
To Whom Substrate Distributed
FPMCC Lab Personnel
1/11/01
Rob Martz
Yuanji Dong
Total
Denuder 6
Quartz Filter 32
KOHQF
Teflo-washed
Teflo
Zeflo
PUF
24
S3
4?
ft
?e
40
<&
x>
r?
't
1
"L
0
Y
*>
2
?>t
(
Type
Denuder
Denuder
Denuder
Denuder
Denuder
Denuder
QF r - - - *•
QF > ,
KjCn-»»f |Ł. #*f^l 1 •>
QF
QŁ>-* •*•*&* f
OF*-* «'.'-:
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
Clean Substrate ID
D071 000-1 01 3-6
D071 000-1 069-6
D071 800-995-2
D071 800-1 063-2
D01 0901 -1259-1
D01 0901 -1261-1
QOtOaOtA : *»*
Q01G801B *
Q010801C »
Q010801D %
QOT0801E *
QOtOSOtF *
Q010801G v
Q010801H
Q010801I
Q010801J
Q010801K
Q010801L
Q010801M
Q010801N
Q010801O
Q010801P
Q010801Q
Q010801R
Q010801S
Q010801T
Q010801U
Q010901A
Q010901B
Q010901C
Q010901D
Q010901E
Type
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
QF
TF******w*^i
ikf '^QQ^gg^ffi* -r f f
I'cz ». 9i<*^S^-Jkiaf'*i'^-
l ff^ Hj.* ? ^st^r^g^f jfKii
TF
IF *?«s^<^? <•*
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Clean Substrate ID
Q010901F
Q010901G
Q010901H
Q010901I
Q010901J
Q010901K
T041700H %K*»
T041700I •«•»
T041700J %
T062700A .
T062700F -JljfeA
T062900A
T062900B
T062900C
T062900D
T062900E
T062900F
T070500A
T070500B
T070500C
T070500D
T070500E
T070500F
T070700B
T070700C
T070700D
T070700E
T070700F
T070700G
*
^ — •—
~Ł^° i /
« rtf 1 f~? I O \
jtt..««!.rM5i-
„ -r- T^TTT
^10 otlnlol
Ł4t OI/I6/OI
5375- O//(&/Of
6/4- O/ //&//
6/0 at/te/ot-
• d»'ii uT/T/e/w "
6/3 Ł?///&/&/
^IO Ol[t^)[ot
6l 3 r.°'/58/?0//
--^"^~~~r~~~CT~
^10 °' Y;-L-/^j
(5 /ML. ° -f---f-| ~
^/ -J *'/|7 /O
^1 |