EPA-60C/1-PC-016
April 1990
TEST AND EVALUATION OF A POLYMER
MEMBRANE FRECONCENTRATOR
FINAL REPORT
By:
Kirk E. Hummel and Thomas P. Nelson
Radian Corporation
8501 Mo-Pac Boulevard
P. 0. Box 201088
Austin, Texas 78720-1088
EPA Contract 68-02-4286
Work Assignments 32 and 69
EPA Project Officer: Charles H. Darvin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Air Toxics Control Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
and
California Air Resources Board
Research Division
Sacramento, CA 95814
-------
Abstract
The control of emissions of Volatile Organic Compound emissions to the
atmosphere from industrial operations represents one of the most challenging
problems in the area of pollution control. Although technologies are
available to capture or destroy these emissions, the cost in many cases has
proven prohibitive. The utilization of polymeric membranes may represent an
opportunity to reduce the cost of controlling these emissions. Polymeric
membranes have been used for a number of years as a concentrating step for
various liquid and gaseous streams, including the removal of large molecule
organic from waste water streams, hydrogen separation and C02 recovery. A
polymer membrane is an ultra-thin layer of a polymer material which has the
capability of selectively filtering the polluting molecule.
This report gives results of research on the applicability of membranes
to enhance the ability of existing control technologies to capture or destroy
these emissions. The report evaluates membranes and defines operating
parameters of a membrane system. The research project is a }oint effort
between the EPA and the California Air Resources Board. Test of various
membrane materials and configurations have been conducted.
The potentially innovative application of membrane technology may be to
concentrate the polluting VOC in the process exhaust reducing its volume thus
permitting more economical control of the pollutant. Due to the projected
high cost of operating the membrane, however, this study could not draw the
conclusion that it is a viable option to .enhance pollution control.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract - 11
Figures .... v
Tables . ... .... vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms , ... . vm
1 Introduction . , ..... 1
Overview of the Technology 1
Literature Review 3
2. Summary and Conclusions 5
Summary . .... 5
Conclusions . . . . 6
3 Experimental Testing . 7
Test Objectives . , . . 7
Test Procedures , . . . 10
4 Test Results 15
Experimental Data . ... 15
Removal Efficiency 15
Enrichment Ratio . 16
Separation Factor . . 16
Material Balance 18
Comparison with Theoretical Model . 20
5. Conceptual Designs of Membrane Preconcentrator 26
Process Description 26
Scale Up . 28
Integration of Overall System 33
ili
-------
(Continued)
6 Cost Algorithms. . ... . 38
Vendor Survey and Literature Data 38
Results of Cost Analysis . . .... . 41
7. Recommendations for Future Research . 63
8. References . 67
Appendices
A. Test Results . . 70
B. QC Results . . 83
C. Laboratory Systems Audit Report.. . 94
D, Example Design and Cost Calculations . . 100
E Quality Control Evaluation Report (QCER) 115
F. Detailed Design Calculations . . 126
G Detailed Cost Estimates.. . 140
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 Schematic Cross-Section of a Composite Polymer Membrane 2
3-1 Schematic Diagram of Test Apparatus 11
5-1 Overall Diagram of Membrane Preconcentrator . . 27
5-2a Membrane System with Vacuum Pump.. 32
5-2b Membrane System with Compressor. ,, .. . . . . 32
6-1 Capital Cost Comparison (250 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed). .. 47
6-2 Capital Cost Comparison (2500 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed) 48
6-3 Capital Cost Comparison (10000 ACFM, 1000 ppm Toluene feed) ... 49
6-4 Capital Cost Comparison (250 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed) . . 50
6-5 Capital Cost Comparison (2500 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed). . 51
6-6 Capital Cost Comparison (10000 ACFM, 100 ppm Toluene feed) . 52
6-7 Annualized Cost Comparison (250 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed) . 56
6-8 Annualized Cost Comparison (2500 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed) . 57
6-9 Annualized Cost Comparison (10000 ACFM, 1000 ppra Toluene feed) ,. 58
6-10 Annualized Cost Comparison (250 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed) 59
6-11 Annualized Cost Comparison (2500 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed) . 60
6-12 Annualized Cost Comparison (10000 ACFM, 100 ppm Toluene feed) . 61
A-l Example Calculations . . - 80
E-l Comparison of Manufacturer's Data to Test Data (Toluene) . . . 123
E-2 Comparison of Manufacturer's Data to Test Data (Methyl Ethyl
Ketone) .. 124
E-3 Comparison of Manufacturer's Data to Test Data (Methylene
Chloride) 125
-------
TABLES
Number
3-1 Membrane Module Data . . . ... ... 8
3-2 Solvents Tested in the Study ... .9
3-3 Quality Control Checks .... . . 14
4-1 Summary of Average Test Results .... ... 17
4-2 Separation Factor Results ..... ... 19
4-3 Closures with Gravimetric Trap ..... .21
4-4 Closures with Direct Permeate Sampling .... 22
4-5 Comparison Between Experimental Stage Cut and Enrichment Ratio
with Theory 25
5-1 Design Matrix .... ... . .. 30
5-2 Comparison Between Vacuum and Compression Systems ... . 35
6-1 Literature Cost Data.... ... 40
6-2a Listing of Capital Cost Data and Selection of Cost Basis -
Membrane Cost Data . 42
6-2b Listing of Capital Cost Data and Selection of Cost Basis -
Carbon Adsorber Cost Data . . . . . ... 43
6-2c Listing of Capital Cost Data and Selection of Cost Basis -
Vacuum Pump Cost Data . . . . 45
VI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
QCER Quality Control Evaluation Report
r Linear correlation coefficient
RF Response factor
RH Relative humidity
SCFM Standard cubic feet per minute
SLPM Standard liters per minute
SS Stainless steel
STP Standard temperature and pressure (0°C and 760 mraHg)
THC Total hydrocarbons
TI Temperature indicator
ISA Technical Systems Audit
UHP Ultra High Purity
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
IX
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
6-2d Listing of Capital Cost Data and Selection of Cost Basis -
Compressor Cost Data 46
6-3 Example Capital Cost Comparison . . .53
6-4 Listing of Unit Costs in Annualized Cost Comparison 55
6-5 Example Annualized Cost Comparison.... . .... 62
A-l Archived Logbook Data . . 72
B-l Temperature Sensor Calibration ... . . , 85
B-2 Pressure Gauge Calibration . . 86
B-3 Flowmeter Calibrations 88
B-4 Weekly Propane Multipoint Calibrations .. . 89
B-5 Gravimetric Trap Recovery Test Results 90
B-6 Daily Solvent Multipoint Calibration Data . 92
B-7 Direct Permeate Sampling Test. . . , 93
D-l Example Design Calculations. . . ... 101
D-2 Example Cost Calculations . .. 107
E-l Factors for Two-Sided Tolerance Limits for Normal Distributions 119
E~2 Ninety-Five Percent Tolerance Intervals and Data Quality. . 120
F-l Spreadsheet Calculations for System Design. ... ... . 127
G-l Spreadsheet Calculations for System Capital and Operating Costs. 141
Vll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACFM Actual cubic feet per minute
AMCEC American Ceca Corporation
ARE California Air Resources Board
Atra Atmospheres
CA Chemical Abstracts
CFC-113 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane
Compendex Engineering Index Computer Database
COj Carbon dioxide
DGM Dry gas meter
DQIs Data Quality Indicators
DQOs Data Quality Objectives
EPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency
F Stage cut
HCl Hydrogen chloride
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HP Horsepower
INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
kWh Kilowatt-hours
LEL Lower Explosive Limit
MeCl Methylene Chloride
MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone
HeOH Methyl Alcohol (Methanol)
mmHg ' Millimeters of mercury
MT Metric Tons
MTR Membrane Technology and Research
NBS National Bureau of Standards (now NIST)
Nm3 Normal cubic meters
NTIS National Technical Information Service
PI Pressure indicator
ppmv Parts per million by volume
psia Pounds per square inch absolute
Pt Total pressure
Vlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) both seek to identify new and innovative methods to
control toxic air pollutants. One potentially viable concept is the use of
polymeric membrane materials which allows the selective permeation of organic
vapors. However, further development and testing will be required before this
technology can be considered as a proven near-term solution.
OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
Membrane systems have been used for several years as a concentrating step
for various operations such as water treatment, hydrogen separation, and C02
recovery, A polymeric membrane system for organic vapor recovery typically
consists of an ultra-thin layer of a selective polymer which is supported on a
porous sublayer (see Figure 1-1) . The open support material is used as a
spacer to separate the polymer layers in a spiral-wound membrane module
An innovative use of a membrane may be for concentrating hydrocarbon
vapors from exhaust gases such as solvent oven drying exhaust. A "precon-
centrator" membrane could be used to reduce the size and, in turn, the capital
and operating requirements of a conventional VOC control device such as a
carbon adsorber or incinerator. The overall result would be a cost savings, a
performance improvement (i.e., greater emissions reductions), and, for
incinerators, reduced energy requirements.
The purpose of this work is to evaluate the applicability of membrane
systems as a preconcentrator and to define operating parameters of a membrane
system. The advantages of such a system are a potential reduction in cost for
the overall system both from a capital and operating cost standpoint and a
-------
Dense Active Layer
(1
Porous Sublayer
(150 /jm)
Open Support Material
Figure 1-1. Schematic Cross-Section of a Composite Polymer Membrane
-------
potential increase in the number of applications that could use those conven-
tional controls, both technically and economically.
In order to achieve the objectives, several tasks were performed. First,
a bench-scale membrane module was tested with six common solvents to define
the capability of membrane technology to solve toxic air emission problems and
to define operating parameters. (Text, the bench-scale data was used to
develop preliminary conceptual system designs. With these designs, cost
estimates were prepared for both capital and operating costs of the membrane
assisted systems, and these costs were compared to the costs for systems which
did not utilize the membrane preconcentrator step.
As a prelude to the experimental work, a review of available literature
on hydrocarbon vapor recovery with membranes was performed. Any relevant
articles found in the search are discussed below.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to obtain any additional information on membranes, specifically
gas-phase hydrocarbon recovery, a computerized literature search was per-
formed. Unfortunately, very little new data were found. Out of three major
databases (National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Chemical Abstracts
(CA), and Engineering Index (COMPENDEX)), only seven entries were located,
three of which were not applicable. The conclusion is that membrane applica-
tions in the VOC recovery area are rare.
Theoretical studies have been presented for polymeric membrane systems.
The fundamental material and energy balance equations governing the design and
performance of single-stage gas permeation were presented by Weller and
Steiner (1). A further analysis for the cross-flow pattern (which applies to
the spiral-wound module used in this study) was performed by Pan and Habgood
(2). The theoretical model in Section 4 used for comparison with the experi-
mental data is based entirely on the equations found in Pan and Habgood.
-------
Much of the data on gas-phase hydrocarbon recovery using polymeric
membranes have been presented by Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. (MTR),
The effort at MTR has been led by R.W. Baker, and has resulted in several
papers (3,4), reports (5,6), and at least one patent (7). MTR is actively
marketing a membrane system for solvent vapor recovery for smaller industrial
applications such as web drier emissions.
A recent paper (8) dealt with synthetic membranes for separation of
organic vapors from waste air streams. The authors discuss their tests of
hollow fiber membranes using polydimethylsiloxane as the selective barrier.
They propose a process for recovery of toluene from spray painting operations.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
A bench-scale polymeric membrane system was designed and constructed for
this program. The membrane was spiral-wound and was supplied by a current
membrane manufacturer. The membrane test module performed well in removing a
large percentage of solvent from dilute (20 to 2000 ppmv) gas streams The
membrane was able to remove about 60 percent of the incoming solvent, and
generated a "permeate" stream about three (3) times as concentrated as the
original feed. The module was equally effective on all six of the solvents
tested. No noticeable degradation in performance of the module was apparent
after the test sequence, although an extended performance evaluation was not
conducted.
Based on the test data and available cost data for two simple configura-
tions, the membrane preconcentrator does not appear to be an economic alterna-
tive to carbon adsorption for low concentration (i.e., 100 to 1000 ppmv)
solvent-laden air streams. The capital and annualized costs of the membrane-
augmented system were consistently higher than the carbon adsorber alone
Cost reductions for the membrane-augmented carbon adsorber (due to the reduced
volume flow) were not sufficient to cover the added expense of the membrane
and associated equipment.
Additionally, the study examined the use of a pressurized feed versus a
vacuum permeate stream. For equivalent inlet gas flows, the va.cuum-pumped
arrangement was more expensive than the compressed feed arrangement. This was
surprising since it seems wasteful to compress the full feed flow rather than
the smaller permeate flow. Nevertheless, the compressed feed arrangement
requires less membrane area, and avoids potential problems with humidification
of the permeate when using a liquid ring vacuum pump.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The test program was able to provide reproducible data regarding the
performance of the bench-scale membrane module. The sampling and analytical
methods worked well, and the data could be correlated to an existing model
The program was able to characterize the operation of membrane module
The conceptual design phase of this project provided an opportunity to
study the material balance equations developed by Weller and Steiner (2) for
cross-flow (spiral-wound) membranes. The material balance model was able to
accurately approximate the experimental performance data for stage cut and
enrichment ratio Discussions with carbon adsorber vendors brought out
additional design considerations, especially regarding the upper limit for
enrichment (25 percent of the lower explosive limit for flammable solvents),
and the potential problems of saturating the permeate stream with water vapor
when a water-sealed liquid ring vacuum pump is used
The cost algorithm developed for a membrane-augmented system showed it to be
more costly than direct carbon adsorption in all of the cases studied The
cost estimations predicted that capital costs of carbon adsorbers do not
change much at flow rates below 28.3 Nm3/min (1000 scfm). Furthermore, the
benefit of increased inlet concentration to the adsorber (i.e., reduced volume
flow) is not great, since the amount of carbon in the bed (and the amount of
steam required) is dependent on the amount of solvent to be handled Thus,
until the working capacity of the membrane system is significantly improved
and operating cost reduced, this technology cannot be considered economical for
pollution control.
-------
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
TEST OBJECTIVES
The purpose'of the bench-scale testing was to obtain experimental data on
the performance of a small spiral-wound membrane module used to concentrate
solvent vapors. In past reports by others, much of the experimental data were
obtained using very small permeation cells containing a flat membrane disc of
only a few square centimeters in area Extrapolation of experimental data
from such a small membrane is highly uncertain. Instead, this study has used
a small spiral-wound membrane module to obtain data which may be scaled up
with more confidence. The approximate membrane area of the test module is
0.4 m2 (4.3 ft2). Other information about the membrane module is presented in
Table 3-1.
The membrane performance is indicated by two properties: 1) the removal
efficiency, or in other words, the percentage of solvent entering which is
transferred to the permeate stream (related to the solvent flux across the
membrane); and 2) the separation factor, which is the degree of concentration
or enrichment which the membrane can achieve (related to the selectivity of
the membrane). Both of these properties are dependent on the operating
conditions. For example, the pressure ratio (permeate-side pressure/inlet
pressure) can exert a strong influence on removal efficiency and enrichment.
The experimental tests were conducted on six solvents (listed in Table
3-2). Each of the tested solvents finds wide use in commercial and industrial
applications and is meant to represent certain classes of organics. Also, the
solvent vapor feed concentration was varied for each of the solvents, gener-
ally within the range of 20 to 2,000 parts per million volume (ppmv). This
low concentration range was chosen since data in this range has not been
available in the literature. Also, it is the range where the membrane system
-------
TABLE 3-1. MEMBRANE MODULE DATA
Manufacturer:
Module Type:
Configuration:
Membrane Material:
Membrane Area:
Membrane Thickness:
Module Dimensions:
Normal Operating
Conditions:
Nitto Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Shiga Plant, Membrane Division
Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan
S2B Organic Vapor Recovery Module
Spiral Wound
Composite Polyimide
0.4 m2 (4.3 ft2)
3pm (.0012 in)
(External Housing) 7.9 cm diameter x 62.0 cm length
(Internal Element) 6.1 cm diameter x 53.3 cm length
Inlet Flow: 50 SLPM (2.0 acfm)
Inlet Pressure: 800 mmHg (15.5 psia)
Permeate Flow: 3 SLPM (0.106 scfm)
Permeate Pressure: 80 mmHg (1.55 psia)
Temperature: 25'C (77'F)
-------
TABLE 3-2. SOLVENTS TESTED IN THE STUDY
Solvent
Class
Industrial Application
Hexane
Toluene
MEK"
Methanol
Freon 113b
Methylene Chloride
Aliphatic
Aromatic
Ketone
Alcohol
Chlorofluorocarbon
Chlorinated
Surface coating
Vegetable extraction
Surface coating
Printing
Surface coating
Printing
Printing
Degreasing
Electronic degreasing
Dry cleaning
Metal degreasing
Foam blowing
"Methyl ethyl ketone
bl,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
-------
may be applied as a preconcentrator in conjunction with other VOC control
technologies which work best on high solvent concentration streams. Test
conditions that were measured and kept constant included' 1) inlet tempera-
ture, pressure, and flowrate, 2) outlet pressure and flowrate, and 3) permeate
pressure. The module was tested with solvent vapor in nitrogen gas. This
reduced the potential hazards associated with several of the flammable
solvents and also provided data comparable to previous studies in nitrogen.
The flammability of certain solvents could pose an additional hazard to
the testing or practical application of membrane systems for solvent recovery.
Flammable solvents and oxygen can form explosive mixtures. A membrane
preconcentrator handling (flammable) solvent vapors in air could result in
shifting the mixture from a dilute feed condition below the lower explosive
limit (LEL) to a concentrated permeate mixture within the explosive range
TEST PROCEDURES
Figure 3-1 illustrates the experimental apparatus. The membrane module
was installed in a closed-loop arrangement for testing. The closed-loop
arrangement was chosen to minimize the amount of nitrogen which would other-
wise be wasted if the system vented to the atmosphere. The stripped off-gas
or residue was recycled back to the inlet and a small volume of make-up
solvent vapor was fed to the loop. Because of the small (but finite) amount
of nitrogen which passed through the membrane with the solvent, make-up
nitrogen from a cylinder was required
The primary measurements were the total hydrocarbon (THC) concentrations
taken at the membrane feed inlet and stripped off-gas outlet These concen-
trations were measured with the Byron 401 THC analyzer, with samples taken
semi-continuously at one-minute intervals Since the project utilized only
one analyzer, it was necessary to sample the inlet and outlet locations
alternately.
In order to close a material balance around the system, it was necessary
to measure the amount of solvent transferred to the permeate stream During
10
-------
Make-up
Nitrogen
Gas Line
Membrane
Module
Low Pressure
Side
(80 mmHg)
Bypass
Valves
Vacuum Gauge
Gravimetric
Cold Trap
(-150 C)
Byron 401 THC
Analyzer
Permeate Sample
Vacuum Pump
Liquid Nitrogen
Trap (-196 C)
Permeate
Sample Pumps
LEGEND
Circulating Loop
Solvent Vapor, Permeate
Lines, Sampling Lines
Pressure Indicator
Temperature Indicator
Figure 3-1. Schematic Diagram of Test Apparatus
-------
Che course of the project, tests showed that the cold trap sampling technique
was not sufficiently accurate to determine the permeate solvent flux As
explained later, a method was developed to extract a sample from the permeate
stream for direct THC analysis This required a special arrangement of
additional sample pumps (operated in series) to pull samples from the low
pressure permeate side (see Figure 3-1).
Starting a test series on a new,solvent first involved filling the
previously-cleaned saturator with Reagent Grade solvent and closing the top
A Teflon® gasket sealed the flanged connection. The saturator used a dip tube
to bubble nitrogen through the solvent. The saturator also contained 1/2"
glass Raschig rings (packing) to ensure adequate gas-liquid contacting The
temperature of the liquid solvent was measured with a thermocouple. The
saturator was wrapped with a heating tape (and insulation) to allow the
solvent to be heated. The saturator was pressurized to a known pressure By
varying the solvent temperature and saturator pressure, it was possible to
adjust the concentration of the saturated solvent vapor.
Next, the membrane system was started with nitrogen only to establish a
steady-state flow and total hydrocarbon background before adding saturated
solvent vapor to ensure the removal of traces of solvent from previous tests
A low baseline level of solvent was determined by sampling the inlet THC
concentration with the Byron 401 The circulating pump and vacuum pump were
started before beginning the flow of saturated solvent vapor into the cir-
culating loop. Normally, the cold trap was filled with liquid nitrogen, and
the vacuum was adjusted as the circulating pump was started. After establish-
ing a low baseline for inlet THC, the flow of saturated solvent vapor could be
started. The solvent concentration in the circulating loop was governed
mostly by the flowrate of the solvent vapor.
Once the inlet THC concentration had stabilized, data collection was
started. Sampling the inlet and outlet THC (and later, permeate THC) streams
involved switching back and forth, since only one THC analyzer was used
Confidence in the data was highest when the respective THC values remained
essentially constant between sampling periods. Whenever possible, the THC
12
-------
sampling sequence was from low to high concentration. This helped to minimize
delays and potential erroneous THC responses caused by solvent adsorption on
the Teflon sample lines. Therefore, sample lines were changed when switching
from the permeate (highest concentration) to the outlet (lowest concentra-
tion), If contaminated, the sample line could be cleared in a short time by
allowing UHP N2 to flow through it.
Overall, including the daily multipoint calibration of the THC analyzer,
it was possible to complete tests at two levels of inlet solvent concentration
each day. This is based on the time required to change solvents, purge the
membrane, and collect about two hours of data at each condition.
QA/QC Procedures
Several types of procedures were developed to provide quality assurance
(QA) and quality control (QC). These QA/QC procedures were detailed in the
Test Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) A brief list of these
procedures is summarized in Table 3-3 The QAPP was written to ensure that
the experimental measurements would provide results of sufficient quality to
evaluate the performance of the control technology. The QAPP discussed Data
Quality Objectives (DQOs), Data Quality Indicators (DQIs), sampling and
analytical procedures, data reduction methods, data validation methods, and
reporting procedures. The statistical analysis of the test data is presented
in the Quality Control Evaluation Report (QCER), in Appendix E of this report.
The detailed results of the calibrations and other QC checks are presented in
Appendix B.
13
-------
TABLE 3-3. QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
Parameter
Method of Measurement
Type of QC Check Frequency
Standards
Acceptance
Criteria
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
Flowrate
Temperature
Pressure
Pressure/Vacuum
Barometric
Pressure
Byron 401 THC Analyzer
Byron 401 THC Analyzer
Gravimetric Trap
(Electronic Top
Loading Balance)
(Gravimetric Trap/
Direct Perm Sampling)
Rotameter
Thermocouple
Type J (Saturator)
Type K (Inlet Gas)
Magnehelic
Bourdon Tube Gauge
Mercury Manometer
Multipoint (Propane) Weekly
Multipoint (Solvent) Daily
Multipoint Weekly
Recovery Test Once
Multipoint Once
Multipoint Once
Multipoint Once
Multipoint Once
Daily
Propane in N2
r>0.995
Certified Master r>0.995
Gas of Solvent
in N2
Class S weights
+2X
Material Balance >95%
Hastings Raydist +1X
Flow Calib. or
Calibrated DGM
NBS Calib. ±1X
Thermometers
Inclined Manometer +1%
Reference Test
Gauges
National Weather
Service Office
+1%
-------
SECTION 4
TEST RESULTS
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Experimental data were recorded in a. laboratory notebook and on a strip
chart recorder connected to the Byron 401 THC analyzer. At the conclusion of
the experimental testing, the laboratory notebook data were entered into a
PARADOX relational database for further data manipulation Appendix A
contains 'a tabulated listing of process data taken (approximately) every five
minutes. Also included in Appendix A are sample calculations which illustrate
how the process data were converted to the intermediate results of solvent
mass flow. Appendix E contains the statistical analysis of the results,
including estimates of experimental error. Table 4-1 presents a summary of
the average inlet, outlet, and permeate concentrations for each test Also
listed are average inlet and outlet solvent mass flowrates and the average
pressure ratio of each test. For the test runs where the gravimetric trap was
used, the trap results were not used, and the remaining calculations for those
runs were based on an assumption of 100% closure of the material balance (a
more detailed discussion is provided in a subsequent section).
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Removal efficiency refers to the percentage of incoming solvent vapor
which is removed by the membrane. For example, consider a source of solvent-
laden exhaust air containing 100 kg/hr of solvent. If a. membrane having a
removal efficiency of 75% were to be applied to this air stream, then the
membrane would produce a stripped off-gas containing only 25 kg/hr of solvent.
The balance (75 kg/hr) would be contained in the more concentrated permeate
stream.
15
-------
The removal efficiency of the membrane module was calculated by the
following equation:
(4-1)
_, , „„. . (Inlet Solvent Flow - Outlet Solvent Flow)xlOO%
Removal Efficiency - r~: z—; r:
J Inlet Solvent Flow
The numerator (Inlet - Outlet) is equal to the solvent flux through the
membrane Results of removal efficiency for each test are shown in Table 4-1
ENRICHMENT RATIO
Enrichment ratio refers to the degree of enrichment that the membrane
can accomplish at given conditions. For example, consider a source of
solvent-laden exhaust air with an initial concentration of 1000 ppmv. If a
membrane having an enrichment ratio of five were applied to this air stream,
then the membrane would produce a permeate stream enriched to 5000 ppmv.
The enrichment ratio is simply the ratio of the permeate concentration
to the inlet (feed) concentration. Table 4-1 presents the average enrichment
ratio for each test.
SEPARATION FACTOR
Separation factor refers to the relative permeabilities of the solvent
and the gas (e.g., nitrogen or air) through the membrane. If the separation
factor were equal to one, then the permeabilities would be equal and no
separation could be obtained. From the standpoint of trying to optimize a
membrane for high removal and enrichment of solvent, one would prefer a high
separation factor. However, as will be discussed later, membrane area is not
determined by the relative permeability, but by the actual permeability of the
solvent through the membrane. Therefore, separation factor is usually a
compromise.
The separation factor (alpha) was calculated by the following equation:
16
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
Solvent
Hejcane
Toluene
MEK
MeOH
CFC-113
MeCl
Test
Date
12-14-88
12-14-88
01-20-89
01-20-89
01-19-89
01-19-89
12-16-8B
12-19-88
01-03-89
01-13-89
01-13-89
01-16-89
01-09-89
01-09-89
01-10-89
01-05-89
01-06-89
01-06-89
Inlet
Solvent
Concentration
(ppmv)
327
151B
64 6
716
.33 0
128 0
60 6
346
1725
84 5
376
1190
16 8
148
1371
91 5
88 7
1257
Inlet
Solvent
Mass Flow
(8/hr)
1 65
7 74
0 33
3 66
0 179
0 69
0 26
1 48
7 43
0 16
0 71
2 17
0 186
1 64
15 2
0 45
0 44
6 24
Outlet
Solvent
Concentration
(ppmv)
121
556
31 5
360
15 6
56 5
17 7
166
770
54 2
192
582
11 4
83 5
684
44.6
38 3
578
Outlet
Solvent
Mass Flow
(8/hr)
0 50
2 31
0 13
1 54
0 069
0 25
0 063
0 59
2 74
0 086
0 30
0 87
0 103
0 76
6 27
0 18
0 16
2 35
Removal
Efficiency
(I)
69 8
70 1
59 9
58 1
61 2
63 6
76 0
60 2
62 7
47 0
57 7
59 8
44 3
53 6
58 B
60 0
64 5
62 3
Permeate
Solvent
Concentration
(ppmv)
1260
5770
189 '
2210
100
409
260
1220
6220
299
1260
4000
41
442
4630
306
259
4336
Enrichment
Ratio
3 86
3 BO
2 93
3 09
3.04
3 19
4 30
3 52
3 61
3 53
3 35
3 37
2 47
2.99
3 38
3 35
2 92
3 45
Pressure
Ratio
0 046
0 055
0 075
0 075
0 072
0 072
0 049
0 075
0 087
0 072
0 072
0 072
0 088
0 086
0 084
0 074
0 072
0 072
-------
0 . „ Permeability of Solvent (4-2)
Separation Factor = r , .. .
-------
TABLE 4-2. SEPARATION FACTOR RESULTS
SOLVENT
Solvent
Hexane
Toluene
MEK
MeOH
CFC-113
MeCl
Teat
Date
12-14-88
12-14-88
01-20-89
01-20-89
01-19-89
01-19-89
12-16-88
12-19-88
01-03-89
01-13-89
01-13-89
01-16-89
01-09-89
01-09-89
01-10-89
01-05-89
01-06-89
01-06-89
Inlet
Pleasure
(mmHg)
777
778
778
779
776
777
792
778
789
777
776
777
790
790
786
778
777
777
8
5
9
2
8
0
2
9
1
1
8
03
0
2
1
3
1
1
Permeate
Pressure
(mmHg)
35 4
43 0
58 3
58 3
56 3
56 3
38 7
58 3
68 3
56 3
56 3
56 3
69 3
67 9
66 2
57 3
56 3
56 3
Partial
Pressure
Difference
0 130
0 559
0 026
0 290
0 013
0 049
0 021
0 129
0 560
0 037
0 150
0 462
0 008
0 061
0 501
0 035
0 035
0 469
Flux Rate
(L/day«m2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
494
016
172
007
027
015
066
350
007
031
103
003
034
340
012
Oil
176
NITROGEN
Partial
Permeability Pressure
(gmol/hr*ninHg) Difference
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
113
087
085
090
098
132
096
116
064
085
088
054
077
095
091
096
098
742 2
734 9
720 6
720 6
720 5
720 7
753 5
720 5
720 3
720 8
720 4
720 3
720 7
722 2
719 3
721 0
720 8
720 4
Separation
Permeability Factor
(gmol/hr'mnHg) (a)
0 014
0 015
0 014
0 014
0 014
0 014
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
0 01
7 246
7 641
5 991
6 205
6 075
6 880
9 389
6 847
8 073
4 460
6 109
6 185
3 618
5 211
6 684
6 236
6 642
6 685
-------
Gravimetric Trap
The original approach to determine the permeate solvent flux was to use
a pre-weighed cold trap to condense the permeate solvent vapor over a known
time period. The difference between the post-test weight and the tare weight
would yield the amount of solvent collected. This technique was tested prior
to conducting the actual experiments (Appendix B), and was used during the
test runs before the apparatus was modified for direct permeate sampling.
Unfortunately, the QA/QC tests showed that the recovery of the cold trap was
lower than expected. As a result, the isopentane/liquid nitrogen bath was
changed to liquid nitrogen in an attempt to improve sample recoveries by
maintaining the trap at an even lower temperature. However, as seen in
Table 4-3, the closures with the gravimetric trap were consistently low. We
speculate that the cause is incomplete solvent trapping caused by poor heat
transfer in the trap and a short residence time.
Direct Permeate TUG Sampling
An alternative approach to obtaining an independent value for the
permeate flux involved pulling a sample from the permeate stream and analyzing
it with the THC analyzer. This required using a two-stage Thomas pump and a
separate^diaphragm pump to obtain the necessary vacuum. This technique was
also tested prior to collecting experimental data; the results are presented
in Appendix 6. As Table 4-4 indicates, material balance closures obtained
with this sampling method are much closer to 100%.
COMPARISON WITH THEORETICAL MODEL
When prior experience with full-scale systems is lacking, many engineer-
j
ing studies use pilot-scale or bench-scale results to assist in the design of
full-scale units. The accepted basis for "scale up" estimates is the use of
dimensionless groups which are derived from the application of the laws of
conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.
20
-------
TABLE 4-3 CLOSURES WITH GRAVIMETRIC TRAP
Test
Date
12-14-88
12-14-88
12-16-88
12-19-88
01-03-89
01-09-89
01-10-89
01-10-89
01-16-89
Time
4:10-5.10
7.30-8.30
4:00-5:30
8 20-9:46
8:34-10.24
7:04-8:11
10:48-11.32
11:42-12:22
2:15-4:10
Solvent
Hexane
Hexane
MEK
MEK
MEK
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
MeOH
Inlet
Solvent
Mass Flow
(g/hr)
1.65
7.74
0.262
1.482
7 434
1.64
15.204
15.204
2.174
Outlet
Solvent
Mass Flow
(g/hr)
0.50
2.31
0.063
0.591
2.741
0.76
6.269
6.269
A
0.874
Solvent
Captured
in Trap
(g/hr)
0.46
3 04
0.587
0.419
2.01
0.412
6.395
4.905
0.60
Percent
Closure
58 18%
69 12%
248 1%
68.15%
63.91%
71.46%
83.29%
73 49%
67.8%
-------
TABLE 4-4. CLOSURES WITH DIRECT PERMEATE SAMPLING
ro
ro
Test
Date
01-20-89
01-20-89
01-06-89
01-06-89
01-13-89
01-13-89
01-16-89
Time
5:00-6
6 50-7
2.45-4
5:30-6
2:10-4
5:25-6
2:30-5
30
:50
:40
:50
:30
:50
:00
Solvent
Hexane
Hexane
MeCl
MeCl
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
Inlet
Solvent .
Mass Flow
(g/hr)
0
3
0.
6.
0.
0.
2.
.33
66
437
235
162
709
174
Outlet
Solvent
Mass Flow
(g/hr)
0
1
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
.13
.54
155
347
086
300
874
Permeate
Solvent
Mass Flow
(g/hr)
0
1
0.
3.
0.
0.
1.
17
.89
238
908
098
403
353
Percent
Closure
91
93
95.
98.
114
99.
99.
78%
50%
75%
69%
.4%
12%
81%
-------
The analysis of a single-stage gaseous permeation process was performed
by Pan and Habgood (2). They expanded on previous work by Weller and Steiner
(1). Among the simplifying assumptions are: permeabilities of both com-
ponents are constant; negligible pressure drop across feed and permeate flow
paths; and, negligible mass transfer resistances other than the permeation
process itself. As mentioned earlier, the assumption of constant permeability
is not strongly supported by the experimental data, nor by other researchers
(8) . However, examination of the results in Table 4-2 shows that the error
introduced by this approximation is not excessive in most cases The test
procedures were not sophisticated enough to provide data to check the other
assumptions .
The spiral -wound membrane module used in this study follows the cross -
flow pattern. It has been shown that as the feed concentration approaches
zero, the equations used to describe membrane performance simplify consider-
ably (2). The equations are shown below:
F-l - (x/x,) (4-4)
y/xf - [1 - (x/xf) Q*/(l-7)(a*-l)j/F ("enrichment ratio") (4-5)
Rf - F/(l-7) (4-6)
where, F - fraction of feed permeated in cross-flow pattern ("stage cut");
xf - mole fraction of solvent in feed gas;
x - mole fraction of solvent in residue (off-gas); and
a* ~ QS/QNZ " permeability of solvent/permeability of nitrogen
("selectivity").
ml(STP) • cm
Q3 — Permeability of solvent
cm2 • sec • mmHg
7 - p/P, permeate/feed pressure ratio
Y — mole fraction of solvent in permeate side stream (average permeate
concentration in cross-flow pattern)
Rf ~ (Qn2/d)ps/Lf ~ dimensionless membrane area with references at
feed inlet end
23
-------
d - membrane thickness, ft
P - feed side pressure, psia
S - membrane area, ft2
Lf - inlet feed flowrate, lb»mol/hr
These equations are valid for finite l/xf provided that l/xf is greater than
both Q* and !/(-/), Both of these inequalities are valid for these experi-
ments .
Stage cut (F) represents the fraction of feed gas which passes through
the membrane into the permeate. While this definition sounds similar to
removal efficiency, it is different. Recall that removal efficiency referred
only to the percentages of solvent which was removed, while stage cut refers
to the fraction of total feed gas removed (i.e., solvent and nitrogen).
Therefore, removal efficiency and stage cut, while similar, are nonetheless,
different quantities.
As shown in Table 4-5, experimental enrichment ratios show good agree-
ment with the calculated values. Also, comparison of calculated stage cuts
(F) with experimental stage cuts showed good agreement.
Thus, we conclude that the good agreement of both experimental enrich-
ment ratios and stage cuts with the model indicates a) the material balance
results are accurate, and b) there is justification in using the model to
confidently extrapolate membrane designs.
24
-------
TABLE 4-5. COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL STAGE CUT AND ENRICHMENT RATIO WITH THEORY
NJ
Ul
Solvent
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Toluene
Toluene
MEK
MEK
MEK
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
Test
Date
12-14-88
12-14-88
01-20-89
01-20-89
01-19-89
01-19-89
12-16-88
12-19-88
01-03-89
01-13-89
01-13-89
01-16-89
01-09-89
01-09-89
01-10-89
01-05-89
01-06-89
01-06-89
Average
Inlet Cone, (ppm)
327
1518
64.6
716
33.0
128
60.6
346
1725
84.5
376
1188
16 8
148
1371
91.5
88.7
1257
Exper .
0.181
0.184
0.176
0 167
0.181
0 175
0.176
0.171
0.175
0.173
0.171
0.180
0.181
0.179
0.174
0 179
0.178
0.181
Stace Cut
Theory
0.193
0 197
0.193
0.180
0.195
0 192
0 195
0.177
0.182
0.159
0.177
0.185
0.182
0.183
0.179
0.186
0 203
0 188
Enrichment
Exper.
3.86
3.80
2.93
3 09
3 04
3 19
4.30
3.52
3.61
3.53
3.35
3.37
2.47
2.99
3 38
3.35
2.92
3.45
Ratio
Theory
3.64
3.59
3.15
3.27
3.17
3.34
3.91
3.41
3.48
2.89
3.28
3.25
2.45
2.94
3.29
3 25
3.24
3.34
-------
SECTION 5
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OF MEMBRANE PRECONCENTRATOR
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The membrane module is one component in a organic vapor recovery system
that includes several other elements. A simplified overall diagram of a
membrane system for solvent vapor recovery is shown in Figure 5-1, Organic
solvent vapors generated by the source (such as a solvent degreaser machine or
a drying oven) are transported to the control system using ductwork and a
blower. The ductwork may collect vapors from just one source or from several
sources located nearby. The collected vapors are sent to the membrane module
Inside the membrane module, the feed gas is separated into two streams: a
concentrated solvent vapor stream ("permeate") and a depleted residue gas
stream ("stripped off-gas"). On the permeate side, a vacuum pump pulls a
vacuum. An alternate approach is to compress the feed gas with a compressor
upstream of the membrane. In either case, an imposed pressure difference
across the membrane is the driving force for separation Most of the organic
vapor is drawn through the membrane into the permeate, along with a small
amount of air. The stripped off-gas from the membrane is either recycled back
to the original vapor source, or may be discharged directly to the atmosphere
in some cases. Several options are available for further treatment of the
permeate. Possible treatment technologies include:
• Direct condensation (using chilled water/refrigeration; allows
solvent recovery, but is viable only at higher solvent concentra-
tions) ;
• Incineration (with direct flame; this destruction process is usually
best for contaminated solvents which are inexpensive to replace
[e.g., hydrocarbons] that also have high Btu content); or
26
-------
A (To Vent)
(Recycle)
L_
VOC
Emissions
Stripped
Off-gas
VOC Source
Membrane
Preconcentrator
Concentrated
Permeate
Clean Air
(To Vent)
Final VOC
Control Device
Recovered
VOC
(Solvent)
Figure 5-1 Overall Diagram of Membrane Preconcentrator
-------
• Carbon adsorption (in regenerative mode; steam stripping followed by
condensation and decanting allows recovery of solvent).
Each of these -final control technologies is discussed in more detail in
following sections, although the primary focus of the report is on the concept
of a membrane preconcentrator in conjunction with carbon adsorption.
SCALE UP
As was explained in Section 4 under "Comparison with Theoretical Model,"
a material balance model for the single-stage gaseous permeation process was
developed by Pan and Habgood (2). In addition to using this model to compare
with the laboratory test data, it was also possible to use the model to scale
up the test data in order to extrapolate the membrane sizing and performance
characteristics for full-scale systems An example design calculation is
presented in Appendix D. Complete design calculations for all cases are
listed in Appendix F. The simplifying assumptions are:
• The feed concentration is low (approaching zero), so the simplified
version of the equations is valid; and
• An average permeability based on the laboratory test module is a
valid approximation of the actual permeability for the full-scale
system.
The first assumption was checked by comparing (l/xf) > (a* and 1/7). The
second assumption is not easily checked without a performance test on a larger
system. Permeability is a function of the diffusivity (e.g., diffusion
coefficient, D) and the solubility (e.g., distribution coefficient, k) for a
particular solvent in a given polymer membrane. The laboratory test data was
obtained using the membrane material at conditions similar to those which
would be employed in full-scale systems. This fact should compensate for the
realization that both coefficients D and k increase drastically with an
28
-------
increase in the initial partial pressure of the solvent. Therefore, it is
felt that both assumptions should hold for scale up.
The scale up exercise consisted of designing a multitude of systems at
varying flowrates, inlet concentrations, membrane removal efficiencies,
membrane selectivities, and for both vacuum pump and compressor based single
stage membrane configurations. A complete matrix of design calculations is
shown in Table 5-1.
The rationale for the selection of the various parameters is explained
below:
1. Inlet flowrates of solvent laden air were varied from 6.2 Nm3/sec
(250 ACFM) to 249 Nm3/sec (10,000 ACFM) to cover a range of applica-
tions that generate airborne solvent emissions;
2. Inlet solvent concentrations of 1000 and 100 ppmv were chosen to
cover both typical operations (e.g., solvent degreasers, drying
ovens) and also other uses which generate more dilute solvent
emissions;
3. Only two solvents (CFG-113 and toluene) were chosen for subsequent
system designs and costing because a) they are typical solvents used
in vapor degreasing and coating lines, respectively, and b) the
permeabilities of these solvents are similar to the other tested
solvents. Therefore, the design and cost comparisons are not
critically dependent on the solvent selected;
4. Membrane removal efficiencies were varied from 60 to 95Z to allow
for evaluation of different levels of control. The overall control
efficiency of the membrane preconcentrator with a carbon adsorber
was slightly lower, due to the 95% control of the carbon adsorber,
29
-------
TABLE 5-1. DESIGN MATRIX
Inlet flow, Inlet Membrane
Nm3/sec Cone Removal
(ACFM) (ppmv) Solvent Efficiencies*
6 2 (250) 1000 CFC-113 60,85,95
6 2 (250) 100 CFC-113 60,85,95
62.2 (2500) 1000 CFC-113 60,85,95
62.2 (2500) 100 CFC-113 60,85,95
249 (10000) 1000 Toluene 60,85,95
249 (10000) 100 Toluene 60,85,95
Membrane
Selectivities Conf igurationb
5,20,200 Vacuum Pump,
Compressor
5,20,200 Vacuum Pump,
Compressor
5,20,200 Vacuum Pump,
Compressor
5,20,200 Vacuum Pump,
Compressor
5,20,200 Vacuum Pump,
Compressor
5,20,200 Vacuum Pump,
Compressor
"Overall Removal Efficiencies include 95% control by final carbon adsorber:
(60%)(95Z)-57% overall efficiency
(85%)(95%)=81X overall efficiency
(95%)(95%)~90% overall efficiency
Configuration is the arrangement of a system with a pressurized feed
(i.e , compressor) or a vacuum permeate (i.e., vacuum pump).
30
-------
5. Membrane selectivities were varied from 5 to 200 to evaluate the
effect of membrane thickness on overall system costs. The selected
range was chosen to reflect the range of selectivity which has been
reported for solvent/N2 separations with current membranes at
typical pressure ratios. Results from the laboratory testing
portion of this study showed selectivity values vary between 6 and 7
for most solvents;
6. Two configurations of the membrane system were designed: first, the
arrangement using a liquid ring vacuum pump operating at a pressure
ratio of 0.10 (Figure 5-2a); second, an alternative arrangement
using a turbocompressor (e.g., centrifugal or screw compressor)
operating at a pressure ratio of 0.20 (Figure 5-2b). Assuming an
initial feed gas pressure of 776 mmHg (15.0 psia), the selected
pressure ratios for the two alternative configurations would result
in: a suction pressure (at the permeate side) of 78 mmHg (1.5 psia)
for the vacuum pump arrangement; and, compression (on the feed side)
to 5.1 atm (75 psia) for the compressor arrangement.
To avoid further complicating the comparisons, all the designs were
performed on the following common basis.
1. Inlet relative humidity (RH) and temperature were kept at 50% RH at
37.8°C (100'F);
2. Carbon adsorption systems were designed for 95% removal, and all
were regenerative systems, and
3. Adsorption isotherms for CFG-113 and toluene on Calgon BPL® carbon
were used to design the carbon adsorbers
A. Overall removal efficiencies for the complete membrane system (i.e.,
57 to 90%, including 95% control by the carbon adsorber) are based
on a once-through design. If the stripped off-gas was recycled back
31
-------
(Stripped OH gas)
To Vent
Carbon Adsorbers (On-line)
From Borter
To Storage
To Wastawatar
Treatment
Figure 5-2a. Membrane System with Vacuum Pump
"Residue" (Stripped Off-gas)
Carbon Adsorbers (On-line)
Reclaimed
Solvent
o—
Oecamer
To Storage
To Waslewaisr
Treatment
Figure 5-2b Membrane System with Compressor
32
-------
to the vapor source, the overall removal efficiency would be higher
(approaching 95% control).
INTEGRATION OF OVERALL SYSTEM
This section will discuss several additional factors which may affect the
design, costing, and operation of a membrane preconcentrator.
Alternative Arrangement's
Besides the arrangements listed above (i.e., single stage membrane with
compressor or vacuum pump), other configurations have been developed which
offer potential benefits such as greater removal efficiency or higher con-
centration.
First, adding a purge gas into the permeate side of the membrane can
improve the removal efficiency for a given set of conditions by lowering the
solvent partial pressure in the permeate Dilution of the permeate may be
more than offset by the increase in solvent flux. However, the amount of
purge gas must be carefully calculated to achieve the optimal balance.
Second, it is sometimes desirable to design a multistage membrane system
with a recycle stream when higher permeate concentrations are required. These
arrangements can involve a multiplicity of recycle flow paths and are often
quite complicated. Additional compression or vacuum equipment is usually re-
quired Justification of the added cost and complexity of a multistage
recycle system must be shown beforehand (13). HTR has studied and promoted
multistage membrane systems as a method to achieve high product recovery
Third, a membrane configuration known as a "continuous column" has been
suggested. This arrangement is claimed to offer a high degree of concentra-
tion with less membrane area than other configurations. S. T. Hwang (Univer-
sity of Cincinnati) has published several papers on the subject (14,15,16).
33
-------
Additional Considerations
There are several other factors which may affect the economics and
operation of a membrane preconcentrator. These are discussed below:
Vacuum versus Compression--Both vacuum-based and compression-based
membrane systems have advantages and disadvantages. Table 5-2 lists the
strengths and weaknesses. At this time, there is insufficient data to
conclude which arrangement is better.
Optimum Arrangement of Vacuum System--Preliminary study of the vacuum
system hardware which would be required for full-scale systems revealed that
several different types of vacuum pumps could be used. Making the correct
selection of vacuum pump could have a major impact on the viability of the
entire system, since it is ,the mechanical "heart" of the membrane unit, as
well as perhaps the single most expensive component in the system Listed
below are a few of the types _of vacuum pumps which may be applicable for a
membrane preconcentrator:
• Liquid Ring Pump: Has a wide operating range, both for flow and
vacuum level. Only one rotating element, and often uses water as
the sealing liquid. The major drawback may be saturation of the
permeate gas with water vapor, necessitating the use of a chiller to
condense excess water and lower the RH going to the carbon bed
• Rotary Vane Pump: Limited operating range in flow, so may only be
suitable for smaller membrane systems. Rotary vane pumps (also
known as Sliding Vane Pumps) offer the advantage of a dry source of
vacuum.
• Roots Blower: Wide operating range in flow, but is usually used for
higher vacuum levels than a membrane system demands The Roots
blower loses efficiency when a high vacuum is not required, but is
also a dry source of vacuum. The Roots blower (also known as a
34
-------
TABLE 5-2. COMPARISON BETWEEN VACUUM AND COMPRESSION SYSTEMS
System
Strengths
Weaknesses
Vacuum Pump No aftercooler required.
Only the permeate is compressed, so energy
is not wasted compressing the entire feed
stream.
Vacuum operation avoids possibility of
condensing solvent inside membrane.
Membrane module can be designed for normal
pressure operation.
Liquid ring pumps are capable of achieving
required vacuum levels, efficient, and
mechanically simple.
High vacuum levels necessitate large and
expensive vacuum pumps.
Liquid ring pumps involve separation of
entrained liquid from discharge. If water
is used as sealing liquid, a chiller may
be required to dehumidify prior to carbon
adsorption.
Compressor
Slightly less expensive capital cost.
Avoid contamination of permeate with
additional water, no chiller required.
Possible recovery of energy from feed gas
compression by passing stripped gas through
an expander
High compression ratios may necessitate
addition of aftercooler.
Expending energy to compress dilute gas,
only small fraction actually permeates
Membrane module might have to be designed
as a pressure vessel (ASME-code)
-------
Rotary Lobe Blower) is often combined in a "compound" arrangement
with a liquid ring pump.
Effect of Membrane System on Carbon Adsorber--Concentrating the solvent
in the permeate offers the potential advantage of reduced gas volume sent to
the final control device, in this case, a carbon adsorber. Discussions with
vendors of carbon adsorption systems provided some information which must be
considered before deciding whether a membrane system is worthwhile
• If the solvent concentration fed to the carbon adsorber is above
10,000 ppmv or above 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL), carbon
adsorber designers call for dilution air to be added. This would
defeat the purpose of obtaining a concentrated solvent feed.
Therefore, either the inlet concentration should be designed to be
at or below these levels, or the carbon adsorber designer's approval
must be obtained.
• Water content in the solvent laden air must be considered, espe-
cially when a liquid ring vacuum pump using water as the sealing
liquid is part of the system. As mentioned before, entrained water
droplets from the liquid ring pump are removed, but the exiting gas
is nonetheless saturated with water vapor. Without a chiller to
condense and remove the excess water, the adsorber beds would have
to be sized for additional carbon. The unknown effect of solvent
removal in the chiller condenser would also complicate the design
Viability of Other Final Control Technologies--As was mentioned earlier
in this section, both direct condensation and incineration are possible
alternatives to carbon adsorption as final control technologies. However,
they are not without their own limitations as- well
For instance, direct condensation using chilled water or other low
temperature refrigerants is a possible alternative. This type of system has
been patented by MTR (7) and discussed in several papers Commercial systems
are currently in use for recovery of gasoline vapors from bulk storage
36
-------
terminals. The best applications for this type of system are those with high
solvent concentrations from the source (i e., 5-10,000 ppmv and higher).
However, its applicability to dilute solvent vapor streams (i.e., less than
1000 ppmv) would require either highly selective membranes (which would in
turn require larger areas), multiple stages of membranes with recycle (which
would require additional vacuum or compression equipment), or very low
temperatures (with high power requirements).
Likewise, incineration in a direct flame is a possible alternative,
especially if the solvent vapor is flammable, contaminated, has a high Btu
value, and is inexpensive to replace. Combination systems using carbon
adsorption and incineration (such as Calgon Carbon' s CADRE® system) are
commercially available. Disadvantages to incineration for use with a membrane
system include:
• Difficulty in handling chlorinated or fluorinated solvents (i e ,
corrosive products of combustion such as HC1 and HF);
• Low concentrations or nonflammable solvents would require supplemen-
tal fuel;
• Unlikely that small incinerators would be easily permitted or
accepted by users; and
• Loss of a recoverable product
37
-------
SECTION 6
COST ALGORITHMS
VENDOR SURVEY AND LITERATURE DATA
Preparation of the cost estimates for the systems previously designed (as
discussed in Section 5) involved first obtaining baseline cost data for all
major capital components. This cost data was obtained through written
Requests for Quotations from equipment vendors, telephone contacts with
equipment vendors, and available literature data.
Requests for Quotes
In order to obtain current cost data for vacuum pumps and carbon adsor-
bers (two of the most expensive elements in the overall system), vendors were
contacted and requested to provide cost quotes for selected equipment. The
following vendors were contacted and sent letters requesting budget cost
quotes:
1. Carbon Adsorbers -
American Ceca Corp. (AMCEC)
RaySolv Inc.
Barnebey and Sutcliffe Corp.
2. Vacuum Pumps -
Nash Engineering Co.
SIHI Pumps, Inc.
Ochsner Pumps
Intervac Corp.
Edwards High Vacuum
38
-------
Leybold Heraeus Vacuum Products
Balzers
Kinney Vacuum Co.
Unfortunately, this approach was generally unsuccessful in providing any cost
data. Typically, the vendor simply declined to quote. Also, some of the
vacuum pump vendors could not supply pumps capable of handling the high
flowrates.
Telephone Contacts
Because of the poor response to written requests for cost data, addition-
al telephone contacts were made to follow-up on the letters or to establish
new contacts with other vendors The following phone contacts were made to
obtain additional cost data:
1. Carbon Adsorbers -
Mr. Bob Spencer (Allied Signal/Baron Blakeslee)
Mr. Tom Cannon (VIC Manufacturing)
2. Vacuum Pumps -
Mr. Tom Walker (SIHI Pumps, Inc.)
Mr. Mike Whiteside (Telesis High Vacuum for Kinney Vacuum)
Mr. Lou Sleigher (Balzers)
Literature Sources
Available literature data was used for most of the cost estimates. These
estimates were cross-checked with the quoted prices from vendor contacts. The
sources of literature cost data are listed in Table 6-1.
Summary of Cost Data
Because of the diversity of cost data (some from vendor quotes, some from
telephone contacts, and other data from literature sources), this section will
39
-------
TABLE 6-1. LITERATURE COST DATA
1. Membrane Modules -
Development of Synthetic Membranes for Gas and Vapor Separation,
Strathman et al. Pure and Applied Chemistry. Vol 58, No 12 1986
(Ref. B) .
j
The Separation of Organic Vapors from Air. Peinemann et al. AIChE Symp
Ser. 250(82).-19, 1986 (Ref. 3).
2. Carbon Adsorbers -
Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution Control Systems -
I. R B. Neveril et al. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
Vol. 28, No. 8. August 1978 (Ref. 10)
The Cost Of Controlling Organic Emissions. Kittleman and Akell.
Chemical Engineering Progress. April 1978 (Ref. 11).
3. Vacuum Pumps -
Chemical Engineering (Dec. 14, 1981) "Selecting Vacuum Systems," by J.L
Ryans and S. Croll (Ref. 9).
4. Compressors -
Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers (3rd Ed.) Peters and
Timmerhaus. 1980 (Ref. 12).
40
-------
present a discussion of the various cost values and provide a rationale for
the foundation of the cost analysis which follows.
Tables 6-2-A through 6-2-D present a listing of the available cost data
for the four major cost items (i.e., membrane, carbon adsorber, vacuum pump,
and compressor), along with the source of the data. Some cost data may not
list a source if it was requested to be kept confidential.
It is important to note a few points about the capital cost estimates for
carbon adsorbers. First, it was difficult to obtain good cost data for
regenerative carbon adsorbers at the low flowrate range [i.e., less than 28
Nm3/sec (1000 SCFM)]. Only a few data points were available, and it was found
that these small units were nearly as expensive as their larger counterparts.
Discussions with carbon adsorber vendors revealed that although reduced volume
flow can allow slightly smaller components, the fabrication and materials
costs are nearly the same. Likewise, the carbon requirements and operating
costs for both membrane-concentrated permeate vapor and direct untreated flow
from the source were almost equal, since carbon requirements are governed
mostly by the mass of solvent to be adsorbed, an amount that is nearly the
same for both cases (the higher concentration of solvent from the membrane
unit does provide a greater driving force and hence slightly less carbon).
Presumably, at very low flows, a non-regenerative "canister" type of unit
might be more attractive.
RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS
Capital Cost Comparison
Using the system designs for the CFC-113 and toluene systems outlined
previously in Section 5, capital costs were estimated for complete systems
using a membrane preconcentrator. These costs were also compared to the
capital cost for a carbon adsorber alone handling the same duty. Figures 6-1
through 6-6 present the total installed capital cost for these cases. Table
6-3 provides an example cost comparison showing the effect of the membrane on
41
-------
TABLE 6-2-A. LISTING OF CAPITAL COST DATA AND SELECTION OF COST BASIS
MEMBRANE COST DATA
A.
B.
"c.
Cost Data
Membrane Module .
Other System Costs.
Membrane Module :
Other System Costs
Membrane Module :
Other System Costs1
Source
S200/m2 Nitto Denko (Japan)
$200/m2
$40/m2 Reference 3
$40/mz
$150/m2 Reference 8
$188/m2
Cost Basis Selected for This Report.
Membrane Module3:
Other System Costs'3:
$100/m2
$50/m2
"Cost basis for membrane module based on an approximate average of cost data
(200 + 400 + 150)/3 - $130/m2 rounded to $100/m2
bCost basis for other system costs was reduced to $50/m2 since cost data from
other sources included either items costed separately in this work (e g ,
vacuum pump), or not applicable (e g , condenser-chiller).
42
-------
TABLE 6-2-B. LISTING OF CAPITAL COST DATA AND SELECTION OF COST BASIS
CARBON ADSORBER COST DATA
Inlet Solvent-
Laden Air Carbon
Flowrate Capacity
Number
of
(SCFM) (Pounds per Adsorber)" Adsorbers
250
600 500
1,000 900
1,000 900
1,600 1,400
300
1,000
2,000
2,000
8,000
300
1,000
2,000
4,000
20,000
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
Material
of
Construction3
304SS
304SS
316SS
304SS
304SS
304SS
304SS
304SS
304SS
316SS
316SS
316SS
316SS,
316SS
Capital Cost
(P=purchased equipment;
I=installed equipment) Source
$45,000 (P)
$74,500 (P)
$84,500 (P)
$115,600 (P)
$96,700 (P)
$56,000 (P)
$62,500 (P)
$125,000 (P)
$200,000 (I)
$200,000 (P)
$164,500 (I)
$179,400 (I)
$227,300 (I)
$296,400 (I)
$583,300 (I)
Vendor A
it
ii
ti
it
Vendor Bc
II
11
11
It
Vendor Cd
It
ii
It
Ii
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 6-2-B. (Continued)
Cost Basis Selected for This Report:
Vendor capital cost algorithm was developed and used for the carbon adsorber system capital costs, with the
following exceptions:
• A single cost estimate of $45,000 was used for adsorber vessels for "carbon adsorption only" at an
inlet flowrate of 250 ACFM. This was done to correct for the insensitivity of the original cost
algorithm at low flowrates. That is, it appears that the original cost algorithm overestimated
the installed costs at the lowest flowrate.
• The single estimate was also used for all comparisons where the inlet flowrate was 250 ACFM or
leas (i.e., with and without the membrane preconcentrator). Therefore, even when the membrane
reduced the inlet flow to the carbon adsorber, the adsorber cost was kept constant. This is due
to the fact that below 250 ACFM, costs of material and fabrication may remain nearly constant. It
may be argued that we have simply shifted the point of constant cost to lower flowrates.
• For the cases with inlet flowrate of 2,500 ACFM or higher, the original cost algorithm was used
for all comparisons (i.e., both with and without the membrane preconcentrator).
~~~""""™"""~~~"~"~~~"~~""""""~~""~""~~"^———
Appropriate materials of construction must be selected based on the type of solvent being handled.
Resistant base metals such as 316 SS are often used with corrosive materials, and the costs were based on
using 316 SS. Capital costs of carbon adsorbers will vary considerably depending on the materials of
construction. For stable aromatics (such as toluene), mild steel with a coating may be used.
At the other extreme, unstabilized halogenated solvents may form acidic hydrolysis products during steam
regeneration. Chloride stress cracking may prohibit using ferritic stainless steels, necessitating exotic
alloys such as Hastelloy or Monel.
Vendor A quoted standard carbon adsorbor package which is prefabricated with a fully automatic control
panel, safety interlocks, inlet air filter, fan, condenser, and decanter Additional cost of $12,000 for
breakthrough analyzer and recorder to control regeneration cycles (included on fourth unit listed).
cVendor B quoted carbon adsorber packages (which are built to order) and include a 25% adder for skid
mounting on the first two units.
Vendor C installed costs of several regenerative carbon adsorption systems based on vendor cost quotes.
All systems were designed for 95% removal of a 2,000 ppm methylene chloride-in-air inlet gas stream.
-------
TABLE 6-2-C. LISTING OF CAPITAL COST DATA AND SELECTION OF COST BASIS
VACUUM PUMP COST DATA
A.
B.
C.
Cost Basis
Capacity
(ACFM @ 27
in Hg vacuum)
3,000
600
6,000
23,400
500
5,000
21,000
Driver
HP
200
30
300
Installed Cost Source
$99,000" Vendor Cb
$55,500° Vendor Dc
$559,000"
$1,287,000*
$58,000 Ref 9b'd
$190,000
$370,000
Selected for This Report;
Design/cost equation in
Ref. 9 with
escalation factor of 1.232.
"Using installation cost — 150% of purchased equipment cost
bLiquid ring pump.
cRotary (roots) blower.
dUsing design/cost equation in Ref. 9, escalated to 1st Qtr '89
(C.E. Plant Cost Index for Pumps and Comprs: 473/384 - 1.232).
45
-------
TABLE 6-2-D. LISTING OF CAPITAL COST DATA AND SELECTION OF COST BASIS
COMPRESSOR COST DATA
Capital Cost3 (1989 dollars) = 222.8 [(capacity in ft3/min)°-9D3]
Capital Costb (1989 dollars) = 2272 [(capacity in ftVmin) l516]
Source: Reference 13 (Figures 13-46 and 13-52, respectively), escalated to
1st Qtr. '89 (C.E. Plant Cost Index: 351/230 = 1.526).
Cost Basis Selected _£or This Report:
A. For 250 ACFM cases: Used Figures 13-46 from Reference 12 with escalation
factor of 1.526.
B. For 2,500 and 10,000 ACFM cases: Used Figures 13-52 from Reference 12
with escalation factor of 1.526.
For helical screw compressors at 150 psi. discharge from 130 cfm - 800 cfm
For turboblowers at 30 psi discharge from 1800 cfm - 16,000. cfm
46
-------
(fl
o ,—s
U in
__ c
o o
o
U
~o
*o
LEGF.MD
Selectivity - 200. Vacuum Pump
Selectivity > 200. Compr««lor
Selectivity - 20, Vacuum fwap
Selectivity - 20, Coapre*ior
X Selectivity - 5, Vacuum rump
Selectivity - 5, Conpreeior
Carbon Adiorptlon
0 4
0 3
0 2
0 1
0
50
70
Overall Cr.ntiol Efficiency (%}
90
Figure 6-1. Capital Cost Comparison
(250 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed)
-------
O
O (n
_ c
o o
o
o
o
I-
8
0
50
LEGEMD
Q Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
-|~ Selectivity - 200, Compressor
/\ Selectivity - 20, Vacuum Pump
^ Selectivity - 20, Catnpreeeor
X Selectivity - 5, Vacuum Pump
V7 Selectivity » 5, Compre«aor
("") Carbon Adaorption
70
Overall Control Efficiency (%)
Figure 6-2. Capital Cost Comparison
(2500 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed)
90
-------
VO
_ c
o o
u
"a
-t-j
o
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
50
Q Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
-(- Selectivity • 200, Compreaaor
Q Selectivity - 20, Vacuum Pump
^ Selectivity - 20, Compreavor
^ Selectivity - 5, Vacuum Pump
*7 Selectivity - 5, Coa*pr%»uoi
O Cacbon Adsorption
70
Overall Control Efficiency (%)
Figure 6-3. Capital Cost Comparison
(10000 ACFM, 1000 ppm Toluene feed)
90
-------
t_n
O
o _
O oo
_ c
o o
+J —
Q-l
o ^
O
o
+->
o
LEGEND
Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
-|- Selectivity - 200, Compressor
XN Selectivity - 20, Vacuum Pump
Selectivity • 20, Compressor
Selectivity - 5, Vacuum Pump
Selectivity - S, Compressor
Q Carbon Adsorption
0
50
70
90
Overall Control Efficiency (%)
Figure 6-4. Capital Cost Comparison
(250 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed)
-------
o _
O w
_ c
o o
o
o
o
8
0
1 -
50
I.F.REMD
Q Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
4- Selectivity - 200, Compressor
/"\ Selectivity - 20, Vacuum Pump
^ Selectivity - 20, Compressor
X Selectivity - 5, Vacuum Pump
^7 Selectivity - 5, Compressor
(") Carbon Adaotption
70
90
Overall Control Efficiency (%)
Figure 6-5. Capital Cose Comparison
(2500 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed)
-------
40
bl
o ^^
U 01
_ c
o o
u
o
-M
O
30
25
20
15
10
0
50
LEGEND
Q] Selectivity - 200. Vicuun Pump
-|- Selectivity - 200, Conpreaeor
S\ Selectivity - 20. VecuuB rump
^ Selectivity - 20. Conpreeior
X Selectivity - 5. V.cuun Pump
^ Selectivity - 5. Compreieoi
O Cerbon Ad»orptlon
70 90
Overall Control Efficiency (%)
Figure 6-6. Capital Cost Comparison
(10000 ACFM, 100 ppm Toluene feed)
-------
TABLE 6-3. EXAMPLE CAPITAL COST COMPARISON3
System Flow Rate, Nm3/s (cfm) = 62.2 (2500 ACFM)
Inlet Solvent Concentration = 1000 ppm CFC-113
(Costs in 1st qtr-1989 dollars)
Installed Equipment Costs6
Membrane Module
Auxiliary Equipment (Interconnecting
piping, controls, etc )
Vacuum Pump (includes motor driver)
Compressor (includes motor driver)
Carbon Adsorption System
- Adsorber Vessels
- Duct work
- Fans
- Carbon
Total Capital Costs
A Carbon
Adsorber
Onlyb
Not Applic.
Not Applic.
Not Applic.
Not Applic
$152,500
$5,800
$2,600
$3,200
$164,100
B . Membrane
Preconcent .
w/Vac Pumpc
$259,900
$129,900
$146,100
Not Applic
$124,700
$4,600
$2,000
$800
$668,000
C Membrane
Preconcent.
w/Compr
$89,600
$44,800
Not Applic.
$128,000
$127,000
$4.500
$2,000
$900
$396,800
Notes:
a Indirect costs (e.g., Engineering & Supervision, Construction Expenses, Contractor Fees,
and other miscellaneous charges) are assumed to be included in the installation cost.
These prefabricated, skid-mounted solvent recovery systems should not have high costs
of field erection and start-up.
Achieves 95 percent removal efficiency.
c Achieves 57 percent removal efficiency (overall).
Achieves 57 percent removal efficiency (overall)
e Installed costs from literature sources, or estimated as 150 percent of purchased
equipment cost.
-------
capital costs versus direct carbon adsorption. A sample calculation is shown
in Appendix D, and a listing of all cost calculations is presented in Appendix
G.
It is evident from these graphs that the membrane system was more
expensive in all cases. The increased capital cost ranged from roughly twice
(2 times) as costly to over one hundred (100) times as costly, depending on
the cases under consideration. The underlying reason for the higher costs is
that although the membrane unit is able to reduce the volume flow of solvent
vapor to the carbon adsorber, and thereby allow for a smaller carbon adsorber,
this reduction is not sufficient to provide cost savings which cover the added
expense associated with the membrane and vacuum pump' or compressor.
Operating (Annual) Cost Comparison
In an analogous fashion to the capital costs described above, the annual
costs were compared for systems with and without a membrane preconcentrator.
In order to compare the costs on a common basis in terms of the amount of
solvent controlled, this section presents an annualized cost effectiveness
result. Table 6-4 presents a listing of the unit costs of various charges for
operating labor, utilities, and interest charges. Figures 6-7 to 6-12 present
the comparisons of annualized cost for the membrane systems versus carbon
adsorption alone. Table 6-5 presents an example cost comparison showing the
effect of the membrane on annualized cost effectiveness. A sample calculation
of annualized costs is shown in Appendix D, and a complete listing of all
annualized cost calculations is presented in Appendix G.
The annualized costs for the membrane augmented system are uniformly
higher than carbon adsorption alone. The membrane system costs ranged from
about twice (2 times) as expensive to over one hundred thirty (130) times as
expensive as straight carbon adsorption for the cases examined. As was seen
earlier in the capital cost comparison, although the membrane system allowed
slightly lower operating costs for the downsized carbon adsorber, the pumping
(or compression) costs, membrane replacement costs and higher capital recovery
costs outweighed these savings.
54
-------
TABLE 6-4. LISTING OF UNIT COSTS IN ANNUALIZED COST COMPARISON
Direct
Indirec
Credits
Annualized Cost Element
Cost Elements
Operating Labora
Maintenance Labora
Steamb
Electricity
Cooling Water
Wastewater Disposal0
Replacement Carbon
Replacement Membranes
t Cost Elements
Capital Recovery Factor6
f:
Recovered Solvent Credit
Unit Cost
$28.61 /day
$19.07 /hr
$0.0121 /kg
$0.0572 /kWh
$0.008 /m3
$0.018 /kg
$4.69 /kg
$100 /mz
0 1627
$0.1375 /kg
Unit Cost
($0.0055 /lb)
($0.03 /1000 gal)
($0.008 /lb)
($2.13 /lb)
($9.30 /ft2)
($0.0625 /lb)
Notes
a
Operating and maintenance labor were assumed to be the same for all units.
Cost for generating steam in existing boiler
Cost for disposal without an air stripper.
Three (3) year life for carbon and membranes
Applied to total capital investment for 10 years at 10 percent prevailing interest.
Based on assumption that recovered solvent is worth 50 percent of new solvent
(new solvent cost assumed to be $0.264/L ($1 00/gal)). Although a full credit of
new solvent cost is sometimes allowed towards the reclaimed solvent, the 50%
credit chosen here assumes that the solvent from the carbon adsorber will require
some additional treatment. Examples of post-recovery treatments include: addition
of stabilizers which are lost during regneration, and dehydration to remove residual
water.
-------
c
o
u
c
~o
>b
-»-•
u
0)
M—
4-
LJ
O
O
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
50
LEGEND
Q Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
-f- Selectivity - 200 Compreneor
X\ Selectivity - 20 Vacuum Pump
/\ Selectivity - 20, Compreaaor
V Selectivity - 5 Vacuum Pump
r7 Selectivity - 5 Compreaaor
r~> Carbon Adaorption
TET
70
Overall Control Effic (%)
90
Figure 6-7. Annuallzed Cost Comparison
(250 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed)
-------
C
0
h-
id
4-*
(/I
o
u
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
9
8
7
0
50
Q Selectivity - ZOO, Vacuum Pump
-)_ Selectivity - 200 Compr««»er
S\ Selectivity - 20, Vacuum Pump
/\ Selectivity - 20, Camprmmmof
X Selectivity - 5 Vacuum Pump
^ Selectivity - b, Compreeaor
Q Carbon Adaorption
-Q-
70
Overall Control Effic (%)
Figure 6-8. Annuallzed Cost Comparison
(2500 ACFM, 1000 ppm CFC-113 feed)
90
-------
c
O
(U
u
5, Vacuum Pump
V7 Selactivicy - 5 Compraaioc
f~^ Carbon Adaorpcion
70
Overall Control Effic (%)
Figure 6-9. Annualized Cost Comparison
(10000 ACFM, 1000 ppm Toluene feed)
90
-Q-
-------
Cn
vO
O
u
0)
^^
^^^ c
H
u
0)
s-
LL)
W)
O
180
170
1 10
100
90
70
50
40
0
50
Q Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
-f- Selectivity - ZOO, Coiaprmitor
/\ Selectivity - 20 Vacuum Pump
/\ Selectivity - 20, Compre«»or
X Selectivity - 5 Vacuum Pump
^7 Selectivity - 5, Compreoeor
(~) Carbon Adsorption
K
70
90
Overall Control Effic (%)
Figure 6-10. Annualized Cost Comparison
(250 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed)
-------
CTN
o
c
O
I-
(J
Q)
"D
C
(U ^
c o
u
o;
M-
•4-
bJ
OT
O
U
160
150
140
130
120
1 10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
Q Selectivity - 200, Vacuum Pump
-|_ 5*1activity - 200, Conpraaaor
Q Selectivity - 20, Vacuum Pump
^\ Selectivity - 20, CompreaaoE
X Salactivity - 5, Vacuum Pump
^7 S«l»ctivity - 5 Compraaaor
Q Carbon Adsorption
70
Overall Control Effic (%)
Figure 6-11. Annualized Cost Comparison
(2500 ACFM, 100 ppm CFC-113 feed)
90
-------
c
o
y
C
"D
C
-------
TABLE 6-5. EXAMPLE ANNUALIZED COST COMPARISON
System Flow Rate, Nm3/s (cfm) = 62.2 (2500 ACFM)
Inlet Solvent Concentration - 1000 ppm CFC-113
._
...
Total Capital Investment (From Table 6-3)
Operating Days per Yeara: 347
Operating Hours per Day: 24
Average Annual Operating Hours: 8328
Direct Costsb
Operating Labor
Maintenance Labor
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Wastewater Disposal
Carbon Replacement
Membrane Replacement
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
Indirect Costsb
Capital Recovery
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
Creditsb
Credit for Recovered Solvent
TOTAL ANNUALIZED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES
ANNUALIZED COST PER METRIC TON (MT)
OF SOLVENT CONTROLLED
A. Carbon
Adsorber
Onlyb
$164,100
$9,800
$3,800
$1,100
$6,400
$3,100
$9,400
$1,000
Not Applic.
$34,600
$26,700
$26,700
($33,500)
$27,800
$114
B . Membrane
Preconcent.
w/Vac Pumpc
$668,000
$9,800
$3,700
$63,000
$3,200
$1,600
$4,700
$300
$86,600
$172,900
$108,700
$108,700
($19,900)
$261,700
$1800
C . Membrane
Preconcent.
w/Comprd
$396,800
$9,800
$3,700
$117,300
$3,400
$1.700
$5,000
$300
$30,000
$171,200
$64,600
$64,600
($19,800)
$216,000
$1500
== ======
Notes.
a Assumes solvent recovery unit has 95 percent availability.
b See Table 6-4 for Unit Costs.
-------
SECTION 7
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Application of membrane technology to separation of solvent vapors from
air streams has not been fully developed on the commercial scale Other gas-
phase membrane processes have been practiced commercially for many more years
Examples of these other processes include hydrogen recovery from refinery
process streams, natural gas processing (C02 removal), and air separation. A
few applications of membranes to organic vapor recovery have been marketed.
One example is the recovery of gasoline vapors at gasoline bulk storage
terminals However, further penetration of membrane technology into recovery
of volatile organic solvents appears to require more testing and improvements
Specifically, the improvements would be toward higher removal efficiencies at
lower cost.
Testing of Bench-scale Membrane with Carbon Adsorber' Future research
might include studies which combine operational testing of a membrane device
with a carbon adsorber. Although the economic analysis in this work showed
that the membrane approach was uniformly more expensive, further work should
be performed in the low concentration range (i.e., 20 - 100 ppmv) In this
range, carbon adsorbers require larger beds and more frequent regeneration
because the working capacity is lower. That is, the driving force for solvent
adsorption becomes very low with dilute inlet concentrations.
Working capacities are usually estimated by carbon adsorber vendors based
on past experience. The most accurate estimates are obtained by testing full-
scale systems adsorbing the same compound(s) The next-best estimate is
testing of a bench-scale adsorber operating at the same conditions as a
proposed full-scale system. This report relied on a simplified approach used
by carbon adsorber vendors which assumes that working capacity is generally
half of the equilibrium capacity. While this simplified approach takes the
63
-------
inlet concentration into account (via the equilibrium capacity), it may
overstate the working capacity when dealing with low inlet concentration
Therefore, a suggested research effort would be to combine a bench-scale
membrane device with a bench-scale carbon adsorber for clean-up of dilute
solvent streams. This test would be intended to determine if the membrane
provides sufficient enrichment to allow improved working capacity of the
carbon adsorber, resulting in reduced bed area and reduced steam regeneration
demand.
Additional bench-scale testing should be performed with solvent vapors in
air (instead of dry nitrogen only) to determine if the presence of oxygen and
water have any effect on membrane performance. These results would be
important for flammable solvents, since oxygen enrichment in the permeate
could increase the risk of formation of explosive mixtures. The effect of
water vapor is important, too, since humidity in the ambient air will result
in water vapor as a normal constituent in membrane feed gases. The selec-
tivity of a membrane towards water vapor will determine whether the permeate
product is dry or wet.
Improved Membrane Materials: Another area for future research should be
aimed at developing improved membrane materials, especially the active layer.
With the current membrane, a compromise is struck between using a thin
membrane allowing improved'flux rates and solvent removal, but at the cost of
poor selectivity and enrichment. This results is lower permeate concentra-
tions and increased gas flow through the vacuum pump and carbon adsorber
Alternatively, one can specify a highly selective membrane, which will improve
the enrichment. However, this thicker membrane will require a larger area to
achieve the same degree of solvent removal.
Thus, a suggestion for future research would be to focus on testing of
new membrane materials which exhibit both improved solvent permeability (to
increase the solvent flux rate) and improved selectivity (to increase the
enrichment). It is felt that most membrane vendors (e.g., MTR, Grace,
Nitto Denko) are actively working in this area, but their research is proprie-
64
-------
tary. University programs in polymer science also are studying membrane
materials.
Alternative Arrangements: A third area for future research would be
developing improved alternative arrangements for membrane devices. The tests
conducted for this work used a simple one-pass arrangement. Other configura-
tions include pressurizing the feed gas (which was economically analyzed, but
not tested), and routing a small amount of residue gas to backflush the
permeate side. Both of these options have potential advantages which should
be tested further.
Furthermore, the hollow fiber design has been touted as superior to
spiral wound modules in terms of packing density and selectivity (Nitto Denko
has indicated they would be willing to supply us with a hollow fiber test
module). Also, the "continuous column" design studied by University of
Cincinnati merits further review. The continuous column is particularly
interesting because the design concept tries to optimize removal efficiency
with pressure ratio. Computer simulations indicate that high removals (95
percent or greater) can be obtained with relative ease with the continuous
column design.
Industrial Application
The application of a membrane system to an industrial VOC emission source
will be highly dependent on the situation. The cost of the system will
probably be more expensive than conventional VOC controls, such as carbon
adsorption or incineration, at least for the situations examined in this
report. If newer, more selective, and high flux rate materials can be devel-
oped, the costs for systems may become more competitive.
Industrial applications that currently seem best suited for this tech-
nology are those that require a high quality recovered product or possibly a
situation where activated carbon may not apply. For example, the recovery of
ketones and aldehydes with activated carbon has resulted in bed fires that
could potentially destroy the recovery system. With the polymeric membrane,
65
-------
that problem will not exist; that is, unless activated carbon is used to
recover the permeate vapors. A similar situation exists for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane where activated carbon systems can decompose the molecule
resulting in adverse by-products, including hydrochloric acid Also,
compounds, such as styrene, that become reactive during the high temperature
steam regeneration of an activated carbon system will be recoverable with a
membrane,
In summary, at the current time, the use of membrane systems for recovery
at low concentrations will be expensive in comparison to activated carbon or
even incineration. Improvements in the future could change this situation
In particular, improvements in better polymeric membranes at low costs and use
of compressor systems over vacuum ring pumps might be required
66
-------
SECTION 8
References
1 Weller, S., and W A Steiner. Franctional Permeation Through Membranes
Chem. Eng. Prog , (46):585-591, 1950
2 Pan, C.Y. and H.W. Habgood. An Analysis of the Single Stage Gaseous
Permeation Process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., (13):323-331, 1974.
3. Peinemann, K.V., J.M. Mohr, and R.W. Baker. Separation of Organic
Vapors from Air. AlChE Symp Drt 250(82) 19, 1986
4. Baker, R.W., N. Yoshioka, J M. Mohr, and A J. Khan, Separation of
Organic Vapors from Air. J. Memb Sci. (31):259-271, 1987.
5, Baker, R.W., I. Bluroe, V. Helm, A Khan, J. Maquire, and N Yoshioka
Membrane Reearch in Energy and Solvent Recovery from Industrial Effluent
Streams DE 84/01/6819, Progress Report for the period November 5, 1982
- November 5, 1983, prepared by Membrane Technology & Research, Inc for
U.S. Department of Energy (INEL), 1984 57 pp.
6. Armstrong, D., R.W. Bakr, and J. Mohr. New Membrane Preconcentrator
Device for Trace Vapor Detection Systems; Phase I. AD-A161 042/7/XAB,
prepared by Membrane Technology & Research, Inc. for U.S. Army Belvoir
Research and Development Center, 1985. 23 p.p.
7. U.S. Patent No. 4,553, 983 to R W. Baker and Membrane Technology and
Research, Inc. Process for Recovering Organic Vapors from Air. Granted
Nov. 19, 1985.
8. Strathman, H., C.M. Bell, and K. Kimmerle. Development of Synthetic
Membranes for Gas and Vapor Separation. Pure & Appl. Chem. 58(12)'1663-
1668, 1986.
67
-------
9. Ryans, J.L., and S. Croll "Selecting Vacuum Systems." Chemical
Engineering, _8_8 (2_5) : 72-90, Dec. 14, 1981.
10. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution Control Systems -
I. R.B. Neverxl et al Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
Vol. 28, No. 8. August 1978.
11. The Cost of Controlling Organic Emissions. Kittleman and Akell.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 74 (4),: 87-91, April 1978.
12 Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers (3rd Ed.). Peters and
Timmerhaus. 1980.
13. Spillman, R.W. Economics of Gas Separation Membranes. Chem. Eng Prog.,
(85):41-62, 1989.
14. Chen, S., Y.K Kao, and S.T. Hwang. A Continuous Membrane Column Model
Incorporating Axial Diffusion Terms. J. Memb. Sci., 26 (2):143-164, 1986.
15. Hwang, S.T. and S. Ghalchi Methane Separation by a Continuous Membrane
Column. J. Memb. Sci. (11):187-198, 1982.
16 Hoover, K.C., and S.T. Hwang. Pervaporation by a Continuous Membrane
Column. J. Memb. Sci. (10).253-271, 1982.'
68
-------
APPENDICES
69
-------
APPENDIX A
TEST RESULTS
70
-------
PARADOX RELATIONAL DATABASE
To simplify the data reduction of the raw experimental data, a rela-
tional database was chosen to manipulate the data. Table A-l presents a.
listing of the laboratory notebook data which was entered into PARADOX
Sample Calculations
Examples of the calculations performed to convert the raw data into
usable results is shown in Figure A-l.
71
-------
2/09/8*
TABLE A-l. ARCHIVED LOGBOOK DATA
Paga
to
Solvent
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
TFC-113
CtC 113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CtC-113
CFC 113
Date
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/09/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/10/89
1/IO/B'l
1 /10/H9
1/10/89
11 10/89
Time
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
10
10
11
11
11
1 I
11
11
11
11
11
11
52
00
09
26
34
45
53
05
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
00
05
15
20
00
10
20
25
40
45
55
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
58
03
06
10
52
55
00
Of
10
13
17
22
26
2'J
35
40
liiHo
55 0
55 0
55 0
55 0
57 0
57 0
57 0
56 0
55 5
55 5
55 5
55 5
55 5
55 5
55 5
55 5
56 0
56 0
55 5
55 5
55 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 0
56 0
55 5
56 u
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 0
55 5
55 5
56 0
56 b
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 U
InPr
21
21
21
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
7
8
4
0
4
6
9
5
2
4
3
3
4
3
6
3
2
1
0
4
3
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
6
3
2
7
2
7
9
0
5
7
3
3
4
3
2
5
5
4
0
InTmp
71 0
72 0
72 1
72 7
73 2
73 0
73 1
73 6
74 1
74 2
74 1
73 5
73 3
73 6
73 9
73 4
73 6
73 6
74 0
73 4
71 0
72 0
72 8
73 0
73.3
73 5
73 8
72 4
72 1
71 7
71 9
72 2
72 3
72 6
73 0
73 0
73 3
73 6
69 6
70 0
70 7
71 2
71 6
71 6
71 3
71 6
71 7
72 0
72 4
72 6
I A
8
B
47
76
65
69
65
70
74
71
62
60
56
24
43
42
41
43
60
60
5B
62
63
63
64
58
58
57
59
60
58
57
InAttn OutPres
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
SO
50
50
100
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1 5
2 0
2 0
1 8
3 0
1 2
1 4
1 5
9
1 6
2 0
2 2
1 6
1 2
1 5
2 0
1 7
1 7
2 0
1 5
1 0
1 5
1 7
2 3
8
1 2
5
1 5
2 5
2 3
1 3
2 0
1 8
1 0
2 0
1 8
I 9
2 0
2 9
1 0
1 8
1 1
5
2 1
1 8
5
1 8
1 5
1 !>
2 0
OutFlo
47
47
47
47
49
49
49
48
48
47
47
47
48
47
48
48
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
4B
48
48
47
49
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
48
48
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
b
5
O
5
0
Vac O Area
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
2b
26
26
8
8 90
a
a
a
a
a
a
8 42 0
8 48 0
8 56 0
8 39 0
8 38 0
a
a
a
a
a
e
8
a
8
a
8
a
a
a 6i o
0
9
9
9 81 0
9 83 0
8
a
8 86 0
8 86 0
8
B
9
8
8 73 0
8 74 0
8
8
8
8 80 0
8 80 5
8 80 0
8
8
OutAttn Sat Imp
68
50 68
68
68
74
80
83
86
50 89
50 90
50 90
50 90
50 90
90
91
90
90
90
91
90
97
104
108
110
113
114
200 115
119
120
120
200 119
200 119
119
119
200 119
200 119
119
119
146
146
2000 147
2000 147
147
147
147
2000 148
2000 148
2000 147
147
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SatFLo SatPres N2 Sup Prm Ac Prm
5
47
73
73
73
73
70
70
68
68
68
68
70
69
69
69
68
68
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
17
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
25
92
95
97
93
95
93
93
93
93
93
95
93
60
35
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
40
42
38
37
37
37
37
44
46
47
48
49
49
50
50
50
50
50
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
35
76
76
69
73
68
73
74
60
65
68
72
72
72
65
68
72
72
72
68
65
69
58
70
60
65
70
75
65
64
72
63
71
71
65
75
57
65
68
69
73
61 '
bl
65
68
62
(,2
65
60
Attn I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rf
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
0 Rf
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 0')
1 09
1 09
1 O'l
(iy
i oy
PcmRf
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
-------
TABLE A-l. (CONTINUED)
2/09/89
Solvent Date Time
CFC-113 1/10/89 11 45
CFC-113 1/10/89 11 50
CFC-113 1/10/89 11 55
CFC-113 1/10/89 11 58
CFC-113 1/10/89 12 00
CFC-113 1/10/89 12 06
CFC-113 1/10/89 12 11
CFC-113 1/10/89 12 16
CFC-113 1/10/89 12 20
CFC-113 1/10/89 12 24
Hexane 12/14/88 16 15
Hexane 12/14/88 16 19
Hexane 12/14/88 16 29
Hexane 12/14/88 16 39
Hexane 12/14/88 16 45
Hexane 12/14/88 16 50
Hexane 12/14/88 17.00
Hexane 12/14/88 17 05
Hexane 12/14/88 17 15
Hexane 12/14/88 17 55
Hexane 12/14/88 18 15
Hexane 12/14/88 18 45
Hexane 12/14/88 19 15
Hexane 12/14/88 19 35
Hexane 12/14/88 19 45
Hexane 12/14/88 20 00
Hexane 12/14/88 20 10
Hexane 12/14/88 20 15
Hexane 12/14/88 20 25
Hexane 12/14/88 20 30
Hexane 1/20/89 16 15
Hexane 1/20/89 16 19
Hexane 1/20/89 16 27
Hexane 1/20/89 16 31
Hexane 1/20/89 16 50
Hexane 1/20/89 17 00
Hexane 1/20/89 17 05
Hexane 1/20/89 17 15
Hexane 1/20/89 17 20
Hexane 1/20/89 17 25
Hexane 1/2U/89 17 32
Hexane 1/20/89 17 37
Hexane 1/20/89 17 42
Hex.me 1/20/89 17 50
llexane 1/20/8') 11 55
Hexjiie 1/20/8'J 18 04
HcH.-iur 1/2O/B9 IB 10
Ilixaiitt 1/20/89 18 IB
Henaile l/JO/8'J 18 23
InFlo
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 0
55 0
55 0
55 0
57 0
56 0
56 0
55.5
55 i
60.0
58 5
54 0
56 0
55 5
57 0
56 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 .
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
InPr
21 2
21 2
21 7
21 5
21 2
21 8
21 5
21 2
21 5
21 2
19 8
20 0
20 0
20 0
22 0
21 6
21 6
20 5
21 2
23 2
22 9
20 0
21 0
20 2
21 5
21 1
21 1
21 1
21 1
21 1
21 8
22 0
21 2
21 8
21 7
21 3
21 5
21 2
21 3
21 4
21 7
21 1
21 1
21 0
21 9
21 7
21 3
21 5
21 J
chkdac
InTmp 1 A
72 7 57
72 8
73 1
73 3
73 4
73 4 55
72 8 54
72 9
73 1
73 2 56
72 3 52
72 8
71 9
72 2 57
73 0 53
72 4 53
72 2
72 8
72 8 54
72 9 45
73 2 32
72 8 29
72 4 47
73 5 59
72 6 53
73 8
73 2 57
72 8 57
73 5
73 8
72 4 31
72 4 28
72 5
72 5
72 4 94
71 7 50
71 8 50
72 0
72 0
72 1
71 5 52
71 5 52
71 7 52
72 0
71 5
71 5 53
71 6 53
72 0
71 6
InAtcn (
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
50
50
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
50
50
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
10UO
1000
JutPres
1 2
1 1
2 3
2 0
1 4
1 6
1 1
9 0
1 0
1 0
5
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 5
1 5
0 0
1 7
1 5
5
2 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
5
1 5
1 7
1 5
1 2
1 8
9
0 0
1 0
1 0
9
1 2
1 8
1 8
1 2
1 1
7
1 6
6
2 5
1 5
1 9
1 0
1 2
OutFlo
48 0
48 5
48 0
48 5
48 0
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 0
46 5
47 5
47 0
47 0
49 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
52 0
51 0
46 0
47 5
48 0
49 0
48 5
47 5
47 5
48 0
48 0
49 0
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
68 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
Vac
26 8
25 8
26 8
26 9
26 B
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 7
26 8
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 6
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 7
27 6
27 5
27 4
27 4
27 3
27 2
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 B
26 8
26 8
26 B
26 8
Page
0 Area
76 0
76 0
72 0
69 0
70 0
71 0
51 0
49 0
49 5
48 0
44 0
48 0
48 0
26 0
25 0
50 0
47 5
49 5
52 5
51 5
£-
OutAtti
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
10000
10000
10000
50
50
500
500
500
500
500
500
> SatTmp
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
148 0
73 0
73 0
73 0
72 0
72 0
72 0
72 0
72 0
72 0
101 0
111 0
128 0
146 0
149 0
149 0
150 0
150 0
150 0
149 0
149 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
69 0
SatFLo !
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
60
65
63
63
60
60
60
60
60
100
100
100
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
1'
1?
12
iatPces N
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
41
42
42
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
2 Sup Prm Ar
70
64
72
71
71
71
72
64
68
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
43
40
46
44
39
41 76
43 76
45 76
43 76
42 76
42 76
46 76
46 76
43 76
38 76
39 76
42 76
4_' 76
43 76
Prm Actn I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 I
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
2000 1
Rf
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
0 Rf
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 09
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 37
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
38
38
38
38
38
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 J4
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
PrmRt
1 37
1 37
37
37
37
37
37
37
1 37
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 34
1 J4
1 34
1 J4
34
1 3'.
1 J4
1 34
1 34
-------
TABLE A-1. (CONTINUED)
2/09/89
Solvent Date
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MtK
MtK
MtK
MtK
Ml-K
MhK
Mtk
MFK
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
1/20/89
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12(16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
la/ll/HB
12/ 1'1/SK
121 19/JI8
12/1'l/HS
12/1'l/Srt
1 .' / \') 1 il S
12/ ly/MH
Time
18 32
18 40
18 47
18 53
19 00
19 OS
19 10
19 15
19 20
19 25
19 34
19 42
19.44
19 50
14 20
14 40
14 55
15 40
15 50
16 00
16 06
16 18
16 23
16-35
16 45
16 53
17 07
17 12
17 27
17 36
17 57
18 05
18.10
18 16
18 30
18 47
19 02
19 13
19 IB
19 27
19 32
19 45
19 50
19 55
>0 05
><> 10
20 16
70 27
20 40
InFlo
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 5
56 5
56 0
56 5
56 5
56 5
56 0
55 5
56 0
60 0
58 0
56 5
57 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
57 0
57 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 5
56 5
56 0
55 0
55 5
56 0
55 5
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 5
56 5
56 5
55 5
55 0
56 0
InPr
21 1
21 2
21 5
21 5
21 5
21 8
22 0
21 5
21 3
21 3
21 2
21 3 '
21 5
21 5
21 0
2 0
21 0
24 0
21 2
21 2
21 8
21 9
21 9
21 6
21 9
21 8
21 7
21 7
21 1
21 0
21 1
21 1
21 0
21 6
21 3
21 5
20 9
21 7
21 6
21 4
21 2
21 1
21 5
21 6
21 4
21 4
21 5
21 0
21 5
chkdat
InTmp I A
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
68
70
72
73
73
74
73
73
74
74
73
74
74
73
74
74
73
73
74
74
73
72
73
74
73
74
74
74
73
74
75
74
74
75
3 53
3 38
1 56
2 56
5
6
2
0 57
1 57
3 58
3
0
2
3
8 73
6 ai
0
1 39
4 49
1 49
2 22
8 51
1
4
5 54
1 59
3
8
2 64
7 67
4
8
4 87
8 **
1 15
4
8 23
0 26
4 51
0 69
4 83
0 79
6 78
5
0
2 7J
0 75
0
InAttn OutPres
1000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
50
50
50
1000
1000
1000
500
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
50
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1 0
6
1 5
6
1 5
1 6
1 6
7
4
3
5
1 2
1 0
1 2
1 0
1 0
1 0
3 0
2 0
1 8
1 0
1 0
1 5
1 0
5
1 0
1 3
1 0
5
1 5
1 0
1 3
a
2 0
2 5
2 0
1 2
1 0
2 0
2 0
1 5
1 0
1 5
1
1 0
1 b
1 0
OutFlo
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
48
48
48
53
49
4B
49
50
49
48
49
49
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
47
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
48
47
48
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
Vac
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26.8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 0
28 0
28 1
28 1
28 1
28 1
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 a
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
Page
O Area
56 0
58 0
57 0
60 0
59 0
57 5
80 0
72 0
53 0
80 0
53 0
51 5
60 0
53 0
12 0
64 0
63 0
67 0
9
OutAttn SatTmp
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
50
50
200
100
200
200
200
200
50
•
1000
1000
1000
73
86
96
98
100
100
101
101
100
100
101
100
101
101
131
140
146
150
153
148
146
148
150
153
153
153
152
151
150
150
149
149
175
178
181
184
185
185
184
183
183
182
182
182
181
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SatFlo SatPces N2 Sup
12
72
92
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
25
27
35
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
0
35
55
85
85
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
HO
42
38
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
30
33
32
32
32
32
32
32
2
32
32
32
32
32
46 .
41
36
38
40
40
42
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
Prra AT Prm Attn I
79 20000 1
79 20000
79 20000
79 20000
79 20000
79 20000
79 20000
79 20000
79 20000 1
79 20000 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rf
33
33
33
33
33
31
33
33
33
33
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
os
OH
oa
08
0 Rf
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 IUI
I 00
1 Oil
i oo
1 00
PcmRf
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
-------
TABLE A -1. (CONTINUED)
2/09/89
Solvent Dace
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/B9
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/03/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/B9
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
l/05/b9
1/05/89
Time
20 45
20 50
21 00
21 05
21 10
21 15
21 20
21 25
21 30
21 40
21 45
21 60
IB 40
19 00
19 05
19:30
19 35
19 45
20 00
20 30
20 55
21 00
21.05
21 25
21 30
21 35
21 40
21 45
21 50
21 55
22 00
22 05
22 10
22 15
22 20
22 25
22 30
15 38
15 45
15 52
16 05
16 30
16 35
17 01
17 06
17 25
17 30
17 40
17 45
InFlo
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 5
56 0
56 5
56 5
56 0
55 0
56 0
56 0
57 0
56 0
56 5
56 0
58 0
56 0
57 0
57 0
56 0
57 0
57 0
57 0
56 0
57 0
57 0
57 0
57 0
57 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
57 0
56 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
56 0
55 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 0
56 0
InPr
21 3
21 3
21 2
21 2
21 2
21 2
21 2
21 6
21 5
21 3
21 6
21 5
21 1
21 7
21 4
22 1
21 3
21 5
21 4
22 9
21 3
21 5
21 5
21 0
21 6
21 5
21 9
21 0
21 6
21 7
21 7
21 8
21 8
21 5
21 5
21 5
20 9
21 8
21 8
21 7
21 6
21 8
21 4
21 6
21 6
21 4
21 7
21 5
21 5
chkdat
InTmp I A
74 2
73 7
74 5
74 8
7 5
73 8
73 9
74 3
74 7
74 0
73 5
74 7
71 2
73 1
73 0
74 3
74 6
74 5
74 7
75 3
75 2
75 4
74 8
75 7
74 9
75 0
75 3
75 6
75 6
75 0
75 0
75 5
75 6
75 3
74 9
75 1
75 3
73.8
73 4
74 0
74 1
74 2
75 0
75 1
7b 0
75 2
75 2
7b 4
75 2
71
76
80
74
73
58
77
47
68
84
44
41
62
61
58
77
77
81
81
75
80
83
9
75
55
55
57
56
InAtcn OutPres
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
100
50
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
50
200
200
200
200
200
1 5
1 5
2 0
1 0
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 0
5
1 2
2 0
5
1 3
1 3
5
1 7
1 0
2 0
3.2
2 1
1 5
1 0
5
1 0
1 0
5
1 6
1 0
1 0
1 0
5
1 0
1 5
1 6
1 1
5
2 5
1 3
1 3
3 0
2 4
1 5
1 7
2 0
2 1
OutFlo Vac
48 5
48 5
48 0
48 5
49 0
49 0
48 5
49 0
48 5
49 0
49 0
48.5
48 0
48 0
48 5
50 0
48 0
49 0
49 0
50 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
48 0
49 0
49 0
50 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
49 0
50 0
49 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
47 0
48 0
26 a
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26.8
26 9
26 9
26 8
26 B
26 8
26 8
26 B
26 8
26 8
26 B
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 B
26 8
26.8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 a
26 8
26 B
26 8
26 8
26 9
26 9
26 9
26 9
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
Page
O Area
64 0
62 0
80 0
70.0
68 0
67 0
67 0
92 0
63 0
61 0
61 0
89 0
89 0
80 0
88 0
11 0
9 0
51 0
51 0
51 0
50 0
OutAttn SatTrap
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
50
.
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
50
50
100
100
100
100
181 0
180 0
180 0
180 0
180 0
180 0
ISO 0
ISO 0
1BO 0
180 0
180 0
180 0
196.0
196 0
196 0
207 0
207 0
207 0
204 0
204 0
201 0
201 0
200 0
199.0
199 0
198 0
198 0
198 0
198.0
198 0
198 0
198 0
198 0
198 0
198 0
197 0
67 0
67 0
67 0
67 0
68 0
67 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
SatFlo SatPrea N2 Sup Prm Ar Prm Actn I
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
30
30
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
5
5
5
5
5
b
5
5
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
40
40
40
37
36
42
48
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
21
28
64
63
68
68
69
69
69
69
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
33
31
32
31
32
26
32
32
31
31
31
31
32
31
32
32
33
32
32
32
32
32
32
73
73
76
75
50
59
h7
7b
68
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rf
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
O Rf PrmRf
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 IB
1 IB
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 IB
1 IB
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 18
1 05
1 05
1 05
1 05
1 Ob
1 05
1 05
1 05
1 05
1 Ob
1 Ob
1 Ob
-------
TABLE A -1. (CONTINUED)
2/09/89
Solvent Date
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCL
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/05/89
1/06/89
1/06/B9
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/00/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
Time
17
18
18
18
IB
IB
19
19
19
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1)
1 7
17
17
1 7
55
00
40
48
51
58
03
14
18
50
54
00
05
13
17
24
27
31
35
41
45
49
54
58
05
OB
15
20
25
30
38
42
47
51
54
00
04
09
14
18
22
28
40
55
05
10
15
20
25
InFlo
57
57
56
56
56
56
56
55
56
55
55
55
57
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
55
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
56
55
56
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
InPr
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
7
5
7
5
5
5
8
3
5
5
3
1
5
7
5
1
7
8
7
1
4
2
3
5
2
5
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
2
3
5
5
6
6
3
7
5
3
5
3
6
5
b
7
chkdat
InTmp I A
74 7
75 1
75 5
75 1
75 2
75 6
75 1
75 0
75 5
72 2
72 5
73 5
73 B
73 B
74 2
75 0
75 2
74 8
74 6
75 3
75 6
75 9
75 5
75 3
75 6
76 0
76 1
75 7
75 6
76 2
76 2
75 9
75 4
76 0
76 3
76 7
76 4
76 2
75 9
76 0
76 7
76 6
76 0
76 6
76 4
77 0
76 7
76 5
76 3
50
49
48
47
46
24
23
17
16
61
84
89
48
50
52
52
53
53
51
50
45
45
76
55
55
64
68
65
InAttn OutPres
200
200
200
200
200
50
50
50
50
200
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
100
500
2000
2000
2000
2000
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
-I
2
2
2
6
5
6
0
5
5
0
0
0
9
1
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
0
5
1
3
6
5
1
5
6
0
1
5
7
6
2
5
5
5
3
6
5
3
6
3
0
6
1
5
5
OutFlo
49
49
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
4B
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
47
48
48
47
48
48
48
47
47
47
48
47
48
48
48
48
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
Page
Vac O Area
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26.
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26.
26
26
26
26
26
26
26'
26
26
26
26
26
26
8
8
8
8 42 0
8 42 0
a
a
B 42 0
8 41 0
8
a
B 22 0
8 21 0
8
a
8
8
8
8
B
a
B
8 43 0
8 43 0
8
B
8
8
B
8
8
a
8 43 0
8 42 0
8 42 0
8
8
8 84 0
8 81 0
8 80 0
8 77 0
8 76 0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
$
OutAttn SatTrap
68
68
68
100 68
100 68
68
68
100 68
100
100
100 68
50 67
50 68
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
68
100 68
100 69
68
68
68
69
68
68
69
100 69
100 68
100 68
69
69
50 69
50 69
50 69
50 69
50
69
69
69
69
69
69
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SatFlo SatPres N2 Sup
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
40
85
80
78
80
69
69
68
68
68
68
68
69
37
48
50
52
53
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
55
52
45
43
40
40
57
63
75
74
70
75
75
67
75
66
75
63
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
67
70
66
69
71
70
74
73
73
72
72
72
75
60
63
60
63
63
62
Prm Ar
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Prm Attn I
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rf
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
19
19
19
19
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rf
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
12
12
12
12
PrmRf
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 OB
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 08
1 06
1 08
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
-------
TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED)
2/09/89
Solvent Date
MeCl
MeCl
HeCl
HeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
HeCl
MeCl
MeCl
HeCl
MeCl
MeCl
HeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeCl
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOII
M, OH
MeOII
MeOII
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/06/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/13/89
1/16/89
1/16/B9
1/16/89
1/10/89
Time
17 30
17 35
17 38
17.46
17 51
17 55
18 00
18 05
18 10
18 14
18 18
18 22
18 25
18 30
18 35
18 40
18 45
18.50
12-30
12 40
12-50
13 00
13 21
13 35
13 50
14 00
14 10
14 22
14 32
14 40
14 50
15 05
15 20
15 30
15 45
15 55
16 10
16 30
16 48
17 00
17 25
17 45
18 05
18 25
18 48
13 17
13 30
14 17
14 30
InFlo
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 5
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56.0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
54 0
55 0
55 5
55 5
InPr
21 6
21 5
21 2
21.8
21 7
21 5
21 4
21 3
21 5
21 7
21 3
21 2
21 3
21 7
21 1
21 7
21 6
21 6
22 0
22 2
21 3
21 5
21 3
21 7
22 0
21 4
21 6
21 4
21 3
21 3
21 2
21 1
21 6
21 9
21 2
21 4
21 6
21 9
21 8
21 3
21 4
21 3
21 3
21 5
21 1
20 9
22 1
20 8
20 9
cnKaat
InTmp I A
76 2
76 7
77 1
76 5
76 2
75 8
75 9
76 5
76 9
76 7
76 2
76 2
76 1
76 9
76 8
76 8
76 3
76 2
66 5
67 1
67 8
68 4
69 5
70 0
70 4
70 6
70 6
70 6
7 1
71 0
71 0
71 1
71 2
71 2
71 6
71 6
71 7
72 0
72 1
72 0
72 0
71 6
71 8
71 8
71 4
70 b
71 4
77 7
72 4
69
71
72
73
75
76
77
78
76
22
78
77
23
16
30
51
71
75
71
64
70
70
47
68
76
76
4
18
84
54
InAttn OutPrea
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
2000
2000
2000
2000
1 5
2 0
1 6
2 4
2 1
1 6
1 3
2 0
2 0
2 0
1 9
1 9
2 1
2 0
1 3
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 5
3 1
1 0
1 9
1
1 2
1 5
1 0
1 5
9
1 5
1 0
1 0
5
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 4
1 5
1 5
2 2
1 2
1 0
5
2 0
1 8
3
2 0
2 5
1 0
2 0
OutFlo
48 0
48 0
48 0
49 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48.0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
49 0
48 5
47 0
47 0
48 0
48 0
Page
Vac O Area
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
a
8
a
8 63 0
8 62 0
8
a
e
8 66 0
8 66 0
a
.8
8
8
.8
8
8
a
a
a 21 o
.8
a 15 o
a
a
a
8
a
a ai o
.8 70 0
8 67 5
8 65 0
8
a
8
8 81 0
8 68 5
.8 64 0
a
8
8
a
8 89 0
8
8 90 0
8 89 0
8
8
8
a
b
OutAttn SatTmp
69
69
69
1000 69
1000 69
69
69
69
1000 69
1000 69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
88
50 88
88
50 92
88
89
90
90
89
50 90
50 90
50 90
50 90
90
90
90
50 90
50 90
50 90
89
99
109
111
200 111
111
200 111
200 111
162
168
167
166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SatFlo SatPres N2 Sup
79
79
79
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
16
30
31
24
24
23
23
22
23
22
23
22
23
23
22
72
72
72
71
70
70
70
20
40
70
70
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
26
38
38
37
37
34
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
37
37
38
38
36
36
35
35
35
35
35
38
45
60
57
61
68
72
69
67
67
67
70
70
65
69
69
69
63
71
72
72
75
75
75
74
63
72
70
64
71
73
72
71
68
72
68
66
70
72
69
70
66
68
69
59
62
60
60
55
56
67
59
Pnn Ar
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Prm Attn I Rf
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
bOO
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
1 19
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
O Rf
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 12
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
93
93
93
93
93
00
00
00
00
00
PrmRf
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 13
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 01
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
-------
TABLE A.-1. (CONTINUED)
oo
2/09/8S
Solvent
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
NeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Tol uene
Toluene
To 1 uenc
To 1 iifric
Tol uene
"lolucne
To 1 uene
1
Dace
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/16/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/B9
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
Time
14 39
111 55
IS 00
IS OS
15 15
IS 20
IS 30
IS 40
IS 45
15 50
15 55
16 00
16 06
16 18
16 25
16 28
16 35
16 40
16 45
16 50
16 55
17 00
16 33
16 SB
17 03
17 15
17 20
17 25
17 37
17 43
17 48
18.06
18 11
18 16
18 25
18 30
18 40
18 45
18 59
19 04
19 15
19 20
19 25
19 30
19 40
19 45
19 50
20 00
20 05
InFlo
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 5
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 J
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 0
55 0
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56.0
56 0
56 0
56 0
55 5
56 0
55 5
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
InPr
21 0
21 3
22 5
21 6
21 7
21 2
21 2
21 4
21 3
21 2
21 7
21 3
21 7
21 8
21 4
21 2
21 4
21 3
21 5
22 0
21 2
21 1
20 1
21 9
21 6
21 3
21 5
21 1
21 1
21 1
21 5
21 0
21 3
21 5
21 3
21 3
21 2
21 6
21 0
21 0
21 2
21 4
21 8
21 5
21 5
21 4
21 3
21 3
21 2
chkdac
InTmp I A
72 6 53
72 6
73 0
73 2
752 8 61
73 0 63
73 4 61
73 5
73 6
73 7 58
73 8 61
73 8 62
74 0 61
73 3
73 4 62
73 5 61
73 6
73 8
74 0
73 4 60
73 6 58
74 0 59
69 5 5
70 8 49
70 8 50
71 8
71 9
71 7
72 4 51
72 8 53
73 0 52
73 0
73 2
73 3
73 2 51
72 9 52
73 2
72 9
73 2 51
73 0 52
73 6 45
73 7 49
74 0 (.9
74 1 50
73 2
73 4
73 5
n 6 49
/3 2 51
InAttn <
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
kit Pee a
1 5
1 0
3 0
1 2
1 4
2 0
1 5
1 5
1.2
7
1 5
1 5
1.6
1 4
1 9
1 2
1 9
1 2
1 5
1 2
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
2 0
8
1 2
6
1 9
1 5
1 0
1 2
1 9
2 5
2 4
1 6
4 0
2 0
1 0
1 5
1 1
1 9
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 7
1 5
Out Flo
48 0
48 5
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
48 5
Page -J
Vac O Area OutAtti
26 8
26 8 51 0 1000
26 8 54 0 1000
26 8 55 0 1000
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8 63 0 1000
26 8 62 0 1000
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8 60 0 1000
26 8 58 0 1000
26 8 58 0 1000
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 B
26 8
26 8 58 5 200
26 8 56 0 200
26 8 55 0 200
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8 57 0 200
26 8 56 0 200
26 8 56 5 200
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8
26 8 41 5 1000
26 8 41 0 1000
26 8 42 0 1000
26 8
26 8
i SacTmp
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
165 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
68 0
69 0
69 0
68 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
69 0
76 0
84 0
89 0
90 0
90 0
90 0
90 0
90 (1
90 0
SatFlo .
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
29
31
31
32
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
30
25
26
26
26
27
67
65
66
65
65
66
67
67
75
iacPrea N
54
66
67
66
66
66
66
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
24
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
36
37
37
36
36
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
2 Sup
53
58
59
56
62
72
53
SB
63
71
56
65
49
56
58
62
65
53
53
57
76
58
60
65
73
72
74
65
69
72
72
66
73
73
65
62
71
73
67
61
62
67
65
67
67
72
67
Prm Ar
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
60
60
60
Pern Attr
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
5000
5000
5000
bOOO
5000
5000
l I Rf
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
I 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
1 15
1 15
1 15
1 15
1 15
1 15
1 IS
f 15
1 15
0 Rf
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 03
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
14
14
1',
U
14
PrmRf
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
-------
TABLE A-l. (CONTINUED)
2/09/89
Date
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Tune InFlo InPr InTmp I
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
1/19/89
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
10
17
23
40
45
SO
55
OS
10
IS
20
25
30
35
40
50
55 5
55 5
55.5
56 0
55 5
55 5
55 5
56.0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
56 0
21 5
21.3
21 3
21 4
21 3
21 2
21.3
21 3
21 3
21 3
21 5
21 5
21 5
21 2
21 8
21 7
chkdac
A InAttn OutPres
73 4
73 9
73 B
73 6
74 0
73 9
73.2
73 6
73 7
74 0
73 4
73 3
73 5
73 7
74.0
73 2
51
51
53
53
54
50
52
53
53
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
OutFlo
1 6
1 7
2 0
2 2
1 1
2 4
1 3
1 5
1 5
1 5
2 0
2 0
1 4
9
1 2
1 4
Vac 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 5
48 0
48 5
48 0
48 0
48 0
48 5
48 5
Page
Area OutAttn Sat Trap
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26.
26
26
26
26
26
8
8
a
a
8
8
8
8 47 0 1000
8 48 0 1000
8 47 5 1000
a
8
a
a
a
8
SatFlo SacPres
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
75
74
68
68
70
72
72
72
72
72
73
70
72
72
70
N2 Sup
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Prm Ar
66
64
64
66
66
68
66
68
70
71
68
67
67
67
60
61
Prm Attn I Rf
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
O R£ PrmRf
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
1 07
-------
Get DATE
i
Assign Variable
CALPRS = 743 (Inlet)
(Calibrated Press)
Place Into variable
Get NWS BP for
Calc
Vol Flow
VOLFLO = (INFLOW
- 30) x 04677
+ 1165
Calc
CORRTMP =
492 / INTMP
460
Calc
PREFAC =
CALPRS/
760
Get Inlet Pressure
Place in Variable
Store CORRTMP
Into Results Table,
Field CORRECTED
TEMP (5)
Store PREFAC
Into Results Table,
Field STD
PRES CORR (3)
Into Results Table,
Calc
Variable
TINPR = (1NPH
1468)
STOP
Calc
SLPM = VOLFLO
x PRECOR x
CORRTMP x
PREFAC
Store TINPR
Into Results Table,
Field TOTAL
INLET PRESSURE (1)
Into Results Table
Field. STD VOL
Calc
Variable
PRESCOR =
SORT (TINPR /
CALPRS)
Into Results Table,
Store PRESCOR
Into Results Table,
Field INLET CORR
PRESSURE (2)
Figure A.-1. Example Calculations
80
-------
Get Inlet Area (INAREA)
Get Intel Attenuation
(I NATT)
Calc
INCONC.
INAREA x I NATT
MOO
Get Carbon Number
Into Variable
CARNUM1
Calc
ACTCONC
(INCOCN / INRF) /
CARNUM
Store ACTCONC
Into Results Table,
Field ACTUAL
CONCENTRATION
Calc
INSOLVMFLO
TOTQAS x ACTCONC
x MOLWTMO6
Figure A. -1. (Continued)
81
-------
(1) Total Inlet Pressure = Inlet Pressure X 1.868 + Local Std Bar Pressure
/OXT1 _ ,_ , _. i, Total Inlet Pressure
(2) Inlet Corrected Pressure -
Instrument Calibrated Pressure
.,_, „ , , „ Instrument Calibrated Pressure
(3) Std Corrected Pressure = - ——
Standard Pressure
(4) Uncorrected Vol Flow - (Inlet Flow - 30) X 0.4677 + 11.65
(5) Corrected Temperature = 492/(Inlet Temp + 460)
(6) Std Volume Flow = Inlet Corr Pres X Std Corr Pres X Vol Flow X Corr Temp
(2) (3) (4) (5)
(7) Total Inlet Gas = Std Vol. Flow X 60/22.4
(6)
(8) Instrument Inlet Concentration = Inlet Area * Inlet Attenuation/100
(9) Actual (Solvent) Concentration = ( r—: r^ ")/ Carbon Number
(10) Inlet Solvent Mass Flow =
Total Inlet Gas X Actual Concentration X Molecular Wt. / 10s
(7) (9)
Figure A-l. (Continued)
82
-------
APPENDIX B
QC RESULTS
83
-------
CALIBRATIONS
Temperature
The temperature of the Inlet gas and the liquid in the saturator were
measured with calibrated thermocouples. Each thermocouple was checked against
an NBS-traceable calibration thermometer by immersing them both in dewar flasks
containing water at various temperatures. The results of the calibration are
shown in Table B-l.
Pressure
Pressure was measured at several locations in the apparatus; these
consisted of inlet gas pressure to the membrane, outlet gas pressure (downstream
of the outlet rotameter), vacuum level in the permeate stream, pressure in the
saturator, and nitrogen make-up supply pressure (downstream of the rotameter).
Each pressure gauge was checked against a reference manometer or gauge by
connecting both gauges to sources at various pressures. The results of the
calibrations are shown in Table B-2.
84
-------
TABLE B-l. TEMPERATURE SENSOR CALIBRATION
•Indicated Temp. Actual Temp Date
A. Saturator Thermocouple 63
77
96
115
,132
146
176
209
B. Inlet Gas Thermocouple 68.2
75.1
91.1
166.7
66.7 1-9-89
80.0
99.1
118.5
135.6
149.0
179.0
211.6
67.8 1-9-89
77.5
91.8
167.0
85
-------
TABLE B-2 PRESSURE GAUGE CALIBRATION
Indicated
Pressure
(inches H20)
A. Inlet Pressure 0.6
12
18
24
30
B. Outlet Pressure 5
(Magnehelic) 10
15
20
25
Indicated
Pressure
C. Nitrogen Supply Pressure 11.80 psig
(Bourdon Tube) 8.70 psig
0.55 psig
D. Vacuum Gauge 29.0 in Hg
(Bourdon Tube) 24.4 in Hg
0.0 in Hg
Reference
Manometer
(inches H20)
0.6
12
18
24
30.4
5
' 10
15
20
25.3
Reference
Gauge
12.00 psig
8.65 psig
0.60 psig
28.91 in Hg
24.23 in Hg
0.00 in Hg
Date
1-23-89
1-23-89
Date
1-23-89
1-23-89
86
-------
Flow
Flow was measured at several locations in the apparatus; these consisted
of inlet gas flow to the membrane, outlet gas flow from the membrane, saturator
flow to the recirculating loop, and nitrogen make-up flow. Each of these
flowrates were measured using calibrated rotaneters. Each rotameter was
calibrated with nitrogen at a known discharge pressure using a Hastings-Raydist
Flow Calibrator ("soap bubble flow meter") Results of the calibrations are
shown in Table B-3.
Total_Hydroca_rbon (THG) Analyzer
The Byron 401 THC Analyzer was used to measure•solvent concentration in
the inlet, outlet, and permeate streams of the membrane. The analyzer itself
was checked weekly for proper operation by performing a multipoint calibration
with propane in nitrogen. Table B-4 presents the actual propane concentrations,
instrument concentrations, and average response factors for the weekly calibra-
tions. Also shown are the linear correlation coefficients ("r") for the
relationship of actual concentrations versus instrument readings. All the
propane calibrations exceeded the minimum acceptance criteria of r > 0.995
Trap Recovery
The gravimetric cold trap was tested for its ability to recover at least
95% of the incoming solvent vapor. The results for these tests are presented in
Table B-6. The results were disappointing, in that the goal of 95% recovery was
not met. It appeared that even with two traps in series, a small amount of the
solvent was still escaping (8X). With no alternative sampling method available
at the early stages of the testing, it seemed possible that using liquid nitrogen
only in the first (gravimetric) trap might improve the recovery. This procedure
was used from 12/15/88 until the permeate sampling pumps were added on 1/6/89.
87
-------
TABLE B-3. FLOWHETER CALIBRATIONS
Setting
Flowrate
Barometric Pressure
Date
A.
Inlet Flow
Rotanteter
30
60
90
120
11.65 L/min 743 mmHg
25.68
40.81
57.10
11-11-88
B. Outlet Flow
Rotameter
Nitrogen Supply
Rotameter
Saturator Flow
Rotameter
20 7.28 L/min
40 15.73
60 25.42
80 35.77
110 53.19
20 0.929 L/min
60 3.554
100 6.108
150 9.255
10 20.09 mL/min
30 36.91
50 67.38
70 113.1
90 172.6
735 mmHg
11-15-88
743 mmHg
742 mmHg
11-11-88
1-25-89
88
-------
TABLE B-4. WEEKLY PROPANE MULTIPOINT CALIBRATIONS
Date
12-14-88
12-15-88
12-19-88
1-3-89
1-9-89
1-16-89
Actual Cone .
(ppmvC)
43
111
415
929
2302
4547
12277
0
111
929
4548
12276
0
111
929
4548
12276
0
111
929
4548
12276
0
111
929
4548
12276
0
111
929
4548
12276
Instrument Cone. Correlation
(ppmvC) Coefficient Average RF
63 r-0.9991 1.463
166
645
1330
3400
6750
16400
7.5 r-.9991 1.444
167
1350
6750
14600
6 r-.9991 1.470
175
1360
6800
16500
5 r=-.9994 1.441
166
1340
6700
16600
3 r-,9994 1.443
168
1340
6700
16500
6 5 r-.9991 1.451
168
1350
6800
16500
89
-------
TABLE B-5. GRAVIMETRIC TRAP RECOVERY TEST RESULTS
Primary ' Back-up
Date - Time Solvent Added Trap Trap % Recovery % Closure
11-23-88 14:15 6.0 ml MeCl 6.36 g - 80.4%
11-23-88 14:48 7.0 ml MeCl 7.64 g 1.0 ml MeCl 82 7% 97.1%
TEST CONDITIONS:
1. Syringe injection time varied from 1 to 2.5 min.
2. Vacuum level in line of 24 in Hg.
3 Primary trap cold bath at -150°C.
90
-------
Solvent Response Factors
The Byron 401 THC Analyzer was checked daily with a multipoint calibration
with standard gases of the solvent. Results of these calibrations are shown in
Table B-6.
The response factors (RFs) are calculated using the formula shown below.
Instrument Concentration (ppmvC)
Rr ~ ^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^__^^__^_^_^^_^___
Actual Concentration (ppmvC)
where, Instrument Concentration — (Area)*(Attenuation)/100
Actual Concentration — (Solvent Standard Concentration)*(No of
Carbon Atoms)
Permeate THC samples
As an improvement over the gravimetric cold trap to sample the permeate
THC concentration, additional sample pumps were connected in series to extract
a sample from the permeate stream. The sampling technique was checked by
metering one of the solvent standard gases into the permeate line and checking
the response of the THC analyzer. The vacuum level in the line was maintained
at about 27 in Hg to simulate experimental conditions. As shown in Table B-7,
the sample pumps appeared to cause some dilution, although it was difficult to
determine how much.
91
-------
TABLE B-6. DAILY SOLVENT MULTIPOINT CALIBRATION DATA
Solvent
Date
Concentration Range, ppmv Average
(ppmvC) RF
Correlation
Coefficient
Hexane 12-14-88
12-15-88
1-20-89
MEK* 12-16-88
12-19-88
1-3-89
MeCl 1-4-89
1-5-89
1-6-89
CFC-113 1-9-89
1-10-89
MeOH* 1-13-89
1-16-89
Toluene 1-19-89
0-141 ppmv
(0-848 ppmvC)
0-2000 ppmv
(0-12000 ppmvC)
0-2000 ppmv'
(0-12000 ppmvC)
0-1980 ppmv
(0-7920 ppmvC)
0-1980 ppmv
(0-7920 ppmvC)
0-1980 ppmv
(0-7920 ppmvC)
0-2000 ppmv
(0-2000 ppmvC)
0-141 ppmv
(0-141 ppmvC)
0-2000 ppmv
(0-2000 ppmvC)
0-1980 ppmv
(0-3960 ppmvC)
0-1980 ppmv
(0-3960 ppmvC)
0-1000 ppmv
(0-1000 ppmvC)
0-1000 ppmv
(0-1000 ppmvC)
0-500 ppmv
(0-3500 ppmvC)
1.286
1,310
1.307
0.967
0.986
0.955
1.220
1.096
1.114
1.031
1.046
0.834
0.981
1.101
0.9997
0.9984
0.9986
0.9993
0.9994
0.9989
0.9989
0 9990
0.9998
0 9997
0.9996
0.9998
0.9998
0 9993
* - RF decreases at low concentrations.
92
-------
TABLE B-7. DIRECT PERMEATE SAMPLING TEST
Date Sample
1-13-89 1*
2
3
BYRON 401 Response
4100 ppmvC
3791
3600
TL Recovery
100%
92 5%
87 8%
*1 - Calibration gas connected directly to analyzer sample inlet
2 - Calibration gas connected to inlet of sample pump,
3 - Calibration gas connected to blanked-off permeate side with vacuum
at 27 in Hg.
93
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY SYSTEMS AUDIT REPORT
94
-------
AUDIT REPORT 259-044-01-04
15 March 1989
TO: Distribution
FROM: J.M. Youngerman
SUBJECT: January 1989 ARB Membrane Bench Scale Laboratory Systems Audit
PROJECT: California Air Resources Board/U.S. EPA Membrane Test Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A Technical Systems Audit (TSA) of the Air Resources Board (AKB)
Bench Scale Laboratory was conducted by Jean Youngerman on January 19, 1989.
This audit covered general laboratory operations and specific requirements
for the support of the quality assurance (QA) effort for the ARB Membrane
Test Study. This systems audit was conducted to determine the extent to
which the QAPP is currently followed.
Technical Systems Audits are conducted to evaluate the adequacy of
the measurement system to provide data of known quantity which are
sufficient, in terms of quality and quantity, to meet the program
objectives.
The current audit focused on the following areas:
* Condition of the facilities and equipment;
» Consistency of current practices with documented procedures
presented in the ARB Membrane QAPP;
• Calibration procedures and documentation;
• Completeness of data forms and data reduction procedures;
JY43.MMO
95
-------
RADIAN
• Recordkeeping (data filing and archiving procedures); and
• Compliance with the ARB Membrane Test Study QAPP quality
control requirements.
Specific activities underway during the audit included the final
analyses of one of the test gases for the ARB Membrane Test Study. The results
of the current audit are docunented in the checklists presented as
Attachment A of this report.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
No formal Recommendations for Corrective Action (RCAs) are being
issued at this time since tlie program was in nearly complete at the time of
the audit.
3.0 DISCUSSION
A checklist was used as a guide in conducting this systems audit.
The completed checklist is presented as Attachment A of this report. Each
checklist was designed to document the status of those elements which are
critical to production of defensible data of known quality'. In addition,
project-specific elements required by the ARB Membrane Test Study QAPP were
reviewed and documented.
3.1 Facilities andEquipment
The bench-scale laboratory of the ARB Membrane Test Study is
maintained at a reasonable level of cleanliness and order. Instrumentation
in use for the program is mechanically sound. This instrumentation meets
the specification presented in the ARB Membrane Test Study QAPP and should
be technically suitable for the intended purpose. At the time of the audit
the instrumentation was operational. No problems were noted.
JY43.MMO
96
-------
RADIAN
During the course of the study, it was determined that the cold
trap procedure described in the QAPP would not be adequate for the needs of
the project. Therefore, a direct permeate sampling method was used to obtain
the sample from the permeate.
3,2 Conjsis tenc_y__w it.h Dpcimented Procedures
Documented operating procedures for the AEB Membrane Test Study
are presented in the ARB Membrane Test Study QAPP. The QAPP includes procedures
to be followed for sample handling, sample analysis and data reporting. The
QAPP requires that a control standard be analyzed in duplicate after the
drift check analyses. The control standard was not purchased. Other quality
control procedures were followed as specified in the QAPP.
3.3 Calibration Procedures and Documentation
The THC analyzer calibration was performed according to the QAPP.
At the time of the audit, none of the calculations for the propane multipoint
calibration had been performed. Therefore, the analyst was not sure if the
multipoint calibration curve met the stated acceptance criteria of r 2.0-995.
The auditor explained to the analyst the reasoning for calculating the linear
regression of the calibration curve after the curve is run. It was informally
recommended that these calculations be made immediately. After the audit, the
analyst confirmed the linearity of the calibration curve. The standard
multipoint calibration was performed daily; therefore, a drift check was not
required.
At the time of the audit, the following calibrations needed to be
completed and documented:
• Saturator rotameter;
• Pressure gauges; and
• Vac urn gauges.
JY43.MMO
97
-------
The analyst planned on checking the calibration of these instruments
as soon as the testing was complete.
3.4 Completeness of Data Forms and Data Reduction Procedures
The data forms presented in the QAPP had been modified to include
more information. The forms were filled out correctly. The laboratory
calculations required for this program had been performed. However, no
sample calculations had been given. It was informally recommended that
sample calculations be added to the logbook. The calculations had been
reviewed by a supervisor, but there were no initials to evidence this
review. No data reduction, using a database, had begun at the time of this
audit.
3.5 Recordkeeping
At the time of this audit, recordkeeping consisted of some chroma-
tograms filed in manila folders and a project logbook. The chromatograms
contained all the necessary information including: dates, initials, and
amounts.
However, entries in the logbook were not signed. Corrections were
made by crossing out entire pages. These corrections were not dated,
initialed, or explained. Although supervisor review of the notebook had
occurred, it was not evidenced by initials.
3.6 Compliance with ARB Membrane Test Study QAPP Quality Control
Requirements
At the time of this audit, not all of the QC protocol specified in
the QAPP was in use. Although calibration curves were in use, they had not
been calculated, and no checks of instrument response consistency from day
to day were employed. Because the standard gas multipoint curve was
analyzed daily, a drift check was never run. The samples were analyzed
JT43.MMO
98
-------
RADIAN
continuously at a constant temperature. This gives, a measure of repeatability
of the analyses. Blank samples were being analyzed. The data forms were
complete, and the logbooks were in good shape.
4.0 STATUS OF PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
This audit report is the only one for this laboratory and the ARE
Membrane Program. No formal Recommendations for Corrective Action are
presented.
JYA3.MMO
99
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE DESIGN AND COST CALCULATIONS
100
-------
TABLE D-l. EXAMPLE DESIGN CALCULATIONS
A. Carton^Adsorber jJnly
Given: Inlet Flow - 2500 ACFM (2196 SCFH)
Inlet Concentration - 1000 ppmv CFC-113
1 Calculate Equilibrium Carbon Loading: [use Calgon adsorption
isotherm graph]
Partial Pressure - (y)(Pt) - f10°OPPmvj (15.0 psia)
- 0,015 psia
Capacity at 100"F •= 45 wt% 0.45 kg CFC-113
r J kg carbon
2. Calculate Mass of Carbon Required (From Ref. 10)
Ra - 1.556 x 10"7 (MW)(C)(G)(t)/Wc '
where, Ra = Total carbon required (Ib)
MW - Molecular weight of solvent (CFC-113=187 4 Ib/lb mol)
C = Concentration of solvent (1000 ppmv)
G = Vent stream flowrate (2196 SCFM)
t - Breakthrough time (use 2.5 hours as first guess)
Wc = Working capacity = (equilibrium capacity)/2
- (.45/2) = .225 Ib CFC-113/lb carbon
Ra = (1.556xlO"7)(187.4)(1000)(2196)(2.5)/(.225) -
711 Ib carbon required.
3. Calculate Desired Superficial Velocity: (From Ref 10)
Vs - -,01576(C) + 101.579
where: Vs =• Superficial velocity (ft/min)
C - Concentration of solvent (100
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
4. Calculate Bed,Area Normal to Flow. (From Ref. 10)
A0 - 60%
(Set by adjusting x and calculating F and y below)
(Continued)
102
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
6. Calculate Stage Cut (or "Fraction Permeated") (From Ref. 2)
F - 1 -
where: F - Stage cut (molar flow, permeate/molar flow, inlet)
xf - Concentration of solvent in feed (1000 ppmv or 001)
x - Concentration of solvent in residue (450 ppmv or 00045)
a* - Selectivity (20)
7 - Pressure ratio (0.10)
/O.00045
1 ^ 0.001
- 0.1266
7. Calculate Permeate Concentration: (From Ref. 2)
y - xf/F [l -
where: y — Permeate concentration
0.001 T /0.004^20/tl-°-1H2o-li 1
y " 0.1266 " L \o7ooTy J
- 0.004793 (4790 ppmv)
8. Calculate Dimensionless Area: (From Ref. 2)
Rf - F/(l-7)
where Rt = Dimensionless area: (Qb/d)PS/L£
F - Stage cut (0.1266)
7 - Pressure ratio (0.10)
- 0 1407
Calculate Membrane Area: (From Ref. 2)
Rf -
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
P — Feed side pressure (psia)
S - Membrane area (ft2)
Lf - Inlet molar flowrate (Ib mol/hr)
Rearrange, using a* - Qa/Qb or Q^ - Qa/a*
Rf'd-Lf q*Rf'd«Lf
Qb'P QaP
i_ « r. ,_ -1 - JT T Ib mol* ft
where1 0,, — Permeability of solvent r :—~^~i
" J hr*psi'ft
Qa from Test Results:
solvent flux.[gmol[ / membrane thickness.m
\ hr / \merabrane area, m2 j ^partial pressure
For CFC-113,
Qa -
/0477 gmojA /3xlO'sm\ / 1 VIb mol \/760 mmHg \/_ m_
\ hr / \ 0.4 m2/! Cl 077+0.54) - (0.307))\454gmol/\14 7 psia/\3 281 ft
\ 2 /
- 2.47 x IQ'8 Ibmol'ft
ft2
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
where: G' - Molar flowrate to carbon adsorber (Ib mol/min)
F - Stage cut
L, - Inlet molar flowrate (Ib mol/hr)
G' - (0.1266}(367)/60
- 0.774 Ib mol/min
11. Actual Gas Volume to Vacuum Pump:
Q' - G' (359 ft3 ) (T + 46(A /I
\ Ib mol/ \ 492 / \ y
where: Q' - Actual cubic ft per min to vacuum pump (ACFM)
G' - Gas flow to adsorber (0.774 Ib mol/min)
T - Inlet gas temperature (100°F)
•y - Pressure ratio (0 10)
Q' - (0.774)(359)(560/492)(10)
= 3160 ACFM
12. Required Horsepower for Vacuum Pump- (From Ref 9)
fG'WMm 60 min fl/^l0-286 - 1
s 20 hr r?
where: Ws - Required horsepower of compression
G' - Gas flow to adsorber (.Ilk Ib mol/min)
MW - Molecular weight of gas (29 Ib/lb mol)
7 - Pressure ratio (0.10)
rj - Adiabatic efficiency (use 0 36 for liquid ring pump)
(0.774U29H60U1 958 - 1)
3 20 .36
Ws - 180 HP
(Continued)
105
-------
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
13 Carbon Adsorber Design, (see steps 1-5 above)
• Calculate Equilibrium Loading (55 wt% CFC-113)
SCFM to Adsorber (278 SCFM)
• Required Amount of Carbon (350 Ib)
Superficial Velocity (63 ft/min)
Bed Area (4.7 ft2)
Bed Depth (2.5 ft)
C. Membrane Design with Carbon Adsorber (Using Compressor)
• Given. Membrane Selectivity (a*) = 20
Pressure Ratio (7) - 0 2 (15/75)
Removal Efficiency = 60%
14. Membrane Design: (see steps 6-13 above)
Stage Cut (0.1981)
• Permeate Concentration (0.00304 or 3040 ppmv)
Dimensionless Area (0.2476)
Membrane Area (9646 ft2)
Compressor Work (334 HP) (Ref 13)
Gas Flow to Adsorber (1.212 Ib mol/min)
15, Carbon Adsorber Design; (see steps 1-5 above)
Calculate Equilibrium Loading (51 wtX CFC-113)
SCFM to Adsorber (435 SCFM)
• Required Amount of Carbon (380 Ib)
Superficial Velocity (67 ft/min)
Bed Area (6.8 ft2)
Bed Depth (1.8 ft)
106
-------
TABLE D-2. EXAHPLE COST CALCULATIONS
A. Carbon Adsorber Only
• Given: Inlet Flow - 2500 ACFM (2196 scfm)
Inlet Cone - 1000 ppmv CFC-113
1 Estimate Capital Cost of Adsorber Vessels. (From Ref, 10)
DCC. - 155,600 + 1394 At - 0.5996 A,,2
where: DCCa - Direct capital cost of adsorber vessels (?)
At - Total adsorber system bed area (31 ft2)
DCCa - S152.554
2. Estimate Capital Cost of Duct tfork: (From Ref. 10)
DCCd - -2.35x10** G2 + 2.782G + 1205 (for G < 4000)
where: DCCd = Direct capital cost of duct work (?)
G = Vent stream flowrate at adsorber inlet (2196 scfm)
DCCd =
3 Estimate Capital Cost of Carbon.
DCCC = d(At)(D)(Une)
where DCCC = Direct capital cost of carbon ($)
d = Bed depth (1.5 ft)
At =- Total adsorber system bed area (31 ft2)
D = Carbon density (30 lb/ft3)
Unc - Unit cost of new carbon at $2.13/lb
DCCC - S2.976
(Continued)
107
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
4. Estimate Capital Cost of Fans:
P - (1.107 x 10~*VS2 + 0.03679 Vs)d + 1.0
where: P - Pressure drop across adsorber system, "H20
Vs - Superficial velocity (75 ft/min)
d - Bed depth (1 5 ft)
P - 6.07 "H;0
DCCf - 5 711 x 10"2 (P)(G) + 1965
where: DCCf - Direct capital cost of fans ($)
P = Pressure drop (6.07 "H20)
G = Vent stream flowrate (2196 scfm)
5. Total Installed Direct Capital Cost:
TEC - DCCa + DCCd + DCCC + DCC£
where TEC = Total installed equipment cost of adsorber system ($)
DCCa - Cost of adsorber vessels ($152,554)
DCCd = Cost of duct work ($5,769)
DCCe - Cost of carbon ($2,976)
DCCf = Cost of fans ($2,727)
TEC - $164,026
6. Annual Cost for Capital Recovery:
ACcr - (CRF)(TEC)
where1 ACcr - Annual cost for capital recovery ($)
CRF - Capital recovery factor (for 10% interest over
10 years - 0 1627)
TEC - Total equipment cost ($164,026)
ACcr - $26.687
(Continued)
108
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
7. Annual Cost for Carbon Replacement:
ACeb - DCCe/L
where: ACeb » Annual carbon replacement cost ($)
DCCe - Capital cost of carbon ($2,976)
L - Bed life (3 years)
ACeb - £992.
8. Annual Cost for Electricity:
HPf - 2.426 x 10"* (P)(G)
where : HPr = Fan. horsepower
P = Pressure drop across system (6.07 "H20)
G - Vent stream flowrate (2196 scfm)
HPf - 3 23 HP
ACe - 0.7457
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
ACB - 2.5 (U^ x hj
where: ACm - Annual maintenance cost
Umi - Maintenance labor cost ($19 07/hr)
h,,, - Hours of maintenance labor (80 hours)
ACm - 53.826
10. Annual Cost for Operating Labor:
ACol - 365 Uol HR/8760
where: AC01 — Annual cost for operating labor ($)
Uol - Unit cost for operating labor ($28 61/day)
HR = Annual hours of adsorber operation (8200 hrs/yr)
ACoL - $9.785 (Same for all cases)
11. Annual Cost for Steam:
Sr - (RJ/2
where. Sr — Steam required per regeneration (Ib)
Rt - Total amount of carbon (1398 Ib)
Sr - 699 Ib/regeneration (Equivalent to 1 Ib steam per Ib of carbon
in bed)
ACS - (Sr)(HR/t)(U.)
where: ACS - Annual steam cost ($)
Sr - Steam required per regeneration (699 Ib)
HR - Annual hours of adsorber operation (8200 hrs/yr)
t - Hours per regeneration (4.91 hours)
Us - Unit cost of steam ($0.0055/lb)
ACS - 56.425
(Continued)
110
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
12. Annual Credit for Recovered Solvent:
SLr - 1.556 x 10"7 (MW)(C)(G)(.95)
where: SLr - Solvent recovery rate (Ib/hr)
MW - Molecular weight of solvent (187.4 Ib/mol)
C = Concentration (1000 ppmv)
G - Vent stream flowrate (2196 scfm)
SLr = 60. 8 Ib/hr
ACp - (SLr)(Usl/Ds)(0,5)(HR)
where: ACp - Annual recovered solvent credit
- Solvent recovery rate (60.8 Ib/hr)
Usl = Unit cost of virgin solvent ($l/gal)
Ds - Density of virgin solvent (8.0 Ib/gal)
HR - Annual hours of adsorber operation (8200 hrs/yr)
ACp - <$33. 526> (Assumes recovered solvent is worth 50%
of virgin solvent)
13. Annual Cost for Cooling Water:
ACCW - 5.36 x 10.3 (Ucw)(Sr/t)(HR)
where ACCW - Annual cost for cooling water
Ucw = Unit cost of cooling water
Sr = Steam required per regeneration (699 Ib)
t = Time between regenerations (4.91 hr)
HR =» Annual hours of adsorber operation (8200 hrs/yr)
14. Annual Cost for Wastewater Disposal:
ACW - 5.36 x ID'3 (Uww)(Sr/t)(HR)
where: ACWW — Annual cost for disposal of wastewater
U^, - Unit cost of disposal of wastewater
Sr = Steam required per regeneration (699 Ib)
t - Time between regenerations (4.91 hr)
HR = Annual hours of operation (8200 hrs/yr)
(Continued)
111
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
15. Total Annual Operating Costs;
TOC - ACeb + ACe + ACm + ACol + ACS + ACCW + AC^ + ACp
(described above)
TOC - SI.158
16, Total Annual Costs:
TAG - ACcr + TOC
where: TAG •= Total annualized costs
ACcr - Annual cost for capital recovery ($26,687)
TOC - Total operating costs ($1,158)
TAG - S27.866
17. Costs Per Metric Ton Controlled:
Metric Tons of Solvent Controlled - (Ns) (CEca) (HR) (MW)/2200
where: Ns - Inlet solvent molar flow (0.367 Ib mol/hr)
CEea = Control efficiency, carbon adsorption (95%)
HR - Annual operating hours (8200 hrs/yr)
MW = Solvent molecular weight (187.4 Ib/lb mol)
Metric Tons Controlled = 244 MT/yr
Cost per Metric Ton - Total Annual Cost/Metric Tons Controlled
- $27,866/244 - S144/MT
B. Membrane Design with Carbon Adsorber (Using Vacuum Pump):
• Given: Membrane Selectivity (a*)~20
Pressure Ratio (8) = 0.10
Removal Efficiency - 60%
(Continued)
112
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
18. Estimate Capital Cost of Vacuum Pump:
;
Installed Capital Cost - 34490 1/(HP/10)
where: HP - Required horsepower of vacuum pump (180 HP)
Installed Capital Cost - $146.125
19. Estimate Capital Cost of Membrane and Other Auxiliaries.
Membrane Capital Cost - 100(S)/(3.281)2
where: S - Required membrane area (27,400 ft2)
Membrane Capital Cost - $259.848 (Based on $100/m2)
Auxiliary Equipment Capital Cost - 50(S)/(3.281)Z
Auxiliary Equipment Capital Cost - $129.924 (Based on $50/m2)
20. Estimate Installed Capital Cost for Carbon Adsorber
(see steps 1-5 above)
DCCa - $124,703 (Based on required area of 4.7 ft)
DCCd = $4,546 (Based on flowrate of 278 scfm)
DCCC = $814 (Based on required carbon of 353 Ib)
DCC£ = $1,965 (Based on velocity of 63 ft/min)
TEC - $132.026
21. Estimate Annual Operating Costs: (see steps 7-1 above)
ACe - $63,031 (Based on vacuum pump HP - 180 and
adsorber fan «• 0.5)
ACcl5 - $251 (Based on required carbon of 353 Ib and
three-year life)
ACm -"$3,711 (Based on 77.8 hrs of maintenance labor)
ACol -$9,785 (Same for all cases)
ACS - $3,191 (Based on 177 Ib/regen and 2.5 hrs
between regenerations)
(Continued)
113
-------
TABLE D-2. (Continued)
ACBen = $86,616
ACew -$1,555
ACW - §4,665
TOG = $152.861
(Based on three-year life)
22. Estimate Annual Cost for Capital Recovery: (see step 6 above)
ACcr = (CRF)(TEC)
where: CRF - 0.1627
TEC - $132,028
$146,125
$259,848
$129,924
(adsorber)
(vacuum pump)
(membrane)
(mem. auxil.)
TEC - $667,925
AC - $108.671
23. Total Annual Cost:
TAG - ACor + TOG
= $261.533
24. Cost Per Metric Ton Controlled.
Metric Tons Controlled - (Ns)(CEmem)(CEca) (HR)(MW)/2200
where: Ng - Inlet solvent molar flow (0 367 Ib mol/hr)
CEmem " Control efficiency, membrane (60%)
CEca - Control efficiency, carbon adsorber (95%)
HR - Annual operating hours (8200 hrs/yr)
MW - Solvent molecular weight (187.4 Ib/lb mol)
Metric Tons Controlled = 146 _MT/yr
Cost Per Metric Ton = Total Annual Cost/Metric Tons Controlled
- $261,533/146 - S1.803/MT
114
-------
APPENDIX E
QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT (QCER)
115
-------
QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT (QCER)
1. Overall Summary of Data Quality
The overall data goals of this project were achieved. The precision of
the test data was high, with virtually all of the results falling within 95%
tolerance limits. Accuracy could not be quantitatively assessed due to lack
of a performance audit, but critical THC measurements appear consistent and
reliable. Data completeness was good. Raw data was recorded in a bound
laboratory notebook at five-minute intervals. Data representativeness was
good. Care was taken in the design and sampling to ensure consistent perfor-
mance of the bench-scale system. Data comparability was good. Test results
from this study were checked by the membrane manufacturer and agreed with
expectations.
The reliability of the data is good. For example, a replicate was
attempted for methylene chloride with an inlet concentration of about 90 ppra
The original run of 1/5/89 achieved a removal efficiency of 60% and an
enrichment ratio of 3.35, while the replicate run on 1/6/89 achieved a removal
efficiency of 64.5% and an enrichment ratio of 2.92. The percent differences
for removal efficiency and enrichment ratio were 7% and 13%, respectively
Other trends were consistent with expectations. For example, tests conducted
with (greater vacuum) demonstrated higher enrichment ratios and removal
efficiency.
It was determined that the gravimetric trap method did not meet the data
quality objective (DQO) of greater than 95% recovery and, therefore, an
alternate method was developed to close the material balance. The direct
permeate measurement method showed much higher recovery and1 material balance
closures.
116
-------
2. Project QA Activities
The primary QA activity for this project was the preparation of a Test
Plan/QAPP (EPA contract 68-02-4286, Work Assignment No. 32, Revised
November 8, 1988). The initial QAPP was reviewed by Research Triangle
Institute (for Judith Ford, EPA-AEERL) and was revised based on comments
received.
A Systems Audit was performed on 1/19/89 which reviewed laboratory
procedures for consistency with the QAPP. The auditor noted no problems with
facilities and equipment, but found that a control standard was not purchased
as planned. Other deficiencies concerned logbook recordkeeping, such as lack
of initials to indicate supervisor review of calculation, and lack of explana-
tion to corrections in logbook.
Undocumented changes to the QAPP included lack of drift checks, because a
complete standard gas multipoint calibration was run daily, and failure to
calculate the linear regression immediately after performing the THC analyzer
calibration.
3. Detailed Discussion of Data Quality Indicators
Precision
The laboratory test results were subjected to a statistical analysis to
assess the precision of the data. The statistical analysis consisted of the
following calculations.
• Calculate average values of inlet solvent mass flow (in g/hr),
outlet solvent mass flow, and to the extent possible, permeate
solvent mass flow.
• Calculate the standard deviation of each data set using the equation
below:
117
-------
S - Z (Xi-JO/n-l
where, C.V. - coefficient of variation;
xt - ith value of x;
x - Mean (average) value of x; and
h — number of x values.
• Calculate a 95% tolerance interval for each data set using the
Factors for Two-sided Tolerance Limits for Normal Distributions
(taken from Table E-l) and the equation shown below
x ± K(s)
where, x — mean value of x;
k — factor for two-sided tolerance limit for normal
distribution (95% probability that 952 of the
distribution will be included); and
s - standard deviation of sample
• Compare actual data values with 95% tolerance intervals. Data is
acceptable if it falls with the tolerance interval. Table E-2 shows
that only (2) of the (45) data sets had less than 100% of the data
contained within the tolerance interval. We conclude that the
overall precision of the data is excellent.
Accuracy/Bias
Difficult to quantify overall since a performance audit was not
attempted. Qualitative estimates would be that accuracy was good because
material balance closures were high (approaching 100%). Accuracy of some
individual measurements can be estimated. Calibration data for the saturator
thermocouple shows the indicated temperature to be approximately 3°F low of
the true value. An appropriate correction was employed during data reduction.
All other direct measurements (temperature, pressure, flow) were uncorrected
118
-------
TABLE E-l. FACTORS FOR TWO-SIDED TOLERANCE LIMITS
FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS
Factors K such that the probability is 7 that at least a proportion P of the
distribution will be included between x + Ks, where "k and s are estimates of
the mean and the standard deviation computed from a sample size of n
n
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7 - 0.95
P - 0 95
K
37.674
9.916
6.370
5.079
4.414
4.007
3.732
3.532
3.379
3.259
3.162
3.081
3.012
2.954
2.903
2.858
2.819
2.784
2.752
2.723
2,697
2.673
2.651
2 631
2.612
2 595
119
-------
TABLE E'-2 NINETY-FIVE PERCENT TOLERANCE INTERVALS AND DATA QUALITY
NJ
o
Solvent
Hexane
Toluene
MEK
HeOH
CFC-113
MeCl
Date
12-14-88
12-14-88
1-20-89
1-20-89
1-19-89
1-19-89
12-16-68
12-19-88
1-3-89
1-13-89
1-13-89
1-16-89
1-9-89
1-9-89
1-10-89
1-5-89
1-6-89
1-6-89
Inlet
Mass
Flow (s/hr)
Z
95X Tolerance
Interval
1 493
7 007
0 3076
3 442
0 1708
0 6402
0 1874
1 318
4 779
0 1575
0 6975
1 949
0 1550
1 455
14 044
0 3504
0 3526
5 634
< x <
< x <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
< X <
1 806
8 472
0 3504
3 886
0 1872
0.7418
0 3366
1 624
10 089
0 1625
0 7205
2 513
0 2164
1 825
16.364
0 5576
0.5216
6 836
of Data
Within
Interval
100X
100Z
100Z
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
100Z
100X
100X
100X
100X
Outlet
Mass Flow (g/hr)
X
95X Tolerance
Interval
0 4575 < x < 0 5365
1 9460 < x < 2 6760
0 1230 < x < 0 1410
1 431 < x < 1 639
0 0670 < x < 0 0718
0 2155 < x < 0 2885
0 0368 < x < 0 0892
0 4660 < x < 0 7040
1 402 < x < 4 080
0 0811 < x < 0 0883
0 2841 < x < 0 3165
0 7817 < x < 1 0103
0 0696 < x < 0 1364
0 6853 < x < 0 8357
5 357 < x < 7.181
0 1347 < x < 0 2289
0 1351 < x < 0 1747
2 186 < x < 2 508
of Data
Within
Interval
100X
100Z
100X
100X
100X
100X
100X
95X
100X
92X
100X
100X
100Z
1001
100X
100Z
100Z
100X
95Z
0 1565
1 7073
0 0790
0 3295
0 0861
0 2663
1 113
0 0963
3.879
Permeate
Mass Flow
Tolerance
Interval
< x < 0
< x < 2
< x < 0
< x < 0
< x < 0
< x < 0
< X < 1
< x < 0
< x < 3
(g/hr)
"'
X of Data
Within
Interval
1835
0750
1120
4465
1092
5393
593
3791
937
100Z
100Z
100Z
100Z
100Z
100Z
100X
100X
100X
-------
Completeness
Data capture was very good as essentially all of the test data were
usable. There were no instrumentation failures which could have invalidated
any of the runs.
Data completeness could have been improved even further with the use of a
computer-based data acquisition system. However, this was not available for
the current study.
Representativeness
Data representativeness was good. The design of the test system and
sampling procedures took account of possible problems which might limit the
utility of data from the project. For instance, the use of nitrogen as a
carrier gas in the system prevented possible flammability concerns and allowed
better comparison with work by others in the field. Materials of construction
were selected for inertness, so Teflon and stainless steel were used Blanks
were run before each new solvent test series to ensure that all traces of
solvent from previous tests had been completely purged.
Comparability
Review of preliminary test results by the membrane manufacturer confirmed
that the test data was meeting expectations.
Comparison with other laboratory test data was more difficult, since the
only other data using the particular membrane unit was data supplied by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer's data were obtained at higher concentrations
(i.e., volume percent levels instead of ppm). Nevertheless, the comparison
was important in that the correct relationship between both data sets was
observed.
121
-------
Figures E-l through E-3 illustrate the relationship between the manufac-
turer's data (boxes) versus the present work (crosses) for toluene, MEK, and
MeCl, respectively. The expected trend would be for the line to pass through
the origin, since at zero concentration, the flux should be zero. The
comparability appears to be excellent.
122
-------
ro
U)
o
»
(N
E
E
z
0
(/I
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1—
0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014 016 018 02
Mol Fraction m Teed
D Membrane M(q
Test Program
Figure E-l. Comparison of Manufacturer's Data to Test Data
(Toluene)
-------
50
O
•
CM
E
£
z
_D
iZ
c
0)
o
1/1
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
"iiIIiiiIr
002 004 006 008
i i
016 018
Mol f i a< don in Feed
0 2
LJ Membrane Mfq
lest Program
Figure E-2. Comparison of Manufacturer's Data to Test Data
(Methyl Ethyl Ketone)
-------
E
-!-»
O
.
t
CM
E
\
ro
E
z
x
2
L_
+-f
C
0)
2
o
I/)
0 I I I I 1 1 1 1
i i r i i i i i 1 1
0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014 016 01
Mol Froction in Feed
H Membrane Mfg + Test Progmm
Figure E-3 Comparison of Manufacturer's Data to Test Data
(Methylene Chloride)
-------
APPENDIX F
DETAILED DESIGN CALCULATIONS
126
-------
TABLE F-l SPREADSHEET CALCULATIONS FOR SYSTEM DESIGN
INPUT DATA
Solvent
CASE No Inlet Flow Inlet Cone
(acfm) (ppmv)
1 250 1000
2 2500 1000
3 10000 1000
4 250 100
5 2500 100
6 10000 100
K> CARBON ADSORPTION
FLOW
(SCFM)
CASE 1 219 6
CASE 2 2196 4
CASE 3 8785 7
CASE 4 219 6
CASE 5 2196 4
CASE 6 8785 7
Solvent
Name
Solvent
Molec Inlet Temp Inlet RH
Wt (deg F) (X)
CFC-113 187 4 100 18
CFC-113 187 4 100 18
Toluene 92 1 100 18
CFC-113 187 4 100 18
CFC-113 187 4 100 18
Toluene 92 1 100 18
using Carbon Adsorption
CONG Reqd Amt of Carbon
(PPMV) (pounds)
1000 71
1000 712
1000 2098
100 18
100 178
100 262
Total Inlet
Molar Flow
(Ibmol/mln)
0 6118
6 1182
24 4727
0 6118
6 1182
24 4727
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/mln)
75
75
75
100
100
100
Total Solvent
Inlet Molar Flow
(Ibmol/mln) (Ibmol/hr)
0 00061 0 037
0 00612 0 367
0 02447 1 468
0 00006 0 004
0 00061 0 037
0 00245 0 147
Bed Area Bed new Rt new t
Normal to Flow Depth (0 1 5ft)
(ft'2) (ft)
3 0 764 139 8
31 0 764 1397 7
124 0 563 5590 9
2 0 255 104 8
23 0 255 1048 3
93 0 094 4193 2
4 91
4 91
6 66
14 73
14 73
39 96
Total
Area
(ft*2)
3
31
186
23
140
-------
B Membrane Preconcentrator with Vacuum Pump and Carbon Adsorber
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
FLOW CONC
(SCFM) (PPMV)
CASE 1 219 6 1000
Approx Weller & Stelner Solution (xf-->0)
Constants
Calculated
alpha* gamma
t— '
KJ
CO
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
xf
Rf
KW/xf
0 001 0 00044 0 091357 0 00656973 0 101508
0 001 0 000175 0 184044 0 00465761 0 204493
0 001 0 00006 0 279860 0 003U882 0 310955
0 001 0 00045 0 126650 0 00479266 0 140722
0 001 0 000195 0.242126 0 00351970 0 269029
0 001 0 00007 0 362999 0 00263198 0 403333
0 001 0 000515 0 227452 0 00264731 0 252725
0 001 0 00025 0 416735 0 00204970 0 463039
0 001 0 00011 0 576153 0 00165472 0 640170
CASE 2 2196 4 1000
Approx Weller & Stelner Solution (xf—>0)
Constants Calculated
alpha*
gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
xf x F y Rf
0 001 0 00044 0 091357 0 00656973 0 101508
0 001 0 000175 0 184044 0 00465761 0 204493
0 001 0 00006 0 279860 0 00341882 0 310955
0 001 0 00045 0 126650 0 00479266 0 140722
0 001 0 000195 0 242126 0 00351970 0 269029
0 001 0 00007 0 362999 0 00263198 0 403333
0 001 0 000515 0 227452 0 00264731 0 252725
0 001 0 00025 0 416735 0 00204970 0 463039
0 001 0 00011 0 576153 0 00165472 0 640170
xv/xf
Solvent Gas Flow
Flux to Adsorb ACFM Required HP Enrlchmt
X Removal (Ibmol/hr) Area (ft*2) (Ibmol/mln) to Vac Pump for Vac Pump Ratio
0 44
0 175
0 06
0 45
0 195
0 07
0 515
0 25
0 11
0 44
0 175
0 06
0 45
0 195
0 07
0 515
0 25
0 11
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 3*
X Removal
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
0 0245
0 0350
0 0390
0 0248
0 0348
0 0390
0 0246
0 0348
0 0389
Solvent
Flux
(IbrooUhr) Area
0 2448
0 3496
0 3903
0 2476
0 3476
0 3897
0 2456
0 3484
0 3889
20178
40649
61811
2797
5348
8017
1256
2301
3181
(ftA2)
201777
406488
618111
27973
53477
80174
12559
23010
31813
0 056
0 113
0 171
0 077
0 148
0 222
0 139
0 255
0 353
Gas Flow
to Adsorb
(Ibmol/mln)
0 559
1 126
1 712
0 775
1 481
2 221
1 392
2 550
3 525
228
460
700
317
605
907
569
1042
1440
ACFM
to Vac Pump
2284
4601
6997
3166
6053
9075
5686
10418
14404
13
26
40
18
34
51
32
59
82
Required HP
for Vac Pump
129
261
397
180
343
514
322
591
817
6 570
4 658
3 419
4 793
3 520
2 632
2 647
2 050
1 655
Enrlchmt
Ratio
6 570
4 658
3 419
4 793
3 520
2 632
2 647
2 050
1 655
-------
B Membrane Preconccntrator with Vacuum Pump and Carbon Adsorber
TABLE F-l (Continued)
CASE 1
FLOW CONC
(SCFM) (PPMV)
219 6 1000
SCFM to
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon
alpha" X
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Removal Adsorber (pounds)
60
85
95
60
85
95
60
85
95
02
72
68
70
22
54
21
42
34
20
40
61
27
53
79
49
91
126
07
42
47
82
IB
73
96
53
55
34
50
59
35
52
61
39
57
65
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/mln) (ft*2)
59
63
66
63
66
68
68
70
71
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
4
7
0
5
9
2
8
4
9
Bed new Ao
Depth (@ 3 Oft)
(ft)
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
new Vs Total
Area
(ftA2)
149
458
002
516
053
650
659
367
143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
55
77
99
75
96
124
123
153
185
81
31
58
13
73
38
66
32
96
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
4
7
0
5
9
2
8
4
9
CASE 2
2196 4
1000
SCFM to Superficial Bed Area Bed
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon Velocity Normal to Flow Depth
alpha* X Removal Adsorber (pounds) (ft/mln) (ft*2) (ft)
new Ao new Vs Total
«3 3 Oft) Area
(ft-2)
200 60 02
200 85 72
200 95 68
200 66
404 24
614 69
343
499
589
59
63
66
3 6
6 8
9 8
3 149
2 458
2 002
38 55 81
55 77 31
65 99 58
3 6
6 8
9 8
20 60 70 278 18 353
20 85 22 531 81 525
20 95 54 797 30 612
63
66
68
4 7
B 5
12 4
2 516
2 053
1 650
39 75 13
58 96 73
6 8 124 38
4 7
8 5
12 4
5 60 21 499 58 386
5 85 42 915 33 570
5 95 34 1265 48 650
68
70
71
7 7
13 9
18 9
1 659
1 367
1 143
4 3 123 66
6 3 153 32
7 2 185 96
7 7
13 9
18 9
-------
TABLE F-l (Continued)
1000
Approx Weller &
Constants
alpha* gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
^ CASE
O Approx Weller
Constanta
alpha" gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Stelner
xf
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
& Stelner
Solution
0 001
0 001
0 001
0 001
0 001
0 001
0.001
0 001
0 001
219 6
X
0 00044
0 000175
0 00006
0 00045
0 000195
0 00007
0 000515
0 00025
0 00011
100
Solution
(xf-->0)
Calculated
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
091357
184044
279860
126650
242126
362999
227452
416735
576153
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rf
00656973
00465761
00341882
00479266
00351970
00263198
00264731
00204970
00165472
0
o'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101508
204493
310955
140722
269029
403333
252725
463039
640170
(xf— >0)
Calculated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
xf
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
X
0 000044
0 000017
0 000006
0 000045
0 000019
0 000007
0 000051
0 000025
0 000011
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
091357
184044
279860
126650
242126
362999
227452
416735
576153
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rf
00065697
00046576
00034188
00047926
00035197
00026319
00026473
00020497
00016547
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101508
204493
310955
140722
269029
403333
252725
463039
640170
xw/xf
xw/xf
Solvent Gas Flow
Flux - to Adsorb ACFM Required HP Enrlchmt
X Removal (Ibmol/hr) Area (ftA2) (Ibmol/mln) to Vac Pump for Vac Pump Ratio
0 44
0 175
0 06
0 45
0 195
0 07
0 515
0 25
0 11
0 44
0 175
0 06
0 45
0 195
0 07
0 515
0 25
0 11
60 02
85 72
95 68
60.70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
X Removal
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85'22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
0 9792
1 3985
1 5610
0 9903
1 3904
1 5588
0 9824
1 3936
1 5554
Solvent
Flux
(Ibmol/hr)
0 0024
0 0035
0 0039
0 0025
0 0035
0 0039
0 0025
0 0035
0 0039
807107
1625950
2472442
111890
213909
320695
50236
92042
127252
Area (ft*2)
20178
40649
61811
2797
5348
8017
1256
2301
3181
2.236
4 504
6 849
3.099
5 926
8 884
5 566
10 199
14.100
Gas Flow
to Adsorb
(Ibmol/mln) to
0 056
0 113
0 171
0 077
0 148
0 222
0 139
0 255
0 353
9136
18404
27986
12665
24213
36300
22745
41674
57615
ACFM
Vac. Pump
228
460
700
317
605
907
569
1042
1440
518
1043
1587
718
1373
2058
1289
2363
3266
Required HP
for Vac Pump
13
26
40
18
34
51
32
59
82
6 570
4 658
3 419
4 793
3 520
2 632
2 647
2 050
1 655
Enrlchmt
Ratio
6 570
4 658
3 419
4 793
3 520
2 632
2 647
2 050
1 655
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
SCFM to
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon
alpha* Z
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Remova L
60
85
95
60
85
95
60
85
95.
02
72
68
70
22
54
21
42
.34
Adsorber (pounds)
802
1616
2458
1112
2127
3189
1998
3661
5061
64
96
77
71
26
21
34
32
92
1021
1542
1772
1092
1578
1823
1149
1680
1936
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/roln) (ftA2)
59
63
66
63
66
68
68
70
71
14
27
39
18
34
49
31
55
75
5
1
2
7
1
4
0
6
8
Bed new Ao
Depth (0 3 Oft)
(ft)
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
new Vs Total
Area
(ftA2)
342
899
505
943
543
229
235
008
852
11
17
19
12
17.
20
12
18
21
3
1
7
1
5
3
8
7
5
75
100
132
97
128
167
166
207
249
03
11
48
29
69
03
06
98
57
14
27
39
18
34
49
31
55
113
5
1
2
7
1
4
0
6
6
CASE 4
219 6
100
SCFM to
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon
alpha* X
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Removal Adsorber (pounds)
60
85
95
60
85
95
60
85
95
02
72
68
70
22
54
21
42
34
20
40
61
27
53
79
49
91
126
07
42
47
82
18
73
96
53
55
5
7
B
5
7
8
5
8
9
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/mln) (ft*2)
91
94
96
94
96
97
97
98
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
5
7
3
6
9
5
0
4
Bed new Rt
Depth (@ 1 5ft)
(ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
654
.503
397
516
408
318
319
264
221
10 5
20 5
30 5
14 1
26 4
39 1
24 5
44 4
61 0
new
5
7
9
7
9
11
11
14
16
t Total
Area
(f
74
46
46
27
20
81
74
21
99
t-2)
0 2
0 5
0 7
0 3
0 6
0 9
0 5
1 0
1 4
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
CASE 5 2196 4
Approx Weller & Stelner Solution
Constants
100
(xf — >0)
Calculated
alpha* gamma
xf
Rf
xw/xf
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
CASE 6
l— •
(_o Approx Weller 1
NJ
Constants
alpha* gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 0001 0 000044 0 091357 0 00065697 0 101508
0 0001 0 000017 0 184044 0 00046576 0 204493
0 0001 0 000006 0 279860 0 00034188 0 310955
0 0001 0 000045 0 126650 0 00047926 0 140722
0 0001 0 000019 0 242126 0 00035197 0 269029
0 0001 0 000007 0 362999 0 00026319 0 403333
0 0001 0 000051 0 227452 0 00026473 0 252725
0 0001 0 000025 0 416735 0 00020497 0 463039
0 0001 0 000011 0 576153 0 00016547 0 640170
8785 7 100
I Stelner Solution (xf — >0)
Calculated
xf
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
x F y Rf
0 0001 0 000044 0 091357 0 00065697 0 101508
0.0001 0 000017 0 184044 0 00046576 0 204493
0 0001 0 000006 0 279860 0 00034188 0 310955
0 0001 0 000045 0 126650 0 00047926 0 140722
0 0001 0 000019 0 242126 0 00035197 0 269029
0 0001 0 000007 0 362999 0 00026319 0 403333
0 0001 0 000051 0 227452 0 00026473 0 252725
0 0001 0 000025 0 416735 0 00020497 0 463039
0 0001 0 000011 0 576153 0 00016547 0 640170
xw/xf
Solvent Gas Flow
Flux to Adsorb ACFM Required HP Enrlchmt
Removal (Ibmol/hr) Area (ft*2) (Ibmol/mln) to Vac Pump for Vac Pump Ratio
0 44
0 175
0 06
0 45
0 195
0 07
0 515
0 25
0 11
)
0 44
0 175
0 06
0 45
0 195
0 07
0 515
0 25
0 11
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
X Removal
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
0 0245
0 0350
0 0390
0 0248
0 0348
0 0390
0 0246
0 0348
0 0389
Solvent
Flux
(Ibmol/hr)
0 0979
0 1399
0 1561
0 0990
0 1390
0 1559
0 0982
0 1394
0 1555
201777
406488
618111
27973
53477
80174
12559
23010
31813
Area
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
CASE 5
2196 4
100
OJ
SCFM to
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon
alpha* I
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Removal
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
Adsorber (pounds)
200
404
614
278
531
797
499
915
1265
66
24
69
18
81
30
58
33
48
46
69
81
49
72
83
52
78
90
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/mln) (ft'2)
91
94
96
94
96
97
97
98
99
2
4
6
3
5
8
5
9
13
3
6
8
1
9
7
4
9
6
Bed nev Rt
Depth (@ 1 5ft)
(ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
654
503
397
516
408
318
319
264
221
105 0
204 8
305 0
141 2
264 3
390 6
244 8
444 2
610 3
nev t Total
Area
(f
5 74
7 46
9 46
7 27
9 20
11 81
11 74
14 21
16 99
:t*2)
2 3
4 6
6 8
3 1
5 9
8 7
5 4
9 9
13 6
CASE 6
8785 7
100
SCFM to Superficial Bed Area Bed nev Rt new t Total
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon Velocity Normal to Flov Depth «3 1 5ft) Area
alpha* X Removal Adsorber (pounds) (ft/mln) (ft"2) (ft) (ft"2)
200 60 02 802 64 130
200 85 72 1616 96 193
200 95 68 2458 77 223
91
94
96
9 3
18 2
27 1
0 465 420 0 8 06 93
0 353 819 0 10 62 18 2
0 274 1220 1 13 67 27 1
20 60 70 1112 71 136
20 85 22 2127 26 199
20 95 54 3189 21 223
94 12 6
96 23 5
97 34 7
0 362 564 9 10 35 12 6
0.282 1057 3 13 30 23 5
0 214 1562 4 17 53 34 7
5 60 21 1998 34 140
5 85 42 3661 32 207
5 95 34 5061 92 240
97 21 8
98 39 5
99 54 2
0 215 979 2 17 44 21 8
0 175 1776 9 21 48 39 5
0 148 2441 2 25 42 81 4
-------
C Membrane Preconcentrator with Compressor and Carbon Adsorber
TABLE F-l (Continued)
FLOW CONG
(SCFM) (PPMV)
CASE 1 219 6 1000
Appro* Weller I Stelner Solution (xf-->0)
Constants Calculated
alpha* gamma
xf
Rf
xv/xf
Solvent Gas Flow
Flux to Adsorb ACFM Required HP Enrlchmt
X Removal (Ibmol/hr) Area (ftA2) (Ibmol/mln) to Compressor for Compr Ratio
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 001 0 000481 0 171028 0 003S1S58 0 213785
0 001 0 000217 0 323999 0 00263366 0 404999
0 001 0 000086 0 466748 0 00204422 0,583436
0 001 0 000497 0 198114 0 00303594 0 247642
0 001 0 000235 0 367020 0 00231935 0 458775
0 001 0 000096 0 522897 0 00182482 0 653621
0 001 0 000555 0 281933 0 00213338 0 352416
0 001 ' 0 00029 0 501576 0 00170553 0 626970
0 001 0 00014 0 669099 0 00142530 0 836374
CASE 2 2196 4 1000
Approx Weller & Stelner Solution (x£-->0)
Constants Calculated
alpha* gamma xf x F y Rf xw/xf
200 02 0 001 0 0004B1 0 171028 0 00351558 0 213785
200 02 0 001 0 000217 0 323999 0 00263366 0 404999
200 02 0 001 0 000086 0 466748 0 00204422 0 583436
20 02 0 001 0 000497 0 198114 0 00303594 0 247642
20 02 0 001 0 000235 0 367020 0 00231935 0 458775
20 02 0 001 0 000096 0 522897 0 001824B2 0 653621
5 02 0 001 0 000555 0 281933 0 00213338 0 352416
5 02 0 001 0 00029 0 501576 0 00170553 0 626970
5 02 0 001 0 00014 0 669099 0 00142530 0 836374
0 481
0 217
0 086
0 497
0 235
0 096
0 555
0 29
0 14
0 481
0 217
0 086
0 497
0 235
0 096
0 555
0 29
0 14
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95.42
60 15
85 55
95 37
It Removal
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
0 0276
0 0392
0 0438
0 0276
0 0391
0 0438
0 0276
0 0393
0 0438
Solvent
Flux
(Ibmol/hr) Area
0 2759
0 3916
0 4378
0 2760
0 3906
0 4378
0 2760
0 3925
0 4376
8327
15775
22725
965
1787
2546
343
611
814
(ft*2)
83269
157747
227247
9646
17869
25458
3432
6105
8144
0 105
0 198
0 286
0 121
0 225
0 320
0 172
0 307
0 409
Gas Flov
to Adsorb
(Ibmol/mln)
1 046
1 982
2 856
1 212
2 245
3 199
1 725
3 069
4 094
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
ACFM
to Compressor
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Required HP
for Compr
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
3 516
2 634
2 044
3 036
2 319
1 825
2 133
1 706
1 425
Enrlchmt
Ratio
3 516
2 634
2 044
3 036
2 319
1 825
2 133
1 706
1 425
-------
C Membrane Preconcentrator with Compressor and Carbon Adsorber
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
CASE 1
FLOW CONG
(SCFM) (PPMV)
219 6 1000
SCFM to
Carbon Re<
alpha* % Removal Adsorber (pounds)
200 60 13 37 57
200 85 33 71 16
200 95 41 102 52
20 60 15 43 51
20 85 12 80 61
20 95 42 114 85
5 60 15 61 92
5 85 55 110 17
5 95 37 146 96
it of Carbon
i)
37
55
62
38
55
62
40
57
65
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/min) (ft*2)
66
68
70
67
69
70
70
71
71
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
6
1
6
7
2
7
9
7
2
Bed new Ao
Depth (@ 3 Oft)
(ft)
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
new Vs Total
Area
(ftA2)
051
651
336
839
471
202
419
152
993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
96
124
156
109
141
175
147
184
215
84
30
93
98
14
80
31
26
89
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
6
1
6
7
2
7
9
7
2
CASE 2
2196 A
1000
SCFM to Superficial Bed Area
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon Velocity Normal to Flow
alpha* X Removal Adsorber (pounds) (ft/mln) (ft*2)
200 60 13 375 65 370
200 85 33 711 64 547
200 95 41 1025 18 624
66 60
68 11 0
70 15 6
Bed new Ao new Vs Total
Depth (8 3 Oft) Area
(ft) (ftA2)
2 051 41 96 84 60
1 651 6 1 124 30 11 0
1 336 69 156 93 15 6
20
20
20
60 15 435 14
85 12 806 13
95 42 1148 51
378
545
624
67
69
70
6 8
12 4
17 3
1 839
1 471
1 202
4 2 109 98
6 1 141 14
6 9 175 80
6 8
12 4
17 3
60 15 619 25
85 55 1101 68
95 37 1469 63
401
571
650
70
71
71
9 4
16 5
21 8
1 419
1 152
0 993
4 5 147 31
6 3 184 26
7 2 215 89
9 4
16 5
21 8
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
1000
Approx Weller
Constants
alpha* gaimia
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
CASE '
Approx Weller
Constants
alpha* gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
t Stelner
xf
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
t
& Steiner
xf
02 0
02 0
02 0
02 0
02 0
02 0
02 0
02 0
02 0
Solution (xf-->0)
Calculated
x F y Rf
0 001 0 000481 0 171028 0 00351558 0 213785
0 001 0 000217 0 323999 0 00263366 0 404999
0 001 0 000086 0 466748 0 00204422 0 583436
0 001 0 000497 0 198114 0 00303594 0 247642
0 001 0 000235 0 367020 0 00231935 0 458775
0 001 0 000096 0 522897 0 00182482 0 653621
0 001 0 000555 0 281933 0 00213338 0 352416
0 001 0 00029 0 501576 0 00170553 0 626970
0 001 0 00014 0 669099 0 00142530 0 836374
219 6 100
Solution (xf — >0)
Calculated
x F y Rf
0001 0 000048 0 171028 0 00035155 0 213785
0001 0 000021 0 323999 0 00026336 0 404999
0001 0 000008 0 466748 0 00020442 0 583436
0001 0 000049 0 198114 0 00030359 0 247642
0001 0 000023 0 367020 0 00023193 0 458775
0001 0 000009 0 522897 0 00018248 0 653621
0001 0 000055 0 281933 0 00021333 0 352416
0001 0 000029 0 501576 0 00017055 0 626970
0001 0 000014 0 669099 0 00014253 0 836374
xw/xf
xw/xf
Solvent Gas Flow
Flux to Adsorb ACFM Required HP Enrlchmt
Z Removal (Ibmol/hr) Area (ft*2) (Ibmol/mln) to Compressor for Compr Ratio
0 481
0 217
0 086
0 497
0 235
0 096
0 555
0 29
0 14
60
85
95
60
85
95
60
85
95
13
33
41
15
12
42
15
55
37
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1036
5662
7513
1040
5624
7514
1040
5702
7504
333076
630986
908989
38583
71477
101834
13727
24420
32577
Solvent
0 481
0 217
0 086
0 497
0 235
0 096
0 555
0 29
0 14
60 13
85
95
60
85
95
60
85
95
33
41
15
12
42
15
55
37
Flux
(Ibmol/hr) Area
0 0028
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0039
0044
0028
0039
0044
0028
0039
0044
tf r A7^
k **- £•}
8327
15775
22725
965
1787
2546
343
611
814
4
7
11
4
8
12
6
12
16
.186
929
423
848
982
797
900
275
375
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
516
634
044
036
319
825
133
706
425
Gas Flow
to Adsorb
( Ibmol /min)
0 105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
198
286
121
225
320
172
307
409
ACFM
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Required BP
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Enrlchmt
Ratio
3 516
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
634
044
036
319
825
133
706
425
-------
TABLE F-l (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
SCFM to Superficial Bed Area
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon Velocity Normal to Flow
alpha* X Removal Adsorbe (pounds) , (ft/mln)
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
100
CO
Approx Weller
Constants
alpha* gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
CASE 6
Approx Ueller
Constants
alpha* gamma
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
!. Steiner Solution (xf-->0)
xf
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
Calculated
x F y Rf
0 0001 0 000048 0 171028 0 00035155 0 213785
0 0001 0 000021 0 323999 0 00026336 0 404999
0 0001 0 000008 0 466748 0 00020442 0 583436
0 0001 0 000049 0 198114 0 00030359 0 247642
0 0001 0 000023 0 367020 0 00023193 0 458775
0 0001 0 000009 0 522897 0 00018248 0 653621
0 0001 0 000055 0 281933 0 00021333 0 352416
0 0001 0 000029 0 501576 0 00017055 0 626970
0 0001 0 000014 0 669099 0 00014253 0 836374
8785 7 100
& Steiner Solution (xf — >0)
xf
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
Calculated
x F y Rf
0 0001 0 000048 0 171028 0 00035155 0 213785
0 0001 0 000021 0 323999 0 00026336 0 404999
0 0001 0 000008 0 466748 0 00020442 0 583436
0 0001 0 000049 0 198114 0 00030359 0 247642
0 0001 0 000023 0 367020 0 00023193 0 458775
0 0001 0 000009 0 522897 0 00018248 0 653621
0 0001 0 000055 0 281933 0 00021333 0 352416
0 0001 0 000029 0 501576 0 00017055 0 626970
0 0001 0 000014 0 669099 0 00014253 0 836374
xw/xf
xv/xf
Solvent Gas Flow
Flux to Adsorb ACFM Required HP Enrlchmt
Removal (Ibmol/hr) Area (ftA2) (Ibmol/mln) to Compressor for Compr Ratio
0 481
0 217
0 086
0 497
0 235
0.096
0 555
0 29
0 14
0 481
0 217
0 086
0 497
0 235
0 096
0 555
0 29
0 14
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
X Removal
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
0 0276
0 0392
0 0438
0 0276
0 0391
0 0438
0 0276
0 0393
0 0438
Solvent
Flux
(IbmoUhr) Area
0 1104
0 1566
0 1751
0 1104
0 1562
0 1751
0 1104
0 1570
0 1750
83269
157747
227247
9646
17869
25458
3432
6105
8144
(ft*2)
333076
630986
908989
38583
71477
101834
13727
24420
32577
1 046
1 982
2 856
1 212
2 245
3 199
1 725
3 069
4 094
Gas Flow
to Adsorb
(Ibmol/mln)
4 186
7 929
11 423
4 848
8 982
12 797
6 900
12 275
16 375
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
ACFM
to Compressor
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
Required HP
for Compr
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
3 516
2 634
2 044
3 036
2 319
1 825
2 133
1 706
1.425
Enrlchmt
Ratio
3 516
2 634
2 044
3 036
2 319
1 825
2 133
1 706
1 425
-------
TABLE F-l (Continued)
CASE 5
2196
100
SCFM to
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon
alpha* )!
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Removal
60
85
95
60
85
95
60
85
95
13
33
41
15
12
42
15
55
37
Adsorber (pounds)
375
711
1025
435
806
1148
619
1101
1469
65
64
18
14
13
51
25
68
63
49
72
85
49
74
87
54
81
93
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/min) (ft*2)
96
97
98
97
98
99
98
99
99
4
7
11
4
8
12
6
11
15
1
7
1
8
7
3
7
8
7
Bed new Rt
Depth (@ 1 5ft)
(ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
397
309
256
345
281
236
267
227
197
186
348
497
214
392
555
300
531
706
.7
6
5
6
9
4
9
7
.2
new
9
12
14
10
13
15
14
16
19
t Total
Area
a
45
12
65
86
33
90
06
50
08
ftA2)
4
7
11
4
8
12
6
11
15
1
7
1
a
7
3
7
8
7
CASE 6
8785 7
100
CJ
VO
alpha* X
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
SCFM to
Carbon Reqd Amt of Carbon
Removal
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
Adsorber (pounds)
1502
2846
4100
1740
3224
4594
2476.
4406
5878
61
57
72
57
53
03
.99
70
52
135
199
231
135
206
240
151
224
261
Superficial Bed Area
Velocity Normal to Flow
(ft/mln) (ft*2)
96
97
98
97
98
99
98
99
99
16
31
44
19
34
49
26
47
62
6
0
2
1
9
4
7
3
8
Bed new Rt
Depth (0 1 5ft)
(ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
272
214
174
236
197
162
189
.158
139
746 8
1394 6
1990 0
858 3
1571 7
2221 5
1203 7
2126 9
2824 6
new
13
17
21
15
19
23
19
23
27
t Total
Area
(i
81
52
53
87
06
11
87
70
05
=t*2)
16 6
31 0
66 3
19 1
34 9
74 1
26 7
70 9
94 2
-------
APPENDIX G
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
140
-------
TABLE G-l. SPREADSHEET CALCULATIONS FOR SYSTEM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
INPUT DATA
Solvent !
CASE No Inlet Flow Inlet Cone Solvent f
(acfm) (ppmv) Name
1 Z50 1000 CFC-113
2 2500 1000 CFC-113
3 10000 1000 Toluene
4 250 100 CFC-113
5 2500 100 CFC-113
6 10000 100 Toluene
A BASE CASE Direct Treatment using Carbon
CARBON ADSORPTION DCCa
FLOW CONC (ads
(SCFM) (PPMV)
CASE 1 219 6 1000
CASE 2 2196 4 1000
CASE 3 8785 7 1000
CASE 4 219 6 100
CASE 5 2196 4 100
CASE 6 8785 7 100
Solvent
1olec Inlet
Ut (de
187 4
187 4
92 1
187 4
187 4
92 1
Adsorption
DCCd
vessels) (duct
$45,000
$152.554
$303,512
$45.000
$144.422
$260,561
Temp
g F)
100
100
100
100
100
100
work)
$4,669
$5,769
$9,331
$4,669
$5.769
$9,331
Inlet RH
(%)
18
18
18
18
18
18
•
DCCc
(carbon)
$322
$3,220
$19,321
$242
$2.415
$14,490
Total Inlet
Molar Flow
( Ibmol/min)
0 6118
6 1182
24 4727
0 6118
6 1182
24 4727
DCCf
(fans)
$2.030
$2,611
$4.550
$2.047
$2.785
$5.244
Total Solvent
Inlet Molar Flo*
( Ibraol/min)
0 00061
0 00612
0 02447
0 00006
0 00061
0 00245
TOTAL INSTALLED
DIRECT CAPITAL
$52,021
$164,154
$336.714
$51,958
$155,391
$289.626
i
(Ibmol/hr)
0 037
0 367
1 468
0 004
0 037
0 147
ANNUAL COST Blower HP ACcb
FOR CAPITAL (carbon)
RECOVERY
$8.464 0 32 $99
$26.708 3 24 $992
$54,783 12 94 $5,954
$8.454 0 44 $74
$25.282 4 36 $744
$47.122 17 43 $4.466
ACe Malnt
(elect ) Hours
$113 77 8
$1,133 80 2
$4.532 88 5
$153 77 8
$1.526 80 2
$6.103 88 5
-------
TABLE G-l (Continued)
A BASE CASE Direct Treatment using Carbon Adsorption
ACm ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs ACcw ACww ANNUAL COST COST PER
(Halnt ) (Op Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam) (cooling (waste water) TOTAL ANNUAL FOR CAPITAL TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
(Ib/regen) solvent) water) OPERATING COST RECOVERY COSTS CONTROLLED
>
$3,708 $9,785 70 6 54 ($3,353) $643 $313 $939 $12,247 $8,464 $20.711 $849 42
$3,826 $9,785 699 65 35 ($33,526) $6,425 $3,131 $9,392 $1.158 $26,708 $27.866 $114 28
$4.218 $9.785 2795 128 47 ($65,907) $18.946 $9.232 $27.696 $14,456 $54,783 $69,239 $144 45
$3,708 $9.785 52 0 65 ($335) $161 " $78 $235 $13.858 $8.454 $22.312 $9.150 55
$3.826 $9.785 524 6 54 ($3.353) $1.606 $783 $2.348 $17.265 $25.282 $42,547 $1.744 97
$4,218 $9.785 2097 12 85 ($6.591) $2,368 $1,154 $3.462 $24.966 $47.122 $72.088 $1.503 94
-------
B Membrane Preconcentrator with Vacuum Pump and Carbon Adsorber
TABLE G-l (Continued)
alpha*
200
200
200
20
20
20
> *
J 5
5
alpha*
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
CASE 1
% Removal
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
CASE 2
% Removal
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 51
60 21
85 42
95 34
FLOW
(SCFM)
219 6
Membrane
Area
(ft"2)
20178
40649
61811
2797
5348
8017
1256
2301
3181
2196.4
Membrane
Area
(ffz)
201777
406488
618111
27973
53477
80174
12559
23010
31813
CONC
(PPMV)
1000
ACFM
to Vac
Pump
228
460
700
317
605
907
569
1042
1440
1000
ACFM
to Vac
Pump
2284
4601
6997
3166
6053
9075
5686
10418
14404
Req'd HP
for Vacuum
Pump
13
26
40
IB
34
51
32
59
82
Req'd HP
for Vacuum
Pump
129
261
397
180
343
514
322
591
817
Installed
Capital
Cost
$39.246
$55,704
$68.690
$46.209
$63.892
$78.230
$61,925
$83.821
$98,558
Installed
Capital
Cost
$124,107
$176,150
$217.217
$146,125
$202,043
$247.386
$195.825
$265,065
$311.668
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$187.438
$377.602
$574.187
$25.985
$49,677
$74,477
$11.667
$21.375
$29,552
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$1.874.385
$3.776.024
$5.741,874
$259.848
$496.770
$744.765
$116.666
$213,753
$295.523
Auxll DCCa
Equip (ads
Cost
$93.719
$188,801
$287.094
$12,992
$24,839
$37,238
$5.833
$10.688
$14.776
Auxll DCCa
Equip (ads
Cost
$937.192
$1.888.012
$2.870.937
$129,924
$248.385
$372.383
$58,333
$106.877
$147.761
vessels)
$45.000
$45,000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45,000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
vessels)
$123.582
$126.928
$130.168
$124.703
$128.795
$132,875
$127.973
$134.501
$139,837
OCCd DCCc
(duct work) (carbon)
$4,546 $79
$4,550 $115
$4.549 $136
$4,546 $81
$4,549 $121
$4.548 $141
$4.546 $89
$4,548 $131
$4,547 $150
DCCd DCCc
(duct work) (carbon)
$4.546 $791
$4.550 $1.150
$4,549 $1,357
$4.546 $814
$4,549 $1,209
$4.548 $1.410
$4.546 $888
$4.548 $1.313
$4,547 $1.497
DCCf
(fans)
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1,966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
DCCf
(fans)
$1.965
$1,966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1,965
$1.965
$1,966
$1.965
TOTAL ADSORBER
DIRECT CAPITAL
$51.590
$51.631
$51,650
$51.593
$51.636
$51.654
$51.600
$51.644
$51,662
TOTAL ADSORBER
DIRECT CAPITAL
$130,884
$134.594
$138.039
$132.028
$136.519
$140,798
$135.373
$142,327
$147.846
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
B Membrane Preconcentrator with Vacuum Pump and Carbon Adsorber
CASE 1 219 6
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$371.994 $60,523
$673.738 $109,617
$981,621 $159.710
$136,779 $22,254
$190.043 $30.920
$241,599 $39.308
£ $131.025 $21.318
£ $167.529 $27,257
$194,548 $31,653
CASE 2 2196 4
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$3.066.568 $498,931
$5,974,780 $972.097
$8,968.067 $1.459.104
$667.925 $108.671
$1,083.718 $176.321
$1.505.332 $244,917
$506,197 $82.358
$728.023 $118.449
$902,798 $146.885
1000
Blower HP
0 04
0 08
0 10
0 05
0 09
0 12
0 07
0 12
0 14
1000
Blower HP
0 44
0 77
1 02
0 54
0 90
1 16
0 73
1 17
1 42
ACcb
(carbon)
$24
$35
$42
$25
$37
$43
$27
$40
$46
ACcb
(carbon)
$244
$354
$418
$251
$373
$434
$274
$405
$461
ACe
(elect )
$4.548
$9,159
$13,923
$6.303
$12.046
$18,053
$11.312
$20.719
$28,638
ACe
(elect )
$45.485
$91,591
$139.225
$63,031
$120,459
$180.527
$113.118
$207,192
$286,383
Hatnt
Hours
77 5
77 6
77.6
77 5
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 7
Matnt
Hours
77 8
78 0
78 3
77 8
78 2
78 5
78 1
78 6
79 1
ACm ACol
(Malnt ) (Op
$3.696
$3.697
$3,698
$3,696
$3.698
$3.700
$3.698
$3.700
$3.702
ACm ACol
(Malnt ) (Op
$3,707
$3.719
$3,731
$3,711
$3,727
$3,742
$3,725
$3,749
$3,770
Labor)
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
Labor)
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
Steam
Required
(Ib/regen)
17
25
29
18
26
31
19
28
32
Steam
Required
(Ib/regen)
172
250
295
177
262
306
- 193
285
325
Solvent
Recovered
3.84
5 49
6 13
3 89
5.46
6 12
3 86
5 47
6.11
Solvent
Recovered
38 44
54 90
61 28
38 88
54 58
61 19
38 56
54 71
61 06
ACp ACs
(credit for (steam)
solvent)
($1,972) $310
($2.816) $451
($3.144) $532
($1,994) $319
($2,800) $474
($3.139) $552
($1.978) $348
($2.806) $515
($3,132) $586
ACp ACs
(credit for (steam)
solvent)
($19,720) $3.099
($28.164) $4.506
($31.436) $5,320
($19.943) $3.191
($28.000) $4.739
($31.391) $5.525
($19.784) $3.482
($28.065) $5.145
($31.324) $5,865
ACmem
(membrane
replacement)
$62.479
$125.867
$191,396
$8.662
$16.559
$24.826
$3.889
$7.125
$9.851
ACmem
(membrane
replacement)
$624.795
$1.258.675
$1,913.958
$86,616
$165.590
$248.255
$38,889
$71.251
$98.508
ACcw
(cooling
water)
$151
$220
$259
$155
$231
$269
$170
$251
$286
ACcw
(cooling
water)
$1.510
$2.196
$2.592
$1.555
$2.309
$2.692
$1.697
$2.507
$2,858
-------
B Membrane Preconcentrator with Vacuum Pump and Carbon Adsor
TABLE G-l (Continued)
CASE 1
219 6
1000
ACww
(waste
water)
$453
$659
$778
$466
$693
$808
$509
£ $752
$857
CASE 2
ACww
(waste
water)
$4.530
$6.587
$7.777
$4,665
$6.927
$8,076
$5.090
$7,521
$8.573
TOTAL ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$79,475
$147.056
$217.269
$27.418
$40.722
$54,896
$27.759
$40.081
$50,619
2196 4
TOTAL ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$673,434
$1.349.249
$2.051,371
$152,861
$285.907
$427.646
$156,274
$279.491
$384,879
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$60,523
$109.617
$159.710
$22,254
$30.920
$39.308
$21.318
$27,257
$31.653
1000
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$498,931
$972.097
$1,459.104
$108.671
$176.321
$244,917
$82.358
$118.449
$146,885
TOTAL ANNUAL
COSTS
$139.998
$256.674
$376,978
$49,672
$71,642
$94,204
$49.077
$67,337
$82,272
TOTAL ANNUAL
COSTS
$1,172.364
$2.321.346
$3,510,475
$261,533
$462,228
$672.563
$238,633
$397,940
$531.764
COST PER
METRIC TON
CONTROLLED
$9.762
$12.531
$16.489
$3.425
$3.518
$4,126
$3.411
$3.299
$3.611
COST PER
METRIC TON
CONTROLLED
$8,174
$11.333
$15.355
$1.803
$2,270
$2,946
$1.659
$1,950
$2.334
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 3 8785 7
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$11.638.565 $1.893.594
$23.166.895 $3.769.254
$35.057.335 $5,703.828
$1.999.978 $325.396
$3.550.560 $577.676
$5,145.652 $837,198
$1.253.288 $203.910
$2.000.895 $325.546
$2.645,271 $430,386
CASE 4 219 6
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$371,939 $60.514
$673.671 $109.606
$981,555 $159.699
$136.730 $22.246
$189.983 $30.910
$241.548 $39,300
$130.993 $21,313
$167.500 $27.252
$194.539 $31.652
1000
Blower HP
1 35
2 46
3 23
1 72
2 84
3.66
2 30
3 67
4.54
100
Blower HP
0 02
0 03
0 04
0 02
0 04
0 05
0 03
0 05
0 06
ACcb
(carbon)
$725
$1,095
$1,258
$775
$1,120
$1.294
$816
$1.193
$2,062
ACcb
(carbon)
$7
$15
$22
$10
$19
$28
$17
$32
$43
ACe
(elect )
$181.800
$366.151
$556,596
$251,977
$481,568
$721.763
$452.253
$828.422
$1,145.137
ACe
(elect )
$4.540
$9,143
$13,901
$6.292
$12,027
$18,029
$11,297
$20,696
$28.611
Maint
Hours
78 5
79 5
80 6
78 9
80 2
81 5
80 0
82 1
83 8
Maint
Hours
77 5
77 6
77 6
77 5
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 7
ACm ACol
(Maint ) (Op
$3.743
$3.791
$3.841
$3,761
$3.822
$3.885
$3.814
$3,913
$3.996
ACm ACol
(Maint ) (Op
$3,696
$3.697
$3.698
$3.696
$3.698
$3.700
$3.698
$3.700
$3.702
Labor)
$9.785
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
Labor)
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
Steam
Requ 1 red
(Ib/regen)
511
771
886
546
789
911
574
840
1452
Steam
Required
(Ib/regen)
5
10
15
7
13
20
12
22
31
Solvent
Recovered
75 57
107 93
120 47
76 42
107 30
120 29
75 81
107 55
120 04
Solvent
Recovered
0 38
0 55
0 61
0 39
0 55
0 61
0 39
0 55
0 61
ACp ACs
(credit for (steam)
solvent)
($38.767) $9.220
($55.367) $13.921
($61,799) $15,995
($39,206) $9.857
($55.044) $14.247
($61.710) $16.456
($38,892) $10.371
($55.172) $15.172
($61.578) $26.220
ACp ACs
(credit for (steam)
solvent)
($197) $41
($282) $62
($314) $73
($199) $44
($280) $65
($314) $75
($198) $47
($281) $71
($313) $81
ACmeni
(membrane
replacement)
$2.499,180
$5,034,699
$7.655.832
$346,464
$662,360
$993,020
$155.555
$285.005
$394,031
ACmem
(membrane
replacement)
$62.479
$125,867
$191,396
$8.662
$16.559
$24.826
$3.889
$7.125
$9,851
ACcw
(cooling
water)
$4,493
$6,783
$7,794
$4,803
$6,942
$8.019
$5.054
$7,393
$12.777
ACcw
(cooling
water)
$20
$30
$35
$21
$32
$36
$23
$34
$40
-------
TABLE G-l (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
Membrane ACFM Req'd HP Installed Membrane
Area to Vac for Vacuum Capital Capital
alpha* % Removal (ft~2) Pump
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
60 02
85 72
95 68 '
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
807107
1625950
2472442
111890
213909
320695
50236
92042
127252
9136
1B404
27986
12665
24213
36300
22745
41674
57615
Pump
518
1043
1587
718
1373
2058
1289
2363
3266
Cost Cost
$248.214 $7.497.539
$352,301 $15.104.097
$434.433 $22,967.497
$292,251 $1,039.392
$404.086 $1,987,081
$494.773 $2.979,060
$391,650 $466.664
$530.130 $855,014
$623,335 $1,182,092
Auxll DCCa OCCd DCCc DCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
Cost
$3,748.770
$7,552,049
$11,483,748
$519,696
$993.541
$1.489.530
$233.332
$427,507
$591.046
$135,179
$148,360
$161.062
$139,612
$155.702
$171.577
$152.485
$177.859
$235,595
$4,546
$4.550
$4.549
$4.546
$4,549
$4,548
$4.546
$4.548
$4,547
$2,353
$3.552
$4.081
$2.515
$3.635
$4.199
$2,646
$3.871
$6.690
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1,965
$1,966
$1,965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$144,043
$158.448
$171.657
$148.638
$165.852
$182.289
$161,642
$188,244
$248.798
CASE 4
219 6
100
Membrane ACFM Req'd HP Installed
Area to Vac for Vacuum Capital
alpha* % Removal (ft"2) Pump
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
20178
40649
61811
2797
5348
8017
1256
2301
3181
228
460
700
317
605
907
569
1042
1440
Pump
13
26
40
18
34
51
32
59
82
Cost
$39.246
$55,704
$68.690
$46.209
$63,892
$78.230
$61.9Z5
$83.821
$98.558
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$187,438
$377.602
$574.187
$25,985
$49.677
$74,477
$11.667
$21.375
$29.552
Auxll DCCa DCCd DCCc DCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
Cost
$93.719
$188.801
$287,094
$12.992
$24.839
$37.238
$5.833
$10,688
$14.776
$45.000
$45,000
$45,000
$45.000
$45.000
$45,000
$45,000
$45.000
$45.000
$4,546
$4.550
$4 . 549
$4,546
$4.549
$4,548
$4.546
$4,548
$4.547
$24
$47
$70
$33
$61
$90
$56
$102
$141
$1.965
$1.967
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$51,535
$51.564
$51.584
$51.544
$51,576
$51,603
$51,568
$51,616
$51.653
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
ACww
(waste TOTAL ANNUAL
water) OPERATING COST
$13.478
$20,350
$23,382
$14.410
$20,826
$24,056
$15,161
$22,179
$38.330
$2.683,656
$5.401.208
$8.212,684
$602.626
$1.145.626
$1.716,567
$613.916
$1.117.890
$1,570.759
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$1.893.594
$3.769.254
$5,703.828
$325.396
$577,676
$837.198
$203,910
$325.546
$430.386
COST PER
TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
COSTS CONTROLLED
$4.577.251
$9.170.462
$13,916,513
$928.023
$1.723.302
$2,553.764
$817.826
$1.443.435
$2.001,144
$16,235
$22,774
$30.964
$3,255
$4.305
$5.690
$2,891
$3,597
$4.468
00
CASE 4
219 6
100
ACww ANNUAL COST COST PER
(waste TOTAL ANNUAL FOR CAPITAL TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
water) OPERATING COST
$60
$91
$106
$64
$95
$109
$69
$103
$119
$80,432
$148.408
$218.702
$28,375
$41.999
$56.272
$28,626
$41.265
$51.918
RECOVERY
$60.514
$109.606
$159,699
$22.246
$30.910
$39,300
$21,313
$27.252
$31.652
COSTS CONTROLLED
$140.946
$258,015
$378.401
$50,621
$72,909
$95.572
$49.939
$68.517
$83,569
$98.276
$125.964
$165.510
$34.901
$35.803
$41,863
$34.708
$33,569
$36,683
-------
TABLE G-l (Continued)
CASE 5
2196 4
100
Membrane ACFM Req'd HP Installed
Area to Vac for Vacuum Capital
alpha* %
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Removal (ft~2) Pump
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85.42
95 34
201777
406488
618111
27973
53477
80174
12559
23010
31813
2284
4601
6997
3166
6053
9075
5686
10418
14404
Pump
129
261
397
180
343
514
322
591
817
Cost
$124,107
$176.150
$217.217
$146.125
$202.043
$247.386
$195.825
$265.065
$311,668
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$1.874.385
$3,776,024
$5,741,874
$259,848
$496,770
$744,765
$116,666
$213.753
$295.523
Auxll DCCa DCCd DCCc OCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
Cost
$937.192
$1.888.012
$2.870,937
$129.924
$248.385
$372.383
$58.333
$106.877
$147.761
$122,192
$124.562
$126,940
$123.053
$125.975
$128,965
$125,512
$130,233
$134.150
$4,546
$4.550
$4.549
$4,546
$4.549
$4.548
$4.546
$4.548
$4.547
$242
$472
$703
$325
$609
$900
$564
$1.023
$1.406
$1,965
$1.967
$1,965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$128.945
$131.550
$134.156
$129.890
$133.099
$136,378
$132.587
$137,770
$142,068
CASE 6
8785 7
100
alpha*
Membrane
Area
% Removal (ft"2)
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
60 02
85 72
95 68
60 70
85 22
95 54
60 21
85 42
95 34
807107
1625950
2472442
111890
213909
320695
50236
92042
127252
ACFM
to Vac
Pump
9136
18404
27986
12665
24213
36300
22745
41674
57615
Req'd HP Installed Membrane Auxil DCCa
for Vacuum Capital Capital Equip (ads
Pump Cost Cost Cost
DCCd DCCc DCCf
vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans)
TOTAL ADSORBER
DIRECT CAPITAL
518
1043
1587
718
1373
2058
1289
2363
3266
$248.214 $7.497.539 $3.748.770
$352,301 $15,104,097 $7.552.049
$434.433 $22,967,497 $11,483.748
$292,251
$404.086
$494,773
$391,650
$530.130
$623.335
$1,039.392 $519.696
$1.987,081 $993.541
$2.979.060 $1.489,530
$466,664
$855.014
$1.182,092
$233.332
$427,507
$591.046
$129.661
$139.056
$148.427
$133.081
$144.633
$156.367
$142.808
$161.315
$203.894
$4.546 $968
$4.550 $1,887
$4,549 $2.811
$4.546 $1,301
$4.549 $2.436
$4,548 $3,599
$4.546 $2.256
$4.548 $4.094
$4,547 $8.436
$1,965
$1,967
$1.965
$1,965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$137.140
$147.460
$157.752
$140,893
$153.584
$166.479
$151.575
$171,922
$218.842
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 5 2196 4
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$3.064,629 $498.615
$5.971.737 $971.602
$8.964.184 $1.458.473
$665,787 $108.324
$1.080.298 $175.764
$1.500,912 $244.198
$503.411 $81.905
$723.465 $117.708
$897.020 $145.945
CASE 6 8785 7
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$11.631.662 $1.892.471
$23.155.906 $3,767.466
$35,043,430 $5.701,566
$1.992.233 $324.136
$3.538.293 $575,680
$5.129,842 $834,625
$1.243,220 $202.272
$1,984,573 $322,890
$2.615,315 $425,512
100
Blower HP
0 18
0 32
0 42
0 22
0 37
0 48
0 30
0 50
0 63
100
Blower HP
0 58
1 01
1 34
0 70
1 18
1 54
0 97
1 62
2 08
ACcb
(carbon)
$75
$145
$217
$100
$188
$277
$174
$315
$433
ACcb
(carbon)
$298
$582
$866
$401
$751
$1,109
$695
$1,262
$2,600
ACe
(elect )
$45,396
$91.434
$139,013
$62.922
$120.272
$180.288
$112.967
$206.958
$286.107
ACe
(elect )
$181.531
$365.643
$555.936
$251.622
$480.985
$721.021
$451.787
$827.701
$1.144,278
Halnt
Hours
77 8
78 0
78 3
77 8
78 2
78 5
78 1
78 6
79 1
Halnt
Hours
78 5
79 5
80 6
78 9
80 2
81 5
80 0
82 1
83 8
ACm ACol
(Halnt ) (Op
$3.707
$3.719
$3.731
$3,711
$3.727
$3,742
$3.725
$3.749
$3,770
ACm ACol
(Halnt ) (Op
$3.743
$3.791
$3.841
$3.761
$3.822
$3.885
$3.814
$3,913
$3,996
Labor)
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
$9,785
Labor)
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
Steam
Required
(Ib/regen)
53
102
153
71
132
195
122
222
305
Steam
Required
( Ib/regen)
210
410
610
282
529
781
490
888
1831
Solvent
Recovered
3 84
5 49
6 13
3 89
5 46
6 12
3 86
5 47
6 11
Solvent
Recovered
7 56
10 79
12 05
7 64
10 73
12 03
7 58
10 75
12 00
ACp ACs
(credit for (steam)
solvent)
($1,972) $413
($2,816) $620
($3.144) $728
($1.994) $439
($2.800) $648
($3.139) $747
($1.978) $471
($2,806) $706
($3.132) $811
ACp ACs
(credit for (steam)
solvent)
($3.877) $1,176
($5.537) $1,740
($6.180) $2,014
($3.921) $1.232
($5.504) $1.794
($6.171) $2.011
($3.889) $1.268
($5.517) $1.867
($6.158) $3,251
ACmem ACcw
(membrane (cooling
replacement) water)
$624
$1.258
$1.913
$86
$165
$248
$38
$71
$98
.795 $201
.675 $302
,958 $355
.616 $214
,590 $316
,255 $364
.889 $229
.251 $344
,508 $395
ACmem ACcw
(membrane (cooling
replacement) water)
$2.499
$5.034
$7,655
$346
$662
$993
$155
$285
$394
.180 $573
,699 $848
,832 $981
.464 $600
.360 $874
.020 $980
.555 $618
.005 $910
.031 $1.584
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 5
2196 4
100
ACww
(waste
water)
$604
$906
$1,064
$641
$948
$1.091
$688
$1.032
$1.185
CASE 6
ACww
(waste
water)
$1.720
$2,544
$2,944
$1,801
$2,623
$2,940
$1,853
$2,730
$4.753
TOTAL ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$683,004
$1,362.768
$2.065.707
$162.434
$298.673
$441,410
$164.948
$291.333
$397.861
8785 7
TOTAL ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$2.694,128
$5.414,095
$8.226.020
$611.746
$1.157.489
$1.728.580
$621.484
$1,127,655
$1.558,120
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$498.615
$971,602
$1,458.473
$108.324
$175.764
$244.198
$81.905
$117.708
$145,945
100
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$1.892.471
$3,767,466
$5.701,566
$324.136
$575,680
$834.625
$202,272
$322.890
$425,512
TOTAL ANNUAL
COSTS
$1.181.619
$2.334.370
$3,524,180
$270.757
$474.438
$685.608
$246,853
$409,041
$543.806
TOTAL ANNUAL
COSTS
$4,586,600
$9.181.561
$13.927.586
$935.882
$1,733,169
$2.563,206
$823.756
$1.450.545
$1.983.632
COST PER
METRIC TON
CONTROLLED
$82,390
$113.965
$154.145
$18.667
$23.298
$30,031
$17.157
$20.040
$23.871
COST PER
METRIC TON
CONTROLLED
$162,681
$228,018
$309.883
$32,823
$43.294
$57,113
$29,123
$36,151
$44.293
-------
C Membrane Preconcentrator with Compressor and Carbon Adsorber
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 1
219 6
1000
alpha*
200
200
200
20
20
20
J 5
5
5
alpha*
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
% Removal
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
CASE 2
% Removal
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
Membrane
Area
(ffz)
8327
15775
22725
965
1787
2546
343
611
814
2196 4
Membrane
Area
(ffz)
83269
157747
227247
9646
17869
25458
3432
6105
8144
ACFM
to rimpr
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
1000
ACFM
to Compr
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
Req'd HP
for Compr
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Req'd HP
for Compr
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
Installed
Capital
Cost
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30.000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30.000
Installed
Capital
Cost
$128.000
$128,000
$128,000
$128.000
$128,000
$128,000
$128,000
$128.000
$128,000
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$77,352
$146.537
$211.099
$8.960
$16.599
$23.649
$3,188
$5.671
$7.565
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$773.519
$1,465.371
$2,110.991
$89,602
$165.994
$236.494
$31.878
$56.713
$75,654
Auxll DCCa
Equip (ads
Cost
$38.676
$73.269
$105.550
$4,480
$8.300
$11,825
$1.594
$2.836
$3.783
Auxil DCCa
Equip (ads
Cost
$386,760
$732.685
$1.055.495
$44,801
$82,997
$118.247
$15.939
$28.356
$37.827
vessels)
$45.000
$45.000
$45,000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
vessels)
$126,128
$131,466
$136,263
$127,012
$132,870
$138,098
$129 760
$137,279
$142,870
OCCd
(duct work)
$4,546
$4.548
$4.548
$4,546
$4.548
$4.547
$4.546
$4.547
$4.547
DCCd
(duct work)
$4.546
$4.548
$4.548
$4,546
$4,548
$4,547
$4.546
$4.547
$4,547
DCCc
(carbon)
$85
$126
$144
$87
$126
$144
$92
$131
$150
DCCc
(carbon)
$853
$1,259
$1,437
$870
$1,256
$1,437
$924
$1.315
$1,497
DCCf
(fans)
$1,965
$1.966
$1,965
$1,965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1,965
$1.965
DCCf
(fans)
$1,965
$1.966
'$1.965
$1,965
$1,966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.965
$1,965
TOTAL ADSORBER
DIRECT CAPITAL
$51.596
$51.640
$51,656
$51.598
$51.639
$51.656
$51.604
$51.644
$51.662
TOTAL ADSORBER
DIRECT CAPITAL
$133.492
$139.239
$144.212
$134,393
$140,640
$146.047
$137.196
$145.107
$150,879
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
C Membrane Preconcentrator with Compressor and Carbon Adsorber
CASE 1
219 6
1000
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST Blower HP ACcb ACe Haint ACm ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs ACmem ACcw
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL (carbon) (elect ) Hours (Malnt ) (Op Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam) (membrane (cooling
RECOVERY (Ib/regen) solvent) replacement) water)
$197.624
$301.445
$398.305
$95,038
$106,538
$117,130
£ $86,385
W $90,151
$93,010
$32,153
$49,045
$64,804
$15.463
$17,334
$19.057
$14.055
$14.668
$15,133
0 06
0 10
0 13
0 07
0 11
0 13
0 08
0 12
0 15
$26
$39
$44
$27
$39
$44
$28
$41
$46
$11,728
$11.742
$11,750
$11.729
$11,743
$11,752
$11.734
$11.749
$11.757
77 5
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 7
$3.697
$3.699
$3.701
$3.697
$3.700
$3,702
$3.699
$3.701
$3,704
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9,785
19
27
31
19
27
31
20
29
32
3 85
5 47
6 11
3 85
5 45
6 11
3 85
5 48
6 11
($1,976)
($2,804)
($3,135)
($1.976)
($2.797)
($3.135)
($1.976)
($2.811)
($3.133)
$334
$493
$563
$341
$492
$563
$362
$515
$587
$25,784
$48,846
$70.366
$2.987
$5.533
$7,883
$1,063
$1,890
$2,522
$163
$240
$274
$166
$240
$274
$177
$251
$286
CASE 2
2196 4
1000
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST Blower HP
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$1.421.771
$2.465.295
$3,438,699
$231,322
$401.104
$559,476
ACcb ACe Maint ACm
(carbon) (elect ) Hours (Haint
0 64
1 04
1 28
$396,797
$517,631
$628.788
$313,013
$358,176
$392.360
$64.559
$84,219
$102,304
$50.927
$58,275
$63.837
0 68
1 08
1 33
0 81
1 24
1 49
$263
$388
$443
$117.276
$117.416
$117,502
78 0
78 4
78 8
$268 $117.292 78 0
$387 $117,431 78 5
$443 $117,518 78 9
$285 $117.337 78 3
$405 $117,486 78 9
$461 $117.573 79 3
ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs
(Op Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam)
(Ib/regen) solvent)
$3.717
$3.737
$3.756
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
185
273
312
38 51
54 65
61 11
$3.721
$3,743
$3,763
$3.732
$3,760
$3,782
$9.785
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
189
273
312
201
285
325
38 52
54 52
61 11
38 52
54 79
61 08
($19.755)
($28.036)
($31.349)
$3.343
$4,934
$5.630
($19.762) $3.410
($27.969) $4,922
($31,351) $5.630
($19.762) $3,623
($28.107) $5.153
($31,334) $5.867
ACmem ACcw
(membrane (cooling
replacement) water)
$257,840 $1,629
$488.457 $2.404
$703.664 $2.743
$29.867 $1.662
$55.331 $2.399
$78.831 $2.744
$10,626 $1.765
$18,904 $2,511
$25.218 $2.859
-------
C Membrane Preconcentrator with Compressor and Carbon Adsorb
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 1
219 6
1000
ACww ANNUAL COST
(waste TOTAL ANNUAL FOR CAPITAL
water) OPERATING COST RECOVERY
COST PER
TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
COSTS CONTROLLED
$489
$721
$823
$498
$720
$823
$530
- $753
$858
CASE 2
ACww
(waste
water)
$4.887
$7.213
$8.230
$4,985
$7,196
$8.231
$5.296
$7,533
$8,576
$50.030
$72.761
$94,172
$27.254
$29.454
$31,691
$25.400
$25.875
$26.410
2196 4
TOTAL ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$378,984
$606.298
$820.403
$151.227
$173.225
$195,594
$132,686
$137,430
$142,787
$32.153
$49.045
$64,804
$15.463
$17.334
$19.057
$14.055
$14.668
$15.133
1000
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$231.322
$401.104
$559.476
$64,559
$84.219
$102.304
$50,927
$58.275
$63,837
$82.183
$121.806
$158.976
$42.717
$46,788
$50.748
$39.455
$40.542
$41,543
TOTAL ANNUAL
' COSTS
$610,306
$1.007.402
$1.379,879
$215.786
$257.444
$297,897
$183.614
$195,706
$206,624
$5,720
$5,974
$6.973
$2.972
$2,300
$2.226
$2.745
$1.983
$1.823
COST PER
METRIC TON
CONTROLLED
$4.248
$4,941
$6.052
$1.501
$1.266
$1.307
$1.278
$957
$907
-------
TABLE G-l (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
Membrane
Area
ACFM Req'd HP
alpha* % Removal (ft"2) to Compr for Compr
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12 ^
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
333076
630986
908989
38583
71477
101834
13727
24420
32577
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
Installed
Capital
Cost
$263,000
$263.000
$263.000
$263.000
$263,000
$263,000
$263.000
$263.000
$263.000
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$3.094,077
$5.861.483
$8,443.964
$358.409
$663,977
$945,974
$127.512
$226.851
$302.617
Auxll DCCa DCCd
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work)
Cost
$1.547.038
$2,930.741
$4.221,982
$179.204
$331,988
$472.987
$63.756
$113.425
$151,309
$145,235
$166.113
$215.769
$148.712
$171.560
$225.990
$159.473
$221.438
$252,169
$4,546
$4.548
$4.548
$4.546
$4.548
$4,547
$4.546
$4,547
$4.547
DCCc DCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
(carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
$2.565
$3.750
$6.487
$2.643
$3.858
$13.199
$2.726
$6.003
$6.693
$1,965
$1,966
$1.965
$1,965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.965
$1.965
$154,311
$176,378
$228.768
$157.867
$181.931
$245.702
$168.710
$233.954
$265.374
CASE 4
219 6
100
Membrane
Area
alpha* % Removal (ft" 2) to
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
60 13
85 33
95.41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
'8327
15775
22725
965
1787
2546
343
611
814
Installed
ACFM Req'd HP Capital
Compr for
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Compr
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Cost
$30.000
$30.000
$30.000
$30,000
$30,000
$30.000
$30.000
$30.000
$30.000
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$77.352
$146.537
$211.099
$8.960
$16.599
$23,649
$3.188
$5,671
$7.565
Auxll DCCa OCCd DCCc DCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
Cost
$38.676
$73.269
$105.550
$4.480
$8.300
$11,825
$1,594
$2,836
$3.783
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45,000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45.000
$45,000
$4.546
$4,548
$4.548
$4,546
$4.548
$4.547
$4.546
$4.547
$4,547
$43
$80
$115
$49
$91
$128
$69
$122
$163
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$51.554
$51.594
$51,627
$51.561
$51.604
$51,640
$51,580
$51,635
$51.675
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
Ln
TOTAL INSTALLED
DIRECT CAPITAL
$5.058.426
$9.231,602
$13.157.714
$958,480
$1,440.897
$1.927.663
$622.977
$837,230
$982.300
ANNUAL COST Blower HP ACcb ACe Malnt ACm ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs
FOR CAPITAL (carbon) (elect ) Hours (Ha int.) (Op Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam)
RECOVERY
$823.006
$1.501.982
$2.140.760
$155.945
$234,434
$313,631
$101.358
$136.217
$159,820
(Ib/regen)
2 01
3 27
4 11
2 18
3 50
7 56
2 55
4 03
4 79
$790
$1,156
$1,999
$815
$1,189
$4.068
$840
$1.850
$2,063
$468.913
$469.354
$469,648
$468.974
$469,436
$470.856
$469.103
$469,620
$469.889
79 4
81 1
82 6
79 7
81 5
83 2
80 6
83 0
84 8
$3.784
$3,864
$3.939
$3.799
$3.887
$3,969
$3.842
$3.957
$4,045
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
557
814
1408
574
837
2865
592
1303
1452
75 70
107 44
120 13
75 73
107 18
120 14
75 73
107 71
120 07
solvent)
($38.836)
($55,115)
($61.628)
($38.848)
($54.982)
($61,631)
($38,849)
($55,254)
($61.598)
$10.052
$14.697
$25,421
$10.360
$15.120
$51,729
$10,683
$23.527
$26.229
ACmem ACcw
(membrane (cooling
replacement) water)
$1,031.359 $4,898
$1.953.828 $7,162
$2,814,655 $12.387
$119,470 $5.048
$221.326 $7.368
$315.325 $25,206
$42.504 $5.206
$75,617 $11.464
$100.872 $12.781
CASE 4
219 6
100
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST Blower HP ACcb ACe Malnt ACm ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs ACmem ACcw
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL (carbon) (elect ) Hours (Haint ) (Op Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam) (membrane (cooling
RECOVERY
$197.582
$301.400
$398.276
$95.001
$106.503
$117,114
$86.362
$90.142
$93.023
$32.147
$49.038
$64.799
$15.457
$17,328
$19,055
$14,051
$14.666
$15.135
0 03
0 04
0 05
0 03
0 05
0 06
0 03
0 06
0 07
$13
$25
$35
$15
$28
$39
$21
$38
$50
$11.714
$11.720
$11.724
$11.715
$11,721
$11,726
$11,717
$11.725
$11.729
77 5
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 6
77 7
$3.697
$3.699
$3,701
$3,697
$3,700
$3.702
$3,699
$3,701
$3,704
(Ib/regen)
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
9
17
25
11
20
28
15
27
35
solvent)
0 39
0 55
0 61
0 39
0 55
0 61
0 39
0 55
0 61
($198)
($280)
($313)
($198)
($280)
($314)
($198)
($281)
($313)
replacement) water)
$45
$65
$77
$45
$67
$79
$48
$73
$84
$25.784
$48,846
$70.366
$2.987
$5,533
$7,883
$1.063
$1,890
$2.522
$22
$32
$37
$22
$32
$38
$24
$35
$41
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 3
8785 7
1000
ACww ANNUAL COST
(waste TOTAL ANNUAL FOR CAPITAL
water) OPERATING COST RECOVERY
COST PER
TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
COSTS CONTROLLED
Ln
-vl
$14,694
$21.485
$37.162
$15,144
$22.103
$75.619
$15.617
$34.393
$38,342
CASE 4
ACww
(waste
water)
$65
$95
$112
$65
$97
$115
$71
$106
$122
$1.505.438
$2.426,216
$3,313,368
$594.544
$695,230
$894.925
$518,731
$574.960
$602.407
219 6
TOTAL ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$50.927
$73.985
$95.524
$28.133
$30,683
$33.054
$26.229
$27.072
$27,723
$823.006
$1.501,982
$2.140,760
$155,945
$234.434
$313.631
$101,358
$136,217
$159.820
100
ANNUAL COST
FOR CAPITAL
RECOVERY
$32.147
$49.038
$64.799
$15.457
$17,328
$19.055
$14,051
$14.666
$15,135
$2.328.444
$3.928.197
$5,454,128
$750.489
$929,664
$1.208,555
$620.090
$711,177
$762.227
TOTAL ANNUAL
COSTS
$83.074
$123.023
$160.324
$43.589
$48.011
$52.108
$40,280
$41.738
$42.857
$8,244
$9.800
$12.169
$2.656
$2.325
$2,696
$2.195
$1.770
$1,701
COST PER
METRIC TON
CONTROLLED
$57,821
$60.335
$70.319
$30.329
$23.603
$22.854
$28.026
$20.419
$18.807
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 5
Z196 4
100
Membrane
Area
ACFM Req'd HP
alpha* % Removal (ft"2) to Compr for Compr
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
Ln
00 ,.
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60.15
. 85 55
95 37
f r &
83269
157747
227247
9646
17869
25458
3432
6105
8144
mn e -i
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
1 rtrt
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
Installed
Capital
Cost
$128.000
$128.000
$128,000
$128.000
$128.000
$128.000
$128,000
$128.000
$128.000
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$773.519
$1.465.371
$2.110,991
$89.602
$165.994
$236,494
$31.878
$56,713
$75,654
Auxll DCCa OCCd DCCc DCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
Cost
$386,760
$732.685
$1,055,495
$44.801
$82.997
$118.247
$15,939
$20,316
$37.827
$124.133
$127.972
$131.491
$124.795
$129.020
$132.856
$126,843
$132.298
$136,406
$4.546
$4.548
$4.548
$4,546
$4,548
$4.547
$4.546
$4,547
$4,547
$430
$803
$1.146
$494
$905
$1.279
$693
$1,225
$1.627
$1,965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1,965
$1,965
S1.9SB
$1.965
$131.075
$135.290
$139,149
$131,801
$136,439
$140,648
$134,047
$140.036
$144.545
Membrane
Area
ACFH Req'd HP
alpha* X Removal (ft~2) to Compr for Compr
200
200
200
20
20
20
5
5
5
60 13
85 33
95 41
60 15
85 12
95 42
60 15
85 55
95 37
333076
630986
908989
38583
71477
101834
13727
24420
32577
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
1337
Installed
Capital
Cost
$263.000
$263.000
$263.000
$263.000
$263.000
$263,000
$263.000
$263,000
$263,000
Membrane
Capital
Cost
$3.094.077
$5.861,483
$8,443,964
$358,409
$663.977
$945.974
$127,512
$226,851
$302,617
Auxll DCCa DCCd DCCc DCCf TOTAL ADSORBER
Equip (ads vessels) (duct work) (carbon) (fans) DIRECT CAPITAL
Cost
$1.547,038
$2.930.741
$4.221.982
$179.204
$331.988
$472.987
$63.756
$113.425
$151.309
$137,361
$152.480
$188.792
$139,978
$156.582
$196.569
$148,046
$193.397
$216,566
$4,546
$4.548
$4.548
$4.546
$4.548
$4,547
$4.546
$4.547
$4,547
$1.721
$3,213
$6.877
$1,977
$3.621
$7.677
$2.773
$7,350
$9,761
$1.965
$1.966
$1.965
$1,965
$1.966
$1.965
$1.965
$1.966
$1,965
$145.593
$162.207
$202.181
$148.466
$166.717
$210,758
$157.331
$207,260
$232.839
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued)
CASE 5
2196 4
100
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST Blower HP ACcb ACe Malnt ACm ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs ACmem ACcw
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL (carbon) (elect ) Hours (Malnt ) (Op. Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam) (membrane (cooling
RECOVERY
$1.419,353
$2.461.346
$3.433.636
$394,204
$513.431
$623.389
$309.864
$353.105
$386,026
$230,929
$400,461
$558.653
$64,137
$83.535
$101.425
$50.415
$57.450
$62,806
0 26
0 42
0.55
0 27
0 45
0 59
0.34
0 55
0 69
$133
$248
$353
$152
$279
$394
$214
$378
$501
$117,142
$117.200
$117.244
$117,148
$117.211
$117.258
$117.171
$117.247
$117.294
78 0
78 4
78 8
78 0
78.5
78 9
78 3
78 9
79 3
$3.717
$3.737
$3,756
$3.721
$3.743
$3,763
$3,732
$3,760
$3.782
(Ib/regen)
$9.785
$9.785
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
93
174
249
107
196
278
150
266
353
solvent)
3 85
5 47
6 11
3 85
5 45
6 11
3 85
5 48
6 11
($1.976)
($2,804)
($3.135)
($1,976)
($2.797)
($3.135)
($1.976)
($2.811)
($3.133)
replacement) water)
$446
$649
$766
$446
$665
$788
$483
$727
$836
$257,840
$488,457
$703.664
$29.867
$55.331
$78.831
$10.626
$18.904
$25.218
$217
$316
$373
$217
$324
$384
$235
$354
$407
tn
VD
CASE 6
8785 7
100
TOTAL INSTALLED ANNUAL COST Blower HP ACcb ACe Ha int. ACm ACol Steam Solvent ACp ACs
DIRECT CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL (carbon) (elect ) Hours (Maint ) (Op Labor) Required Recovered (credit for (steam)
RECOVERY
$5.049,708
$9.217.432
$13.131.127
$949,079
$1.425.683
$1,892,720
$611.598
$810.536
$949,765
$821,588
$1,499.676
$2,136.434
$154.415
$231.959
$307.946
$99.507
$131,874
$154.527
0 82
1 38
1 81
0 88
1 50
1 97
1 13
1 87
2 36
$530
$990
$2.119
$609
$1,116
$2.366
$855
$2,265
$3.008
$468,496
$468.692
$468.843
$468.519
$468,735
$468.899
$468,606
$468.864
$469,038
79 4
81 1
82 6
79 7
81 5
83 2
80 6
83 0
84 8
$3.784
$3.864
$3.939
$3.799
$3.887
$3.969
$3.842
$3.957
$4,045
(Ib/regen)
$9.785
$9,785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
$9.785
373
697
1492
429
786
1666
602
1595
2118
solvent)
7 57
10 74
12 01
7 57
10 72
12 01
7 57
10 77
12 01
($3.884)
($5.511)
($6.163)
($3.885)
($5,498)
($6,163)
($3,885)
($5.525)
($6.160)
$1.221
$1.796
$3.129
$1.221
$1,861
$3.254
$1.367
$3.039
$3.535
ACmem ACcw
(membrane (cooling
replacement) water)
$1.031,359 $595
$1,953,828 $875
$2,814,655 $1,525
$119,470 $595
$221,326 $907
$315.325 $1.586
$42.504 $666
$75.617 $1.481
$100.872 $1.723
-------
TABLE G-l. (Continued) '
CASE 5
2196 4
100
ACww ANNUAL COST
(waste TOTAL ANNUAL FOR CAPITAL
water) OPERATING COST
$652
$949
$1.120
$652
$972
$1.152
$706
$1.063
$1.221
$387.955
$618.537
$833,927
$160.012
$185.514
$209.221
$140,975
$149,408
$155.911
RECOVERY
$230.929
$400.461
$558.653
$64.137
$83.535
$101.425
$50.415
$57.450
$62,806
COST PER
TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
COSTS CONTROLLED
$618.884
$1.018.998
$1,392,579
$224,149
$269.049
$310.647
$191.390
$206.858
$218.718
$43.076
$49.975
$61,080
$15.596
$13,227
$13.624
$13.317
$10.120
$9,598
CASE 6
8785 7
100
ACww
(waste
water)
$1.784
$2.626
$4.574
$1.785
$2.720
$4,757
$1.999
$4,442
$5,168
ANNUAL COST
TOTAL ANNUAL FOR CAPITAL
OPERATING COST RECOVERY
$1,513.670 $821,588
$2.436.945 $1.499.676
$3.302.405 $2.136.434
$601.897
$704.838
$803.776
$525.740
$563.925
$591,014
$154.415
$231.959
$307.946
$99,507
$131.874
$154,527
COST PER
TOTAL ANNUAL METRIC TON
COSTS CONTROLLED
$2.335.257' $82.681
$3.936.621 $98.210
$5,438.839 $121.348
$756.312
$936.797
$1.111,722
$625,247
$695.799
$745.541
$26,769
$23.428
$24,803
$22.130
$17.315
$16,642
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before comf
i REPORT NO
EPA-600/2-90-016
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Test and Evaluation of a Polymer Membrane
Preconcentrator
5 REPORT DATE
April 1990
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOH(S)
Kirk E. Hummel and Thomas P.
Nelson
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
P. O. Box 201088
Austin, Texas 78720-1088
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4286, Tasks
32 and 69
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 10/88 - 11/89
14, SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL project officer is Charles
541-7633.
H. Darvin, Mail Drop 61, 919 /
16-ABSTRACT The report gives results of an evaluation of the applicability of membrane
systems as a preconcentrator and defines operating parameters of a membrane
system. Advantages of such a system is a potential reduction in cost for subsequent
control systems. The evaluation is part of a joint EPA/California Air Resources
Board investigation of the potential of membrane technology on volatile organic com-
pound (VOC) emissions. Tests of various membrane materials and configurations
have been conducted. The polymeric membrane has been used for a number of years
as a concentrating step for various liquid and gaseous streams, including the remo-
val of large molecule organics from waste water streams, hydrogen separation, and
CO2 recovery. A polymer membrane is an ultrathin layer of a selective polymer,
supported on a porous sublayer. The membrane (active layer) selectively filters
the pollutant molecules. A potentially innovative application of membrane technology
maybe to concentrate VOCs from exhaust gases such as solvent oven-drying exhaust
A preconcentrator membrane could be used to reduce the size and, in turn, the capi-
tal and operating costs of a conventional VOC control device such as a carbon adsor-
ber or incinerator. Study results do not, however, verify that a membrane precon-
centrator is a viable option to reduce overall pollution control costs. ,
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Fluid Filter
Membranes
Polymers
Concentrators
Volatility
Organic Compounds
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Preconcentrator s
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOCs)
Polymer Membranes
13B 07C
13K
11G,06P,06C
07D
07A.13I
20M
8 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19 SECURITY CLASS (ThaReport)
Unclassified
21 NO. OF PAGES
2D SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |