Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods
Comparability Analysis and In-SItu
Evaluation of New Technology Woodstoves
OCT-04 BPA
U.S. fJecarment ct Energy
Eonnevtie Powbi *
FtfW and AiasMg Regicojtt
Biomass Energy Ptsgrar*
DOE/BP/185 0 8—6
DE89 001551
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Govern merit. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi-
bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-
ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-
mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
WGODSTGVE EMISSION
SAMPLING METHODS
COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS
AND IN-SITU EVALUATION OF
NEW TECHNOLOGY WOODSTOVES
TASK G
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy
Pacific Northwest and Alaska Regional Biomass Energy Program
c/o Bonneville Power Administration
Post Office Box 3621
Portland, Oregon 97232
Contract Ho: DE-AC79-85BF185Q8
Prepared By: Carl A. Simons
Paul D. Christiansen
Janes E. Houck
Lyle C. Pritchett
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.
Beavertoa, Oregon 97005
June 1988
-------
PREFACE
The following report, entitled "Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis and In-Situ
Evaluation of New Technology Woodstoves", was prepared in fulfillment of the Task G Requirements for the
project entitled, "Environmental Impacts of Wood Combustion in Residential Wood Stoves" (Contract
Number D&AC79-85BF 18508). This contract is being administered by the Bonneville Power Administration
for the United States Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest and Alaska Regional Biomass Energy
Program,
The purpose of this task is to compare performance of woodstove particulate emission sampling methods and
evaluate several new technology woodstoves. Specific task work elements are:
1. Perform particulate emission comparability tests using the EPA Method 511, EPA Method 5G, and
OMNI Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES)ZData LOG'r sampling systems under
laboratory test conditions. Three tests > were, wjudueted on (wo types of woodstove technologies.
The first test used a conventional technology woodstove using a burn cycle which was representative
of the Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan area. The second and third tests used the same model of
integral catalytic "woodstove. The burn cycle of the second test was representative of the Portland
area and the third test burn cycle was representative of tiie Northeastern United States.
2. Conduct in-situ field particulate emission sampling ia six homes during the 1986-1987 heatmg
season with installed conventional technology woodstoves in two homes, low emission non-catalytic
woodstoves in two homes, and integral catalytic woodstoves in two homes.
3. Evaluate creosote deposition rates in the chimneys of the above six homes.
4. Perform a woodstove emission sampling methods comparability test using EPA Method 5G and the
OMNI AWES/Data LOG'r sampling methods under in-situ conditions on an integral catalytic
woodstove used in one of the above homes. The stove model used in this in-situ test was identical
to the integral catalytic woodstove used in the second and third sampling methods comparability
tests.
5. For both the laboratory and in-situ comparability tests, compare flue gas volume calculation
techniques based on: (1) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as
determined by the 02 content in the flue gas as measured by the AWES O2 cell ("AWES 02 Cell"
Method); (2) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as determined by
02 content in the flue gas as measured by a commercial O? gas analyzer ("Stack 02 Gas Analyzer"
Method); (3) measuring total dilution tunnel Dow (Method 5G) flow and adjusting it by the
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - ii
-------
measured ratio of C02 m the tunnel and in the stack ("C02 Ratio" Method); and (4) calculating a
combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as determined by tie CO? and CO content
in the flue gas as measured by commercial CO; and CO analyzers ("Stack COj and CO Gas
Analyzer Method).
This task report and its companion reports which comprise this project of tie Pacific Northwest and Alaska
Regional Biowass Energy Program are:
• Task A: Estimating Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Impacts from Woodstoves
Task B: Compendium of Environmental and Safety Regulations and Programs Affecting Residential
Wood Heating Appliances
Task C; Estimating the Volume of Residential Wood Burning in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska
TaskD: Identification of Factors Which Affect Combustion Efficiency and Environmental Impacts
From Woodstoves
Task E: Mitigation Measures for Minimizing Environmental Impacts from Residential Wood
Combustion .
Task F: Cost/Benefit Analysis of Mitigation Measures Identified in Task E v,
Task G: Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis and la-Situ Evaluation of
New Technology Woodstoves j;
The major portion of funding for this project is being provided by the United States Department of Energy
through the Bonneville Power Administration. In addition, the following organizations provided direct funding
and/or in-kind support:
« American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Atlanta, Georgia
• : City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska (CBJA)
Juneau, Alaska
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Portland, Oregon
• Missoula City/County Health Department (MCCHD)
Missoula, Montana .
• Wood Heating Alliance (WHA)
Washington, District of Columbia
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLAIMER i
PREFACE '/ ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v
I. SUMMARY 1
A. General - 1
B. Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis 1
C. In-Situ Evaluation of New Technology Wuodstoves and
In-Situ Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test 4
II. INTRODUCTION • 8
III. LABORATORY COMPARISON of WOODSTOVE PARTICULATE EMISSION SAMPLING
METHODS 9
A. Objectives 9
B. Technical Approach '.9
1. Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Testing Program Design .... 9
2. Target Fueling Cycle Determinations 10
3. Woodstove Descriptions 12
4. Test Booth Description 13
5. Sampling Program Description 14
C. Results 19
D. Discussion of Results 30
1. Test L01-Conventional Technology Woodstove, "Portland Area" Burn Rate 30
2. Test L02-Integral Catalytic Woodstove, "Portland Area" Burn Rate 31
3. Test LOS - Integral Catalytic Woodstove, "Northeast" Burn Rate 32
4. Flue Gas Volume Calculations Comparison 33
E. Conclusions - Laboratory Woodstove Emission Sampling Systems Comparability Analysis . . . 33
IV. IN-SITU EVALUATION OP NEW TECHNOLOGY WOODSTOVES 34
A. Objectives 34
B. Technical Approach 34
1. General Study Design 34
2. Home Selection 35
3. Woodstove Descriptions 35
4. Emission Sampling Program Description 38
C. Results 45
1. Discussion of Woodstove Performance. 45
2. In-Situ Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis-Discussion . . 55
D. Conclusions - In-Situ Evaluation 56
LIST OF REFERENCES 60
APPENDICES
A SAMPLING METHOD DESCRIPTIONS
B FLUE GAS VOLUME CALCULATION PROCEDURES
C AWES CALCULATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
D WOODSTOVE EMISSION SAMPLING METHODS COMPARABILITY:
SAMPLING SYSTEM EMISSION RATE DATA
E IN-SITU EVALUATION - PROJECT PARTICIPANT PROFILES
F IN-SITU WOODSTOVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION:
BURN RATE, PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE, AND METHOD 5G DATA TABLES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC iv
-------
UST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES Page
1 Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Particulate Emission Rates (g/hr). 3
2 Woodstovc Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Fueling Cycle Information. . 11
3 Particulate Emission Rate Ratios (g/hr)
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test LQ1 24
4 Particulate Emission Rate Ratios (g/hr) ...
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test LQ2 .25 -
5 Particulate Emission Rate Ratios (g/hr)
' Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test L03 26
6 Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Means of Emission Rats (gflii) Ratios 27
7 Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Particulate Emission Rate Comparison (gfor) 28
8 Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Flue Gas Volume Calculations 29
9 In-Situ Particulate Emission Rate Summary 46
10 In-Situ Creosote Deposition Rates 47
11 la-Situ. Woodstove Sampling Methods Comparability Summary
AWES/Data LQG'r and Method 5G 48
12 Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Tests
In-Situ AWES/ Method 5G Comparability Test
and Laboratory Comparability Test L02 58
Figures
1 Woodstove Emission Sampling Methodi, Comparability Analysis 15
2 Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test L01 21
3 Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test LQ2 22
4 Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test LQ3 23
5 In-Situ Woodstove Emission Sampling Method Comparability Test 4fl
6 Particulate Emission Rates (g/hr):
In-Situ Woodstove Technology Evaluation 49
7 Particulate Emission Rates (g/hr):
In-Situ A WES/Method 5G Comparability Test 50
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - v
-------
I. SUMMARY
A. General
One major objective of thus study was to compare several woodsiovc particulate emission sampling methods
under laboratory and in-situ conditions. The laboratory work compared the EPA Method 5H, EPA Method
5G, and OMNI Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES)/Data LOG'r particulate emission
sampling systems. A second major objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of two integral
catalytic, two low emission non-catalytic, aod two conventional technology woodstoves under in-situ conditions
with the AWES/Data LOG'r system- The AWES/Data LOG'r and EPA Method 5G sampling systems were
also compared in an in-situ test oil one of the integral catalytic woodstove models.
B. Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis-.
Three sampling methods comparability tests were designed Co compare the performance of OMNl's
AWES/Data LOG'r emission sampling system against other EPA reference woodstove sampling methods
(EPA Methods 5G and 5H).1 Appendix A describes the instrumentation used for the three emission sampling
systems. Each laboratory tea. was seven consecutive days in length in order to duplicate the standard AWES
in-situ sampling duration protocol.
The first laboratory test was conducted on a conventional technology woodstove and used born rates, fuel
species, and fuel loading patterns representative of the greater Portland, Oregon metropolitan area (Test
L01).2 The second laboratory test was conducted on an Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
certified integral catalytic woodstove and useij a fueling cycle representative of the Portland area (Test L02).
The third laboratory test was conducted on the saine certified integral catalytic woodstove and was fueled
using burn rates, fuel species, and fuel loading patterns representative of the northeastern United States (Test
L03).3 Split cord wood was used as fuel in each test, Douglas fir was the species used for tests L01 and L02,
and a mixture of 50% red oak and 50% sugar maple purchased in Hudson Falls, New York was used for test
L03.
Prior to the commencement of sampling methods comparability testing, an extensive evaluation of the in situ
woodstove burn cycles in the Portland area and the Northeastern United States was undertaken. During the
1985-1986 healing season OMNI had conducted in-situ woodstove characterization studies in Portland,
Oregon,2 and Vermont and New York? Data regarding fuel species, burn rates, woodstove technology and
model, fuel loading frequcn' -y, and burn durations from each geographic region were analyzed. Specific
fueling cycles that were representative of each region for an applicable woodstove technology were developed
and used for the appropriate woodstove sampling systems comparability test.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC -1
-------
The. woodstove emission sampling equipment used m the laboratory tests were configured as follows:
1. OMNI AWES/Data LOG'r: Two AWES units were placed on an intermittent (1 minute on, 29
minutes off) sampling cycle. The inlet probes for these samplers were located 30,5 cm (12,0 in.)
above the woodstove's flue collar for the first laboratory test. For the second and third laboratory
tests the one AWES probe was placed 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above the woodstove's flue collar and the
second AWES inlet probe was placed in the firebox just upstream of the secondary air exhaust and
before the catalyst. In each of the laboratory tests a third AWES sampler with an inlet probe
located 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above the woodstove's flue collar sampled on a continuous basis.
2. Method 5H: Two Method 5H sampling trains were used in each of the three laboratory tests. One
of the sampling trains was operated at a constant sampling rats. The second sampling train was
operated at a rate which was a fixed percentage of the stack flow rate (i.e. proportional sampling),
3. Method 5G: One dilution timnel with two ASTM-type sampling trains was used in each of the
three laboratory tests.
In addition to particulate emission rates calculated from the data derived from each sampling system, flue gas
volumes were determined by: (1) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as
determined by the Oz content in the flue gas as measured by the AWES 02 cell ("AWES Oj Cell" Method);
(2) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as determined by 02 content in the
[>
fliis gas as measured by a commercial Oz gas analyzer ("Stack Oz Gas Analyzer" method); (3) measuring
total dilution tunnel flow (Method 5G) and adjusting it by the measured ratio of C02 in the tunnel and in the
stack ("CO Ratio Method"); and (4) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as
determined by the C02 and CO content in the flue gas as measured by commercial C02 and CO analyzers
("Stack C07 and CO Gas Analyzer" Method). Appendix B presents examples of each flue gas volume
calculation method.
The calculated particulate emission rates in grams per hour for each emission sampling method comparability
test is presented in Table 1,
Assuming a ±20% accuracy associated with Methods 5G and 5K,'; the AWES/Data LOG'r system calculated
emission rates are in the estimated emission rate range of Methods 5G and 5H. A comparison of the
measured emission rates (Method 5G with 5H adjustment factor. Method SH - proportional sampling rate) for
all laboratory tests shows that the AWES system (intermittent sampling cycle) was within a range of 0,7 to 2.5
grams per hour of the EPA woodstove reference sampling methods.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - 2
-------
Table 1
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis:
Particulate Emission Rates (grams per hoar)
Test3
Method 5G/Dilut:on Tunnel
Method 511
*' AWESd
Sampler
ID
Unadjusted
Rate
Adjusted for
IAO/DCP6
511
Adjusted'
Propor-
tional Rate
Constant
Rate
Intermittent
Contin-
uous
1
2
L01
DT 1
23.56
23.76
25.06
24.6
19.2
27.8 ± 8.5
Flue
Collar
26.3 ± 8.1
Flue
Collar
35.0 ± 11.7
Flue
Collar
DT2
23.38
23.58
24.90
LQ2
, DT 1
3.36
3.3?
4.98
2.8
2.8
3.5 ± 1.1
Flue
Collar
38.7 ± 7.3
Firebox
4.3 i 1.5
Hue
Collar
•DT2
2.91
2.92
4.42
L03
DTI
1.48*
1.50
2.52
2.1.
2.2 ,
4.1 ± 1,2
Flue
Collar
46.9x13.4
Firebox
2.8 ±0.8
Flue
Collar
DT 2
1.52
1.54
2,58
a - L01 - conventional technology woodstove using "Portland area" bum cycls.
L02 - integral catalytic woodstove using "Portland area" burn cycle.
1.03 - integral catalytic woodstove using "Northeast" burn cycle,
b - Unadjusted Method 5G rate adjusted for measured indoor ambient air particulate cuntent (IAQ) and
deposited condetisible particulate (DCP) on dilution tunnel walls.
c - Unadjusted Method 5G rate adjusted using Method 5H adjustment factor,1
d - AWES data presented with associated accuracy.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 3
-------
Calculated emission rates as determined by the AWES system appear to have a high bias as compared to the
reference .sampling methods. This observation was expected due to the increased efficiency of the XaD-2
resin trap for semi-volatile hydrocarbons which is part of the AWES units.
The flue gas volumes calculated from the A WES/Data LOG'r was within 6% of the mean of the three other
independent calculation methods,
The flue gas volumes calculated using the four calculation methods described La Appendix B for each
laboratory test were as follows:
Flue Gas Volume (Cubic Meters)
Calculation Method
LOl
L02
L03
AWES 02 Cell (intermittent sampling)
1,777
1,317
2,025
AWES 02 Cell (continuous sampling)
1,818
1,317
2,006
Stack 02 Gas Analyzer
1,846
1,601
2,006
CO2 Ratio
1,744
1,712
1,566
Stack C02 and CO Gas Analyzers
1,848
2,146
2,143
This data indicates thkit the AWES calculated flue gas volumes are relatively accurate as compared to other
calculation methods.
C. fn-Situ Evaluation of New Technology Woodstoves and tn-Situ Emission Sampling Methods
Comparability Test:
The in-situ evaluation of the performance of three different types of woodstove technologies was conducted in
six homes located in Portland, Oregon, with the AWES/Data LOG'r sampling system from January IS, 1987
through March 27, 1987. In addition, a comparability last of the Method 5G and the AWES/Dnta LOG'r "
sampling systems was conducted for one week in one of the six homes that used a certified integral catalytic
woodstove.
The woodstove technologies evaluated included two conventional technology woodstoves, two low emission
non-catalytic woodstoves, and two integral catalytic woodstoves. The low emission non-catalytic and integral
catalytic woodstoves used in this study were certified by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental
Quality to meet the 1988 particulate emission standards and were expected to meet the 1990 U.S. E.P.A. New
Source Performance Standards.1 The two conventional technology woodstove models evaluated in this study
were uncertified and have been widely sold throughout North America.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - 4
-------
Five one-week sampling periods were completed in each study home. The AWES/Data LOG'r systems in
each home were programmed to sample intermittently (1 minute on, 29 minutes off) during each sampling
week. AWES units with probes located 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above the woodstove's flue collar were used for the
conventional technology and low emission non-catalytic woodstoves, Two additional AWES samplers were
used to sample 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above the woodstove's flue collar and before the catalyst for the integral
catalytic woodstoves.
Creosote samples were also collected from each of the six study homes. The chimney of each home was swept
at the beginning of the study, at the midpoint of the study, and at the conclusion of the study. The creosote
samples were weighed and a creosote deposition rate was determined by normalizing the creosote weights with
heating degree day data which had been adjusted daily for the percentage of time that the woodstove was
operational ' ''
The particulate emission data in grams per hour for the six woodstove models evaluated is as follows:
Woodstove Model Mean Particulate Emission Rate fg/hr) Ranee fs^hr)
Conventional Technology #1 25.5 20.9-29.4
Conventional Technology #2 13.8 9.5 - 22.3
Low Emission Non-catalytic #1 3.3 6.7 - 10.9
Low Emission Non-catalytic #2 - 18.6 13.3-24.1
Integral Catalytic #1 4.0 2.7-4.7
Integral Catalytic #2 43.3 31.2 - 61.9
The creosote deposition rate data obtained was as follows:
Creosote Deposition Rate
Woodstove Model t'grams per adjusted heating degree day)
Conventional Technology #1 10.73
Conventional Technology #2 1.79
Low Emission Non-catalytic #1 0.94
Low Emission Non-catalytic #2 1.58
Integral Catalytic #1 0.08
Integral Catalytic #2 0.54
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 5.
-------
Caution should be used in interpreting ihc creciote deposition rate data relative to the above particulate
emission rates due to the inherent complexities in accurately quantifying in-situ creosote deposition rates. The
dynamics of creosote deposition and removal by pyrolysis is influenced by several factors. The quantity of
condensible material in the Que gas stream probably has the largest effect oil creosote deposition. Other
factors include chimney length size, geometry, and heat transfer characteristics, flue gas temperature and
velocity and flow restrictions in the cLimncy. The removal of creosote by exothermal reaction pyrolysis is a
very difficult factor to evaluate. To evaluate this effect would require daily visual monitoring of creosote
deposits which was beyond the scope of this project.
Two after-catalyst AWES samples (at flue collar and chimney exit sampling points) and two Method SG
emission samples were collected during the in-situ AWES/Metbod 5G emission sampling methods
comparability test. The calculated particulate emission rates in grams per hour are as follows:
Sampling System Particulate Kmtssion Rate fgftr) Accuracy
AWES - Flue Collar 4,2 ±1.5
AWES - Chimney Exit 4.4 ±1.7
Method 5G (Sample Train #1) 3.2 ±0.6
Method 5G (Sample Train #2} 3.0 ±0.6
The above accuracy figures were calculated for the AWES system and assumed for Method 5G, The AWES
accuracy calculation methods are described in Appendix C. It was beyond the scope of work, for this project
to quantify propagated uncertainties for the EPA reference sampling method 5G; however, an accuracy of
±20% was assumed for this EPA reference sampling method. This assumed accuracy is an estimate based on
literature' review, informal discussions with EPA staff, and OMNI's operating experience with woodstove
emission sampling methods.5
Flue gas volumes calculated from the in-situ comparability test using the four different, procedures are as
follows:
Calculation Method Flue Gas Volume (Cubic Meters)
AWES ()2 Cell 3,941
Stack 02 Gas Analyzer 4,261
C()2 Ratio 3,514
Stack C02 and CO Gas Analyzers 4,286
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 6
-------
Several conclusions arise from the data from the iu-situ performance portion of this study:
* The new technology woodstoves (low emission noa-catalytic woodstoves and integral catalytic
woodstovss) can significantly reduce particulate emissions and creosote deposition rates when
properly operated and matched to chimney systems meeting manufacturer's specifications.
* Integral catalytic woodstove IC#2 had several observed failures of components of the emission
control system (bypass damper gasket missing, bypass door not closing completely, catalyst
plugging, air leakage through the ash clean-out pan) resulting in relatively poor particulate emission
performance. In addition, there may have been problems with operator use and maintenance of
the woodstove, since the homeowner did not seem to be aware of periodic maintenance procedures
even though this information was provided at the beginning of the study. Since these failures were
observed within four months, after the installation of the woodstove, questions are raised regarding
the durability of this stove's emission control system. However, since these observations are based
on one stove, it is difficult to determine if the problems identified are design and/or operator
¦ related issues.
* ¦' Considering the accuracies associated with the AWES and Method 5G sampling methods, the
calculated gram* per hour particulate emission rates are statistically identical. However, the
AWES emission rates indicate a high bias relative to Method SO, as also demonstrated in the
laboratory sampling methods comparability test.
* Calculated flue gas volume as measured by the AWES system was within 2% of the mean flue gas
volume as determined by the "Stack Oj Gas Analyzer," "CO Ratio," and "Stack COz and CO Gas
Analyzer" combustion calculation methods.
® The precision and accuracy of the AWES/Data LOG'r sampling system is demonstrated by a
comparison of particulate emission rates in the in-situ comparability test and laboratory
comparability test L02. Fach of the two tests used the same woodstove model, the same fuel
species, and a low to moderate burn rate.
* Creosote deposition rates generally followed emission rate performance by stove technology.
However, caution must be used in the interpretation of this data due to the complexities of creosote
deposition and removal mechanisms.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 7
-------
B. INTRODUCTION
Regulation of woodstove emissions in Oregon and Colorado, in addition lo recent regulatory actions by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency to control woodstove particutete emissions on a national
level, has stimulated development of many low emission woodstove models as determined by laboratory
certification procedures. These regulations have also resulted in/ the development of several regulatory
agency-approved or "reference" woodstove particulate emission sampling methods.1 In addition, OMNI
Environmental Services, Inc. has developed an in-situ woodstove emission sampling system called the
Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWEo)/Data LOG'r,
This project had two primary objectives. They were:
1. A comparability analysis of three woodstove particulate emission sampling.methods. The sampling
methods compared included the EPA Method 5H1 (equivalent to Oregon Method. 7), the EPA
Method 5G,1 and the OMNI Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES)ZData LOG'r.
The sampling system comparability analysis included three laboratory tests using all three sampling
methods, and one in-situ test using only the Method 5G and the A WES/Data LOG'r systems.
2, An evaluation of the in-situ performance of three woodstove technology classifications —
conventional technology, low emission non-catalytic, and integral catalytic woodstoves The in-situ
evaluations were conducted in six homes in Portland, Oregon. Two different models of each of the
three woodstove technology classifications were evaluated.
Previous in-situ studies'3**' indicated that the new woodstove technologies (law emission uou-eatalytie and
integral catalytic woodstoves) do have the potential for reduced particulate emissions as compared to
conventional technology woodstoves. Design features generally associated with new technology non-catalytic
woodstoves are: relatively small firebox, i e. less than 57 liters (2.0 cubic feet); firebox ususally insulated with
firebrick and/or mineral wool; stove designed only to burn wood; no tmderfire air; and a secondary air supply.
Data from the previous in-situ studies raised questions regarding the generally wide range and higher in-sku
particulate emission rates observed for the woodstoves as compared to laboratory certification emission
values. Significant factors influencing woodstove performance under laboratory and in-situ emission testing
conditions include differences in burn rates, fuel loading patterns, fuel moisture content, fuel species, sampling
methods, and operator experience. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate whether differences in
woodstove emission performance, as determined by laboratory certification versus in-situ sampling
procedures, was an artifact of differences in the sampling methods or other factors.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - 8
-------
HI. LABORATORY COMPARISON OF WOODSTOVE PARTICULATE EMISSION SAMPLING
METHODS
A. Objectives:
The objective of the woodstove emission sampling systems comparability tests was to compare measured
particulate emission rates from three emission sampling methods — the EPA Method 5G, the EPA Method
SH, arid the OMNI AWES/Data LOG'r system. To accomplish this objective three one-week tests were
performed on two different woodstove technologies. Burn cycles based on in-situ data were developed for
each of the three laboratory tests. The three tests were as follows:
• L01 - Conducted on a conventional technology woodstove using a burn cycle representative of the
Portland, Oregon metropolitan area,
• L02 - Conducted on an integral catalytic woodstove using a burn cycle representative of the
Portland, Oregon metropolitan area,
» LQ3 - Conducted on an integral catalytic woodstove using a burn cycle representative of the
northeastern United States.
In addition to the woodstove emission sampling methods comparisons, intra-system comparisons were made
by operating individual sampling systems using different sampling protocols. Two Method 5H sampling
systems were operated at sampling rates that were (1) proportional to the stack flow rate and (2) at a constant
rate. Three AWES units were operated during each laboiatory test. Two AWES units were operated on an
intermittent sampling cycle and one unit was operated on a continuous sampling cycle. Two Method 5G
sampling trains sampled simultaneonsly from a single dilution tunnel.
Flue gas volumes were calculated (using the four different methods described in Appendix B) for each of the
laboratory comparability tests,
B. Technical Approach:
1, Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Testing Program Design:
The woodstove to be used in the laboratory comparability task was installed in a test booth located in OMNI's
Beaverton, Oregon laboratory, A target burn cycle and fuel loading schedule was developed based on an
evaluation of data from previous in-situ woodstove use studies.2,3 Each test was conducted over sever,
consecutive days in order to match the standard AWES in-situ sampling protocol.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 9
-------
2. Target Fueling Cycle Determinations:
Table 2 is a summary of the target burn cycles that were developed for each sampling method's comparability
test. The table also compares the targeted mean burn rates against the actual mean burn rates achieved for
each test.
a. Fueling Cycle — Test LQ1:
The fueling cycle for the first laboratory comparability test (UQl) was determined from in-situ conventional
technology woodstove performance data collected during the 1985-1986 heating season in Portland, Oregon.2
The LOl fueling cycle was developed as a representative composite cycle for conventional technology
woodstoves as operated in the greater Portland metropolitan area. Factors considered in the burn cycle
determination included fuel species, fuel moisture content, loading frequency, fuel load density, and burn
rates.
The conventional technology woodstove used in laboratory comparability test LOl was fueled ia the morning at
06QQ hours, operated at a moderate burn, rate (average of 1.51 kg/hr) and allowed to bum out, restarted ;u the
evening at 1700 hours and operated at a relatively high burn rate (average of 1.81 kg/hr), refueled periodically
during the evening, and fueled at 2300 hours and operated at a moderate to low burn rate (average of 136
kg/hr) overnight On one day of the seven day test the woodstove was fueled periodically from 0600 hours
through 2300 hours and operated at a moderate bum rate (average of 1.51 kg/hr) to reflect weekend bum rate
patterns,
The wood species used for the LOl comparability test was Douglas Br split cord wood with an average fuel
moisture content of 23.0% (dry basis). An evaluation of the 1985-1985 in-situ Portland woodstove use data
indicated that Douglas fir was the predominant species of wood used with a mean fuel moisture content of
18.8% (dry basis) and a range between 8.5% and 38.0%.
b. Fueling Cycle — Test LQ2:
The fueling cycle for laboratory test L02 was determined using limited in-situ evaluation data collected both
during the 1S85-1986 and 1986-1987 heating seasons for integral catalytic woodstoves in Portland, Oregon.2
Factors considered in the development of the fueling cycle for test L02 were burn rate, fuel moisture content,
fuel species, fuel load density and loading frequency. A representative fuel loading pattern was developed for
test LOl that reflected both weekday and weekend in-situ fueling patterns observed in homes using catalytic
stoves.
OMNI environmental services, INC. - 10
-------
Table 2
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis — Fueling Cycle Information
Lab
Test3
Number
of Days
Cycle-
Used
Time
of
Fueling
Target
Fuel
Load
Weight
(kg)b
Target
Burn Rate
for Fuel
Load
(kg/hr)b
Target
Burn
Duration
(hr/day)
Fuel
Species
Average
Fuel
Moisture
Content
(dry basis)
Mean
Bum Rate
(dry kg/hi)
Targeted
Actualc
6
0600
1700
1900
2100
2300
4.54
4.54
3.63
22,7
336
1.51
1.81
1.81
1.36
1.36
12
LOl
1
0600
0900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2300
4.54
4.54
4.54
454
4.54
4.54
9.07
1.36
1,51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.51
24
Douglas fir
26.2
1
1.07
0.96
5
1800
1900
2300
4.54
4.54
6.80
1,00
1.00
1.00
16
L02
2
0900
1100
1700
1800
2300
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
6.80
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
24
Douglas fir
19.9
0.81
0.73
LOS
7
0600
1700
2300
13.61
13.61
9.07
1.25
2.04
1.45
24
50% red oak
50% sugar'
maple
27.4
1.20
1.22
a - L01 - Conventional Technology woodstove, "Portland area" bum cycle
L02 - Integral Catalytic woodstove, "Portland area" burn cycle
L03 - Integral Catalytic woodstove, "Northeast" burn cycle
b - Target fuel load weight and burn rate based on estimated fuel moisture of 22% (dry basis) for lasts LOl
and L02; 25% (dry basis) for test L03,
c- Based oa Data LGG'r records. "
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - 11
-------
The integral catalytic woodstove used in laboratory comparability test LQ2 was started at 1800 hours and
operated for five days at a moderate to low burn rate (average of 1.00 kg/hr). The woodstove would burn out
at approximately 1000 hours the following day. On two days of the seven day test the woodstove was refueled
periodically from 0900 hours to 2300 hours and operated at a moderate to low bum rate (average of 104 kg/hr)
for the entire day.
The fuel used for comparability test L02 was Douglas fir split cord wood with an average fuel moisture content
of 19.9% (dry basis). The fuel was purchased in Portland, Oregon.
c. Fueling Cycle — Test 1.03:
The fueling cycle for comparability test LG3 was determined from in-situ evaluation data collected during the
1985-1986 heating season in New York and Vermont3 Factors considered in the development of the fueling
cycle determination included type of integral catalytic woodstove model used, fuel species, fuel moisture
content, fuel load density, loading frequency, and burn rates, A repressntative fuel loading pattern was
developed for test L03 that reflected a fueling cycle observed in many of the northeast homes using the stove
model used for this test.
The integral catalytic woodstove used in comparability test L03 was kept operational (flue gas temperature
greater than 38°C (10C°F)) for all but the first six hours of the seven day test. The woodstove was refueled at
0600 hours, 1700 hours, and 2300 hours, and operated at moderate to relatively high burn rates (range of 1.25
kg/hr to 2,04 kg/hr).
The fuel type used in test L03 was a mixture of 50% sugar maple and 50% red oak cord wood with an average
species-weighted fuel moisture content of 27.4% (dry basis). A wide variety of wood species are available for
fuel in the northeastern United Slates. However, sugar maple and red oak appeared to be the predominant
species used by integral catalytic woodstove operators3, and therefore a 50/50 mix of these species appeared to
be most representative of the fuel used in Vermont and Upstate New York. The fuel for test LOS was
purchased in Hudson Falls, New York.
3. Woodstove Descriptions:
The conventional technology woodstove model used in woodstove emission sampling methods comparability
test L01 was uncertified and has been widely sold throughout North America. The integral catalytic woodstove
used in comparability tests L02 and L03 was certified by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental
Quality to meet the 1988 particulate emission standards and was expected to meet the 1993 U.S. E.P.A. New
Source Performance Standards.1 The following discussion summarizes the design characteristics of each
woodstove.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 12
-------
a. Conventional Technology Woodstove Used in Test LOl:
The conventional technology woodstove used for the laboratory comparability task was the same model that
was used for the in-situ. woodstove technology evaluation in home P03 (referred to as conventional technology
woodstove CT#2).
This woodstove is a step-top design, style with a welded steel firebox. The usable firebox "olume is 136 liters
(4.79 cubic feet). Primary combustion air is regulated by two spin-draft mechanisms located on the stove fuel
loading door. The primary combustion air passes through the combustion zone and exits through the 15,2 cm
(6 inch) flue collar located at the top center of the rear stove wall.
b. Integral Catalytic Woodstove Used in Tests L02 and"LQ3:
The integral ratalytic woodstove used for the comparability tests was the same model that was used for the in-
situ woodstove technology evaluation in home P02 (referred to as integral catalytic woodstove IC#l).
This woodstove has a welded steel firebox with a usable firebox volume of 127.4 liters (430 cubic feet).
Primary air enters the firebox through a manifold located on the lower rear firebox wall. The primary air
supply is thermostatically controlled. The secondary air is introduced through manifold located at the top
center of the firebox, directly below the catalyst. Tertiary air enters the flue gas stream from a manifold
located just above the catalyst. The top-exit flue collar is 203 cm (8 inches) in diameter.
11
4. Test Booth Description:
The woodstove models were installed on a platform scale (National Controls, Inc. Model 5785) in the test
booth. Single wall flue pips 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter for the conventional technology woodstove (LOlj and
20.3 cm (8 inch) diameter for the integral catalytic woodstove (LQ2 and LOS) was installed from the stove flue
collar to the chimney exit. The Que pipe joints, seams, and instrumentation ports were sealed with high
temperature cement.
The AWES sampling probes and type "K" ground-isolated stainless steel sheathed thermocouples were
installed 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above each woodstove's flue collar. An AWES sampling probe was installed in the
Firebox of the integral catalytic woodstove just below the catalyst and upstream of the secondary air manifold.
Type "K" ground-isolated stainless steel sheathed thermocouples were also installed in the catalyst and in the
firebox of the integral catalytic woodstove. Sampling probes for the Method 5H equipment and the flue gas
analyzer were installed through ports located 2.6 meters (8V; feet) above the floor of the test booth. The total
chimney length for each test was 3.0 meters (10 feet). The flue gas exiting the stove pipe was collected at the
dilution tunnel (Method 5G) hood.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - 13
-------
5. Sampling Program Description:
a. Equipment:
Appendix A contains a description of the three particulate emission and indoor air quality sampling systems
used in each of the woodstove emission sampling methods comparability tests. The A WES/Data LOG'r
system used for the comparability tests did not include the solid state temperature sensors that are used for
measuring indoor temperature, outdoor temperature, and auxiliary beating system status for in-situ
applications.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the sampling equipment used for the laboratory comparability tests L02 and
L03. The Figure 1 schematic shows an integral catalytic woodstove, which included an AWES probe located
before the catalyst (in firebox) and Data LOG'r thermocouples that monitored firebox and in-catalyst
temperatures. Laboratory comparability test L01 did not include the AWES probes in the firebox and the in-
catalyst and before-catalyst Data LOG'r thermocouples. The LG1 test included two AWES units which
sampled intermittently (1 minute on, 29 minutes off) at the flue collar position.
b. Schedule:
Each woodstove emission sampling methods comparability test was conducted for seven consecutive days.
This schedule was designed to simulate the sampling regime used by the AWES/Data LOG'r sampling system
for in-situ applications.
The three one-week laboratory comparability tests were conducted on the following dates:
Dates Performed
3/11/87 - 3/17/87
3/25/87 - 3/31/87
4/07/87-4/13/87
Test
L01
L02
LOS
c. Sampling Procedures:
i, Woodstove:
The woocistovcs used in the emission sampling methods comparability tests were inspected prior to each test.
All gaskets were inspected to assure airtight seals. The emission control system (catalyst, air draft system, and
bypass damper) of the integral catalytic woodstove used in tests LI32 and LIB was inspected prior to each test.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. -14
-------
1/
H6
H5
L2
,H3
H4
H2
11.5
A4
A7
A6
A8
G3
A10
A11
Figure .
Wood stove Emission Sampling Me
-------
19.5'
D14
H4-
F2
H2
D5
D19
D16
20 r
D18
'D17
D8 D9\
! D10
D12 f==-l D13
D11
D|17
G4 —
D7
D10
D13
D11
D21
D3
D4
¦ Exhaust Port
Key to Symbols on next page
j re 1
Methods Comparability Analysis omni environmental services inc.-is
I ' I
-------
Sampling System Component Identification Key—Figure 1
General
G1 Platform Scale
G2 Digital Scale Meter
G3 Woodstove
G4 Instrumentation Platform
low Volume Samplar System
LI Filter Assembly
L2 Dry Gas Meter
L3 Pump
AWES/Data LOOT System
A1 Flue collar sampling probes and thermocouples (mounted on the same horizontal plane)
A2 AWES exhaust
A3 AWES firebox sampling probe
A4 Firebox temperature thermocouple
A5 la-catalyst temperature thermocouple
AS Intermittent AWES sampler — firebox
A7 Intermittent AWES sampler — doe collar
AS Continuous AWES sampler — flue collar
A9 Data LOG'r
A10 Woodbasket/scale unit
All Scale keypad
A12 AWES control cable
Method 5G/Dilulion Tunnel System
D1 Collection hood
D2 Mixing baffles ' i
D3 Damper
D4 Blower
D5 Tunnel C02 analyzer probe
D6 Lira 320Q C02 analyzer
D7 Dilution tunnel sampling probes (mounted on the same horizontal plane)
D8 Front fibers
D9 Rear Filters
D10 Silica gel dryers
Dll Pumps
D12 Dry gas meters
D13 Sample rate control boxes
D14 Stack temperature thermocouple
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. -
-------
D15 Dilution tunnel temperature thermocouple
D16 Filter temperature thermocouple
D17 Dry gas meter inlet temperature thermocouple
D18 Dry gas meter outlet temperature thermocouple
D19 Digital temperature meter
D2Q Pitot tube
D2X Inclined fluid manometer
Flue Gas Analyzer System
F1
Inlet probe
F2
Clean-up train
F3
Pump
F4
Infrared 2200 02 analyzer
F5
Infrared 702D CO and C02 analyzer
Method 5H System
HI
Inlet probes
H2
Saicplkg trains
H3
Filter chamber temperature thermocouples
H4
Sample train exit temperature thermocouples
H5
Sample rate control box — constant rate
H6
Sample rate control box — proportional rate
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. -
-------
ii. AWES:
At the start of each test the AWES units were installed; leak checks were performed; thermocouples, the Data
LOG'r woodbasket/scale unit, and the AWES oxygen cells were calibrated; and the Data LOG'r was
programmed with the proper AWES sampling interval and start/stop times. The intermittent AWES units
were programmed to sample on a 1 minute On, 29 minutes off cycle for seven consecutive days. The AWES
unit on a continuous sampling cycle was programmed to record oxygen readings once every two minutes.
A total of three AWES emission samples were obtained for each comparability test. Two AWES units were
sampling intermittently (1 minute on, 29 minutes off) and one AWES unit was sampling on a continuous basis.
The constant sampling rate for all AWES units was a nominal 1.0 liter per minute. During test L01 both
intermittent sampling frequency AWES probes were located 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above the flue collar. For tests
1X12 and L03 one intermittent sampling AWES unit probe was located in the firebox 2.5 cm (1 inch) upstream
of the catalyst and the secondary air manifold of the integral catalytic woodstove and one intermittent
sampling AWES unit probe was located 30.5 cm (12,0 in.) above the woodstove's flue collar.
The intermittent sampling AWES units were controlled by the Data LOG'r and did not require attention
during the comparability tests. The continuous AWES unit was operated manually (with the exception of Lbe
recording of the 02 readings, which was done by the Data LOG'r). The continuous sampling AWES units
were changed approximately every 8 hours during each test to avoid filter plugging and sample "breakthrough"
of the XAD-2 sorbeot resin trap.
At the end of each comparability test end-of-sampling period calibrations and leak checks were performed
and all instrumentation was removed for sample processing.
iii. Method 5G:
The Method 5G sampling equipment was operated according to EPA protocol.1 One dilution tunnel was
operated with duplicate ASTM-type sampling trains. Sample flow rate was proportional to the flow rate as
measured in the dilution, tunnel. In addition to the dilution tunnel and sampling trains, other instrumentation
used with the Method 5G system included stack gas analyzers (Infrared Model 2200 for 02, Infrared Model
702D for CO and COj), a dilution tunnel CO- analyzer (Lira Model 3200), and a pitct tube and inclined fluid
manometer (Dwyer Instruments Inc. #1430).
The dilution tunnel was cleaned prior to each test, and the pipe seams were sealed. Leak checks were
performed at the start and end of each sampling run. Sample trains were changed on an as-needed basis
(indicated by a pressure drop across the sample train Filters of greater than 10 inches Hg), The. silica gel traps
were changed when the sample trains were changed.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 18
-------
At the conclusion of each sampling methods comparability test the dilution tunnel pips was swept and the
mass of deposited condensible material collected from the wails of the dilution tunnel was gravimetricaHy
determined with a triple-beam balance (Ohaus 700 Series) to the nearest 0,1 gram,
iv. Method 5H:
Two Method 5H sampling trains were operated. One sampling train sampled at a rate which was proportional
to the stack flow rate according to EPA sampling protocol.1 The second sampling train sampled continuously
at a constant rate by maintaining a constant pressure drop of 0.6 inches H20 across the meter orifice. This
pressure drop corresponded to an average sample flow rate of approximately 5.4 liters per minute (0.19 dry
standard cubic feet per minute).
The Method 5H sampling trains were installed through, instrumentation ports located 2.6 meters (S1^ feet)
above the floor of the test booth. The instrumentation ports were sealed with duct tape after the sampling
trains were installed. Leak checks were performed at the start and end of each sampling run. Sample trains
were changed on an as-needed basis (indicated by a pressure drop across the sample train filters of greater
than 15 inches Hg).
«' Low Volume Ambient Air Sampler;
The low volume ambient air sampler was used to determine the particulate concentration of the indoor
ambient air in the vicinity of the test booth during each comparability test. The concentration was used in
correcting the unadjusted Method SG results for the influence of dilution air particulate concentration..
Ambient air within the laboratory was used for dilution air.
The low volume ambient air sampler was operated continuously during each laboratory test. The filter
assembly was mounted on the railing of the instrumentation platform, 0.9 meters (3 feet) from the dilution
tunnel hood, and at an elevation equal with the hood intake.
C. Results:
Table 1 an page 3 summarizes the particulate emission rate data in grams per hour for each of the three
woodstove emission sampling methods comparability tests. Figures 2, 3, and 4 present the gram per hour
particulate emission rate data with calculated (AWES) and assumed (5G and 5H) emission rate accuracies for
each comparability test.
Appendix C summarizes the AWES calculation methods, including the methods used for calculating
propagated uncertainties. It was beyond the scope of work for this project to calculate a propagation of
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 19
-------
uncertainties for Methods 5G and 5H; however, an assumed accuracy of ±20% was assigned to the 5G and 5H
calculated particulate emission rates in Figures 2,3, and 4, This assumed accuracy is an estimate based on a
literature review, informal discussions with EPA staff, and OMNI's operating experience with woodstove
emission sampling methods.'5 Additional information regarding the accuracy of Methods 5H and 5G and
comparisons with the AWES is found at the end of Appendix D.
Appendix D contains a summary of data from each of the woodstove emission sampling methods
comparability tests. The data includes results form the Method SG, Method 5H, AWES, and low volume
ambient air sampling systems,
A cross tabulation of the particulate emission rate data in ratio format from the three woodstove emission
sampling methods tests is presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5. A cross tabulation of the means of the ratios
presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5 is presented in Table 6.
Table 7 presents a comparison of absolute differences between calculated emission rates (in grams per hour)
as determined by the intermittent sampling rate AWES units versus Method 5G (corrected using 5H
adjustment factor) and Method 5H (proportional rate sampling).
Table 8 summarizes the flue gas volumes calculated using the four calculation methods outlined in Appendix B
for each of the three woodstove sampling methods comparability tests.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 20
-------
Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test L01
Conventional Techno logy Uoodstove ~~ "Portland Area" Burn C«jcle
50 .0-
J+ accuracy
Ratt
J. - accuracy
Part icy I ate
In isf i'?n _
Rate
(«Mhr i
SC .0-
SO .Cl-
io.0-
13
Ipadjusnel
55
3 ft Q D C P"
Adjusted
I
FH
Ad ,iyst*>:
SH
Freport
Rat
t ions f]
te J
II
HUES
[Jont inuou|
BHES
IrittrH merit)
5H
Constant
Rate
NOTE: IS arid 5H particulate emission fates have an assuned : 20/, accuracy.
I
Figure 2
-------
* .0-
5.0-
F»r?icu iar-i
Eh iss ion
RStS
tg/hr)
0
2
2
m
1
S3
o
w
£
Co
?0
fi
y
2
n
3,0-
K .U"
1,0-
Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test L02
Integral Catalytic Woodstove — "Portland Area" Burn Cycle
}
+ ;ccuracy
R;te
- SCCUfSCV
EG
SH
T
F'3 Sfi
|ma,juj«e| (irq/dcpI
(ftd .iui teclj ..
HHF5
k inuousl
SH
EH
Propertional
(Constant
Rate
i_ Rats
HUES
[iri^-ern it?4fi*]
NDTI; Helh'jd Sfi and SH particulate enissicn rites haue an assu««d ; 20k sccj racy.
Figure 3
-------
f .c>-
5,0-
Part leu late
EH 155 ion
Rate
> ; accuracy.,
Figure 4
-------
Table 3
Particulate Emission Rate Ratios (g/ir)
Woods tove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test LQ1
5G(U) 5G(IAQ/DCP) 5G(5H) 5H(P) 5H(C) AWES(l) AWES(C>
5G(U)
5G
(IAQ/DCP)
5G(5H)
5H(P)
5H(C)
AWES(I)
AWES(C)
—
0.99
0.94
0.99
1.22
0.86
0.67
1.01
0.95
1.00
1.23
0.88
0.68
1.06
1.06
1D5
1.30
0.92
0.71
1.05
1.04
0.?8
1,28
0.91
0.70
0.82
0.81
0.76
0.81
0.71
0.55
1.15
1.14
1.08
1.14
1,41
0.77
1.49
1.48
1.40
1.48
1,82
1.29
Explanation of Symbols
Row
Column
Ratio
Ratio = Row/Column
5G(U)
5G(1AQ/DCP)
5G(5H)
5H(P)
5H(C)
AWES(I)
AWES(C)
Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — unadjusted.
Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — adjusted for indoor
ambient air (LAG) particulate and deposited condensible particulate (DCP) on dilution runnel
walls.
Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — adjusted with 5H factor.1
Emission rate from 5H sample system operated proportionately to stack flow.
Emission rate from 5H sample system operated at a constant rate.
Average emission rate from duplicate AWES units sampling intermittently (fine collar
location).
Emission rate From AWES unit sampling continuously.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 24
-------
Table 4
Particulate Emission Rate Ratios (g/ir)
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test LD2
5G(U) 5G(LAQ/DCP) 5G(5H) 5H(P) 5H(C) AWES(I) AWES(C)
5G(U)
SG
(IAQ/DCP)
5G{5H)
5H(P)
5H(C)
AWES (I)
AWES(C)
—
1.00
0.67
1.12; '
1.12
0.90
0.73
1.00
0,67
1.12
1.12
0.89
0,73
1.50
1.49
1.68
1.68
1.34
1.34
0.89
0.89
0.60
1.00
0.80
0.65
0.89
0.89
0.60
1.00
0,80
0,65
1.12
1.11
0.74
1.25
1,25
0.81
1.37
1.3?
Q.74
1.54
1.54
1.23
Explanation of Symbols
Row
Column
Ratio
Ratio = Row/Column
5G(U) AveragB emission rats from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — unadjusted.
5G(IAQ/DCP) Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — adjusted for indoor
ambient air (IAQ) particulate and deposited condensible particulate (DCP) on dilution tunnel
walls.
Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — adjusted with 5H factor.1
Emission rate from 5H sample system operated proportionately to stack flow.
Emission rate from 5H sample system operated at a constant rate!
Emission rate from AWES unit sampling intermittently (flue collar location).
5G(5H)
5H(P)
5H(C)
AWES (I)
AWES(C) Emission rate from. AWES unit sampling continuously.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 25
-------
Tables
Particulate Emission Rate Ratios (gflir)
Woodstowj Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test L03
5G(U) 5G(IAQ/DCP) 5G(5H) 5H(P) 5H(C) AWES(I) AWES(C)
5G(U)
5G
(IAQ/DCP)
5G{5H)
5H(P)
5H(C)
AWES(I)
AWES(C)
—
0.99
0.59
0.71
0.68
0.37
0.54
1.01
0.60
0.72
0.69
0.37
0.54
1.70
1.68
1.21
1.16
0.73
0.91
1.40
1.38
0.82
0.95
0.51
0.75
1.47
1.45
0.86
1.05
0.54
0.79
2.73
2.70
1.37
1.95
1.86
1,46
1.87
1.84
1.10
/ 1.33
1.27
0.68
Explanation of Symbols
Row
Column
Ratio
Ratio = Row/Coiumn
5G{U) Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains — unadjusted.
5G(IAQ/DCP) Average emission rate from duplicate Method SG sample trains — adjusted For indoor
ambient air (1AQ) particulate and deposited condensible particulate (DCP) on dilution tunnel
walls,
5G(5H) Average emission rate from duplicate Method 5G sample trains— adjusted with 5H factor.1
5H(P) Emission rate from 5H sample system operated proportionately to stack flow.
5H(C) Emission rate from 5H sample system operated at a constant rate.
AWES(I) Emission rate from AWES unit sampling intermittently (flue collar location).
AWES(C) Emission rate from AWES unit sampling continuously.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 26
-------
Table 6
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Means of Emission Rate (g/br) Ratios
Comparability Tests Lfll, L02, and "LOS"
Sampling System13
5G(U) I
G(IAQ/DCP
I 5G(5H)
5H(P)
5H(C)
AWES(C)
AWES (I)
x c
1.67
1.65
1.06
1.45
1.51
1.01
-------
Table 7
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Particulate Emission R ate Comparison (gftir)
Test®
AWES Particulate
Emission Rate (g/tr)''
Emission
Sampling Method
Mean Emission
Rate (g/hr)
Absolute Difference from
AWES Mean (g/hr)
L01
27.1 c
5G (5H Adjusted)*1
25.0
+2.1
5HC
24.6
+2.5
L02
3.5
5G (5H Adjusted)41
4.7
-1,2
5HC
2.8
+0,7
L03
4.1
5G(5H Adjusted)*
2.6
+1.5
2.1
+2.0
a - L01 - conventional technology woodstove using "Portland area" burn cycle.
L02- integral catalytic woodstove using "Portland area" burn cycle.
L03 - integral catalytic woodstove using "Northeast" burn cycle.
b - AWES particulate emission rate (grams per hour) from flue collar sampling location — intermittent
sampling rate.
c - Mean of duplicate AWES units located at flue coliar — intermittent sampling rate,
d - Mean particulate emission rate from duplicate 5G sampling trains — adjusted with 5H factor.1
e - Particulate emission rate from proportional rate 5H sampling system.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 23
-------
Table 8
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis
Flue Gas Volume Calculations
Calculation Method*
Five Gas Volumes (cuhic meters)
L01b
L02c
L03d
AWES O? Cell - Intermittent #1
1,763
1,317
2,025
AWES 02 Cell - Intermittent #2
1,790
NVA
N/A
AWES O2 Cell - Continuous
1,818
1,601
2,006
Stack 02 Gas Analyzer
1,846
1,601
1,848
COj Ratio
1,744
1,712
1,566
Stack CQj and CO Gas Analyzer
1,848
2,146
2,143
Laboratory
Compara-
bility Test
Mean
Volume
(m3)e
Standard
Deviation
On-l)
AWES - Intermittent #1
AWES - Intermittent #2
AWES - Continuous
Vol, (m^)
% of Mean
Vol, (in3)
% of Mean
Vol. (m3)
% of Mear
L01
1,813
59
1,763
97.2%
1,790
98,7%
1,818
100.3%
L02
1,820
288
1,317
72.4%
N/A
N/A
1,601
88.0%
L03
1,852
286
2,025
109.3%
N/A
N/A
2,006
108.2%
a - Refer to Appendix B for flue gas volume calculation procedures
b - L01 - Conventional Technology woodstove using a "Portland area" bum. cycle
c - L02 - Integral Catalytic woodstove using a "Portland area" burn cycle
d - L03 - Integral Catalytic woodstove using a "Northeast" burn cycle
e - Mean of 2on-AWES flue gas volumes ("Stack 02 Gas Analyzer," "C02 Ratio," "Stack C02 and CO Gas
Analyzer")
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - 29
-------
D. Discussion of Results:
1. Test LQ1 - Conventional Technology Woodstove, "Portland Area" Burn Rate:
Three different calculated particulate emission rates for Method 5G are presented for test LQ1 (and tests
L02 and L03)'in Table 1, The 5G emission rates indndr,:
• "Unadjusted" rate - This calculated value represents the 'raw" computer calculated emission rate
(refer to Appendix D). This rate is based on the same sampling periods used in the Method 5H
proportional sampling rate calculations.
• Unadjusted particulate emission rates are adjusted for (1) dilution air indoor ambient air quality
(IAQ) particulate concentrations as measured by the low volume ambient air sampler and (2)
deposited condensible particulate (DCF) which was collected from the walls of the dilution tunnel
(referred to as 'TAQ/DCF Adjusted"), The IAQ concentration correction factor decreases the
gross particulate catch from the dilution tunnel. The DCP correction factor increases the gross
particulate catch from -hi. dilution tunnel.
¦ Unadjusted particulate emission rate adjusted using EPA adjustment factor for comparison with
Method 5H (referred to as '5H Adjusted").1
The 5H (constant sampling rate) emission rate values presented in Table i were calculated based on the same
sampling periods that were used in tie Method 5H (proportional sampling rate) emission rate calculations.
The range of emission rate values for test L01 was 23.38 g/br (SG-unadjusted (DT#2)) to 35.0 ± 11.7 j^hr
(AWES-continuous sampling rate). While the difference of these values is 11.62 gflhr, all emission values
except 5H (constant rate) are considered statistically similar when considering the assumed accuracies for
Methods 5G and SH and the calculated accuracies for the AWES units. The relatively low constant rate
Method SH emission rate value of 19.2 g/hr may be partially due to an equipment malfunction that resulted in
approximately six hours of down time during a high burn rate period. However, differences in the
proportional and constant rate sampling methodologies for Method SH coupled with statistical uncertainties
associated with this method could also be a contributing factor to the relatively low calculated gram per hour
emission rate.
While the continuous sampling AWES unit value of 35,0 gfhi appears to be relatively high as compared to
other sampling methods, it is considered statistically similar to all other sampling methods (except 5H~
constant sampling rate) as noted in the preceding paragraph.
Sampling method precision is demonstrated by a comparison of Method 5G sampling train values (DT#1 and
DT#2) and the dual AWES intermittent sampling rate units located at the flue collar of the stove. While the
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 30
-------
mean calculated precision for the AWES units was ±6.0 g/hr (refer to Appendix D), Table 1 shows an absolute
difference of 1.5 g/hr. The data in this table also demonstrates that the effect of indoor ambient air particulate
content and deposited condensible particulate on the dilution tunnel walls has a minimal, i.e. < 0.3 g/hr, effect
on calculated emission rales.
Based on a review of the ratio of the emission rale of the intermittent sampling rate AWES units versus other
sampling methods (Tables 3 and 7) it appears the AWES results have a high relative bias. This observation is
not unexpected given the trapping efficiency of the XAD-2 for semi-volatile organic compounds.6
The U.S. EPA has simultaneously tested an Oregon Method 7 (equivalent to EPA Method 5H) sampling train
with an XAD-2 trap {this system is referred to as Modified Method 5 or MM5) with a conventional Oregon
Method 7 (OM7) sampling train. One finding of the EPA test program is that the total particulate emissions
measured by the OM7 procedure are about one-half the results from the MM5 procedure. This relationship,
was reasonably constant over the range of particulate emissions encountered in the study,1 This observation
would tend to support the AWES bias results as presented in Table 6.
A comparison of the standard protocol sampling Methods (i.e. 5G with 5H adjustment factor; 5H-
proportional rate sampling; and AWE.S-incsrmittcnt sampling rate) emission rates shows absolute differences
in the range of 2.1 to 2.5 g/hr for test L01 (refer to Table 7). This data indicates that the significant differences
observed for in-situ AWES woodstove emission races as compared to laboratory certification values are noi an
artifact of the sampling system, but rather are a result of other factors, e.g. differences in bum rates, operator
practices, failure(s) of emission control systems, differences in fuel species, and woodstove installations
observed in Field studies.2,3-''
2. Test L02 - Integral Catalytic Woodstove, "Portland Area" Burn Rate:
As expected, a relative low range of emission rates was observed for the catalytic woodstove (2.91 g/hr
(Method 5G unadjusted) to 4.98 g/hr (Method 5G with 5H adjustment factor)). As shown in Figure 3 (with
the exception of the 5G with 5H adjustment factor), all calculated emission rates ranges overlap each other.
However, the 5G (5H Adjusted) rates do overlap the AWES intermittent and continuous sampling emission
rate values. Overlapping emission rate values can be considered statistically similar.
With, the exception of the Method 5G (5H Adjusted) emission rate values, the AWES emission rate values also
demonstrate a high bias (ratio 1.11 to 1.54) relative to other calculated 5H and 5G emission rates (Table 4,
Table 7). The observed negative. AWES bias relative to the calculated 5G (5H Adjusted) may be a statistical
artifact given the calculated or assumed uncertainties associated with each sampling method. While the
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. -31
-------
AWES calculated emission rate values tend to show a high bias, this observed bias would not explain the
observed magnitude-of-order emission rate differences in AWES-measured emission rates from field studies.
3. Test L03 - Integral Catalytic Woodstove, ''Northeast" Burn Rate:
The lowest range of calculated emission rates was observed in test LQ3 - 1.48 g/hr (5G-Unadjusted) to 4,1 g/hr
(AWES-Intermittent sampling rate). It is postulated that the lower observed emission rates in test LOS were
expected for the following reasons:
• Because there were fewer fueling events and woodstove start-ups in test L03, the catalyst bypass
damper was open less frequently than in test L02 (refer to Table 2), Due to the less frequent stove
start-up and re-fueling periods during test L03 all sampling systems drew relatively less sample
from the periods when the stove bypass damper was open.
• The hardwood fuel species used in test L03 were red oak and sugar maple, which would be
expected to produce less particulate when burned efficiently than the softwood Douglas fir species
used in test 1.02. Similar differences in emission rates due to differences in wood species have also
been observed in recent studies conducted for the California Air Resources Board.7
• The catalyst was at lightoff conditions (indicated by in-catalyst temperatures greater than 2
-------
4. Flue Gas Volume Calculations Comparison:
As averaged over tests L01 - L03, the mean flue gas volume calculated using the A WES/Data LOG'r sampling
system is within 6% of the mean flue gas volume of the three non-AWES calculation methods. The largest
observed difference occurred in comparability lest L02, during which calculated flue gas volumes ranging from
1,317 (Intermittent AWES) to 2,146 (Stack CO- and CO Gas Analyzer) cubic meters were calculated. This
difference appears to be a resultant of the accuracy uf the oxygen cell in the AWES units. The flue gas volume
calculation method that theoretically is least subject to error would be the "C02 Ratio" method. A
comparison of results from Table 8 shows the AWES calculated flue gas volumes are within 1.08% (test L01),
23.1% (L02), and 22.7% (L03) of the gas volumes based on the "CO ratio" calculation method.
E. Conclusions - Laboratory Woodstove Emission Sampling Systems Comparability Analysis:
1. The sampling systems comparability tests indicate that the particulate emission rates as measured
by the AWES/Data LOG'r system (intermittent rate) are statistically similar to calculated emission
rates determined by Methods 5G and 5H, when the assumed and/or calculated uncertainties are
taken into account for each sampling system.
2. The AWES-measured emission rates arc generally higher (6% to 67% relative) than for other
reference methods. This result is not unexpected due to the increased trapping efficiency of the
XAD-2 resin for semi-volatile otganics.
3. The absolute maximum observed differences for emission rates (g/hr) between the AWES units
(intermittent sampling cycle) and Methods 5G and 5H was 2.5 g/hr (test L02), This observation
would indicate that the magnitudc.-of-order differences in emission rates observed in field
studies2,3,4 is not an artifact of the AWES system but rather due to other factors, e.g. differences in
burn rates, stove technologies, failure of emission control system components, operator practices,
and woodstove installation.
4. As averaged over all three laboratory comparability tests the flue gas volume calculated using the
AWES/Data LOG'r intermittent sampling system is within 6% of the mean flue gas volume based
on other calculation methods.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 33
-------
IV. IN-SITU EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY WOODSTOVES
A. Objectives:
The primary objective of this subtask was to evaluate residential in-situ particulate emission performance of
integral catalytic, low emission non-catalytic, and conventional technology woodstoves. A second objective
was to compare the AWES/Data LOG'r emission sampling system with the EPA Method 5G1 emission
sampling method under residential in-situ conditions. Appendix A contains a description of the AWES/Data
LOG'r and Method 5G emission sampling methods.
The in-situ evaluation of the new technology woodstoves was performed in six homes located in the greater
Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Two models of each of the three types of woods tove technologies ware
evaluated. In each of the six homes, data was collected on particulate emission rates, fuel loading patterns,
burn rates, and creosote accumulation.
The objective of the AWES/Data LOG'r and Method 5G in-situ sampling system comparison was to evaluate
the accuracy of the AWES system in quantifying particulate emission rates. Flue gas volumes were
determined by: (1) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as determined by the
02 content in the flue gas as measured by the AWES 02 cell ("AWES O, Cell" Method); (2) calculating a
combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as determined by 02 content in the flue gas as
measured by a commercial 02 gas analyzer ("Stack 02 Gas Analyzer" method); (3) measuring total dilution
tunnel flow (Method 5G) and adjusting it by the measured ratio of CO, in the tunnel and in the stack ("CO
Ratio Method"); and (4) calculating a combustion gas volume which is adjusted for excess air as determined
by the C02 and CO content in the flue gas as measured by commercial CC7 and CO analyzers ("Stack C02
and CO Gas Analyzer" Method).
B. Technical Approach;
1. General Study Design:
After the six homes participating in the study were selected, new woodstoves were installed by a licensed
installer according to local building and safety codes. The chimneys in each home were swept prior to the
start of the first emission sampling period. An AWES/Data LOG'r system was installed in each home. Five
one-week sampling periods were completed in each home. The chimney or each home was swept and creosote
samples were obtained midway and at the conclusion of the study for gravimetric analysis
During the second sampling period a Method 5G sampling system was set up in home PU2, which used an
integral catalytic woodstove (identified in this study as IC#2). During sampling period 2 the Method 5G
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 34
-------
system was operated continuously for seven days in conjunction with three AWES units with sampling probes
located before the catalyst, 30.5 cm (12.0 in.) above the flue collar of the stove, and at the chimney exit.
2. Home Selection:
OMNI interviewed several homeowners in the Portland area and selected six homes that best fit the selection
criteria listed below, Appendix E summarizes the characteristics of the homes selected for participation in the
m-situ study. Requirements for participation in the study included:
» Wood was used as a primary source of heat in the home.
• Present woodstove installation met local building and safety codes or could be inexpensively
brought up to code.
• Woodstove installation would accommodate the new woodstove; i.e. sufficient wall clearances,
proper flue pipe size, proposed new woodstove matched to existing heating demand.
• Participant was able to provide reasonable access to the home for servicing sampling equipment,
chimney sweeping, and woodstove installation.
• Floor area in the vicinity of the woodstove installation would accommodate the sampling
equipment; including temperature sensors, power cords, thermocouples, woodbasket/scale unit,
AWES unit, and Dala LOG'r.
• Participant was willing to try the new woodstove and to cooperate with the study requirements,
specifically; equipment servicing calls, contracted chimney sweeping, use of the Data LOG'r
scale/keypad unit, and maintenance of a log book of uausual events,
• One lijcr.e would be able to allow rooftop installation of a Method 5G sampling system and provide
24 hour a day access to the home during the week that the Method 5G sampling system was
operational.
3. Woodstove Descriptions:
The low emission non-catalytic and integral catalytic woodstoves used in this study were certified by the State
of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality to meet the 1988 particulate emission standards and were
expected to meet the 1990 U.S. E.P.A. New Source Performance Standards.1 The two conventional
technology woodstove models evaluated in this study were uncertified and have been widely sold throughout
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, -35
-------
North America. The following discussion summarizes the characteristics' of each woodstove and the specifics
of the installation for each woodslove model.
a. Conventional Technology Woodslove #1 (CT#1) — Home P05:
The conventional technology woodstove in home P05 is a hearth mounted stop-top style stove with a firebox
constructed of welded steel plate. The study participants had used the woodstove for four years prior to the
1986-1987 heating season.
The usable firebox volume is 42.5 liters (1.S0 cubic feet). Primary combustion air is regulated by a single spin-
draft mechanism located on the stove door.
Primary combustion air enters the front of the firebox at the door via the spin-draft. The air passes through
the combustion zone and exits through the 15.2 cm (6 inch) flue collar located at the. top center of the rear
stove wall.
The flue pipe vented into a conventional unlined masonry fireplace chimney that has the fireplace opening
covered by a stcc! plate. Flue gas exiting the woodstove is conducted via a 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter by 15.2
cm (6 inch) long horizontal flue pipe through the steel cover plate into the fireplace area. The chimney
dimensions arc 30.5 cm by 30.5 era by 4.9 meters high (12 inches by 12 inches by 1G feet high).
b. Conventional Technology Woodstove #2 (CT#2) — Home PG3:
The conventional technology woodstove in home P03 is the same model as the conventional technology stove
used in the woodstove emission sampling methods comparability study (Test LQ1). This conventional
technology woodstove is also a step-top design style with a welded steel firebox. The usable firebox volume is
135,6 cubic meters (4.79 cubic feet). Primary combustion air is regulated by two spia-draft mechanisms
located on the stove door,
Primary combustion air enters the front of the firebox at the door via the two spin-drafts. The air passes
through the combustion zone and exits through the 15.2 cm (fi inch) fine collar located at the top center of the
rear stove wall.
The flue system consists of 152.4 cm (60 inches) of 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter flue pipe with two 90° elbows that
enters a tile-lined masonry chimney. The interior of the chimney is 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter tile which is
encased ia 40.6 cm by 40.6 cm (16 inch by 16 inch) cinder block. The chimney height is 5.5 meters (18 feet).
O.V1M ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, IMC. ^3C
-------
c. Low Emission Non-Catalytic Woodstove #1 (LE#1) — Home F04;
This low emission non-catalytic woodstove lias a usable firebox volume of 49,0 liters (1.73 cubic feet) and is
constructed of welded steel plate. Primary combustion air enters the firebox both through an airwash
manifold located above the fuel loading door and through a manifold located at the bass of the fuel loading
door. The primary air supply is thermostatically controlled.
A baffle assembly forms the top of the firebox and acts as a conduit for secondary air. Secondary air enters
the flue gas stream via holes in the front and on the bottom of the baffle assembly. The secondary air supply is
also thermostatically regulated.
Hue gas travels from the lower front of the firebox through the combustion zone and is routed toward the top
front of the stove, mixes with the secondary air, passes around the baffle assembly, and enters the chimney via
the 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter top-exit flue collar.
The single wall flue pipe system in this home had an inside diameter of 15.2 cm (6 inches) and did not contain
any elbows. The flue pipe length was 2.0 meters (6.6 feet). The upper chimney portion (above the ceiling
thimble) consisted of 2.0 meters (6.5 feet) of 15.2 cm by 20.3 cm (6 inch by 8 inch) packed pipe.
d. Low Emission Non-Catalytic Woodstove #2 (LE#2) — Home P01:
This low emission non-catalytic woodstove has a usable firebox volume of 41.6 liters (1.47 cubic feet) and is
constructed of welded steel plate. A baffle plate Forms the top of the firebox.
Primary combustion air enters the firebox via an airwash manifold located above the fuel loading door.
Secondary air enters the firebox through a manifold located at the top rear of the firebox. Tertiary air enters
the flue gas stream through a manifold located above the fuel loading door and level with the baffle plate. The
primary, secondary, and tertiary sir supplies are adjustable with a single slide plate which covers eliiptically-
shaped air inlets and is not thermostatically regulated.
Hue gas travels from the lower front of the stove, through the combustion zone, mixes with secondary air at the
rear of the firebox, travels toward the front of the firebox and around the baffle plate, mixes with the tertiary
air, and enters the chimney via the 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter top-exit flue collar
In home P01 the single wall flue pipe consisted of 1.4 meters (4V2 feel) of 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter single wall
flue pipe with one elbow exiting into a wall thimble. The Hue pipe entered a tile lined masonry chimcey that
measured 17.8 cm by 27.9 cm by 3.7 meters high (7 inches by 11 inches by 12 feel high).
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 37
-------
e. Integral Catalytic Woodstove #1 (IC#1) — Home P02:
The integral catalytic woodstove installed in home P02 was the same model as the integral catalytic woodstove
evaluated in the woodstove emission sampling methods comparability study (Tests L02 and LOS). The in-situ
Method 5G sampling system was also installed in this home for a one-week sampling period for comparison,
with the AWES/Data LOGY system.
The integral catalytic woodstove used in this home; has a welded steel firebox with a usable firebox volume of
127.4 liters (4.50 cubic feet). Primary air enters the firebox through a manifold located on the lower rear
Firebox wall. The primary air supply is thermostatically controlled. The secondary air is introduced through a
manifold located at the top center of the firebox, directly below the catalyst. Tertiary air enters the flue gas
stream from a manifold located just above the catalyst.
The flue pipe system in this home, consists of a straight run of 1.5 meters (5 feet) of 20.3 cm (8 inch) diameter
single wall flue pipe from the stove flue collar to the ceiling thimble. The chimney system' consists of 1,8
meters (6 feet) of 20.3 cm by 33-0 cm (8 inch by 13 inch) triple wall packed pipe,
f. Integral Catalytic Woodstove #2 (IC#2) — Home F06:
The integral catalytic woodstove installed in home P06 has a usable firebox volume of 63.4 liters (2.24 cubic
feet).
Primary air enters the firebox from a manifold located above the fuel loading door. The Hue gas is routed out
of a slot located at the center of the rear wall of the firebox and through the catalyst assembly. Secondary air
enters the flue gas just downstream of the catalyst assembly. In the bypass mode, flue gas exits the firebox
through a bypass door located at the top uf the Tear Erebox wail.
The flue pipe system in this home consists of 2.1 meters (7 feet) of 20,3 cm (8 inch) diameter single wall flue
pipe from the stove flue collar to a ceiling thimble. The chimney system consists of 4,6 meters (15 feei) of 20.3
Cm by 30.5 cm (8 inch by 12 inch) packed pipe.
4, Emission Sampling Program Description:
a. Equipment;
Particulate emissions from each woodstove in the six study homes was sampled with the OMNI AWES/Data
LOG'r system. During sampling period 2 in home P02, a Method 5G (dilution tunnel) sampling system was
constructed on-site.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC- - 38
-------
The Method 5G sampling equipment used for the field comparability portion af the study was similar to the
sampling equipment used in the laboratory woodstovc emission sampling methods comparability study. The
differences in the two Method 5G systems were:
• The in-situ system was constructed outdoors and used outdoor ambient dilation air; whereas the
laboratory system is operated indoors and uses indoor ambient dilution air.
« The length of dilution runnel pipe from the collection hood inlet to the dilution tunnel sampling
point was 8,2 meters (27 feet) for the in-situ system; and 5.9 meters (19.5 feet) for the laboratory
comparability system.
The in-situ Method 5G sampling system met the dimensional criteria as specified by the EPA.1 Figure 5 shows
a schematic of the equipment used in the in-situ comparability test.
b. Schedule:
The First one-week particulate emission sampling period commenced on January 15, 1987. Five one-week
sampling periods were completed. The in-home emission sampling ended on March 27, 1987, The five
sampling periods in the study were as follows:
The study homes were split into two groups during sampling period 5. Woodstove emissions were sampled in
homes POl, P02, and PQ5 during sampling period 5a and in homes P03, P04, and P06 during sampling period
Sampling Period
Sampling Period Dates
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
1/15/87 - 1/21/87
1/28/87 - 2/03/87
2/11/87 - 2/17/87
2/23/37 - 3/01/87
3/07/87 - 3/13/87
3/21/87 - 3/27/87
5b.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.-39
-------
Hoof of Horn#
A 4 A5
¦ > Extiauct Port
O
rn
y
5
n>
In—Situ Wood stove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Test
(Key on next page)
Figure 5
-------
Sampling System Component Identification Key—Figure 5
General
Gl Integral catalytic woodstove
G2 Study home
G3 Instrumentation platform
AWES/Data LOG'r System
A1 Flue collar sampling probes and thermocouples (mounted on the same plane)
A2 AWES exhaust
A3 AWES firebox sampling probe
A4 Firebox temperature thermocouple
A5 In-catalysl temperature thermocouple
A6 AWES sampler — firebox
A7 AWES sampler — flue collar
AS AWES sampler — chimney exit
A9 AWES chimney exit sampling probe
A10 Data LOG'r
All Woodbasket/scale unit
A12 Scale keypad
A13 AWES control cable
Method 5G/Dilution Tunnel System
D1 Collection hood
D2 Mixing baffles
D3 Damper
D4 Blower
D5 Tunnel C02 analyzer probe
D6 Lira 3200 C02 analyzer
D7 Dilution tunnel sampling probes (mounted on the same piano)
D8 Front filters
D9 Rear Filters
DID Silica gel dryers
Dll Pumps
D12 Dry gas meters
D13 Sample rate control boxes ¦'
D14 Stack temperature thermocouple
D15 Dilution tunnel temperature thermocouple
D16 filter temperature thermocouple
D17 Dry gas meter inlet temperature thermocouple
D18 Dry gas meter outlet temperature thermocouple
D19 Digital temperature meter
D20 Pitottube
D21 Inclined fluid manometer
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 41
-------
Flue Gas Analyzer System
F1 Inlet probe
F2 Clean-up train
F3 Pump
F4 Infrared 221YJ 02 analyzer
F5 Infrared 702D CO and C02 analyzer
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - 42
-------
c. Sampling Procedures:
Just prior to the start of sampling period 1, new woodstoves were installed in the study homes (with the
exception of home F05, where the existing woodstove was evaluated) and the chimneys were cleaned.
Woodpile moisture and dimension measurements were recorded at the beginning of the study. All wood
moisture measurements were performed using a Delmhorst moisture meter (Model #RC-1C), The
participants were given instructions by OMNI personnel on the operation of the new woodstoves and the
OMNI Data LOG'r keypad/scale unit, The level of instruction given to each participant regarding the new
woodstove operation was equivalent to that which a responsible retailer would give a new customer. The
participants were provided with a log book for recording significant or unusual events.
OMNI personnel serviced the sampling equipment at the start and end of each sampling period. At the start
of each sampling period, the AWES unit was installed (two AWES units for the integral catalytic woodstoves);
leak checks were performed; thermocouples, the woedbasket/scale unit, and the oxygen cell were calibrated:
the Data LOG'r wis programmed with the proper sampling interval and start/stop times; and *,vood moisture
measurements were performed on the fuel in the home's inside storage area. The Data LOG'rs were
programmed to activate the AWES units for one minute per half hour for seven consecutive days. At the end
of each sampling period, end-of-sampling period calibrations and leak checks were performed; the AWES
unit, sampling line, and sampling probe were removed, and wood moisture measurements were performed on
the fuel in the home's storage area.
Prior to the start of sampling period 2, OMNI personnel constructed a platform on the roof of home PQ2 and
installed the Method 5G sampling equipment. The Method 5G system was operated simultaneously with
AWES samplers which used probss located before (upstream of) the catalyst and secondary air manifold, 30.5
cm (12.0 in.) above the woodstove's flue collar, and at the chimney exit during this sampling period.
During the interval between sampling periods 3 and 4 the chimneys in the study homes were cleaned and
creosote samples were collected and weighed. Mid-season woodpile dimension and moisture measurements
were performed.
At the conclusion of the particulate emission sampling all instrumentation was removed from each study
home. Final woodpile dimension and moisture measurements wore recorded. The chimneys were swept and
the final creosote samples were collected and weighed.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 43
-------
d. Creosote Processing Procedures:
The chimney sweep collected two creosote samples from each study home. As the chimneys were cleaned the
sweep bagged the creosote and made an estimate of any sample losses. The net creosote sample was weighed
at the OMNI laboratory on a triple beam balance (Qhaus 700 Series) to the nearest 0.1 gram.
The creosote data was normalized using heating degree day data based oa the Fahrenheit scale. The heating
degree days for each day of the study were tabulated. The percentage of time that each woodstove in each
study home was operational (based on a stack temperature greater than 38°C (100'F)) for each day was
calculated and the percentage was multiplied by the total heating degree days for that particular day. For
example, during a day when 35 heating degree days were calculated and a woodstove was operational 80% of
the day, 28 adjusted heating degree days were used for normalizing the creosote data.
The weight of creosote collected in each study home was divided by the total adjusted heating degree days.
The result is a semi-quantitative creosote deposition rate in units grams per heating degree day, normalized for
woodstove operational time.
Caution should be used in interpreting the creosote deposition rate data due to inherent problems with
accurate characterization of creosote deposition rates under in-situ conditions due to the complexities of
creosote deposition and removal mechanisms. The dynamics of creosote deposition and removal (i.e.
exothermic reaction pyrolysis) is influenced by several factors. The quantity of condensible material in the flue
gas stream probabiy has the largest effect on creosote deposition. Factors influencing the amount of
condensible materials in the flue gas stream include: combustion efficiency of the stove, fuel specie and
moisture content, and operator practices. Other factors influencing deposition of creosote include: chimney
system length, size, and geometry; heat transfer characteristics; flue gas temperature and velocity; and flew
restrictions in the chimney. The removal of creosote by exothermic reaction pyrolysis is a very difficult factor
to evaluate since it requires frequent visual monitoring, which was beyond the scope of this project.
e. In-Situ Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis;
The field comparison of the Method 5G sampling system and the AWES/Data LOG'r system was performed
during sampling period 2 in home P02 using integral catalytic woodstovs IC#i.
With the exception of an additional AWES sampler which was installed at the chimney exit, the AWES/Data
LOG'r installation for sampling period 2 was identical tf) the installation used for the other AWES in-silu
sampling periods.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.-44
-------
The in-situ emissions sampling methods comparability test commenced at 0000 hours oil January 28, 1987 and
concluded at 2400 hoars oa February 3, 1987. The three AWES samplers were programmed to sample for one
minute per half hour during this period, and the Method 5G system was operated according to EPA sampling
protocol.1
C. Results
Appendix F summarizes the data collected during the in-situ sampling periods in each study home. Appendix
F also contains a summary of the data collected ' from the in-situ A WES/Method SG emission sampling
methods comparability tost. Table 9 summarizes the mean particulate emission rates with associated standard
deviations and mean burn rates for each study home. Table 10 lists the creosote deposition rate data collected
from each study home. Table 11 contains a summary of the particulate emission rales observed during the
AWES/Metliod 5G field comparability test. Figure 6 illustrates the mean particulate emission rates with
associated standard deviations for each study home in grams per hour. Figure 7 illustrates the grains per hour
particulate emission rates and associated accuracy for the in-situ 5G/AWES sampling methods comparability
test.
1. Discussion of Woodstove Performance;
a. Conventional Technology Woodstoves;
The two conventional technology woodstoves evaluated in the study had mean particulate emission rates of
25.5 grams per hour (CT#1) and 13.8 grains per hour (CT#2). The range of particulate emission rates in
grams per hour was 20.9 to 29.4 (CT#1) and 9.5 to 22.3 (CT#2),
The CT#1 woodstove exhibited a mean particulate emission rate that is in the expected range (20 to 40 grams
per hour) for conventional technology woodstoves. The mean burn rate was 1.07 kilograms per hour for stove
CT#1, which is very close to the mean burn rate of 1.04 kg/hr determined for twenty-five homes in the
Portland, Oregon, area.2
The CT#2 woodstove exhibited a mean particulate emission rate that is lower than the expected range for
conventional technology woodstoves as used in the Portland area. The installation and homeowner's method
of operation of the CT#2 woodstove probably contributed to low particulate emission rates. The woodstove
was installed in a full uufioished basement, and was consistently operated at a relatively high burn rate for the
Portland area in order to heat the entire home. The mean burn rate for the home using the CT#2 woodstove
was 1.23 kilograms per hour, which was the second highest mean burn rate observed in the study. Higher burn
rates will generally result in lower emissions due to increased firebox temperatures and more complete
combustion of the fuel and resulting combustion gases.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.-45
-------
Table 9
In-Sta Particulate Emission Kate Summary
Stove
Model3
Grams per hr
Grams per kg
Grams per 1Q6 J
Grains per m3
Mean
Burn Rate
(drykg/hr)
xb
crc
Nd
xb
N*5
X6
<7C
Nd
erc
H4
CT #1
CT #2
25.3
13.8
4.1
5.6
5
5
23.9
11.0
22
2.4
5
5
2.3
1.0
0.3
0.2
5
5
2.15
0.57
0.42
0.18
5
5
1.07
1.23
LE #1
LE #2
83
18.6
2.0
45
5
4
9.5
17.7
2.5
5.0
5
4
1.0
2.2
03
0.9
5
4
0.40
0.71
0.11
0.16
5
4
0.91
3.07
IC#1
IC #2
4.0
43.3
0.9
16.3
4
3
4.4
28.8
1,4
8,2
4
3
0.3
4.2
0.1
1.9
4
3
0.22
0.75
0.03
0.09
4
3
0.92
1.43
a. CT = Conventional Technology Woodstovc
LE =Low Emission non-catalytic WoodstDve
IC = Iotegral Catalytic Woodstove
b. Mean particulate emission rate, as measured at the flue collar. Based on data in Appendix F.
c. Standard deviation.
d. Number of values used in the mean particulate emission rate calculations.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 46
-------
Table 10
Tti-Situ Crcosutc Deposition Rates
Adjusted
Creosote
Cresosote
Stove
Heating
Weight
Deposition Rate
Model8
Chimney Type
Degree Days6
(Grams)5
(Grams/AHDD)d
CT #1
Unlined Masonry
1034
11092.9
10.73
CT #2
Tile-Lined Masonry
1029
1843,7
1.79
!11
Prefabricated Melal
839
789.1
0.94
LE #2
Tile-Lined Masonry
730
1151.7
1.58
IC#1
Prefabricated Metal
937
77.5
0.08
IC #2
Prefabricated Melal
477
261.4
0.54
a.
h.
c.
d.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 47
CT = Conventional Technology Wootistovs;
LE = Low Emission non-catalytic Woodstove
IC =Integral Catalytic Woodstove
Daily Heating Degree Days adjusted for daily percent of time woodstove operational [based on slack
temperature greater than 38°C (10Q°F)].
Total weight of creosote sample collected.
Grams of creosote per Adjusted Heating Degree Day,
-------
Table 11
In-Situ Woodstove Sampling Methods Comparability Summary
AWES/Data LOG'r and Method 5G
Sampling Method
Sampling Location or
Calculation Method'1
Particulate
Emission Rate (g/hr)
AWES
Fin a Collar
4.2 [±1.8] b
{±1.5}
Chimney Exit
4.4 [±2.U] b
{±1.7}
5G (Sample Train #1)
Unadjusted
2.57
Adjusted for AAQ/DCP
3.17
5H Adjusted
3.98
5G (Sample Train #2)
Unadjusted
2.38
Adjusted for AAQ/DCP
2.98
5H Adjusted
3.74
a. "Unadjusted" — Method 5G emission rate adjusted for woodstove operational time (based on
stack temperature greater than 3S"C [lWF]).
"Adjusted for AAQ/DCP" — Unadjusred Method 5G emission rates adjusted for dilution ambient air
quality (estimated cone. 30 ^ig/m3) and deposited condensible particulate
(DCP) on walls of dilution tunnel.
"5H Adjusted" — Unadjusted Metbod 5G particulate emission rate adjusted as per U.S. EPA
procedure for comparison with Method 5H results.
h, AWES figures preserved with calculated precision ("[ ]") and accuracy ("{ }") values.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 48
-------
Part iculate Emission Rates (g/Jir)' Iir-Situ Woodstove Techology Evaluation
60 .0-
}
~ i standard atoiatiiar.
h«an
-i standard dsuiatlon
50 ,H
Hean
Part leuia*e
Emif$ i on
Rate
(J/hr)
30,0-
2
s
n
ES
2
o
20 .0 -
10.0-
Convent iori91
Techno logy (Hi
IntefraI
Cjta lytic AS
Conuent ionaI
Teehneiajy S2
}
Lou Em isf ion
Non-Catalytic 12
Integra)
Cats lytic 01
lou Eh ifsion
Kon-Catslytic 91
Figure i
-------
Particulate Emission Rates (g/hr): In-Situ AWES/Method EG Comparability Test
6.0-
1.0-
Part ¦ c u late
In Iss ion
Rate
o
K
3
m
50
o
zn
m
jo
23
n
1.0-
2 .0-
i . 0 —
i
~ accuracy
Aate
- accuracy
n §i
Inadjystef
II
5G Hi
IfiO/BCP
fid justed]
8
I!
SG M
EH
(fid j.st«>T
El
9
55 n
5H
[ftd justed)
56 *£
[Dnad justed]
M §i
fXAQ/CCP
yd justedl
ftUES
F F lye-)
[Col larj
AUES
"h Inney
En it
¦z:
n
NOTE; Hethed 55 part Icy late enisiien ratej have an i«uned • t$/. accuracy.
Fin nr 7
-------
The two conventional technology wuodstoves had significantly different creosote deposition rates — 10.73
grams per adjusted heating degree day (CT#1) and 1,79 grams per adjusted heating degree day (CT#2). The
two cliLmney systems were significantly different, wMch is probably a significant factor influencing creosote
deposition rates.
The CT#1 woodstove venled directly into a convenliooal fireplace covered with a steel plate. The flue gas
from the woodstove entered the fireplace through the 15,2 cm (6 inch) flue pipe. The relatively high creosote
deposition rases associated with this chimney system (outside ualined masonry) is not surprising given the type
of woodstove flue pipe to chimney connection. This type of installation generally causes relatively poor draft
conditions, resulting in higher emissions and creosote formation. The heat transfer (i.e. condensation surface)
characteristics of an milked masonry exterior chimney would also influence creosote deposition rates.
The CT#2 woodstove had a creosote deposition rate that was 42% higher than the mean creosote deposition
rate For low emission non-catalytic stoves and 477% higher than the rate for the integral catalytic woodstoves.
However, the creosote deposition rate for CT#2 was 83% lower than the creosote deposition rate observed for
CT#1. The home that used the CT#2 woodstove had a 15.2 cm (6 inch) diameter tile-Lined masonry chimney
that was specifically constructed for a woodstove installation. The chimney construction and operation (i.e.
higher burn rate) of the CT#2 woodstove appears to have contributed to the lower creosote deposition rate as
compared to CT#1,
b. Low Emission Non-Catalytic Woodstoves:
The two low emission non-catalytic woodstoves had mean particulate emission rates of 83 grams per hour
(LE#1) and 18.6 grams per hour (LE#2), The range of particulate emission rates ic grams per hour was 6.7
to 10.9 (LE#1) and 13.3 to 24.1 (LE#2).
The LE#1 woodstove was installed in a home with a Elue pipe/chimney system recommended by the stove
manufacturer. In addition, the study participants in this home were experienced woodstove operators. These
factors combined with the stove technology appears to have contributed to the relatively low measured
particulate emission rates.
The chimney system used in the LE#2 installation was tile-lined masonry which is commonly used for many
conventional technology woodstove installations; however, the size (17.8 cm by 27.9 cm (7" by 11")) of the
chimney was larger than recommended by the stove manufacturer. An inspection of the stove between the
first and second sampling periods revealed oo obvious problems with the stave's emission control system.
While it is possible that operator practices could have contributed to the elevated emission rate performance,
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 51
-------
it is hypothesized that the oversized chimney system is a major contributing factor to LE#2's emission
performance. The study participant with the LE#2 woodstoye also expressed dissatisfaction with the heat
output of the woodstove. The poor heat output performance was also probably related to the same factors
resulting in the relatively high mean particulate emission rate.
The mean burn rates for the low emission non-catalytic woodstoves were 0,91 kilograms per hour (LE#1) and
1.07 kilograms per hour (LE#2), The mean burn rates for these stoves are close (87.5% and 102.9%
respectively) to the measured mean burn rate of 1.Q4 kilograms per hour for twenty-five homes ra the Portland
area.2
The observed creosote deposition rates were 0.94 grams per adjusted heating degree day (LE#1) and 1.S8
grams per adjusted heating degree day (LE#2). Both creosote deposition rates were lower than the
conventional technology woodstoves evaluated and higher than the rates observed with the integral catalytic
woodstoves. The larger than recommended chimney size for the LE#2 woodstove probably contributed to the
observed creosote deposition rate being significantly higher than the creosote deposition rate observed for the
LE#1 woodstove,
c. Integral Catalytic Woodstoves:
The two integral catalytic woodstoves had mean particulate emission rates of 4.0 grains per hour (IC#1) and
43.3 grams per hour (IC;f2). The range of particulate emission rates in grams per hour was 2.7 to 4.7 (IC#1)
and 31.2 to 61.9 (3C#2).
The IC#1 woodstove mean particulate emission rate was at the low end of the expected range (3.0 to 10.0
grams per hour) for in-situ performance of an integral catalytic woodstove. This woodstove was installed with
a chimney system as recommended by the manufacturer and appeared to be operated properly by the study
participants in this home (i.e. participants indicated that they did not have any problems understanding how to
operate the stove). It is believed that these factors combined with the stove technology resulted in the
relatively low observed particulate emissions from the IC#1 woodstove.
The catalyst lightoff time percentage for the IC#1 woodstove ranged from 67.6% to 82,9%, with a mean
catalyst lightoff time percentage of 73.0%.
The mean burn rate of the IC#1 woodstove was 0.92 kilograms per hour, which is lower than the measured
mean burn rate for twenty-five homes in the Portland area of 1,04 kilograms per hour. The mean burn-ate for
IC#2 was the highest measured in this study at 1.43 kilograms per hour.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 52
-------
The IC#2 woodstove had a mean particulate emission rate that is considerably higher than the expected range
for integral catalytic woodstoves. A combination of factors appears to have produced the high mean
particulate emission rate. These factors included:
¦ • Operator inexperience: The IC#2 woodstove was the first integral catalytic woodstove used by the
participants in home PQ6. The participants in this home claimed that it took two weeks to learn
' how to operate the stove.
• This woodstove had the highest mean bora rate observed in ihe study (1.43 kilograms per hour), In
addition, this woodstove had the lowest mean percentage of stove operational time observed in the
study (36.3%). This indicates that the woodstove operator used high bum rates for relatively short
periods of time. The observed high burn rate may be a result of the design/operational problems
noted below.
• At the conclusion of the study the woodstove was inspected by OMNI field staff. The inspection
revealed a number of mechanical problems with the woodstove, including:
1. Approximately 22,9 cm (9 inches) of the glass fiber gasket that seals the catalyst bypass
damper was missing on the bottom edge of the damper. Ths gasket is fitted into a groove
located on the damper door. During fuel loading events, the bypass damper door is opened,
exposing the gasket. It is hypothesized that the missing gasket may have been caused by fuel
loading events, i.e. lop, 2 by 4's, etc. contacting the gasket, since the missing gasket material
was in the area most exposed to this type of potential physical abrasion. Since this
observation is based on one stove, it is difficult to determine if the problem is a stove design
and/or operator related issue.
2. A portion of the missing bypass damper gasket had fallen into the hinge of the bypass door,
which did not allow the bypass door to seal properly, A 0.6 cm (ty< inch) gap between the
bypass door and its jamb was formed due to the gasket piece. There was no detectable tactile
indication of whether or not the bypass door was fully closed or partially open when operating
the damper lever. The lack of tactile "feedback" to determine if the bypass damper door is
fully closed appears to be a design problem.
3. Approximately one third of the catalyst cells were plugged with fly ash or paper ash. The
"upstream" or combustion gas inlet side of the catalyst is the top horizontal side of the
catalyst. This configuration can lead to a buildup of ash on the top surface of the catalyst
versus the more common configuration where the "upstream" side of the catalyst is either the
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 53
-------
bottom horizontal or side face of the catalyst. Operator practices could also have contributed
so the buildup of ash. if aa excessive amount of paper was used as fuel.
4, The gasket used on the removable ash pan located on the bottom of the woodstove indicated
" that the pan was not seating properly. This observation appeared to lead to an underfirc. air
condition: This type of combustion gas condition can cause elevated emissions since it tends
to reduce combustion efficiency. Since this observation is based on only one stove, it is
difficult to' determine if the problem is a stove, design and/or operator related issue.
• It appears the study participant did not regularly inspect the woodstove's gaskets and mechanical
components as recommended in the manufacturer's stove operating instruction booklet.
The aboYS items appeared to have contributed to the high particulate emission rates measured in this, bouse.
The emission control system of lie woodstove appeared to be largely ineffective due. to the plugged catalyst
and the inability of the bypass door Lo seal properly. The unsealed ash removal pan provided the opportunity
for excess under fire air to be introduced into the firebox. This excess air r.oupir.d with the bypass damper air
lezkage probably contributed to the relatively high burn rates observed for thus woodstove.
The catalyst lightoff time percentage for the IC#2 woodstove ranged from 64,5% to 76.7%, with a mean
catalyst lightoff time percentage of 71.1%. While this data indicates that the woodstove did achieve catalyst
lightoff conditions, the problems with the plugged catalyst and leakage through the bypass damper s'.ili
resulted in relatively poor emission redaction performance. This observation indicates that catalyst lightoff
temperatures may not be a good indicator of integral catalytic woodstove emission performance when there is.
a defect(s) ic the emission control system.
The creosote deposition rates observed for the two integral catalytic, woodstoves were the two lowest observed
in the study. The lowest rate was observed on the IC#1 woodstove (0.08 grams per adjusted heating degree
day). The creosote, deposition rate observed for the IC#2'woodstove (0.54 grams per adjusted heating degree
day) is relatively low given the relatively high (43.3 grams per hour) mean particulate emission rate. Caution
should be used in interpreting she creosote deposition rate data for IC#2, As previously mentioned, the IC#2
woodstove had the highest mean burn rate of all of the woodstoves evaluated in the study, tf the woodstove
was operated at a high burn rate without the bypass door effectively sealed, significant creosote deposits could
have been removed by cxotheimie reaction pyrolysis between creosote sample collection periods.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 54
-------
2, In-Situ Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis — Discussion:
a. Particulate Emission Rates:
Three calculated emission rates from the Method 5G data are preseuied in Table 11. The rates presented
include:
» Observed particulate emission rate as sampled (referred to as "unadjusted'-'). This emission rate
was corrected for woodstove operational time as determined by a stack temperature greater than
38°G (1WF),
• Unadjusted particulate omission rate adjusted for (l) dilution ambient air quality (AAQ)
-¦particulate concentration (assumed to be 30 ttfjrr?) and (2) deposited eondensible paniculate
.(DCP) v/hich was collected from the walls of the dilution tunnel (referred to as "AAQ/DCP
.adjusted"). The AAQ concectratioa correction factor decreased the gross particulate catch from
• , the dilotion tunnel. The.-DCP correction factor increased the gross particulate catch from the
dilution tunnel.
« Unadjusted particulate emission rate adjusted using EPA! adjustment Factor for comparison wilh
Method 5H (icier, ed to as "5H Adjusted").1
Although no formal estimate has been made of the uncertainty associated with Method 50, an accuracy ol up
to ±20% has been assumed.5 The mean particulate emission rates from the two AWES samplers (4,2 and,4.4
grams per hour) and the two Method 50 systems (3.2 and 3.0 grams per hour) are statistically similar given the
calculated emission rales and assumed accuracies associated with each sampling system (refer to Figure 7).
As discussed in Section HI of this report, the apparent higher AWES emission rate values would be expected
given the increased capture efficiency associated with the XAD-2 restn trap component of the AWES unit.
The precision of the AWES units is demonstrated by-the statistically similar values of the flue collar (4.2 ± 1.8
grams per hour) and chimney exit (4.4 ± 2.0 grams per hour) (-.mission rate values.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 55
-------
b. Flue Gas Volume Calculations:
The flue gas volumes calculated by Che four methods described in Appendix B from the in-situ woodstove
emission sampling systems comparability work were as follows:
The mean of the non-AWES flue gas vol Limes is 4,020 cubic meters. The flue gas volume as calculated using
the AWES/Data LOG'r system is 79 cubic meters less than this mean, or a relative difference of only 2,0%.
This would indicated that the methodology used for calculating flue gas volumes with, the AWES/Data LOG'r
system is relatively accurate as compared to other calculation methods.
D. Conclusions --In-Situ Evaluation:
The measured particulate emission rate data obtained in the study homes illustrates the potential relative
influences of woodstove technology, chimney system types, and operating practices upon woodstove emissions.
While conventional technology woodstove CT#l had the second highest mean particulate emission rate, stove
CT#2 demonstrated that conventional technology woodstoves can achieve low particulate emission rates (13.8
grams per hour) when property installed and operated.
The potential variation in low emission non-catalytic woodstove particulate emission rate performance is
demonstrated by this study. While stove LE#1 achieved a relatively low particulate emission rate (8,3 grams
per hour) it is hypothesized that LE#2's relatively poor emission performance (18.6 grams ¦ per hour) is
primarily related to the oversized chimney system connected to the stove.
The potential variation in integral catalytic woodstove emission performance is also demonstrated by this
study, . While stove IC#1 demonstrates a relatively low mean particulate emission rate (4.D grams per hour)
can be obtained by proper installation and operation of the catalytic stove, the performance of stove IC#2
demonstrates the potential for high emissions (43.3 grains per hour) when critical components of the emission
control system fail. It could also be argued that the lack of stove operator maintenance also contributed to the
high emission rates observed for stove 1C#2.
Calculation Method
Flue Gas Volume (m3!
AWES 02 Cell
Stack 02 Gas Analyzer
C02 Ratio
Stack C02 and CO Gas Analyzer
3,941
4,261
3,514
4,286
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 56
-------
With the exception of stove IC#2, creosote deposition rate data '.ended to follow emission rate performance.
.The conventional technology woodstoves produced the highest mean creosote deposition rates (10.73 and 1,79
•grams per adjusted heating degree day), the low emission non-catalytic woodstoves produced mean creosote ¦_
deposition rates in the middle range (1.58 and 0.94 grams per adjusted heating degree day), and the integral
catalytic woodstoves produced the lowest mean creosote deposition rates (0.08 and 0.54 grams per adjusted
heating degree day). Caution should be used in interpreting in-situ creosote deposition rate data since
emission rate results from stove IC#2 indicates the potential for relatively high creosote deposition rates.
Therefore, factors such as stove technology, chimney type and operator practices need to be considered in
interpreting creosote deposition rate reformation.
The flue gas volumes as calculated by four methods for the A WES/Method 5G field comparison ranged from
3,514 m3 to 4,286 m3. The difference in the flue gas volume calculated by the AWES (3,941 cubic meters) and
} '
the mean of the three Rue gas volumes calculated using the "Stack Oz Gas Analyzer," "COj Ratio" and
"Stack C02 and CO Analyzer" methods (4,200 cubic meters) was only 2.0%
The A WES/Data LOG'r and the Method 5G sampling methods particulate (mission rates were statistically
similar given the associated uncertainties for each method.
The laboratory waodstove emission sampling methods comparability test L02 used a burn cycle on an integral
' catalytic waodstove that was designed to simulate fueling patterns used in the Portland, Oregon area. This test
used the same woo'dstove model (JC#1) and the same fuel species (Douglas fir) as those used in the in-situ
AWES/Metbod 5G comparability test. Table 12' is a comparison of the particulate emission rates measured
during the two sampling system comparability tests. While the burn rates and fuel loading frequencies varied
in the two tests, the measured particulate emission rates were statistically similar, indicating thai emission rate
performance (as averaged over a seven day test cycle) under moderate to low burn rate conditions is •
reputable for stove 1C#1 under laboratory simulated in-situ fueling conditions.
Several conclusions arise from the data from the In-situ performance portion of this slnriy:
* The new technology woodstoves (iow emission non-catalytic woodstoves and integral catalytic
woodstoves) can significantly reduce particulate emissions and creosote deposition rates when
properly operated and matched to chimney systems meeting manufacturer's specifications.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 57
-------
Table 12
Woodstovc Emission Sampling Methods Coaopaiability Tests
Iii Siiu AWES/Mcttod 5G Comparability Test
and
laboratory Comparability Test LG2 —
lutegial CataljlieWoodstove, "Portland Area" Bum Cycle
Sampling Method
Particulate Emission Rate (g/hr)
In-Situ Test
L02 Test
Method 5G #1 (Unadjusted)
Method 5G #2 (Unadjusted)
Method 5G #1 (IAQ/DCP Adjusted)*
Method SG #2- (IAQ/DCP Adjusted)5
Method 5G #1 (5H Adjusted)11
Method 5G #2 (5H Adjusted)15
AWES-Flue Collar/AWES-Intsrmitteat Ra'.ec
AWES-Chimney EmVAWES-Continurms Rat«d
• ¦ 1
2,57 {±0.51} c
2.38 {±0.48}
3,17 {±0.63}
2.98 {±0,60}
3.99 {±0.80}
3,74 {±0.75}
4.2 [±1.8] {±1.5} f
4.4 [±2.0] {±1.7} f
3.36 {±0,67} c
2.51 {±0.50]
3.37 {*0.67}
2,92 {±0.58} ' '
4.98 {±1,00} -
4.42 {±0.88}
3.5 [±1.1] {±1.1} f
4.3 [±0.9J{±1.S} !
a- Method 5G (IAQ/DCP Adjusted) - Unadjusted Method 5G emission rates adjusted for .dilution air
quality (IAQ - indoor ambient air for L02, outdoor ambient air for the in-situ tea) and deposited
candensible particulate (DCP) on walls of dilution tunnel,
b - Method 5G (5H Adjusted) - Unadjusted Method5G emission rates adjusted using 5H adjustment factor.1
c - AWES-Flue Collar location used in in-situ test; A WES-Intermittent sanaplijig Tate used in. L02.
d - AWES-Chironey Exit location used in in-situ test; AWES -Continuous sampling late used in L02.
e- Assumed accuracy (±2C%).4 -
f- AWES emission rates presented with calculated precision ("[]") and accuracy
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 58
-------
Integral catalytic woodstove IC#2 had several observed failures of components of the emission
control system (bypass damper gasket missing, damper door not completely closing, catalyst
plugging, air leakage through the ash clean-out door) , resulting in relatively poor particulate
emission performance. In addition, there may have been problems with operator use and
maintenance of the woadstove. Since these failures were observed within four months after the
installation of the woodstove questions are raised regarding the durability of the emission control
system of this stove model, However, since these observations are based on oae stove it is difficult
to determine if the problems identified are stove design and/or operator related issues,
Considering the associated accuracies with the AWES and Method 5G sampling methods, the
differences in calculated gram per hour particulate emission rates are statistically insignificant.
Calculated mean flue gas volume as measured by the ia-situ AWES system was within 2% of the
mean flue gas volume as determined by other calculation methods.
The precision and accuracy of the AWES/Data LOG'r • sampling system is demonstrated by a
comparison of the calculated particulate emission rates in the ia-situ comparability test and
laboratory comparability test ID2. These tests used the same, woodstove catalytic model, the same
fuel species, at a low to moderate burn rate.:
Creosote deposition rates generally followed emission rate performance by stove technology.
However, caution must be used in the interpretation of this data due to the complexities of creosote
deposition and removal mechanisms which are not well understood and difficult to document.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - 59
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Standard of Performance For New Stationary Sources;
New Residential Wood Heaters. Federal Register, Volume 53, Number 38, Section 40 CFR, Part' 60.
February 2<3,1988.
2. Houck, J.E.; Simons, C.A.; Pritchett, L.C. "Estimating Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Impacts from
Woodstoves - Task A - Final Report." Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest
and Alaska Regional Biomass Energy Program (as administered by the Bonneville Power
Administration). June 1988. ¦
3. OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. "Performance Monitoring of Catalyst Stoves, Add-Ons, and High-
Efficiency. Stoves. Field Testing for Fuel Savings, Creosote Build-Up and Emissions," Volume .1.
Prepared for the. Coalition of Northeastern Governors, New York State Eaergy Research and
Development Authority, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1987.
4. Simons, C.A.; Christiansen, E.D.; Pritchett, L.C.; Beyerman, G.A. "Whiichorse Efficient Woodheat
Demonstration." Prepared far the City of Whitchor.se and Energy, Mines and ..Resources Canada.
September 1987.
" 5. Tts referer.ee is a compilation of the following sources:
a. Southwest Research Institute. Collaborative Study of Particulate Emissions Measurements by EPA
Methods 2, 3, and 5 Using Paired Particulate Sampling Trains (Municipal Incinerators). United
States Environmental Protection Agency. 1976.
b. Personal Communication:
Peter Westiin, United States Environmental Protection Agency, with Mark Fisher, OMNI
Environmental Services, Inc., June 1987.
Raymond Merrill, United States Environmental Protection Agency, with James Houck,
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. June 1986.
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Characterization of Sorbent Resins for Use in
Environmental Sampling." Report No. 600/7-78-054. 1978.
7. Shelton, J.W. and Gay, L.W. "Evaluation of Low-Emission Wood Stoves." California Air Resources
Board. 1986.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - 60
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
-------
A. AWES/DATA LOG'r DESCRIPTION
In response to the necessity of evaluating particulate emissions and wood use data under in-situ conditions,
OMNI has developed the AWES/Data LOG'r sampling system. Figure A-l shows a schematic of the
A WES/Data LOG'r system. For the non-catalytic technology (conventional technology and low emission son-
catalytic woodstoves) a single- AWES uait was used to sample at a point 30.5 cm (1 foot) downstream of the
stove5s flue collar. For the catalytic technology (integral catalytic woodstoves) two AWES units simultaneously
sampling were used to obtain particulate emission samples before and after the catalyst. Figure A-2 shows a
schematic of the dual AWES/Data LOG'r system used for catalytic technology performance assessments.
1. Data LOG'r Description;
Tie Data LOG'r is a multi-channel programmable microprocessor/controller with the capability of processing
bott digital and analog signals. The unit has data storage capacity of 32 kilobytes on a field-replaceable non-
volatile memory data cartridge. As presently programmed, cartridge capacity allows up to 30 days of
continuous operation between servicing in most field project applications. The Data LOG'r was programmed
to record and store the following information:
• Starting date, time, and uait serial number for data recording periods;
• Daily date and time, recorded at midnight, and a continuous time record in 5 minute intervals;
• Flue gas, in-catalyst, and before-cataiyst temperatures (where applicable) averaged over 15 minute
intervals;
o Room temperature, outdoor temperature (in two study homes), and Data LOG'r ambient
temperature in 15 minute intervals;
« Record of alternate home heating status (on or o<3) by use of a temperature sensor;
» Wood weights and coated condition recorded by the operator as the woodstoves were fueled;
• Oxygen measurements when the AWES unit was sampling;
a Home AC power status, measured at 5 minute internals.
An attached electronic scale/woodbasket unit supplies to the Data LOG'r an analog voltage output that is
linearly proportional to the weight placed in the wood holder. Scale readings were recorded by having the
participant use an attached keypad in a prescribed sequence. The five button keypad also allows the
participant to record the coal bed conditions at each time of stove fueling.
The. Data LOG'r was programmed to activate the AWES unit (two AWES units in the case of the catalytic
technology) at a specific date and time, Sampling intervals were one minute on per half hour for a continuous
seven day sampling period.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - A1
-------
o
>
m
»
n
p.
3
o
ft
P3!
SS3
OUT -
DOORS
SS2_
ROOM
SSI
1 MEMORY
CARTRIDGE
2 PROGRAMASUE
SOFTWARE
3. AUX. BATTERY
PPCX
4. FAILURE AJ ARM
EXHAUST RETURN
' THERMO-
JXXPLE 2
TO stove
CATALYST
CRMOSTAT]
FILTER
SS4
AUX,
HEAT
SOURCE
AND HEATER
PUMP CONTROL
PUMP
SILICA
GE
WOOD SCALE
THERMOCOUPLE 1
INLET
HEATED
CHAMRER
Oata LOG'r
AWES
Flgyre A-1
AWES/Oflta LQG'r Syttem
J
"T
T
T
WOOD STOVE
-------
exhaust return
TCI
rsERMOSTAT F3:
F1LTE
RJ^OCKTO.
TM
PUMP
WOO© STOVE
AWES
AWES
XAD
KEY
PAD
WOOD SCALE
PUMP
4. FMJjRf ALAflM
ssi
t memdky
gartroge
2. r»O0H(UUli^M.(
1 AUX BATTERY
PACK
0
s
o
8
Figure A~2
7.
o
Dual AWES/Data LOG'r system
-------
2. Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES) Description:
Tht; AWHS sampler was specifically designed for sampling residenLial woodstove particulate emissions. As
.programmed in this study,-it is capable of sampling woodstove emissions for periods up to one week in length.
Sample flow is maintained by a critical flow orifice, so no adjustment is required during operation. Sample
start and slop times, dates, and frequency (minutes on and minutes off) are piograramable and controlled by
the OMNI Data LOG'r, The sampler (two samplers in the case of catalytic technology) was installed prior to
a scheduled start time, left unattended, and removed for sample processing at the end of the sampling period.
The AWES unit draws flue gases through a 1.0 cm (3/g inch) stainless steel probe, 1.0 em (3/g inch) Tenon""
line, and heated Method-5 type glass fiber filter for collection of particulate matter, followed by a sorbent resiii
(XAD-2) trap for semi-volatile hydrocarbons. Water vapor is removed by a silica gel trap. Flue- gas oxygei:
concentrations, which are used in conjunction with wood use data So determine flue gas volume, were
measured, by an electrochemical ceil. The oxygen celt used in the AWES unit ir, manufactured by Catalyst
Research (Model #472062). The AWES uses a critical orifice (Miliipore #XX5C000Q2) lo maintain a nominal
sampling rate of 1.0 liters per minute (0.035 cfra). Each AWES critical orifice is calibrated with a dry gas
meter to determine the exact sampling rate. ' ¦ '
3. Probe Placement:
The Data LOG'r system uses several external sensors which generate analog voltages that are processed by the
Data LOG'r microprocessor. Solid stale temperature sensors (National Semiconductor LM334) were used to
monitor Data LOG'r box temperature (SS#1), room temperature (SS#2), outdoor temperature (SS#3), and
auxiliary heating system status (SS#4). The room temperature sensor was placed oa a wall approximately 3.0
meters (10 feel) from the stove and approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) above floor level The auxiliary heat
status sensor was placed in the nearest furnace duct or electric baseboard heater.
Type "K" ground-isolated stainless steel sheathed thermocouples (Pyrocom 1K.-27-5-U) were used to mouitor
various flue gas temperatures. In the ease of the conventional technology woodstove, one thermocouple was
placed 305 cm (1 foot) downstream of the woodstovs's flue collar in the center of the flue gas stream. In the
case of the integral catalytic woodstove the before-catalvst thermocouple (TC#3) was placed in the center of
the firebox just upstream of the secondary air intake, the in-cataiyst thermocouple (TC#2) was inserted into
the center of the catalyst substrata, and the after-catalyst thermocouple (TC#1) was placed 30.5 cm (1 foot)
downstream of the woodsmve's Flue collar in the center of the fine gas stream.
With the exception of the firebox AWES probes used in the integral catalytic woodstoves, all stainless steel
probes used for sampling were 38.1 cm (15 inches) long and 1.0 era (3/g inch) OD. The probes were inserted
7.6 cm (3 inches) into the gas stream.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - A4
-------
The befoie-catalyst probe used in the in-situ evaluation integral catalytic woodstove IC#1 {and in laboratory
comparability tests L02 and L03) was 66.0 cm (26 inches) long and inserted 35.6 cm (14 inches) into the
firebox. The dp of the probe was located in the center of the firebox just before the secondary air supply to
the catalyst.
The before-eatalyst probe use
-------
B. METHOD 5H DESCRIPTION
The Method 5H procedure is described in detail in the Federal,Register, Volume 53, Number 38, Section 4€
CFR, Part 60, promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection. Agency.1
Figure A-3 is a schematic of the Method 5H sampling train, fiprc A-4 shows the general configuration of the
complete Method 5H sampling system.
The flue gas sample is drawn into the sampling train nozzle where it is routed into the* heated filter chamber,
which is maintained at a temperature of 120° ± 14°C (248° ± 25°F). After passing through the glass Sber filter
and sating the heated filter chamber the flue gas is routed through three glass impiogers immersed in an ice
bath. After passing though the third wipinger, the flue gas passes through a second glass fiber filter. The
second filter and impinger system are cooled by the ice bath so that the exiting temperature of the gas is
maintained at 2Q"C (68'F) or less..
Sample flow rate is maintained by a sampling control system that' includes a pump and differential
manometer. During the laboratory comparability tests the Method 5H system was operated both at a constant
sampling rate and at a sampling rate proportional la the stack flow rate.
The system used to determine stack flow rates consisted of a sample probe, four impingers set in an ice bath, a
glass fiber filter, a pump, and analyzers to determine the stack CO, COj, and O? flue gas percentages. The 02
flue gas percentage was analyzed using an an Infrared Industries, Inc. Model 2200. The analyzer for the CO
and CC2 flue gas was an Infrared Industries, Inc. Model 702D.
C. METHOD 5G DESCRIPTION
The Method SG/DUution Tunnel procedure is described in detail in the Federal Register, Volume S3, Number
38, Section 40 CFR, Part 60, promulgated by the United Slates Environmental Protection Agency.1
Figure A-5 is a schematic of the Method 5G sampling train. Figure A-6 shows the general configuration of the
complete Method 5G/DiIution Tunnel sampling system.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - A6
-------
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - A7
-------
G
r
K
<
3
CD
¦z
m
t
ID
C.
o
a>
E
©
m
03
I'.
m
¦o
o
¦C
*•*
a
?—|
vii^ u—g
-
-------
Dilution
Tunnel
Walt
Thermonnstsf
y«cuum
Qauga
Dry Gb?
M«tsr
Figure A-S
Method 53 Sampling Train
OiviNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - A9
-------
Ezhausi
80* Sitsow
8* * 12* S*'(l«9
/ *
y^~rz
H- mfn 12* —H
1 • -
12*
90" ElDow
Sirrrpla PorI
location *£
3!tmi
S«'tip^» Point LocaUcri
. (cortwof suck)
Bfowtr
Damp«r
Rgur© a-s
Method 5G System Schematic
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - A10
-------
Flue gas, along with ambient air, is drawn into iha collection hood by the dilution tunnel blower. The diluted
flue gas is routed through the dilution tunnel piping amd mixing baffles, A pilot tube is. installed to determine
the dilution tunnel gas velocity. The sample is drawn through a stainless steel probe inserted into the center of
the dilution tunnel gas stream. From the probe :he sample passes through two glass fiber filters La series. The.
filters are maintained at a temperature of less than 32°C (90°F). Sample flow rate is maintained by a sampling
control system that includes a pump and differential manometer. The sample flow rate is proportional to the
dilution tunnel flow rate. After passing tits sampling point in the dilution tunnel, the diluted flue gas is routed
past a damper which regulates the dilution tunnel flow rate, through the blower, and exhausted.
The Oj, CO, and CO2 gas analyzers which were used to determine stack flow rates were identical to the
• equipment used for Method 5H. An additional C02 gas analyzer (Lira Model 3200) was used to determine
the C02 combustion gas percentage in the dilution tunnel.
D. LOW VOLUME AMBIENT AM SAMPLING SYSTEM MSCRJFITON
The particulate content of the ambient air during the laboratory comparability tests was determined using a
low volume ambient air sampler. This sampler consists of a 47 mm Nucleopore filter assembly (includes a rain
cap, filter holder, and glass fiber filter), Rockwell International Model R315 dry gas meter, and a Gast Model
1022-V2-G27-2X pump. A constant sample rate was maintained throughout each laboratory comparability
test.
The low volume system enabled a measurement of the particulate concentration ic the ambient air to be made.
This concentration was accounted for in the adjusted Method 5G (IAQ/DCP) particulate emission rate
calculation.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - All
-------
APPENDIX B
FLUE GAS VOLUME
CALCULATION PROCEDURES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
-------
FLUE GAS VOLUME CALCULATIONS
A. EQUATIONS
1. AWES 02 Cell: (combustion gas volume, excess air measured by AWES Q2 cell)
VFG = (CGWMDWi
1<02/20J) '
2, Stack Oi Gas Analyzer: (combustion gas volume, excess air measured by commercial 02 gas analyzer)
WG = fCGWMDWI
l-fO/80.9)
3. C02 Ratio: (tunnel to stack flow ratio by COz, tunnel flow measurement)
(VDT)(CO,»ut C02A)
VFG
(CO2P-CO2/J
4. Stack C02 and CO Gas Analyzer: ¦ (combustion gas volume, excess air measured by commercial C02
and CO gas analyzer)
VFG = (CGV)(MDW)
1-[(C02+C0)cc/(C02+C0)A]
i-[(co:+co)-y(co2+co).^]
B. EXPLANATION OF PARAMETERS
VFG
GOV -
MDW
02
VDT
C02dt
C02A
C02F
(C02+CO)co
(C02+C0)A
(C02+C0)p
= Flue gas volume (m^) ,
= Combustion volume (1/kg dry wood)
= Mass dry wood (kg) .
= Oxygen content in flue gas (% by volume)
= Volume of dry gas from dilution tunnel (m3)
= C02 content in dilution tunnel (% by volume)
= C02 content in ambient air (% by volume)
= C02 content in flue gas (% by volume)
= Hypothetical C02 and CO content in Sue due to combustion (% by volume)
= C02 and CO content in ambient air (% by volume)
= CD2 and CO content in five gas (% by volume)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - B1
-------
c.
INSTRUMENTATION
AWES 02 - Measured at Catalyst Research #472062 Cell Analyzer
Stack Gas 02 - Measured by Infrared Industries Model 2200 Analyzer
Stack Gas C02 and CO - Measured by Infrared Industries Model 702D Auaiyici
Dilution Tunnel C02 - Measured by LIRA Model 3200 Analyzer
D. EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Dara from in-situ A WES/Method 5G comparison:
AWES O,
=
16.9%
Stack Oj
=
17,2%
co2dt
=
0.358%
CO,A
=
0.037%
COjF
=
3.5%
COF
=
0.05%
MDW
=
145,5 kg
CGV
=
5184 1/kg
VDT
=
37,908 m3
1. AWES 02 Cell:
VFG - f5184 l/fceV14S.5 tel
[1-(16.9%/20.9%)J(1,000 i/m3)
VFG = 3941m3
2, Stack 02 Gas Analyzer:
VFG = (51841/keW 145.5 ke^
(1-(17.2%/20.9%)!(1,000 I/m3)
VFG = 1261 m3
3, CO; Ratio:
VFG = (37.908 m3K0.358%-0.037%^
(3.5% - 0.037%)
VFG - 3514 m3
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL- SERVICES, INC. - B2
-------
4. Stack C02 and CO Gas Analyzer:
For wood combustion in an integral catalytic woodstove approximately 3% of the fuel's carbon content is
converted la CO, and approximately 97% of the fuel's carbon content is converted to COj
63.4 moles H
25.5 moles O
43.4 moles C —~ ,03(43,4) = 130 moles CO
.97(43.4) - 42.10 moles C02
moles O required for C combustion —*1.30+2(42.10) = 35.5 moles O required to produce CO and CO?
63.4 moles required for H combustion —~ 31.7 moles H20 = 31.7 moles O required to produce H20
Total moles O for combustion —»85.5 + 3L7 = 117.2 moles O
X kg wood contains 25.5 moles O; 117.2-25.5 = 91.7 moles O complete from air
91.7 moles O = 45.85 moles O, from air.
Air contains: N2/02 mole ratio = 3.73
1 kg Douglas Fir contains;
43.4 moles C
At/02 mole ratio = 0.044
moles N2 « 3.73(45.85) = 171.0 rooks N2
moles Ar = 0.044(45.85) = 2.0 moles Ar
CCQ,+COW. = CO + CO.
CO + COj+N-i + Ar
1.30 + 42,10+ 171D + 2.0
1.30 + 42.10 = 20.0%
(C02iCO)F = 3.5% + 0.05% = 3.55%
Assume CO content in air is negligible: (C02+CO)A = C02A = 0.037%
VFG = (145.5 kg>(5l841/kel l-f2Q.0%/0.037%)
1,000 l/'r.i3 l-(3.55%/0.037%)
VFG - 4286 m3
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - B3
-------
APPENDIX C
AWES
CALCULATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
-------
AWES Calculation Procedures
1 Mass particulate emissions/ mass dry wood burned
= MPxSV
FR x SD (I - f%'0/20.9%])
2. Mass particulate emissions/ heal output
= - MP x SV ' ,
FR x SD x HC x EF (1 - [%02/2Q.9%])
3. Mass particulate emissions/ time
= MPiSVsMDW
FR x SD x SP (1 - [%Q2/2Q,9%])
4. ' Mass particles/ volume
= MP
FR x SD
where:
MP = mass particulate emission (g)
SV = stoichiometric volume (L'kg dry wood)
FR = sampling flow rate (l/minute)
SD = sampling duration (minutes)
Oz — oxygen in flue gas (% by volume)
HC -• haat content of wood (J/kg wood)
EF = efficiency factor (%/10Q)
MDW = mass dry wood (kg)1
SP = sampling period (hours) - total period stove was in operation, with flue temperature
> 38"C (100°F).
5. Stoichiometric Volumes
Stoichiometric volumes have been calculated by species from the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen content of the wood. Table C~1 lists the carbon, hydrogen, o.xygen, nitrogen values, and
heat content, used for each species. Eniries in Tabic C-l are values obtained from published
literature. The true stoichiometric volumes were modified for stove technology types due;; to the
level of incomplete combustion (viz, the CO content of flue gas) characteristic of each {ethnology
type. Table C-2 gives the estimated flue gas CO and COj concentrations characteristic- of the
different technology types. Tabic C-3 lists the specific modified stoichiometric volumes:for the
various uced species and siovc technology types used.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - CI
-------
Table C-l
Elemental and Higher Heat Contents of Wood Fuel
Elemental Content (%)
Higher Heat Content
Species
C, H, O, N
(Joules x 106/
kg dry wood)
Alder
51.64, 6.26, 41.45, 0.00 ,
20.7 '
Apple
, 5Q.44, 5.59, 42.73, 0.00
20.5
Douglas Fir
52.30, 6,30, 40.50, 1.00 :
21.1
Lodgepole Pine
52.55, 0.03, 41.25, O.OO
. in J
Maple
50.64, 6.02, 41.74, 2.50
- 20.0
' Tabic C-2
Estimated Flue Gas CO and C02 Content by Slovc Technology Type
Stove Technology
Volume %
Moles CO
Moles CO-, 1
Moles CO + Moles C07
Moles CO + Moles CCh 1
CO
C02
Catalytic
0.2
10.0
0,03
0.97
Low Emission
1.3
10.0
0.17
0.83
Conventional
2.0
10.0
0,24
0.76
Table C-3
Calculated Combnstinn Gas Volumes by Wood Species and Stove Technology Types
Species
Stoichiometric Volumes (liter/dry kg)
Catalytic
LowjEtnission
Conventional
1. Alder
51X1
ms
4701
2. Apple
5035
4769
4635
3. Douglas Fir
5209
4932
4794
4. Lodgepole Pine
5162
4884
4745
5. Maple
4954
4686
4552
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC -
-------
AWTX Quality Assurance
1. Quality Assurance — Particulate Emission Levels
Particulate emission levels are being reported in four different formats. These are: (1) mass particles/mass
• dry wood; (2) mass particles/heat output; (3) mass particles/time of stove operation; and (4) mass
paxticlci/vulujac of flue gas. Complete equations for the calculation of these parameters and for the
calculation of their associated uncertainties are presented in Attachment C~l. Accuracy and precision
estimates were made for all primary parameters used to calculate the particulate emission values. The
' accuracy and precision estimates were based on- manufacturer's specifications and from field and laboratory
experience. Tlie accuracy and precision estimates are listed in Table C-4. Standard propagation of error
treatment of the, data was used to estimate the overall accuracy and precision associated with the final
calculated particulate levels. Attachment C-2 lists the calculations. used • for other parameters used in the
study, including mean flue temperature, catalyst light-off, wood moisture content, and burn rate.
2. Accuracy -
A conservative estimate (i.e., maximum probable bias) was made of the systematic error for each primary
parameter from which a propagated accuracy, value was determined. Propagated error values were calculated
for every emission data set. Accuracy is defined as a systematic bias, and the same biases would manifest
themselves throughout the entire study since the same type of instrumentation was utilized at all homes, and,
consequently, accuracy would not be an issue in intra-study comparisons, e.g., comparing catalyst vs. non-
catalyst emission values.
The mass particles/volume of flue gas format had the lowest (best) relative accuracy among the four methods
of reporting particulate emission levels. This was due to the facts that fewer parameters were necessary to
calculate the mass/volume value and that the oxygen content, which has a higher uncertainty level associated
with it, was not needed for the mass/Volume calculation, whereas it is needed to calculate the other three
' emission rates.
3. Precision
An estimate of the limit of error (1% confidence limit) was made for each primary parameter from which a
propagated precision value was determined. Tiie limit of error (A) is equal to 2.6 times the standard deviation
(er) for a normal distribution. The limit of error was used in the estimation of the precision (random error) of
the primary parameters sines it is conceptually easier to estimate than a standard deviation. As with the
accuracy estimates, manufacturer's specifications and field and laboratory experience were taken into
consideration iu making the estimates. The precision estimates (A) for each primary parameter are listed in
Table C-4. After an overall precision value was calculated by the standard propagation of error technique, the
value was divided by 2,6 to put it in the more meaningful standard deviation form,
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - C3
-------
4. Field Blanks
Seven AWES field blank samples were prepared during the 1.986-1987 heating season. The field blank AWES
units were prepared according to normal sampling protocols, transported to a study home, leak checked, left
unattended for one week without being programmed to sample, leak checked, and transported hack to the
laboratory for sample processing. The mean particulate catch from the seven AWES field blanks (22.5 mg)
was used in the particulate emission rats calculatioas.
5, Representativeness ^
Inherent in the design of the AWES/Data LOGV,-sampling approach is a high degree of representativeness.
By sampling for one minute out of thirty for a week-long period, a long-term integrated sample is obtained.
Moreover, by the in situ sampling of the emissions under actual home use conditions, samples representative of
"real world" emissions were obtained, " ,
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - i'A
-------
Attachment C~1
Calculations and Propagation of Errors - Particulate Data
Parameters - Particulate Data "
1, MP . Mass particles (total)
MF Mass particles on filter
MRMC Mass particles from methylene chloride rinse
MRM Mass particles from methanol rinse
MX
Mass particles from XAD-2
MFB
Mean mass particles in field blanks
2.
SV
Specific stoichiometric volume (corrected for stove type)
3.
FR
Sampler flow rate
4.
SD
Sampling duration
5.
%o2
Hue gas 02
6.
HC
Specific heat content
7,
EF
Efficiency factor
8.
MDB
Mass of wood, dry basis
9.
SP
Sampling period
Mass Particles
(MP) = MF + MRMC + MRM + MX
AMP = AMF + AMRMC + &MRM + ' *iMX
MFB
2. Mass Particles / Mass. Dry Wood =
MPxSV
Propagated error
AMP
SV
FR x SD x (1 - %02m.9%)
+ 6SV
MP
+ &FR
+ £Oz%
FR x SD x (1 - %O2120.9%)
MP x SV + ASD
FR2 x SD x (1 - %O2/20,9%)
MP x SV
FR x SD x (1 - %O2/20.9%)
FR x SD2x (l - %O2/20.9%)
MP x SV
jJ*"R x SD x 20.9% x (1 - %Ozm.9%)
3. '-Mass Particles / Heat Output
MPxSV
FR x SD x HC x EF x (1 - %O?/20.9%)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - C5
-------
Propagated Error
AMP
SV
FR x SD x HC x EFx (1 - %0-/W.9%)
APR
-f AHC
¦e£h%
MP x SV
FR2 k SD :< HC xEP x (1 - %02/2Q.'J%)
MP xSV
jjrR x SD x HC2 x EF x (1 - %0-JlQ,9%)
+ ASV
+4SD
+ 6EF
MP
FR r. SD x HC x EF x {1 - %O2/20.S%)
MPxSV
FR kSD2 x HC x EF x (1 - %O/?0.9%)
MP xSV
FR x SD x HC x EF2 x (1 - %0-jm3%)
MPxSV
FR x SD x HC x EF x 20,9% x (1 %02I203%)1
4. Mass Particulate Emissions / Time Stove Operations (SP)
MP x SV x MOW
FR x SD x SP x (1 - %02f2D.9%}'
Propagated error -
AMP
-KiMDW
SV x MDW
FR " SD * SP x (1 - %Otm.9%) :.
MP x SV
ASD
+ i$at%
r
FR x SD x SP x (1 - %O2/20.9%)
MP x SV x MDW
FR x SD2 x SP x (1 - %Ozm,9%)
ASV
'+iiFR
; *SP
MP x MDW
FR x SD x SP x (1 - %Ozm.9%)
MP x SV. x MDW
FR^.x SD x SP a (1 - %Ozf2D.9%)
MF x SV x MDW
FR x SD X SP3 x (1 - %Ozm-9%)
MPxSVxMPW
FRxSDxSPx20.9%x(l-%Oj/20.9%)z J
5. Mass particles/volume = MP
FRxSD
Note: Standard temperature at which orifice mass flows arc reported is 20°C.
Propagated error
OMP 1
-j- aFR
MP
+ ASD
MP
FR x SD
FR2 x SD
FR x SD2
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - Cfi
-------
Table C-4
Frcciiien and Accuracy Estimates
Parameter
Estimated Precision (A)
Estimated Accuracy
Comments
LAMP
a.AMF
b.AMRMC
c iuMRM
d.£MX
e.AMFB
2. mv
3.AFR
4.4SD
5.A%02
6.AHC
7.AEF
8.AMDB
9. MP
10.Aindoor
temp
11.Aflue &
catalyst
temp
Sum of a,b,c,d & e
±1 mg
±2mg
±2mg
± 20% (relative)
± 26.0 mg
0 (constant)
±0.2 litres/min.
_+_l.'78% relative
± 1%02 (absolute)
0 jauies/kg
(constant)
±0.03 (constant)
±3% (absolute^
±4% fabsolute^
± 15% (absolute)
±0.3% (relative) -
r^Ffl^O)
± 3"F (1.9°C) or 0.5%
(relative) whichever
Is greater
Sum of a,b,c,d & e
± 0.1 mg
±0.5 mg
±0.5 mg
± 50% (relative)
±2.5
± 500 litres/kg
dry wood
± 0.3 litres/mm.
+ 1,78% relative
± 2%02 (absolute)
± 1.4 x ID6
jo»iles/kg
±0.1
± 5% (absolute)
±5% (absolute)
± 15% (absolute)
± 1.0% (relative)
±4T(2.5°C)
±6°F (3.8°C) or
1.0% (relative)
whichever is
greater
weighing errors
polar compounds, surrogate standards
AMP for field blanks
range in calculated values
field observations, wst basis
6 mm. out of 336 ir.in.
1 sec. out of 1 rain.
field data
range in literature values
laboratory expci ieace
< 25% moisture
25- 35% moisture
> 35% moisture
Manf. specs & field data
field data
Manf. specs.
6QQCF threshold for relative
error, Manf. specs.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - 07
-------
Attachment C-2
Miscellaneous Parameters and Notes
1. Flue temp. (TCj)
x± S.D. weekly (above 100°F)
2. Percent of time combustor is operational (TC, > 50Q°F) during stove use (TCj > 100T),
3. MDB = MWW
(1 + WDB)
MDB = Mass dry wood
MWW = Mass wet wood
WDB — Water content of wood, dry basis
AMDB = AMDW
(1 + WDB)
AWDB
MWW
(1 + WDB)2
Burn rate
Kg dry wood / hours that TC] > 1Q0°F
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - C8
-------
APPENDIX D
WGODSTOVE EMISSION SAMPLING METHOD COMPARABILITY
SAMPLING SYSTEMS EMISSION RATE DATA
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
L01 - METHOD 5G AND METHOD 5H
OMNI EN VLR0N'MENTAL. SERVICES, INC.
-------
EPA METHOD 5G RESULTS
CLIENT BPA
MODEL .CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOBY WOOBSTOVE
PROJECT # >S19g-0E , 'i
SHIFT # ALL 58 (DT5) RUNS.
. DATE: MARCH 11-17 , 1987
EPA METHOD SG RESULTS
it*#-***#-***#*****#.** *****»*»«*»**#»******#**#» «¦***~*
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (DRY-STANDARD).. 0.0027
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE. . . , , 23.£50 (GRAMS/HOUR)
ftDJUSTEO EMISSIONS........ V,". 25.058
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB DAT A *
CLIENT
MODEL.
PROJECT #
SHIFT #
DATE
BAB METER READING BEGINNING
SAb" METER READING b-NDING
STATIC PRESSURE AU0. PT(IN.H20)
Y=SAG METER CALI8. FACTOR
WEISHT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE (MB)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE BEGINNING
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE MIDDLE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ENDING
TOTAL TIME OF TEST
AVERAGi~BAROMEfRfcTRESSURE ~
MD-MOLECULAR WEIBHT OF 8AS DRY
MS-MOLECULAR WEIBHT OF OAS WET
AREA OF TUNNEL
-------
EPA METHOD 5G RESULTS
CLIENT BPA
MODEL CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY WOODSTDVE
PROJECT # PS199-08
SHIFT # ALL 5G CDT&5 RUNS
DATE MARCH 11-17, 1987
EPA METHOD 5G RESULTS
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION fDRY-STANDARD).. 0.0027 (SRAMS/DSCF)
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE 23.363 C GRAMS/HOUR)
ADJUSTED EMISSIONS 24.903 (GRAMS/HOUR)
#*«~**+*~***'*••*¦»~*~**»*#*##»*****#*** a****** ***•*¦***»**#*•*» »»*~«¦#»~~*+~*~#
TUNNEL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE BO
TOTAL SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD CONDITIONS). 1697.48 IDSCF)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, - D3
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAE DATA;
CLIENT
HO DHL
PROJECT #
SHIFT #
DATE
BAS METER READING BEGINNING
GAS METER READING ENDING
STATIC PRESSURE AVG. PTUN.H2Q)
Y=BAS METER CALIB. FACTOR
WEIGHT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE (MB)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE BEGINNING
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE MIDDLE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ENDING
TOTAL TIME OF TEST
AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
MD-MQLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS DRV
MS-MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS WET
AREA OF TUNNEL CSQ, IN.)
AMG. TEMPERATURE OF METER
AVG TEMP. METER DEGREES R
AVERAGE DELTA H
CP-PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT
KP-PITOT TUBE CONSTANT
PS-ABSOLUTE TUNNEL BAS PRESSURE
STD. ABSOLUTE PRESSURE (in.Hq)
K1
ABSOLUTE TUNNEL TEMPERATURE
BWS—TUNNEL MOISTURE
STANDARD ABSOLUTE TEMP. (DEC. R}
VS-AVG TUNNEL GAS VELOCITY (feet
— NTRY COLUMN*********
BP A
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY WOODSTOVE
PS 1.90-09
ALL 5G (DTi) RUNS
MARCH 11-17, 1987
0. 000
1695.520
-O.536
1.009
4509.2
29. 32
6215
Ti g->
28.950
28.512
0.196
71
53 L
0.3977
0. 990
85.490
29. a
(J'-t
17. 64
540.4
0. 040
528
per second) 13.262
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D4
-------
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS PRDPORTIDNAi., SAMPLE:
CLIENT BF'A
PROJECT# PS198-OB (LOl)
MODEL# CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY WOODSTOVE
date march 11-17, 19B7
RUN* ALL P5H RUNS
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS PROPORTIONAL SAMPLEs
# *•****¦»•*-#****»•* *#**•*¦*#***# *¦¦*¦** #********#«-*¦##*-****-*¦#*
BURN RATE-. ... 0.94 KB/HOUR (DRY)
(E) PARTICULATE EMISSIONS 24.6 GRAMS/HOUR
********************** ***»*¦ *¦**¦**#* *****************************************
ICS) PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION 0.059 GRAMS/SCF
1072.696 DSCF
AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE 29.62 INCHES HE
(H> AVERAGE DELTA H- - . 0.&66 INCHES H2Q
(TmS AVERAGE TEMPERATURE METER 7B DEBREES F
. CCQ2! AVERAGE CARBQN DIOXIDE . * 5.56 V.
MOISTURE OF FUEL (WET BASIS) 18.77 7.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - D5
-------
5H LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB ENTRY:
ME!HDD 5H
CLIENT EPA
PROJECT# PS198-08
MODEL# CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY WOODSTDVE
DATE MARCH 11-17, 1987
RUM# ALL F'5H RUNS
V=GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR
Pb=AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
METER READING BEGINNING OF TEST
METER READING AT END OF TEST
TOTAL TIME OF TEST (MINUTES)
Vlc=VDLUME CONDENSED H20 (GRAMS5
mr,=TOTAL PARTICULATES CMG)
AMERABE CQ2
-------
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS CONSTANT SAMPLE:
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS199-08 +*** *** * *** * *********************************************
BURN RATE 0.B6 KS/HQUR !DRY>
(E) PARTICULATE EMISSIONS 19.2 GRAMS/HOUR
************************************** ********* *************************
(cs) PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION.
UQsd) STACK FLOWRftTE.
CBws) MOISTURE OF STACK
(VmS SAMPLE VOLUME (METER CONDITIONS)..
(Vmstd > SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD COND,).
(NT) CARBON BALANCE EXHAUST GAS..
0.052 GRAMS/SCF
369.5 DSCFH
7.65 ¦/.
1202.496 CUBIC FEET
1173.294 DSCF
0.507 MOLES SAS/KB WOOD
(Pb) AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
CM) AVERAGE DELTA H
(Tm) AVERAGE TEMPERATURE METER
!C02: AVERAGE CARBON DIOXIDE..
(CO) AVERAGE CAF'BON MONOXIDE. .
TOTAL TIME OF TEST
(Vic 5 VOLUME LIQUID COLLECTED,
(inn) PARTICULATES COLLECTED...
WEIGHT OF FUEL.
tMw) MOISTURE OF FUEL {WET BASIS)
29.83 INCHES HG
0.599 INCHES H20
78 DEGREES F
5.73 %
1. 33 '/,
¦J . 9 9 S
6260 MINUTES
2065.9 MS
£0059.9 MG
243.:
18. T
LBS
7.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D7
-------
5H LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB ENTRY;
METHOD SH
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS19B--0S (LOi)
MODEL# CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY WOODSTOVE
DATE MARCH 11-17, 1987
RUN# ALL C5H RUNS
Y=GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR
Pb=AvERASE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
METER READ IN3 BEGINNING OF TEST
METER READING AT END OF TEST
TOTAL TIME OF TEST (MINUTES)
Vlc=VOLUME CONDENSED H20 (GRAMS)
mrt=TOTAL PARTICULATES (MG>
AVERAGE C02 (FROM REP2 FORM)
AMERA3E CO (FROM REF*2 FORM)
YHC=(.OOBS CAT—.0132 NON-CATS
Wwd=TOTAL WT. FUEL BURNED (LBS)
Mw-MOlSTtlftE WOOD (DRY BASIS)
12D2.496
60B59.9
• 5.73
1 .33
O. 0132
243.3
23.05
£».
29 ; 83
0. ooo
0, 04707
17.64
TM=AVFRAGF TEMP. METER !R>
Vwstd=VOLUME WATER VAPOR
530
97.24
1
0.51
WC=WT FRACTION CARBON IN WOOD
NC=GM ATOM C/GH DRY FUEL LB/LB
YC02=M0LE FRACTION CQ2
YCO=MOLE FRACTION CO
Mw=MOISTURE WOOD i WE T)
BR=BURN RATE LB/HR (DRY)
. 0.057
0.0133
0. 042
O. 19
1 . 90
3B4. 8
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D8
-------
LQ2 - .METHOD 5G AND METHOD 5H
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
EPA METHOD 5(3 RESULTS
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEBRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
PROJECT H PS 198-OS •****••# ***#*************************#*****
TUNNEL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE.
AVERAGE DELTA P RUN DATA..,
77 (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
0.Q3B (INCHES H20)
TOTAL SAMPLE VOLUME (METER CONDITIONS) 21B3.BS
AVERAGE BAS METER TEMPERATURE.. 75
AVERAGE SAB VELOCITY IN DILUTION TUNNEL... 13.06
AVE. BAS FLOW RATE IN DILUTION TUNNEL 8767.38
TOTAL .SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD CONDITIONS). 21B4.58
(CUBIC FEET5
(DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
(FEET/SECOND)
(DSCFH)
(DSCF)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D9
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB DATA:
*****ENTRY COLUMN*****#***
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
PROJECT *t PS198-0B CL02>
DATE MARCH 25-31, 198"
RUN# ALL 5-5G RUNS
GAS METER READING BEGINNING
GAS METER READING ENDING
STATIC PRESSURE AUG. F'T
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE BEGINNING
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE MIDDLE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ENDING
TOTAL TIME OF TEST
0. ouo
2183.sao
-O.441
1. 004
837. 1
7710
AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
MD-MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF SAS DRY
MS-MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS WET
AREA OF TUNNEL CSQ. IN.)
AVG. TEMPERATURE OF METER
AVG TEMP. METER DEGREES R
AVERAGE DELTA H
CP—PI TOT TUBE COEFFICIENT
KP—PI TOT TUBE CONSTANT
PS—ABSOLUTE TUNNEL GAS PRESSURE
STD. ABSOLUTE PRESSURE tin.Hg)
K1
ABSOLUTE TUNNEL TEMPERATURE
BW5-TUNNEL MOISTURE
STANDARD ABSOLUTE TEMP. CDES. R>
V5-AVS TUNNEL GAS VELOCITY (feet/second)
30.20
28.950
28.512
O. 196
JOO
O.2990
0.990
83.490
30.2
29.92
17.44
537. 1
0.040
528
12.959
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D10
-------
EPA METHOD SS RESULTS
CLIENT BP'A
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOV:
PROJECT # PS190-08 (L02)
DATE MARCH 25-31, 1987
RUN# ALL 6-5B RUNS
EPA METHOD 5S RESULTS
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (DRY-STANDARD).. 0,0003
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE i
LAB DATA:
*****entry COLUMN* *««¦*'»•**•*
CLIENT BRA
P10DEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
PROJECT # PS 198-08 (L02)
DATE MARCH 25-31, 19B7
RUN# ALL 6-5G RUNS
BAS METER READING BEGINNING O.OOO
GAS METER READING ENDING 2125.280
STATIC PRESSURE AVG. PT(IN.H20) -0.441
Y=GAS METER CALIB. FACTOR 1.009
WEIGHT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE CHG) 712.3
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE BEGINNING . 30.20
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE MIDDLE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ENDING
TOTAL TI ME OF TEST 7730
AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE 30.20
MD-MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS DRY 23.950
MS-MOLECULAR WEI BUT OF GAS WET 28,512
AREA OF TUNNEL CBS. IN.5 0.196
-AVG. TEMPERATURE OF METER 7?
AVB TEMP. METER DEGREES R 533
AVERAGE DELTA H O.30?7
Cp-plTOT TUBE COEFFICIENT 0.990
KP-PITDT TUBE CONSTANT 85.490
PS-ABSOLUTE TUNNEL GAS PRESSURE 30.2
STD. ABSOLUTE PRESSURE (in.Hg) 29.92
K1 17.64
ABSOLUTE TUNNEL TEMPERATURE <37.1
BW5—TUNNEL MOISTURE 0.04O
STANDARD ABSOLUTE TEMP. CDES. R3 528
VS-AVG TUNNEL GAS VELOCITY (feet/second) 12.959
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D12
-------
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS PROPORTIONAL SAMPLE:
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS198-08 CL02S
MODEL# INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WQODSTOVE
DATE MARCH 25-31, 1987
RUN# ALL P5H RUNS
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS PROPORTIONAL SAMPLE:
*********************
BURN RATE 0.74 KB/HOUR (DRY!
(E) PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, . 2.8 GRAMS,'HOUR
**¦*« *¦#¦¦*##*¦»•* »******#¦**»*****~*#*##»****##***#* #*•*#**¦#*#**¦**#•*¦##*¦**¦* *«••**
(cs! PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION 0.007 GRAMS/SCF
' STACIi> ..FLOWRATE. . 393.0 DSCFH
(Bw5> MOISTURE OF STACK ... 6. 68 X
SAMPLE VOLUME (METER CONDITIONS) .1149.594 CUBIC FEET
(Vmstd! SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD COND.5 .... 1141.002 DSCF
(NT) CARBON BALANCE EXHAUST OAS 0.614 MOLES GAS/KG WOOD
30.-^ INCHES HG„
.o. sr.Vr.i'jMCHES H20 -
~ 3EHSEES F
s. 94*.;y.
c. o AVERfiBE DELTA H. .
(Tin) AVERAGE TEMPERATURE METER, . _
METER CALIBRATION FACTOR.
(t) TOTAL TIME OF TEST..........
(Vic) VOLUME LIQUID COLLECTED
(mr) PARTICULATES COLLECTED
(Wwd) WEIQHT QF FUEL
-------
5H LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB ENTRY:
METHOD 5H
CLIENT BPft
PROJECT# PS198-08 (L02>
MODEL# INTEBRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
DATE tIARCH 25-31 , 1997
RUN* ALL P5H RUNS
Y=GAS METER CALIBRATION FACTOR
Pb-AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
METER READING BEGINNING OF TEST
METER READING AT END OF TEST
TOTAL TIME OF TEST {MINUTES)
Vlc=VOLUME CONDENSED H20 (GRAMS)
mr.-TOTAL PARTICULATES (MS >
AVERAGE C02 (FROM REP2 FORM)
AVERAGE CO (FROM REF'2 FORM)
YHC= E.0088 CAT — .0132 NON-CAT)
Wwd=TOTAL WT. FUEL BURNED (LBS)
Hw-MOISIURE WOOD (DRY BASIS)
1149.594
7707
1735.6
1.007
30. 23
0. 000
252. 0
20. a 6
K2
0.04707
17. 64
542
01. 69
1
O. 51
O. 042
Tf"!=AVERAGE TEMP. METER
Vwstd=VOLUME WATER VAPOR
K
WC=WT FRACTION CARBON IN WOOD
NC=GM ATOM C/GM DRY FUEL LB/LB
YC02=MOLE FRACTION C02
YCO=MOLE FRACTION CO
Mw=MOISTURE WOOD (WET)
BR=BURN RATE LB/HR (DRY)
0.059
O.0009
0.17
1.62
384. B
K4
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D14
-------
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS CONSTANT SAMPLE:
CLIENT BRA
PROJECT# PS190-08 (L02)
MODEL# INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTQVE
DATE MARCH 25-3 l"i 1987
RUN# ALL C5H RUNS
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS CONSTANT SAMPLE:
****#*#***¦¦»** #********** ***********+*********»******* ******************
BURN RATE 0. 76 KG/HOUR {DRYS
(E,> PARTICULATE EMISSIONS 2.8 GRAMS/HOUR
********* *^*******»**** *#»*************«****»*•*»*#-** ***»»#***#***#***»#¦
¦ (cs! PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION,....., - 0.007 GRAMS/SCF
(Gsd) STACK FLOWRATE.. . „ 401. 8 DSCFH
(iws) MOISTURE OF STACK. 7,00 7.,.
• (VmJ SAMPLE VOLUME (METER CONDITIONS) 1517.CUE SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD COND.) 1491.211 DSCF
(NT) CARBOM BALANCE EXHAUST GAS O.622 MOLES GAS/KG WOOD
(Pbi 'AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
!H> AVERASE DELTA H.
WEIGHT OF FUEL
(Mw> MOISTURE OF FUEL (WET BASIS1
0.996
7830 MINUTES
2384.0 MB
10357.0 M6
264¦3 LB3
17,22
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. INC. - D15
-------
5H LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB ENTRY:
METHOD 5H
CLIENT BF'A
PROJECT# PS196-00 264.S
tiw=MOI STURE WOOD (DRY BASIS) 20.90
K2 0.04707
K1 17.64
TM=AVERAGE TEMP. METER (R) S41
Vw=td=VOLUME WATER VAPOR 112.21
K3 1
WC=WT FRACTION CARBON IN WOOD 0.51
NC=GM ATOM C/GM DRY FUEL LB/LB 0.042
YCG2 = M0L"E FRACTION C02 0.059
YCO=MOLE FRACTION CO 0.0009
Mw=MOISTURE WOOD (WET) 0.17
' BR=BURN RATE LB/HR (DRY) 1.68
t<4 384.8
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - DI6
-------
L03 - METHOD 5G AND METHOD 5H
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
EPA METHOD 5G.RESULTS
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
PROJECT n PS 198-C'B CL03I
DATE APRIL 7-13, 1967
RUN# ALL 5-5G RUNS
EPA METHOD 5S RESULTS
***** **************** ************************* *****
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (DRY-STANDARD) .. 0,0002 < GRAMS/DSCF)
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE..., ....... 1.482 (GRAMS/HOUR!
ADJUSTED EMISSIONS 2.523
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB DATA;
CLIENT
MODEL
PROJECT a
DATE
RUN#
GAS METER READ1MB BEGINNING
GAS METER READING ENDING
STATIC PRESSURE AVG. PT
Y=C-AS METER CALIB. FACTOR
WEIGHT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE CMS)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE BEGINNING
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE MIDDLE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ENDING
TOTAL TIME OF TEST
AVERAGE"BAROMETRIC"PRESSURE
MD-MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS DRY
MS-MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF EAS WET
AREA OF TUNNEL <3Q. IN.)
AVB. TEMPERATURE OF METER
AUG TEMP. METER DEGREES R
AVERAGE DELTA H
CP-F'ITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT
KF-PITDT TUBE CONSTANT
PS-ABSOLUTE TUNNEL GAS PRESSURE
STD. ABSOLUTE F'RESSURE (in.Hgi
K1
ABSOLUTE TUNNEL TEMPERATURE
BWS-TUNNEL MOISTURE
STANDARD ABSOLUTE TEMP.
APRIL 7-13, 1987
ALL 5-56 RUNS
0. ooo
2525.470
-0.527
1. 004
qqj, h
30. 08
0330
30. OS
2B.950
28.512
0. 196
76
536
O.3015
0, 990
85.490
30. 0
29. 92
17. 64
538. 5
¦ 0.040
528
second) 12.383
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ¦ D18
-------
EPA METHOD 5G RESULTS
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOQDSTOVE
PROJECT # PS198—OS (L03)
DATE APRIL 7-13, 1937
RUN# ALL 6-50 RUNS
EPA METHOD SG RESULTS
***»«•¦•¦*~*+•¦~**********#***¦***#*«¦»******#¦***********#**#**#**»#**»*#*#**#
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (DRY-STANDARD)., 0.0002 (GRAMS/DSCFi
F'ARTICULATE EMISSION RATE 1.524 (GRAMS/HOUR)
ADJUSTED EMISSIONS 2. sei (GRAMS/HOUR)
«•«¦* x ****** a < **<**»»*«***•>! *»***»*****¦¦>< ****** ***«»< * **********************
TUNNEL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE.
AVERAGE DELTA F RUN DATA...
77 (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
0.035 CINCHES H2CD
TOTAL SAMPLE VOLUME (METER CONDITIONS).... 24=1.43
AVERAGE GAS METER TEMPERATURE.,,.. 75
AVERAGE GAS VELOCITY' IN DILUTION TUNNEL... 12.46
AVG. GAS FLOW RATE IN DILUTION TUNNEL.."... 0330.69
TOTAL SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD CONDITIONS). 2454.94
(CUBIC FEET)
(DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
(FEET/SECOND!
CDSCFH)
(DSCF)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D19
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB DATA:
*****ENTRY COLUMN*********
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
PROJECT tt PS198-08 (L03)
DATE APRIL 7-13, 1987
RUN# ALL 6-5G RUNS
GAS METER READING BEGINNING 0,000
GAS METER READING ENDING 2451.480
STATIC PRESSURE AVB. PT -0.527
Y=GAS METER CALIB. FACTOR 1.009
WEIGHT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE 52B
vs—AVG TUNNEL GAS VELOCITY (feet per second) 12.360
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. • D2D
-------
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS PROPORTIONAL SAMPLE:
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS198-08 AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE 30.07 INCHES HQ
AVERAGE DELTA H. 0.566 INCHES H20
(Tm3 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE METER............ 83 DEGREES F
' AVERAGE CARBON DIOXIDE 9.24 X
¦ (CO AVERAGE CARBON MONOXIDE........ 0.19 7.
< IY> METER CALIBRATION FACTOR. 1.007
TOTAL TIME OF TEST BBOO MINUTES
(Vic) VOLUME LIQUID COLLECTED....... 3960.6 MS
PARTICULATES COLLECTED.... 8010.1 M6
MOISTURE OF'FUEL (WET BASIS). 19.99 %
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - D21
-------
5H LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB ENTRY:
METHOD 5H
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS198-00 o.oosb
Wwd=TQTAL WT. FUEL BURNED (LBS) 484.6
Mn=MOISTURE WOOD (DRY BASIS) 24.99
K2 0.04707
:<1 ¦ 17.64
TM=AW'ERAGE TEMP. METER ,'CR) S43
Vwstd=VOLUME WATER VAPOR 106.43
K3 1
WC=WT FRACTION CARBON IN WOOD 0.51
NC=SM ATOM C/GM DRY FUEL LB/LB 0.042
YCC2-M0LE FRACTION C02 - 0.092
YCO=HOLE FRACTION CO 0.0019
MW--M01STURE WOOD (WET) O.20
BR=BURN RATE LB/HR (DRY! 2.64
1- 4 384.8
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D22
-------
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS CONSTANT SAMPLEs
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS198-08 CL03>
MODEL# INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
DATE APRIL 7-13, 1987
RUN# ALL CSH RUNS
EPA METHOD 5H RESULTS CONSTANT SAMPLE:
' ********* ********»**#*****#*-*•«*«¦*»*»»*»***¦#**_#
c BURN RA.TE ' 1.23 KG/HOUR (DRY) "«
AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE 30.06 INCHES H6
AVERABE TEMPERATURE METER 02 DEGREES F
' METER CALIBRATION FACTOR 0.996
(t) TOTAL TIME OF TEST 8910 MINUTES
(Vic! VOLUME LIQUID COLLECTED...... 3008.6 MS
(un) PARTICULATES COLLECTED 3814.3 MS
-------
5H LAB DAT ft TABLE 1
LAB ENTRY:
METHOD 5H
CLIENT BPA
PROJECT# PS199—08
-------
LOl, L02AHDL03
AWHS BURN RATE AND PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE DATA
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
Compar-
ability
Test"
Stove
Oper-
ation1*
(%)
Catalyst
Oper-
ation
(%)
Average
Fuel
Moistured
(%DB)
Average
Burn Rale
(dry
kg/hr)
Grams
per hr
Grams per kg
Grams per 106J
Grams per ur
Fuel
Type
Sampling
Cycle
Sampling
Location
Emissior
Rate
m
(Af
Emissiot
Rate
{P}
[Af
Fmissioi
Rate
{P}
[Af
Emission
Rale
[A]e
100%
Douglas
Fir
Inter-
mittent
Flue
Collar
278
{±6.2}
(±85]
28.9
{±4.8}
[±83]
2.9
{±£}J}
[±0.9]
1.91
{±0.21}
[±0.25]
L01
72.6%
N/A
26.2
0.96
Inter-
mittent
Flue
Collar
263
{±5,8}
[±8,1]
27.4
{±43}
[±7.9]
2.7
{±05}
[±0.9]
1.79
(±0,19}
[+0.23]
Con-
tinuous
Flue
Collar
35.0
{±7.4}
[±11.7]
36.4
{±5.7}
[±11.4]
4.1
{ ±0.6}
[±1.4]
234
{±0.23}
[±0.36]
100%
Douglas
Fir
Iater-
mittent
Flue
Collar
35
{ ± 1.1}
(±1.1]
4.8
{±13}
[ ^ 1.4)
03
{ ±0.1}
[±0.1}
034
{±0.07}
I ±0.06]
L02
78.5%
92.2%
19.9
Q.73
Inter-
mittent
Firebox
38.7
{ ± 73}
[±10.9]
53.4
{ ±73}
[±133]
6.7
{ ±0.9}
[±1.9]
4£9
{±0,45}
[±0.67]
Con-
tinuous
Flue
Collar
43
{±0.9}
(±1-5]
5.9
{±1.0}
[±1.9]
0.4
{ ±0.1}
[±0.1]
035
{±0.04}
[±0.06]
50%
Red Oak
50%
Sugar
Maple
26.5
28.4
Inter-
mittent
Flue
Collar
4.1
{ ± 1,2}
[±1.2]
33
i *0.8}
[±0.9]
0.2
{ ±0.1}
[±0.1]
033
{±0,07}
[±0,05]
LOJ
96.5%
99.8%
1.22
Inter-
mittent
Firebox
46.9
| ±8.9}
[±13.4]
38.3
{±5.1}
[±10.2]
4.0
{ ±0.5}
[sl.2]
5.05
{±0.53}
[±0.86]
Con-
tinuous
Flue
Collar
2.8
{±0,5}
[+0,8]
2.3
{±03}
[±0.6]
0.2
{±0.1}
[±0.1]
0.22
{±0.02}
[±0.04]
a - L01 - Conventional Technology woodstove, ''Portland area" burn cycle.
Ij02 - Integral Catalytic -woodstove, "Portland area" burn cycle.
LG3 - Integral Catalytic woodstove, "Northeast" burn cycle,
b - Percentage of total possible operating hours during" comparability test woodstove is operational, based on stack temperature greater than
38°C (1Q0°F).
c ¦ Percentage of woodstove operation time catalyst at light-off conditions, based on stack temperature greater than 260°C (SOOT),
d - Percentage fuel moisture — dry basis.
e - Estimated precision and accuracy based on total propagation of uncertainties of individual measurements used in the emissions cale.iSa.nons.
-------
L01, L02 AMD LQ3
LOW VOLUME AMBIENT AIR SAMPLER
AND DILUTION TUNNEL SWEEPING (DCP) DATA
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability
Indoor Air Quality (1AQ)
and
Deposited Conderisible Particulate (DCP) Data
Comparability T est3
L01
LQ2
LQ3
Indoor Ambient Air Particulate Dilution Tunnel
Coaceotration (ttg/m3'1' • Particulate
412,72 51,0
247,75 12,1
251.78 14.4
a L01 - Conventional technology woodstove, "Portland area" fuel cycle. •
LG2 - Integral catalytic woodstove, "Portland area" fuel cycle,
LQ3 - Integral catalytic woodstove, "Northeast" fuel cycle.
b Particulate concentration measured by indoor low volume sampler.
c Weight of condensihle particulate deposited on dilution tunnel pipe during each comparability test.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D26
-------
A LIMITED ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE ACCURACY
OF EPA SAMPLING METHODS 5G AND 5H
AND
ESTIMATED EMISSION RATE CONVERSION FACTORS
FOR AWES TO 5G AND AWES TO 5H
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
I.
A limited Assessment of the Relative Accuracy of EPA Sampling Methods 5G and 5H
An additional limited analysis was conducted of side-by-side, g/hr emission rates determined by EPA Methods
5G and 5H. As shown in the data in the table below, the average percent difference in the calculated 5G and
5H emission rates is ±20%.
Comparison of 5G (5H Corrected) vs. 5H Emission Rates
SG 5H fSG-Sffl
Run
e/hr
% diff.
2 nrobes
2/hr
% diff.
2 trains
e/br
% diff.
C5G - 5H1
1
2.02
0.2
1.20
33.3
0.82
51
2
1.54
6.8
1.50
0.0
0.04
3
3
5.45
0.9
4.35
10.3
1.10
22
4
8.2S
0.6
8.80
13.6
0.55
6
5
6.15
2.4
4.90
2.0
1.25
22
6
7.30
4.1
9.50
5.3
2.20
26
7
8.16
9.1
8.75
3.4
0.59
17
8
6.30
12.7
5,50
0.0
0.80
13
9
24.98
0.6
24.6
—
0.38
2
10
4.7
12.0
2,8
—
1.90
51
11
2.55
zo
2.1
—
0.45
19
MEAN 7.03 4.67 6.72 8.49 0.92 20
Difference in means: 0.31
% difference in means: 5%
Runs 1 tliiougii 8 are based on the results of 1987 EPA Proficiency Tests conducted at OMNI Environmental
Services' laboratory in Beaverton, Oregon, February 1987. Each 5G value is the mean emission rate fron two
sample probes. Each 5H value is the mean emission rate from two trains. All 5G values are "5H corrected."
Runs 9 through 11 are based on the data in Table 1 of this report. Each 5G value is the mean from two sample
probes. The 5H values are based on one sample train. All values are the 5G - "5H corrected" emission rates.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D27
-------
II. Estimated Emission Rate Conversion Factors for AWES to 5G and AWES to 5H
A summary of the data from Tables 3, 4, 5 and 11 is shown below for emission rate ratios for the AWES
(intermittent sampling), EPA Methods 5G (5H corrected) and 5H (proportional sampling). Based on the
mean of the ratios, the emission rate conversion factors for AWES to 5G and AWES to 5H are 0.98 and 0.73
respectively.
Ratio of Emission Rates
Teat
L01
SG t'SH Corrected')/A WES 5H f Proper tionalVA WES
0.92 0.88
LQ2
L03
In-Situ
(Home F02)
0.73
0.92
1.34
0.51
Mean
0.98 (a = 0.22)
0.73 (o- = 0.16)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - D28
-------
APPENDIX E
IN-SITU EVALUATION
PROJECT PARTICIPANT PROFILES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
-------
Project Participant Profile
HOME CODE: POl
HOME TYPE; Older Custom Home,
Single Story
FLOOR AREA: (92.9 square meters)
,. 1000 square feet
HOME CONSTRUCTION: Wood
HEATING SYSTEM
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE: Wood
SECONDARY HEAT SOURCE: Electric
Baseboard
ESTIMATED CORDS OF WOOD BURNED PER YEAR: 3Yi
WOODSTOVE: Low Emission NuL-Catalytx Woodstove (LE#2)
WOODSTOVE LOCATION: Living Room
CHIMNEY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:
15.2 cm (6-inch) single wall from flue collar to wall thimble [1.4 meters (4,5 feet)],
17.8 cm x 27.9 cm (7-inch by 11-Inch) ceramic lined masonry from wall thimble to exit [3.7
meters (12.0 Feet) outside].
PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
Participant reported that the woodstove did not have sufficient heat output. The participant
felt that the heat output was less than the woodstove was capable of based on the firebox size.
GENERAL COMMENTS
LE#2 woodslovc installed and first chimney cleaning done January 9,1987,
OMNI instrumentation installed January 9,1987,
Mid-season chimney cleaning done February 20,1987,
Final chimney cleaning done March 17,1987.
OMNI instrumentation removed March 18, 1987.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - El
-------
Project Participant Profile
HOME CODE: P02 HOME TYPE: Older Custom Home,
Single Story with Basement
FLOOR AREA: 185.8 square meters HOME CONSTRUCTION: Brick
(2000 square feet)
HEATING SYSTEM
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE: Wood SECONDARY HEAT SOURCE: Gas
ESTIMATED CORDS OF WOOD BURNED PER YEAR; 2«
WOODSTOVE; Integral Catalytic Woodstove (IC#1)
WOODSTOVE LOCATION: Main Floor Family Room
CHIMNEY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:
2D.3 cm (8-inch) single wall from flue collar to ceiling thimble [1,5 meters (5.0 f:ec)].
20.3 cm x 33.0 cm (8-incfa by 13-inch) triple wall packed pips from ceiling thimble to exit [1.8
meters (6,0 feet) outside].
PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
Participant was. very pleased with the characteristics of this woodstove. , The woodstove was
easy to operate, had relatively low fuel consumption, and had long burn times between
refuelings.
GENERAL COMMENTS
IC#1 woodstove installed and first chimney cleaning done January 9,1987,
OMNI instrumentation installed January 10,1987.
AWES/DATA LQG'r and Method 5G In-Situ comparability project performed January 28-
February 3, 1987.
Mid-season chimney cleaning done February 20,1987.
OMNI instrumentation removed March 16,1987.
Final chimney cleaning done March 17, 1987.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - E2
-------
Project Participant Profile
HOME CODE: P03
HOME TYPE: Older Custom Home,
Single Story with Daylight
Basement
FLOOR AREA: 139.4 square meters
(1500 square feet)
HOME CONSTRUCTION: Wood
HEATING SYSTEM
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE: Wood
SECONDARY HEAT SOURCE: Electric
Baseboard
ESTIMATED CORDS OF WOOD BURNED PER YEAR: 5
WOODS TO VE: Conventional Technology Woodstove (CT#2)
WOODSTOVE LOCATION: Unfinished Basement
CHIMNEY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION;
15.2 cm (6-inch) single wall from flue collar to chimney thimble [1.5 meters (5.0 feet)).
15.2 cm (6-inch) tile-fined masonry from chimney thimble to exit [43 meters (14.0 feet) within
walls of house, 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) outside],
PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
Participant was very pleased with the heat output and bum time between refueling of the
woodstove.
GENERAL COMMENTS
CT#2 woodstove installed and first chimney cleaning done January 15,1987.
OMNI instrumentation installed January 15,1987.
Mid-season chimney cleaning done February 20,1987.
Final chimney cleaning done March 28,1987.
OMNI instrumentation removed April 1,1987.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - E3
-------
Project Participant Profile
HOME CODE: P04
HOME TYPE: Older Custom Home,
Single Story
FLOOR AREA: 120.8 square meters
(1300 square feel)
HOME CONSTRUCTION; Wood
HEATING SYSTEM
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE:. Wood
SECONDARY HEAT SOURCE: Oil
ESTIMATED CORDS OF WOOD BURNED PER YEAR: 3
WOODSTOVE: Low Emission Non-Catalytic Woodstcve (LE#1)
WOODSTOVE LOCATION: Family Room
CHIMNEY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:
15.2 cm (6-inch) single wall from Que collar to ceiling thimble [2,0 meters (6,6 feet}].
15,2 cm x 20.3 cm (6-inch by 8-inch) packed pipe from ceiling thimble to exit [2,0 meters
(6.S feet) outside],
PARTICIPANT COMMRNTS
Participant was generally pleased with the heat output of this woodslove; however, the suwe
would bum out and require refueling during the night, which was inconvenient.
GENERAL COMMENTS
LE#1 woodstove installed and first chimney cleaning done January 9,1987.
OMNI instrumectation installed January 12,1987,
Mid-season chimney cleaning done February 20,1987.
Final chimney cleaning done March 28,1987.
OMNI uislrumcQtalioc removed April 1,1987.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - E4
-------
Project Participant ProSle
HOME CODE: P05
HOME TYPE: Older Custom Home,
Single Story
FLOOR AREA: 74.3 square meters
(800 square Feet)
HOME CONSTRUCTION: Brick and Wood
HEATING SYSTEM ¦
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE: Wood
SECONDARY HEAT SOURCE: Electric
Baseboard
ESTIMATED CORDS OF WOOD BURNED PER YEAR: 4
WOODSTOVE: Conventional Technology Woodstove (CT#1)
WOODSTOVE LOCATION: Living Room
CHIMNEY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:
15,2 cm (6-inch) single wall from flue collar to steel cover plate aver conventional fireplace
[0.2 meters (0.5 feet)).
Conventional fireplace with 30.5 cm x 30.5 cm (12-inch by 12-inch) unlined masonry from steel
cover plate to exit, [4.9 meters (16.0 feet) outside].
PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
Participant did not receive a new woodstove for tie study. The woodstove in this home was
four years old.
GENERAL COMMENTS
First chimney cleaning done January 15,1987.
OMNI instrumentation installed January 15,1987.
Mid-season chimney cleaning done February 20,1987.
Final chimney cleaning done March 17,1987.
OMNI instrumentation removed March 17, 1987.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - E5
-------
Project Participant Profile
HOME CODE: P06
HOME TYPE: Older Custom Home,
Two Story with Easement
FLOOR AREA: 232.3 square meters
(2500 square feet)
HEATING SYSTEM
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE; Wood
SECONDARY HEAT SOURCE: Oil
HOME CONSTRUCTION: Wood
ESTIMATED CORDS OF WOOD BURNED PER YEAR: Not available. This was the participant's first
year in this home. !'¦
WOODSTOVE; Integral Catalytic Woodstove (IC#2)
WOODSTOVE LOCATION: Main Floor Living Room
CHIMNEY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:
203 cm (8-inch) single wall from flue collar to railing thimble [2.1 meters (7.0 feet)].
20.3 cm x 30.5 cm (8-inch by 12-inch) packed pipe from ceiling thimble lo exit [2.1 meters (7.0
feet) within walls of house, 24 meters (8.0 feet) outside].
PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
Participant spent approximately two weeks learning to operate the woodstove. After becoming
familiar with the woodstove operation, the participant was pleased with the heat output and the
burn time between refueling of the woodstove.
GENERAL COMMENTS
IC#2 woodstove installed and first chimney cleaning done January 15,1987.
OMNI instrumentation installed January 16,1987.
Mid-season chimney cleaning done February 20,1987,
Final chimney cleaning done March 28,1987,
OMNI instrumentation removed March 31,1987.
Post-study inspection of the woodstove revealed: /
2. A piece of the missing gasket had wedged in the bypass door hinge. This piece of
gasket did not allow the bypass door to close completely.
3. Approximately one third of the catalyst cells were plugged with fly and/or paper ash.
4. The ash removal pan at the bottom of the woodstove was not seated properly, resulting
in potential underlire air leakage.
1. A portion of the gusketing on the bypass door was missing.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - E6
-------
APPENDIX F
IN-SITU WOODSTOVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
BURN BATE, PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE,
AND METHOD 5G DATA TABLES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
-------
BURN RATE AND PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE TABLES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: LOW EMISSION NON-CATALYTIC #2
HOME CODE: P01
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Heating
Degree
Days3
Stove
Operation
(%)b
Catalyst
Operation
(%f
Fuel Type
Fuel
Moisture
<% db)d
Average
Fuel Load
(dry kg)
Average
Burn Rate
(dry kg/hr)
1
1/15/87-
1/21/87
221
73.5%
N/A
80% Maple
2)% Douglas Fir
22,6
113
2.91
0.87
2
ymm-
2/03/87
131
38.2%
N/A
80% Maple
20% Douglas Fir
20.8
ll.fi
3.41
1.22
3
2/11/87-
2/17/87
122
68.1%
N/A
80% Maple
20% Douglas Fir
32,4
19.6
2.78
1.07
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
150
14,7%
N/A
80% Maple
20% Douglas Fk
32.7
15.4
2.48
1.10
o
2
s
m
z
$
jo
O
3
2
m
5
£
V)
m
S3
<
n
js
3
o
3
Table F-ta
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: LOW EMISSION NON-CATALYTIC #2
HOME CODE: P01
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Grams per Mr
Grams per Kg
Grams pci 10s J
Grains per ui^
Emission
Rale
(PI
[A]'
Emission
Rate
{P}
[A]'
Emission
Rate
{P}
[A]f
C oaten.
Iration
W
[A]f
1
1/15/87-
1/7.1/87
19.4
{±6.7}
[±83]
22a
{±6-3}
[±9.0]
3.1
{±1X1}
[±13]
0,74
{±0.12}
[±0.11]
2
1/28/87-
wmi
17,4
{±.6,9}
[ = 6.51
143
{ ±4.9}
I ±5.0]
13
{±0.6}
[ ± 0.6J
0.65
{±0.16}
[±0.11]
3
2/11/87-
2/17/87
133
{± 4.8}
1—5.11
12J
{±3.8}
[±«]
1.4
{±05}
1 -0.5]
054
{±0.11}
[±0.09]
4
2/23/87-
3/0 US7
24.1
{ ± 13.2}
[+10.61
215
{ ± 10.7}
[±9.1]
2.7
{±1.4}
[±12]
0S1
{±035}
[±0.19]
Tabta F-w
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: INTEGRAL CATALYTIC #1
HOME CODE: P02
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Heating
Degree
Days'
Stove
Operation
(%)b
Catalyst
Operation
(%)c
Fuel Type
Fuel
Moisture
(% db)a
Average
Fuel Load
(dry kg)
Average
Burn Rate
(dry kg/hr)
1
' 1/15/87-
1/21/87
221
40,1%
68.8%
100% Apple
12.9
555
1.07
2
V28/87-
imtsn
131
91-7%
82.9%
100% Douglas Fir
15-6
4.85
0.95
3
Ml/87-
7/17/87
122
77.8%
72.8%
20% Apple
80% Douglas Fir
16.2,
17.6
4-54
0,87
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
150
675%
67.6%
20% Apple
80% Douglas Fir
16.2
17.0
4.06
0.79
Table F-2a
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: INTEGRAL CATALYTIC #1
HOME CODE: P02
m
z
<
o
%
H
>
r
w
tn
w
<
a
w
5
o
2
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dales
Sampling
Location
Grams per Hr
Grams per Kg
Grams per 10^ J
Grams per m3
Emission
Rate
{P}
[A]'
Emission
Rate
Wf
[A]f
Emission
Rate
{P}
[A]f
Con ee n-
tiation
{P}r
[A]
1
1/15/87-
1/21/8?
Before
Catalyst
53.4
{ ± 16.7}
[±21.5]
49.9
{±12.9}
[±19.01
6.9
{±1.9}
[±2.8]
1j60
(±0.21[
{ ±0,21};.
After
Catalyst
2.7
{±1.9}
I ±0.9]
25
{± 1-S}
[±0.8]
0.2
{ ±0.1}
[±0.1]
0.18
[±0.11]
{*0.04}
2
1/28/87-
2/03/87
Before
Catalyst
33.9
{±7.0}
1-9-1]
35.9
{±5.4}
l±8S]
3.5
{±0.6}
[±0.9]
3.64
[±038]
{±057}
After
Catalyst
4.2
{±1.8}
\±IS]
4.4
{ ± 1.6}
I±1J]
03
{±0.1}
[±0.1]
0.22
[±0.06]
{ ±0,04}
Chimney
Exit
4.4
{±2.0}
I ±1.7]
4.6
i ±1.9}
[±1.7]
03
{ ±0.1}
[±0.1]
0.17
[±0.05]
{ ±0.03}
3
2/11/87-
2/17/87
Before
Catalyst
43.7
{±8-8]
[± 11.4]
50.4
{±75}
[±12.1]
6.0
{±1.0}
[±13]
5.04
[±050}
{ ±0.76}
After
Catalyst
4.7
{±1.9}
[±1.6J
5,4
{±IS}
[±1.7]
0.4
{ ±0.1}
[±0.1]
0.26
[±0.07]
{ ±0.04}
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
Before
Catalyst
32.1
{±6.8}
[±8.8]
40.7
{±6.5}
[±103]
4.2
{ ±0.7}
[±1.1]
359
[±038]
{ ±055}
After
Catalyst
43
{ ±2.2}
(— 7.7]
5.4
{±2.4}
[±2.0]
0.4
{ ±0.2}
[±0.2]
0.22
[±0.08]
{ ±0.04}
Table f-2t>
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY #2
HOME CODE: P03
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dales
Heating
Degree
Days*
Stove
Operation
(%)b
Catalyst
Operation
(%f
Fuel Type
Fuel
Moisture
(% db)d
Average
Fuel Load
(dry kg)
Average
Burn Rate
(drykg/hr)
1
1/16/87-
mw?
219
91.1%
N/A
90% Maple
10% Alder
253
17.9
6.06
1.68
2
1/29/87-
2/04/Sr
129
78.0%
N/A
90% Maple
10% Alder
25.1
15.4
534
1.26
3
2/11/8?-
2/17/87
122
613%
N/A
50% Maple
50% Alder
30.8
19.4
4.20
1.02
•t
2/23/87-
3/01/87
130
815%
N/A
50% Maple
50% Alder
353
25.9'
4.96
0.94
5
3/21/87-
3/27/87
127
40.7%
N/A
50% Maple
50% Alder
25.4
23.8
534
1.25
Tabto F-3a
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY #2
HOME CODE: P03
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Grams per Hr
., Grams per Kg
Grams pe»" 10* J
Grams per m3
Emission
Rale
{P}f
lAJf
Emission
Rate
{P}
LA]f
Emission
Rate
{P}
[A]f
Concen-
tration
{PJr
[A]f
1
1/16/37-
1/22/87=
223
{+6.1}
(±7.0]
133
{±2.9}
I ± 3-9]
13
{±03}
[±0.4}
0.75
{±0.10}
I ±0.101
2
1/28/87-
ZW8T
9.7
{±33]
[:£ 3.4]
7.7
{ ±2.2}
[±25]
0.7
{±0.2}
(±0-2}
0.42
{±0.08}
[±0.07]
3
2/11/87-
2/17/87
10.8
{-4.6}
[±4.6]
10 j
{±3.9}
[±43}
1.1
{±0.4}
[±03]
035
{±0.08}
[±0.05]
4
2/23/87-
3/0 US7
9J
{±2.7}
(±2.9]
1CJ
{±23}
[ ± 2,9)
0.9
{±0.2}
[±03]
0.66
{±0.10}
[±0.10]
5
3/21/87-
3/27/87
16.7
{±6.0}
[±5.8]
13.4
{±4.1}
[ ±4,4]
1.2
{±0-4}
(±0.4]
0.68
{±0.14}
[±0.10]
Tatjl* F-3ti
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: LOW EMISSION NON-CATALYTIC #1
HOME CODE: P04
D
s
z
en
Z
<
O
z
£
w
z
H
>
r
m
JO
<
n
IS
5
n
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dales
Heating
Degree
Days'
Slove
Operation
C%)b
Catalyst
Opera lion
(%)c
Fuel Type
Fuel
Moisture
(% db)d
Average
Fuel Load
(dry kg)
Average
Burn Rate
(drykg/lir)
1
1/16/87-
VIMT
219
88,1%
N/A
50% Lodge-pole Pine
50% Douglas Fir
16-5
113
3.13
1.29
2
1/2S/87-
2/03/87
131
90.5%
N/A
50% Lodgepole Pine
50% Douglas Fir
19.8
113
3.06
0,99
3
2/12/87-
2/17/87®
107
87.5%
N/A
33% Douglas Fir
33% AJ car
34% Maple
24J
213
18.9
2.76
0.90
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
15U
91.8%
N/A
50% Maple
50%,Aider
25.0
253
256
0,65
5
3/21/87-
3/27/87
127
76.4%
N/A
50% Maple
50% Alder
21.7
19.5
2.98
0.70
3
Tsbi© F-4a
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: LOW EMISSION NON-CATALYTIC #1
HOME CODE: P04
Sam plmg
Period
Sampling
Dates
Grams per Hr
Grams per Kg
Grams per 106 J
Grams per m3
Emission
Rate
{P}
I A]f
Emission
Rale
{P}f
[Ajf
Emission
Rate
[p}
[A]'
Concen-
tration
m
[A]f
I
1/16/87-
1/22/87°
6.9
{±2.7}
[-23]
53
{± 1.8}
(±1.7)
n.5
{±0.2}
[±0.2]
0.28
{±QD'l)
|±Oj04|
2
1/28/87-
2/Q3/S7
10,0
{±3.7}
1-1.0]
10.1
{ ±3.2}
[±3.9]
1.2
{±0.4}
[±0.5]
036
{±01)7}
(±0.05)
3
2/12/K7-
' 2/17/876
10.9
{±3.7}
[±4.1]
12.1
{±3.5}'
| ± 43]'
j.2
{ ±0.4]
[ — 0.4 j
055
{±0.11}
[±0.09]
4
'2/23/87-
3/01/87
6.7
{±2.2}
[±2.5]
103
{ ±2,8}
I ±3.7]
1,0
{ ±03}
[±0.4]
0.47
{±0,OS}
[±0.08]
5
3/21/87-
3/27/S7
6,9
{±2.8}
[±2.91
9.9
{ ±3,5}
[±4.0]
1.0
{ ±0.4}
[±0.4]
035
{±0.08}
[±0D6]
m
~z.
<
73
O
ra
"Z.
>
r
l/l
PI
50
<
n
5.
n
Table F-4b
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY#!
HOME CODE: P05
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Heating .
Degree
Days3
Stove
Operation
(%)b
Cataiyst
Operation
(%)£
Fuel Type
Fuei
Moisture
(% db)d
Average
Fuel Load
C^y kg)
Average
Burn Rale
(dry kg/hr}
1
1/16/87-
WM?4
219
92,1%
N/A
75% Alder
25% Douglas Fir
16.6
15.3
3.73
1.37
2
1/28/87-
2/03/37
131
69.9%
N/A
75% Alder
25% Douglas Fir
16.6
15.7
3.21
1.12
3
2/11/87-
2/17/87
122
823%
N/A
33% Douglas Fir
34% Aider
33% Maple
15.7
19.9
16.4
3.92
0.94
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
150
79.0%
N/A
50% Maple
50% Alder
173
21.9
331
1.D1
5
3/07/87-
3/13/87
106
77.0%
N/A
50% Maple
50% Alder
17.7
20.9
3SQ
0.92
Table F-5a
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY #1
HOME CODE: P05
o
2
m
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Grams per Hr
Grams per Kg
Grams per 10® J
Grams perm3
Emission
Rale
{pj
[A]
Emission
Rate
W -
(A]f
Cniissioa
Rale
{P}
[A]f
Concen-
Iralion
{PI
(A]f
1
1/16/87-
1/22/87=
29.4
<±6.5}
[±8.11
21.4
{ ±3-el
[±5.4]
2.1
{±0.4}
[±0.6]
2.0C
{±0.23}
[±Q,31]
2
1/28/87-
2/03/87
28.7
{ ±6.6}
[±83J
25.6
TrT 00
+1 +1
25
{±0.5}
[±0.7]
234
{±0.28}
[±038]
3
2/11/87-
2/17/87
21.4
{±5.0}
[±6.2]
22.9
{±4.1}
[±6.1]
2.2
{±0.4}
[±0.6]
1 ,K3
{±0.21}
[±0.27]
¦ 4
2/Z3/87-
3/01/87
27.1
{±5.7}
[±7.1]
26.7
{ ±4.2}
[±6.4]
2.7
{±0.5}
[ + 0.7]
2.78
{±0.29}
[ j. 0.40]
5
3/07/87-
3/13/87
20.9
{±4.9}
[±6.2]
22.7
{±4.1}
[±6.2]
2.2
{ £ 0,4}
[±0.7]
1.73
{±0.20}
(±0.26]
Table F-5b
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: INTEGRAL CATALYTIC #2
HOME CODE: P06
o
s
3
m
z
0
pi
1
w
W
W
s
o
B
2
SampEng
Period
Sampling
Dates
Heating
Degree
Days"
Stove
Operation
(%)b
Catalyst
Operation
<%)c.
Fuel Type
Fuel
Moisture
(% db)d
Average
Fuel Load
(dry kg)
Average
Burn Rate
(dry kg/k)
1
1/17/87-
l/23/87h
216
21.9%
653%
100% Douglas Fir
365
3.21
1,83
2
1/29/87-
?,'04/8r
129
35.8%
75.6%
100% Douglas Fir
31.1
259
1.12
3
2/12/87-
2/17/87*
107
29.4%
64,5%
100% Douglas Fir
27.1
2.74
1.49
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
150
69.5%
767%
100% Douglas Fir
283
3.08
1.61
5
3/21/87-
3/27/87
127
25.0%
755%
100% Douglas Hi
23.6
331
1.10
TiM F-6a
-------
WOODSTOVE MODEL: INTEGRAL CATALYTIC #2
HOME CODE: PG6
Grams per Hr
Grants per Kg
Grams per 106 J
Grams per m3
Sampling
Period
Sampling
Dates
Sampling
Location
Emission
Rate
(P)
[A]
Emission
Rate
ipsf
[A]'
Emission
Rate
(P)r
[A]r
Concen-
tration
m
(A]
1
1/17/87-
1/23/87"
Fliforc
Catalyst
655
{±25.9}
| ± 26.4]
35.8 .
{±11.1}
(±12.71
4.7
{±l5p
[±1.S[
132
(±0.27)
{±0.19}
After
Catalyst
61.9
{ ±34.2}
[±33.8]
33.8
{ ± 15.8}
[ ± 16.8]
6.0
{±2.9}
[±3.1]
0.72 .
[±0.21]
{±0.11}
2
1/29/87-
2/04/8T
Before
Catalyst
42.0
{ ±10.5}
J ± 12.0]
375
{±73}
{±9.9}
43
i ±0.9}
'[-1.21
2.40
[±030j
{±033}
3
2/12/87-
2/17/878
Before
Catalyst
23.4
{-11.1}
[±8.7]
15.7
{±6.5}
l±55]
1.7
{ ±0.7}
[±0.6]
058
[±0.18]
{ ±0.08}
4
2/23/87-
3/01/87
Before
Catalyst
50.4
{±125}
,,[±15.7]
'313
{ ± 6.0}
[±y.i]
3.4
{±0.7}
I ±1.1]
1.87
[±0.22]
{ ±0.29]
After
Catalyst
31.2
{ ± 10.1}
[±11.8]
19.4
{±5.2}
[±6.9]
2.2
{±0.6}
[±as]
OAS
[±0.11]
{±0.10}
5
3/21/87-
3/27/87
Before
Catalyst
39.7
{±11.4}
[±125]
36.0
{±85}
[±10 J]
4.0
{±1.0}
[±1.2]
155
[±0.28]
{±0.25}
After
Catalyst
36.8
{±17.5}
J ± 18.(1]
333
{ ± 14.0}
] ±15.6|
45
{±2.0}
[±2.2]
056
[±0.23]
{±0.15}
Tab)* F-6b
-------
SI
FOOTNOTES
a. Heating degree day as recorded at the Portland International Airport; total beating degree days for
sampling period,
b. Percentage of total possible operating hours during sampling period weodstove is operational, based on
stack temperature greater than 38°C (100°F).
c. Percentage of woodstove operation time catalyst is at iightoff conditions, based on in-catalyst
temperature greater than 260°C (50CTF), The decision to use in-catalyst temperature greater than 2605C
(500°F) as an indicator of catalyst light-off performance was based on a correlation analysis of two
catalyst light-off methodologies versus after-catalyst emission rates (g/hr) from field studies conducted in
the northeastern U.S. (NCWS study)3 and in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada,4 This analysis
indicated that using an in-catalyst threshold temperature of 26G"C (SWF) to indicate catalyst light-off
performance appeared to better correlate with after-catalyst emission data than the method based on a
positive difference of temperature based on in-catalyst and inlet temperatures (AT method). However, in
several individual cases (i.e., per home basis), both methods did not correlate (i.e., r > -0.7) with after-
catalyst emissions. The correlation coefficients (r) for in-catalyst temperature and AT methods versus
particulate emission rate (g/hr) for Home P02 are 0.65 and 0.54, respectively. For Home PC6, the
correlation coefficients were -0.99 (in-catalyst) and -0.66 (AT). The small data set from these two homes
precludes making a definitive decision as to what method of determining catalyst light-off performance is
more accurate. However, in lieu of more data, the ic-catalyst threshold temperature of 260"C appears to
be the more appropriate method of evaluating catalyst light-off performance at this time.
d. Percentage fuel moisture - dry basis.
e. Sampling period started one day late; seven-day sampling period completed.
f. Estimated precision and accuracy based on total propagation of uncertainties of individual
measurements used in the emissions calculations,
g. Sampling period less than seven days.
h. Sampling peirod started two days late; sampling cycle completed.
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - F13
-------
METHOD 5G TABLES
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, JNC.
-------
EPA METHOD 5G RESULTS
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODBTOVE
PROJECT # PS19B—09
SHIFT # 1 THROUGH 21
DATE 2/B7
TRAIN 5
EE5,A METHOD 5G RESULTS'
TRAIN 5
##•*#*##*#****** ********** *#****¦#•»**#****¦** ******** **#**•***#•*¦#**##***«•««#
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (DRY-STANDARD!.. 0.0003 (GRAMS/DSCF)
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE 2.571 (GRAMS/HOUR)
ADJUSTED EMISSIONS 3.985 < GRAMS/HOUR)
#*¦)~# ********************* *¦*•*#** *************** **#*****«•***#**#**«#**###*
TUNNEL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE.
AVERAGE DELTA P RUN DATA...
55 (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
O.032 (INCHES H20)
TOTAL SAMPLE VOLUME (METER CONDITIONS).... 2356.57
AVERAGE GAB METER TEMPERATURE 64
AVERAGE GAS VELOCITY IN DILUTION TUNNEL-.. 11.73
AVG. GAS FLOW RATE IN DILUTION TUNNEL..,.. B091.39
TOTAL SAMPLE VOLUME (STANDARD CONDITIONS). 2290.36
(CUBIC FEET) •
(DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
CFEET/SECOND)
(DBCFH)
(DSCF)
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC - F14
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB DATA:
. * •*. ¥:•* F.f-j7 RY COLUMN"^"£"fc"^"^^
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC UJQGDSTOVE
PROJECT # F'S 19B—09
SHIFT * 1 THROUGH 21
DATE 2/8?
TRAIN 5
OAS .METER READING BEGINNING
BAS METER READING ENDING
STATIC PRESSURE AT AVG- POINT
Y=GAS METER CALIB- FACTOR
WEIGHT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE
0.2949
0. 990
B5.490
^9 ~7
29. 92
17. n4
513. 3
O. 040
528
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - F15
-------
EPA METHOD 50 RESULTS
CLIENT BF'fi
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOODSTOVE
PROJECT # PS190-09
SHIFT # 1 THROUGH 21
DATE 2/87
TRAIN 6
EPA METHOD 56 RESULTE
TRAIN 6
***####**#*##*#### *#¦#**#####¦*#***-** ******* ####»*¦###*¦*•**« *#¦**##*# **#»*#*#
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION (DRV—STANDARD).• 0.0003 (GRAMS/DSCFS
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATE 2.376 < GRAMS /HOUR)
ADJUSTED EMISSIONS. .. 3.736 '.GRAMS/HOUR)
•a#*#*******#*****##**#***######****"***#*##'#*********#*****#****#*##**-**#
TUNNEL TEMPERATURE, AVERAGE.
AVERAGE DELTA P RUN DATA...
55
-------
DILUTION TUNNEL LAB DATA TABLE 1
LAB DATA:
*****ENTRH COLUMN*********
CLIENT BPA
MODEL INTEGRAL CATALYTIC WOOBSTOME
PROJECT tt PS198—09
' SHIFT tt 1 THROUGH 21
DATE 2/B7
TRAIN &
BAB METER READING BEGINN INS
BAB METER READING ENDING
STATIC PRESSURE AT AVS. POINT
Y-GAB METER OALIB. FACTOR
HEI6HT OF TOTAL PARTICULATE (MS)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE BEGINNING
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE MIDDLE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE END 1MB
AVERAGE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE 29.78
MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS DRY 28.950
MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS .WET 28.512
AREA OF TUNNEL (SO. IN.) 0.196
AUG. TEMPERATURE OF METER—IN B3
AVERAGE DELTA H 0.3971
PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT 0.990
PI TOT TUBE CONSTANT 05.490
ABSOLUTE TUNNEL GAS PRESSURE 29,7
STD. ABSOLUTE PRESSURE (in.Hg> 29.92
K1 r: . 17.64
ABSOLUTE TUNNEL TEMPERATURE 515.3
TUNNEL MOISTURE 0. 04t">
STANDARD ABSOLUTE TEMP. tDEG. R) 528
O
2352.59
-0.5
1. 009
675. 7
29.78
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. - F17
------- |