EPA-600/R-98-050
April 1998
FINAL REPORT
Fugitive Emission Reductions Due to
The Use of Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems in
The Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing Industries
By
Mark A. Bahner. Dean R. Cornstubble, Keith E. Leese, and
G. W. (Bill) Deatherage
Research Triangle Institute
P. O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EPA Cooperative Agreement CR818419
U.S. EPA Project Officer: Carlos M. Nunez
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA mni
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before compl" ||| |||| || ||||| j|||| ||||||||||||
t. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/R-98-050
PB9B-137391
4.TiTLEANDsuBT.TLEFugitive Emission Reductions Due to
the Use of Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems in the
Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing Industries
5. REPORT DATE
April 1998
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR®
M. A. Bahner, D, R, Cornstubble, K. E, Leese, and
G„ W. Deatherage
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
92U-6497-04
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CR818419
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 4-12/95
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.supplementary notes^ppcT) project officer is Carlos M, Nunez, Mall Drop 61, 919/
541-1156.
16. abstract The report gives results of a quantification of the level of fugitive emission
reductions resulting from the use of enclosed doctor blade (EDB) systems in place of
traditional ink feed systems at flexographic and rotogravure printing operations. An
EDB system is an innovative ink feed system that contains an enclosed ink chamber.
Such a system has the potential of limiting fugitive emissions from each printing sta-
tion on a printing press. Traditional printing ink feed systems employ ink pans; sol-
vents in the exposed pools of ink in these pans create fugitive volatile organic com-
pound (VOC) emissions. EDB systems eliminate these exposed pools of ink, and can
therefore reduce VOC emissions. The project involved testing for fugitive emissions
at flexographic and rotogravure printing stations, to quantify the potential emission
reductions achieved by EDB ink feed systems. Prior to the testing, the magnitude of
the emission reduction achieved by EDB systems had not been quantified. Testing
was conducted on single-color stations on flexographic and rotogravure presses.
Emission reductions achieved by EDB systems were measured, and printing station
operators evaluated the quality of the printing with traditional and EDB systems.
Additionally, evaporation rates from ink pools were measured in a laboratory test.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. descriptors
b.iDENTIFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosatI Field/Group
Pollution Organic Compounds
Emission Volatility
Flexography
Doctor Blades
Printing Inks
Printing Equipment
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
Rotogravure
Fugitive Emissions
Ink Feeders
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOCs)
13 B 07C
14G 20 M
14 E
131
11C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
129
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE"
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Reproduce from
best available copy.
-------
FOREWORD
The TJ, S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Previous cooperative research efforts between Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have identified traditional ink feed systems as sources of
emissions in flexographic and rotogravure printing operations. These ink feed systems are therefore
areas for pollution prevention technology. Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB) systems, which eliminate
several exposed ink surfaces found in traditional ink feed systems, represent one potential pollution
prevention technology.
Enclosed doctor blade systems can be expected to reduce solvent usage during ink feed system
cleaning and reduce leftover ink at the end of a print run. The potential for EDB systems to reduce
emissions during printing is less certain. Some printers maintain that these systems reduce exposed ink
surfaces such as the ink pan, and therefore must reduce emissions. These printers point to the fact that
they do not need to add as much make-up solvent to the ink during print runs. Other printers question
this observation, and believe that most fugitive emissions result from the ink exposed on the anilox
cylinder. These printers believe that any reduction in fugitive emissions is probably negligible, since
EDB systems are similar to traditional systems, in that ink on the anilox cylinder is still exposed to air.
The purpose of this testing was to measure volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
flexographic and rotogravure presses operating with traditional and EDB ink feed systems. Additionally,
printing quality was evaluated for the EDB system on a rotogravure press, since EDBs are not commonly
used as ink delivery equipment in rotogravure printing.
Emission reductions achieved by EDB systems were measured for a single color station on
flexographic and rotogravure presses. The measured emission reductions on the flexographic press
ranged from 0,26 to 1.83 kilograms per hour (kg/h) with the press idle, and 0.84 to 0.89 kg/h with the
press running. Measured emission reductions for the rotogravure press ranged from 0.35 to 0.36 kg/h
with the press idle, and were 0.83 kg/h with the press running.
In order to evaluate the emission test results, laboratory ink pan evaporation tests were performed
with the flexographic and rotogravure inks. The laboratory tests can be combined with estimates of the
ink pool surface areas at each of the two facilities, to produce predictions of the emission reduction
benefits of eliminating the ink pool surface areas at each facility. The predicted emission reductions
range from 0.11 to 0.28 kg/h for the flexographic press, and 0.18 to 1.12 kg/h for the rotogravure press.
The predictions for the flexographic press are generally lower than the measured results, while all the
rotogravure results fell within the predicted range. It appears that laboratory ink pan measurements can
be used to provide order-of-magnitude predictions for emission reductions achieved by EDB systems.
The EDB system used on the flexographic press resulted in acceptable printing quality. The
EDB system used on the rotogravure press resulted in unacceptable printing quality, even when printing
line speed was slowed. However, it may have been possible to improve the printing quality of the
rotogravure EDB system, if production requirements had not dictated a return to the original system.
The EDB system is currently commercially available for flexographic printing, and reduces
fugitive emissions. The EDB system, as installed during the test for rotogravure printing, also reduced
fugitive emissions. However, the EDB system at the rotogravure facility substantially degraded print
quality, even at reduced line speeds. The issue of printing quality will need to be addressed before EDB
can become a viable option for the rotogravure printing industry.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Overview 1
2.0 PROCESS BACKGROUND 3
2.1 Industry Background 3
2.1.1 Flexography 3
2.1.2 Rotogravure 5
2.1.3 VOC Emissions From Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing 5
2.2 Ink Feed Systems 6
2.2.1 Flexography 6
2.2.1.1 Two-roller Systems 6
2.2.1.2 Single Doctor Blade Systems 8
2.2.1.3 Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems 8
2.2.1.4 Flow-through Systems 12
2.2.2 Rotogravure 14
2.2.2.1 Traditional Rotogravure Systems 14
2.2.2.2 Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems in Rotogravure Operations 14
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 16
3.1 Project Objectives 16
3.2 Equipment Tested 17
3.3 Construction of Temporary Enclosures 17
3.4 Testing Procedure 25
3.4.1 Determination of Relative Emission Levels 26
3.4.2 Determination of Absolute Emission Levels 26
3.4.3 Determination of Enclosure Capture Efficiency 31
3.4.4 Laboratory Measurements of Ink Pan Emissions 32
3.5 Emission Measurement Equipment Used 34
3.5.1 Flexographic Press 34
3.5.2 Rotogravure Press 35
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 37
4.1 Flexographic Press 37
4.1.1 Flame Ionization Detector VOC Measurements 37
4.1.2 Printing Quality 40
4.1.3 Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements 40
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.2 Rotogravure Ink Feed System 42
4.2.1 VOC Measurements 42
4.2.2 Printing Quality 45
4.2.3 Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements 45
4.3 Laboratory Ink Pan Emission Measurements 45
4.4 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan .... 48
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 52
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....54
7.0 REFERENCES 55
Appendix A Daily Logs A-l
Appendix B Material Safety Data Sheets for Flexographic and Rotogravure Ink;
Composition of Solvent at Flexographic Printing Facility B-l
Appendix C Calibration Data C-l
Appendix D Sample Calculations D-l
Appendix E Calculated Results E-l
Appendix F Comparison of Charcoal Tube Analysis with FID-Based Concentration Measurements F-l
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Central impression flexographic press 4
2-2 Flexographic fountain roller ink feed system 7
2-3 Flexographic single doctor blade ink feed system 9
2-4 Flexographic enclosed doctor blade ink feed system 10
2-5 Flexographic enclosed doctor blade chamber (close-up) 11
2-6 Flexographic flow-through ink feed system 13
2-7 Traditional rotogravure ink feed system 15
3-1 Flow-through ink feed system on flexographic press 18
3-2 Enclosed doctor blade system on flexographic press (closed position) 19
3-3 Enclosed doctor blade system on flexographic press (open position) 19
3-4 Traditional gravure ink feed system on rolling cart, pulled away from station 20
3-5 Traditional gravure ink feed system (close-up) 20
3-6 Enclosed doctor blade system for rotogravure press (front, without rotogravure cylinder, hoses,
and ink sump) 21
3-7 Enclosed doctor blade system for rotogravure press (back) 21
3-8 Temporary enclosure for flexographic press (back) 22
3-9 Temporary enclosure for flexographic press (front) 22
3-10 Temporary enclosure for flexographic press (front, with enclosure blower) 23
3-11 Access opening for enclosure on flexographic press 24
3-12 Temporary enclosure for gravure press (right side) 27
3-13 Temporary enclosure for gravure press (left side) 27
3-14 Experimental setup on flexographic press 28
3-15 Schematic of experimental setup on gravure press 30
3-16 Hypothetical examples of effects of an enclosure on emissions 33
4-1 FID-based emission measurements for flexographic press 39
4-2 Infrared spectrophotometer-based emission measurements for the gravure press 44
4-3 Laboratory ink-pan emission measurements for the flexographic press ink 46
4-4 Laboratory ink-pan emission measurements for the rotogravure press ink 47
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Testing Conditions 26
3-2 Volatile Organic Compound Measurement Locations for the Flexographic Press 29
3-3 Volatile Organic Compound Measurement Locations for the Rotogravure Press 29
3-4 Emission Measurement Equipment Used on the Flexographic Press 34
3-5 Emission Measurement Equipment for the Rotogravure Press 35
4-1 FID-based Emission Measurements for the Flexographic Press 38
4-2 Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements for the Flexographic Press 41
4-3 Infrared Spectrophotometer-based Emission Measurements for the Rotogravure Press ...... 43
4-4 Predicted Ink Pan Emission Rates, Based on Laboratory Ink Pan Emission Measurements ... 49
vi
-------
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Background
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Research Triangle Institute
(RTI) have worked under cooperative agreement to investigate source reduction technologies available to
the flexographic and rotogravure segments of the printing industry. Initially, this research focused on
investigating innovative pollution prevention technologies that could be used with flexographic and
rotogravure ink feed systems.
Ink feed systems are located at each printing station on a press and move ink from the ink sump
to the printing cylinder. These systems are components of the overall ink handling process that is used in
printing facilities. Other ink handling processes include ink mixing operations, the transport of the ink to
the press, and the actual printing operation where ink is transferred from a printing cylinder to the
substrate.
Information about ink feed systems was gathered through a variety of sources. Initially, potential
areas of interest were investigated through phone contact with printers and trade associations. More
detailed information was gathered through meetings with representatives and members of printing trade
associations. Additionally, site visits were made to 12 printing facilities. Much of the information
gathered about ink feed systems was collected during these site visits and through follow-up contact with
the printers.
Following the investigation of ink feed systems, a paper was prepared, entitled: "Evaluation of
Innovative Ink Feed Systems for the Flexographic and Gravure Printing Industries "(Nunez; and
Deatherage, 1996). This report described information gathered on innovative pollution prevention
technologies that could be used with ink feed systems.
One pollution prevention opportunity that was discussed in the paper was the use of enclosed
doctor blade (EDB) systems. Currently, it is not known to what extent EDB systems reduce fugitive
emissions. Although these systems enclose the ink being fed to the anilox cylinder, many printers
believe that most emissions come from the ink on the anilox cylinder. Therefore, emission reductions
from the use of enclosed doctor blade systems would be negligible since these systems do not enclose
this source of emissions.
This research project is an attempt to quantify this emission reduction for both flexographic and
rotogravure printing operations. In addition, a qualitative analysis was made of the effectiveness of the
enclosed doctor blade system on a rotogravure printing station.
1.2 Overview
This report describes the results of an evaluation project to quantify the level of fugitive emission
reductions resulting from use of enclosed doctor blade systems in place of traditional ink feed systems at
flexographic and rotogravure printing operations. An enclosed doctor blade system is an innovative ink
feed system that contains an enclosed ink chamber. Such a system has the potential of limiting fugitive
emissions from each printing station on a printing press.
-------
The primary objective of this project was to determine the level of reduction in fugitive
emissions due to the use of enclosed doctor blade systems. This objective was accomplished by using a
temporary total enclosure to capture emissions during printing operations, conducted at separate times,
with either a traditional ink feed system or an enclosed doctor blade system. Fugitive emission levels
from the two systems were determined and compared to each other. In addition to measuring emission
levels, a measured amount of carbon dioxide (C02) tracer gas was injected into the enclosure in order to
determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure.
Secondary objectives of this work included measuring the absolute level of fugitive emissions
from each ink feed system and qualitatively evaluating the effectiveness of an EDB system used in
rotogravure operations.
Section 2 of this report provides general information about the flexography and rotogravure
industries as well as detailed information on flexographic and rotogravure ink feed systems. Section 3
describes the methods and materials used during the evaluation. Section 4 details the evaluation results,
Section 5 describes the conclusions attained from this research, and Section 6 discusses potential future
research.
2
-------
2.0 PROCESS BACKGROUND
This section gives a brief description of the flexographic and rotogravure segments of the
printing industry. Detailed descriptions of the ink feed systems used in each industry are also presented.
2.1 Industry Background
The printing industry is made up of five major segments: letterpress, flexography, rotogravure,
lithography, and screen printing. Flexographic and rotogravure ink feed systems are the focus of this
evaluation project.
2.1.1 Flexography
Flexography is a form of printing in which raised surfaces on a flexible plastic or rubber plate
come into contact with, and transfer ink to, the substrate (the surface being printed). Over 90 percent of
flexographic applications are in the packaging and specialty product industries. Flexography is
particularly suited for printing flexible packaging such as plastic wrappers, labels, foil, and paper
products. Flexographic presses may be a relatively small part of the overall manufacturing process at
packaging facilities, especially those that produce flexible packaging. Press widths may vary from 0.05
to 2.5 meters; press speeds may exceed 670 meters per minute.
Although there are a variety of different flexographic printing presses, three general types are
used in the packaging industry: central impression (CI), stack, and in-line. Each of these presses is
distinguished by the number of impression cylinders used and by the arrangement of the printing stations.
On a CI press, the printing cylinders are arranged around one common impression cylinder while each
printing station on stack and in-line presses has its own impression cylinder. Stack presses and in-line
presses both have impression cylinders at each printing station. These presses primarily differ in the
arrangement of the different printing stations. On a stack press, sets of stations are arranged vertically
while, on an in-line press, the stations are arranged horizontally next to each other.
In this evaluation, a CI flexographic press is used. Figure 2-1 shows a simplified diagram of a
CI press.
Flexography is also used to print many publications, although this industry is much smaller in
size than the flexographic packaging industry. Some publications, including newspapers, phone
directories, and catalogs, are printed with waterbased inks (rather than solvent-based inks). Dedicated
presses exist for newspaper and commercial printing.
3
-------
Plate Cylinder
Printing Station
#6
Anilox Cylinder
Printing Station
#5
Fountain Cylinder
Printing Station
#4
Printing Station
#1
Printing Station
#2
Printing Station
#3
Between-colors Dryer
Figure 2-1. Central impression flexographic press.
4
-------
2.1.2 Rotogravure
Rotogravure printing is a form of printing in which ink is transferred to the substrate from small,
recessed cells engraved in the surface of a cylinder. Almost all rotogravure printing is done on webbed
substrate and referred to as rotogravure. Rotogravure presses have printing stations that are connected
in-line with each other. As with in-line and stack flexographie presses, each rotogravure station has its
own impression cylinder.
Presses used in publication rotogravure can have web widths of up to 2.8 meters and run at
speeds up to 900 meters per minute. Although only four printing stations are required to print each side
of the web, publication rotogravure presses in the United States can have up to 16 stations.
As with flexographie packaging presses, packaging and product rotogravure operations are
usually a relatively small part of the overall manufacturing process. Unlike flexographie presses,
packaging rotogravure presses are sometimes connected in-line with laminating or extrusion equipment
to produce complex, multi-layered packaging materials. When this occurs, the speed of the press usually
is limited by the speed of the in-line equipment. Rotogravure presses that are used for packaging
operations also may apply materials other than printing inks (e.g., coatings or adhesives). On publication
presses, only ink is applied at each station.
In general, packaging presses have widths of 0,3 to 1.6 meters, and operate at speeds from 90 to
300 meters per minute. The press widths and speeds of product rotogravure presses vary considerably
depending on the product printed.
2,1.3 VOC Emissions from Flexographie and Rotogravure Printing
When present, VOC emissions from flexographie and rotogravure presses are captured at exhaust
points associated with drying units.1 These dryers are an important part of most rotogravure presses and
some flexographie packaging and publishing presses. Dryers typically use natural gas or electricity to
heat air. The air supplied to the dryer typically comes from outside the plant, or from the press room.
After air is heated in the dryer, the warm air passes over the substrate, causing volatile compounds in the
ink on the substrate to evaporate. After VOCs have been released from the ink on the substrate, they are
collected in pickup ducts, and the resulting exhaust air stream may be directed to end-of-pipe controls.
In flexography, emissions most commonly are controlled with catalytic or thermal oxidation. In
publication rotogravure, carbon absorbers are commonly used to control emissions because these plants
use ink solvents that are composed of either toluene or mixtures of toluene/xylene and aliphatic
hydrocarbons with similar boiling points. With these carbon absorbers, publication rotogravure facilities
recover a large majority of solvent emissions during printing operations. In packaging and product
rotogravure facilities, solvents are likely to be more miscible in water than those used in publication
rotogravure, and therefore are not suitable for economic recovery through carbon absorption. Therefore,
these facilities typically use catalytic or thermal oxidation to control emissions.
'Although waterbased inks may contain small percentages of VOCs, control equipment is not generally used with
waterbased printing operations.
5
-------
The capture efficiency of press dryers usually varies according to the type and age of the press.
Organic solvents not captured by the dryers are either emitted into the pressroom, as fugitive emissions,
or trapped in the printed substrate (e.g., magazine, catalog, or advertising insert) that leaves the printing
facility. Solvents that are trapped in the substrate are emitted outside of and away from the facility.
2.2 Ink Feed Systems
Ink feed systems are located at each printing station on a press and move ink from the ink sump
to the printing cylinder. These systems are components of the overall ink handling process that is used in
printing facilities. Other ink handling processes include ink mixing operations, the transport of the ink to
the press, and the actual printing operation where ink is transferred from the printing cylinder to the
substrate.
Flexography and rotogravure presses use different ink feed systems to transport ink from the ink
sump to the printing cylinder,
2.2,1 Flexography
There are two types of traditional flexographic ink feed systems that are used. Both of these
systems are described and illustrated in this section.
2.2.1.1 Two-roller Systems
The first type of traditional ink feed system, shown in Figure 2-2, is a two-roller system. This
ink feed system consists of a smooth rubber fountain roller rotating in an ink bath. The fountain roller
transfers the ink to an anilox roller2 which, in turn, transfers it to the plate cylinder. Finally, the plate
cylinder prints the ink on the web.
The amount of ink transferred to the anilox roller determines the amount of ink transferred lo the
plate cylinder and, eventually, the thickness of the ink that is printed on the substrate. In this system, the
amount of the ink being transferred to the anilox roller depends on two variables:
• the volume of the anilox roller, and
• the space at the nip.
The anilox volume is determined by the depth of the individual cells that are engraved in it. An
anilox roller with engraved cells that are deep can transfer larger volumes of ink than an anilox roller
with shallow cells. The nip is the area between the anilox and fountain rollers. On some presses, the
anilox and fountain rollers come into contact at this point. When this occurs, the ink in each cell on the
anilox roller will be nearly leveled off. On other presses, there is a space between the anilox and
fountain rollers. When this occurs, the level of the ink may rise well above the top of each cell on the
anilox roller.
2
The anilox roller is engraved with small cells, and is similar in appearance to a rotogravure cylinder.
6
-------
Figure 2-2. Flexographic fountain roller ink feed system.
7
-------
Another part of the ink feed system is the ink sump, which is usually a 20- or 40-liter drum stored
below the ink pan. During printing, ink is pumped from the ink sump through tubing into the ink pan.
Gravity feeds the ink back down to the sump so that it is continuously recirculated.
2.2.1.2 Single Doctor Blade Systems
The second traditional ink feed system that is found on flexographic presses is the single doctor
blade system. This system, shown in Figure 2-3, is the same as the two-roller system except for the
addition of a reverse-angle doctor blade that wipes ink from the anil ox roller.
With the addition of the doctor blade, the amount of ink being transferred to the anilox roller is
further controlled. Because the doctor blade wipes the anilox roller, the ink in each cell is leveled off at
the top. Therefore, on a single-doctor blade system, the amount of ink transferred to the anilox roller
depends only on the anilox volume.
An ink sump and system to pump ink to the ink pan are also part of the ink feed system.
2.2.1.3 Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems
Enclosed doctor blade (EDB) systems currently are being used in flexographic packaging and
publication operations. These systems may be included on new press equipment or retrofitted on older
presses.
Figure 2-4 shows a diagram of an EDB system used on a flexographic press. In this system, ink
is pumped from the sump into an EDB chamber via one or more hoses that are connected to holes in the
back of the chamber. From there, some ink is applied to the anilox roller while excess ink is allowed to
drain back to the sump through hoses attached to additional hoses in the back of the chamber. Figure 2-4
also shows an empty ink pan. Although not necessarily required, the EDB system still contains an ink
pan that is used to collect ink that might spill from the chamber during cleaning.
Figure 2-5 provides a close-up view of the EDB chamber system in a closed position.3 The EDB
chamber itself is a very narrow and shallow trough with a reverse angle doctor blade, a trailing
containment blade, and two plastic or Styrofoam end pieces. In Figure 2-5, the blade on the top of the
chamber acts as the "true" doctor blade and wipes excess ink from the anilox roller. In an EDB system,
as with the single doctor blade system, the amount of ink transferred to the plate cylinder, and eventually
applied to the substrate, is dependant only on the anilox roller volume. The blade on the bottom, acts as
a capture or containment blade and holds the ink within the confines of the chamber with the aid of the
two plastic or Styrofoam end pieces.
EDB systems provide quality benefits to the printer. As has been previously stated, in
flcxography, it is accepted knowledge that high quality printing is a direct result of the controlled transfer
of ink from the ink pan to the substrate (Shapiro, 1993). As with a single doctor blade system, EDB
systems wipe excess ink from the anilox roller and eventually help transfer a precisely controlled
thickness of ink to the substrate, even when the press is operated at high speeds. Additionally, many
flexographic printers believe that since EDB systems flush ink under pressure into the chamber, they fill
3When in the closed position, the EDB chamber rests against the anilox roller. The EDB chamber is opened only when it
is cleaned.
8
-------
Ink Sump
Figure 2-3. Flexographic single doctor blade ink feed system.
9
-------
Figure 2-4. Flexographfe enclosed doctor blade ink feed system.
10
-------
Doctor Blade
Anilox Cylinder
Blade Holder
Closed Position (for Printing)
Pivot for Enclosed
Doctor Blade Chamber
Open Position
Containment Blade
gure 2-5. Flexographie enclosed doctor blade chamber (close-up).
li
-------
the anilox cells more completely than single doctor blade systems, where the anilox roller simply rotates
in an ink bath.
EDB systems also provide a number of environmental benefits. First, EDB systems allow for
reduced usage of cleaning solvents. When two-roller or single doctor blade systems are used, the entire
ink pan must be cleaned by hand wiping with solvent. On EDB systems, ink pans do not get dirty and do
not need to be cleaned. Instead, only the EDB chamber must be hand wiped, but this part is much
smaller than the ink pan and requires very little solvent to be completely cleaned. Therefore, much less
solvent is used for cleaning EDB systems than for cleaning two-roller or single doctor blade systems.
This results in reduced amounts of hazardous waste from cleaning operations and reduced fugitive
emissions from cleaning solvents. For the press operator, this also allows for faster and less difficult
cleanings between print jobs.
Additionally, because the EDB chamber is so small, an EDB system holds less ink than a
comparable two-roller or single doctor blade system, resulting in less leftover ink. At the end of a print
job, all press-ready ink remaining in the ink feed system is removed and stored as surplus ink. Because
EDB systems hold less ink, they have less leftover ink remaining. Ideally, leftover ink is used in later
print runs. At many facilities, this is impossible to do with all leftover ink, and some ink is eventually
disposed of as hazardous waste due to contamination. Therefore, reducing the amount of leftover ink is
advantageous.
EDB systems also reduce fugitive emissions resulting from the printing ink, but the amount of
this reduction has been debated. Some printers feel that these systems must significantly reduce fugitive
emissions since the EDB system encloses much of the ink feed system and eliminates ink on the ink pan
that is normally exposed to the air. These printers point to the fact that they do not need to add as much
make-up solvent4 to the ink during print runs. Other printers question this observation and believe that
most fugitive emissions result from the ink exposed on the anilox roller. Since EDB systems continue to
allow ink on the anilox roller to be exposed to air, these printers believe that any reduction in fugitive
emissions is probably negligible. Unfortunately, no published data are available to substantiate either
claim.
2.2.1.4 Flow-through Systems
Flow-through ink feed systems are similar to EDB systems in that they pump ink into a chamber
that has a doctor blade and a containment blade. However, flow-though systems do not have end caps on
the chamber, so ink flows through the ends onto the ink pan. The ink then drains back into the sump, as
shown in Figure 2-6.
Flow-through chambers provide few of the environmental benefits of EDB systems.
Nevertheless, many printers use them because they provide many of the same quality advantages that
EDB systems provide. Additionally, most press operators find flow-through systems easier to work with
since they are similar to the traditional ink feed systems used in flexography. For example, printers do
not need to worry about the build-up of ink pressure in the chamber (a problem that can occur in EDB
systems).
4Make-up solvent is added at the ink sump to compensate for solvent that evaporates during the print run. Make up
solvent must be added to maintain the viscosity of the ink.
12
-------
Figure 2-6. Flexographic flow-through ink feed system.
13
-------
In terms of emissions, flow-through ink feed systems may approximate the emissions of single
doctor blade and two-roller systems since, in each of these systems, ink is spread over the ink pan. Of
course, in the other two systems, the ink in the ink pan is a greater depth so that the fountain roller can
rotate in the ink bath,
2.2.2 Rotogravure
2.2.2.1 Traditional Rotogravure Systems
The traditional rotogravure ink feed system, shown in Figure 2-7, consists of a rotogravure
cylinder that rotates through an ink pan and a reverse angle doctor blade that scrapes ink from the non-
printing surfaces of the cylinder before the cylinder prints the image on the web. In this system, ink is
continuously pumped from the ink sump to a point on one side of the rotogravure cylinder. From there,
the ink drains to the inner ink pan. This ink eventually flows or splashes over the walls of the inner pan
into the outer ink pan, where it drains back into the ink sump.
2.2.2.2 Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems in Rotogravure Operations
In rotogravure printing, the EDB chamber potentially could replace the ink pan and be used to
apply ink directly to the rotogravure cylinder. Such systems are reportedly used in rotogravure
operations in the United Kingdom, In the United States, no such system has been used in production
operations. In fact, no press manufacturers are known to offer this type of system. Nevertheless, some
rotogravure facilities have experimented with similar EDB chambers. In addition, one equipment
manufacturer that retrofits EDB systems onto flexographic presses is experimenting with a system that
seemingly works with rotogravure operations.
The rotogravure printers that have experimented with EDB systems have reported a number of
problems. The most common problem reported is "pre-drying" of the ink in the cells of the rotogravure
cylinder. Apparently this occurs since so much of the cylinder is exposed to the surrounding air, which
quickly dries the ink. In a traditional rotogravure ink feed system, a large portion of the rotogravure
cylinder is immersed in an ink bath, and this ink re-wets the ink in the cells sufficiently to prevent drying.
Another reported problem is rapid degradation of the rotogravure cylinder. Rotogravure
cylinders are chrome-coated. During long print runs, which are common in rotogravure, these cylinders
apparently degrade much faster when used with EDB chambers than the ceramic anilox rollers used in
flexographic printing. Some of the rotogravure printers that are experimenting with EDB systems have
adjusted their chambers so that the containment blade is set slightly away from the rotogravure cylinder.
By doing this, degradation of the cylinder is greatly reduced. At the same time, the system is no longer
fully enclosed. Additionally, ink leaks from the chamber onto the pan, thereby negating many of the
benefits of the EDB system.
14
-------
Figure 2-7. Traditional gravure ink feed system.
15
-------
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS
This section describes the objectives of the evaluation project, the printing equipment evaluated,
and the methods and equipment used in the evaluation. For flexographic printing, evaluation testing was
conducted on a six-color, CI flexographic press located at Clemson University's Printing and Converting
Research Center (Print/Con) in Pendleton, South Carolina. For rotogravure printing, evaluation testing
was conducted on a seven-station, 0.61 meter (24-inch) wide press at the National Label Company
(National Label) in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania. Daily logs of activities for both tests are shown in
Appendix A.
3.1 Project Objectives
The primary objective of this project was to determine the level of reduction of fugitive emissions
that occurs in flexographic and rotogravure printing operations when EDB systems are used in place of
traditional ink feed systems.
Two tests were conducted at both the flexographic and rotogravure facilities. At both facilities, a
temporary enclosure was used to capture emissions during two separate printing operations, press-
running and press-idling. During each test, a single ink feed system was operated and evaluated.
Therefore, in the first evaluation, a traditional ink feed system was operated while, in the second, an EDB
system was used. Total hydrocarbon (THC) levels and air flow rates were measured at all intake and
exhaust locations to the enclosure, including intake and exhaust points for certain drying units that were
located within the enclosure.
Additionally, C02 concentrations were measured during testing in an attempt to determine
enclosure capture efficiency. The capture efficiency of each enclosure was determined by releasing C02
into the enclosure at a known mass flow rate and in a manner that attempted to mimic the locations of
emission sources within the press to the maximum extent possible. During the flexographic tests, the
mass rate at which the C02 entered the enclosure was determined by timed measurements of the weight
of a container of dry ice. During the rotogravure tests, CO, was released from a pressurized gas canister.
In both tests, C02 levels were measured at all intake and exhaust points.
This project had two secondary objectives. First, a determination of the absolute level of
fugitive emissions from each of the ink feed systems was made. Second, because EDB systems have not
been successfully used by rotogravure printers in the United States, a qualitative evaluation of the
effectiveness of an EDB system was made during testing at the rotogravure facility. The effectiveness of
the EDB system was determined primarily through observations of print quality and ease of set-up and
use. In addition, the rotogravure press operators were interviewed in order to assess their satisfaction
with the EDB equipment as compared to the traditional ink feed systems they typically use. Particular
attention was focused on whether ink pre-dried in the cells of the rotogravure cylinder. Cylinder
degradation was not evaluated since the print runs were not long enough to assess this potential problem.
In both the flexography and rotogravure evaluations, emission tests were conducted for both an
EDB system and the normal ink feed system used on the press.
16
-------
The EDB systems tested in this project were representative of equipment currently available to
the rotogravure and flexographie industries. Additionally, although the ink feed system used on the
rotogravure press was representative of typical rotogravure ink feed systems, the flow-through ink feed
system used on the flexographie CI press is less typical than either single doctor blade stations or two-
roller stations. Nevertheless, the flow-through station most likely approximates the level of emissions
seen on the other two types of stations (see Section 2.1.1.4),
The flexographie and rotogravure presses, inks, and substrates that were used during testing were
representative of the printing industry. On both presses, solvent-based ink systems were used. Material
safety data sheets for the flexographie and rotogravure inks used during testing are found in Appendix B.
On both presses, a film substrate was used.
3.2 Equipment Tested
At the Print/Con facility at Clemson University, the normal ink feed system used on the CI press
was a flow-through system, as shown in Figure 3-1. During testing of the flow-through system, printing
was conducted at printing station 4 (see Figure 2-1). During testing of the EDB system, printing was
conducted on printing station 5. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 are photographs showing the EDB system installed
on the flexographie press.
At National Label, both a traditional rotogravure ink feed system and an EDB system were
installed on mobile carts and loaded into printing station 3 at separate times. Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show
the traditional rotogravure system used; Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the EDB system that was tested.
During printing tests, the rotogravure press and flexographie CI press were operated at speeds of
approximately 55 and 107 meters per minute, respectively. Both of these speeds are slower than what is
typically seen at most packaging operations. This slower press speed may have affected the rate of
fugitive emissions that were measured. In addition, the slower press speeds may have limited the
applicability of one of the secondary project objectives. Specifically, results from the qualitative
evaluation of the effectiveness of the EDB system installed on the rotogravure press may only be
applicable to rotogravure presses operating at relatively low speeds (see Section 4 for a more detailed
discussion of this point).
At the flexographie facility, a test pattern was used for printing. This test pattern consisted of a
single color (black), and a total substrate coverage of over 80%. This is a considerably higher coverage
than would typically occur on a single color station (where typical coverage might range from 10 to
50%). The higher coverage was chosen to avoid having emission rates (concentrations) that were below
levels that could be accurately quantified by the instrumentation.
3.3 Construction of Temporary Enclosures
Temporary enclosures were constructed for the flexographie press printing stations at both the
flexographie and rotogravure printing facilities. The enclosures consisted of wood frames with attached
polyethylene sheets.
At the flexographie printing facility, an enclosure was constructed that surrounded all six stations
of the CI press. The enclosure was ventilated with an exhaust fan purchased for that purpose. Figures 3-
8 through 3-10 illustrate the enclosure that was constructed for the flexographie press.
17
-------
18
-------
Figure 3-2. Enclosed doctor blade system on the flexographic press (closed position).
Figure 3-3. Enclosed doctor blade system on the flexographic press (open position).
19
-------
Figure 3-4. Traditional gravure ink feed system on a
rolling cart, pulled away from printing station.
Figure 3-5. Traditional gravure ink feed system
(close-up).
-------
Figure 3-6. Enclosed doctor blade system for gravure press (front,
without gravure cylinder, hoses, and ink sump) .
-------
Figure 3-8, Temporary enclosure for the flexographic press (baek).
Figure 3-9. Temporary enclosure for the flexographic press (front).
22
-------
Figure 3-10. Temporary enclosure for the flexographic press (front, with enclosure blower).
-------
Figure 3-11. Access opening for enclosure on the flexographic press.
24
-------
A primary enclosure design consideration was to quickly erect an enclosure, preferably in a
matter of hours. In order to meet this objective, the back portion of the enclosure (Figure 3-8) was made
shorter than the front portion of the enclosure (Figure 3-9). The back portion of the enclosure included a
natural draft opening for the printing web. While the design of the enclosure accomplished the goal of
quick setup and removal, it did not meet all EPA requirements for a total enclosure (U.S. EPA, 1995).
Specifically: 1) the natural draft opening for the printing web was approximately two diameters from the
ink pan emission source, which is less than the four diameters required, and 2) the natural draft opening
for the web entrance was so large that the enclosure exhaust fan (Figure 3-10) was not able to produce
the 61 m/min velocity required to allow assumption of a total enclosure. Because the enclosure did not
meet the requirements for a total enclosure, 100 percent capture efficiency could not be assumed;
therefore, enclosure capture efficiency was measured.
An access opening was also cut near the ink sump on the flexographic press enclosure. This
access opening allowed for manual measurement of the viscosity of the ink in the flexographic press
sump, and for additions of solvent and ink to the sump. Figure 3-11 depicts the access opening on the
flexographic press enclosure.
At the rotogravure printing facility, the press had seven printing stations; an enclosure was
constructed for the Number 3 station. Figures 3-12 and 3-13 depict the right side and left side of the
enclosure for the rotogravure press.
3.4 Testing Procedure
Testing was conducted on a flexographic press and a rotogravure press. A traditional ink feed
system and an EDB system were evaluated. Testing of each ink feed system was conducted under two
separate press operations: idling, and printing. Ink is not deposited onto the substrate with an idling
press; hence there are no emissions from the ink drying on the substrate. The press-idle condition was
tested in order to more accurately measure the emissions coming from the ink pan alone. The capture
efficiencies of the enclosures at the flexographic and rotogravure facilities were also evaluated. At the
flexographic facility, this involved measurements at high and low enclosure exhaust rates (corresponding
to 46.0 nrVmin and 22.2 nr'/min. respectively). At the rotogravure facility, the enclosure exhaust rate was
fixed; measurements were made with full- and partial-enclosure. A complete list of test conditions is
presented in Table 3-1,
Fugitive emission levels were determined by constructing a temporary enclosure and by
measuring mass flow rates of VOCs at each inlet to and outlet from the enclosure. The enclosure and
measurement locations for the flexographic press are illustrated schematically in Figure 3-14.
Measurement locations for the flexographic press are listed in Table 3-2. The enclosure and
measurement locations for the rotogravure press are illustrated schematically in Figure 3-15.
Measurement locations for the rotogravure press are listed in Table 3-3.
At both the flexographic and rotogravure presses, multiple readings were made at each inlet and
outlet from the enclosure, to establish that the measurements were reproducible. Duplicate or triplicate
measurements were made at each sampling point, depending on the available testing time.
25
-------
Table 3-1. Testing Conditions
Test
Printing process
Ink feed System
Press statusa
Enclosure Status
1
Flexography
Traditional
Idling
High and low exhaust rate
2
Flexography
Traditional
Printing
High and low exhaust rate
3
Flexography
EDB
Idling
High and low exhaust rate
4
Flexography
EDB
Printing
High and low exhaust rate
5
Rotogravure
Traditional
Idling
Full and partial enclosure
6
Rotogravure
Traditional
Printing
Full and partial enclosure
7
Rotogravure
EDB
Idling
Full and partial enclosure
8
Rotogravure
EDB
Printing
Full enclosure only
a On an idle flexographic press, the anilox. rollers are moved away from the plate cylinder so that the press stops printing
even though the anilox continues to spin. On a rotogravure press, the rotogravure cylinder is moved away from the impression
cylinder and, similarly, continues to spin. Since there is no printing when the press is idle, all emissions from the press are
fugitive. When the press is printing, emissions from the press are a combination of fugitive emissions and emissions from the
drying printed substrate that are captured,
3.4.1 Determination of Relative Emission Levels
Relative emission levels were determined by measuring relative pollutant mass flow rates at each
inlet and exhaust from an enclosure, and subtracting inlet mass flow rates from exhaust mass flow rates.
To determine relative mass flow rates at each enclosure inlet and exhaust, volumetric flow rates and
relative concentrations were measured. Relative concentrations were determined by monitoring and
recording instrument response.
3.4.2 Determination of Absolute Emission Levels
In order to determine absolute emission levels from instrument responses, it was necessary to
determine instrument responses for gases of the same composition that were being measured. At the
flexographic facility, routine calibrations for the total hydrocarbon analyzer were performed using
isobutylene (C4H8) calibration gases, at concentrations of 10, 100, and 200 ppm. These calibrations were
related to predicted response for the flexographic ink volatiles (predominantly normal-propyl alcohol)
using published response factors for a fiame-ionization detector (FID) instrument. Calibration and
calculation details for the flexographic facility are presented in Appendixes C and D. respectively.
The instrument used at the rotogravure facility came with a factory-calibrated response for ethyl
acetate (the predominant volatile compound at the rotogravure facility). Calculation details are presented
in Appendix D.
26
-------
Figure 3-12. Temporary enclosure for the gravure press
(right side).
Figure 3-13. Temporary enclosure for the gravure press
(left side).
-------
Overhead Tunnel
K>
OO
CO2
Blower
Pressroom
Air
1
Paper We]
l_ Printing Station
Number
Between-colors
Dryer
Enclosure
(Back)
Figure 3-14. Experimental setup on flexographic press.
-------
Table 3-2. Volatile Organic Compound Measurement Locations for the Flexographic Press
O M. C7 JL
Measurement location Parameters measured
Enclosure exhaust duet
1)
Total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration*.
2)
Air flow rate.
Enclosure (ambient) intake
1)
THC concentration*.
(at natural draft openings to the enclosure)
Between-eolors (BC) total exhaust
1)
THC concentration*.
2)
Air flow rate.
Between-colors total intake
1)
THC concentration*.
2)
Air flow rate.
Overhead dryer exhaust
1)
THC concentration*.
2)
Air flow rate.
Overhead dryer intake
1)
THC concentration".
2)
Air flow rate.
* Reported as n-propyl alcohol.
Table 3-3. Volatile Organic Compound Measurement Locations for the Rotogravure Press
Measurement location Parameters measured
Floor sweep exhaust
l)Ethyl acetate concentration.
2)Air flow rate.
Enclosure (ambient) intake
1)Ethyl acetate concentration.
(at natural draft openings to the enclosure)
2)Air flow rate.
Dryer exhaust
l)Ethyl acetate concentration.
2)Flow rate.
Dryer intake
l)Ethyl acetate concentration.
2)Flow rate.
29
-------
Sump Enclosure
OJ
o
4-8"
Ink Sump
Dryer
T
hi
5*4"
Printing
Station
Dryer Intake
Dryer Exhaust
Canister
Floor Sweep
Exhaust
3'4"
37"
Figure 3-15. Schematic of the experimental setup on gravure press.
-------
3.4,3 Determination of Enclosure Capture Efficiency
Due to the physical arrangement of the flexographie and rotogravure presses, and the available
enclosure exhaust fan for the flexographie press, it was not possible to create enclosures that met all
requirements for an EPA total temporary enclosure. These requirements include;
1) Total natural draft opening areas less than 5 percent of the enclosure surface area.
2) A velocity inward through the natural draft openings of at least 60 m/min (200 ft/min).
3) Any exhaust point shall be at least 4 equivalent duct diameters from each natural draft
opening.
4) Any natural draft opening shall be at least four equivalent opening diameters from each
VOC emitting point.
Because the enclosures were not designed to meet all requirements for a total temporary
enclosure, 100 percent capture efficiency could not be assumed (U.S. EPA, 1995). Therefore,
measurements of the enclosure capture efficiency were necessary.
Two methods were used in attempting measure enclosure capture efficiency. One method was to
inject a known amount of tracer gas into the enclosure, and to measure the amount of tracer gas captured
by each powered exhaust from the enclosure. The amount not captured was then determined by
subtracting the total amount found at each powered exhaust from the known amount injected. A second
mediod of measuring capture efficiency involved attempting to locate and measure emissions from any
natural-draft exhausts from the enclosure, and comparing those emissions to emissions from powered
exhausts from the enclosure.
At the flexographie facility, the tracer gas was produced by subliming solid C02. At the
rotogravure facility, the tracer gas was produced by discharging a CO , compressed gas cylinder (the type
of cylinder used to carbonate beverages). In both cases, the gas release rate was determined with a scale
and a stopwatch. The C02 capture rate was determined using volumetric flow rate measurements and a
carbon dioxide monitor, which was calibrated at the beginning and end of each day, using a "zero" gas
(pure nitrogen) and a 1000 ppm C02 calibration gas.
Enclosure capture efficiency was also evaluated by attempting to locate and measure emissions
from any natural-draft exhausts from the enclosures at each facility. Natural-draft exhausts were
identified by locating each natural-draft opening in the enclosure, and evaluating whether the flow at this
natural-draft opening was entering or exiting the enclosure. This determination was made with a hot-
wire anemometer and a YOC measurement device. The hot-wire anemometer was used to measure air
speed into or out of the enclosure. These measurements established that the flow was relatively steady
(i.e., the flow did not periodically drop to zero). Flow direction was established by measuring VOC
concentrations just outside the enclosure openings, and as the portable VOC sampling probe was moved
progressively into the enclosure. If the VOC concentrations were at ambient just outside the opening,
and increased progressively as the probe was moved into the enclosure, the natural-draft flow was judged
to be entering the enclosure, rather than exiting.
In addition to direct capture efficiency measurements, attempts were made to determine the
effects of the enclosures on VOC emissions. The enclosures have the potential to produce three different
conditions: 1) Ideally, the enclosures would have no effect on VOC emissions, but 2) the enclosures
31
-------
might suppress VOC emissions (i.e., high concentrations in the enclosure might reduce evaporative
emissions), or 3) the enclosures might cause enhanced emissions (if air from natural draft openings in the
enclosure blew across emission sources).
In an attempt to determine the effects of the enclosures on emissions, the following procedure
was used: 1) the enclosure and exhaust system were set up in a manner that would produce the maximum
possible capture, 2) a tracer gas (CO,) was released inside the enclosure at a known rate, as close to the
source of VOC emissions as possible, and 3) the steady-state C02 capture and VOC mass flow rates
were measured. Next, the enclosure and exhaust system were set up in manner that would produce a
lower C02 capture rate, and steps 2 and 3 were repeated. These procedures are illustrated in Figure 3-16,
using completely arbitrary values. In Figure 3-16, all curves represent steady-state conditions, and C02 is
being released at a known rate.
One potential condition shown in Figure 3-16 is that the enclosure does not affect emissions. If
the enclosure does not affect the VOC emission rate, then the amount of VOCs captured increases or
decreases directly with the percentage of C02 captured. This is shown by the heavy solid line in
Figure 3-16. For this hypothetical example, the hydrocarbon capture rate is 1 kg/hr at 100% C02 capture.
If the enclosure does not affect emissions, the measured hydrocarbon capture rate would be 0.7 kg/hr for
70% CO, capture (i.e., 70%/100% x 1 kg/hr), because the hydrocarbon capture rate would decrease
exactly as the C02 capture decreased.
A second potential condition is that the enclosure suppresses emissions. The horizontal line in
Figure 3-16 shows one example of the enclosure suppressing emissions. For the horizontal line, changes
to the enclosure that increase C02 capture efficiency do not increase the hydrocarbon capture rate.
Therefore, the changes that increased C02 capture efficiency must have suppressed hydrocarbon
emissions, because the amount of hydrocarbons captured did not increase directly with the amount of
C02 captured.
A third potential condition is that the enclosure artificially increases emissions. The curved line
in Figure 3-16 represents an instance where the enclosure is artificially increasing emissions. In this
example, at 40% C02 capture, the hydrocarbon capture rate is 0.4 kg/hr. However, the hydrocarbon
capture rate is much greater than 1.0 kg/hr at 100% C02 capture, so the changes that increased C02
capture to 100% must have artificially increased emissions.
For the flexographic press, capture efficiency was changed by changing the enclosure fan
exhaust flow rate. For the rotogravure press, capture efficiency was changed by purposely adding
significant natural draft openings to the enclosure.
3.4.4 Laboratory Measurements of Ink Pan Emissions
In order to more fully understand and explain the emission measurements obtained at the printing
facilities, laboratory measurements were made, using press-ready inks from the two facilities. A quart of
each press-ready ink was obtained, in a sealed paint can. This can was agitated to mix the ink, then
poured into a shallow pan, under a laboratory hood. The pan was circular, and approximately 0.0266
square meters (m2) in area. The pan was mounted on a scale with a minimum readability of 0.01 grams.
Ink was poured to a depth of approximately 7.5 millimeters (mm). The evaporation rate from the scale
was monitored at 30-second intervals.
32
-------
- - a ¦ - Potential Condition 3: Enclosure promotes emissions.
• Potential Condition 1: Enclosure does not affect emissions.
— - Potential Condition 2: Enclosure suppresses emissions.
-
'
- '
„ '
„ '
- - '
. - - -"
__ - ' —
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of carbon dioxide captured (%)
Figure 3-16. Hypothetical examples of the effects of an enclosure on emissions.
-------
and no attempt was made to increase the air flow over the pan. In this condition, the natural air
movement within the hood (caused by the hood exhaust fan) actually produced air velocities above the
pan of approximately 27 m/min. In the "forced air" condition, air from a small fan placed next to the ink
pan was blown over the surface of the ink pool. The air velocity in the "forced air" condition was
approximately 90 m/min across the surface of the ink pool. The evaporation rate measurements were
converted into an areal evaporation rate (in kg/hr-m2 of ink surface area). Based on measurements of the
ink pool surface areas at the two printing facilities, evaporation rates could be predicted from the
laboratory areal evaporation rate measurements.
3.5 Emission Measurement Equipment Used
3.5.1 Flexographic Press
Emission measurements on the flexographic press were made with equipment that measured air
velocities and VOC concentrations. In general, velocity was measured with a pilot tube and magnahclic
gauge. However, duct velocities in the enclosure exhaust, overhead intake, and between colors intake
were below 90 m/min, and therefore could not be measured accurately with a pitot tube and magnahclic
gauge. Air velocity was measured with a hot-wire anemometer in these ducts.
Table 3-4 lists measurement equipment used for the flexographic press. Initial measurements
with a photo-ionization detector (PID) indicated that its detection level was not low enough to produce
accurate readings at the intake points. Therefore, a flame ionization detector (FID) was utilized for all
subsequent VOC concentration measurements.
Table 3-4. Emission Measurement Equipment Used on the Flexographic Press
Parameter measured
Measurement principle
Equipment
manufacturer
(location)
Model number
Total hydrocarbon
concentration
(as n-propyl alcohol)
Flame Ionization Detector
(FID)
Foxboro Company
(Foxboro, MA)
12B-S
Speciated hydrocarbon
analysis
Charcoal tube adsorption
SKC
(Eighty Four, PA)
SKC triple-bed
sorbent tubes
Carbon dioxide
concentration
Non-dispersive infrared
(NDIR) absorbtion
Metrosonics,
(Rochester, NY)
AQ501
Air Quality Monitor
Air velocity
Differential pressure (pitot
tube and magnahelic gauge)
Dwver Instruments
(Michigan City, IN)
DW33501
Air velocity
Hot-wire
anemometer
Kurz Instruments
(Carrncl Valley, CA)
1440
Mass
Electronic scale
Sartorius Corporation
(Bohemia, NY)
F32000SX
Mass
Analog scale
Sunbeam
(Shubuta, MS)
7940
(25 pound capacity)
34
-------
Charcoal tubes were utilized in an attempt to determine absolute concentrations of various
VOCs, independent of the FID. Sampling using the charcoal tubes was conducted in the following
manner: 1) the charcoal tubes were connected to the appropriate process sample points using flexible
tubing, 2) VOC-laden air was drawn through the charcoal tubes at a nominal sampling rate of 0.2
liters/minute, using calibrated pumps provided by Air Quality Sciences (Marietta, GA), and 3) the
sampling was conducted for fixed amounts of time, resulting in total sample volumes of approximately
10 liters for the conventional ink feed system, and 3 liters for the EDB system. The charcoal tubes were
then sent offsite for analysis by Air Quality Sciences, using extraction followed by gas
chromatograph/flame ionization detector (GC/FID) analysis.
3.5,2 Rotogravure Press
Tabic 3-5 lists measurement equipment used for the rotogravure press. The emission
measurements on the rotogravure press were made with velocity- and VOC-coneentration-measuring
equipment. Duct velocities were, in general, below 90 m/min (300 ft/min), and were measured with a
hot-wire anemometer.
Charcoal tubes proved inaccurate for measuring absolute concentrations of VOCs at the
flexographic facility. Therefore, during subsequent testing at the rotogravure facility, a fixed-pathlength
infrared spectrophotometer was used to measure absolute concentrations of the principal VOC (ethyl
acetate).
Table 3-5. Emission Measurement Equipment for the Rotogravure Press
Parameter
measured
Measurement principle
Equipment
manufacturer
(location)
Model number
Speciated Hydrocarbon
Analysis (Ethyl
Acetate)
Fixed-pathlength infrared
spectrophotometer
Foxboro Instruments
(Foxboro, MA)
Miran Model IB
Speciated Hydrocarbon
Analysis (total
acetates)
Fourier Transform Infrared
(FUR) acoustic
spectrophotometer
Bruel & Kjaer
(Naerum, Denmark)
130Z
Carbon dioxide
concentration
Non-dispersive infrared
(NDIR) absorbtion
Metrosonics
(Rochester, NY)
AQ501 Air Quality
Monitor
Air velocity
Differential pressure (pitot
tube and magnahelic gauge)
Dwyer Instruments
(Michigan City, IN)
DW33501
Air velocity
Hot-wire
anemometer
Kurz Instruments
(Carmel Valley, CA)
1440
Mass
Electronic Scale
Sartorius Corporation
(Bohemia, NY)
F3200SX
35
-------
It was intended that total VOC measurements at the rotogravure facility would be made with a
flame ionization detector (FID), as had been done at the flexographic facility. However, a leak from the
hydrogen gas cylinder which fueled the FID resulted in the instrument running out of fuel prior to
enclosed doctor blade measurements. Therefore, only measurements made with the fixed-pathlength
spectrophotometer are presented in this report.
Another RTI investigation performed coincidently with this project involved evaluation of a
Fourier-Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) spectrometer, operating on the principle of photoacoustic detection.
Details of the comparison between measurements of the FTIR photoacoustic spectrophotometer and the
fixed-pathlength spectrophotometer are available (Wright, et al., 1996), and are not discussed in this
report. However, the FTIR and the fixed-pathlength spectrophotometer produced comparable results.
36
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents and discusses primary results for the flexographic and rotogravure testing.
Sample calculations are presented in Appendix D, and detailed results are presented in Appendix E.
4.1 Flexographic Press
4.1.1 Flame Ionization Detector VOC Measurements
Table 4-1 presents results of FID-based VOC emission measurements for the flexographic
system with the press idle. Measurements are presented for an enclosure exhaust rate of 22.2 nv'/min
(785 cfm) and 46.0 m3/min (1624 cfm). Measured emissions from the traditional ink feed system ranged
from 0.54 kg/h to 2.11 kg/h, at the respective flow rates. In both cases, the measured emissions from the
enclosed doctor blade system were approximately 0.29 kg/h. Therefore, the measured emission reduction
for the EDB system ranged from 0.26 kg/h to 1.83 kg/h. This corresponds to emission reductions of
47 to 87 percent, respectively. These results are presented graphically in Figure 4-1.
For the traditional system, measured press-idle emissions increased from 0.54 kg/h to 2.11 kg/h
when the enclosure exhaust rate was increased from 22.2 nrVmin to 46.0 mVmin. Enclosure capture
efficiency measurements were not definitive (see Section 4.1.3); however, it appears that the enclosure
capture efficiency was near 100 percent, even at the lower enclosure exhaust rate. Therefore, it appears
that the increased enclosure exhaust rate may have artificially increased emissions. If so, the "natural"
emission rate for the traditional system is probably closer to 0.54 kg/h (i.e., the emission rate measured
with the low enclosure exhaust rate). Therefore, the "natural" press-idle emission reduction of the EDB
system is probably closer to 0.25 kg/h, or 45 percent (i.e., the values measured at the enclosure exhaust
rate of 22.2 m3/min).
It is even possible that the press-idle emissions were artificially increased even at the lower
enclosure exhaust rate of 22.2 in'/min. The lower exhaust rate produced a velocity into the printing web
natural draft opening of approximately 15 m/min. This opening was located above the ink pan, and the
15 m/min air stream may have artificially increased emissions from the ink pan. Therefore, the "natural"
press-idle emission reduction for the EDB system may actually be less than 0.25 kg/h. However, lack of
definitive enclosure capture data precludes a definitive calculation of the "natural" press-idle reduction
achieved by the EDB system.
Table 4-1 presents results of FID-based VOC measurements for the flexographic system with the
press running. Once again, measurements are presented for enclosure exhaust rates of 22.2 m3/min and
46.0 nr/min. The measured emission reductions for these exhaust rates were 0.84 and 0.89 kg/h,
respectively. This corresponds to emission reductions of 15 to 16 percent. These results are also
presented graphically in Figure 4-1.
A test pattern used during this evaluation had much higher ink coverage area than would
typically be seen at a single color station. The test pattern had a total substrate coverage area of over 80
37
-------
Table 4-1. FiD-Based Emission Measurements for the Flexographic Press.
Press status
Ink feed system type
Enclosure exhaust rate
(m3/min)
Net total
emissions
(kg/h)
Reduction
in emissions
(kg/h)
Percentage
Reduction
(%)
Idle
Traditional ink feed system
46.0
2.11
Baseline
Baseline
Idle
Enclosed doctor blade system
46.0
0.28
1.83
87
Idle
Traditional ink feed system
22.2
0.54
Baseline
Baseline
Idle
Enclosed doctor blade system
22.2
0.29
0.26
47
Running
Traditional ink feed system
46.0
5.49
Baseline
Baseline
Running
Enclosed doctor blade system
46.0
4.65
0.84
15
Running Traditional ink feed system 22.2 5.47 Baseline Baseline
Running Enclosed doctor blade system 22.2 4.58 0.89 1_6
-------
PRESS STATUS - IDLE
PRESS STATUS - RUNNING
U Enclosure exhaust flow = 46.0 m /miri (1624 ft /min)
~ Enclosure exhaust flow = 22.2 m3/min (785 ft3/min)
-+-
-t-
pm
life
is
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Figure 4-1. FID-based emission measurements for the flexographic press.
-------
percent, where a typical single-station substrate coverage area might range from 10 to 50 percent.
Therefore, although the absolute values for the emission reductions (0.84 to 0.89 kg/h) might be
representative of commercial printing, the percentage reductions in commercial printing might be higher
than the 15 to 16 percent obtained during this testing. This is because the emissions from the exposed
ink pan surface area become a larger portion of total press emissions, as press coverage area is reduced.
At the flexographic facility, solvent additions to the ink were performed manually, periodically
during testing. The traditional ink feed system required approximately 0.9 liter per hour (1/h) of solvent
addition, in order to maintain acceptable ink viscosity. These additions were made in 0.5-liter
increments, about every half-hour during operation. Solvent (0.5 liters) was added immediately before
the EDB testing, and one liter was added 95 minutes later. Therefore, the solvent addition requirements
for the two systems did not appear to be substantially different.
4.1.2 Printing Quality
There was no observable difference in printing quality between the traditional ink feed system
and the EDB system on the flexographic press.
4.1.3 Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements
Capture efficiency measurements were made using a dry-ice-based CO, injection system.
Capture efficiencies were also evaluated by measuring VOC concentrations outside identified natural
draft openings in the enclosure.
The results of dry-ice capture efficiency measurements are shown in Table 4-2 . The majority of
measured capture efficiencies were above 100 percent. This is probably due to the use of dry ice as a
CO, injection medium, and the fact that ambient air (without desiccation) was used as the sublimation
medium. Moisture in ambient air was observed to condense and form (water) ice on the surface of the
dry ice. The mass gain from the moisture condensing on the dry ice caused mass loss measurements to
be biased low. Therefore, the capture efficiency (the ratio of CO. measured by the Metrosonics monitor
to carbon dioxide mass loss determined by the scale) was measured at more than 100 percent (an
impossibility).
The capture efficiency measurements of more than 100 percent are probably due to condensation
of water on the surface of the dry ice, rather than calibration errors for the Metrosonics C02 monitor.
Monitor calibration checks were performed at the beginning and end of each day, and calibration
drift/inaccuracy were typically within 10 percent. Therefore, the calibration checks did not indicate
monitor inaccuracy sufficient to explain the capture efficiencies above 142 percent shown in Table 4-2.
In addition to the measurements of capture efficiency using the dry-ice based C02, an evaluation
of enclosure capture was made using the portable FID and hot-wire anemometer. This evaluation
consisted of identifying all natural draft openings in the enclosure, measuring velocity into the openings,
and VOC concentration immediately outside and inside the enclosure at these openings. Measurements
were performed with enclosure exhaust flow rates of 46.0 m3/min and 22.2 nf/min, producing measured
velocities into the natural draft openings of 31 m/min and 16 m/min, respectively. For all identified
openings in the enclosure, VOC concentration was significantly lower immediately outside the openings
40
-------
Table 4-2. Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements for the Flexographic Press.
Dry ice mass loss rate,
Test
Test
Blower
CO2 exhaust rate,
Capture
Time
Weight
measured with scale
number condition
exhaust
measured by C02 monitor
efficiency
(lbs)
(kg/h)
(damper)
flow (m3/min)
(kg/h)
(%)
3:00:00
36.8750
2
1/2 open
3:05:00
36.5625
1.70
2
1/2 open
42
3.03
178
3:10:00
36.3751
1.02
2
1/2 open
3:15:00
36.1251
1.36
2
1/2 open
3:20:00
35.9063
1.19
3
Full closed
3:25:00
35.7188
1.02
3
Full closed
3:30:00
35.5313
1.02
3
Full closed
22
1.45
142
3:35:00
35.2813
1.36
3
Full closed
3:40:00
35.0625
1.19
4
Full open
3:45:00
34.9126
0.82
4
Full open
3:50:00
34.7813
0.72
4
Full open
46
1.45
202
3:55:00
34.7188
0.34
5
Full open
4:00:00
34.6563
0.34
5
Full closed
22
0.24
71
4:05:00
34.6250
0.17
5
Full closed
-------
than inside the enclosure. Concentrations immediately outside the enclosure openings were
approximately the ambient level of 9-10 ppm normal-propyl alcohol. However, concentrations inside the
enclosure were above 130 ppm. This indicated that VOC's were not escaping the enclosure at the natural
draft openings.
It was not possible with the enclosure fan, which had a maximum flow rate of approximately
46 m3/min, to generate sufficient velocity through all natural draft openings in the enclosure to meet EPA
guidelines for a total temporary enclosure. EPA guidelines for a total temporary enclosure require a
velocity of at least 61 m/min (200 ft/min) into each natural draft opening. As noted above, the enclosure
fan maximum flow rate of 46 m3/min produced at velocity of approximately 31 m/min (100 ft/min) into
the natural draft openings. However, as discussed above, FID measurements did not indicate any VOCs
escaping from the enclosure. This provides qualitative evidence that enclosure capture efficiency was
high.
4.2 Rotogravure Ink Feed System
4.2.1 VOC Measurements
Table 4-3 presents results of infrared spectrophotometer-based VOC emission measurements for
the rotogravure system with the press idle. Measurements are presented for full and partial press
enclosure. Measured press-idle emissions from the traditional ink feed system ranged from 0.49 to 0.57
kg/h for partial- to full-enclosure. Measured press-idle emissions from the enclosed doctor blade system
ranged from 0,14 to 0.22 kg/h for partial- to full-enclosure. Therefore, measured press-idle emission
reductions were 0.35 kg/h with both partial and full enclosure. These values represent emission
reductions of approximately 62 to 71 percent. These results are presented graphically in Figure 4-2.
Table 4-3 also presents results of VOC measurements for the rotogravure system with the press
running. Emissions with the press operating and the traditional system installed were 1.49 kg/h with the
full enclosure. Emissions with the press operating and the EDB system installed were 0.66 kg/h with the
full enclosure. Therefore, the measured press-running emission reduction was 0.83 kg/h, or 56 percent.
However, part of this emission reduction probably came from the lower press speed used for the EDB
system. An estimate of the emissions that could be expected from an EDB system operating at the same
press speed as the traditional system can be made as follows:
1) Emissions with the traditional system and the press running at 55 m/min were 1.49 kg/h,
versus approximately 0.49 kg/h with the press idling. This is a difference of approximately
1 kg/h, which can be attributed to ink drying from the substrate.
2) The press speed for the enclosed doctor blade system was lowered to 30 m/min, or
approximately 55 percent of the press speed with the traditional system. Therefore, the ink
drying from the substrate at this speed would be approximately 0.55 kg/h. This is 0.45 kg/h
less than for the faster press speed.
3) If 0.45 kg/h is added to the emission rate for the EDB system, the emission rate at the faster
press speed becomes 1.11 kg/h (i.e. 0.66 kg/h + 0.45 kg/h).
42
-------
Table 4-3. Infrared Spectrophotometer-Based Emission Measurements for the Rotogravure Press.
Press status
Ink feed system type
Enclosure extent
Net total
emissions
(kg/h)
Reduction in
emissions
(kg/h)
Percentage
Reduction
(%)
Idle
Traditional
Full
0.57
Baseline
Baseline
Idle
Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB)
Full
0.22
0.35
61
Idle
Traditional
Partial
0.49
Baseline
Baseline
Idle
Enclosed doctor blade (EDB)
Partial
0.14
0.35
71
Running
Traditional
Full
1.49
Baseline
Baseline
Running
Enclosed doctor blade (EDB)
Full
0.66
0.83
56
Running Traditional Partial 0.98 Baseline Baseline
Running Enclosed doctor blade (EDB) Partial Not measured Not measured Not Measured
-------
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Traditional Enclosed
ink feed doctor blade
system system
Figure 4-2. Infrared spectophotometer-based emission measurements for the gravure press.
-------
If the calculated EDB emissions of 1.11 kg/h is compared to the 1.49 kg/h emission rate for the
traditional system, the emission reduction is calculated to be 0.38 kg/h (or 26 percent) at equal press
speeds. This 0.38 kg/h reduction is approximately equal to the 0.35 kg/h reduction measured with the
press idling.
It was not possible to measure press-running partial-enclosure emissions with the EDB system,
due to production considerations. (The EDB system was producing unacceptable print quality, as
described in the Section 4.2.2. Therefore, National Label wanted to return to the traditional system.)
4.2.2 Printing Quality
The EDB system was judged to produce unacceptable print quality by the rotogravure press
operators. The press speed was lowered from approximately 55 m/min (180 ft/min) to 30 m/min
(100 ft/min), in an attempt to improve print quality. However, print quality was still judged to be
unacceptable.
4.2.3 Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements
Carbon dioxide capture efficiency measurements were made with full and partial enclosures,
when the EDB was installed, and the press was operating. The measured capture efficiency was
32 percent with a full enclosure, and 39 percent with a partial enclosure. Both of these measured values
appear to be much too low. The full enclosure for the rotogravure press met or nearly met all EPA
guidelines for a Total Temporary Enclosure (the velocity into each natural draft opening may have been
slightly less than the 60 m/min [200 ft/min] required for an enclosure to be considered a Total Temporary
Enclosure). Therefore, the capture efficiency for the full enclosure should have been nearly 100 percent.
A high capture efficiency for the full enclosure was also indicated by the fact that high VOC
concentrations (>1000 ppm) existed within the enclosure, but could not be detected outside the natural
draft openings in the enclosure. The low capture efficiency that was measured with full enclosure cannot
be explained at this time.
As at the flexographic press facility, it does not appear that the capture efficiency measurement
problems were due to errors in the Metrosonics C02 monitor. The monitor calibration was checked at the
beginning and end of each day. Additionally, the Metrosonics readings could be compared with CO,
concentration measurements made with the FTIR, because the FTIR also measured CO, concentration.
The two instruments agreed to within approximately 10 percent.
4.3 Laboratory Ink Pan Emission Measurements
In order to more fully understand and explain the emission measurements obtained at the printing
facilities, evaporation measurements were made in a laboratory hood, using inks from the two facilities.
The results of these laboratory measurements are summarized in Figure 4-3 for the flexographic ink and
Figure 4-4 for the rotogravure ink.
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show that evaporation rate increases when air flow over the ink pool
increases, and that evaporation rate decreases over time (particularly for high initial evaporation rates).
Both of these phenomena can be predicted from general principles of evaporative mass transfer. Of
particular interest to this study is the "fresh surface" evaporation rate from a pool of ink (i.e., the
45
-------
30
25
.£ 20
E
*
CM
E
2
c5
c
o
'w
CO
'E
0
~nj
CD
15
10
4 Flexographic - stagnant air (velocity < 30 m/min)
5S Flexographic - forced air (velocity = 90 m/min)
™ ™ Exponential regression for flexographic ink with stagnant air (velocity < 30 m/min)
Exponential regression for flexographic ink with forced air (velocity = 90 m/min)
m
5
m y
= 22e"°'211x
555
m
m
y = 8.4e"°'O0x
— ~
¦
1
1
1
j ~
¦
¦
I
S
1
~ ^
8
~ 4
I
~ ~ <
~
~
—— >imi
s
+ S5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Elapsed time (minutes)
Figure 4-3. Laboratory ink-pan emission measurements for the flexographic press ink.
-------
Elapsed time (minutes)
Figure 4-4. Laboratory ink-pan emission measurements for the rotogravure press ink.
-------
evaporation rate when ink is first poured into a pan). In a typical printing operation, ink is continuously
falling into the ink pan, and draining down into the sump. Therefore, the pool of ink during printing
probably represents a "fresh surface" condition.
The "fresh surface" areal evaporation rates from Figures 4-3 and 4-4 have been summarized in
Table 4-4. They have also been converted into predicted emission rates, using measured pool surface
areas at the two printing facilities. Exact measurements of the exposed ink pool surface areas were not
possible, due to inaccessibility of the ink pans during operation. However, the exposed pool surface area
was approximately 0.21 nr at the fiexographic facility, and approximately 0.11 m2 at the rotogravure
facility. The predicted emission rates for the fiexographic facility range from 0.11 kg/h (stagnant air,
with a velocity of approximately 27 m/mln) to 0.28 kg/h (air velocity of 90 m/min). The predicted
emission rates for the rotogravure facility range from 0.18 kg/h (stagnant air) to 1.12 kg/h (air velocity of
90 m/min).
Table 4-4 compares the laboratory-based ink pool emission predictions with measured press-idle
emission reductions at the two printing facilities. The predicted emission rate for the fiexographic press
ink pool ranges from 0.11 to 0.28 kg/h, depending on velocity above the ink pan. The measured press-
idle emission reductions ranged from 0.25 to 1.86 kg/h, depending on enclosure ventilation rate. The
measured emission reduction of 0.25 kg/h (at the lower enclosure ventilation rate) is compatible with
predicted reductions for elimination of the ink pool surface. The predicted emission reduction for the
rotogravure press ranges from 0.20 to 1.12 kg/h, depending on ventilation rate. The measured emission
reductions were approximately 0.36 kg/hour. Therefore, the measured emission reductions are consistent
with predicted reductions due to elimination of the ink pan exposed surface area.
No measurements were made of the velocity above the ink pans inside the enclosures at either
printing facility. Therefore, it can't be definitively stated that the velocities above the ink pans in the
laboratory testing were representative of the velocities at the printing facilities. It is likely that the air
velocity of 90 m/min that was produced in the '"forced air" laboratory condition is higher than would
occur during normal printing operations. In fact, because the "stagnant air" laboratory measurements
were conducted in a hood, with a resulting air velocity over the pan of approximately 27 m/min, this
condition may have resulted in somewhat higher velocities than would be found over the pans in the
printing facilities. However, at the fiexographic facility, air velocities of 15 m/min to 30 m/min were
measured at the natural draft opening for the printing web; the air stream from this opening probably
impinged on the ink pan. Therefore, the laboratory measurements conducted at an air velocity of
approximately 27 m/min were probably equal, or somewhat higher than, the air velocities over the pans
during printing.
Laboratory ink pool evaporation measurements appear to provide an order-of-magnitude method
for estimating press-idle emission reductions achieved by enclosed doctor blade systems.
4.4 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
A level IV (proof-of-concept) QAPP was prepared for this testing. Deviations from this plan
occurred as a result of instrumentation failures, and time constraints during testing. A discussion of these
deviations is presented below.
48
-------
Table 4-4. Predicted Ink Pan Emission Rates, Based on Laboratory Ink Pan Emission Measurements
Ink type
Air flow,
air velocity
(m/min)
"Fresh surface"
areal emission rate
(g/min*m2)
Estimated ink pool
surface area
(m2)
Predicted ink pan
emission rate
(kg/h)
Measured press-idle
emission reduction
(kg/h)
Flexographic
Stagnant (< 30 m/min)
8.4
0.21
0.11
0.26 to 1.83
Flexographic
Forced (90 m/min)
22
0.21
0.28
0.26 to 1.83
Rotogravure
Stagnant (< 30 m/min)
28
0.11
0.18
0.35 to 0.36
Rotogravure
Forced (90 m/min)
170
0.11
1.12
0.35 to 0.36
4^
-------
Originally, it was expected that total hydrocarbon concentrations would be measured using a
PID, This device was chosen because it was intrinsically safe with regard to fire hazard, and because it
eliminated the need for a hydrogen supply, as is required for an FID. However, initial tests at the
flexographic facility (the first evaluation) indicated that the PID did not have sufficient low-level
concentration resolution to provide accurate measurements, particularly for inlet concentrations.
Therefore, an intrinsically-safe FID was procured, and the FID was used for all total hydrocarbon
measurements on the flexographic press. The FID had significantly better low-level resolution than
the PID.
The FID was also used briefly for testing on the rotogravure press. However, a hydrogen leak
rendered the FID inoperable for the rotogravure press. This data loss is not considered to be significant,
because two other instruments were already in use for VOC (ethyl acetate) measurements: a fixed-
path length infrared spectrometer and FTIR acoustic spectrophotometer. Both of these instruments
performed acceptably, and were in good agreement with each other.
When initial testing with the PID at the flexographic facility indicated that hydrocarbon
concentrations were potentially quite low (lower than could be accurately measured with the PID),
activated charcoal tubes were procured. The advantage of charcoal tubes over real-time measurements
with a PID or FID is that the charcoal tubes can adsorb VOCs, which can later be extracted in more-
concentrated form for analysis. This would theoretically produce more accurate results. However, the
charcoal tube sampling actually proved to be quite inaccurate, as is presented in Appendix F.
Specifically, charcoal tube results did not even indicate significantly higher pollutant concentrations in
exhaust ducts, as compared to inlet ducts. This clearly showed that the concentrations measured by the
charcoal tubes were not accurate. However, the specific problem with the charcoal tube sampling or
analysis is not known. The charcoal tubes did indicate that the primary constituent VOC was normal-
propyl alcohol, which was expected from analysis of the Material Safety Data Sheet for the flexographic
ink (see Appendix B),
At the flexographic printing facility, time constraints did not allow measurement of C02 capture
efficiency and hydrocarbon emission rates at five separate enclosure ventilation rates, as originally
planned. Instead, C02 and hydrocarbon emission rates were only measured at two enclosure flow rates:
46 m3/min (the maximum flow rate of the enclosure exhaust fan) and 22.2 nxVmin (approximately half
the maximum flow rate). Similarly, at the rotogravure facility, time constraints did not allow
measurement of C02 capture efficiency and hydrocarbon emission rates at five separate degrees of
enclosure. Instead, C0: capture efficiency and hydrocarbon emission rates were measured only with a
full enclosure, and at one level of partial enclosure. The predominant reason that time was too limited to
take measurements at five separate levels of enclosure ventilation, or degrees of enclosure, is that testing
was conducted with the press idle at both the flexographic and rotogravure facilities. This press-idle
testing was not originally anticipated in the QAPP (see discussion below).
At the flexographic facility, it was recognized that measurements of ink evaporating off the
substrate (as occurred with the press running) had the potential of confounding measurements of fugitive
emissions from the ink pan and ink feed system. Therefore, measurements were made with the press idle
(i.e., with the ink feed system recirculating, but no ink being applied to the substrate). These press-idle
measurements were made with the traditional ink feed system and again with the EDB system. These
50
-------
press-idle measurements were also made on the rotogravure press. Although press-idle measurements
were not originally anticipated in the QAPP, the addition of press-idle measurements improved the test
program
The test printing pattern used at the flexographic printing facility had a very high degree of
substrate coverage. A single color station (black) was evaluated, and the total substrate coverage was
over 80 percent. This compares to a typical coverage that might range from 10 to 50 percent. This test
pattern was chosen to produce emissions that were high enough to be measured accurately with the FID.
However, EDB emission reductions measured with the press operating may be unrepresentative of
commercial printing operations with lower degrees of coverage.
It was originally expected that dry ice would be used to generate the C02 tracer gas used to
measure enclosure capture efficiency at both printing facilities. However, significant problems were
encountered with the dry ice system at the flexographic facility. First, water vapor from the ambient air
condensed on the dry ice, making accurate mass measurements of the dry ice sublimation rate difficult.
Perhaps more importantly, the water ice film that formed on the dry ice rapidly reduced the rate at which
sublimation could occur. This produced a rapidly-declining C02 generation curve, which increased the
difficulty in comparing mass-based measurements with C02 concentration-based measurements.
Finally, even the initial dry ice sublimation rates were not as high as desired. In retrospect, many of these
problems could have been avoided by placing a desiccant, such as silica gel, in the air stream used to
sublimate the dry ice. However, after testing at the flexographic facility was complete, it was decided to
abandon the dry-ice-C02 tracer gas system.
Sulfur hexafluoride was chosen as a tracer gas to measure enclosure capture efficiency at the
rotogravure facility. Sulfur hexafluoride could be accurately measured to very low concentrations (well
below 5 ppm) with both the fixed-pathlength infrared spectrometer and the ITER spectrometer. A
compressed gas cylinder of sulfur hexafluoride was procured. The advertised mass of the gas within the
cylinder should have been capable of supplying approximately 8 hours of sulfur hexafluoride at the
requisite rate. However, the cylinder actually supplied sulfur hexafluoride for approximately 15 minutes,
at the requisite rate. The reason for this shortfall is unknown. It is possible that a gradual leak may have
significantly discharged the cylinder in the week between when it was purchased and when it was used.
In any case, the sulfur hexafluoride was not delivered for a long enough period to determine the
enclosure capture efficiency. Isopropyl alcohol was briefly evaluated as a substitute tracer gas.
However, the isopropyl alcohol interfered with the response of the instruments to ethyl acetate (the
primary VOC in the ink). Therefore, isopropyl alcohol was abandoned. Finally, a canister of C02 gas,
commonly used as a carbonating gas for soft drinks, was procured. This gas was used to measure the
enclosure capture efficiency at the rotogravure facility.
Due to problems with enclosure capture efficiency measurements, it was not possible to establish
possible effects of the enclosures on hydrocarbon emissions, as was originally planned.
Line speed at the rotogravure facility was reduced when the EDB system was installed, in an
attempt to produce an acceptable print quality. This artificially lowered press-running emission
measurements with EDB system, as compared to the traditional system.
51
-------
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Fugitive VOC emissions were reduced with the EDB system for both flexographic and
rotogravure printing. Two other expected environmental benefits of EDB systems that were identified in
previous research (reduced solvent usage during ink feed system cleaning, and reduced leftover ink at the
end of a print run) were not evaluated in this research.
Laboratory ink pan evaporation tests were performed with the flexographic and rotogravure inks.
The laboratory tests can be combined with estimates of the ink pool surface areas at each of the two
facilities, to produce predictions of the emission reduction benefits of eliminating the ink pool surface
areas at each facility. The predicted emission reductions range from 0.11 to 0.28 kg/h for the
flexographic press, and 0.18 to 1.12 kg/h for the rotogravure press.
Fugitive VOC emission measurements from a single color station on a rotogravure press
indicated an emission reduction of approximately 62 percent (0.36 kg/h) with the press idle, and 56
percent (0.83 kg/h) with the press running. However, the reductions measured with the press running
were probably inflated by a slower press speed used with the EDB system. When emissions with the
EDB system are recalculated for an equivalent press speed, the reduction compared to the traditional
system is 26 percent (0.38 kg/h). These measurements are comparable to predicted emission reduction
benefits produced by elimination of the ink pool exposed surface area.
Fugitive VOC emission measurements from a single color station on a flexographic press
indicated emission reductions of 45 to 86 percent (0.25 to 1.86 kg/h) with the press idle. The higher
values were measured during conditions that may have artificially increased emissions from the
traditional ink feed system, so that the emission reduction that would be observed in a typical printing
operation would probably be closer to 0.25 kg/h (45 percent). This value is comparable to predicted
emission reduction benefits produced by elimination of the ink pool exposed surface area.
The emission reductions measured with the EDB system on the operating press ranged from
0.84 to 0.89 kg/h. During this testing, those values represented emission reductions of 15 to 16 percent
of operating press emissions. However, the test pattern chosen for printing at the flexographic facility
had a single-color coverage of approximately 80 percent. This is higher than would be found during a
typical commercial printing operation. Therefore, the percentage reductions achieved in a typical
commercial printing operation would be higher. This is because the emissions from the exposed ink pan
surface area become a larger portion of total press emissions, as press coverage area is reduced. The
emission reduction values of 0.84 to 0.89 kg/h are a more accurate representation of the reduction
achieved by the EDB system.
The EDB system used on the flexographic press resulted in acceptable printing quality. The
EDB system used on the rotogravure press resulted in unacceptable printing quality, even when printing
line speed was slowed. However, it may have been possible to improve the printing quality of the
rotogravure EDB system, if production requirements had not dictated a return to the original system.
52
-------
The EDB system is currently commercially available for flexographic printing, and reduces
fugitive emissions. The EDB system, as installed during the test for rotogravure printing, also reduced
fugitive emissions. However, the EDB system at the rotogravure facility substantially degraded print
quality, even at reduced line speeds. The issue of printing quality will need to be addressed before EDB
can become a viable option for the rotogravure printing industry.
53
-------
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Enclosed doctor blade systems cost several thousand dollars per station, and have the potential to
adversely affect print quality. Additionally, air flow over an exposed ink pan has been shown to increase
ink pan emissions. Therefore, we recommend that research on ink pan covers or shields be considered.
The purpose of these covers or shields would be to limit the air exchange rate above the surface of the
exposed ink pool, thus retarding the evaporation rate. Covers or shields would be a relatively
inexpensive method to reduce evaporation from ink pans. Also, because covers or shields would not
contact the printing cylinder, ink pan covers or shields would not have the potential to adversely affect
print quality.
Enclosed doctor blade systems are fairly common in the flexographic printing industry. In this
study, emission measurements with the flexographic press running indicated somewhat larger emission
reductions than would be expected from elimination of the ink pan alone. A potential explanation for
these larger-than-expected emission reductions would be if the EDB system had reduced ink usage.
However, no such reduction was observed. Further, the printing test pattern used in the flexographic
testing was probably not typical of average commercial printing patterns. We recommend that
commercial printing operations that have converted from traditional systems to EDB systems be
contacted, to investigate whether reduced ink usage has been observed with EDB systems in commercial
printing.
One expected benefit of EDB systems that was not investigated in this research is a reduction in
cleaning solvent usage. Cleaning solvent usage should be reduced by EDB systems, because the EDB
chamber has less surface area than a traditional ink pan. Therefore, less solvent is required for wipe-
down after a press run. Another method for reducing cleaning solvent usage in a traditional ink feed
system would be through use of non-stick surfaces in the ink pan and other ink feed system parts.
Research in this area should be considered.
Use of a high enclosure exhaust rate appeared to artificially increase emissions from the
traditional (ink pan) system at the flexographic printing press. Future research that uses enclosures to
measure evaporative emissions should consider the possible effects of the enclosure on emissions.
Dry ice was used to generate CO, for enclosure capture efficiency measurements, during testing
at the flexographic printing facility. However, water from ambient air condensed on the dry ice,
significantly reducing the C02 generation rate, and creating a bias in the mass balance measurements of
C02 injection rates. If dry ice is used to generate CO, for enclosure capture efficiency measurements in
the future, some means should be employed to prevent condensation of moisture in the ambient air. This
could be accomplished through use of a desiccant, such as silica gel, to remove moisture before the air
passes over the dry ice.
54
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Nunez, C. M,» and Deatherage, G. W.; Evaluation of Innovative Ink Feed Systems for the Flexographic
and Gravure Printing Industries, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 46: 267-272,
1996,
Shapiro, F., "Quality Flexo Printing & Environmental Responsibility", American Ink Maker, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Method 204-
Criteriafor and Verification of Permanent or Total Enclosures, proposed in Federal Register,
August 1995.
Wright, R. L.. et al; Evaluation of a Portable Fourier Transform Infrared Gas Analyzer for
Measurements of Air Toxics in Pollution Prevention Research, accepted for publication in the
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association in September 1997.
55
-------
APPENDIX A. DAILY LOGS
CLEMSON PRINT/CON DAILY LOG
RTI PROJECT 5171-010
MONDAY (4/24/95)
Enclosure and sampling system set-up.
TUESDAY (4/25/95)
Enclosure and sampling system set-up.
Characterize flowrates at sampling points.
Background and preliminary checks with photoionization detector.
WEDNESDAY (4/26/95)
AM - Enclosure and sampling system set-up.
Characterize enclosure exhaust fan flowrates.
12:00 - Original (Traditional) Ink Feed System - Print Station #6:
Photoionization detector.
13:50-15:00 Background C02 Measurements.
15:00 - 16:00 C02 capture efficiency tests (analog scales).
THURSDAY (4/27/95)
AM - Characterize flowrates at sampling points.
14:03 -14:44 Original (Traditional) Ink Feed System - Print Station #6: Enclosure damper
full open, press running. Flame ionization detector (FID), Metrosonics C02,
analog scales.
15:30 - 15:52 Original (Traditional) Ink Feed System - Print Station #6: Enclosure damper
full closed, press running. FID, Metrosonics C02, analog scales.
16:38 - 17:47 Original (Traditional) We Feed System - Print Station #6: Enclosure damper
full open, press running. FID, Metrosonics C02, started adding dry ice directly
to the ink scale.
A-l
-------
CLEMSON PRINT/CON DAILY LOG (Continued)
RTI PROJECT 5171-010
FRIDAY (4/28/95)
8:24 - 9:05 Original (Traditional) Ink Feed System - Print Station #6: Press idle, with no
printing, dryers, or blowers. FID, Metrosonics CO-,, no C02 source.
10:11 - 10:51 Harris & Bruno Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB) System - Print Station #5:
Press idle, with no printing, dryers, or blowers. FID, no C02 source.
10:52 - 11:05 Enclosure capture efficiency by FID fugitive measurements.
11:15-12:00 Harris & Bruno Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB) System - Print Station #5:
Press running. FID, Metrosonics CO,. Started adding dry ice to ink balance
at 11:50.
12:50 - 13:29 Harris & Bruno Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB) System - Print Station #5:
Press idle, analox rolling. FID. Metrosonics on bench.
14:56 - 15:07 Harris & Bruno Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB) System - Print Station #5:
No ink, no web, no enclosure. FID, no C02.
15:15 - Between Colors (BC) dryer intake and overhead dryer intake. Fans on only.
Between Colors (BC) dryer exhaut and overhead dryer exhaust. Fans on only.
FID, no C02.
A-2
-------
NATIONAL LABEL COMPANY DAILY LOG
RTI PROJECT 5171-010
WEDNESDAY (5/17/95)
Testing equipment and press enclosure set-up (Station #5)
Characterize flowrates at sample points
THURSDAY (5/18/95)
0900 - Set-up enclosure and testing equipment
Characterize flowrates at sample points
Original Rotogravure System - Print Station #5
Organic Vapor Analyses
Miran (ethyl acetate)
Flame ionization detector
Bruel & Kjaer
Conditions
0944-1210 '
No enclosure, press running
1210-1300
No enclosure, press idling
1300-1400
Partial enclosure (constructing enclosure), press idling
1353-1455
Full enclosure, press idling
1455-1800
Full enclosure, press running
1806-1814
Partial enclosure, press idling
1814-1928
Partial enclosure, press running
1928-next day
Instrumentation left on, press predominantly running
A-3
-------
NATIONAL LABEL COMPANY DAILY LOG (CONTINUED)
RTI PROJECT 5171-010
FRIDAY (5/19/95)
Started day with traditional ink feed system, switched to Enclosed Double Doctor Blade
Chamber System on Print Station #5, then switched back to traditional system.
Flow rate measurements
Hot-wire anemometer
Organic Vapor Measurements
Miran (ethyl acetate)
Bruel & Kjaer
Sulfur Hexafluoride Measurements
Bruel & Kjaer
Methanol Measurements
Bruel & Kjaer
Carbon Dioxide Measurements
Metrosonics
Bruel & Kjaer
Conditions
0845-0907
0907-1016
1020-1126
1126-1213
1213-1233
1237-1248
1437-1519
1520-1552
Traditional ink feed system, partial enclosure, running.
Traditional ink feed system, full enclosure, running.
Sulfur hexafluoride capture test (0930r0940)
Ethanol capture test (0940-0955)
VOC capture test by measurements inside/outside enclosure (0957-1017)
Install EDB system.
EDB system, full enclosure, running.
SUMMA canister sampling (1158-1207)
EDB system, full enclosure, idling.
Velocity traverses (1215)
EDB system, partial enclosure, idling.
Traditional system, full enclosure, running.
Carbon dioxide capture (1446-1552)
Traditional system, partial enclosure, running.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS FOR FLEXOGRAPHIC AND
GRAVURE INK; COMPOSITION OF SOLVENT AT FLEXOGRAPHIC
PRINTING FACILITY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
Center far Environmental Analysis
Pollution Prevention Program
P. O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Hobbs Building
FAX: (919) 541-7155
Date: May 9, 1995
To: Keith Leese
Phone#: 7131 From: Bill Deatherage
Fax #: 6936 Phone #: 8708
Acct #: 5171-10 Pages: 2 (including this page)
MESSAGE
Keith-
Here is the first page from the MSDS for the virgin ink used at Clemson. The solvent that
was added to the ink was 80% n-propyl alcohol and 20% n-propyl acetate. As I told you on
the phone, I do not know how much solvent was added to the ink~we will have to get this
information from either Dean or Mark.
-Bill.
B-l
-------
HATEHIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
Coates Brothers Ink (USA)
1511 SOUTH BATESVILLE ROAD
GREER, SC 29650
PREPARATION DATE: 02/10/93
INFORMATION TELEPHONE NO.
EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NO. r
REPLACES DATE: NEW MSDS
: 803-288-4931
800-457-4280
PREPARER: SHH
SECTION I - PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
ORION HI-TONE II BLACK
TNI 0386
SECTION II
HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
OCCUPATIONAL
SKIN
VAPOR
KNOWN OR
WT. PERCENT
EXPOSURE
LIMITS
DESIG-
PRESSURE
SUSPECTED
SEC
CHEMICAL NAME
CAS NUMBER
IS LESS THAN
(TLV-TWA)
(TLV-STEL)
NATION
fttisHg 20C
CARCINOGEN
313
N-PROPYL ACETATE
109-60-4
SZ
200 PPM
200 PPM
NO
2S.C
NO
NO
ETHYL ALCOHOL
64-17-5
1.32
400 PPM
2SO PPM
NO
40.0
NO
NO
PROPYLENE GLYCOL ETHER
1569-02-4
35%
100 PPH
100 PPM
YES
10.0
NO
NO
N-BUTYL ACETATE
"23-35-4
52
150 PPM
200 PPM
NO
8.4
NO
NO
V-PROPYL ALCOHOL
71-23-8
25Z
200 PPM
250 PPM
NO
14.S
NO ,
NO
NITROCELLULOSE
9004-70-0
15%
400 PPM
500 PPM
NO
33.0
NO
NO
THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS ARE NON-HAZARDOUS, BUT ARE AMONG THE TOP FIVE COMPONENTS IN THIS PRODUCT:
PIGMENT
RESIN
PROPRIETARY 15%
PROPRIETARY 101
Material Safety Data Sheet for
' the Flexographie Press Ink
N.A. - NOT APPLICA8LE
SECTION III - PHYSICAL DATA
BOILING RANGE : 200-250 F
ODOR : ALCOHOL
APPEARANCE ; COLORED LIQUID
VOLATILE BY WEIGHT: 63.5%
VOLATILE BY VOLUME: 72.7|
VAPOR DENSITY : IS HEAVIER THAN AIR
EVAPORATION RATE: IS SLOWER THAN ETHER
SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT DENSITY
SLIGHT
8.2 LBS./GAL. (US)
B-2
-------
Material Safety Data Sheet for the Rotogravure Press Ink
PH«LAD£LpH r. e : 11 5 - * - 5£;4 ft
t it:e r 3 e c y Phone : i-5:00-535-505'.
1 Nl*01 R6C Pti.jr,9:
FA
Tr a df Name
Pre* duct Code
C.A.S. Number.
Customer's No:
Pre pared By
Title :
BLACK VINYL
MIXTURE
B-27548-V1 1
Edward R . If ah one y
USDS Coordinator
SECTION ir
> Hsrird ft a t i r< 3 s :
! r- <• n e -> e " t r » m e
! 0 ---> 4
i
i
Health
fife
Reactivity
HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
Weight Exposure Limits VP
IfiS r e d i en t s
ETHYL"ACETATE, 99.5X
T«;OPROPYL ACETATE
PIS. BLACK 7 -
,*VINYL ACETATE
CI 77266
*1-METYYL-2-PYRROLI DONE
AftCOSOLV DPtt
f-D'el Qa
CAS t
X
ACSIH/TLV
OSHA/PEL
mm HS
00 14 1 -78-6
37 . 16
400
ppm
4 00
ppm
75.2
00108-21-4
20.78
250
pp»
250
P pa
46.9
STEL
= 310
ppm
310
ppm
.*}
CO
7\
01333-86-4
12. 66
0
00108-05-4
0. 06
10
ppa
10
ppm
0
STEL
= ZO
ppm
20
ppm
00872-50-4
2'- 97
"-i
34590-9-4-8
13. 33
100
ppm
100
ppm
* 4
STEL '
• 1 SO
ppm
ISO
p pro
€ ? TF
product are 1
i s t e <3 i ri
the T
.S .C
. A. Inventory
.
Yh
¦SECTION III
PHYSICAL DATA
Boiling Rari g e : 163 - 395 0e 9 .. F Vapor Density.: Ktav 1 et h a r> Air.
Eva.p. Rite: Faster than n-Butyl Acetate Liquid Density: Lifter than WiTsr.
Vo I it i Its v 0 i 7, £2.3 W 3 174.1 W 3 t per gallon: "i" I Pounds.
Sravi t y:
¦97 6
Appearsr.ce: COLORED LIQUID DISPERSION
SECTION IV - F f RE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
F 1 s mm at> i ) i ty Class: IB Flash Feint: 26 F TCC P TCC F TCC F ICC F T CC F ICC F
-EXTINGUISHING MEDIA:
carbon dioxide-op.y chemical-alcohol foam
-SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES:
WATER SPRAY MAY BE INEFFECTIVE 2UT MAY BE USiiEJ TO CO 01
CONTAINERS. THE USE OF SCS.A IS K HCOmfc n OS P .
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C. CALIBRATION DATA
42795CAL.XLS
Time
Span Potentiometer setting
Reading
Multiplication Scale
Calibration gas (ppm)
ami
2.5
8
XI
10
2.5
51
X10
100
2.5
101
X10
200
•
pml
2.5
10.5
XI
10
2.5
10
XI
10
2.5
51.5
X10
100
2.5
52
X10
100
4:05 PM
2.5
11
XI
10
2.5
10
X10
10
2.5
53
X10
100
2.5
101
X10
200
2.5
100
X10Q
200
6:00 PM
2.5
11
XI
0
2.5
11
X10
0
2.5
12
XI
10
- 2.5
19
X10
10
.2.5
61
X10
100
2.5
120
X10
200
2.5
115
X100
200
C-l
-------
250
y = 2.0419x-5.5655
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Instrument reading (ppm)
Organic vapor analyzer (OVA) calibration checks on April 27,1995.
42795CAL Chart 3
-------
42895CALXLS
Time
Span Potentiometer setting
Multiplication Scale
Reading
Calibration gas (ppm)
8:13 AM
1.24
XI
6
10
1.24
X10
31
100
1.24
X10
60
200
10:09 AM
1.24
XI
0.45
0
1.24
XI
5.15
10
12:01 PM
1.24
XI
3.1
0
1.24
XI
2.75
0
1.24
XI
9
10
3:15 PM
1.24
XI
2.1
0
1.24
XI
2.3
0
1.24
XI
6.7
10
1.24
X11 6.7
10
1.24
X101 30.5
100
' 1.24
Xiol 59
200
1.24
XI001 75
200
C-3
-------
250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Instrument reading (ppm)
Organic vapor analyzer (OVA) calibration checks on April 28,1995.
42895CAL Chart 3
-------
APPENDIX D. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
1) Duct velocities were calculated from pitot tube measurements according to the formula:
V = 1220 (dP)°-5average
where: V = Velocity, in meters per minute
dP = Pitot tube differential pressure, in inches of water
1220 = Conversion constant, at standard temperature,
2) Air flow rates were calculated from duct velocities according to the following formula:
Q = YA
where V = Velocity, in meters per minute
A = Area, in square meters
3) At the flexographie facility, an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) was used to measure
hydrocarbon emissions. The OVA measurement principle was a flame ionization
detector (FID). Readings from the organic vapor analyzer were converted to
concentration as isobutylene, according to the following formulas:
ppnwlefle = 3.5167(FID) - 10.372, for April 27,1995.
ppm^^yteje = 2.0419(FID) - 5.5655, for April 28,1995, until 4:05 PM.
where FID = Response of organic vapor analyzer, dimensionless.
The formulas above represent linear regressions for calibrations of the organic vapor
analyzer with isobutylene calibration gas cylinders performed on April 27 and the
morning of April 28, 1995, respectively, as shown in Appendix C. During the time
period between 4:05 PM and 6:00 PM on April 28, organic vapor analyzer readings were
converted to concentration as isobutylene using the average values obtained from the
morning calibration regression equation, and the regression equation for the 6:00 PM
calibration (i.e., ppm^^ = 1.8706(FID) - 18.976).
D-l
-------
4)
At the flexographic facility, concentrations in ppm as isobutylene were converted to
concentrations in ppm as flexographic ink solvent using the following formula:
PPtfrflexographie ink solvent PP^isofcuiylcr.: [(4*0.95)f (3*0.73)], Of
PP^nexographie ink solvent PP^isobutylens (3.8/2,2)
The constants used for converting between concentrations as isobutylene and
concentrations as flexographic ink solvent were determined from published response
factors for a Ratfisch RS-55CA total hydrocarbon analyzer, which also measures based on
a flame ionization detector principle. Data specific to isobutylene and the flexographic ink
solvent were not available, so the values chosen were based on published values for butane
(C4Hio) and isopropyl alcohol (H3H80). Butane was chosen because it is a hydrocarbon
with the same number of carbon atoms as isobutylene. Isopropyl alcohol was chosen
because the primary volatile constituent in the flexographic ink was n-propyl alcohol. The
complete published list from which these values were chosen is presented in Table D-l.
5) Concentrations in ppm as flexographic ink solvent were combined with duct air flow rates
as determined in Step 2 above, to obtain mass flow rates according to the following
formula:
m = (Q)(ppm,„3gra?hic iak 5o;v<,[){2.45x 10^)( 60)
where m = Mass flow, in kilograms per hour
Q = Air flow rate, in cubic meters per minute
ppmflexogmphic ink solvent = Concentration of ink solvent, in ppm (by volume)
2.45x10'6 = Conversion factor, volumetric concentration to mass
concentration (as n-propyl alcohol).
60 = Conversion factor, minutes in an hour.
6) At the gravure facility, concentrations in ppm of ethyl acetate were combined with duct air
flow rates to obtain mass flow rates (of ethyl acetate), according to the following formula:
m
(Q)(PPmethyi acctate)(3.66xl04)( 60)
where m
Q
ppn^thy. acetate
3.66x10"6
60
Mass flow, in kilograms per hour
Air flow rate, in cubic meters per minute
Concentration of ethyl acetate, ppm, as measured by
the fixed-path infrared spectrophotometer.
Conversion factor, volumetric concentration to mass
concentration (of ethyl acetate).
Conversion factor, minutes in an hour.
D-2
-------
At the flexographic and rotogravure facilities, concentrations in ppm of carbon dioxide
were combined with duct air flow rates to obtain carbon dioxide mass flow rates,
according to the following formula:
m
(QXppm,
¦carbon dioxide.
)(i.83xio*)(6G)
where
m
Ppn^arbon dioxide
1.83x10"'
60
Mass flow, in kilograms per hour
Air flow rate, in cubic meters per minute
Concentration of ethyl acetate, ppm, as measured by
the fixed-path infrared spectrophotometer.
Conversion factor, volumetric concentration to mass
concentration (carbon dioxide).
Conversion factor, minutes in an hour.
D-3
-------
Summary Table for Rotogravure Testing
Dryer
Dryer
Floor Sweep
Ambient
Exhaust
Intake
Exhaust
Intake
Net total
Reduction
Reduction
Press type
Comment
Date
Time
Ink feed system
Press Status
Enclosure
0
3
H
2
O
R
w
n
S*
r
ci
d
r
~
H
H
©
CO
ej
r
H
CO
m
-------
51 STRAY 1.XLS
Date: 5/18/95
Time: 0944 - 1209 (1000 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional Gravure
Enclosure: None
Press; Running
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 • Dryer Intake
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN Ethyl AcetJ
Gravure Cylinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure - partial
Ink
Sump
tte
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.L)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
Setting up .MIRAN
Setting up MIRAN
Setting up MIRAN
Stream How, CFM
560.21
391.12
18.80
187.89
ETAC. s/min
Setting up MIRAN
Setting up MIRAN
Setting up MIRAN
ETAC/kg/h
Setting up MIRAN
Setting up MERAN
Setting up MIRAN
ETAC, Ib/min
Setting up MIRAN
Setting up MIRAN
Setting up MIRAN
BRUEL & SJAER - Total Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.L)
3 (FS.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
301.12
88.51
154.54
110.66
Stream Flow. CFM
560.21
391.12
18.80
187.89
. ETAC, g/min
17.49
3.59
0.30
2.16
ETAC. kg/h
1.0494
0.2154
0.0181
0.1293
ETAC, Ib/min
2.3129
0.4746
0.0398
0.2851
Page 1 of 5
E-2
-------
518TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/18/95
Time: 1417-1448 (1600 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional Gravure
Enclosure: Full
Press: Idle'
Dryer Exhaust
Dryer Intake
Gravure Cylinder
Floor Sweep Exhaust
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure - partial
Ink
Sump
MIRAN - Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
Stream Flow, CFM
ETAC. g/min
ETAC, kg/h
ETAC, Ib/min
1 (P.E.)
224.73
531
12.38
0.7427
1.6370
2 (D.L)
Not Measured
448
Not Measured
Not Measured
Not Measured
3 (F.S.)
Not measured
Not Measured
Not Measured
Not Measured
4 (Fug.)
NM
0.0000
0.0000
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
Total Acetates, ppm
Stream Flow, CFM
ETAC, g/min
ETAC, ka/h
ETAC, Ib/min
1 (D.E.)
204.68
531.28
11.27
0.6765
1.4910
2 (D.I.)
Not Measured
448.05
Not Measured
Not Measured
Not Measured
3 (F.S.)
Not Measured
4.52
Not Measured
Not Measured
. Not Measured
4 (Fag.)
37.75
0.0000
0.0000
Page 2 of 5
E-3
-------
518TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/18/95
Time: 1503 - 1804 (1600-1730 traverse)-
Ink feed system: Traditional Gravure
Enclosure: Full
Press: Running
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN - Ethyl Acetc
Gravure Cylinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure
- full
Ink
Sump
ite
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.L)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
528.05
74.28
53.00
74.28
Stream Flow, CFM
566.79
491.33
6.00
81.45
ETAC, g/min
31.03
3.78
0.03
0.63
ETAC, kg/h
1.8619
0.2270
0.0020
0.0376
ETAC, Ib/min
4.1036
0.5004
0.0044
0.0830
BRUEL & KJAER •'
"otal Acetates
1 (DM.) | 2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, pprnl 563.03 1 68.72
65.46
68.72
Stream Flow, CFM 566.79 491.33
6,00
81.45
ETAC, g/min 33.09 3.50
0.04
0.58
ETAC, kg/h 1.9852 0.2100
0.0024 '
0.0348
ETAC, Ib/minj 4.3754 | 0.4629
0.0054
0.0767
Page 3 of 5
F-4-
-------
518TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/18/95
Time: 1806 - 1814 (1804-1824 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional Gravure
Enclosure: Partial
Press: Idle
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN - Ethyl Aceti
Gravure Cylinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure - partial
Ink
Sump
Ue
-
1 (D.E.)
2 (D J.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
NM
Stream Flow, CFM
525.30
443.01
4.47
86.76
ETAC, g/min
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
NM
ETAC, kg/h
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
NM
ETAC, lb/min
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
NM
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
204.68
Not measured
Not measured
NM
Stream Flow, CFM
525.30
443.01 .
4.47
86.76
ETAC, g/min
11.15
Not measured
Not measured
NM
ETAC. kg/h
0.6689
Not measured
Not measured
NM
ETAC. lb/min
1.4742
Not measured
Not measured
NM
Page 4 of 5
E-5
-------
518TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/18/95
Time: 1814 - 1928 (1804-1824 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional Gravure
Enclosure; Partial
Press: Running
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIR AN - Ethyl Aceta
Gravure Cvlinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure
-full
Ink
Sump
te
1 (DJE.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm| 397JO
93.17
196.44
93.17
Stream Flow, CFM| 525.30
443.01
4.47
86.76
ETAC, g/min 21.67
4.28
0.09
0.84
ETAC, ks/h 1.3000
0.2568
0.0055
0.0503
ETAC, lb/min| 2.8651
0.5659
0.0120
0.1108
BRUEL & KJAER -"
fotal Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm | 413.03
69.62
212.36
<59.1*2
Stream Flow, CFM 525.30
443.01
4.47
86.76
ETAC, g/min 22.50
3.20
0.10
0.63
ETAC, ks/h 1.3497
0.1919
0.0059
0.0.176
ETAC, lb/mini 2.974S
0.4229
0.0130
0.0828
Page 5 of 5
E-6
-------
518TRAV
Table 1 of 3
Date: 5/18/95
Time; 1000
Ink feed system: Traditional System
Enclosure:
Full
Press: Running
Intake
Exhaust
Floor sweep
Traverse
0-300 scale
0-1250 scale
0-100 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
270
1
450
1
50
2
270
2
500
2
40
3
280
3
550
3
35
4
280
" 4
575
4
30
5
300
5
600
5
30
6
220
6
580
6
40
7
260
7
400
7
• 10
8
260
8
450
8
20
9
250
9
450
9
25
10
170
10
525
10
15
11
230
11
575
11
30
12
250
12
575
12
30
13
260
13
590
AVG
29.58
14
260
AVG
524.62
15
200
• 1
30
16
200
2
35
17
230
3
40
18
220
4
40
19
240
5
40
20
280
6
40
21
230
AVG
37.50
22
210
23
220
AVG
32.22
24
210
25
230
AVG
241.20
Intake
Exhaust
Floor Sweep
¦ Fugitive Inleakage
AVG (fpm)
241.20
524.62
32.22
AREA (ft2)
1.64
LOS
0.59
CFM
395.57
566.58
19.01
190.03
SCFM
391.12 .
560.21
18.80
187.89
1 of 3
E-7
-------
518TRAV
Table 2 of 3
Date: '5/18/95
Time: 1600-1730
Ink feed system: Traditional System
Enclosure:
Full
Press: Idle
¦
Intake
Exhaust
Floor sweep
Traverse
0-1250 scale
0-300 scale
0-100 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
380
1
400
1
8
2
350
2
450
2
10
3
350
3
500
3
8
4
340
" 4
575
4
7
5
350
5
600
5
10
6
325 '
6
650
6
10
7
325
7
400
7
20
8
340
8
450
8
18
9
340
9
475 •
9
8
10
340
10
550
10
10
11
250
11
600
11
7
12
260
12
625
12
9
13
310
13
625
AVG
10.42
14
325
AVG
530.77
15
390
1
10
16
230
2
10
17
260
3
9
18
260
4
11
19
300
5
9
20
300
6
9
21
270
AVG
9.67
22
240
23
220
AVG
10.17
24
260
25
260
¦
AVG
303.00
-
Intake
Exhaust
Floor Sweep
Fugitive Inleakage
AVG (fpm)
303.00
530.77
10.17
AREA (ft2)
1.64
1.08
0.59
CFM
496.92
573.23
6.00
82.31
SCFM
491.33
566.79
5.93
81.38
2 of 3
E-8
-------
51 STRAY
Table 3 of 3
Date; 5/18/95
Time: 1804-1824
Ink feed system; Traditional System
Enclosure:
Partial
Press: Idle
Intake
Exhaust
Floor sweep
Traverse
0-1250 scale
0-1250 scale
0-100 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
300
1
400
1
7
2
280
2
500
2
7
3
320
3
550
3
6
4
350
• 4
600
4
6
5
325
5
625
5
6
6
290
6
640
6
7
7
300
7
375
7
10
8
290
8
450
8
7
9
310
9
475
9
6
10
350
10
525
10
6
11
240
11
• 600
11
6
12
240
12
625
12
7
13
240
13
640
AVG
6.75
14
280
AVG
• 538.85
15
325
16
210
1
9
17
250
2
9
18
240
3
10
19
260
4
9
20
280
5
10
21
250
6
10
22
230
• AVG
9.50
23
210
24
220
AVG
7.67
25
240
AVG
273.20
-
•
Intake
Exhaust
' Floor Sweep
Fugitive Inleakage
AVG (fpm)
273.20 '
538.85
7.67
AREA (ft2)
1.64
1.08
0.59
CFM
448.05
531.28
4.52
87.75
SCFM
443.01
525.30
4.47
86.77
3 of 3
E-9
-------
. 518dist
A
B
C
D
E
F
G •
H
I
J
K
1
Traditional System
1
2
Ehtyl acetate, in ppm, using M1RAN instrument
3
DATE: 5/18/95
4
Time
Number
Running
Idle
Full encl.
Fart. encl.
Exhaust
Intake
Floorsweep
Ambient
Averages
5
1317-1416
1
X
X
163.48
6
1417-1458
2
X
X
224.73
7
1458-1505
3
X
X
414,59
8
1511-1515
4
X
X
53,00
9
1519-1534
5
X
X
581.00
528.05
10
1536-1547
6
X
X
74.28
11
1844-184S
7
X
X
397.80
12
1849-1856
8
X
X
196.44
13
1857-1900
9
X
X
93.17
14
15
16
Traditional System
17
Ehtyl acetate, in ppm, using BRUEL & KJAER instrument
18
DATE: 5/18/95
19
Time
Number
Running
Idle
Full encl.
Part encl.
Exhaust
Intake
Floorsweep
Ambient
Averages
20
0944-1003
1
None
110,66
21
1017-1116
2
X
None
154.54
22
1123-1132
3
X
None
301.12
23
1140-1209
4
X
None
88.51
24
1216-1304
5
X
None
194.00
25
1353-1438
6
X
X
217.10
26
1503-1512
7
X
X
550.30
27
1517-1522
8
X
X
55.84
28
1528-1558
9
X
X
68.72
29
1648-1725
10
X
X
66.76 '
65.46
30
1732-1804
11
X
X
566.61
563.03-
31
1806-1814
12
X
X
204.68
32
1817-1832
13
X
X
413.03
33
1838-1856
14
X
X
212.36 ¦
34
1902-1915
15
X
*
X
69.62
35
1928-2028
16
X
X
277.80
36
37
* 110.66 is an ambient concentration.
Page 1
E-10
-------
519TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1519- 1552 (1600 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional ink feed system
Enclosure: Partial
Press: Running
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN - Ethyl Acetz
Gravure Cylinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure - partial
Ink
Sump
ite
•
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.L)
3(FJ.)
4 (Fog.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
302.35
57.54
383.21
51.29
Stream How, SCFM
455.45 '
440.29
130.54
145.70
ETAC, g/min
14.28
2.63
5.19 .
0,77
ETAC, kg/h
0.857
0.158
0.311
0.046
ETAC. Ib/h
I.X8X
0.347 '
0.686
0.102
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
I (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
306.83
59,97
487.18
59.97
Stream Row, SCFM
455.45
440.29
130,54
145.70
ETAC, g/min
14.49
2.74
6.59
0.91
ETAC. ke/h
0.869
0.164
0.396
0.054
ETAC, Ib/h
1.916
0.362
0.872
0.120
Page 1 of 6
E-ll
-------
519TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1426 - 1519 (1448 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional ink feed system
Enclosure: Full
Press: Running
¦ '•
1
2
4 - Fugitive
Dryer Exhaust
Dryer Intake
Enclosure
-full
Gravure Cylinder
Ink
Sump
3
Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN - Ethyl Acetate
1 (D-E.)
2(D.L)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
336,17
40.24 '
659.66
40.24
Stream Flow, SCFM
410.15
440.29
119,37 .
89.23
ETAC, g/min
14.30
1.84
8.16
0.37
ETAC, kz/n
0.858
QJM
0.490
0.022
ETAC, lb/'h
' 1.890'
0.243
1.080
0 049
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
322.99
* 58.70
714.40
58-70
Stream Flow, SCFM
410.15
440.29
119.37
89,23
ETAC, g/min
13.74
2.68
8.84
0.54
ETAC. kg/h
0.824
0.161
0.531
¦ 0.033
ETAC, Ib/h
1.816
0JS4
1.169
0.072
Page 2 of 6
E-12
-------
519TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1237 - 1258 (1237 - 1246 traverse)
Ink feed system: Enclosed double doctor blade chambered system
Enclosure: Partial
Press: Idle'
1 . Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
Gravure Cylinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure - partial
Ink
Sump
|
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust |
MIRAN - Ethyl Acetate
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
71.72
27.44
' 43.38
27.44
Stream Flow, SCFM
470.88
483.80
134.06
121.14
ETAC, g/rnin
3.50
1.38
0.60
• QM
ETAC, ks/h
0.210
0.083
0.036
0.021
ETAC, Ib/h
0.463
0.182
0.080
0.046
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
63.75
46.17
80.06
46.17
Stream Flow, SCFM
47QM
483.80
134.06
121.14
ETAC, g/min
3.11
2.32
1.11
0.58
ETAC, ke/h
0.187
n. 139
0.067
0.035
ETAC, ib/h
<5.4/2
0.306
0.147
Q.077
Page 3 of 6
E-13
-------
519TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1216 - 1236 (1215 traverse)
Ink feed system: Enclosed double doctor blade chambered system
Enclosure: Full
Press: Idle
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN - Ethyl Acets
Gravure Cylinder
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure
-full
Ink
Sump
ite
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (FA)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
86.00
34.55
97.79
14.55
Stream How, SCFM
525.30
415.77
123.16
232.69
ETAC, g/min
. 4.68
1.49
1.25
0.83
ETAC, k2/h
0.281
0.089
0.075
0.050
ETAC, Ib/h
0.619
0.197
0.165
0.110
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates • • •
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
• 102.74
44.05
131.57
44.05
Stream Flow, SCFM
525.30
415.77
123.16
232.69
ETAC, g/min
5.60
1.90
1.68
1.06
ETAC. ks/h
0.336
0.114
0.101
0.064
ETAC, Ib/h
0.740
0.25!
0.222
0.141
Page 4 of 6
E-14
-------
519TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1150-1210 (1215 traverse)
Ink feed system: Enclosed double doctor blade chambered system
Enclosure: Full
Press: Running
1 Dryer Exhaust
2 Dryer Intake
Gravure Cylinder
•
4 - Fugitive
Enclosure
-full
Ink
Sump
3 Floor Sweep Exhaust
MERAN - Ethyl Acetate
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.L)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
197.96
67.92
372.63
67.92
Stream How, SCFM
525.30
415.77
123.16
232.69
ETAC, g/min
10.78
2.93
4.76
164
ETAC, kg/h
0.647
0.176
0.285
0.098
ETAC, Ib/h
1.426
0.387
¦ 0.629
0.217
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Total Acetates, ppm
Stream Flow, SCFM
525.30-
415.77
123.16
232.69
ETAC, g/min
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 •
ETAC, kg/h
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
ETAC, lb/h
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Page 5 of 6
E-15
-------
519TRAV1.XLS
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 0859 - 0954 (1215 traverse)
Ink feed system: Traditional
Enclosure: Full
Press: Running
4 - Fugitive
1
2
Dryer Exhaust
Dryer Intake
Enclosure
-full
Gravure Cylinder
Ink
Sump
• 3
Floor Sweep Exhaust
MIRAN-Ethyl Acetate
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3 (F.S.)
4 (Fug.)
Ethyl Acetate, ppm
450;62
79.62
659.66
79.62
Stream Flow, SCFM
525.30
415.77
123.16
232.69
ETAC, s/min
24.54
3.43
ML
1.92
ETAC, kg/h
1.473
0.206
0.505
0.115
ETAC, lb/h
3.246
0,454
1.114
0.254
BRUEL & KJAER - Total Acetates
1 (D.E.)
2 (D.I.)
3
-------
519TRAV1
Table 1 of 4
iDate: 5/19/95
Time: 1215
Ink feed system:' Double Doctor Blade Chamber System
Enclosure:
Full
Press: Idle
Intake
Exhaust
Floor sweep
Traverse
0-300 scale
0-300 scale
0-300 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
250
1
270
1
140
2
260
2
375
0-1250
2
140
3
270
3
400
3
170
4
290
4
500
4
210
5
300
5
550
5
200
6
270
¦6
550
6
170 .
7
280
7
550
7
200
8
280 0-1250
8
550
8
170
9
320
9
550
9
190
10
310
10
550
10
200
11
150 0-300
11
575
11
250
12
250
12
475
12
260
13
250
13
500
AVG
191.67
14
290
AVG
491,92
15
290
1
250
16
240
2
250 ..
17
240
3
250
18
270
4
250
19
240
5
250
20
260
6
250
21
230
AVG
250.00
22
220
•
23
230 •
AVG
211.11
24
210
25
210
AVG
256.40
Intake
Exhaust
Floor Sweep
Fugitive Inleakage
AVG (fpm) 2S6.40
491.92
211.11
AREA (ft2) 1.64
1.08
0.59
CFM 420.50
531.28
124.56
235.34
SCFM 415.77
525.30
123.16
232.69
1 of 4
E-17
-------
519TRAV1
Table 2 of 4
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1231
- 1246
¦
Ink feed system: Double Doctor Blade Chamber System
Enclosure:
Partial
Press: Idle
Intake
Exhaust
Floor sweep
Traverse
0-300 scale
0-300 scale
0-300 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
300
1 150
1
150
2
320
2 130
2
180
3
325
3 60
3
200
4
340
4 60
0-100
4
250
5
350
5 50
5
250
6
300
6 80
6
230
7
310
7 75
7
200
8
310
8 75
8
190
9
320
9 60
9
190
10
340
10 65
10
220
11
280
11 80
11
240
12
280
12 80
12
290
13
310
13 140
AVG
215.83
14
300
AVG 85.00
15
330
440.96
Assumed from 1215,1448
data
250
16
240
2
260
17
250
3
270
18
280
4
260
19
290
5
230
20
300
6
230
21
290
AVG
250.00
22
270
23
280
AVG
227.22
24
240 •
25
220
AVG
295.00
-
Intake
Exhaust
Floor Sweep
Fugitive Irtleakage
. AVG (fpm)
295.00
440.96
227.22
AREA (ft2)
1.64
1.08
0.59
CFM
483.80
476.24
134.06
126.50
SCFM
478.36
470.88
132.55
125.08
2 of 4
E-18
-------
. 519TRAVI
Table 3 of 4
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1448
Ink feed system; Traditional ink feed system
Enclosure: Full'
Press: Running
•
Intake
Exhaust
Floor s weep
Traverse
0-300scale
0-300 scale
0-300 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
1
250
1
250
2
2
270
2
230
3
3
400
0-1250
3
240
4
4
400
4
200
5
5
450
5
180
6
6
475
6
200
7
7
500
7
210
S
8
500
8
230
9
9
475
9
200
10
10
450
10
170
11
11
350
11
130
12
12
400
12
100
13
13
150
AVG
195.00
14
AVG
390.00
15
16
1
230 '
17
2
230
18
3
230 '
19
4
230
20
5
240
21
6
240
22
AYG
233.33
23
24
.
AVG
207.78
25
275.70 Assumed from 1215, 1237-1246 data.
Intake
Exhaust
Floor Sweep
Fugitive Inleakage
AVG (fpm) 275.70
390.00
207.78
AREA (ft2) 1.64
1.08
0.59
CFM 452.15
421.20
122.59
91.64
SCFM 440.29
410.15
119.37
89.24
3 of 4
E-19
-------
519TRAV1
Table 4 of 4
Date: 5/19/95
Time: 1600
Ink feed system: Traditional ink feed system
Enclosure:
Partial
Press: Running
Intake
l&^d%£C t
Floor sweep
Traverse
0-300scale
0-300 scale
0-300 scale
point
(fpm)
(fpm)
(fpm)
1
1
150
1
300
2
2
280
2
280
3
3
350
0-1250
3
250
4
4
425
4
240 -
5
5
450
5
230
6
6
475
6
200
7
7
500
7
200
8
8
500
8
225
9
9
550 .
9
220
10
10
550
10
175
11
11
550
11
150
12
12
500
12
110
13
13
350
AVG
215.00
14
AVG
433.08
15
16
1
250
17
2
240
18
: 3
250
19
. 4
250
20
5
270
21
6
250
22
AVG
251.67
23
24
AVG
227.22
25
275.70 Assumed from 1215, 1237-1246 data.
Intake
Exhaust
Floor Sweep
Fugitive Inleakage
AVG (fpm) 275.75
433.08
227.22
AREA (ft2) 1.64
1.08
0J9
CFM 452.15
467.72
134.06
149.64
SCFM 440.29
455.45
130.54
145.71
4 of 4
E-20
-------
5i9dist
A
B C D J E
F | G
H
1
J
K
L
1
Traditional, or Enclosed Double Doctor Blade Cham
jered System
2
Ehtyl acetate, in ppm, using MIRAN instrument
3
DATE: 5/19/95
4
Time
Number
Svstem
Running
Idle
Full encl.
Part. encl.
Exhaust
Intake
Floorsweep
Ambient
Averages
5
1538-1552
1
Traditional
X
X
302.35
6
1532-1538
2
Traditional
X
X
317.58
7
1526-1532
3
Traditional
X
X
57.54
8
1519-1525
4
Traditional
X
X
448.83
383.21
9
1512-1519
5
Traditional
X
X
666.68
10
1502-1512
6
Traditional
X •
X
36.47
11
1454-1501
7
Traditional
X
X
336.17
12
1446-1454
8
Traditional
X
X
652.64
659.66
13
1437-1445
9
Traditional
X
X
44.00
40.24
14
1246-1248
10
EDB
X
X
27.44
15
1242-1245
11
EDB
X
X
43.38
16
1237-1241
12
EDB
X
X
71.72
17
1233-1236
13
EDB
X
X
86.00
18
1227-1232
14
EDB
X
X
34.55
19
1221-1225
15
EDB
X
X
97.79
20
1216-1220
16
EDB
X
X
85.94
21
1206-1210
16
EDB
X
X
201.15
22
1203-1205
17
EDB
X
X
372.63
23
1157-1202
18
EDB
X
X
194.76
24
1150-1156
19
EDB
X
X
67.92
25
1144-1149
20
EDB
X
X
208.14
201.45
26
1126-1143
21
EDB
X
X
48.84
27
0952-0954
22
Traditional
X
X
450.89
28
0941-0951
23
Traditional
X
X
91.86
29
0914-0925
24
Traditional
X
X
465.11
30
0909-0912
25 •
Traditional
X
X
67.38
79.62
31
0859-0907
26
Traditional
X
X
435.85
450.62
32
0850-0855
27
Traditional
X
X
319.11
33
34
35
36
Enclosed Double Doctor Blade Chambered System (after 1140)
37
Ehtyl acetate, in ppm, using BRUEL & KJAER instrument
38
DATE: 5/19/95
39
Time
Number
System j Running
Idle
Full end.
Part. encl.
Exhaust
Intake
Floorsweep
Ambient
Averages
40
0905-1016
1
Traditional
X
X
427.29
Traditional
41
1140-1201
2
EDB
X
X
197.58
42
1220-1225
3
EDB
X
X
102.74
150.16
43
1230-1233
4
EDB
X
X
131.57
44
1237-1246
5
EDB
X
X
80.06
45
1253-1258
6
EDB
X
X
63.75
46
1346-1406
7
Traditional
X
X
46.17
47
1426-1458
8 '
Traditional
X
X
322.99
48
1506-1513
9
Traditional
X
X
714.40
49
1514 1519
10
Traditional
X
X
58.70
50
1527-1532
11
Traditional
X
X
306.83
51
1534-1537
12
Traditional
X
x j i
59.97
52
1541-15501 13
Traditional
X
X ) |
324.90
519.65
-------
Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements for the Gravure Press.
Time
Mass on scale
Scale mass loss rale
Scale mass loss rale
C02 concentration
Air How rate
C02 mass flow rate
C02 Captured
Comment
(g'ams)
(g/min)
(kg/h)
(ppm)
(cfm)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
14:48
9602.9
544
410
0.694
dryer exhaust,full enclosure, running
14:50
9572.5
15.2
0.91
14:52
9546.6
12.95
0.78
1140
119
0.422
Floor sweep
14:54
9511.6
17.5
1.05
14:56
14:58
15:00
9485.7
12.95
0.78
9458.8
13.45
0.81
9441
8.9
0.53
555
410
0.708
Dryer exhaust
15:02
9420.2
10.4
0.62
15:04
9390
15.1
0.91
15:06
9362.4
13.8
0.83
525
351
0.573
Dryer intake
15:08
9404.6
-21.1
-1.27
15:10
9380.1
12 25
0.74
15:12
9277.3
51.4
' 3.08
525
178
0.291
0.259
Ambient, outside enclosure
15:14
9253 2
12.05
0.72
(32% capture)
15:16
15:18
9226.9
13.15
0.79
9200
13.45
0.81
525
178
0.291
Ambient, outside partial enclosure
15:20
9173
13.5
0.81
15:22
9146.5
13.25
0.80
15:24
15:26
9123.6
11.45
0.69
9105.8
8.9
0.53
1250
119
0.463
Floor sweep
15:28
9080
12.9
0.77
15:30
9054.1
12.95
0.78
15:32
9027.5
13.3
0.80
525
410
0.670
Dryer exhaust
15:34
9000.1
13.7
0.82
15:36
8974.8
12.65
0.76
15:38
8948.5
13.15
0.79
488
351
0.533
Dryer intake
15:40
8923
12.75
0.77
15:42
8897.3
12.85
0.77
15:44
8870.9
13.2
. 0.79
1200
119
0.444
0.299
Floor sweep
15:46
8845.3
12.8
0.77
(39% capture)
15:48
8820.7
12.3
0.74
15:50
15-52
8795.3
12.7
0.76
8769.2
13.05
0.78
..
Average
0.78
-------
Summary Table for Flexographic Testing
tfl
t
to
OO
Enclosure
Enclosure
BC Total
Overhead
Enclosure
Overhead
BC
Ambient
Net total
Damper
Exhaust Rate
Exhaust
Exhaust
Exhaust
Intake
Intake
Intake
exhaust
Reduction
Reduction
Press Type
Date
Ink feed system
Press Status
Position
(m3/min)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
(%)
Flexographic
28-Apr
Traditional
Idle
Full Open
46
2.34
0.23
2.11
Baseline
Baseline
Flexographic
28-Apr
EDB
Idle
Full Open
46
0.38
0.10
0.28
1.83
87
Flexographic
28-Apr
Traditional
Idle
"Full" Closed
22
0.73
0.19
0.54
Baseline
Baseline
Flexographic
28-Apr
EDB
Idle
"Full" Closed
22
0.37
0.09
0.29
0.26
47
Flexographic
27-Apr
Traditional
Running'
Full Open
46
5.64
1.56
1.82
1.19
1.95
0.40
5.49
Baseline
Baseline
Flexographic
28-Apr
EDB
Running
Full Open
46
5.79
1.59
0.60
1.20
1.75
0.38
4.65
0.84
15
Flexographic
27-Apr
Traditional
Running
"Full" Closed
22
6.01
1.93
1.01
1.19
2.16
0.14
5.47
Baseline
Baseline
Flexographic
28-Apr
EDB
Running
"Full" Closed
22
5.77
1.55
0.46
1.33
1.74
0.13
4.58
0.89
16
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
ffl
i
to
4^
System Flow Summary
Overhead (tunnel dryer) total Intake (scfm)
3910
Before colors (BC) dryer total Intake (scfm)
2600
Overhead (tunnel dryer) total exhaust (scfm)
6050
Before colors (BC) dryer total exhaust (scfm)
3800
Before colors (BC) dryer station H5 exhaust (scfm)
545
Before colors (BC) dryer station #6 exhaust (scfm)
592
Enclosure exhaust, with damper full open (scfm)
1624
Enclosure exhaust, with damper "full" closed (scfm)
•785
Ambient Intakes
damper full open
4964
damper full closed
4125
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
tn
i
to
Ul
Worksheet OVA dafa summary:
Traditional System #6 Printing
Avg g/mln
Avg kg/h
Damper full open
Overhead exhaust
24
29
25
26
1.56
BC total exhaust
89
100
93
94
5.64
BCff6
78
86
76
80
4.81
BC#5
7
7
7
7
0.42
Enclosure exhaust
23
29
39
30
1.82
BC Intake
34
31
32
1.95
Overhead Intake
20
20
20
1.19
Damper full closed
Overhead exhaust
32
32
1.93
BC total exhaust
100
100
6.01
BC#6
93
93
5.57
BC#5
7
7
0.43
Enclosure exhaust
17
17
1.01
BC Intake
36
36
2.16
Ambient Intake
Damper full open
4
7
6
10
7
0.40
Damper full closd
2
2
0.14
42795P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95
Worksheet OVA data summary:
Original system #6. Idle. No printing dryers or blowers.
Average g/mln
Kg/h
Enclosure only
Damper full open
37.5
42.1
37
39.0
2.34
Damper full closed
11.7
12.7
12.2
0.73
Harris & Bruno II5. Idle. No printing, dryers, or blowers.
Enclosure only
Damper full open
6.3
6.5
6.4
0.38
Damper full closed
6.6
5.8
6.2
0.37
Ambient
Original
Damper full open
2.6
4.7
4.2
3.8
0.23
Damper full closed
2.2
3.9
3.5
3.2
0.19
Harris & Bruno
Damper full open
1.0
2.4
1.7
0.10
Damper full closed
0.8
2.0
1.4
0.09
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
Worksheet OVA data summary.
Harris & Bruno System #5 Printing
Damper full open
Average g/mlm
Kg/hr
Tot overhead exhaust
25
28
26
1.59
BC Tot exhaust
94
99
96
5.79
BC Tot Intake
30
29
29
1.75
Overhead intake
20
20
24
20
1.20
BC #5 Exhaust
78
69
74
4.42
BC #6 Exhaust
34
37
35
2.13
Enclosure Exhaust
10
10
0.60
Damper full closed
Tot overhead exhaust
26
26
1.55
BC Tot exhaust
96
96
5.77
BC Tot Intake
29
29
1.74
Overhead Intake
22
22
1.33
BC #5 Exhaust
76
76
4.54
BC #6 Exhaust
38
38
2.29
Enclosure Exhaust
8
8
8
0.46
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
m
i
K)
OO
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
Traditional System 6 - Damper full open
14:00:00
31.164
14:02:00
31.076
14:03:30
Overhead exhaust
14:04:00
30.970
14:04:30
14:05:30
14:06:30
19
33
58
24.2
14:07:00
30.075
14:07:30
BC total exhaust
14:08:30
14:09:30
14:10:30
98
195
338
89.0
14:11:30
BC #6
14:12:00
30.333
14:12:30
14:13:30
540
1097
1904
78.2
14:14:00
viscosity test
30.183
14:14:30
BC#5
14:15:00
add 500ml solvent
30.233
14:15:30
14:16:00
30.408
14:16:30
57
112
193
7.3
14:17:30
Enclosure exhaust
14:18:00
30.208
14:18:30
14:19:00
30.117
14:19:30
14:20:30
60
117
203
22.9
14:21:00
29.956
14:21:30
BC Intake
14:22:30
56
109
189
34.1
14:23:30
42795P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
ffl
¦
K>
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(PPm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
14:25:00
29.570
14:28:00
29.330
14:29:00
Overhead exhaust
14:30:00
29.159
14:31:00
22
39
68
28.7
14:32:00
BC Total exhaust
28.980
14:33:00
14:34:00
110
219
380
100.2
14:35:00
BC #6
28.708
14:36:00
14:37:00
597
1213
2104
86.5
14:38:00
BC#5
28.410
14:39:00
14:40:00
add 500ml solvent
28.655
53
103
179
6.8
14:41:00
Encl exhaust
14:42:00
14:43:00
76
149
258
29.1
14:44:00
STOP_ RUN
28.288
Traditional System 6 - Damper full closed
15:21:00
32.970
15:23:00
add 500ml solvent
15:25:00
33.082
15:27:00
32.871
15:28:00
Ambient
32.809
15:30:00
5
5
8
2.3
15:32:00
BC Total exhaust
15:33:00
32.450
15:34:00
15:35:00
110
219
380
100.2
15:36:00
Overhead exhaust
32.185
15:37:00
15:38:00
, 32.069
24
44
77
32.1
42795P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
ffl
i
LO
o
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
JT
CQ
N»/
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
15:39:00
15:40:00
BC #6 Exhaust
15:41:00
31747
15:42:00
640
1301
2258
92.8
15:43:00
BC #5 Exhaust
15:44:00
31.518
15:45:00
31.392
56
109
189
7.1
15:46:00
BC intake from bag
15:47:00
31.212
15:48:00
59
115
199
36.0
15:49:00
Enclosure exhaust
31.036
15:50:00
15:51:00
30.854
90
178
309
16.8
15:52:00
15:53:00
STOP RUN
30.680
Traditional System 6 - Damper full opened
16:38:00
30.028
16:39:00
add 1000 ml solv
30.817
16:40:00
30.668
16:41:00
Overhead intake
30.605
16:42:00
30.531
16:43:00
30.486
16:44:00
30.146
27.5
42
72
19.6
16:45:00
BC Total Intake
16:46:00
30.100
16:47:00
16:48:00
pan on scale
30.690
56.75
99
171
30.9
16:49:00
30.600
16:50:00
30.550
16:51:00
30.490
16:52:00
30.420
16:53:00
30.290
16:54:00
30.150
16:55:00
30.010
16:56:00
29.860
16:57:00
29.800
16:58:00
29.730
42795P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
tn
i
LO
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
16
59:00
Ambient
29.680
17
00:00
29.620
10
7
13
4.4
17
01:00
Overhead exhaust
29.580
17
02:00
Ice pan off scale
29.420
17
03:00
24
35
60
25.3
17
04:00
BC Total Exhaust
17
05:00
29.452
17
06:00
add dry Ice
29.538
110
203
352
92.9
17
07:00
Ambient
29.293
17
08:00
29.224
12.5
12
21
7.3
17
09:00
add liquid or lid
29.186
17
10:00
Overhead Intake - add dry Ice
29.368
17
11:00
29.842
17
12:00
29.727
28
43
74
20.0
17
13:00
Ambient
29.617
17
14:00
29.535
11
9
16
5.5
17
15:00
29.465
17
16:00
BC #6 Exhaust
29.380
17
17:00
29.324
17
18:00
29.265
550
1064
1846
75.8
17
19:00
BC #5 Exhaust
29.174
17
20:00
29.076
17
21:00
all ice off of scale
27.312
58
102
177
6.7
17
22:00
Ambient
27.228
17
23:00
27.174
14.5
16
28
9.6
17
24:00
27.112
17
25:00
0.000
17
26:00
0.000
17
27:00
Enclosure exhaust (full open)
0.000
17
28:00
27.014
17
28:30
add 1 1 of solvent
27.240
17
29:00
17
30:00
17
31:00
108
199
345
38.9
17
32:00
Ambient near encl exh
17
33:00
17
34:00
13
13
22
7.5
42795P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/27/95, PM
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(PPm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
17
35:00
26.939
17
35:30
add pan to scale
27.771
17
36:00
17
37:00
17
37:30
add ice to pan
27.080
17
38:00
add more Ice
28.721
17
38:30
28.627
17
39:00
17
40:00
17
41:00
17
42:00
17
43:00
'
17
44:00
17
45:00
17
46:00
STOP RUN
28.063
17
47:00
17
47:30
26.264
17
48:00
26.178
42795P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95
tn
l
U>
OJ
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
Original System (open dr blade) - Print Station #6 - Idle, no printing, dryers or blowers. ENCLOSURE ONLY
8:24:30
8:25:30
30.092
8:26:30
8:27:00
8:27:30
30.107
8:28:00
30.106
8:29.00
30.104
8:30:00
30.092
8:31:00
30.084
8:32:00
Ambient
30.075
4
8:33:00
30.07
8:33:30
•
4.38
8:34:00
30.057
' 4.15
8:34:15
4.2
4.18
4.34
7.52
2.6
8:35:00
Damper open
30.05
50
2.2
8:35:15
70
8:35:30
50
8:35:45
60
8:36:00
30.04
60
8:36:15
55
8:36:30
55
8:36:45
50
8:37:00
30.033
60
8:37:15
55
8:37:30
55
8:37:45
60
8:38:00.
30.027
8:38:30
60
8:38:45
65
57.5
191.84
332.87
37.5
8:39:00
30.027
8:40:00
30.013
8:40:15
Ambient
4.85
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95
tn
i
U>
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
8:40:30
4.75
8:40:45
4.8
8:41:00
30.006
4.7
8:41:15
4.75
8:41:30
7.75
8:41:30
4.65
5.18
7.84
13.60
4.7
8:42:00
30.001
3.9
8:43:00
Damper closed
29.995
25
8:43:15
42
8:43:30
45
8:43:45
45
8:44:00
29.986
50
8:44:15
47
8:44:30
40
8:44:45
38
8:45:00
29.98
8:46:00
29.972
38
8:46:15
30
8:46:30
38
8:46:45
36
8:47:00
29.962
35
8:47:15
35
8:47:30
40
8:47:45
42
8:48:00
29.957
35
8:48:15
32
8:48:30
40
8:48:45
30
38.2
123.79
214.80
11.7
8:49:00
Damper open
29.95
50
8:49:15
60
8:49:30
60
8:49:45
70
8:50:00
29.941
50
8:50:15
70
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
8:15:30
70
8:15:45
68
.
8:51:00
29.933
74
8:51:15
64
8:51:30
80
8:51:45
80
8:52:00
29.93
70
8:52:15
50
8:52:30
50
8:52:45
60
64.1
215.14
373.30
42.1
8:53:00
Ambient
29.922
5.7
8:53:15
'
5.2
8:53:30
4.9
8:53:45
4.7
8:54:00
29.907
4.6
8:54:15
4.8
8:54:30
4.8
5.0
7.06
12.25
4.2
3.5
8
54:45
Damper closed
40
8
55:00
29.903
30
8
55:15
20
8
55:30
20
8
55:45
40
8
56:00
29.899
40
8
56:15
50
8
56:30
60
8
56:45
40
8
57:00
29.884
55
8
57:15
40
57:30
40
8
57:45
40
8
58:00
29.879
55
8
58:15
45
58:30
45
8
58:45
.40
8
59:00
29.87
30
59:15
50
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95
ffl
t
U>
On
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
8:59:30
45
8:59:45
40
41.2
134.48
. 233.35
12.7
9:00:00
Damper open
29.862
50
9:00:15
50
9:00:30
60
9:00:45
70
9:01:00
29.855
60
9:01:15
50
9:01:30
55
9:01:45
55
9:02:00
29.85
60
9:02:15
60
9:02:30
55
9:02:45
55
9:03:00
29.842
65
9:03:15
55
9:03:30
70
9:03:45
65
9:04:00
29.83
55
9:04:15
50
9:04:30
50
9:04:45
50
9:05:00
29.822
65
57.4
191.42
332.14
37.4
Harris and Bruno System (Enclosed dr blade) - Print Station #5 - Idle, no printing, dryers, or blowers. ENCLOSURE ONLY.
10:02:00
28.187
10:03:00
28.183
.
10:04:00
28.177
10:05:00
28.172
10:06:00
28.164
10:07:00
28.157
10:08:00
28.148
10:09:00
28.146
10:10:00
28.127
10:11:00
28.122
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95
m
i
U)
-0
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
10:12:00
28.134
10:13:00
Ambient
28.137
3.2
10:13:15
3.3
10:13:30
3.3
10:13:45
3.4
10:14:00
28.131
3
10:14:15
3.1
10:14:30
3.5
10:14:45
10:15:00
28.12
3.5
10:15:15
3.7
10:15:30
'
3.9
10:15:45
3.8
3.43
1.68
2.92
1.0
10:16:00
Damper open
28.11
0.8
10:16:15
11
10:16:30
10
10:16:45
12
10:17:00
28.102
14
10:17:15
10
10:17:30
11
10:17:45
12
10:18:00
28.097
16
10:18:15
14
10:18:30
12
10:18:45
12
10:19:00
28.086
12
10:19:15
12
10:19:30
12
10:19:45
12
10:20:00
Damper closed
28.081
12
12.1
32.27
55.99
6.3
10:20:15
16
10:20:30
14
10:20:45
18
10:21:00
28.076
22
10:21:15
18
10:21:30
25
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kQ)
(%)
(%)
(PPm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
10:21:45
19
10:22:00
. 28.066
20
10:22:15
25
10:22:30
26
10:22:45
23
10:23:00
28.057
28
10:23:15
20
10:23:30
19
10:23:45
25
10:24:00
28.052
19
10:24:15
15
10:24:30
1
15
10:24:45
16
10:25:00
28.051
14
10:25:15
18
10:25:30
27
10:25:45
25
10:26:00
28.044
28
10:26:15
25
10:26:30
22
10:26:45
10:27:00
28.04
20
10:27:15
24
10:27:30
22
10:27:45
20
10:28:00
28.045
18
10:28:15
17
10:28:30
25
10:28:45
25
10:29:00
28.038
22
10:29:15
22
10:29:30
22
10:29:45
26
22.7
69.41
120.44
6.6
10:30:00
Damper open
28.032
10:30:15
11
10:30:30
12
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95
m
i
U>
VD
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
10:30:45
15
10:31:00
¦ 28.018
13
10:31:15
15
10:31:30
12
10:31:45
11
10:32:00
28.012
13
10:32:15
10
10:32:30
11
10:32:45
14
10:33:00
28.001
11
10:33:15
13
10:33:30
•
12
10:33:45
12
10:34:00
27.997
11
10:34:15
13
10:34:30
13
10:34:45
11
10:35:00
27.991
14
10:35:15
14
10:35:30
16
10:35:45
13
10:36:00
27.989
11
10:36:15
11
10:36:30
12
10:36:45
10
10:37:00
27.98
12
10:37:15
14
10:37:30
14
10:37:45
11
12.4
33.30
57.79
6.5
10:38:00
Ambient
27.965
10:38:15
4.1
10:38:30
4.5
10:38:45
4.4
10:39:00
27.963
4.2
10:39:15
3.7
10:39:30
4.1
10:39:45
3.7
4.1
4.05
7.02
2.4
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
AI2W5
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
2.0
10:40:00
Damper closed
. 27.962
10:40:15
17
10:40:30
13
10:40:45
14
10:41:00
27.959
24
10:41:15
13
10:41:30
24
10:41:45
26
10:42:00
27.957
24
10:42:15
15
10:42:30
¦
22
10:42:45
22
10:43:00
27.944
17
10:43:15
19
10:43:30
18
10:43:45
15
10:44:00
27.932
10:44:15
10:44:30
18
10:44:45
18
10:45:00
27.926
15
10:45:15
20
10:45:30
15
10:45:45
17
10:46:00
27.917
15
10:46:15
17
10:46:30
18
10:46:45
16
10:47:00
¦ 27.916
22
10:47:15
20
10:47:30
23
10:47:45
20
10:48:00
27.924
24
10:48:15
20
10:48:30
24
10:48:45
28
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
10:49:00
27.918
30
10:49:15
26
10:49:30
25
10:49:45
25
10:50:00
27.912
22
10:50:15
20
10:50:30
26
10:50:45
25
10:51:00
27.906
25
20.4
61.39
106.51
5.8
10:52:00
(
27.901
10:53:00
27.892
10:54:00
27.888
10:55:00
27.883
10:56:00
27.879
10:57:00
27.863
10:58:00
27.857
10:59:00
27.855
11:00:00
27.845
11:01:00
27.842
11:02:00
27.836
11:03:00
27.83
11:04:00
27.828
11:05:00
27.82
42895.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(PPm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
Print Runs Harris and Bruno #5 Station
11:11:00
add 500 ml solvent
11:13:00
28.161
11:14:00
28.143
11:15:00
28.219
Damper full open
11:16:00
Total overhead exh.
28.219
14
13
¦
15
12
11:17:00
28.189
13
12
12
12
11:18:00
28.132
12
12
12
12
13
34
59
24.7
11:19:00
28.039
BC total exh.
56
59
61
11:20:00
27.964
61
62
62
63
11:21:00
27.883
63
63
63
64
62
206
358
94.3
11:22:00
27.812
BC total Intake
33
31
30
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
m
i
U)
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
11:23:00
27.728
30
30
29
30
11:24:00
27.643
29
29
29
29
30
95-
165
29.7
11.25:00
27.561
Overhead Intake
15
15
11:26:00
27.447
15
15
15
15
11:27:00
27.362
15
15
15
15
15
42
74
20.0
11:28:00
BC #5 exhaust
27.266
11:29:00
27.192
340
340
340
340
11:30:00
27.096
330
340
350
350
341
1190
2064
78.1
11:31:00
BC #6 exhaust
26.911
140
140
140
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
ffl
I
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
to
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
11:32:00
140
140
140
140
140
482
836
34.4
11:33:00
Overhead Intake
26.826
15
15
15
42
74
20.0
11:34:00
BC total intake
26.737
¦
28
30
29
92
159
28.7
11:35:00
Enclosure exhaust (damper full open)
26.656
16
18
11:36:00
26.469
15
15
19
18
11:37:00
. 26.392
20
19
17
18
11:38:00
26.301
17
17
18
17
11:39:00
26.198
18
18
17
18
11:40:00
26.104
17
18
17
18
18
51
89
10.0
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
m
i
a
U\
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
¦ as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
11:41:00
Enclosure exhaust Damper full Closed
26.006
24
•
25
11:42:00
25.915
30
22
.
*
24
25
11:43:00
25.818
25
25
'
27
25
11:44:00
25.706
25
28
27
26
79
138
7.5
11:45:00
overhead exhaust
25.636
13
13
11:46:00
25.545
13
13
13
35
61
25.8
BC tot exhaust
57
11:47:00
25.42
60
.
63
64
64
11:48:00
(web stop change)
25.1
65
66
63
210
365
96.2
11:49:00
Overhead Intake
25.313
18
17
16
16
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
tfl
i
Ch
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
• as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
11:50:00
25.258
16
16
15
16
47
81
22.1
11:51:00
BC total Intake
25.163
29
30
29
29
11:52:00
add pan to balance
25.602
30
29
29
93
161
29.1
1
11:53:00
BCf/5 Exhaust - add dry Ice
26.123
320
320
325
340
11:54:00
25.969
320
340
340
11:55:00
25.872
340
331
1152
1999
75.6
BC#6 Exhaust
150
160
11:56:00
25.769
' 160
150
160
150
155
535
928
38.1
11:57:00
Enclosure exhaust
25.650
30
23
11:58:00
25.556
26
29
23
27
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
w
• Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(PPm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
11:59:00
add virgin ink
25.454
25
25
25
30
26
82
142
7.8
12:35:00
Damper Full closed
28.345
12:46:00
28.306
12:50:00
Anilox rolling, system Idle - add 1L solvent
12:51:00
29.056
12:52:00
28.849
12:53:00
'
28.86
12:54:00
28.844
12:55:00
28.837
12:56:00
Damper full open
28.828
12:57:00
28.823
12:58:00
28.822
12:59:00
28.826
13:00:00
28.803
13:01:00
28.8
13:02:00
28.793
13:03:00
28.785
13:04:00
28.77
13:05:00
28.758
13:06:00
28.75
13:07:00
28.746
13:08:00
28.745
13:09:00
28.742
13:10:00
28.737
13:11:00
28.734
13:12:00
28.725
13:13:00
28.716
13:14:00
28.705
13:15:00
28.699
13:16:00
28.693
13:17:00
Damper full closed
28.694
13:18:00
28.69
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
ffl
I
4^
00
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(PPm)
(ppnn)
(g/mln)
13:19:00
28.682
13:20:00
28.673
13:21:00
28.66
13:22:00
28.653
13:23:00
28.653
13:24:00
28.651
13:25:00
Enclosure exhaust- Damper full closed
28.645
15
16
'
14
13:26:00
28.642
20
16
47
81
. 4.4
13:27:00
Damper full open
28.634
17
16
15
13:28:00
28.626
14
17
13
15
15
43
75
8.5
13:29:00
Start Press
28.613
13:29:30
28.608
13:30:00
28.585
12
10
15
14
13:31:00
28.797
14
14
15
12
13
36
63
7.1
13:32:00
Overhead exhaust
28.748
14
13:33:00
viscosity check
28.67
14
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographlc Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
m
i
>o
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
14
13:33:30
add 1 L solvent
28.635
14
13:33:45
29.348
14
14
39
67
28.3
13:34:00
BC Total exhaust
29.21
59
63
65
67
13:35:00
29.112
67
64
215
374
98.6
,
Overhead intake
18
18
13:36:00
28.973
17
17
18
51
89
24.1
13:37:00
BC#5 Exhaust
28.884
250
300
300
310
13:38:00
1
28.78
320
320
320
303
1055
1830
69.2
13:39:00
BC#6 Exhaust
28.69
140
150
160
13:40:00
28.588
150
150
140
150
149
512
889
36.5
13:41:00
28.495
13:42:00
28.4
13:43:00
added pan wt
28.804
13:43:15
28.741
13:44:00
28.673
42895P.XLS
-------
Flexographic Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
m
i
U\
O
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
as n-propyl alcohol
(Q
(%)
(%)
(pprn)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
13:45:00
28.616
13:46:00
28.528
13:46:30
added dry Ice
28.831
13:47:00
28.77
13:48:00
28.65
13:49:00
28.541
13:49:30
13:50:00
28.445
13:51:00
28.337
13:51:30
• 28.245
13:52:00
¦
28.223
13:53:00
remove ice
27.333
overhead Intake no Ink. no web, no enclosure
14:56:15
14
14:56:30
13
14:56:45
14
14:57:00
14
14:57:15
14
14
38
66
18.0
BC Intake
14:58:15
28
14:58:30
28
14:58:45
28
14:59:00
30
14:59:15
29
29
90
157
28.2
BC#5
15:01:00
20
15:01:15
20
15:01:30
20
15:01:45
20
15:02:00
20
20
60
104
3.9
BCf/6
15:02:30
20
15:02:45
21
42895P.XLS
-------
Fiexographic Printing Press
4/28/95, PM
Instantaneous
Average
Concentration
Concentration
Mass flow
Time
Comments
Mass
OVA reading
OVA reading
as butylene
as n-propyl alcohol
• as n-propyl alcohol
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(g/mln)
15:03:00
21
15:03:15
20
21
62
107
4.1
Overhead exhaust
15:05:15
13
15:05:30
13
15:05:45
13
15:06:00
12.5
15:06:15
12.5
13
35
60
25.2
BC total exhaust
15:06:45
19
15:07:00
,
•19
15:07:15
19
15:07:30
19
19
56
98
25.8
Ln
42895P.XLS
-------
Enclosure Capture Efficiency Measurements for the Flexographic Press.
Dry ice mass loss rate,
Test
Test
Overhead
BC
Blower
Blower
COa exhaust rate,
Capture
Time
Weight
measured with scale
number
condition
Ambient
exhaust
total exh.
exhaust
exhaust
measured by C02 monitor
efficiency
(lbs)
(kg/h)
(damper)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
flow (m^/rnln)
(kg/h)
(%)
3:00:00
36.8750
2
1/2 open
371
364
366
3:05:00
36.5625
1.70
2
1/2 open
1,021
42
3.03
178
3:10:00
36.3751
1.02
2
1/2 open
3:15:00
36.1251
1.36
2
1/2 open
3:20:00
35.9063
1.19
3
Full closed
3:25:00
35.7188
1.02
3
Full closed
3:30:00
35.5313
1.02
3
Full closed
964
22
1.45
142
3:35:00
35.2813
1.36
3
Full closed
3:40:00
35.0625
1.19
. 4
Full open
3:45:00
34.9126
0.82
4
Full open
3:50:00
34.7813
0.72
, 4
Full open
659
46
1.45
202
3:55:00
34.7188
0.34
5
Full open
4:00:00
34.6563
0.34
5
Full closed
470
22
0.24
71
4:05:00
34.6250
0.17
5
Full closed
L/v
to
-------
Comparison of Concentration measurements (in parfs-per-million)
as measured by charcoal tube analysis and on-site total hydrocarbon analyzer.
Overhead Exhaust
BC total exhaust
BC Intake
BC #6 exhaust
BC #5 exhaust
Blower exhaust
10/27/95
10/28/95
10/27/95
10/28/95
10/27/95
10/28/95
10/27/95
10/28/95
10/27/95
10/28/95
1-Propanol
1.33
0.41
>
24.12
>
32.62
1.40
0.98
>
101.54
>
17.54
>
17.86
2-Propanol. 1-ethoxy-*
>
0.62
0.76
>
4.07
>
3.95
0.32
0.11
>
16.43
>
0.53
>
4.03
Propyl acetate
>
0.16
0.15
>
2.83
>
2.67
0.14
0.22
0.67
>
2.15
>
1.71
1,2 Propanediol
0.17
0.16
>
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.10
0.00
2-Propanol
0.04
0.01
0.55
1.73
0.01
0.07
1.02
0.27
0.69
Others
0.12
0.12
>
1.94
>
1.08
0.19
0.37
>
2.94
0.22
>
0.93
Total (all compounds)
>
2.45
1.61
>
33.51
>
42.05
2.06
1.77
Very high
>
122.60
>
20.81
>
25.22
RTI measured (as n-propyt alcohol)
59
363
167
2096
90
Ratio (RTI/AQS) 1
37
9
94
17
4
~
3
z
G
R
ft
o
ft hj
ft
o
H
•z
H
5
H
HH
o
2
2
C/5
o
z
o
*1
ft
w
~
w
ft
o
~
r
H
d
to
~
5
55
3
l-H
H
w
S
w
~
05
w
O
"fl
C/2
d
so
H
3
w
H
a>
AQSCARB.XLS
------- |