Combined Lint Cleaning System PM10 and Total PM

Combined Lint Cleaning System PM10 and Total PM Emission Factors for Cotton Gin E using Method 201a without a PM2.5 Cyclone Part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project

Report ID: 07-PM10-GE-201a September 2014 (Revised June 2018) Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Submitted by: Dr. Michael Buser (contact) Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University 113 Agricultural Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-5288 [email protected]

Dr. Derek Whitelock Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service 300 E College Dr. Mesilla Park, NM 88047 (575) 526-6381 [email protected]

Mr. Thomas Moore Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University 117 Agricultural Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 (903) 477-2458 [email protected]

    

Acknowledgments: Funding Sources: California Cotton Growers and Ginners Association Cotton Foundation Cotton Incorporated Oklahoma State University San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Study Agency Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association Southern Cotton Ginners Association Texas Cotton Ginners Association Texas State Support Group USDA Agricultural Research Service USDA NIFA Hatch Project 02882

Air Quality Advisory Group: California Air Resources Board Missouri Department of Natural Resources North Carolina Department of Natural Resources San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Texas A&M University Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department Texas Commission on Environmental Quality US Environmental Protection Agency – Air Quality Analysis Group US Environmental Protection Agency – Air Quality Modeling Group US Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency – Process Modeling Research Branch, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division US Environment Protection Agency Region 4 US Environment Protection Agency Region 9 USDA NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team

Cotton Gin Advisory Group: California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association Cotton Incorporated National Cotton Council National Cotton Ginners Association Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association Southern Cotton Ginners Association Texas Cotton Ginners Association Texas A&M University Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department  

 

Page 2 of 120

Table of Contents  

 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Answered Submitter Review ............................................................................................................ 5 Outlier Tests ...................................................................................................................................... 6 OSU Technical Report ..................................................................................................................... 7 Field and Laboratory Data .............................................................................................................. 18 Sampling Notes ............................................................................................................................... 37 Laboratory Sample Weights ........................................................................................................... 40 Process Calibration Documents ..................................................................................................... 43 Dry Gas Meter Calibration.............................................................................................................. 46 Type "S" Pitot Tube Calibration ..................................................................................................... 52 Nozzle Inspection............................................................................................................................ 57 Cyclonic Flow Evaluation............................................................................................................... 60 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................................................ 62 Traverse Points................................................................................................................................ 64 Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures .................................................................................... 66 EPA Baseline Testing Procedures .................................................................................................. 77 Reliable Emission Measurements Certification ............................................................................ 114 Project Advisory Group Members ................................................................................................ 116 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 120

 

Page 3 of 120

Introduction  

The submitted information corresponds to the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project conducted by Oklahoma State University and USDA Agricultural Research Service. This report contains PM10 and total PM data for the combined lint cleaning system for cotton Gin E that was collected using Method 201a without a PM2.5 cyclone. As part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project, there were several individual submitted reports for the cotton gin combined lint cleaning system. These test reports were separated by cotton gin and testing method. For the combined lint cleaning system there will be 3 Method 17 reports for total PM; 3 Method 201a without a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM and PM10; 3 Method 201a with a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM, PM10 and PM2.5 and 3 Method 17 coupled with particle size analyses for PM10 and PM2.5. The cotton gin identifiers for these reports are Gin D, Gin E and Gin G. Our submitter review ITRs were developed using the procedures described by the Eastern Research Group (2013). Our answered submitter review questions are located on page 5. If there are any questions regarding the submitted information, please contact Dr. Michael Buser ([email protected]). Table I.1- Submitter ITRs for Gin E, Combined Lint Cleaning System, Method 201a without a PM2.5 cyclone. Submitter Emission Factor PM Subset Review (lbs/bale) PM10 Run 1 79 0.215 79 0.210 Run 2  79 0.246 Run 3  79 0.224 Average Total PM Run 1 79 0.322 79 0.313 Run 2  79 0.365 Run 3  79 0.333 Average

 

Page 4 of 120

Answers to Submitter Review Questions  

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

 

Submitter Data Quality Rating Score Supporting Documentation Provided Response As described in ASTM D7036-12 Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies, does the testing firm meet the criteria as an AETB or is the person in charge of the field team a QI for the type of testing conducted? A certificate from an independent organization (e.g., Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC), Yes California Air Resources Board (CARB), National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP)) or self declaration provides documentation of competence as an AETB. Yes Is a description and drawing of test location provided? Has a description of deviations from published test methods been provided, or is there Yes a statement that deviations were not required to obtain data representative of typical facility operation? Is a full description of the process and the unit being tested (including installed Yes controls) provided? Has a detailed discussion of source operating conditions, air pollution control device Yes operations and the representativeness of measurements made during the test been provided? Were the operating parameters for the tested process unit and associated controls Yes described and reported? Is there an assessment of the validity, representativeness, achievement of DQO's and Yes usability of the data? Have field notes addressing issues that may influence data quality been provided? Yes Yes Dry gas meter (DGM) calibrations, pitot tube and nozzle inspections? Yes Was the Method 1 sample point evaluation included in the report? Yes Were the cyclonic flow checks included in the report? Yes Were the raw sampling data and test sheets included in the report? Yes Did the report include a description and flow diagram of the recovery procedures? Yes Was the laboratory certified/accredited to perform these analyses? Did the report include a complete laboratory report and flow diagram of sample Yes analysis? Were the chain-of-custody forms included in the report? Yes

Page 5 of 120

79

Outlier Tests The following residual plots compare the combined lint cleaning system test run emission factor values included in this report with those from other cotton gin tests that used Method 201a with and without a PM2.5 cyclone for PM10 and Method 17 and 201a with and without a PM2.5 cyclone for total PM. The highlighted points in the graphs indicate data included in this report.  

 

Combined Lint Cleaning System PM10 Residuals

Combined Lint Cleaning System Total PM Residuals

 

Page 6 of 120

                                               

 

OSU Technical Report OSU12-21 Ver. 3.0 – Combined Lint Cleaning System PM10 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins  

     

Note: Contains field and lab data for Gin E only.

 

Page 7 of 120

ENGINEERING AND GINNING Combined Lint Cleaning System PM10 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins: Method 201A PM10 Sizing Cyclones J. Clif Boykin, Michael D. Buser*, Derek P. Whitelock, and Gregory A. Holt ABSTRACT This report is part of a project to characterize cotton gin emissions from the standpoint of stack sampling. The impetus behind this project was the urgent need to collect additional cotton gin emissions data to address current regulatory issues. A key component of this study was focused on EPA emission factors for particulate matter with a particle diameter nominally less than or equal to 10 µm (PM10). The 1996 EPA AP-42 emission factors were assigned quality ratings, from A (Excellent) to E (Poor), to assess the quality of the data being referenced. Emission factor quality ratings for cotton gins were extremely low. Cotton gin data received these low ratings because they were collected almost exclusively from a single geographical region. The objective of this study was to collect additional PM10 emission factor data for combined lint cleaning systems at cotton gins located in regions across the cotton belt based on EPA-approved stack sampling methodology, Method 201A. The project plan included sampling seven cotton gins across the cotton belt. Key factors for selecting specific cotton gins included: 1) facility location, 2) production capacity, 3) processing systems and 4) abatement technologies. Three of the seven gins had 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems where the exhaust airstreams were combined. In terms of capacity, the three gins were typical of the industry, averaging 28.0 bales/h during testing. Some test runs, included in the analyses, had cotton lint fibers that collected in the ≤ 10 µm samples. This larger lint material can affect the reported emissions data, but EPA

J.C. Boykin, USDA-ARS Cotton Ginning Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38776; M.D. Buser*, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078; D.P. Whitelock, USDA-ARS Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory, Mesilla Park, NM 88047; G.A. Holt, USDA-ARS Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit, Lubbock, TX 79401. *Corresponding author: [email protected]

Method 201A does not suggest methods to account for these anomalies. The combined lint cleaning system average emission factors for PM10 and total particulate were 0.151 kg/227-kg bale (0.334 lb/500-lb bale) and 0.407 kg/bale (0.898 lb/bale), respectively. System average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were higher than those currently published in EPA AP-42. The combined lint cleaning system PM10 emission rate test averages ranged from 1.72 to 5.19 kg/h (3.78-11.45 lb/h). The ratio of combined lint cleaning system PM10 to total particulate was 37.2%.

U

.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission factors published in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP42 (EPA, 1996b) were assigned a rating that is used to assess the quality of the data being referenced. Ratings can range from A (Excellent) to E (Poor). Current EPA emission factor quality ratings for particulate matter with a particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10-µm (PM10) aerodynamic equivalent diameter from cotton gins are extremely low. Cotton gin data received these low ratings because they were collected almost exclusively from a single geographical region (EPA, 1996a). Cotton ginners’ associations across the cotton belt, including the National, Texas, Southern, Southeastern, and California associations, agreed that there was an urgent need to collect additional cotton gin emissions data to address current regulatory issues. Working with cotton ginning associations across the country and state and federal regulatory agencies, Oklahoma State University and USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) researchers developed a proposal and sampling plan that was initiated in 2008 to address this need for additional data. This report is part of a series that details cotton gin emissions measured by stack sampling. Each manuscript in the series addresses a specific cotton ginning system. The systems covered in the series include: unloading, 1st stage seed-cotton cleaning, 2nd stage seed-cotton cleaning, 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning, overflow, 1st stage lint cleaning, 2nd stage lint cleaning, combined

Page 8 of 120

lint cleaning, cyclone robber, 1st stage mote, 2nd stage mote, combined mote, mote cyclone robber, mote cleaner, mote trash, battery condenser and master trash. This report focuses on PM10 emissions from combined lint cleaning systems. The 1996 EPA AP-42 average PM10 emission factor for lint cleaners with high-efficiency cyclones (combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems) was 0.11 kg (0.24 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.020 to 0.42 kg (0.043-0.93 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on six tests conducted in one geographical location and the EPA emission factor quality rating was D, which is the second lowest possible rating (EPA, 1996a). The AP-42 average total particulate emission factor for lint cleaners with high-efficiency cyclones was 0.26 kg (0.58 lb) per bale with a range of 0.041 to 1.0 kg (0.090-2.3 lb) per bale. This average and range was based on six tests conducted in one geographical location and the EPA emission factor quality rating was also D. Seed cotton is a perishable commodity that has no real value until the fiber and seed are separated (Wakelyn et al., 2005). Cotton must be processed or ginned at the cotton gin to separate the fiber and seed, producing 227-kg (500-lb) bales of marketable cotton fiber. Cotton ginning is considered an agricultural process and an extension of the harvest by several federal and state agencies (Wakelyn et al., 2005). Although the main function of the cotton gin is to remove the lint fiber from the seed, many other processes also occur during ginning, such as cleaning, drying, and packaging the lint. Pneumatic conveying systems are the primary method of material handling in the cotton gin. As material reaches a processing point, the conveying air is separated and emitted outside the gin through a pollution control device. The amount of dust emitted by a system varies with the process and the condition of the material in the process. Cotton ginning is a seasonal industry with the ginning season lasting from 75 to 120 days, depending on the size and condition of the crop. Although the trend for U.S. cotton production remained generally flat at about 17 million bales per year during the last 20 years, production from one year to the next often varied greatly for various reasons, including climate and market pressure (Fig. 1). The number of active gins in the U.S. has not remained constant, steadily declining to fewer than 700 in 2011. Consequently, the average volume of cotton handled by

each gin has risen and gin capacity has increased to an average of about 25 bales per hour across the U.S. cotton belt (Valco et al., 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012).

Figure 1. Annual U.S. cotton production, active U.S. gins, and average ginning volume (bales per gin) (NASS, 1993-2012).

Typical cotton gin processing systems include: unloading system, dryers, seed-cotton cleaners, gin stands, overflow collector, lint cleaners, battery condenser, bale packaging system, and trash handling systems (Fig. 2); however, the number and type of machines and processes can vary. Each of these systems serves a unique function with the ultimate goal of ginning the cotton to produce a marketable product. Raw seed cotton harvested from the field is compacted into large units called “modules” for delivery to the gin. The unloading system removes seed cotton either mechanically or pneumatically from the module feed system and conveys the seed cotton to the seed-cotton cleaning systems. Seedcotton cleaning systems assist with drying the seed cotton and remove foreign matter prior to ginning. Ginning systems also remove foreign matter and separate the cotton fiber from seed. Lint cleaning systems further clean the cotton lint after ginning. The battery condenser and packaging systems combine lint from the lint cleaning systems and compress the lint into dense bales for efficient transport. Cotton gin systems produce some type of by-products or trash, such as rocks, soil, sticks, hulls, leaf material, and short or tangled immature fiber (motes), as a result of processing the seed cotton or lint. These streams of by-products must be removed from the machinery and handled by trash collection systems. These trash systems typically further process the by-products (e.g., mote cleaners) and/or consolidate the trash from the gin systems into a hopper or pile for subsequent removal.

Page 9 of 120

lint cleaning systems with separate or combined exhausts is the same and it is expected that the particulate emissions from a combined exhaust system would be similar to the aggregate emissions of the 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems with separate exhausts. The material handled by the lint cleaning system cyclones typically includes small trash and particulate, and lint fibers (Fig. 4).

Figure 3. Typical cotton gin combined lint cleaning system layout (Courtesy Lummus Corporation, Savannah, GA). Figure 2. Typical modern cotton gin layout (Courtesy Lummus Corporation, Savannah, GA).

Cotton lint is cleaned in the lint cleaning systems (Fig. 3). In the typical combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning system, cotton fiber or lint is pneumatically conveyed from the gin stands, through a centrifugal lint cleaner, to the 1st stage lint cleaners (cotton gins typically split the precleaned seed-cotton among multiple, parallel gin stand/lint cleaning lines that are recombined at packaging) for further foreign matter removal. The lint is removed from the airstream with a rotating, screened separator drum and directed into the lint cleaner feed works. Lint cleaners remove fine trash, seed, and some lint. The material removed by lint cleaners is referred to as “motes”. Lint is directed from the lint cleaner to either a subsequent stage of lint cleaning or into the bale packaging system. A 2nd stage of lint cleaning is sometimes used and is essentially identical to the 1st stage. The airstream from the lint cleaner screen separators continues through a centrifugal fan to one or two particulate abatement cyclones. Some lint cleaning systems utilize a vane-axial fan, but these systems typically do not have cyclones and exhaust directly to ambient air. There are gins designed such that the exhaust of the 1st stage lint cleaning systems are completely separated from the exhaust of the 2nd stage lint cleaning systems and there are systems where the 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems have a combined exhaust, sharing a fan and abatement device. The function of the 1st and 2nd stage

Figure 4. Photograph of typical trash captured by the combined lint cleaning system cyclones.

Cyclones are the most common particulate matter abatement devices used at cotton gins. Standard cyclone designs used at cotton ginning facilities are the 2D2D and 1D3D (Whitelock et al., 2009). The first D in the designation indicates the length of the cyclone barrel relative to the cyclone barrel diameter and the second D indicates the length of the cyclone cone relative to the cyclone barrel diameter. A standard 2D2D cyclone (Fig. 5) has an inlet height of D/2 and width of D/4 and design inlet velocity of 15.2 ± 2 m/s (3000 ± 400 fpm). The standard 1D3D cyclone (Fig. 5) has the same inlet dimensions as the 2D2D or may have the original 1D3D inlet with height of D and width D/8. Also, it has a design inlet velocity of 16.3 ± 2 m/s (3200 ± 400 fpm).

Page 10 of 120

Figure 5. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics.

The objective of this study was to collect additional PM10 emission factor data for combined lint cleaning systems with cyclones for emissions control at cotton gins located in regions across the cotton belt based on EPA-approved stack sampling methodologies. METHODS Two advisory groups were established for this project. The industry group consisted of cotton ginning industry leaders and university and government researchers. The air quality group included members from state and federal regulatory agencies and university and government researchers. These groups were formed to aid in project planning, gin selection, data analysis, and reporting. The project plan was described in detail by Buser et al. (2012). Seven cotton gins were sampled across the cotton belt. Key factors for selecting specific cotton gins included: 1) facility location, 2) production capacity, 3) processing systems and 4) abatement technologies. Operating permits, site plans, and aerial photographs were reviewed to evaluate potential sites. On-site visits were conducted on all candidate gins to evaluate the process systems and gather information including system condition, layout, capacities, and standard operation. Using this information, several gins from each selected geographical region were selected and prioritized based on industry advisory group discussions. Final gin selection from the prioritized list was influenced by crop limitations and adverse weather events in the region.

Based on air quality advisory group consensus, EPA Method 201A was used to sample the combined lint cleaning system at each gin. Method 201A was revised in 2010 to incorporate options for PM2.5 (particulate matter with particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5-µm aerodynamic equivalent diameter) sampling (CFR, 2010); these revisions did not affect the PM10 stack sampling methodology used in this project. Method 201A is a constant sampling rate procedure. For the PM10 sampling methodology, the particulate -laden stack gas was withdrawn isokinetically (the velocity of the gas entering the sampler was equal to the velocity of the gas in the stack) through a PM10 sizing cyclone and then collected on an in-stack filter (Fig. 6). The methods for retrieving the filter and conducting acetone washes of the sizing cyclone are described in detail in Method 201A (CFR, 2010). The mass of each size fraction was determined by gravimetric analysis and included: > 10 µm (PM10 sizing cyclone catch acetone wash) and ≤ 10 µm (PM10 sizing cyclone exit acetone wash and filter). The PM10 mass was determined by adding the mass of particulates captured on the filter and the ≤ 10 µm wash. Total particulate was determined by adding the PM10 mass and the mass of the > 10 µm wash.

Figure 6. EPA Method 201A PM10 sizing cyclone and in-stack filter holder schematic (CFR, 2010) and photograph ( ≤ 10 µm, > 10 µm).

Figure 7 shows the performance curves for the Method 201A sizing cyclones. To measure PM10, the method requires selecting a gas sampling nozzle to achieve a sampling rate that produces a cut size between 9.0 and 11.0 µm at the stack gas temperature. For this study, Method 201Awas specifically used

Page 11 of 120

to collect filterable PM10 emissions (solid particles emitted by a source at the stack and captured in the ≤ 10 µm wash and on the filter [CFR, 2010]).

vanes to eliminate the cyclonic flow of the air exiting the cyclone (Fig. 8). The extensions were designed to meet EPA criteria (EPA, 1989) with an overall length of 3 m (10 ft) and sampling ports 1.2-m (48-in) downstream from the straightening vanes and 0.9-m (36-in.) upstream from the extension exit.

Figure 7. Acceptable sampling rate for sizing cyclones (CFR, 2010) Cyclone I = PM10 sizing cyclone (Gas temperatures for the combined lint cleaning systems tested ranged from 19 to 41°C [67-106°F]).

Only one stack from each combined lint cleaning system was tested. For systems with multiple stacks, it was assumed that emissions from each stack of the system were equivalent and the total emissions were calculated by multiplying the measured emission rates by the total number of cyclones used to control the process tested (EPA, 1996a). To obtain reliable results, the same technician from the same certified stack sampling company (Reliable Emissions Measurements, Auberry, CA), trained and experienced in stack sampling cotton gins, conducted the tests at all seven cotton gins. All stack sampling equipment, including the sizing cyclone, was purchased from Apex Instruments (Fuquay-Varina, NC) and met specifications of Method 201A. The sampling media were 47 µm Zefluor filters (Pall Corporation, Port Washington, NY) and the sample recovery and analytical reagent was American Chemical Society certified acetone (A18-4, Fisher Chemical, Pittsburgh, PA – assay ≥ 99.5%). Filters and wash tubs and lids were prelabeled, pre-weighed, and stored in sealed containers at the USDA-ARS Air Quality Lab (AQL) in Lubbock, TX, and then transported to each test site. Prior to testing, the certified stack testing technician calibrated and checked all sampling equipment according to EPA Method 201A. Each cyclone selected for testing was fitted with a cyclone stack extension that incorporated two sampling ports (90° apart) and airflow straightening

Figure 8. Schematic and photographs of stack extensions with sampling ports and staightening vanes (rail attached to extension above sampling port, at right, supports sampling probe during testing traverse).

The tests were conducted by the certified stack sampling technician in an enclosed sampling trailer at the base of the cyclone bank (Fig. 9). Sample retrieval, including filters and sampler head acetone washes, was conducted according to Method 201A. After retrieval, filters were sealed in individual Petri dishes and acetone washes were dried on-site in a conduction oven at 49°C (120°F) and then sealed with pre-weighed lids and placed in individual plastic bags for transport to the AQL in Lubbock, TX for gravimetric analyses. During testing, bale data (ID number, weight, and date/time of bale pressing) were either manually recorded by the bale press operator or captured electronically by the gin’s computer system for use in calculating emission factors in terms of kg/227-kg bale (lb/500-lb bale). Emission factors and rates were calculated in accordance with Method 201A and ASAE Standard S582 (ASABE, 2005).

Page 12 of 120

All laboratory analyses were conducted at the AQL. All filters were conditioned in an environmental chamber (21 ± 2°C [70 ± 3.6°F]; 35 ± 5% RH) for 48 h prior to gravimetric analyses. Filters were weighed in the environmental chamber on a Mettler

gin stand through a centrifugal air-type lint cleaner where some larger trash was ejected. The air/material then proceeded to the 1st lint cleaner. At the lint cleaner, the lint was separated from the conveying air by a screened separator and fed into the lint cleaner. From the 1st lint cleaner, the lint was pneumatically conveyed to the 2nd lint cleaner where it was again separated from the conveying air by a screened separator and fed into the lint cleaner. The airstream from the separators at both the 1st and 2nd lint cleaners then combined and passed through a fan and exhausted through one or more cyclones. The combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems at gin E were similar to the systems at gins D and G, except there were no centrifugal lint cleaners between the gin stands and 1st lint cleaners (Fig. 11).

Figure 9. Clockwise from top right: cotton gin stack sampling with air quality lab trailer and technicians on lifts; certified stack sampling technician in the trailer control room conducting tests; sample recovery in trailer clean room; technician operating the probe at stack level.

MX-5 microbalance (Mettler-Toledo Inc., Columbus, OH – 1 µg readability and 0.9 µg repeatability) after being passed through an anti-static device. The MX-5 microbalance was leveled on a marble table and housed inside an acrylic box to minimize the effects of air currents and vibrations. To reduce recording errors, weights were electronically transferred from the microbalance directly to a spreadsheet. Technicians wore latex gloves and a particulate respirator mask to avoid contamination. AQL procedures required that each sample be weighed three times. If the standard deviation of the weights for a given sample exceeded 10 μg, the sample was reweighed. Gravimetric procedures for the acetone wash tubs were the same as those used for filters. In addition to gravimetric analyses, each sample was visually inspected for unusual characteristics, such as cotton lint content or extraneous material. Digital pictures were taken of all filters and washes for documentation purposes prior to further analyses. After the laboratory analyses were completed all stack sampling, cotton gin production, and laboratory data were merged. Three of the seven gins sampled were designed so that the 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning system exhausts were combined. Gins D and G had similar systems (Fig. 10). For these systems, the cotton lint material was pneumatically conveyed from the

Figure 10. Schematic of combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning system with centrifugal lint cleaner (gins D and G).

Figure 11. Schematic of combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning system without centrifugal lint cleaner (gin E).

Page 13 of 120

Table 1. Abatement device configurationz for combined lint cleaning systems tested. Gin D E G

Cyclone Type 1D3D 1D3D 1D3D

Inlet Designy center-line 1D3D 2D2D 2D2D

Systems per Gin 4 3 2

Cyclones per Gin 8 3 4

Configuration

Cone Design

dual single dual

standard standard standard

Trash Exits tox robber auger robber

z Figures

5 and 12 1D3D inlet has duct in line with midpoint between the top and bottom of the inlet y Systems to remove material from cyclone trash exits: auger = enclosed, screw-type conveyor, robber = pneumatic suction system z Center-line

All combined lint cleaning systems sampled utilized 1D3D cyclones to control emissions (Fig. 5), but there were some cyclone design variations among the gins (Table 1 and Fig. 12). Gins D and G split the system exhaust flow between two cyclones in a dual configuration (side-by-side as opposed to one-behind-another). The system airstream for gin E was exhausted through a single cyclone. Inlets on the combined lint cleaning system cyclones at gins E and G were 2D2D type and gin D that had center-line 1D3D inlets (inlets with the duct in line with midpoint between the top and bottom of the inlet). Standard cones were present on combined lint cleaning system cyclones at all gins. The cyclones tested at gins D and G had cyclone robber systems pulling airflow from their trash exits. This configuration helps remove lint and other trash from the cyclone that could otherwise circulate near the trash exit at the bottom of the cone for a period of time before dropping out. All of the cyclone configurations outlined above, if properly designed and maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin emissions (Whitelock et al., 2009).

Figure 12. Cyclone design variations for the tested systems (left to right): dual configuration that splits flow between identical 1D3D cyclones with 2D2D inlets; 1D3D cyclone with an center-line 1D3D inlet; 1D3D cyclone with 2D2D inlet and standard cone.

RESULTS Table 2 shows the test parameters for each Method 201A test run for the combined lint cleaning systems

sampled at the three gins. The system average ginning rate was 28.0 bales/h and the test average ginning rates at each gin ranged from 18.7 to 33.1 bales/h (based on 227-kg [500-lb] equivalent bales). Test run two at gin D was omitted from all test averages because of inconsistent gin operation during testing. The capacity of gins sampled was representative of the industry average, approximately 25 bales/h. The 1D3D cyclones were all operated with inlet velocities within design criteria, 16.3 ± 2 m/s (3200 ± 400 fpm). There are criteria specified in EPA Method 201A for test runs to be valid for PM10 or total particulate measurements (CFR, 2010). Isokinetic sampling and PM10 aerodynamic cut size must fall within EPA defined ranges (100 ± 20% and 10.0 ± 1.0 µm, re-spectively) for valid PM10 test runs. All tests met both criteria (Table 2). To use the method to also obtain total filterable particulate, sampling must be within 90 to 110% of isokinetic flow. The Gin G test runs did not meet this criteria. Sampling rates ranged from 11.4 to 12.9 standard l/min (0.404-0455 standard ft3/min). The stack gas temperatures ranged from 19 to 41°C (67-106°F). PM10 emissions data (ginning and emission rates and corresponding emission factors) for the combined lint cleaning systems are shown in Table 3. The system average PM10 emission factor was 0.151 kg/bale (0.334 lb/bale). The test average emission factors ranged from 0.052 to 0.301 kg (0.114-0.664 lb) per bale and emission rates ranged from 1.72 to 5.19 kg/h (3.78-11.45 lb/h). Total particulate emissions data (ginning and emission rates and corresponding emission factors) for the combined lint cleaning systems are shown in Table 4. The system average total particulate emission factor was 0.407 kg/bale (0.898 lb/bale). The test average emission factors ranged from 0.151 to 0.663 kg (0.333- 1.462 lb) per bale. The test average total particulate emission rates ranged from 4.87 to 11.61 kg/h (10.75- 25.60 lb/h). The ratio of PM10 to total particulate was 37.2% (ratios calculated using tables 3 and 4 may vary slightly from those listed due to rounding).

Page 14 of 120

Table 2. Cotton gin production data and stack sampling performance metrics for the combined lint cleaning systems. Test Run

Ginning Rate, bales/hz

1

Cyclone Inlet Velocity, m/s

fpm

Isokinetic Sampling, %

23.8

16.1

3168

100

2x

4.7

16.6

3267

3

13.6

16.4

3238

Test Average

18.7

16.3

3203

E

1

32.8

17.4

2

29.9

3

Gin

Aerodynamic Cut Size D50, PM10 µm

Sampling Ratey

Stack Temperature

slpm

scfm

°C

°F

10.0

12.4

0.439

20

69

99

9.8

12.7

0.449

19

67

109

10.0

12.6

0.444

23

74

3434

99

10.3

12.7

0.450

39

102

17.2

3389

102

10.2

12.9

0.455

40

104

33.8

16.9

3325

104

10.3

12.9

0.455

41

106

Test Average

32.2

17.2

3382

G

1

32.7

14.4

2833

87

10.7

11.7

0.414

32

90

2

32.6

14.5

2849

84

10.9

11.4

0.404

33

91

3

34.1

14.4

2836

86

10.8

11.6

0.411

32

90

Test Average

33.1

14.4

2840

System Average

28.0

16.0

3141

D

z 227

kg (500 lb) equivalent bales = standard l/min, scfm = standard ft3/min x Test run omitted from test averages due to inconsistent gin operation during testing y slpm

Table 3. PM10 emissions data for the combined lint cleaning systems. Gin D

Test Run

Emission Rate,

Emission Factor,

kg/h

lb/h

kg/balez lb/balez

1

12.18

26.86

0.513

1.130

Test Run

1

5.18

11.42

0.218

0.480

2y

1.62

3.57

0.344

0.759

2y

3.01

6.64

0.641

1.414

3

5.21

11.48

0.384

0.847

3

11.04

24.33

0.814

1.794

5.19

11.45

0.301

0.664

11.61

25.60

0.663

1.462

1

3.20

7.05

0.098

0.215

1

4.78

10.54

0.146

0.322

2

2.85

6.27

0.095

0.210

2

4.25

9.37

0.142

0.313

3

3.77

8.32

0.112

0.246

3

5.59

12.33

0.165

0.365

3.27

7.22

0.101

0.224

4.87

10.75

0.151

0.333

1

1.62

3.57

0.050

0.109

1x

2.29

5.04

0.070

0.154

2

1.47

3.25

0.045

0.100

2x

2.06

4.55

0.063

0.140

3

2.05

4.53

0.060

0.133

3x

2.60

5.73

0.076

0.168

1.72

3.78

0.052

0.114

0.151

0.334

0.407

0.898

System Average (n=3)

227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales Test run omitted from test averages due to inconsistent gin operation during testing

y

Gin

lb/balez

kg/bale

Test Average (n=3)

z

z

lb/h

Test Average (n=3) G

Emission Factor,

kg/h

Test Average (n=2) E

Emission Rate,

Table 4. Total particulate emissions data for the combined lint cleaning systems.

D

Test Average (n=2) E

Test Average (n=3) G

Test Average (n=0) System Average (n=3) z

227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales Test run omitted from test averages due to inconsistent gin operation during testing x Test run omitted from test averages because isokinetic sampling rate (100 ± 10%) was not met y

Page 15 of 120

The average combined lint cleaning system total particulate emission factor for this project was about 1.39 times of the EPA AP-42 published value for lint cleaners with high-efficiency cyclones (EPA, 1996a, 1996b), which is equivalent system to combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems. The range of test average total particulate emission factors determined for this project fell within the AP-42 emission factor data range. The average combined lint cleaning system PM10 emission factor for this project was 1.55 times the EPA AP-42 published value for lint cleaners with high-efficiency cyclones. The test average PM10 emission factor range also fell within the AP-42 emission factor data range. Figure 13 shows an example of samples recovered from a typical combined lint cleaning system test run. Often, there were cotton lint fibers, which have cross-sectional diameters much greater than 10 µm, in the cotton gin cyclone exhausts. Therefore, it was not unusual to find lint fiber in the > 10 µm wash from Method 201A. However, in the sample shown in Figure 14, lint fibers passed through the PM10 cyclone and collected on the filter. This type of material carryover can bias the gravimetric measurements and affect reported PM10 emission data. EPA Method 201A does not suggest methods to account for these anomalies. Thus, no effort was made to adjust the data reported in this manuscript to account for these issues.

SUMMARY Seven cotton gins across the U.S. cotton belt were sampled using EPA Method 201A to collect additional data to improve the EPA AP-42 PM10 emission factor quality ratings for cotton gins. Three of the seven gins had 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaning systems where the exhaust airstreams were combined. The tested systems were similar in design and typical of the ginning industry. All the systems were equipped with 1D3D cyclones for emissions control with some slight variations in inlet and cone design. In terms of capacity, the three gins were typical of the industry, averaging 28.0 bales/h during testing. Some test runs, included in the analyses, had cotton lint fibers that collected in the ≤ 10 µm samples. This larger lint material can affect the reported emissions data, but EPA Method 201A does not suggest methods to account for these anomalies. The combined lint cleaning system average emission factors for PM10 and total particulate were 0.151 kg/227-kg bale (0.334 lb/500-lb bale) and 0.407 kg/bale (0.898 lb/bale), respectively. System average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were higher than those currently published in EPA AP-42. The gin test average PM10 and total particulate emission rates ranged from 1.72 to 5.19 kg/h (3.7811.45 lb/h) and 4.87 to 11.61 kg/h (10.75-25.60 lb/h), respectively. Based on the combined lint cleaning system average emission factors, the ratio of PM10 to total particulate was 37.2%. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Figure 13. Typical EPA Method 201A filter and sampler head acetone washes from the combined lint cleaning system. Clockwise from top left: > 10 µm wash, ≤ 10 µm wash and filter.

Figure 14. EPA Method 201A filter from the combined lint cleaning system with lint fiber present (indicated by arrow).

The authors appreciate the cooperating gin managers and personnel who generously allowed and endured sampling at their gins. In addition, we thank California Cotton Ginners’ and Growers’ Association, Cotton Incorporated, San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency, Southeastern Cotton Ginners’ Association, Southern Cotton Ginners’ Association, Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association, Texas State Support Committee, and The Cotton Foundation for funding this project. The authors also thank the Cotton Gin Advisory Group and Air Quality Advisory Group for their involvement and participation in planning, execution, and data analyses for this project that is essential to developing quality data that will be used by industry, regulatory agencies, and the scientific community. The advisory groups included: the funding agencies listed above, California Air Resources Board, Missouri Department of Natural

Page 16 of 120

Resources, National Cotton Council, National Cotton Ginners’ Association, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Texas A&M University, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, USDA-NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric Change, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (national, Region 4 and 9). DISCLAIMER Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the Oklahoma State University or U.S. Department of Agriculture. Oklahoma State University and USDA are equal opportunity providers and employers. REFERENCES American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). 2005. Cotton Gins – Method of Utilizing Emission Factors in Determining Emission Parameters. ASAE S582 March 2005. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Buser, M.D., D.P. Whitelock, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2012. Characterization of cotton gin particulate matter emissions—Project plan. J. Cotton Sci. 16:105–116. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2010. Method 201A – Determination of PM10and PM2.5emissions from stationary sources (Constant sampling rate procedure). 40 CFR 51 Appendix M. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ emc/promgate/m-201a.pdf (verified 2 Jan. 2013).

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).1993-2012. Cotton Ginnings Annual Summary [Online]. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/ viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1042 (verified 2 Jan. 2013). Valco, T.D., H. Ashley, J.K. Green, D.S. Findley, T.L. Price, J.M. Fannin, and R.A. Isom. 2012. The cost of ginning cotton – 2010 survey results. p. 616–619 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference., Orlando, FL 3-6 Jan. 2012. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN. Valco, T.D., B. Collins, D.S. Findley, J.K. Green, L. Todd, R.A. Isom, and M.H. Wilcutt. 2003. The cost of ginning cotton – 2001 survey results. p. 662–670 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference., Nashville, TN 6-10 Jan. 2003. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN. Valco, T.D., J.K. Green, R.A. Isom, D.S. Findley, T.L. Price, and H. Ashley. 2009. The cost of ginning cotton – 2007 survey results. p. 540–545 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference., San Antonio, TX 5-8 Jan. 2009. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN. Valco, T.D., J.K. Green, T.L. Price, R.A. Isom, and D.S. Findley. 2006. Cost of ginning cotton – 2004 survey results. p. 618–626 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference., San Antonio, TX 3-6 Jan. 2006. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN. Wakelyn, P.J., D.W. Thompson, B.M. Norman, C.B. Nevius, and D.S. Findley. 2005. Why Cotton Ginning is Considered Agriculture. Cotton Gin and Oil Mill Press 106(8): 5-9. Whitelock, D.P., C.B. Armijo, M.D. Buser, and S.E. Hughs. 2009 Using cyclones effectively at cotton gins. Appl. Eng. Ag. 25:563–576.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Particulate sampling in cyclonic flow. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available online at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-008.pdf (verified 2 Jan. 2013). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section 9.7, Cotton Ginning, (EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159; MRI Project No. 4603-01, Apr. 1996). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996b. Food and agricultural industries: Cotton gins. In Compilation of air pollution emission factors, Volume 1: Stationary point and area sources. Publ. AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Page 17 of 120

Field and Laboratory Data

Page 18 of 120

Gin: E Exhaust: 07-Combined Lint Cleaning 1D3D Date: 2010

Emission Factor (lbs/bale)

Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

Based on EPA Method 201a

Based on EPA Method 201a

Total PM

Total PM Run 1 10.5361 Run 2 9.3709 Run 3 12.3296 Average 10.7455 PM10 Run 1 7.0518 Run 2 6.2726 Run 3 8.3215 Average 7.2153

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

0.3217 0.3132 0.3646 0.3332

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average PM10/TSP Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

0.2153 0.2096 0.2461 0.2237

PM10

66.9% 66.9% 67.5% 67.1%

Page 19 of 120

E EPA METHOD 201a FIELD DATA SUMMARY 9/22/2010 810-087 07-Combined Lint Cleaning 1D3D

Run #1

Run #2

Run #3

ø - Start of Run, time

9:49

10:26

11:08

ø - End of Run, time

10:19

10:57

11:38

Vlc - Volume of water collected, ml

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Vm - Gas volume, meter cond., dcf

12.210

12.399

12.124

12.244

Y - Meter calibration factor

1.001

1.001

1.001

1.001

Pbar - Barometric pressure, in. Hg

29.80

29.80

29.80

29.80

Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

ˆH - Avg. meter press. diff., in. H2O

0.608

0.624

0.624

0.619

Tm - Absolute meter temperature, °R

532.1

532.2

533.5

532.6

12.0979

12.2837

11.9813

12.1210

0.020

0.020

0.020

0.020

CO2 - Dry concentration, volume %

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

O2 - Dry concentration, volume %

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

Md - Mole wt. stack gas, dry, g/mole

28.845

28.845

28.845

28.845

Ms - Mole wt. stack gas, wet, g/g-mole

28.628

28.628

28.628

28.628

Cp - Pitot tube coeff., dimensionless

0.840

0.840

0.840

0.840

ˆp - Avg. of sq. roots of each ˆp

0.635

0.624

0.610

0.623

Ts - Absolute stack Temp. °R

562.4

564.3

566.3

564.3

7.88

7.88

7.88

7.88

36.43

35.96

35.28

35.89

15,773.9

15,517.3

15,168.6

15,486.6

2.074E-04

2.074E-04

2.074E-04

2.074E-04

29.37

29.56

28.94

29.29

10.29

10.23

10.26

10.26

99.2

101.7

103.6

101.5

3

3

3

3

186.62

187.07

187.58

187.1

Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf Bws - Water vapor part in gas stream

A - Area of stack, square feet Vs - Stack Gas Flow, ft/sec Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm An - Area of nozzle, square feet ø - Sampling time, minutes DP50 - Cut size, microns I - Isokinetic variation, percent Sts - Stacks per system µs - Gas Viscosity, micropoise

REM - 2003

Page 20 of 120

Average

E EPA METHOD 201a FIELD DATA SUMMARY 9/22/2010 810-087 07-Combined Lint Cleaning 1D3D

Run #1

Run #2

Run #3

AVERAGE

Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm

15,773.9

15,517.3

15,168.6

15,486.6

Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf

12.0979

12.2837

11.9813

12.1210

DP50 - Cut size, microns 10µ

10.29

10.23

10.26

10.26

Bale/hr - Total 500 lb Bales per hr

32.75

29.92

33.82

32.2

>10 µ - Total PM g

0.0067

0.0062

0.0080

0.0070

>10 µ - Total PM gr/dscf

0.0086

0.0078

0.0103

0.0089

>10 µ - Total PM lbs/hr

1.161

1.033

1.336

1.18

>10 µ - Total PM lbs/bale

0.03546

0.03451

0.03951

0.0365

< 10 µ - PM-10 g

0.0136

0.0125

0.0166

0.0142

< 10 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf

0.0174

0.0157

0.0213

0.0181

< 10 µ - PM-10 lbs/hr

2.35

2.09

2.77

2.41

< 10 µ - PM-10 lbs/bale

0.072

0.070

0.082

0.075

TPM - Total PM g

0.020

0.019

0.025

0.021

TPM - Total PM gr/dscf

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.03

TPM - Total PM lbs/hr

3.5

3.1

4.1

3.6

TPM - Total PM lbs/bale

0.11

0.10

0.12

0.11

REM - 2003

Page 21 of 120

E 07-Combined Lint Cleaning 1D3D EPA METHOD 201a RESULTS 9/22/2010 810-087 Run #1

Run #2

Run #3

Average

Total Particulate Per Cyclone Total gr/dscf Total lbs/hr Total lbs/bale

0.0260 3.512 0.1072

0.0235 3.124 0.1044

0.0316 4.110 0.1215

0.0270 3.582 0.1111

Total Particulate Per System Total lbs/hr Total lbs/bale

10.54 0.322

9.37 0.313

12.33 0.365

10.75 0.333

< 10 µ Results per Cyclone < 10 µ gr/dscf < 10 µ (lbs/hr) < 10 µ (lbs/Bale)

0.0174 2.35 0.072

0.0157 2.09 0.070

0.0213 2.77 0.082

0.0181 2.41 0.075

< 10 µ Results per System < 10 µ (lbs/hr) < 10 µ (lbs/Bale)

7.05 0.215

6.27 0.210

8.32 0.246

7.22 0.224

Average Bales/hr

32.8

29.9

33.8

32.2

Cyclone Inlet Velocity ft/min

3434

3389

3325

3,382

Cyclone Flow-Rates Vs Acfm Dscfm

36.43 17,215 15,774

35.96 16,990 15,517

35.28 16,670 15,169

35.89 16,959 15,487

System Flow-Rates Acfm Dscfm

-

-

-

50,876 46,460

Number of Cyclones in System

3 REM - 2003

Page 22 of 120

Plant: Location: Cyclone Dia (In.): Pbar: Run-Time, Ø:

E

Unit: 07-Combined Lint Cleaning 1 Cyclones In System: 3

76.00 29.80 30

Meter Factor: 1.001 Meter Factor: 1.894 Pre-test Leak Check: 0.000

Y ¯H@ cfm

% H2O: 0.022 Meter Temp: 76.0 Pitot Leak Check: OK

pµs: 185.61 pQs: 0.458

Delta P1 - Run: 0.330 pMd: 28.84 pMs: 28.61

¯H + 50 °F: 0.512

Ps in Hg: 29.80

¯p min + 50°F: 0.154 ¯p max + 50°F: 0.615

pVs, ft/sec: 32.94

Acfm: 15,563 pTs Stack: 98.8

in water Cp

Ideal Nd: 0.206

in dia

Input Nd: 0.195

sNd

V ft/sec min: 23.84 V ft/sec max: 47.58

"H2O "H2O

9/22/2010 810-087 68 29.92 20.92

Target D-50

sVmin

Meter Vol: 12.9 Point 1: 2.25 Time Const.

3.92

Vn/Vs x 100:

111.87

Delta H

¯p min: 0.168

sDpmin

"H2O

¯p max: 0.670

sDpmax

¯p max - 50 °F: 0.736

"H2O

Vn ft/sec: 36.85

N2 %

79.03

Delta H: 0.608

sVmax

¯p min - 50°F: 0.185

microns

% Sd in cfm**

Ø: 30.0

in dia

10.10

°F in Hg %

Bws* 2.2% dcCO2: 0.05 °F Stack Dia: 38.00 Post-test Leak Check: 0.000

Closest Nd: 0.214

Delta H

¯H - 50 °F: 0.734

Stack Area pSa: 7.88

6

in Hg min

Bales/hr: 32.75 Static Sp: -0.03 Pitot Factor: 0.840

Date: Job #: Std Temp (Tstd): Std Pressure: dcO2:

min pVms min percent

dscfm: 0.429 DP Sq Ave: 0.566

sVn

pTs

¯P

Elapsed

Ts

Tm °F

Tm °F

¯P

Delta H

°F

"H2O

Time

°F

Inlet

Outlet

"H2O

"H2O

Meter Volume Cubic Feet

98.0

0.260

0.00

101

73

73

0.330

0.608

Initial Reading

5

98.0

0.240

2.25

101

72

72

0.290

0.608

435.782

4

98.0

0.230

4.36

100

72

72

0.270

0.608

Start Time 9:49

3

99.0

0.350

6.40

101

72

72

0.410

0.608

2

99.0

0.530

8.90

102

72

72

0.610

0.608

1

98.0

0.440

11.96

103

72

72

0.600

0.608

6

99.0

0.260

15.00

103

72

72

0.320

0.608

End Time

>10µ Wt:

0.0067

gms.

5

100.0

0.200

17.21

104

72

72

0.260

0.608

10:19

10µ:

0.0086

gr/dscf

3

100.0

0.320

20.96

103

72

72

0.380

0.608

447.992

>10µ:

1.1614

lb/hr

2 1

99.0 98.0

0.510 0.470

23.38 26.39

103 104

72 72

72 72

0.590 0.580

0.608 0.608

Total Volume

10µ Wt:

0.0080

gms.

5

105

0.270

16.95

107

74

74

0.250

0.624

11:38

10µ:

0.0103

gr/dscf

3

104

0.380

20.74

107

74

74

0.370

0.624

472.879

>10µ:

1.3361

lb/hr

2 1

105 105

0.540 0.530

23.18 26.14

108 108

74 74

74 74

0.550 0.490

0.624 0.624

Total Volume

10μ Cyclone Catch: TS-1096 Acetone: 28 g Gross: 732.982 mg

1.90E-03 mg/g Tare: 726.195 mg > 10μ Cyclone Catch

< 10μ Filter: 8L-3456 Gross: 335.712 mg

Tare: 324.553 mg

< 10μ Rinse: TS-1097 Acetone: 10 g Gross: 706.067 mg

1.90E-03 mg/g Tare: 703.578 mg

REM PM-10 - 2007

Page 29 of 120

< 10μ Rinse:

=

2.4694

mg

> 10μ Total Weight: < 10μ Total Weight: Total Weight

= = =

0.0067 0.0136 0.0204

g g g

PARTICULATE WEIGHTS CALCULATION RUN #2 Client : E Site : Unit : 07-Combined Lint Cleaning

Date : 9/22/10 Job #: 810-087 Acetone: 1.2

> 10μ Cyclone Catch # TS-1101 Filter Sample # 8L-3457 < 10μ Rinse # TS-1102

ml to g

SOLUTION BLANKS Acetone - TL-0156 Gross: 681.180 mg

Tare: 681.037 mg

75 0.1427

g mg

-0.0581 6.2387

mg mg

=

6.1806

mg

Net:

10.1110

mg

-0.0185 2.4203

mg mg

Residue:

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

> 10μ Cyclone Catch: TS-1101 Acetone: 31 g Gross: 680.556 mg

1.90E-03 mg/g Tare: 674.318 mg > 10μ Cyclone Catch

< 10μ Filter: 8L-3457 Gross: 329.018 mg

Tare: 318.907 mg

< 10μ Rinse: TS-1102 Acetone: 10 g Gross: 652.831 mg

1.90E-03 mg/g Tare: 650.411 mg

REM PM-10 - 2007

Page 30 of 120

< 10μ Rinse:

=

2.4019

mg

> 10μ Total Weight: < 10μ Total Weight: Total Weight

= = =

0.0062 0.0125 0.0187

g g g

PARTICULATE WEIGHTS CALCULATION RUN #3 Client : E Site : Unit : 07-Combined Lint Cleaning

Date : 9/22/10 Job #: 810-087 Acetone: 1.2

> 10μ Cyclone Catch # TS-1106 Filter Sample # 8L-3458 < 10μ Rinse # TS-1107

ml to g

SOLUTION BLANKS Acetone - TL-0156 Gross: 681.180 mg

Tare: 681.037 mg

75 0.1427

g mg

-0.0483 8.0263

mg mg

=

7.9781

mg

Net:

13.1000

mg

-0.0281 3.4917

mg mg

Residue:

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

> 10μ Cyclone Catch: TS-1106 Acetone: 25 g Gross: 667.949 mg

1.90E-03 mg/g Tare: 659.923 mg > 10μ Cyclone Catch

< 10μ Filter: 8L-3458 Gross: 354.410 mg

Tare: 341.310 mg

< 10μ Rinse: TS-1107 Acetone: 15 g Gross: 647.929 mg

1.90E-03 mg/g Tare: 644.437 mg

REM PM-10 - 2007

Page 31 of 120

< 10μ Rinse:

=

3.4636

mg

> 10μ Total Weight: < 10μ Total Weight: Total Weight

= = =

0.0080 0.0166 0.0245

g g g

Acetone Rinse Client : E Date : 9/22/2010 Location: Job # : 810-087 Unit : 07-Combined Lint Cleaning 1D3D

PM-10

Date: 9/22/10 Run 1

Run 2 Filter ID#: 8L-3456

Run 3 Filter ID#: 8L-3457

Filter ID#: 8L-3458

>10 Start Vol: 300.32 End Vol: 272.63 Total: 27.69 Tub #: TS-1096

g g g

>10 Start Vol: 200.95 End Vol: 170.42 Total: 30.53 Tub #: TS-1101

g g g

>10 Start Vol: 337.09 End Vol: 311.71 Total: 25.38 Tub #: TS-1106

g g g

BY: PHONE:

'

Trouble Reported ~

Shop Time Labor Job Site

q:lO I~

Total Tlme Job Site Labat "(ravel Time

CHECK OUT BALE SCALES

.

Start q:oO

Stop

j I

•

No. of Men

£?

Mileage

Meals

IR

Motel

QTY.

SERVICE WORK ORQER

PART NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

Manufacture b.a¥

:

Model# 4,.=:1-'V Load Cell Capacity Platfonn Model # Platfonn Serial

SN#

UNIT PRICE

----+-------~----------------~----~--~

Cap

y«P

·P O(tJ