Cyclone Robber System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System Particle Size Distribution Characteristics for Cotton Gin D System Two using Method 17 and Laser Diffraction Analyses Part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project

Report ID: 12-PSD-GD2-17 September 2014 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] Mr. Thomas Moore Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University 117 Agricultural Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 (903) 477-2458 [email protected]

, Ph.D.

icultural Engineering versity

8 hone ax

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]

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 66

Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Answered Submitter Review ............................................................................................................ 5 Answered Regulatory Agency Review ............................................................................................. 6 Outlier Tests ...................................................................................................................................... 7 OSU Technical Report ..................................................................................................................... 8 Field and Laboratory Data .............................................................................................................. 30 Process Calibration Documents ..................................................................................................... 47 Dry Gas Meter Calibration.............................................................................................................. 49 Type "S" Pitot Tube Calibration ..................................................................................................... 54 Nozzle Inspection............................................................................................................................ 59 Cyclonic Flow Evaluation............................................................................................................... 62 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................................................ 64 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 66

Page 3 of 66

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 particle size distribution data for the cotton Gin D system two cyclone robber system based on laser diffraction particle size analyses of Method 17 filter and wash samples. As part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project, there were several individual submitted reports for the cotton gin cyclone robber system. These test reports were separated by cotton gin and testing method. For the cyclone robber system there will be 4 Method 17 reports for total PM; 4 Method 201a without a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM and PM10; 4 Method 201a with a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM, PM10 and PM2.5 and 4 Method 17 coupled with particle size analyses for PM10 and PM2.5. The cotton gin identifiers for these reports are Gin A, Gin C, Gin D system one and Gin D system two.

Our submitter review and suggested regulatory review ITRs were developed using the procedures described by the Eastern Research Group (2013). Our answered submitter and regulatory review questions are located on pages 5 and 6. Information corresponding to the regulatory review questions has been highlighted within the reports with the associated questions attached as comments. To see these comments, hover the cursor over or click on the highlighted portions of text. If there are any questions regarding the submitted information, please contact Dr. Michael Buser ([email protected]). Table I.1- Submitter and suggested regulatory ITRs for Gin D System Two, Cyclone Robber System, Method 17 & PSD analyses. Total PM PM10 PM2.5 Submitter Regulatory Emission Factor Emission Factor Emission Factor PM Subset Review Review (lbs/bale) (lbs/bale) (lbs/bale) Total PM Run 1 79 100 0.021 0.012 0.0010 Run 2 79 100 0.014 0.007 0.0005 Run 3 79 100 0.013 0.007 0.0004 79 100 0.016 0.009 0.0006 Average

Page 4 of 66

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. Is a description and drawing of test location provided? Yes Has a description of deviations from published test methods been provided, or is there a statement that deviations were not required to obtain data representative of typical Yes 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 operations and the representativeness of measurements made during the test been Yes 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 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? Yes 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 66

79

Answers to Regulatory Agency Review Questions

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Agency 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 Yes type of testing conducted? A certificate from an independent organization (e.g., STAC, CARB, NELAP) or self declaration provides documentation of competence as an AETB. Was a representative of the regulatory agency on site during the test? Yes Is a description and drawing of test location provided? Yes Is there documentation that the source or the test company sought and obtained approval for deviations from the published test method prior to conducting the test or that the tester's assertion that deviations Yes were not required to obtain data representative of operations that are typical for the facility? Were all test method deviations acceptable? N/A Is a full description of the process and the unit being tested (including installed controls) provided? Yes Has a detailed discussion of source operating conditions, air pollution control device operations and the Yes representativeness of measurements made during the test been provided? Is there documentation that the required process monitors have been calibrated and that the calibration is Yes acceptable? Was the process capacity documented? Yes Was the process operating within an appropriate range for the test program objectives? Yes Were process data concurrent with testing? Yes Were data included in the report for all parameters for which limits will be set? Yes Did the report discuss the representativeness of the facility operations, control device operation, and the measurements of the target pollutants, and were any changes from published test methods or process and Yes control device monitoring protocols identified? Were all sampling issues handled such that data quality was not adversely affected? N/A Was the DGM pre-test calibration within the criteria specified by the test method? Yes Was the DGM post-test calibration within the criteria specified by the test method? Yes Were thermocouple calibrations within method criteria? Yes Was the pitot tube inspection acceptable? Yes Were nozzle inspections acceptable? Yes Were flow meter calibrations acceptable? Yes Were the appropriate number and location of sampling points used? (Method 1) Yes Did the cyclonic flow evaluation show the presence of an acceptable average gas flow angle? Yes Were all data required by the method recorded? Yes Were required leak checks performed and did the checks meet method requirements? Yes Was the required minimum sample volume collected? Yes Did probe, filter, and impinger exit temperatures meet method criteria (as applicable)? N/A Did isokinetic sampling rates meet method criteria? Yes Was the sampling time at each point greater than 2 minutes and the same for each point? Yes Was the recovery process consistent with the method? Yes Were all required blanks collected in the field? Yes Where performed, were blank corrections handled per method requirements? Yes Were sample volumes clearly marked on the jar or measured and recorded? Yes Was the laboratory certified/accredited to perform these analyses? Yes Did the laboratory note the sample volume upon receipt? Yes

35

If sample loss occurred, was the compensation method used documented and approved for the method?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Were the physical characteristics of the samples (e.g., color, volume, integrity, pH, temperature) recorded and consistent with the method? Were sample hold times within method requirements? Does the laboratory report document the analytical procedures and techniques? Were all laboratory QA requirements documented? Were analytical standards required by the method documented? Were required laboratory duplicates within acceptable limits? Were required spike recoveries within method requirements? Were method-specified analytical blanks analyzed? If problems occurred during analysis, is there sufficient documentation to conclude that the problems did not adversely affect the sample results? Was the analytical detection limit specified in the test report? Is the reported detection limit adequate for the purposes of the test program? Do the chain-of-custody forms indicate acceptable management of collected samples between collection and analysis?

Page 6 of 66

N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes

100

Outlier Tests The following residual plots compare the cyclone robber 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 201a with a PM2.5 cyclone for PM2.5. The highlighted points in the graphs indicate data included in this report.

Residuals

Cyclone Robber System PM10 Residuals 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Test Runs

Cyclone Robber System PM2.5 Residuals

Residuals

1.5

1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5

-1.0 0

5

10

15

Test Runs

Page 7 of 66

20

25

30

OSU Technical Report OSU13-13 Ver. 2.0 – Particle Size Distribution Characteristics of Cotton Gin Cyclone Robber System Total Particulate Emissions Note: Contains field and lab data for Gin D system two only.

Page 8 of 66

ABSTRACT This report is part of a project to characterize cotton gin emissions from the standpoint of total particulate stack sampling and particle size analyses. In 2013, EPA published a more stringent standard for particulate matter with nominal diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm (PM2.5). This created an urgent need to collect additional cotton gin emissions data to address current regulatory issues, because EPA AP-42 cotton gin PM2.5 emission factors did not exist. In addition, current EPA AP-42 emission factor quality ratings for cotton gin PM10 (particulate matter with nominal diameter less than or equal to 10 µm) data are questionable and extremely low. The objective of this study was to characterize particulate emissions for cyclone robber systems from cotton gins located in regions across the cotton belt based on EPA-approved total particulate stack sampling methodologies and particle size analyses. Average measured PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 emission factors based on the mass and particle size analyses of EPA Method 17 total particulate filter and wash samples from three gins (12 total test runs) were 0.00042 kg/227-kg bale (0.00093 lb/500-lb bale), 0.0061 kg/bale (0.013 lb/bale), and 0.0057 kg/bale (0.013 lb/bale), respectively. The cyclone robber system particle size distributions were characterized by an average mass median diameter of 20.28 µm (aerodynamic equivalent diameter) and a geometric standard deviation of 3.99. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 2.1%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 6.9%, PM10 to total was 30%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 28%. Particle size distribution based system average PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors were 23% and 60% of those measured for this project utilizing EPA-approved methods. The particle sized distribution based PM10 emission factor was 26% of that currently published in EPA AP-42.

INTRODUCTION In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a more stringent standard for particulate matter (PM) with a particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5m (PM2.5) aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED) (CFR, 2013). The cotton industry’s primary concern with this standard was that there were no published cotton gin PM2.5 emissions data. Also, EPA emission factors published in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42 (EPA, 1996b), are assigned a rating that is used to assess the quality of the data being referenced. The ratings can range from A (Excellent) to E (Poor). Current EPA emission factor

Page 9 of 66

quality ratings for PM with a particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10-m (PM10) AED from cotton gins are extremely low. Cotton gin data received these low ratings because it was 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 PM2.5 and PM10 cotton gin emissions data to address the implementation of the PM2.5 standards and current regulatory issues concerning PM10 emission factors. Current EPA-approved methodology to measure PM2.5 and PM10 point source emissions, Method 201A, utilizes size selective particulate samplers (EPA, 2010). Buser et al. (2007a) defined a true concentration as the concentration of particles with an AED less than the size of interest. A true PM10 concentration would correspond to the concentration of only particles with an AED less than 10 m. This differs from a size selective sampler concentration in that the sampler design allows for some particles with an AED less than 10 m to be scrubbed out of the airstream by the pre-collector and some of the particles with an AED greater than 10 m to pass through the pre-collector and deposit on the filter. Buser et al. (2007 b,c) reported that size selective ambient PM samplers could over-estimate PM concentrations when the particle size distribution (PSD) mass median diameter (MMD) of the sampled PM is larger than the sampler cutpoint. Buser et al. (2007b) reported that measurements from an ambient PM10 sampler could theoretically produce a concentration equivalent to the true PM10 concentration when the PSD MMD of the sampled PM was 10 m AED. Buser et al. (2007c) reported that PM2.5 ambient sampler measurements could theoretically produce a concentration that was 13 times the true PM2.5 concentration when the PSD MMD of the PM entrained in the air being sampled was 10 m AED with a GSD of 1.5. This body of work that compares sampler to true concentrations raises questions regarding sampler effectiveness and points to a critical need for additional source specific PSD information. 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. Buser et al. (2012) provided the details of this sampling plan. This report is part of a series that details cotton gin emission factors developed from coupling total particulate stack sampling concentrations and particle size analyses. Each manuscript in the

Page 10 of 66

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 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 the characterization of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from cyclone robber systems. Cotton Ginning 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 occur during ginning, such as cleaning, drying and packaging the lint. Pneumatic conveying systems are the primary method of material handling in a 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 particulate matter (PM) emitted by a system varies with the process and the composition of the material being processed. Cotton ginning is a seasonal industry with the ginning season lasting from 75 to 120 days, depending on the crop size and condition. Although the general trend for U.S. cotton production has remained flat at about 17 million bales per year during the last 20 years, production from one year to the next often varies greatly for various reasons, including climate and market pressure. The number of active gins in the U.S. has not remained constant, steadily declining to fewer than 700 in 2011. Consequently, the average cotton gin production capacity has increased to an approximate average of 25 bales per hour across the U.S. cotton belt (Valco et al., 2003, 2006, 2009, 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. 1); 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

Page 11 of 66

into large units called “modules” for delivery to the gin. The unloading system removes seed cotton either mechanically or pneumatically from the module feeding system and conveys the seed cotton to the seed-cotton cleaning systems. Seed-cotton cleaning systems assist in 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. 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 byproducts 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.

Figure 1. Typical modern cotton gin layout (Courtesy Lummus Corporation, Savannah, GA).

Page 12 of 66

Cyclone robber systems are typically used to remove material captured by battery condenser and lint cleaning system cyclones (Fig. 2). Material captured by these cyclones must be handled and conveyed from the trash exit of the cyclone or the materials would build up and eventually choke or block the airflow in the cyclone, reducing or stopping its cleaning ability. In the case of cyclones that handle airstreams laden with higher amounts of lint (battery condenser and lint cleaning cyclones), it may not be practical to convey the high-lint-content material mechanically, as the lint tends to “rope-up” and collect on the moving parts. Also, this high-lintcontent material, referred to as “motes”, has considerable value, especially when cleaned. Thus, this material is pulled by suction from the trash exit of the cyclones and pneumatically conveyed via a cyclone robber system to another cyclone that drops the motes either directly into another trash system or a machine for cleaning. The material handled by the cyclone robber cyclones typically includes small trash and particulate and large amounts of lint fibers (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Typical cotton gin cyclone robber system layout (Courtesy Lummus Corporation, Savannah, GA).

Figure 3. Photograph of typical trash captured by the cyclone robber system cyclones.

Cyclones Cyclones are the most common PM 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. 4) 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. 4) 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 13 of 66

Figure 4. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics. Cotton Gin Emission Factors EPA emission factors for cotton gins are published in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42 (EPA, 1996b). The 1996 EPA AP-42 total particulate emission factor for the cyclone robber was 0.083 kg (0.18 lb) per 217-kg [480-lb] equivalent bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This emission factor was based on one test. The EPA emission factor quality rating was D, which is the second lowest possible rating (EPA, 1996a). The 1996 EPA AP-42 average PM10 emission factor for the cyclone robber was 0.024 kg (0.052 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This was also based on a single test and the EPA emission factor quality rating was also D. Currently there are no PM2.5 emission factor data listed in the EPA AP-42 for cotton gins. Buser et al. (2012) discussed the project plan of a large-scale project focused on developing cotton gin PM emission factors. Part of this project was focused on developing PM emission factors based on EPA-approved methodologies. Three studies focused on cyclone robber systems evolved out of the Buser et al. (2012) project plan. Buser et al. (2014) reported on one study that used EPA Method 17 to

Page 14 of 66

measure total particulate emission factors for the cyclone robber systems. The system average total particulate emission factor was 0.020 kg (0.045 lb) per 227 kg (500-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.012 to 0.029 kg (0.027-0.064 lb) per bale. Whitelock et al. (2014) reported on a second study that used EPA Method 201A with only the PM10 sizing cyclone to measure cyclone robber system PM10 and total particulate emission factors. The system average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were 0.010 kg/227-kg bale (0.022 lb/500-lb bale) and 0.018 kg/bale (0.040 lb/bale), respectively. In the third study, reported by Boykin et al. (2013), EPA Method 201A with both the PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones was used to measure PM2.5, PM10 and total particulate emission factors. The average measured PM2.5 emission factor was 0.0018 kg/227-kg bale (0.0040 lb/500-lb bale). The PM10 and total particulate average emission factors were 0.012 kg/bale (0.027 lb/bale) and 0.022 kg/bale (0.048 lb/bale), respectively. PSD analyses have been utilized in conjunction with total particulate sampling methods to calculate PM emissions concentration and factors for agricultural operations for more than thirty years. Some examples include: cattle feedlot operations (Sweeten et al. 1998), poultry production facilities (Lacey et al., 2003), nut harvesting operations (Faulkner et al., 2009), grain handling (Boac et al., 2009), swine finishing (Barber et al., 1991) and cotton ginning (Hughs and Wakelyn, 1997). Buser and Whitelock (2007) reported cotton ginning emission concentrations based on EPA approved PM2.5, PM10, and total particulate stack sampling methods and PSD analyses of the total particulate samples coupled with the total particulate concentrations to calculate PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations. The MMD of the PM in the samples ranged from 6 to 8 m. The study results indicated that the PSD and EPA sampler based PM10 concentrations were in good agreement while the PM2.5 EPA sampler concentrations ranged from 5.8 to 13.3 times the PSD based concentrations. The primary objective of this study was to develop PSD characteristics for the PM emitted from cotton gin cyclone robber systems. The secondary objective was to develop PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors for cotton gin cyclone robber systems equipped with cyclones on the system exhausts based on EPA-approved total particulate stack sampling methodologies and PSD analyses.

METHODS Seven cotton gins were sampled across the cotton belt for the overarching project. Key factors for selecting specific cotton gins included: 1) facility location (geographically diverse), 2) production capacity (industry representative), 3) processing systems (typical for industry) and 4) particulate abatement technologies (properly designed and maintained 1D3D cyclones). Three of the seven gins were equipped with cyclone robber systems. The cyclone robber systems sampled were typical for the industry, but varied among the gins. For the cyclone robber system at gin A,

Page 15 of 66

trash from the cyclones for three 1st stage lint cleaning systems, three 2nd stage lint cleaning systems, and the battery condenser system was deposited into an auger. The auger then fed the cyclone robber pneumatic system that conveyed the material through a fan to one or more cyclones. The cyclone robber system at gin C pneumatically conveyed the trash directly from the cyclone trash exits (there was no auger) of two 1st stage lint cleaning systems, two 2nd stage lint cleaning systems, and the battery condenser system through a fan to one or more cyclones. There were two cyclone robber systems at gin D. One cyclone robber system conveyed trash directly from the cyclones that controlled emissions from combined 1st and 2nd stage lint cleaner systems through a fan to one or more cyclones. The other cyclone robber system at gin D conveyed trash directly from only the battery condenser system cyclones. Buser et al. (2014) provides system flow diagrams for the cyclone robber systems that were tested. All cyclone robber systems sampled utilized 1D3D cyclones to control emissions (Fig. 4), but there were some cyclone design variations among the gins. The system airstream for gin A and one of the cyclone robber systems at gin D was exhausted through a single cyclone. Gin C and one of the cyclone robber systems at gin D, split the system exhaust flow between two cyclones in a dual configuration (side-by-side as opposed to one-behind-another). Inlets on all the cyclone robber cyclones were 2D2D type, except gin A that had inverted 1D3D inlets. Expansion chambers were present on cyclone robber cyclones at gins A and C. Gin D had standard cones. All of the cyclone variations outlined above, if properly designed and maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin emissions (Whitelock et al., 2009). Buser et al. (2014) provides detailed descriptions of the abatement cyclones that were tested. EPA Method 17 Stack Sampling The samples utilized for the PSD analyses and gravimetric sample data used in developing the PSD characteristics and PSD based emission factors were obtained from EPA Method 17 stack testing that was conducted at the three gins with cyclone robber systems as part of the overarching project. The Method 17 sampling methods and the procedures for retrieving the filter and conducting acetone wash of the sampler nozzle are described in the EPA Method 17 documentation (CFR, 1978). Further details of the project specific sampling methods, procedures, and results of the EPA Method 17 stack testing were reported by Buser et al. (2014).

Page 16 of 66

Laboratory Analysis All laboratory analyses were conducted at the USDA-ARS Air Quality Lab (AQL) in Lubbock, TX. All filters were conditioned in an environmental chamber (21 ± 2oC [70 ± 3.6oF]; 35 ± 5% RH) for 48 h prior to gravimetric analyses. Filters were weighed in the environmental chamber on a Mettler 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 digitally 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. Particle Size Analysis A Beckman Coulter LS230 laser diffraction system (Beckman Coulter Inc., Miami, FL) with software version 3.29 was used to perform the particle size analyses on the filter and wash samples. The instrument sizes particles with diameters ranging from 0.4 to 2000 µm. For this project the LS230 fluid module was used with a 5% lithium chloride/methanol suspension fluid mixture that had a fluid refractive index of 1.326. Approximately 10-L batches of the suspension fluid were prepared and stored in a self-contained, recirculating, filtration system equipped with 0.2 µm filters to keep the fluid well mixed and free of larger particles. Prior to each test run a background particle check was performed on the fluid to help minimize particulate contamination from non-sample sources. The process of analyzing the samples included the following steps: 1) pour approximately 40 mL of clean suspension fluid into a clean 100-mL beaker; 2) transfer a particulate sample to the 100-mL beaker with clean suspension fluid, a. for 47 mm filter media, remove the filter from the Petri dish with tweezers and place the filter in the 100-mL beaker with the suspension fluid, b. for the wash samples contained in a sample tub, use a small amount of the suspension fluid and a sterile foam swab to transfer the sample from the tub to the 100-mL beaker;

Page 17 of 66

3) place the 100-mL beaker in an ultrasonic bath for 5 min to disperse the PM sample in the fluid; 4) using a sterile pipette, gradually introduce the PM and suspension fluid mixture into clean suspension fluid that is being monitored by the LS230 until an obscuration level of 10% is reached; 5) activate the LS230 system to measure the diffraction patterns and calculate the PSD; 6) repeat step 5 a total of three times and average the results; and 7) drain and flush/clean the LS230 system. The optical model used in calculating the PSD was based on real and imaginary refractive indices for the sample of 1.56 and 0.01, respectively. These refractive index values are valid for quartz, clay minerals, silica and feldspars (Buurman et al. 2001). Wang-Li et al. (2013) and Buser (2004) provide additional details on the PSD methodology. The LS230 PSD results are in the form of particle volume versus equivalent spherical diameter. The PSD results were converted to particle volume versus AED using the following equation:  p   d a  d p   w 

1/ 2

where w is the density of water with a value of 1 g/cm3, p is the particle density, and is the dynamic shape factor. The dynamic shape factor was determined to be 1.4 based on Hinds (1982) factors for quartz and sand dust. The particle density was determined to be 2.65 g/cm3 based on an unpublished study by Buser (2013). This study used a helium displacement AccuPyc 1330 Pyconometer (Micromeritics, Norcross, GA) to determine the particle density of cotton gin waste that passed through a No. 200 sieve (particles that pass through a 74 m sieve opening). The study was based on 3 random samples collected at 43 different cotton gins. Results obtained from each average adjusted PSD included: MMD, GSD, mass fraction of PM with diameter less than or equal to 10 μm (PM10), mass fraction of PM with diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm (PM10-2.5), and mass fraction of PM with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm (PM2.5). This information was coupled with the corresponding Method 17 sample mass to calculate the PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 emission factors using the following equation:

Page 18 of 66

)

((

(

)

)

where EFi = emission factor for particle in the size range i; EFtot= total particulate emission factor obtained from total particulate tests (Buser et al., 2014); MF = total mass of particulate on filter; MW = total mass of particulate in nozzle wash; wFi = mass fraction of particles on the filter in the size range i; and wWi = mass fraction of particles in the nozzle wash in the size range i.

RESULTS The cyclone robber systems sampled were typical for the industry. The system average ginning rate was 27.5 bales/h and the test average ginning rate at each gin ranged from 16.4 to 35.9 bales/h (based on 227-kg [500-lb] equivalent bales). 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), except test runs two and three at gin A that were outside the design range due to limitations in available system adjustments. There are criteria specified in EPA Method 17 for test runs to be valid for total particulate measurements (CFR, 1978). Isokinetic sampling must fall within EPA defined range of 100 ± 10%. All tests met the isokinetic criteria. The stack gas temperatures ranged from 11 to 39oC (53-102oF) and moisture content ranged from 0.6 to 2.8%. The individual systems and cyclone design variations were discussed by Buser et al. (2014). The PSD characteristics and mass of the PM captured on the filters are shown in Table 1. The mass of the PM captured on the filter accounted for 50 to 88% of the total PM (filter and wash) collected from the individual test runs. The system average MMD and GSD for particulate on the filters were 17.91 µm AED and 4.46, respectively. Test averages ranged from 7.75 to 55.47 µm AED for MMD and from 2.40 to 4.54 for GSD. The test and system averages are based on averaging PSDs and not averaging individual test results. The mass fraction of PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 ranged from 0.85 to 3.97%, 8.5 to 61.2%, and 7.6 to 57.2%, respectively. Filter PM PSDs for the three gins and the system average are shown in Figure 5. In general, the PSD curves for the PM captured on the filters for gins had similar shapes. The shift to the right

Page 19 of 66

and wider particle diameter range illustrates the larger MMD and GSD of the gin A distribution, while the PSD for gin D (system 2) exhibits characteristics of much smaller MMD and GSD.

Table 1. EPA Method 17 filter particle size distribution data for the cyclone robber system.

1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

Sample Total mg 38.19 49.31 44.69

4.22 4.18 5.07 4.54

PM2.5 % 0.94 0.89 0.73 0.85

PM10-2.5 % 8.8 7.8 6.2 7.6

PM10 % 9.8 8.7 6.9 8.5

12.12 14.23 12.04 12.70

2.75 3.43 2.94 3.04

2.35 2.12 2.41 2.29

40.1 35.7 40.5 38.8

42.4 37.9 42.9 41.1

8.15 6.97 7.68


21.94 23.61 24.79 23.40

4.08 4.51 4.62 4.42

1.95 1.65 1.53 1.71

24.9 23.7 22.6 23.7

26.9 25.3 24.2 25.4

11.79 14.67 15.77

7.32 7.86 8.06 7.75

2.43 2.35 2.41 2.40

4.98 3.48 3.46 3.97

58.2 57.5 56.0 57.2

63.2 61.0 59.5 61.2

12.70 7.48 7.14

Test


System

Average (n=4)

17.91

4.46

2.21

31.8

34.0

Gin A

Test C

Test D (System 1) Test D (System 2)

z

Geometric Standard Deviation

Test Run 1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

Mass Median Diameter µm AED 48.52 53.11 68.64 55.47

z

Based on averaged particle size distributions

The PSD characteristics and mass of the PM captured in the washes are shown in Table 2. The mass of the PM captured in the sampler nozzle and retrieved in the wash accounted for 12 to 50% of the total PM (filter and wash) collected from the individual test runs. The system average MMD and GSD were 23.47 µm AED and 2.88, respectively. Test average MMDs ranged from 15.20 to 39.80 µm AED and GSDs ranged from 2.54 to 2.89. The mass fraction of PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 ranged from 1.13 to 2.91%, 10.6 to 35.7%, and 9.3 to 32.8%, respectively. PSDs for the PM captured in the nozzle for the three gins and the system average are shown in Figure 6. In general, the PSD curves for the PM captured in the washes for gins A, C, and D had similar shapes, but the MMDs were substantially different from gin to gin.

Page 20 of 66

Figure 5. Gin average particle size distributions for the PM captured on a EPA-Method 17 filter from the cyclone robber systems.

Table 2. EPA Method 17 nozzle wash particle size distribution data for the cyclone robber system.


Sample Total mg 5.75 6.57 5.89

2.66 2.34 2.99 2.63

PM2.5 % 1.29 1.26 1.33 1.29

PM10-2.5 % 9.7 9.1 9.0 9.3

PM10 % 11.0 10.4 10.3 10.6

18.95 23.17 23.58 21.78

2.87 2.65 2.83 2.79

2.75 2.00 1.50 2.08

24.7 19.7 20.7 21.7

27.5 21.7 22.2 23.8

5.56 6.98 3.94


22.83 22.88 22.77 22.83

2.57 2.67 2.42 2.54

1.45 0.67 1.27 1.13

20.5 21.6 20.7 20.9

21.9 22.3 21.9 22.1

5.01 2.76 3.26

13.65 16.75 15.62 15.20

2.59 4.03 2.86 2.89

3.82 2.72 2.19 2.91

35.4 30.9 32.1 32.8

39.2 33.6 34.3 35.7

4.81 3.15 3.06

Test


System

Average (n=4)

23.47

2.88

1.85

21.2

23.0

Gin A

Test C


z




z


Page 21 of 66

Figure 6. Gin average particle size distributions for the PM captured in the EPA-Method 17 sampler nozzle wash from the cyclone robber systems.

The combined PSD characteristics for the PM captured on the filter and PM captured in the wash are shown in Table 3. The cyclone robber system average combined filter and wash PSD MMD was 20.28 µm AED (9.08 to 52.24 µm test average range) and GSD was 3.99 (2.64 to 4.27 test average range). The combined filter and wash PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 mass fractions ranged from 0.91 to 3.67%, 8.7 to 53.8%, and 7.8 to 50.1%, respectively. Combined PM PSDs for the three gins and the system average are shown in Figure 7. These combined PSDs were similar among gins and were more consistent with the filter PSDs than the wash PSDs. This was expected since the majority of the PM mass was captured on the filter as compared to the nozzle wash.

Page 22 of 66

Table 3. EPA Method 17 combined filter and wash particle size distribution data for the cyclone robber system.


4.00 3.92 4.88 4.27

PM2.5 % 0.99 0.94 0.80 0.91

PM10-2.5 % 8.9 8.0 6.5 7.8

PM10 % 9.9 8.9 7.3 8.7

14.52 18.56 15.09 15.92

2.92 3.06 3.12 3.05

2.51 2.06 2.10 2.22

33.9 27.7 33.8 31.8

36.4 29.8 35.9 34.0


22.25 23.46 24.32 23.31

3.26 3.94 3.95 3.66

1.80 1.49 1.48 1.59

23.6 23.4 22.3 23.1

25.4 24.8 23.8 24.7

Test


8.42 9.30 9.53 9.08

2.58 2.75 2.64 2.64

4.66 3.25 3.08 3.67

51.9 49.6 48.9 50.1

56.6 52.9 51.9 53.8

System

Average (n=4)

20.28

3.99

2.10

28.2

30.3

Gin A

Test C


z




z


Figure 7. Gin average particle size distributions for the EPA-Method 17 combined filter and wash samples from the cyclone robber systems.

Page 23 of 66

The PSD based emission factors for the cyclone robber systems are shown in Table 4. The system average PM2.5 emission factor was 0.00042 kg/bale (0.00093 lb/bale). PM2.5 emission factors ranged from 0.00010 to 0.00072 kg (0.00021-0.0016 lb) per bale. The cyclone robber system average PM10 emission factor was 0.0061 kg/bale (0.013 lb/bale). The PM10 emission factors ranged from 0.00089 to 0.010 kg/bale (0.0020-0.023 lb/bale). The cyclone robber system average PM10-2.5 emission factor was 0.0057 kg/bale (0.013 lb/bale) and ranged from 0.00079 to 0.0097 kg (0.0017-0.021 lb) per bale. The ratios of PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, PM10 to total, and PM10-2.5 to total, based on the system averages, were 2.1, 6.9, 30, and 28%, respectively. Table 4. EPA Method 17 total particulate and particle size distribution based PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 emission factor data for the cyclone robber system. y

Total kg/balez lb/balez 0.011 0.024 0.014 0.031 0.012 0.027

x

PM10 kg/balez lb/balez 0.0011 0.0024 0.0012 0.0027 0.00089 0.0020

x

PM10-2.5 kg/balez lb/balez 0.00097 0.0021 0.0011 0.0024 0.00079 0.0017

x

PM2.5 kg/balez lb/balez 0.00011 0.00024 0.00013 0.00029 0.00010 0.00021

Gin A

Test Run 1 2 3

C

1 2 3

0.027 0.035 0.025

0.059 0.077 0.054

0.0098 0.010 0.0089

0.021 0.023 0.020

0.0091 0.0097 0.0083

0.020 0.021 0.018

0.00067 0.00072 0.00052

0.0015 0.0016 0.0011

D (System 1)

1 2 3

0.011 0.012 0.013

0.025 0.027 0.029

0.0029 0.0030 0.0031

0.0063 0.0066 0.0069

0.0027 0.0028 0.0029

0.0059 0.0062 0.0065

0.00020 0.00018 0.00020

0.00045 0.00040 0.00043

D (System 2)

1 2 3

0.010 0.0064 0.0058

0.021 0.014 0.013

0.0054 0.0034 0.0030

0.012 0.0075 0.0066

0.0049 0.0032 0.0028

0.011 0.0070 0.0062

0.00044 0.00021 0.00018

0.00098 0.00046 0.00039

System

Average

0.020

0.045

0.0061

0.013

0.0057

0.013

0.00042

0.00093

z

227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales y Taken from Buser et al. (2014) x Factors are the product of the corresponding PM percentage from Table 3 and the total particulate emission factor. The PSD based cyclone robber system PM2.5 emission factor was approximately 23% of the PM2.5 emission factor reported by Boykin et al. (2013) and measured using EPA Method 201A, 0.0018 kg (0.0040 lb) per bale. The PSD based cyclone robber system PM10 emission factor was 26% of the EPA AP-42 published value for the cyclone robber, 0.024 kg (0.052 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a). Also, the PSD based system PM10 emission factor was 60% of the Method 201A (PM10 sizing cyclone only) PM10 emission factor reported by Whitelock et al. (2014), 0.010 kg (0.022 lb) per bale and 49% of the Method 201A (PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones) PM10 emission factor reported by Boykin et al. (2013), 0.012 kg

Page 24 of 66

(0.027 lb) per bale. The differences among the methods may be attributed to several sources. First, due to constraints in the EPA methods, the three studies utilizing Method 17 for total particulate sampling and PSD analyses, Method 201A for PM10 sampling, and Method 201A for PM2.5 and PM10 sampling could not be conducted simultaneously. Combined with the fact that emissions from cotton ginning can vary with the condition of incoming cotton, PM concentrations measured among the three studies may have varied. Second, for reasons described by Buser (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) and documented by Buser and Whitelock (2007), some larger particles may penetrate the Method 201A sampler PM10 or PM2.5 sizing cyclones and collect on the filter. Finally, cotton fibers have a cross-sectional diameter much larger than 10 m and are difficult to scrub out of air streams. These fibers may cycle in the sizing cyclones and pass through to deposit on the filters. This behavior was observed during some of the Method 201A testing where cotton fibers were found in Method 201A sampler washes and on filters (Fig. 8). Currently there are no EPA approved guidelines to adjust Method 201A PM10 or PM2.5 concentration measurements to account for these fibers.

Figure 8. Example EPA Method 201A filter and sampler head acetone washes with lint (indicated by arrows) in the washes and on the filter. Clockwise from top left: > 10 µm wash, 10 to 2.5 µm wash, ≤ 2.5 µm wash, and filter.

Page 25 of 66

SUMMARY Seven cotton gins across the U.S. cotton belt were sampled using EPA-approved methods to fill the data gap that exists for PM2.5 cotton gin emissions data and to collect additional data to improve the EPA AP-42 total and PM10 emission factor quality ratings for cotton gins. Samples were further analyzed to characterize the PSD of the particulate measured. Three of the seven gins had cyclone robber systems that used pneumatic conveyance and had exhaust airstreams that were not combined with another system. All tested systems were similar in design and typical of the ginning industry and were equipped with 1D3D cyclones for emissions control. In terms of capacity, the three gins were typical of the industry, averaging 27.5 bales/h during testing. The average PSD based cyclone robber system PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 emission factors from the three gins tested (12 total test runs) were 0.00042 kg/227-kg bale (0.00093 lb/500-lb bale), 0.0061 kg/bale (0.013 lb/bale), and 0.0057 kg/bale (0.013 lb/bale), respectively. The system average PSD based PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors were less than those measured for this project utilizing EPA-approved methods and the PM10 emission factor was less than that currently published in EPA AP-42. The PSDs were characterized by an average MMD of 20.28 µm AED and a GSD of 3.99. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 2.1%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 6.9%, PM10 to total was 30%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 28%.

Page 26 of 66

REFERENCES

Barber, E.M., J.R. Dawson, V.A. Battams, R.A.C. Nicol. 1991. Spatial variability of airborne and settled dust in a piggery. J Agric. Eng. Res. 50(2):107-127. Boac, J.M., R.G. Maghirang, M.E. Casada, J.D. Wilson, Y.S. Jung. 2009. Size distribution and rate of dust generated during grain elevator handling, Appl. Eng. Agric. 25(4):533-541. Boykin, J.C., M.D. Buser, D.P. Whitelock, and G.A. Holt. 2013. Cyclone robber system PM2.5 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A combination PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. 17:414-424. 2013. Buser, M.D. 2004. Errors associated with particulate matter measurements on rural sources: appropriate basis for regulating cotton gins. Ph.D. diss. Texas A&M Univ., College Station. Buser, M.D., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and R.E. Lacey. 2007a. Particulate matter sampler errors due to the interaction of particle size and sampler performance characteristics: background and theory. Trans. ASABE. 50(1): 221-228. Buser, M.D., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and R.E. Lacey. 2007b. Particulate matter sampler errors due to the interaction of particle size and sampler performance characteristics: ambient PM2.5 samplers. Trans. ASABE. 50(1): 241-254. Buser, M.D., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and R.E. Lacey. 2007c. Particulate matter sampler errors due to the interaction of particle size and sampler performance characteristics: ambient PM10 samplers. Trans. ASABE. 50(1): 229-240. Buser, M.D. and D.P. Whitelock. 2007. Preliminary field evaluation of EPA Method CTM-039 (PM2.5 stack sampling method). 10 pp. In Proc. World Cotton Conference -4, Lubbock, TX. 10-14 Sep, 2007. International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C. 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(2).105-116. Buser, M.D., D.P. Whitelock, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2014. Cyclone robber system total particulate emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 17. J. Cotton Sci. (In Review)

Page 27 of 66

Buurman, P., Th. Pape, J.A. Reijneveld, F. de Jong, and E. van Gelder. 2001. Laser-diffraction and pipette-method grain sizing of Dutch sediments: correlations for fine fractions of marine, fluvial, and loess samples. Neth. J. Geosci. 80(2). 49-57. CFR. 1978. Method 17—Determination of particulate emissions from stationary sources (instack filtration method). 40 CFR 60 Appendix A-6. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-17.pdf (verified August 2012). CFR. 2013. National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; final rule. 40 CFR, Part 50. Available at http:// http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-15/pdf/201230946.pdf (verified July 2014). EPA. 1996a. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section 9.7, Cotton Ginning, (EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159; MRI Project No. 4603-01, April 1996). 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. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Frequently asked questions (FAQS) for Method 201A [Online]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method201a.html (verified 01 Jan. 2013). Faulkner, W.B., L.B. Goodrich, V.S. Botlaguduru, S.C. Capareda, and C.B. Parnell. 2009. Particulate matter emission factors for almond harvest as a function of harvester speed. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 59(8):943-9. Hinds, W.C. 1982. Aerosol Technology; Properties, Behavior and Measurement of Airborne Particles. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience 1st Ed. Hughs, S.E. and P.J. Wakelyn. 1997. Physical characteristics of cyclone particulate emissions. Appl. Eng. Aric. 13(4) p. 531-535. Lacey, R.E., J.S. Redwine, and C.B. Parnell, Jr. 2003. Particulate matter and ammonia emission factors for tunnel – ventilated broiler production houses in the Southern U.S. Trans. ASABE 46(4):1203-1214. Sweeten, J.M., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and B.W. Auverman. 1998. Particle size distribution of cattle feedlot dust emission. Trans. ASABE 41(5):1477-1481.

Page 28 of 66

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., Cordova, 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., Cordova, 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. Wang-Li, L., Z. Cao, M. Buser, D. Whitelock, C.B. Parnell, and Y. Zhang. 2013. Techniques for measuring particle size distribution of particulate matter emitted from animal feeding operations. J. Atmospheric Environment. 66(2013): 25-32. 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., M.D. Buser, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2014. Cyclone robber system PM10 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A PM10 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. (In Review) Whitelock, D.P., C.B. Armijo, M.D. Buser, and S.E. Hughs. 2009 Using cyclones effectively at cotton gins. Appl. Eng. Ag. 25(4): 563-576.

Page 29 of 66

Gin D (Second System) Field and Laboratory Data

Page 30 of 66

Gin: D Exhaust: #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D Date: 2009

Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Based on EPA Method 17

Based on EPA Method 17

Total PM

Total PM Run 1 0.7169 Run 2 0.4164 Run 3 0.4133 Average 0.5155 Condensables Run 1 0.0000 Run 2 0.0000 Run 3 0.0000 Average 0.0000

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Condensables Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

0.0210 0.0141 0.0127 0.0159 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 31 of 66

Method 5 Data Average Sheet D #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D 11/1/09 Raw Test Data Run 1 30.15 1.02 0.84 0.01 20.90 0.05 68.0 91.5 66.4 0.30 0.54 0.29 6.50 17.29 24.00 0.00017 60

Run 2 30.15 1.02 0.84 0.01 20.90 0.05 68.0 89.8 65.4 0.34 0.58 0.33 12.10 19.24 24.00 0.00017 60

Run 3 30.10 1.02 0.84 0.01 20.90 0.05 68.0 72.2 65.5 0.36 0.60 0.35 8.60 19.66 24.00 0.00017 60

Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) Standard Temperature (deg R) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) Temperature of Meter (deg.R) Water vapor standard (scf) Sample gas volume (dscf) Moisture Content Stack Gas Dry % Nitrogen Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) Area of Stack (Ft^2)

Run 1 30.15 528.0 551.5 526.4 0.31 17.90 0.017 79.05 28.84 28.66 3.14

Run 2 30.15 528.0 549.8 525.4 0.57 19.97 0.028 79.05 28.84 28.54 3.14

Run 3 30.10 528.0 532.2 525.5 0.40 20.36 0.019 79.05 28.84 28.63 3.14

Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec) Stack Gas Flowrate (Acfm) Stack Gas Flowrate (Dscfm) Cyclone Inlet Velocity (ft/min) Isokinetic Variation (%)

Run 1 31.0 5,840 5,540 2920 101.28

Run 2 33.4 6,289 5,917 3144 105.78

Run 3 33.8 6,371 6,235 3186 102.34

Run 1 0.018 0.015 0.72 34.21 0.021 1 0.021

Run 2 0.011 0.008 0.42 29.48 0.014 1 0.014

Run 3 0.010 0.008 0.41 32.59 0.013 1 0.013

Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry % Oxygen Dry % Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle Sample duration (min)

Average 30.13 1.02 Y Cp 0.84 Pg 0.01 20.90 %O2 0.05 %CO2 tsd 68.0 ts 84.5 65.8 tm 0.33 ∆P √∆P 0.57 ∆H 0.33 Vlc 9.07 Vm 18.73 Ds 24.00 An 0.000167 Time 60 Pbar

Intermediate Calculaions Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms As

Average 30.13 528.0 544.5 525.8 0.43 19.41 0.021 79.05 28.84 28.61 3.14

Results Vs Qa Qstd Invs I

Average 32.7 6,167 5,897 3,083 103.13

Calculated Emission Results Particulate Weight (g) Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr) Standard 500 lb Hour (bale/hr) Particulate lb/bale Cyclones in sysytem Total System Particulate lb/bale

REM - 2003

Page 32 of 66

Ws Cs CFs Sbl/hr Cfbale #Cy Tsys

Average 0.013 0.010 0.52 32.10 0.016 1 0.02

Method 5 Data Sheet

Cyclone Dia: # in System: Stack Dia: A: 3 Port Dia: Traverse Points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

48 1 24 B: 1 7

Client: Location: Run #: Cold Box # Tstd: Pbar: Meter #: % H2O:

D

Unit: #16 Battery Cond Trash Job #: 709-124 Operator: CD Weather: pc Filter #: p Stack: 0.01 Ambient Temp: 78 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: LBK #2 Cp: 0.84 Y: 1.02380 Δ H @: 1.8914 % 2 Nozzle #: LBK2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.9826 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.004 Hg 23 OK Post Leak Check: 0 OK Hg Date: 11/1/09

1 2 68 30.15 LBK1 0.02

Sample ө 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45 47.5 50 52.5 55 57.5 60

Stack °F 90 90 90 90 89 90 89 91 91 91 91 91 92 93 93 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 92 92

Meter Temp

Avg 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 67 66 67 66 66 66 66 67 66 66 66 66 66 66

Veloctiy ∆P 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.24 0.33 0.34 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.44 0.43 0.4 0.39 0.33 0.3 0.27 0.3 0.3 0.33 0.3 0.29

Vacuum in.Hg

Averages:

91.46

66.38

0.30

3.00

17.286

√ ∆P 0.48 0.458 0.458 0.424 0.412 0.361 0.49 0.574 0.583 0.608 0.583 0.557 0.663 0.656 0.632 0.624 0.574 0.548 0.52 0.548 0.548 0.574 0.548 0.539

Meter ∆H 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.24 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.33 0.30 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.28

17.286

0.54

0.29

Meter Volume 0 Start Time 12:22

2

4

End Time 15:20 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g

Start Vol End Vol Start Vol End Vol

Total: REM - 2003

Page 33 of 66

1 2 3 4

Tare 728.5 730.6 608.6 839.4

Gross Total 726.6 -1.9 g 734.3 3.7 g 608.8 0.2 g 843.9 4.5 g Total: 6.5 g

Method 5 Calculation Sheet Client : D Location: Unit : #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D Run # : 1

Date : Job # : Pstd: Tstd:

11/1/2009 709-124 29.92 68

Raw Test Data Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry Concentration Oxygen Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle

Sample duration (min)

30.15 1.0238 0.84 0.01 20.90 0.05 68.0 91.5 66.4 0.298 0.540 0.29 6.5 17.286 24.0 0.00017 60

Pbar Y Cp Pg %O2 %CO2 tsd ts tm ∆P √∆P ∆H Vlc Vm Ds An Time

30.15 528 551 526 0.31 17.90 0.017 79.05 28.84 28.66 3.14

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms As

30.98 5,840 5,540 101.28

Vs Qa Qstd I

Intermediate Calculaions Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) Area Standard Temperature (deg R) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) Temperature of Meter (deg.R) Volume of water vapor standard (scf) Sample gas volume (dscf) Moisture Content Stack Gas Dry Concentration Nitrogen Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) Area of Stack (Ft^2)

Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6 Tstd =tsd+460 Ts =ts+460 Tm =tm+460 Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92) Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd) dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2)) Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28) Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws As =3.141592654*(Ds/12)^2/4

Results Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec) Stack Gas Flowrate (Acfm) Stack Gas Flowrate (Dscfm) Isokinetic Variation (%)

Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr)

Vs =Vs*60*As Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92) I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100

Calculated Emission Results Particulate Weight (g)

Vs =85.49*Cp*sqrtDp*(SQRT(Ts/(Ps*Ms)))

0.0175 0.0151 0.72

REM - 2003

Page 34 of 66

Ws Cs CFs

Cs = 15.43*Ws/Vmstd CFs = Cs*60*Qstd/7000

Method 5 Data Sheet


48 1 24 B: 1 7


D

Unit: #16 Battery Cond Trash Job #: 709-124 Operator: CD Weather: pc Filter #: p Stack: 0.01 Ambient Temp: 75 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: LBK #2 Cp: 0.84 Y: 1.02380 Δ H @: 1.8914 % 2 Nozzle #: LBK2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.98 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.007 Hg 22 OK Post Leak Check: 0.005 Hg 12 OK Date: 11/1/09

2 4 68 30.15 LBK1 0.02

19.241

√ ∆P 0.64 0.656 0.608 0.583 0.529 0.52 0.529 0.574 0.6 0.624 0.616 0.574 0.648 0.64 0.624 0.616 0.608 0.539 0.49 0.52 0.548 0.557 0.557 0.548

Meter ∆H 0.40 0.42 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.32 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29

19.241

0.581

0.33

Sample ө 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45 47.5 50 52.5 55 57.5 60

Stack °F 92 93 91 92 92 91 90 90 90 96 89 90 89 93 90 90 91 91 91 84 84 85 86 86

Meter Temp

Avg 66 66 66 70 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 66 65 65 63 63 63 63 63

Veloctiy ∆P 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.34 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.29 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.31 0.31 0.3

Vacuum in.Hg

Meter Volume

3

0 Start Time 15:33

Averages:

89.83

65.38

0.34

3.50

4


Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g


Total: REM - 2003

Page 35 of 66

1 2 3 4

Tare 722.2 732.5 602.1 822.5

Gross Total 724.2 2 g 737.6 5.1 g 602.2 0.1 g 827.4 4.9 g Total: 12.1 g



11/1/2009 709-124 29.92 68

Raw Test Data 30.15 1.0238 0.84 0.01 20.90 0.05 68.0 89.8 65.4 0.340 0.581 0.33 12.1 19.241 24.0 0.00017 60

Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry Concentration Oxygen Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle




30.15 528 550 525 0.57 19.97 0.028 79.05 28.84 28.54 3.14

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms As

Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6 Tstd =tsd+460 Ts =ts+460 Tm =tm+460 Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92) Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd) dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2)) Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28) Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws As =3.141592654*(Ds/12)^2/4


33.36 6,289 5,917 105.78

Vs Qa Qstd I

Vs =85.49*Cp*sqrtDp*(SQRT(Ts/(Ps*Ms))) Vs =Vs*60*As Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92) I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100

Calculated Emission Results Particulate Weight (g) Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr)

0.0106 0.0082 0.42

REM - 2003

Page 36 of 66

Ws Cs CFs


Method 5 Data Sheet


48 1 24 B: 1 7


D

Unit: #16 Battery Cond Trash Job #: 709-124 Operator: CD Weather: Part Cloud Filter #: p Stack: 0.01 Ambient Temp: 74 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: LBK #2 Cp: 0.84 Y: 1.02380 Δ H @: 1.8914 % 2 Nozzle #: LBK2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.98 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.001 Hg 23 OK Post Leak Check: 0.005 Hg 13 OK Date: 11/2/09

3 3 68 30.1 LBK1 0.02

19.655

√ ∆P 0.656 0.656 0.64 0.6 0.557 0.51 0.566 0.6 0.608 0.64 0.624 0.592 0.671 0.648 0.632 0.616 0.592 0.583 0.539 0.548 0.566 0.583 0.574 0.574

Meter ∆H 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.31 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.38 0.34 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.32

19.655

0.599

0.35

Sample ө 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45 47.5 50 52.5 55 57.5 60

Stack °F 65 68 69 71 71 72 72 72 72 72 71 72 71 73 72 73 74 75 74 75 75 75 75 74

Meter Temp

Avg 65 65 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 66

Veloctiy ∆P 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.32 0.36 0.37 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.45 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.33 0.33

Vacuum in.Hg

Meter Volume

2

0 Start Time 6:15

Averages:

72.21

65.54

0.36

3.00

4


Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g


Total: REM - 2003

Page 37 of 66

1 2 3 4

Tare 743.2 746.5 606.4 834.3

Gross Total 746.3 3.1 g 749 2.5 g 606.2 -0.2 g 837.5 3.2 g Total: 8.6 g



11/2/2009 709-124 29.92 68

Raw Test Data 30.10 1.0238 0.84 0.01 20.90 0.05 68.0 72.2 65.5 0.360 0.599 0.35 8.6 19.655 24.0 0.00017 60

Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry Concentration Oxygen Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle




30.10 528 532 526 0.40 20.36 0.019 79.05 28.84 28.63

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms

3.14

As

As =3.141592654*(Ds/12)^2/4

33.80 6,371 6,235 102.34

Vs

Vs =85.49*Cp*sqrtDp*(SQRT(Ts/(Ps*Ms)))

Qa Qstd

Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6 Tstd =tsd+460 Ts =ts+460 Tm =tm+460 Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92) Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd) dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2)) Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28) Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws


I

Vs =Vs*60*As Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92) I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100

Calculated Emission Results Particulate Weight (g) Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr)

0.0102 0.0077 0.41

REM - 2003

Page 38 of 66

Ws Cs CFs


Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: D Location: Unit: #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D Run: 1 Elapsed Time: 90.86667 Bale Time: 70.60 Ave min/bale: 0:01:59 Bale No. Bale Wt. Time 5508921 12:21:06 5508922 495 12:23:28 5508923 12:27:15 5508924 12:32:17 5508925 13:59:25 5508926 14:02:49 5508927 14:05:08 5508928 503 14:07:17 5508929 492 14:08:40 5508930 487 14:10:36 5508931 507 14:12:21 5508932 508 14:14:14 5508933 506 14:15:59 5508934 14:22:09 5508935 491 14:23:52 5508936 507 14:25:07 5508937 501 14:26:58 5508938 503 14:28:44 5508939 486 14:30:23 5508940 496 14:32:02 5508941 519 14:33:54 5508942 497 14:35:48 5508943 505 14:37:27 5508944 488 14:39:06 5508945 481 14:40:41 5508946 470 14:43:12 5508947 452 14:44:28 5508948 472 14:45:54 5508949 489 14:47:34 5508950 470 14:49:08 5508951 495 14:50:48 5508952 479 14:52:19 5508953 486 14:54:02 5508954 491 14:55:52 5508955 494 14:57:43 5508956 482 14:59:14 5508957 507 15:00:59 5508958 470 15:03:02 5508959 494 15:04:34 5508960 474 15:06:08 5508961 495 15:07:39 5508962 490 15:09:26 5508963 495 15:11:23 5508964 478 15:12:47 5508965 488 15:14:25 5508966 482 15:16:00 5508967 508 15:17:48 5508968 496 15:19:32

Date: Job #: Start Time: End Time:

11/1/2009 709-124 12:22 15:20

Test Time: 60 4.70 34.2

StdDev Std BPH: Ave Std BPH:

time/bale --0:02:22 0:03:47 0:05:02 --0:03:24 0:02:19 0:02:09 0:01:23 0:01:56 0:01:45 0:01:53 0:01:45 0:06:10 0:01:43 0:01:15 0:01:51 0:01:46 0:01:39 0:01:39 0:01:52 0:01:54 0:01:39 0:01:39 0:01:35 0:02:31 0:01:16 0:01:26 0:01:40 0:01:34 0:01:40 0:01:31 0:01:43 0:01:50 0:01:51 0:01:31 0:01:45 0:02:03 0:01:32 0:01:34 0:01:31 0:01:47 0:01:57 0:01:24 0:01:38 0:01:35 0:01:48 0:01:44

Std 500 lb BPH

Chauvenet's Criterion

--25.1

--* * * *

28.1 42.7 30.2 34.8 32.4 34.7 * 34.3 48.7 32.5 34.2 35.3 36.1 33.4 31.4 36.7 35.5 36.5 22.4 42.8 39.5 35.2 36.0 35.6 37.9 34.0 32.1 32.0 38.1 34.8 27.5 38.7 36.3 39.2 33.0 30.5 41.0 35.9 36.5 33.9 34.3

REM - 2003

NOTE: Removed Bale Data = Lapse in Gin Operation

Page 39 of 66

*

*

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: D Date: Location: Job #: Unit: #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D Start Time: Run: 2 End Time: Elapsed Time: 76.65 Bale Time: 60.40 Ave min/bale: 0:02:20

11/1/2009 709-124 15:33 17:28

Test Time: 60 6.38 29.5


Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 5508973 15:32:45 --5508974 489 15:34:42 0:01:57 5508975 495 15:36:47 0:02:05 5508976 490 15:38:23 0:01:36 5508977 508 15:41:37 0:03:14 5508978 496 15:42:58 0:01:21 5508979 15:47:47 0:04:49 5508980 15:53:24 0:05:37 5508981 15:59:47 0:06:23 5508982 493 16:01:28 0:01:41 5508983 508 16:03:11 0:01:43 5508984 512 16:05:16 0:02:05 5508985 508 16:07:17 0:02:01 5508986 475 16:09:09 0:01:52 5508987 496 16:11:01 0:01:52 5508988 496 16:13:05 0:02:04 5508989 499 16:14:45 0:01:40 5508990 480 16:16:22 0:01:37 5508991 491 16:18:09 0:01:47 5508992 515 16:20:35 0:02:26 5508993 510 16:22:11 0:01:36 5508994 484 16:24:26 0:02:15 5508995 494 16:26:26 0:02:00 5508996 477 16:28:09 0:01:43 5508997 489 16:29:48 0:01:39 5508998 486 16:31:43 0:01:55 5508999 500 16:33:18 0:01:35 16:38:33 0:05:15 5509000 517 5509001 17:16:54 --5509002 471 17:18:15 0:01:21 5509003 493 17:20:09 0:01:54 5509004 493 17:22:30 0:02:21 5509005 502 17:24:41 0:02:11 5509006 475 17:26:21 0:01:40 5509007 497 17:28:19 0:01:58

Std 500 lb BPH


--30.1 28.5 36.8 18.9 44.1

---

* * * 35.1 35.5 29.5 30.2 30.5 31.9 28.8 35.9 35.6 33.0 25.4 38.3 25.8 29.6 33.3 35.6 30.4 37.9 11.8 41.9 31.1 25.2 27.6 34.2 30.3

REM - 2003

NOTE: Removed Bale Data = Lapse in Gin Operation

Page 40 of 66

*

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: D Date: Location: Job #: Unit: #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D Start Time: Run: 3 End Time: Elapsed Time: 61 Bale Time: 60.92 Ave min/bale: 0:01:51

11/2/2009 709-124 6:15 7:16

Test Time: 60 3.08 32.6


Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 5509022 6:16:54 --5509023 490 6:18:53 0:01:59 5509024 499 6:20:58 0:02:05 5509025 500 6:22:58 0:02:00 5509026 500 6:24:38 0:01:40 5509027 496 6:26:21 0:01:43 5509028 504 6:28:08 0:01:47 5509029 513 6:29:53 0:01:45 5509030 491 6:31:41 0:01:48 5509031 511 6:33:26 0:01:45 5509032 507 6:35:14 0:01:48 5509033 503 6:37:34 0:02:20 5509034 487 6:39:51 0:02:17 5509035 509 6:41:25 0:01:34 5509036 508 6:43:11 0:01:46 5509037 500 6:45:03 0:01:52 5509038 487 6:46:54 0:01:51 5509039 497 6:48:41 0:01:47 5509040 478 6:50:28 0:01:47 5509041 480 6:52:10 0:01:42 5509042 496 6:53:44 0:01:34 5509043 514 6:55:39 0:01:55 5509044 512 6:57:49 0:02:10 5509045 497 6:59:45 0:01:56 5509046 514 7:01:32 0:01:47 5509047 511 7:03:20 0:01:48 5509048 510 7:05:09 0:01:49 5509049 498 7:06:44 0:01:35 5509050 500 7:08:27 0:01:43 5509051 506 7:10:11 0:01:44 5509052 503 7:12:07 0:01:56 5509053 506 7:14:06 0:01:59 5509054 508 7:15:59 0:01:53 5509055 511 7:17:49 0:01:50 REM - 2003

Page 41 of 66

Std 500 lb BPH


--29.6 28.7 30.0 36.0 34.7 33.9 35.2 32.7 35.0 33.8 25.9 25.6 39.0 34.5 32.1 31.6 33.4 32.2 33.9 38.0 32.2 28.4 30.8 34.6 34.1 33.7 37.7 35.0 35.0 31.2 30.6 32.4 33.4

---

Method 5.1 Weight, Data & Calculations

Client : D Date : 11/1/2009 Location: Job # : 709-124 Unit : #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D

Solution Blanks Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue Volume: Residue:

DI Water TL-0019 646.241 644.790 1.451 250 0.006

mg mg mg g mg/g

Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue Volume: Residue:

Run 1

Acetone TS-0124 741.425 741.126 0.298 100 0.003

mg mg mg g mg/g

Run 2

Run 3

DI Water Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

268.5 268.5

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

304.3 304.3

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

284.2 284.2

g g

12.76 50 1

g g

Front 1/2 Rinse: Back 1/2 Rinse:

10.03 50 1

g g

Front 1/2 Rinse: Back 1/2 Rinse:

9.45 50 1

g g

Acetone Front 1/2 Rinse: Back 1/2 Rinse:

Front 1/2 Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Acetone wt: Front 1/2 Weight:

TS-0823 647.643 642.795 -0.038 4.810

mg mg mg mg

Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Acetone wt: Front 1/2 Weight:

TS-0826 659.193 656.018 -0.030 3.146

mg mg mg mg

Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Acetone wt: Front 1/2 Weight:

TS-0829 662.903 659.812 -0.028 3.062

mg mg mg mg

8L-1478 306.567 293.864 12.703

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

8L-1479 293.820 286.343 7.477

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

8L-1480 289.862 282.721 7.141

mg mg mg

TL-0119 655.934 655.165 0.769 -1.558 -0.149 -0.939

mg mg mg mg mg mg

Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue: DI Water wt: Acetone wt: Back 1/2 Weight:

TL-0120 765.960 765.379 0.581 -1.766 -0.149 -1.335

mg mg mg mg mg mg

Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue: DI Water wt: Acetone wt: Back 1/2 Weight:

TL-0121 674.084 673.618 0.466 -1.649 -0.149 -1.333

mg mg mg mg mg mg

Run 1 0.0048 0.0127 0.0000 0.0175 0.0175

g g g g g

Front 1/2 Wt: Filter Wt: Back 1/2 Wt: Filterable PM Wt: Total PM Weight:

Run 2 0.0031 0.0075 0.0000 0.0106 0.0106

g g g g g

Front 1/2 Wt: Filter Wt: Back 1/2 Wt: Filterable PM Wt: Total PM Weight:

Run 3 0.0031 0.0071 0.0000 0.0102 0.0102

g g g g g

Filter Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

Back 1/2 Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue: DI Water wt: Acetone wt: Back 1/2 Weight: Results Front 1/2 Wt: Filter Wt: Back 1/2 Wt: Filterable PM Wt: Total PM Weight:

REM Method 5.1 - 2007

Page 42 of 66

Acetone Rinse Client : D Date : 11/1/2009 Location: Job # : 709-124 Unit : #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D

Total PM Run 1

Run 2 Filter ID#: 8L-1478

Run 3 Filter ID#: 8L-1479

Filter ID#: 8L-1480

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 357.0 End Vol: 344.3 Total: 12.8 Tub #: TS-0823

g g g


g g g


g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 Probe End Vol: Total: 50.0 Tub #: TL-0119

g g g


g g g


g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: DI H2O End Vol: 268.5 Total: 268.5 Tub #: TL-0119

g g g


g g g


g g g

Page 43 of 66

Filter/Tub Weights Client : D Location: Unit : #16 Battery Cond Trash 1D3D

Acetone Blank DI Water Blank Filter Blank

No. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Date : 11/1/2009 Job # : 709-124

Filter/Tub No. TS-0124 TL-0019 6L-0119

100 g 250 g

Cyclone Name Method Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17 Battery Condenser Tras 17

Run No. 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

Sample Location Back 1/2 Filter Front 1/2 Back 1/2 Filter Front 1/2 Back 1/2 Filter Front 1/2

Page 44 of 66

Filter/Tub No. TL-0119 8L-1478 TS-0823 TL-0120 8L-1479 TS-0826 TL-0121 8L-1480 TS-0829

PreWeight (mg) 741.126 644.790 249.026 PreWeight (mg) 655.165 293.864 642.795 765.379 286.343 656.018 673.618 282.721 659.812

PostWeight (mg) 741.425 646.241 249.047 PostWeight (mg) 655.934 306.567 647.643 765.960 293.820 659.193 674.084 289.862 662.903

NetWeight (mg) 0.298 1.451 0.021 NetWeight (mg) 0.769 12.703 4.848 0.581 7.477 3.176 0.466 7.141 3.091

Assumptions: Particle Density (g/cm3) 2.65 Dynamic Shape Factor 1.40 LS230 Summary Rep 1 MMD (m) 7.32 GSD 2.43 % H

2nd

in H20

~~E

0.5

12.00

1.0

11.00

1.5

VOL. cf

5.00

29.55 51 DRY GAS VOL. Start/End 433.472 433.711

Std Model #: Equimeter R-275 S/N#: 4040491 in. hg. F

2std AVG

Standard Pressure (Pstd): Standard Temperature (Tstd):

51.5 443.218

52.0

•y

D.G. IN

51.0

4. 4 .

29.92 68

in. hg. F

t~'>H@

in. H20 41.0

0.9824

1.9499

40.5

1.0019

1.8804

4Qc0

0.9988

1.8722

. ~.2~3t~4431~ . 5~82~~j4tt0.i10=4~0.0~ •n" L_2~JL~~1~611~!91 2.0 9.00 4S04El~ 52.0 41.0 41._0 ~~"'-"~tj0.~99~8~0t:=t1.~84~0~8d L---'-'-" 1.8858 A~"'t

Meter Factor:

Validity checks:

Ml@:

(max- min) ,;.02 ? L'>H@ - L'>H@ avg. ,; .20 in. H20 ? Calibration by:

CD

EQUATIONS USED: Y= (Vmstd*Pbar*(Tmavg+460) )/( (Vm*(Pbar+(i'>H/13.6) )* (Tmstdavg+460)) L'>H@ = ((0.0319*L'>H)/(Pbar*(Tmavg+460))*(((Tmstd+460)*Time)Nmstd)'2

Page 51 of 66

0.9953 1.8858

5 APEX INSTRUMENTS METHOD 5 PRE-TEST CONSOLE CALIBRATION USING CALIBRATED CRITICAL ORIFICES 5-POINT ENGLISH UNITS Calibration Conditions

Meter Console Information

!nme

Date

LBK99

Console Model Number

Console Serial Number

Barometric Pressure

DGM Model Number

Theoretical Critical Vacuum 1

DGM Serial Number

Calibration Technician

Factors/Conversions

6-Nov-09

14:00

StdTemp

.528

'R

30.1

in HQ

Std Press

29.92

in Hq

14.2

in Hg

K,

17.647

oR/in Hg

CD

1

For valid test results, the Actual Vacuum should be 1 to 2 ln. Hg greater than the Theoretical Critical vacuum shown above.

-, ne

'-'Tllll

Cyclone Robber System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Suggest Documents

Cyclone Robber System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Mote Cyclone Robber System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Mote Cyclone Robber System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Mote Cyclone Robber System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Mote Cyclone Robber System Total PM Emission ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System Total PM Emission ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System PM10 and Total PM ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System PM2.5, PM10 and Total ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Cyclone Robber System PM10 and Total PM ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Mote Trash System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

1 Stage Mote System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Overflow System Total Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Overflow System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Master Trash System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

1 Stage Mote System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Unloading System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

2 Stage Mote System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

1 Stage Mote System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Unloading System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Unloading System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Master Trash System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Combined Mote System Particle Size Distribution ... - Dr. Michael Buser

1 Stage Lint Cleaning System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser