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

1st Stage Mote System Particle Size Distribution Characteristics for Cotton Gin D using Method 17 and Laser Diffraction Analyses Part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project

Report ID: 08-PSD-GD-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 68

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 .............................................................................................................. 32 Process Calibration Documents ..................................................................................................... 49 Dry Gas Meter Calibration.............................................................................................................. 51 Type "S" Pitot Tube Calibration ..................................................................................................... 56 Nozzle Inspection............................................................................................................................ 61 Cyclonic Flow Evaluation............................................................................................................... 64 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................................................ 66 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 68

Page 3 of 68

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 1st stage mote 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 1st stage mote system. These test reports were separated by cotton gin and testing method. For the 1st stage mote system there will be 5 Method 17 reports for total PM; 5 Method 201a without a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM and PM10; 5 Method 201a with a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM, PM10 and PM2.5 and 5 Method 17 coupled with particle size analyses for PM10 and PM2.5. The cotton gin identifiers for these reports are Gin A, Gin B, Gin C, Gin D and Gin F.

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, 1st Stage Mote 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 0.113 0.061 0.0038 Run 2 79 100 0.070 0.035 0.0023 Run 3 79 100 0.083 0.045 0.0028 79 100 0.088 0.047 0.0030 Average

Page 4 of 68

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 68

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 68

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 1st stage mote 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. 1st Stage Mote System PM10 Residuals

Residuals

1.5

1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5

-1.0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Test Runs

Residuals

1st Stage Mote System PM2.5 Residuals 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 0

5

10

15

20

Test Runs

Page 7 of 68

25

30

35

OSU Technical Report OSU13-10 Ver. 2.0 – Particle Size Distribution Characteristics of Cotton Gin 1st Stage Mote System Total Particulate Emissions Note: Contains field and lab data for Gin D only.

Page 8 of 68

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 included combined mote cleaner PM10 (particulate matter with nominal diameter less than or equal to 10 µm) and total particulate emission factors and not individual mote cleaner system emission factors. The objective of this study was to characterize particulate emissions for 1st stage mote 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 five gins (14 total test runs) were 0.00063 kg/227-kg bale (0.0014 lb/500-lb bale), 0.0091 kg/bale (0.020 lb/bale), and 0.0084 kg/bale (0.019 lb/bale), respectively. The 1st stage mote system particle size distributions were characterized by an average mass median diameter of 16.37 µm (aerodynamic equivalent diameter) and a geometric standard deviation of 3.85. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 2.5%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 6.9%, PM10 to total was 36%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 33%. Particle size distribution based system average PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors were 15% and 45% of those measured for this project utilizing EPA-approved methods. The particle sized distribution based PM10 emission factor was 15% of that currently published in EPA AP-42 for the mote fan which is equivalent to a combined 1st and 2nd stage mote system.

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

Page 9 of 68

referenced. The ratings can range from A (Excellent) to E (Poor). Current EPA emission factor 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

Page 10 of 68

particulate stack sampling concentrations and particle size analyses. 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 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 1st stage mote 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

Page 11 of 68

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 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 68

After the seed and lint are separated at the gin stand, the lint is cleaned by one or more stages of lint cleaners. The material removed by lint cleaners is referred to as “motes” and is handled by the mote systems (Fig. 2). Motes are pneumatically conveyed by suction away from the lint cleaners, through a centrifugal fan, to one or more particulate abatement cyclones. Depending on the gin facility, the first and second stages of lint cleaning may share a mote system, thus sharing a fan and abatement devices, or lint cleaning stages may each have mote systems that operate independently with separate fans and cyclones, denoted as 1st stage mote systems or 2nd stage mote systems. The material handled by the mote system cyclones typically includes small trash and particulate, and large amounts of lint fibers (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Typical cotton gin 1st stage mote system layout (Courtesy Lummus Corporation, Savannah, GA).

Figure 3. Photograph of typical trash captured by the 1st stage mote 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 68

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). There are no 1996 EPA AP-42 emission factors for 1st stage mote systems. First stage mote systems would be similar to the mote fan listed in AP-42, but the AP-42 factor represents 1st and 2nd stage mote systems combined. The 1996 EPA AP-42 average total particulate emission factor for the mote fan was 0.13 kg (0.28 lb) per 217-kg [480-lb] equivalent bale with a range of 0.045 to 0.47 kg (0.099-1.0 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on nine tests conducted in one geographical location. The EPA emission factor quality rating was D, which is the second lowest possible rating (EPA, 1996a). The AP-42 average PM10 emission factor for the mote fan was 0.060 kg (0.13 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.023 to 0.14 kg (0.0500.30 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on six tests conducted

Page 14 of 68

in one geographical location and the EPA emission factor quality rating was 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 1st stage mote systems evolved out of the Buser et al. (2012) project plan. Whitelock et al. (2014) reported on one study that used EPA Method 17 to measure total particulate emission factors for the 1st stage mote systems. The system average total particulate emission factor was 0.025 kg (0.056 lb) per 227 kg (500-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.012 to 0.041 kg (0.026-0.089 lb) per bale. Boykin et al. (2014) reported on a second study that used EPA Method 201A with only the PM10 sizing cyclone to measure 1st stage mote system PM10 and total particulate emission factors. The system average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were 0.020 kg/227-kg bale (0.044 lb/500-lb bale) and 0.034 kg/bale (0.075 lb/bale), respectively. In the third study, reported by Buser 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 0.0041 kg/227-kg bale (0.0090 lb/500-lb bale). The PM10 and total particulate average emission factors were 0.023 kg/bale (0.051 lb/bale) and 0.032 kg/bale (0.071 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.

Page 15 of 68

The primary objective of this study was to develop PSD characteristics for the PM emitted from cotton gin 1st stage mote systems. The secondary objective was to develop PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors for cotton gin 1st stage mote 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). Five of the seven gins were equipped with 1st stage mote systems that were not combined with 2nd stage mote systems. The 1st stage mote systems sampled were typical for the industry, but varied among the gins. As the lint was cleaned in three 1st stage lint cleaning systems at gin A, the trash removed from the lint was combined in the 1st stage mote system and pneumatically conveyed from the lint cleaners through a fan and exhausted through one or more cyclones. The 1st stage mote system at gin C was essentially the same, except the 1st stage mote system pulled trash from two 1st stage lint cleaning systems. The 1st stage mote systems at gins B, D, and F were also similar, but the systems at those gins pulled material from four 1st stage lint cleaning systems. Whitelock et al. (2014) provides system flow diagrams for the 1st stage mote systems that were tested. All 1st stage mote systems sampled utilized 1D3D cyclones to control emissions (Fig. 4), but there were some cyclone design variations among the gins. Gins D and F split the system exhaust flow between two cyclones in a dual configuration (side-by-side as opposed to onebehind-another). The system airstream for gins A, B and C was exhausted through a single cyclone. Inlets on the 1st stage mote cyclones for gins B, D and F were 2D2D type, while gins A and C had inverted 1D3D inlets. Standard cones were present on 1st stage mote cyclones at all gins, except gin B, which had an expansion chamber. The cyclones tested at gins A, B, D and F had mote 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 variations

Page 16 of 68

outlined above, if properly designed and maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin emissions (Whitelock et al., 2009). Whitelock 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 five gins with 1st stage mote 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 Whitelock et al. (2014). 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

Page 17 of 68

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; 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

Page 18 of 68

(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: )

((

(

)

)

where EFi = emission factor for particle in the size range i; EFtot= total particulate emission factor obtained from total particulate tests (Whitelock 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 1st stage mote systems sampled were typical for the industry. The system average ginning rate was 27.9 bales/h and the test average ginning rate at each gin ranged from 21.2 to 35.7 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). 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 23 to 41oC (73-106oF) and

Page 19 of 68

moisture content ranged from 0.2 to 2.7%. The individual systems and cyclone design variations were discussed by Whitelock 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 65 to 94% 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 15.60 µm AED and 3.89, respectively. Test averages ranged from 8.68 to 29.39 µm AED for MMD and from 2.66 to 4.72 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 1.77 to 3.49%, 21.3 to 55.2%, and 19.5 to 51.7%, respectively. Filter PM PSDs for the five 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 and wider particle diameter range illustrates the larger MMD and GSD of the gin A distribution, while the PSD for gin D exhibits characteristics of much smaller MMD and GSD. Table 1. EPA Method 17 filter particle size distribution data for the 1st stage mote system. Mass Median Diameter µm AED

Geometric Standard Deviation

30.32 28.54 29.39

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

Sample Total mg

PM2.5 %

PM10-2.5 %

PM10 %

4.67 4.68 4.68

1.66 1.88 1.77

19.5 19.6 19.5

21.2 21.5 21.3

92.33 104.22

15.33 18.14 22.33 18.43

4.33 4.25 5.56 4.72

2.77 2.99 2.02 2.59

35.7 30.2 27.0 31.0

38.5 33.2 29.1 33.6

18.84 11.68 23.27

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

13.15 15.58 13.55 14.05

3.01 3.39 2.88 3.09

3.04 2.30 2.60 2.65

37.2 31.8 36.2 35.1

40.2 34.1 38.8 37.7

12.69 22.39 10.88

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

8.84 8.76 8.43 8.68

2.67 2.74 2.59 2.66

3.33 3.55 3.58 3.49

51.2 51.1 52.9 51.7

54.5 54.7 56.5 55.2

26.31 14.55 20.96

18.24 15.23 13.18 15.40

4.06 3.69 3.57 3.75

2.42 2.20 2.85 2.49

32.0 36.9 39.4 36.1

34.4 39.1 42.3 38.6

7.36 7.15 9.82

Test

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

System

Average (n=5)

15.60

3.89

2.60

34.7

37.3

Gin A

Test B

Test C

Test D

Test F

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

y

z

Insufficient sample for particle size distribution y Based on averaged particle size distributions

Page 20 of 68

Figure 5. Gin average particle size distributions for the PM captured on a EPA-Method 17 filter from the 1st stage mote systems.

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 6 to 35% of the total PM (filter and wash) collected from the individual test runs. The system average MMD and GSD were 19.29 µm AED and 3.27, respectively. Test average MMDs ranged from 14.57 to 42.16 µm AED and GSDs ranged from 2.72 to 4.58. The mass fraction of PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 ranged from 0.97 to 2.56%, 14.2 to 36.8%, and 12.0 to 34.2%, respectively. PSDs for the PM captured in the nozzle for the five gins and the system average are shown in Figure 6. In general, the PSD curves for the PM captured in the washes had similar shapes. Like the filter PSDs, the gin A PSD illustrates the larger MMD.

Page 21 of 68

Table 2. EPA Method 17 nozzle wash particle size distribution data for the 1st stage mote system.

1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

Sample Total mg 6.81 14.57 12.80

2.62 3.03 5.29 3.17

PM2.5 % 2.09 3.06 1.46 2.04

PM10-2.5 % 12.2 14.9 8.7 12.0

PM10 % 14.3 18.0 10.2 14.2

15.89 12.33 16.10 14.57

2.83 2.58 2.59 2.72

1.92 2.32 1.73 1.99

31.9 39.4 31.0 34.1

33.8 41.7 32.7 36.1

2.42 1.70 1.43

1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

30.88 13.69 12.11 16.18

3.09 2.21 2.48 2.72

1.68 1.45 1.75 1.63

17.1 34.6 40.6 30.8

18.8 36.1 42.3 32.4

6.74 1.71 1.33

1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

11.94 17.63 16.88 15.00

2.70 3.16 3.15 3.05

4.31 2.73 0.65 2.56

38.8 30.4 33.5 34.2

43.1 33.1 34.2 36.8

1.96 4.63 1.76

16.70 23.17 22.44 19.98

3.05 5.65 5.08 4.58

1.18 1.15 0.57 0.97

32.2 27.3 29.5 29.7

33.4 28.5 30.1 30.6

1.48 1.87 1.05

Test

1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

System

Average (n=5)

19.29

3.27

1.87

28.1

30.0

Gin A

Test B

Test C

Test D

Test F

z

Geometric Standard Deviation

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

Mass Median Diameter µm AED 36.41 36.16 61.48 42.16

z

Based on averaged particle size distributions

Page 22 of 68

Figure 6. Gin average particle size distributions for the PM captured in the EPA-Method 17 sampler nozzle wash from the 1st stage mote systems.

The combined PSD characteristics for the PM captured on the filter and PM captured in the wash are shown in Table 3. The 1st stage mote system average combined filter and wash PSD MMD was 16.37 µm AED (9.28 to 31.06 µm test average range) and GSD was 3.85 (2.76 to 4.54 test average range). The combined filter and wash PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 mass fractions ranged from 1.84 to 3.37%, 20.5 to 52.7%, and 18.6 to 49.3%, respectively. Combined PM PSDs for the five 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 23 of 68

Table 3. EPA Method 17 combined filter and wash particle size distribution data for the 1st stage mote system.

31.15 30.98 31.06

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

PM10-2.5 %

PM10 %

4.38 4.73 4.54

1.85 1.84 1.84

18.9 18.4 18.6

20.7 20.2 20.5

15.40 16.98 21.73 17.90

3.94 3.96 5.34 4.41

2.67 2.91 2.00 2.53

35.3 31.4 27.3 31.3

37.9 34.3 29.3 33.8

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

17.22 15.40 13.37 15.16

3.43 3.22 2.80 3.18

2.57 2.24 2.51 2.44

30.2 32.0 36.6 33.0

32.8 34.3 39.1 35.4

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

9.03 10.17 8.78 9.28

2.68 3.00 2.65 2.76

3.40 3.35 3.35 3.37

50.4 46.1 51.4 49.3

53.8 49.5 54.8 52.7

Test

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

17.91 16.57 13.79 16.03

3.74 4.00 3.73 3.83

2.21 1.98 2.63 2.28

32.0 34.9 38.5 35.1

34.2 36.9 41.1 37.4

System

Average (n=5)

16.37

3.85

2.49

33.5

36.0

Test B

Test C

Test D

Test F

y

Geometric Standard Deviation

PM2.5 %

Gin A

z

Mass Median Diameter µm AED

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

y

Insufficient sample for particle size distribution Based on averaged particle size distributions

Page 24 of 68

Figure 7. Gin average particle size distributions for the EPA-Method 17 combined filter and wash samples from the 1st stage mote systems.

The PSD based emission factors for the 1st stage mote systems are shown in Table 4. The system average PM2.5 emission factor was 0.00063 kg/bale (0.0014 lb/bale). PM2.5 emission factors ranged from 0.00021 to 0.0017 kg (0.00047-0.0038 lb) per bale. The 1st stage mote system average PM10 emission factor was 0.0091 kg/bale (0.020 lb/bale). The PM10 emission factors ranged from 0.0033 to 0.028 kg/bale (0.0073-0.061 lb/bale). The 1st stage mote system average PM10-2.5 emission factor was 0.0084 kg/bale (0.019 lb/bale) and ranged from 0.0031 to 0.026 kg (0.0068-0.057 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 2.5, 6.9, 36, and 33%, respectively.

Page 25 of 68

Table 4. EPA Method 17 total particulate and particle size distribution based PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 emission factor data for the 1st stage mote system. x

Gin A

Test Run 1y 2 3

Total kg/balez lb/balez 0.039 0.086 0.040 0.089 0.042 0.093

w

PM10 kg/balez lb/balez

w

PM10-2.5 kg/balez lb/balez

w

PM2.5 kg/balez lb/balez

0.0084 0.0085

0.018 0.019

0.0076 0.0078

0.017 0.017

0.00075 0.00077

0.0016 0.0017

B

1 2 3

0.017 0.023 0.020

0.038 0.050 0.045

0.0065 0.0078 0.0060

0.014 0.017 0.013

0.0060 0.0072 0.0055

0.013 0.016 0.012

0.00046 0.00066 0.00041

0.0010 0.0015 0.00090

C

1 2 3

0.014 0.018 0.0085

0.032 0.041 0.019

0.0047 0.0063 0.0033

0.010 0.014 0.0073

0.0043 0.0059 0.0031

0.0096 0.013 0.0068

0.00037 0.00041 0.00021

0.00081 0.00091 0.00047

D

1 2 3

0.051 0.032 0.038

0.113 0.070 0.083

0.028 0.016 0.021

0.061 0.035 0.045

0.026 0.015 0.019

0.057 0.032 0.043

0.0017 0.0011 0.0013

0.0038 0.0023 0.0028

F

1 2 3

0.011 0.011 0.012

0.025 0.024 0.028

0.0039 0.0041 0.0051

0.0085 0.0089 0.011

0.0036 0.0038 0.0048

0.0080 0.0085 0.011

0.00025 0.00022 0.00033

0.00055 0.00048 0.00072

System

Average

0.025

0.056

0.0091

0.020

0.0084

0.019

0.00063

0.0014

z

227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales y Insufficient sample for particle size distribution x Taken from Whitelock et al. (2014) w Factors are the product of the corresponding PM percentage from Table 3 and the total particulate emission factor.

The PSD based 1st stage mote system PM2.5 emission factor was approximately 15% of the PM2.5 emission factor reported by Buser et al. (2013) and measured using EPA Method 201A, 0.0041 kg (0.0090 lb) per bale. The PSD based 1st stage mote system PM10 emission factor was 15% of the EPA AP-42 published value for the mote fan, 0.060 kg (0.13 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a), which is an equivalent system to the combined 1st and 2nd stage mote system. Also, the PSD based system PM10 emission factor was 45% of the Method 201A (PM10 sizing cyclone only) PM10 emission factor reported by Boykin et al. (2014), 0.020 kg (0.044 lb) per bale and 40% of the Method 201A (PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones) PM10 emission factor reported by Buser et al. (2013), 0.023 kg (0.051 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

Page 26 of 68

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 27 of 68

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. Five of the seven gins had 1st stage mote 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 five gins were typical of the industry, averaging 27.9 bales/h during testing. The average PSD based 1st stage mote system PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 emission factors from the five gins tested (14 total test runs) were 0.00063 kg/227-kg bale (0.0014 lb/500-lb bale), 0.0091 kg/bale (0.020 lb/bale), and 0.0084 kg/bale (0.019 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 currently published in EPA AP42 for the mote fan, which is an equivalent system to a combined 1st and 2nd stage mote system. The PSDs were characterized by an average MMD of 16.37 µm AED and a GSD of 3.85. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 2.5%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 6.9%, PM10 to total was 36%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 33%.

Page 28 of 68

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. 2014. First stage mote system PM10 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A PM10 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. (In Review) 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. 2013. First stage mote system PM2.5 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A combination PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. 17:425-435. 2013.

Page 29 of 68

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 30 of 68

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. First stage mote system total particulate emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 17. 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 31 of 68

Gin D Field and Laboratory Data

Page 32 of 68

Gin: D Exhaust: #17 Motes 1st Stage 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 Run 2 Run 3 Average Condensables Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

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

0.1129 0.0699 0.0827 0.0885

No Condensables

Page 33 of 68

3.8005 2.5895 3.0139 3.1346

Method 5 Data Average Sheet D #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D 11/4/09 Raw Test Data Run 1 30.10 1.00 0.84 -0.16 20.90 0.05 68.0 88.0 69.3 0.30 0.54 0.30 6.90 17.10 30.00 0.00017 60

Run 2 30.10 1.00 0.84 -0.16 20.90 0.05 68.0 89.7 70.0 0.30 0.54 0.30 4.70 17.19 30.00 0.00017 60

Run 3 29.90 1.00 0.84 -0.16 20.90 0.05 68.0 87.6 67.8 0.31 0.55 0.30 4.00 17.75 30.00 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 30.09 528.0 548.0 529.3 0.32 17.09 0.019 79.05 28.84 28.64 4.91

Run 2 30.09 528.0 549.7 530.0 0.22 17.16 0.013 79.05 28.84 28.71 4.91

Run 3 29.89 528.0 547.6 527.8 0.19 17.68 0.011 79.05 28.84 28.73 4.91

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

Run 1 31.0 9,132 8,684 2922 96.39

Run 2 31.2 9,181 8,755 2938 95.98

Run 3 31.6 9,301 8,864 2976 97.67

Run 1 0.028 0.026 1.90 33.67 0.056 2 0.113

Run 2 0.019 0.017 1.29 37.05 0.035 2 0.070

Run 3 0.023 0.020 1.51 36.44 0.041 2 0.083

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 30.03 1.00 Y Cp 0.84 Pg -0.16 20.90 %O2 0.05 %CO2 tsd 68.0 ts 88.4 69.0 tm 0.31 ∆P √∆P 0.55 ∆H 0.30 Vlc 5.20 Vm 17.34 Ds 30.00 An 0.000167 Time 60 Pbar

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

Average 30.02 528.0 548.4 529.0 0.24 17.31 0.014 79.05 28.84 28.69 4.91

Results Vs Qa Qstd Invs I

Average 31.3 9,205 8,768 2,946 96.68

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 34 of 68

Ws Cs CFs Sbl/hr Cfbale #Cy Tsys

Average 0.023 0.021 1.57 35.72 0.044 2 0.09

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

60 2 30 B: 1 7

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

D

Unit: #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D Job #: 709-124 Operator: CD Weather: pc Filter #: p Stack: -0.16 Ambient Temp: 72 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: MS 5 Cp: 0.84 Y: 0.99530 Δ H @: 1.8858 Dia 0.175 % 2 Nozzle #: MS2 K Fac: 0.978 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.005 Hg 22 OK Post Leak Check: 0.002 Hg 16 OK Date: 11/4/09

1 4 68 30.1 MS 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 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 87 86 88 89 89 89 90 90 89 89 89 89 89

Meter Temp

Avg 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Veloctiy ∆P 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.35 0.31 0.2 0.16 0.17 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.42 0.32 0.23 0.2 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.2

Vacuum in.Hg 2

Averages:

87.96

69.29

0.30

4.50

785.338

√ ∆P 0.663 0.656 0.64 0.592 0.557 0.447 0.4 0.412 0.48 0.51 0.5 0.458 0.693 0.693 0.678 0.648 0.566 0.48 0.447 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.5 0.447

Meter ∆H 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.30 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.41 0.31 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.20

17.097

0.541

0.30

Meter Volume 768.241 Start Time 12:36

7

End Time 13:35 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g

Start Vol End Vol Start Vol End Vol

Total: REM - 2003

Page 35 of 68

1 2 3 4

Tare 751.7 716.5 608.3 849.5

Gross Total 750.5 -1.2 g 720.5 4 g 608 -0.3 g 853.9 4.4 g Total: 6.9 g

Method 5 Calculation Sheet Client : D Location: Unit : #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D Run # : 1

Date : Job # : Pstd: Tstd:

11/4/2009 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)

30.10 0.9953 0.84 -0.16 20.90 0.05 68.0 88.0 69.3 0.302 0.541 0.30 6.9 17.097 30.0 0.00017 60

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

30.09 528 548 529 0.32 17.09 0.019 79.05 28.84 28.64 4.91

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms As

31.01 9,132 8,684 96.39

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)))

0.0283 0.0255 1.90

REM - 2003

Page 36 of 68

Ws Cs CFs

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

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

60 2 30 B: 1 7

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

D

Unit: #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D Job #: 709-124 Operator: CD Weather: pc Filter #: p Stack: -0.16 Ambient Temp: 75 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: MS 5 Cp: 0.84 Y: 0.99530 Δ H @: 1.8858 % 2 Nozzle #: MS2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.98 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.002 Hg 20 OK Post Leak Check: 0 OK Hg Date: 11/4/09

2 1 68 30.1 MS 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 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 89 89 88 88

Meter Temp

Avg 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 69 69

Veloctiy ∆P 0.44 0.44 0.4 0.36 0.28 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.2 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.41 0.33 0.23 0.2 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.24

Vacuum in.Hg

Averages:

89.71

70.00

0.30

6.00

803.552

√ ∆P 0.663 0.663 0.632 0.6 0.529 0.51 0.458 0.412 0.447 0.469 0.5 0.48 0.686 0.671 0.648 0.64 0.574 0.48 0.447 0.5 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.49

Meter ∆H 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.40 0.32 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.23

17.187

0.544

0.30

Meter Volume 786.365 Start Time 14:02

6

End Time 15:06 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g

Start Vol End Vol Start Vol End Vol

Total: REM - 2003

Page 37 of 68

Tare 1 738 2 748.9 3 606.6 4 846.1

Gross Total 735.1 -2.9 g 752.5 3.6 g 606.5 -0.1 g 850.2 4.1 g Total: 4.7 g

Method 5 Calculation Sheet Client : D Location: Unit : #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D Run # : 2

Date : Job # : Pstd: Tstd:

11/4/2009 709-124 29.92 68

Raw Test Data 30.10 0.9953 0.84 -0.16 20.90 0.05 68.0 89.7 70.0 0.303 0.544 0.30 4.7 17.187 30.0 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

Sample duration (min)

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

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)

30.09 528 550 530 0.22 17.16 0.013 79.05 28.84 28.71 4.91

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

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

31.17 9,181 8,755 95.98

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)

0.0192 0.0173 1.29

REM - 2003

Page 38 of 68

Ws Cs CFs

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

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

60 2 30 B: 1 7

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

D

Unit: #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D Job #: 709-124 Operator: CD Weather: Part Cloud Filter #: p Stack: -0.16 Ambient Temp: 88 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: MS 5 Cp: 0.84 Y: 0.99530 Δ H @: 1.8858 % 2 Nozzle #: MS2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.98 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.006 Hg OK Post Leak Check: 0.01 OK Hg Date: 11/4/09

3 3 68 29.9 MS 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 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 86 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88

Meter Temp

Avg 69 68 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 67

Veloctiy ∆P 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.34 0.27 0.22 0.18 0.2 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.21 0.48 0.47 0.48 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.21

Vacuum in.Hg 3

Averages:

87.58

67.75

0.31

5.00

822.082

√ ∆P 0.663 0.663 0.64 0.583 0.52 0.469 0.424 0.447 0.48 0.5 0.52 0.458 0.693 0.686 0.693 0.64 0.583 0.557 0.52 0.49 0.5 0.529 0.5 0.458

Meter ∆H 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.21 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.21

17.75

0.551

0.30

Meter Volume 804.332 Start Time 15:23

7

End Time 16:26 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g

Start Vol End Vol Start Vol End Vol

Total: REM - 2003

Page 39 of 68

Tare 1 767 2 728.1 3 608 4 853.9

Gross Total 764.8 -2.2 g 730.7 2.6 g 607.8 -0.2 g 857.7 3.8 g Total: 4 g

Method 5 Calculation Sheet Client : D Location: Unit : #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D Run # : 3

Date : Job # : Pstd: Tstd:

11/4/2009 709-124 29.92 68

Raw Test Data 29.90 0.9953 0.84 -0.16 20.90 0.05 68.0 87.6 67.8 0.310 0.551 0.30 4.0 17.750 30.0 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

Sample duration (min)

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

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)

29.89 528 548 528 0.19 17.68 0.011 79.05 28.84 28.73

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms

4.91

As

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

31.58 9,301 8,864 97.67

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

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

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)

0.0227 0.0198 1.51

REM - 2003

Page 40 of 68

Ws Cs CFs

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

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: D Location: Unit: #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D Run: 1 Elapsed Time: 59 Bale Time: 61.07 Ave min/bale: 0:01:45 Bale No. Bale Wt. Time 5509797 12:35:23 5509798 483 12:37:11 5509799 479 12:38:43 5509800 486 12:40:13 5509801 479 12:41:48 5509802 493 12:43:31 5509803 494 12:45:13 5509804 481 12:46:53 5509805 482 12:48:37 5509806 502 12:50:38 5509807 503 12:52:59 5509808 513 12:55:06 5509809 497 12:56:57 5509810 507 12:58:53 5509811 493 13:00:39 5509812 511 13:02:31 5509813 497 13:04:34 5509814 497 13:06:17 5509815 478 13:07:52 5509816 481 13:09:16 5509817 486 13:10:53 5509818 478 13:12:34 5509819 470 13:14:25 5509820 477 13:16:01 5509821 476 13:17:33 5509822 472 13:19:14 5509823 477 13:21:01 5509824 479 13:22:44 5509825 496 13:24:21 5509826 496 13:25:59 5509827 495 13:27:46 5509828 493 13:29:12 5509829 482 13:30:48 5509830 508 13:32:44 5509831 491 13:34:37 5509832 504 13:36:27

Date: Job #: Start Time: End Time:

11/4/2009 709-124 12:36 13:35

Test Time: 60 3.30 33.7

StdDev Std BPH: Ave Std BPH:

time/bale --0:01:48 0:01:32 0:01:30 0:01:35 0:01:43 0:01:42 0:01:40 0:01:44 0:02:01 0:02:21 0:02:07 0:01:51 0:01:56 0:01:46 0:01:52 0:02:03 0:01:43 0:01:35 0:01:24 0:01:37 0:01:41 0:01:51 0:01:36 0:01:32 0:01:41 0:01:47 0:01:43 0:01:37 0:01:38 0:01:47 0:01:26 0:01:36 0:01:56 0:01:53 0:01:50

REM - 2003

Page 41 of 68

Std 500 lb BPH

Chauvenet's Criterion

--32.2 37.5 38.9 36.3 34.5 34.9 34.6 33.4 29.9 25.7 29.1 32.2 31.5 33.5 32.9 29.1 34.7 36.2 41.2 36.1 34.1 30.5 35.8 37.3 33.6 32.1 33.5 36.8 36.4 33.3 41.3 36.2 31.5 31.3 33.0

---

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: D Location: Unit: #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D Run: 2 Elapsed Time: 64 Bale Time: 63.53 Ave min/bale: 0:01:38

Date: Job #: Start Time: End Time:

11/4/2009 709-124 14:02 15:06

Test Time: 60 4.74 37.1

StdDev Std BPH: Ave Std BPH:

Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 5509847 14:02:34 --5509848 510 14:04:02 0:01:28 5509849 500 14:05:32 0:01:30 5509850 503 14:07:10 0:01:38 5509851 501 14:08:49 0:01:39 5509852 506 14:10:21 0:01:32 5509853 506 14:11:54 0:01:33 5509854 504 14:13:27 0:01:33 5509855 508 14:15:15 0:01:48 5509856 506 14:17:01 0:01:46 5509857 507 14:18:51 0:01:50 5509858 514 14:20:41 0:01:50 5509859 502 14:22:23 0:01:42 5509860 509 14:24:02 0:01:39 5509861 488 14:25:39 0:01:37 5509862 503 14:27:16 0:01:37 5509863 506 14:28:52 0:01:36 5509864 501 14:30:52 0:02:00 5509865 500 14:32:28 0:01:36 5509866 504 14:34:04 0:01:36 5509867 508 14:35:32 0:01:28 5509868 512 14:37:10 0:01:38 5509869 481 14:38:40 0:01:30 5509870 516 14:40:21 0:01:41 5509871 481 14:42:24 0:02:03 5509872 496 14:43:24 0:01:00 5509873 511 14:44:55 0:01:31 5509874 502 14:46:26 0:01:31 5509875 515 14:48:09 0:01:43 5509876 499 14:49:38 0:01:29 5509877 511 14:51:22 0:01:44 5509878 505 14:53:02 0:01:40 5509879 492 14:54:55 0:01:53 5509880 507 14:56:35 0:01:40 5509881 501 14:58:21 0:01:46 5509882 493 14:59:48 0:01:27 5509883 502 15:01:18 0:01:30 5509884 501 15:02:53 0:01:35 5509885 512 15:04:25 0:01:32 5509886 494 15:06:06 0:01:41 REM - 2003

Page 42 of 68

Std 500 lb BPH

Chauvenet's Criterion

--41.7 40.0 37.0 36.4 39.6 39.2 39.0 33.9 34.4 33.2 33.6 35.4 37.0 36.2 37.3 37.9 30.1 37.5 37.8 41.6 37.6 38.5 36.8 28.2 59.5 40.4 39.7 36.0 40.4 35.4 36.4 31.3 36.5 34.0 40.8 40.2 38.0 40.1 35.2

---

*

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: D Location: Unit: #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D Run: 3 Elapsed Time: 63 Bale Time: 63.43 Ave min/bale: 0:01:40

Date: Job #: Start Time: End Time:

11/4/2009 709-124 15:23 16:26

Test Time: 60 3.37 36.4

StdDev Std BPH: Ave Std BPH:

Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 5509896 15:23:53 --5509897 507 15:25:15 0:01:22 5509898 516 15:26:57 0:01:42 5509899 521 15:28:32 0:01:35 5509900 533 15:30:02 0:01:30 5509901 529 15:31:32 0:01:30 5509902 529 15:33:06 0:01:34 5509903 513 15:34:43 0:01:37 5509904 530 15:36:24 0:01:41 5509905 514 15:37:59 0:01:35 5509906 515 15:39:39 0:01:40 5509907 495 15:41:21 0:01:42 5509908 510 15:43:14 0:01:53 5509909 495 15:44:58 0:01:44 5509910 496 15:46:42 0:01:44 5509911 493 15:48:37 0:01:55 5509912 486 15:50:31 0:01:54 5509913 489 15:52:11 0:01:40 5509914 502 15:54:05 0:01:54 5509915 477 15:55:44 0:01:39 5509916 487 15:57:28 0:01:44 5509917 481 15:59:02 0:01:34 5509918 497 16:00:44 0:01:42 5509919 497 16:02:19 0:01:35 5509920 506 16:03:59 0:01:40 5509921 522 16:05:37 0:01:38 5509922 511 16:07:10 0:01:33 5509923 517 16:08:54 0:01:44 5509924 501 16:10:35 0:01:41 5509925 509 16:12:10 0:01:35 5509926 510 16:13:43 0:01:33 5509927 513 16:15:13 0:01:30 5509928 506 16:16:46 0:01:33 5509929 512 16:18:27 0:01:41 5509930 523 16:20:18 0:01:51 5509931 505 16:22:22 0:02:04 5509932 506 16:24:00 0:01:38 5509933 509 16:25:44 0:01:44 5509934 502 16:27:19 0:01:35 REM - 2003

Page 43 of 68

Std 500 lb BPH

Chauvenet's Criterion

--44.5 36.4 39.5 42.6 42.3 40.5 38.1 37.8 39.0 37.1 34.9 32.5 34.3 34.3 30.9 30.7 35.2 31.7 34.7 33.7 36.8 35.1 37.7 36.4 38.4 39.6 35.8 35.7 38.6 39.5 41.0 39.2 36.5 33.9 29.3 37.2 35.2 38.0

---

Method 5.1 Weight, Data & Calculations

Client : D Date : 11/4/2009 Location: Job # : 709-124 Unit : #17 Motes 1st Stage 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:

NA NA

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

14.21 50 1

g g

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

NA NA

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

10.88 50 1

g g

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

NA NA

g g

10.47 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-0901 654.745 652.742 -0.042 1.961

mg mg mg mg

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

TS-0903 723.492 718.828 -0.032 4.632

mg mg mg mg

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

TS-0904 665.565 663.772 -0.031 1.761

mg mg mg mg

8L-1536 305.517 279.203 26.314

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

8L-1537 291.445 276.894 14.551

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

8L-1538 295.168 274.208 20.960

mg mg mg

TL-0134 660.591 660.110 0.481 NA -0.149 NA

mg mg mg mg mg mg

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

TL-0135 616.758 615.926 0.831 NA -0.149 NA

mg mg mg mg mg mg

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

TL-0136 729.938 729.333 0.605 NA -0.149 NA

mg mg mg mg mg mg

g g g g g

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

Run 2 0.0046 0.0146 NA 0.0192 NA

g g g g g

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

Run 3 0.0018 0.0210 NA 0.0227 NA

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:

Run 1 0.0020 0.0263 NA 0.0283 NA

No Back 1/2 DI Water Weights REM Method 5.1 - 2007

Page 44 of 68

g g g g g

Acetone Rinse Client : D Date : 11/4/2009 Location: Job # : 709-124 Unit : #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D

Total PM Run 1

Run 2 Filter ID#: 8L-1536

Run 3 Filter ID#: 8L-1537

Filter ID#: 8L-1538

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 238.2 End Vol: 224.0 Total: 14.2 Tub #: TS-0901

g g g

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 201.9 End Vol: 191.0 Total: 10.9 Tub #: TS-0903

g g g

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 167.0 End Vol: 156.6 Total: 10.5 Tub #: TS-0904

g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 Probe End Vol: Total: 50.0 Tub #: TL-0134

g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 Probe End Vol: Total: 50.0 Tub #: TL-0135

g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 Probe End Vol: Total: 50.0 Tub #: TL-0136

g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: DI H2O End Vol: Total: NA Tub #: TL-0134

g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: DI H2O End Vol: Total: NA Tub #: TL-0135

g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: DI H2O End Vol: Total: NA Tub #: TL-0136

g g g

Page 45 of 68

Filter/Tub Weights Client : D Location: Unit : #17 Motes 1st Stage 1D3D

Acetone Blank DI Water Blank Filter Blank

No. 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Date : 11/4/2009 Job # : 709-124

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

100 g 250 g

Cyclone Name Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage Motes 1st Stage

Method 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 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 46 of 68

Filter/Tub No. TL-0134 8L-1536 TS-0901 TL-0135 8L-1537 TS-0903 TL-0136 8L-1538 TS-0904

PreWeight (mg) 741.126 644.790 249.026 PreWeight (mg) 660.110 279.203 652.742 615.926 276.894 718.828 729.333 274.208 663.772

PostWeight (mg) 741.425 646.241 249.047 PostWeight (mg) 660.591 305.517 654.745 616.758 291.445 723.492 729.938 295.168 665.565

NetWeight (mg) 0.298 1.451 0.021 NetWeight (mg) 0.481 26.314 2.003 0.831 14.551 4.664 0.605 20.960 1.793

3

Particle Density (g/cm ) 2.65 Dynamic Shape Factor 1.40 LS230 Summary Rep 1 MMD (m) 8.84 GSD 2.67 % 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 53 of 68

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