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

Overflow System Total Particle Size Distribution Characteristics for Cotton Gin A using Method 17 and Laser Diffraction Analyses Part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project

Report ID: 15-PSD-GA-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 71

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 .............................................................................................................. 31 Process Calibration Documents ..................................................................................................... 48 Dry Gas Meter Calibration.............................................................................................................. 49 Type "S" Pitot Tube Calibration ..................................................................................................... 59 Nozzle Inspection............................................................................................................................ 64 Cyclonic Flow Evaluation............................................................................................................... 67 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................................................ 69 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 71

Page 3 of 71

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 A overflow 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 overflow system. These test reports were separated by cotton gin and testing method. For the overflow 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, and Gin E.

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 A, Overflow 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 0.125 0.017 0.0017 Run 2 79 100 0.171 0.032 0.0032 Run 3 79 100 0.051 0.007 0.0008 79 100 0.116 0.018 0.0019 Average

Page 4 of 71

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 71

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 No 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 71

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 overflow 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. Overflow System PM10 Residuals

Residuals

1.0

0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0

-1.5 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Test Runs

Overflow System PM2.5 Residuals

Residuals

2.0

1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0

-3.0 0

5

10

15

Test Runs

Page 7 of 71

20

25

30

OSU Technical Report OSU13-05 Ver. 2.0 – Particle Size Distribution Characteristics of Cotton Gin Overflow System Total Particulate Emissions Note: Contains field and lab data for Gin A only.

Page 8 of 71

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 overflow 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 (9 total test runs) were 0.00048 kg/227-kg bale (0.0011 lb/500-lb bale), 0.0089 kg/bale (0.020 lb/bale), and 0.0084 kg/bale (0.019 lb/bale), respectively. The overflow system particle size distributions were characterized by an average mass median diameter of 18.68 µm (aerodynamic equivalent diameter) and a geometric standard deviation of 3.39. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 1.7%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 5.4%, PM10 to total was 31%, and PM102.5

to total was 29%. Particle size distribution based system average PM2.5 and PM10 emission

factors were 12% and 67% of those measured for this project utilizing EPA-approved methods. The particle sized distribution based PM10 emission factor was 75% of that currently published in EPA AP-42 for the overflow fan.

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 71

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 71

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 overflow 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 71

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 71

Overflow systems (Fig. 2) follow the seed-cotton cleaning systems and are used to help maintain proper flow of seed cotton to the gin stands. Seed cotton drops from the last stage of seed-cotton cleaning into the conveyor distributor where it is distributed to the extractor feeders that meter cotton to each gin stand (cotton gins typically split the seed cotton among multiple, parallel gin stands). Excess seed cotton in the conveyor distributor is conveyed to the overflow system storage hopper, recirculated pneumatically, and dropped back into the conveyor distributor via a screened separator as needed. The airstream from the screened separator of the overflow system continues through a centrifugal fan to one or more particulate abatement cyclones. The material handled by the overflow system cyclones typically includes soil, small leaf, and lint fiber (Fig. 3).

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

Figure 3. Photograph of typical trash captured by the overflow 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 71

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 AP-42 average total particulate emission factor for the overflow fan was 0.033 kg (0.071 lb) per 217-kg [480-lb] equivalent bale with a range of 0.0050 to 0.059 kg (0.011-0.13 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on four 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 overflow fan was 0.012 kg (0.026 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.0020 to 0.017 kg (0.0045-0.038 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was also based on four tests conducted in one geographical location 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.

Page 14 of 71

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 overflow systems evolved out of the Buser et al. (2012) project plan. Boykin et al. (2014) reported on one study that used EPA Method 17 to measure total particulate emission factors for the overflow systems. The system average total particulate emission factor was 0.029 kg (0.063 lb) per 227 kg (500-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.0068 to 0.053 kg (0.015-0.116 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 overflow system PM10 and total particulate emission factors. The system average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were 0.013 kg/227-kg bale (0.029 lb/500-lb bale) and 0.033 kg/bale (0.072 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 0.0040 kg/227-kg bale (0.0088 lb/500-lb bale). The PM10 and total particulate average emission factors were 0.018 kg/bale (0.040 lb/bale) and 0.041 kg/bale (0.090 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 overflow systems. The secondary objective was to develop PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors for cotton gin overflow systems equipped with cyclones on the system

Page 15 of 71

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 sampled gins had overflow systems where the exhaust airstreams were not combined with other major systems. Another sampled gin had an overflow system where the exhaust was combined with a trash handling system prior to the cyclone. The overflow systems sampled were typical for the industry. The overflow systems at gins A and E were similar. Excess seed cotton in the conveyor distributor dropped into the overflow system hopper where it was picked up and pneumatically conveyed to the overflow system screened separator. The seed cotton was separated from the conveying airstream by the separator and dropped back into the conveyor distributor. The conveying air from the overflow system separator then passed through a fan and exhausted through one or more cyclones. Gin C utilized two, separate and parallel, overflow systems with separate fans and emissions control cyclones. It is not unusual at gins for exhaust airstreams from different systems to be combined before the fan and cyclone(s). The gin C overflow systems exhaust airstreams were combined with a relatively minor system (extractor feeder dust) before the fan. The overflow system at gin D was similar to the systems at gins A and E, except material from a significant trash system (mote trash) was combined with the exhaust airstream of the system. Since the mote trash system combined with the gin D overflow system could significantly impact the overflow system emissions, the data for the gin D system will not be included in the system averages but was included in the data tables for comparison. Boykin et al. (2014) provides system flow diagrams for the overflow systems that were tested. All overflow systems sampled utilized 1D3D cyclones to control emissions (Fig. 4), but there were some cyclone design variations among the gins. Gins C and D 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 and E was exhausted through a single cyclone. Inlets on all the overflow cyclones were inverted 1D3D type, except gin D that had 2D2D inlets. Expansion chambers were present on overflow cyclones at gins A and D, and gins C and E had

Page 16 of 71

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). Boykin et al. (2014) provides additional details of the cyclone variations for the systems 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 four gins with overflow 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 Boykin 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 71

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 71

(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 (Boykin 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 overflow systems sampled were typical for the industry, except for the gin D system. The data from gin D was not included in the system average data because the overflow and mote system exhausts were combined, so the data was included for comparison purposes only. The system average ginning rate was 28.5 bales/h and the test average ginning rate at each gin ranged from 23.6 to 35.3 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 ±

Page 19 of 71

10%. All tests met the isokinetic criteria. The stack gas temperatures ranged from 18 to 37oC (64-99oF) and moisture content ranged from 0.8 to 2.1%. 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 30 to 82% 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 15.77 µm AED and 3.48, respectively. Test averages ranged from 9.97 to 33.89 µm AED for MMD and from 2.45 to 4.12 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 1.32 to 2.38%, 16.4 to 50.1%, and 14.8 to 47.8%, respectively. Filter PM PSDs for the four gins and the system average are shown in Figure 5. Test averages for the gin D (combined overflow and mote trash systems) filter PSD data were consistent with the system average data which was based on gin A, C and E data. In general, the PSD characteristics for the PM captured on the filters for gins C, D and E were consistent. The PSD for gin A was shifted to the right and had a larger MMD and GSD than the other three gins as shown in Table 1. Table 1. EPA Method 17 filter particle size distribution data for the overflow system. Geometric Standard Deviation

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

Mass Median Diameter µm AED 40.61 29.01 33.77 33.89

1 2 3 y Average (n=3)

Sample Total mg 145.45 216.98 55.24

4.14 3.83 4.23 4.12

PM2.5 % 1.28 1.82 1.50 1.53

PM10-2.5 % 12.4 17.7 14.4 14.8

PM10 % 13.7 19.5 15.9 16.4

10.56 9.67 9.71 9.97

2.51 2.52 2.32 2.45

2.33 2.57 2.23 2.38

45.4 48.8 49.1 47.8

47.7 51.4 51.3 50.1

5.95 7.79 2.58

1 2 3 zy Average (n=3)

12.22 11.98 12.68 12.29

2.70 2.85 2.95 2.83

2.45 2.77 2.60 2.61

39.8 40.6 38.7 39.7

42.3 43.4 41.3 42.3

31.30 36.10 39.54

13.32 13.11 13.29 13.24

3.06 3.05 3.03 3.05

1.27 1.41 1.27 1.32

38.6 39.1 38.6 38.8

39.9 40.5 39.9 40.1

9.05 7.91 9.28

Test


System

Average (n=3)

15.77

3.48

1.74

33.8

35.5

Gin A

Test C

Test D

Test E

y

z

Omitted from the system average because the overflow exhaust airstream was combined with the mote trash system exhaust y Based on averaged particle size distributions

Page 20 of 71

Figure 5. Gin average particle size distributions for the PM captured on a EPA-Method 17 filter from the overflow 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 18 to 70% of the total PM (filter and wash) collected from the individual test runs. The system average MMD and GSD were 23.42 µm AED and 3.11, respectively. Test average MMDs ranged from 17.11 to 45.14 µm AED and GSDs ranged from 2.76 to 3.02. The mass fraction of PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 ranged from 1.16 to 1.92%, 11.6 to 31.5%, and 9.6 to 29.6%, respectively. PSDs for the PM captured in the nozzle for the four gins and the system average are shown in Figure 6. The gin D (combined overflow and mote trash systems) wash PSD data were within the range of PSD data for gins A, C and E data. The PSD for gin A was shifted to the right and had a larger MMD than the other three gins as shown in Table 2.

Page 21 of 71

Table 2. EPA Method 17 nozzle wash particle size distribution data for the overflow system. Geometric Standard Deviation




Sample Total mg 33.48 47.51 27.21

2.50 3.73 3.23 3.02

PM2.5 % 1.90 2.21 1.63 1.92

PM10-2.5 % 9.6 11.3 8.1 9.6

PM10 % 11.5 13.5 9.7 11.6

13.82 17.96 20.97 17.11

2.43 2.82 2.87 2.76

1.84 2.00 1.72 1.85

35.1 28.2 25.6 29.6

36.9 30.2 27.3 31.5

3.04 4.20 5.91


37.86 22.36 30.36 29.14

3.79 3.74 2.87 3.41

1.76 1.85 2.11 1.91

15.3 23.3 17.0 18.5

17.1 25.1 19.1 20.4

10.17 6.38 10.55

16.59 15.95 23.37 18.28

2.89 2.70 3.14 2.91

1.45 0.98 1.06 1.16

30.5 31.5 22.4 28.1

31.9 32.5 23.5 29.3

3.71 3.90 3.84

Test


System

Average (n=3)

23.42

3.11

1.64

22.5

24.1

Gin A

Test C

Test D

Test E

y

z

Omitted from the system average because the overflow exhaust airstream was combined with the mote trash system exhaust y Based on averaged particle size distributions

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

Page 22 of 71

The combined PSD characteristics for the PM captured on the filter and PM captured in the wash are shown in Table 3. The overflow system average combined filter and wash PSD MMD was 18.68 µm AED (12.82 to 37.01 µm test average range) and GSD was 3.39 (2.80 to 3.86 test average range). The combined filter and wash PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 mass fractions ranged from 1.27 to 2.14%, 15.2 to 40.9%, and 13.6 to 38.7%, respectively. Combined PM PSDs for the four gins and the system average are shown in Figure 7. In general, the PSD characteristics for the combined filter and nozzle wash PM for gins C, D and E were consistent even though the overflow system exhaust for gin D was combined with a mote trash system exhaust. The combined filter and wash PSD for gin A followed the same trends that were observed in the separate filter and wash PSD data. The PSD for gin A was shifted to the right and had a larger MMD and GSD than the other three gins. These combined PSDs 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

Table 3. EPA Method 17 combined filter and wash particle size distribution data for the overflow system. Geometric Standard Deviation




3.73 3.83 3.92 3.86

PM2.5 % 1.39 1.89 1.55 1.61

PM10-2.5 % 11.9 16.5 12.3 13.6

PM10 % 13.3 18.4 13.9 15.2

11.56 11.75 16.01 12.82

2.50 2.79 2.94 2.80

2.16 2.37 1.87 2.14

41.9 41.6 32.7 38.7

44.1 43.9 34.6 40.9


15.10 13.04 14.88 14.29

3.31 3.07 3.23 3.22

2.28 2.63 2.50 2.47

33.8 38.0 34.1 35.3

36.1 40.6 36.6 37.8

Test


14.24 14.03 15.68 14.63

3.02 2.95 3.14 3.04

1.32 1.27 1.21 1.27

36.2 36.6 33.9 35.6

37.6 37.8 35.1 36.8

System

Average (n=3)

18.68

3.39

1.67

29.3

31.0

Gin A

Test C

Test D

Test E

y

z

Omitted from the system average because overflow exhaust airstream was combined with the mote trash system exhaust y Based on averaged particle size distributions

Page 23 of 71

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

The PSD based emission factors for the overflow systems are shown in Table 4. The system average PM2.5 emission factor was 0.00048 kg/bale (0.0011 lb/bale). PM2.5 emission factors ranged from 0.000079 to 0.0015 kg (0.00017-0.0032 lb) per bale. The overflow system average PM10 emission factor was 0.0089 kg/bale (0.020 lb/bale). The PM10 emission factors ranged from 0.0023 to 0.014 kg/bale (0.0050-0.032 lb/bale). The overflow system average PM102.5

emission factor was 0.0084 kg/bale (0.019 lb/bale) and ranged from 0.0022 to 0.013 kg

(0.0049-0.029 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 1.7, 5.4, 31, and 29%, respectively.

Page 24 of 71

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

Total kg/balez lb/balez 0.057 0.125 0.078 0.171 0.023 0.051

w

PM10 kg/balez lb/balez 0.0076 0.017 0.014 0.032 0.0032 0.0071

w

PM10-2.5 kg/balez lb/balez 0.0068 0.015 0.013 0.028 0.0028 0.0063

w

PM2.5 kg/balez lb/balez 0.00079 0.0017 0.0015 0.0032 0.00036 0.00079

Gin A

Test Run 1 2 3

C

1 2 3

0.025 0.032 0.023

0.056 0.069 0.050

0.011 0.014 0.0079

0.025 0.031 0.017

0.011 0.013 0.0075

0.023 0.029 0.016

0.00055 0.00075 0.00043

0.0012 0.0016 0.00094

D

1y 2y 3y

0.033 0.029 0.034

0.074 0.064 0.074

0.012 0.012 0.012

0.027 0.026 0.027

0.011 0.011 0.011

0.025 0.024 0.025

0.00076 0.00076 0.00084

0.0017 0.0017 0.0019

E

1 2 3

0.0070 0.0070 0.0065

0.015 0.015 0.014

0.0026 0.0026 0.0023

0.0058 0.0058 0.0050

0.0025 0.0026 0.0022

0.0056 0.0056 0.0049

0.000093 0.000089 0.000079

0.00021 0.00020 0.00017

System

Average

0.029

0.063

0.0089

0.020

0.0084

0.019

0.00048

0.0011

z

227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales y Omitted from the system average because overflow exhaust airstream was combined with the mote trash system exhaust x Taken from Boykin 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 overflow system PM2.5 emission factor was approximately 12% of the PM2.5 emission factor reported by Boykin et al. (2013) and measured using EPA Method 201A, 0.0040 kg (0.0088 lb) per bale. The PSD based overflow system PM10 emission factor was 75% of the EPA AP-42 published value for the overflow fan, 0.012 kg (0.026 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a). Also, the PSD based system PM10 emission factor was 67% of the Method 201A (PM10 sizing cyclone only) PM10 emission factor reported by Boykin et al. (2014), 0.013 kg (0.029 lb) per bale and 49% of the Method 201A (PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones) PM10 emission factor reported by Boykin et al. (2013), 0.018 kg (0.040 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

Page 25 of 71

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 26 of 71

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. Four of the seven gins had overflow systems that used pneumatic conveyance. One of the measured systems was combined with a mote trash system and the data from this system was not included in the overall system average even though the data collected from this system was consistent with the system average. 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 gins were typical of the industry, averaging 28.5 bales/h during testing. The average PSD based overflow system PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 emission factors from the three gins tested (9 total test runs) were 0.00048 kg/227-kg bale (0.0011 lb/500-lb bale), 0.0089 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 was less than that currently published in EPA AP-42. The PSDs were characterized by an average MMD of 18.68 µm AED and a GSD of 3.39. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 1.7%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 5.4%, PM10 to total was 31%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 29%.

Page 27 of 71

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. Overflow system PM2.5 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A combination PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. 17:357-367. 2013. Boykin, J.C., M.D. Buser, D.P. Whitelock, and G.A. Holt. 2014. Overflow system PM10 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A PM10 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. (In Review) Boykin, J.C., M.D. Buser, D.P. Whitelock, and G.A. Holt t. 2014. Overflow system total particulate emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 17. 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.

Page 28 of 71

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. 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 29 of 71

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., 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 30 of 71

Gin A Field and Laboratory Data

Page 31 of 71

Gin: A Exhaust: #600 Overflow 1D3D Date: 2008

Emission Factor (lbs/bale)

Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

Based on EPA Method 17

Based on EPA Method 17

Total PM

Total PM Run 1 3.1106 Run 2 4.6014 Run 3 1.4171 Average 3.0430 Condensables Run 1 0.0231 Run 2 0.0494 Run 3 0.0090 Average 0.0272

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

0.1254 0.1710 0.0510 0.1158 0.0009 0.0018 0.0003 0.0010

Page 32 of 71

Method 5 Data Average Sheet A #600 Overflow 1D3D 12/11/08 Raw Test Data Run 1 26.30 1.00 0.84 -0.20 20.90 0.01 68.0 63.8 55.6 0.33 0.58 1.13 6.90 36.62 21.00 0.00031 60

Run 2 26.30 1.00 0.84 -0.20 20.90 0.01 68.0 71.3 62.9 0.33 0.57 1.10 8.20 36.40 21.00 0.00031 60

Run 3 26.30 1.00 0.84 -0.20 20.90 0.01 68.0 75.4 66.4 0.35 0.59 1.19 7.20 38.39 21.00 0.00031 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 26.29 528.0 523.8 515.6 0.32 33.17 0.010 79.09 28.84 28.73 2.41

Run 2 26.29 528.0 531.3 522.9 0.39 32.50 0.012 79.09 28.84 28.71 2.41

Run 3 26.29 528.0 535.4 526.4 0.34 34.06 0.010 79.09 28.84 28.73 2.41

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

Run 1 34.4 4,971 4,360 3246 99.55

Run 2 34.3 4,954 4,275 3236 99.48

Run 3 35.8 5,161 4,427 3370 100.69

Run 1 0.179 0.083 3.11 24.80 0.125 1 0.125

Run 2 0.264 0.126 4.60 26.91 0.171 1 0.171

Run 3 0.082 0.037 1.42 27.77 0.051 1 0.051

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 26.30 1.00 Y Cp 0.84 Pg -0.20 20.90 %O2 0.01 %CO2 tsd 68.0 ts 70.1 61.6 tm 0.34 ∆P √∆P 0.58 ∆H 1.14 Vlc 7.43 Vm 37.14 Ds 21.00 An 0.000306 Time 60 Pbar

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

Average 26.29 528.0 530.1 521.6 0.35 33.25 0.010 79.09 28.84 28.72 2.41

Results Vs Qa Qstd Invs I

Average 34.8 5,029 4,354 3,284 99.91

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 33 of 71

Ws Cs CFs Sbl/hr Cfbale #Cy Tsys

Average 0.175 0.082 3.04 26.49 0.116 1 0.12

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

42 1 21 B: 1 7

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

A

Unit: #600 Overflow 1D3D Job #: 608-099 Operator: Cam Weather: Clear Filter #: p Stack: -0.2 Ambient Temp: 60 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.01 Pitot #: 3 Y: 1.00300 Δ H @: 1.895 Cp: 0.84 Dia 0.237 % 2 Nozzle #: 6 K Fac: 3.38 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0 OK Hg 22 Post Leak Check: 0.016 Hg 10 OK Date: 12/11/08

1 2 68 26.3 MS-1 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 63 64 63 64 63 64 63 63 63 63 60 60 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 61

Meter Temp

Avg 53 53 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 54 55 55 57 56 56 57 57 57 59 59 58 55 59 59

Veloctiy ∆P 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.41 0.4 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.26 0.3 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.3

Vacuum in.Hg 4

Averages:

63.75

55.58

0.33

4.00

36.622

√ ∆P 0.648 0.616 0.624 0.583 0.583 0.52 0.574 0.592 0.574 0.583 0.583 0.557 0.64 0.632 0.624 0.592 0.566 0.51 0.548 0.539 0.539 0.52 0.529 0.548

Meter ∆H 1.42 1.28 1.32 1.15 1.15 0.91 1.12 1.18 1.12 1.15 1.15 1.05 1.39 1.35 1.32 1.18 1.08 0.88 1.01 0.98 0.98 0.91 0.95 1.01

36.622

0.576

1.13

Meter Volume 0 Start Time 10:01

End Time 11:04 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g

Start Vol End Vol Start Vol End Vol

Total: REM - 2003

Page 34 of 71

1 2 3 4

Tare 728.1 763.5 607.5 794.5

Gross Total 719.3 -8.8 g 768.2 4.7 g 608.8 1.3 g 804.2 9.7 g Total: 6.9 g

Method 5 Calculation Sheet Client : A Location: Unit : #600 Overflow 1D3D Run # : 1

Date : Job # : Pstd: Tstd:

12/11/2008 608-099 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)

26.30 1.0030 0.84 -0.20 20.90 0.01 68.0 63.8 55.6 0.333 0.576 1.13 6.9 36.622 21.0 0.00031 60

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

26.29 528 524 516 0.32 33.17 0.010 79.09 28.84 28.73 2.41

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms As

34.45 4,971 4,360 99.55

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)))

0.1789 0.0832 3.11

REM - 2003

Page 35 of 71

Ws Cs CFs

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

Method 5 Data Sheet


42 1 21 B: 1 7


A 2 3 68 26.3 MS-1 0.02

Unit: #600 Overflow 1D3D Date: 12/11/08 Job #: 608-099 Operator: Cam Weather: Clear Filter #: p Stack: -0.2 Ambient Temp: 58 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.01 Pitot #: 3 Y: 1.00300 Δ H @: 1.895 Cp: 0.84 % 2 Nozzle #: 6 Dia 0.237 K Fac: 3.38 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.013 Hg 20 OK Post Leak Check: 0.015 Hg 10 OK

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 69 69 70 70 71 70 71 71 71 70 68 68 72 73 73 74 74 74 75 74 74 73 71 65

Meter Temp

Avg 68 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 65 64 65 65 65

Veloctiy ∆P 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.27 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.4 0.41 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31

Vacuum in.Hg

Averages:

71.25

62.88

0.33

8.00

7 9 8

36.395

√ ∆P 0.624 0.6 0.616 0.592 0.566 0.52 0.548 0.592 0.592 0.566 0.557 0.574 0.632 0.64 0.616 0.583 0.557 0.49 0.52 0.5 0.539 0.539 0.557 0.557

Meter ∆H 1.32 1.22 1.28 1.18 1.08 0.91 1.01 1.18 1.18 1.08 1.05 1.12 1.35 1.39 1.28 1.15 1.05 0.81 0.91 0.85 0.98 0.98 1.05 1.05

36.395

0.57

1.10



Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g


Total: REM - 2003

Page 36 of 71

1 2 3 4

Tare 754.4 738.1 602.2 821.8




12/11/2008 608-099 29.92 68

Raw Test Data 26.30 1.0030 0.84 -0.20 20.90 0.01 68.0 71.3 62.9 0.326 0.570 1.10 8.2 36.395 21.0 0.00031 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




26.29 528 531 523 0.39 32.50 0.012 79.09 28.84 28.71 2.41

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


34.33 4,954 4,275 99.48

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)

0.2645 0.1256 4.60

REM - 2003

Page 37 of 71

Ws Cs CFs


Method 5 Data Sheet


42 1 21 B: 1 7


A 3 3 68 26.3 MS-1 0.02

Unit: #600 Overflow 1D3D Date: 12/11/08 Job #: 608-099 Operator: Cam Weather: Part Cloud Filter #: p Stack: -0.2 Ambient Temp: 58 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.01 Pitot #: 3 Y: 1.00300 Δ H @: 1.895 Cp: 0.84 % 2 Nozzle #: 6 Dia 0.237 K Fac: 3.38 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.001 Hg 22 OK Post Leak Check: 0.005 Hg 10 OK

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 78 75 77 77 77 76 78 77 77 75 72 70 75 78 77 78 77 78 77 77 76 74 70 64

Meter Temp

Avg 66 65 66 66 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 60

Veloctiy ∆P 0.43 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.34 0.33 0.44 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.27 0.3 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.31

Vacuum in.Hg 8

Averages:

75.42

66.38

0.35

8.00

38.39

√ ∆P 0.656 0.648 0.616 0.624 0.616 0.566 0.52 0.592 0.6 0.616 0.583 0.574 0.663 0.632 0.616 0.6 0.583 0.52 0.548 0.566 0.557 0.557 0.583 0.557

Meter ∆H 1.45 1.42 1.28 1.32 1.28 1.08 0.91 1.18 1.22 1.28 1.15 1.12 1.49 1.35 1.28 1.22 1.15 0.91 1.01 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.05

38.39

0.591

1.19



Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g


Total: REM - 2003

Page 38 of 71

1 2 3 4

Tare 756.7 775.9 608.3 803.9




12/11/2008 608-099 29.92 68

Raw Test Data 26.30 1.0030 0.84 -0.20 20.90 0.01 68.0 75.4 66.4 0.351 0.591 1.19 7.2 38.390 21.0 0.00031 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




26.29 528 535 526 0.34 34.06 0.010 79.09 28.84 28.73

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms

2.41

As

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

35.76 5,161 4,427 100.69

Vs

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

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


Qa Qstd 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)

0.0824 0.0373 1.42

REM - 2003

Page 39 of 71

Ws Cs CFs


Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: A Location: Unit: #600 Overflow 1D3D Run: 1 Elapsed Time: 63 Bale Time: 64.00 Ave min/bale: 0:02:22 Bale No. Bale Wt. Time 1544317 10:00:00 1544318 462 10:03:00 1544319 485 10:05:00 1544320 484 10:07:00 1544321 473 10:09:00 1544322 496 10:11:00 1544323 472 10:14:00 1544324 488 10:16:00 1544325 454 10:18:00 1544326 487 10:20:00 1544327 484 10:23:00 1544328 510 10:25:00 1544329 496 10:27:00 1544330 485 10:29:00 1544331 509 10:32:00 1544332 496 10:34:00 1544333 476 10:36:00 1544334 507 10:38:00 1544335 496 10:41:00 1544336 494 10:43:00 1544337 485 10:45:00 1544338 504 10:47:00 1544339 486 10:49:00 1544340 515 10:52:00 1544341 490 10:54:00 1544342 501 10:56:00 1544343 507 10:59:00 1544344 487 11:04:00

Date: Job #: Start Time: End Time:

12/11/2008 608-099 10:01 11:04

Test Time: 60 5.23 24.8

StdDev Std BPH: Ave Std BPH:

time/bale --0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:05:00

REM - 2003

Page 40 of 71

Std 500 lb BPH

Chauvenet's Criterion

--18.5 29.1 29.0 28.4 29.8 18.9 29.3 27.2 29.2 19.4 30.6 29.8 29.1 20.4 29.8 28.6 30.4 19.8 29.6 29.1 30.2 29.2 20.6 29.4 30.1 20.3 11.7

---

*

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: A Location: Unit: #600 Overflow 1D3D Run: 2 Elapsed Time: 70 Bale Time: 64.00 Ave min/bale: 0:02:22


12/11/2008 608-099 11:26 12:36

Test Time: 60 3.89 26.9


Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 1544354 11:26:00 --1544355 463 11:28:00 0:02:00 1544356 480 11:30:00 0:02:00 1544357 11:36:00 0:06:00 1544358 502 11:38:00 0:02:00 1544359 495 11:40:00 0:02:00 1544360 508 11:43:00 0:03:00 1544361 490 11:45:00 0:02:00 1544362 512 11:47:00 0:02:00 1544363 490 11:49:00 0:02:00 1544364 494 11:52:00 0:03:00 1544365 476 11:54:00 0:02:00 1544366 496 11:56:00 0:02:00 1544367 530 11:59:00 0:03:00 1544368 493 12:01:00 0:02:00 1544369 505 12:03:00 0:02:00 1544370 513 12:05:00 0:02:00 1544371 497 12:07:00 0:02:00 1544372 512 12:10:00 0:03:00 1544373 473 12:12:00 0:02:00 1544374 509 12:14:00 0:02:00 1544375 488 12:16:00 0:02:00 1544376 504 12:18:00 0:02:00 1544377 493 12:21:00 0:03:00 1544378 498 12:23:00 0:02:00 1544379 475 12:25:00 0:02:00 1544380 490 12:27:00 0:02:00 1544381 474 12:29:00 0:02:00 1544382 502 12:32:00 0:03:00 1544383 490 12:34:00 0:02:00 1544384 499 12:36:00 0:02:00

Std 500 lb BPH


--27.8 28.8

---

* 30.1 29.7 20.3 29.4 30.7 29.4 19.8 28.6 29.8 21.2 29.6 30.3 30.8 29.8 20.5 28.4 30.5 29.3 30.2 19.7 29.9 28.5 29.4 28.4 20.1 29.4 29.9

REM - 2003

NOTE: Removed Bale Data = Lapse in Gin Operation

Page 41 of 71

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: A Location: Unit: #600 Overflow 1D3D Run: 3 Elapsed Time: 64 Bale Time: 67.00 Ave min/bale: 0:02:10


12/11/2008 608-099 13:00 14:04

Test Time: 60 9.25 27.8


Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 1544394 12:58:00 --1544395 485 13:01:00 0:03:00 1544396 518 13:04:00 0:03:00 1544397 502 13:05:00 0:01:00 1544398 516 13:08:00 0:03:00 1544399 509 13:10:00 0:02:00 1544400 529 13:12:00 0:02:00 1544401 504 13:14:00 0:02:00 1544402 518 13:16:00 0:02:00 1544403 488 13:18:00 0:02:00 1544404 499 13:21:00 0:03:00 1544405 489 13:23:00 0:02:00 1544406 491 13:25:00 0:02:00 1544407 487 13:27:00 0:02:00 1544408 499 13:31:00 0:04:00 1544409 548 13:33:00 0:02:00 1544410 500 13:34:00 0:01:00 1544411 492 13:36:00 0:02:00 1544412 473 13:38:00 0:02:00 1544413 498 13:40:00 0:02:00 1544414 491 13:42:00 0:02:00 1544415 501 13:44:00 0:02:00 1544416 512 13:46:00 0:02:00 1544417 501 13:48:00 0:02:00 1544418 515 13:50:00 0:02:00 1544419 484 13:52:00 0:02:00 13:54:00 0:02:00 1544420 489 1544421 498 13:56:00 0:02:00 1544422 498 13:58:00 0:02:00 1544423 497 14:00:00 0:02:00 1544424 499 14:02:00 0:02:00 1544425 476 14:05:00 0:03:00 REM - 2003

Page 42 of 71

Std 500 lb BPH


--19.4 20.7 60.2 20.6 30.5 31.7 30.2 31.1 29.3 20.0 29.3 29.5 29.2 15.0 32.9 60.0 29.5 28.4 29.9 29.5 30.1 30.7 30.1 30.9 29.0 29.3 29.9 29.9 29.8 29.9 19.0

---

*

*

Method 5.1 Weight, Data & Calculations

Client : A Location: Unit : #600 Overflow 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

Date : 12/11/2008 Job # : 608-099

mg mg mg g mg/g

Run 2

Run 3

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

319.3 319.3

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

303 303

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

283.1 283.1

g g

16.8 56.3 1

g g

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

15.5 58.4 1

g g

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

23.6 58.7 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-0070 696.092 662.565 -0.050 33.477

mg mg mg mg

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

TS-0072 755.370 707.810 -0.046 47.514

mg mg mg mg

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

TS-0074 693.102 665.823 -0.070 27.208

mg mg mg mg

6L-0039 425.743 280.292 145.450

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

6L-0040 510.318 293.333 216.984

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

6L-0041 347.437 292.199 55.238

mg mg mg

TL-0010 669.960 666.599 3.361 -1.853 -0.168 1.340

mg mg mg mg mg mg

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

TL-0011 698.916 694.115 4.801 -1.759 -0.174 2.868

mg mg mg mg mg mg

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

TL-0012 663.925 661.577 2.348 -1.643 -0.175 0.529

mg mg mg mg mg mg

Run 1 0.0335 0.1455 0.0013 0.1789 0.1803

g g g g g

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

Run 2 0.0475 0.2170 0.0029 0.2645 0.2674

g g g g g

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

Run 3 0.0272 0.0552 0.0005 0.0824 0.0830

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 43 of 71

Acetone Rinse Client : A Location: Unit : #600 Overflow 1D3D

Total PM

Date : 12/11/2008 Job # : 608-099

Date: 12/11/08 Run 1

Run 2 Filter ID#: 6L-0039

Run 3 Filter ID#: 6L-0040

Filter ID#: 6L-0041

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 307.7 End Vol: 290.9 Total: 16.8 Tub #: TS-0070

g g g


g g g


g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 56.3 Probe End Vol: 0.0 Total: 56.3 Tub #: TL-0010

g g g


g g g


g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 0.0 DI H2O End Vol: 319.3 Total: 319.3 Tub #: TL-0010

g g g


g g g


g g g

Page 44 of 71

Filter/Tub Weights Client : A Location: Unit : #600 Overflow 1D3D

Date : 12/11/2008 Job # : 608-099

Acetone Blank DI Water Blank Filter Blank

No. 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

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

100 g 250 g

Cyclone Name Overflow Overflow Overflow Overflow Overflow Overflow Overflow Overflow Overflow

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 45 of 71

Filter/Tub No. TL-0010 6L-0039 TS-0070 TL-0011 6L-0040 TS-0072 TL-0012 6L-0041 TS-0074

PreWeight (mg) 741.126 644.790 249.026 PreWeight (mg) 666.599 280.292 662.565 694.115 293.333 707.810 661.577 292.199 665.823

PostNetWeight Weight (mg) (mg) 741.425 0.298 646.241 1.451 249.047 0.021 PostNetWeight Weight (mg) (mg) 669.960 3.361 425.743 145.450 696.092 33.527 698.916 4.801 510.318 216.984 755.370 47.560 663.925 2.348 347.437 55.238 693.102 27.278

3

Particle Density (g/cm ) 2.65 Dynamic Shape Factor 1.40 LS230 Summary Rep 1 MMD (m) 40.61 GSD 4.14 %

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

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

Suggest Documents

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

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

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

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

1 Stage Mote 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

Cyclone Robber 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

Overflow System PM10 and Total PM Emission ... - Dr. Michael Buser

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

Battery Condenser System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Combined Lint Cleaning System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Battery Condenser System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Combined Lint Cleaning System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

Battery Condenser System Particle Size ... - Dr. Michael Buser

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

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