EnglandG DilutionMethods-final2 2010-11-03

8/10/2019 EnglandG DilutionMethods-final2 2010-11-03

1/23

for Fine Particulate Matter

Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corporation, Irvine, CA

Air & Waste Management Association

S m osium on Air Qualit Measurement Methods and Technolo

Los Angeles, California

November 2-4, 2010


2/23

Overview

v u y u u

Dilution test methods

Sampling considerations & issues

Summary

November, 20102 AWMA Measurements Symposium 2010


3/23

Why Dilution for Stationary Sources?

Simulates primary aerosol formation as it occurs in stack

Measurements directly comparable to ambient air

Improved sensitivity (detection limits)

Broader chemical/physical characterization

Avoids limitations a ueous artifacts sensitivit inherent in

filter/impinger methods that bias results

Avoids over-statement of PM emissions for man.source types

More appropriate targeting of sources and emission

reductions to achieve ambient air quality goals



4/23


5/23

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

2.5100%

Ambient Monitors (SCAB)

Stack Tests (natural gas-fired

power plant)Much less soil in PM2.5

2.080%

10

Condensable PM

therefore more im ortant

1.560%

,mg/dsc

Fraction

Other

1.040%

PMM

as

Specie

OC/ECNitrate

Sulfate

0.0

.

0%

Soil

Filterable

PM mass

0Ambient

CAB)

5Ambient

CAB)

.5Stack-

GCC

Impinger)

5Stack-

(Dilution)

5Ambient

site)

PM1

(

PM2

.

(PM2 N

(Filter

PM2

.

NGC

PM2

.



6/23

PM2.5 Rules & Methods

PM2.5 NAAQS

2004 proposed implementation rule

Hot filter/iced impinger methods (flawed - improve)u on me o s no proven ava a e - s e ve

2007 & 2008 final implementation rules

methods

(OTM 27/28 proposed 3/2009, final 4Q2010)

Revisions to PM standard (PM2.5, PMcoarse)

Possible proposal of CTM 039

.November, 20106 AWMA Measurements Symposium 2010


7/23

Dilution Methods

u

40 CFR 1065 (2007 heavy-duty diesel engine standard) 40 CFR 89 Subpart D Heavy Duty CI Engines

ISO 8178 diesel engine particulate emissions

Stationary Sources Research a arati CalTech DRI others

EPA Conditional Test Method 039 (July 2004)

.

progress)



8/23


9/23

Research Stack Gas Samplers

OConnor, 2006

Watson, 2010



10/23

EPA CTM-039

SampleInlet &

ea e

Probe HeatedSampleVenturi

Mixing(


11/23


12/23

CTM 039 Sample Recovery



13/23


14/23

Method Comparison

Process CTM-039 ASTM (draft)Approach Equipment specific Performance based (???)

In-stack PM10 &PM2.5 cyclones

yes yes

HEPA filter HEPA or ULPA filter Dilution air RH 50%

Cool air to 29 CActivated carbon filter

Cool sample T 39 C, RH70%

~ - samp e

Aging None (0.5-1 sec)Minimum 10 sec for lowconcentration sources

PM2.5 cyclone

(diluted sample)

No Optional

Sample venturi Yes Yes

Dilution air venturi No Yes



15/23

Method Comparison

Process CTM-039 ASTM (draft)

Filtered sample Entire diluted sample

Entire or slipstream

diluted sam le

Sample at filter Maximum 29 CMaximum 39? C

Maximum RH 70%

Recover surfacedeposits

Raw sample

Diluted sample

Raw sample

Diluted sample

Grav. Analysisvapora e, ess ca e

weighvapora e, we g a20 C & 20% RH

- -na y ca a ance

(0.01 mg)

(0.001 mg)

CalculationsIn-stack = filter mg/raw In-stack = filter mg/filter

samp e vo samp e vo x



16/23

Dilution sampler surface deposits



17/23

Low PM Concentrations

Process CTM-039 ASTM (draft)

Rea ent blank Rea ent blank & dilutionan s

subtraction

air blank subtraction

CTM 039 on natural as-fired ower lant

6

7

)

PM10-2.5 cyclone acetone rinse

PM2.5 probe-chamber acetone rinse

PM2.5 cone and chamber water rinse

PM2.5 47-mm filter Mean= 3.8 mg/dscm

=

Blanks indicate

significant

3

4

5

cm(

in-st

ac

Mean= 1.0 mg/dscm

= 0.6 mg/dscm

.

Mean=1.6 mg/dscm = 1.0 mg/dscm

the rinse procedureRinse background

1

2

M1

0,mg/d r ves g er

detection limits

Ne lect rinses if not

-1

0

A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B A A A B B B

BLANKSB TRAINSA TRAINS

significantly

different?

1-039

2-039

3-039

4-039

5-039

6-039

7-039

8-039

9-039

1-039

2-039

3-039

4-039

5-039

6-039

7-039

8-039

9-039

F

B

FB

2

FB

3

F

B

FB

2

FB

3



18/23

Filter Temperatureas- re ources

0.45

0.35

0.40

) Alpha

0.25

0.30

mg/dscm Bravo

Charlie

Delta

0.15

0.20

PM2.5

Echo AEcho B

Golf

0.05

.

.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Sample T (deg C)



19/23

Dilution Air Relative Humidityas- re ources

0.45

0.35

.

) Alpha

0.25

.

(mg/dsc Bravo

Charlie

Delta

0.15

.

PM2.5 Echo A

Echo B

Golf

0.05

.

.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dilution Air RH (%)



20/23

Sample Relative Humidityas- re ources

0.50

0.40

m

) Alpha

0.30

(mg/ds

Charlie

Delta

.

PM

2.

Echo BGolf

0.00

.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Sample RH (%)



21/23

Issues

Diesel engines Lower PM concentrations driving method improvementsDilution rate (1-step vs. 2-step), dilution ratio

Partial dilution, aging, secondary dilution

Filter media, temperature, pressure

Recover of surface de osits

Stationary sources

p mum equ pmen es gn, es proce ures or eren

source types

- .

Sample recovery (to rinse or not to rinse?)

,November, 201021 AWMA Measurements Symposium 2010


22/23


23/23

Questions?

Glenn [email protected]

- -November, 201023 AWMA Measurements Symposium 2010

Documents

EnglandG DilutionMethods-final2 2010-11-03