Stationary Source Control Techniques Document

for Fine Particulate Matter

EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-D-98-026

WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 0-08

Prepared for:

Mr. Kenneth Woodard

Integrated Policy and Strategies Group (MD-15)
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

October 1998

Submitted by:

EC/R Incorporated
Timberlyne Center
1129 Weaver Dairy Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
 Disclaimer

This report has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Copies

Copies of this document are available through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; or from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (for a fee). This document can
also be found on the Internet at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website
(http:\\[Link]/ttn/oarpg).

ii
 CONTENTS

TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 OTHER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

2 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 TRENDS IN AMBIENT PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS
AND PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE CONTROL PROGRAMS AND
EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3 SOURCES OF PM10 AND PM2.5 EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3.1 Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3.2 Area Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

3 MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 LIST OF EPA PM MASS MEASUREMENT TEST METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 EPA STATIONARY (POINT) SOURCE PM MASS MEASUREMENT
TEST METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.1 EPA Test Method 5 for Total PM Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.2 EPA Test Method 5 Variations: 5A - 5H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.2.3 EPA Test Methods for PM10 from Stationary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
[Link] Method 201: Determination of PM10 Emissions--Exhaust Gas
Recycle Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
[Link] Methods 201A: Determination of PM10 Emissions--Constant
Sampling Rate Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.2.4 EPA Test Method 17: Determination of PM Emissions from Stationary
Sources-- In-Stack Filtration Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.2.5 Method 202 for Condensible PM Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.2.6 EPA Test Method 9: Visual Determination of the
Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources, and
Alternate Method 1 for the Use of Remote Lidar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.2.7 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emissions

iii
 CONTENTS (continued)

Monitoring Systems (CEM) Used to Monitor Opacity . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.3 OTHER STATIONARY (POINT) SOURCE PM MASS
MEASUREMENT TEST METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.4 FUGITIVE PM MEASUREMENT METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.5 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
3.5.1 Cascade Impactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
3.5.2 Sampling Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.5.3 Real-Time Size Distribution Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.5.4 Size Distribution of Bulk Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
3.6 SPECIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.6.1 EPA Test Method 29 for Metals and PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.6.2 EPA Office of Solid Waste Test Method 0010 (SW-846)41 . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.6.3 Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Atomic Absorption Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Optical Emission Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Mass Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Neutron Activation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
[Link] X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.6.4 Electrochemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.6.5 Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.7 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

4 FUEL SUBSTITUTION AND SOURCE REDUCTION APPROACHES FOR

PARTICULATE MATTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 FUEL SUBSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.1 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.2 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.1.3 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.1.4 Other Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.2 PROCESS MODIFICATION/OPTIMIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.3 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

5 EXHAUST GAS CLEANING SYSTEMS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 PRETREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1.1 Precollection Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
[Link] Settling Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
[Link] Elutriators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
[Link] Momentum Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
[Link] Mechanically-Aided Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4

iv
 CONTENTS (continued)

[Link] Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8

5.1.2 Collection Efficiency of Precollectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Gravity Settling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Momentum Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Mechanically-Aided Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-16
5.1.3 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-20
5.1.4 Costs of Precollectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-22
[Link] Capital Costs of Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-22
[Link] Annual Costs of Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-24
5.1.5 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts of Precollectors . 5.1-27
5.1.6 Flue Gas Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-27
[Link] Sulfur Trioxide Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-28
[Link] Ammonia Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-29
[Link] Ammonium Compound Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-30
[Link] Organic Amine Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-30
[Link] Alkali Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-31
5.1.7 Costs of Flue Gas Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-31
5.1.8 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts of Flue Gas
Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-32
5.1.9 References for Section 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-34

5.2 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1

5.2.1 Particle Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
[Link] Electric Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
[Link] Corona Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-3
[Link] Particle Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-3
[Link] Particle Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-4
5.2.2 Penetration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
[Link] Back Corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
[Link] Dust Reentrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
[Link] Dust Sneakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
5.2.3 Types of Electrostatic Precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
[Link] Dry ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
[Link] Wet ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
[Link] Wire-Plate ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-7
[Link] Wire-Pipe ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-9
[Link] Other ESP Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-11
5.2.4 Collection Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-15

v
 CONTENTS (continued)

5.2.5 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-16

5.2.6 Costs of Electrostatic Precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-20
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-20
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-22
5.2.7 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-24
5.2.8 References for Section 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-28

5.3 FABRIC FILTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-1

5.3.1 Particle Collection and Penetration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-1
5.3.2 Types of Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-6
[Link] Shaker-Cleaned Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-6
[Link] Reverse-Air Cleaned Fabric Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-9
[Link] Pulse-Jet Cleaned Fabric Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-12
[Link] Other Fabric Filter Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-14
5.3.3 Fabric Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-15
5.3.4 Collection Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-15
5.3.5 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-17
5.3.6 Costs of Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-21
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-21
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-26
5.3.7 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-30
5.3.8 References for Section 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-31

5.4 WET SCRUBBERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1

5.4.1 Particle Collection and Penetration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1
5.4.2 Types of Wet Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-2
[Link] Spray Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-2
[Link] Packed-Bed Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-3
[Link] Impingement Plate Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-8
[Link] Mechanically-aided Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-8
[Link] Venturi Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-12
[Link] Orifice Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-12
[Link] Condensation Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-16
[Link] Charged Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-16
[Link] Fiber-Bed Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-16
5.4.3 Collection Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-19
5.4.4 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-19
5.4.5 Costs of PM Wet Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-24

vi
 CONTENTS (continued)

[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-24

[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-27
5.4.6 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-31
5.4.7 References for Section 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-34

5.5 INCINERATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-1

5.5.1 Incinerator Control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-1
5.5.2 Types of Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-3
[Link] Thermal Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-3
[Link].1 Discrete Burner Thermal Incinerator . . . . . . . . . 5.5-3
[Link].2 Distributed Burner Thermal Incinerator . . . . . . . 5.5-5
[Link] Catalytic Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-5
[Link] Heat Recovery Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-8
5.5.3 Control Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-8
[Link] Control Efficiency for Volatile Organic Compounds . . . . . . . . . 5.5-8
[Link] Control Efficiency for Particulate Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-9
5.5.4 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-10
5.5.5 Costs of Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-10
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-12
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-12
5.5.6 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-18
5.5.7 References for Section 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-19

6 INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 ENCLOSURES AND VENTILATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1.1 Local Ventilation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.1.2 Building Enclosure/Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2 OPTIMIZATION OF EQUIPMENT AND OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2.1 Source Extent Reduction and Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2.2 Process Optimization/Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.2.3 Leak Prevention and Detection and Other Good O&M Practices . . . . . . . 6-8
6.3 COSTS OF HOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
6.4 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

7 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 EMERGING FABRIC FILTER TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1.1 Ceramics: Ceramic Filter Elements and Ceramic Fiber
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

vii
 CONTENTS (continued)
7.1.2 Fine 1.1 dtex Fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1.3 Electrostatically-Stimulated Fabric Filtration (ESFF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2 EMERGING ESP TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.1 Sonic Horn Rappers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.3 Cold-Pipe ESP Precharger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.2 Alternating Charging and Short ESP Collector Sections (SUPER ESP) . . . 7-5
7.2.4 Advanced Computer-Based ESP Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.3 EMERGING COMBINATION DEVICES .......................... 7-5
7.4 EMERGING SCRUBBER TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.4.1 Annular Orifice Venturi Scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.4.2 Waterweb Mesh Scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.5 EMERGING MECHANICAL COLLECTOR TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6 EMERGING FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6.1 High-Voltage PM Ionizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6.2 Dry Fog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.7 EMERGING SIMULTANEOUS POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.7.1 SNRB (SOx-NO x-Rox Box) Catalytic Fabric Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.7.2 Catalyst-Coated Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.8 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

APPENDIX A: LIST OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR PM AND PM PRECURSOR

CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B: VATAVUK AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COST INDEXES . . . . . . . B-1

viii
 TABLES

Table 2-1 Summary of Trends in PM10 Emissions from 1987 through

1993 (Reference 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Table 3-1 EPA Test Methods for PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Table 3-2 EPA Test Methods 1 through 4: General Stack Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Table 4-1 Potential PM10 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching
(References 1, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Table 4-2 Potential PM2.5 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching
(References 1, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Table 4-3 Average Prices of Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
(References 6, 7, and 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Table 4-4 Potential SOx Reductions with Fuel Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Table 5.1-1 Characteristics of Common Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-11
Table 5.1-2 Annual Cost Parameters for Cyclones (Reference 9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-25
Table 5.1-3 Annual Cost Factors for Cyclones (Reference 20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-26
Table 5.1-4 Costs of Flue Gas Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-33
Table 5.2-1 PM-10 and PM-2.5 Cumulative Collection Efficiencies for
ESPs at Coal Combustors, Primary Copper Operations, and
Iron and Steel Production Operations (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-18
Table 5.2-2 Typical Industrial Applications of Electrostatic Precipitators
(References 2 and 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-18
Table 5.2-3 Capital Cost Factors for Electrostatic Precipitators (Reference 10) . . . . . . . . . 5.2-20
Table 5.2-4 Annual Cost Parameters for Electrostatic Precipitators
(Reference 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-25
Table 5.2-5 Annual Cost Factors for Electrostatic Precipitators (Reference 14) . . . . . . . . . 5.2-26
Table 5.3-1 Recommended Gas-to-Cloth Ratios (acfm/ft 2) for Common Industrial Applications of
Fabric Filters (References 4 and 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-5
Table 5.3-2 Temperature Ranges, and Physical and Chemical Resistances
of Common Industrial Fabrics (Reference 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-16
Table 5.3-3 PM-10 and PM-2.5 Cumulative Collection Efficiencies for
Fabric Filters at Coal Combustors, Ferroalloy Electric
Arc Furnaces, and Iron and Steel Production Operations (Reference 15) . . . . 5.3-19
Table 5.3-4 Typical Cleaning Methods and Fabrics for Industrial Applications
of Fabric Filters (Reference 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-19
Table 5.3-5 Capital Cost Factors for Fabric Filters (Reference 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-22
Table 5.3-6 Annual Cost Parameters for Fabric Filters (Reference 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-28
Table 5.3-7 Annual Cost Factors for Fabric Filters (Reference 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-29
Table 5.4-1 PM-10 and PM-2.5 Cumulative Collection Efficiencies for
Wet Scrubbers at Coal, Oil, Wood, and Bark Combustors; and
Coke Production Units (Reference 6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-21

ix
 TABLES (continued)
Table 5.4-2 Current Industrial Applications of Wet Scrubbers
(References 1, 2, and 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-22
Table 5.4-3 PM10/PM2.5 Control Potential for Various Scrubber Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-23
Table 5.4-4 Capital Cost Factors for a Typical Scrubber (Reference 9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-25
Table 5.4-5 Recommended Gas Velocities, Liquid/Gas Ratios, and
Pressure Drops for Particulate Wet Scrubbers (Reference 10). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-26
Table 5.4-6 Annual Cost Parameters for Particulate Scrubbers
(Reference 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-32
Table 5.4-7 Annual Cost Factors for Particulate Scrubbers (Reference 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-33
Table 5.5-1 PM Control Efficiencies for Thermal Incinerators in
Phthalic Anhydride Manufacturing Processes (Reference 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-9
Table 5.5-2 Operational Requirements for Satisfactory Incinerator
Performance for Various Industrial Applications and
Control Levels (Reference 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-11
Table 5.5-3 Capital Cost Factors for Thermal Incinerators (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-13
Table 5.5-4 Incinerator Annual Cost Parameters (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-16
Table 5.5-5 Annual Cost Factors for Incinerators (Reference 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-17
Table 6.1 Estimated Control Efficiencies for Drop Height
Reduction Techniques (Reference 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
Table 6-2 Parameters for Hood Cost Equation (Reference 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Table 7-1 Summary of Emerging PM Control Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

x
 FIGURES

Figure 2-1 PM2.5 Composition in the Eastern United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Figure 2-2 PM2.5 Composition in the Western United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Figure 3-1 EPA Test Method 5 Sampling Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Figure 5.1-1 Expansion Settling Chamber (Adapted from Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-2
Figure 5.1-2 Multiple-Tray Settling Chamber (adapted from Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-3
Figure 5.1-3 Elutriators in Series (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-5
Figure 5.1-4 Momentum Separators (References 2 and 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
Figure 5.1-5 Mechanically-Aided Separator (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
Figure 5.1-6 Illustration of the Double Vortex Within a Cyclone (Reference 1). . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
Figure 5.1-7 Four Basic Cyclone Types (adapted from Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-10
Figure 5.1-8 Standard Dimensions of a Cyclone (Reference 6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-11
Figure 5.1-9 Typical Multiple Cyclone (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
Figure 5.1-10 Typical Fractional Collection Efficiency Curve for a
Settling Chamber (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-14
Figure 5.1-11 Impact of Particle Density on Settling Chamber
Fractional Collection Efficiency (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-14
Figure 5.1-12 Typical Fractional Collection Efficiency Curve
for a Momentum Separator (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-15
Figure 5.1-13 Typical Fractional Collection Efficiency Curve for a
Mechanically-Aided Separator (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-15
Figure 5.1-14 Typical Cyclone Efficiency Curve in
Log-log (A) and Linear (B) Scales (References 6 and 15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-17
Figure 5.1-15 Dimensions of the Cyclone Inlet and Outlet Ducts
for an Optimized Cyclone Design, According to the
Iozia and Leith Cyclone Efficiency Theory (Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-19
Figure 5.1-16 Cumulative Collection Efficiency Data for
Multiple Cyclones at a Residual Oil-Fired Boiler (Reference 5). . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-20
Figure 5.1-17 Cumulative Collection Efficiency Data for
Multiple Cyclones at Coal and Wood Bark Boilers,
With and Without Fly Ash Reinjection (Reference 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-21
Figure 5.1-18 Total Capital Investment vs. Inlet Duct Area
for 0.2 ft2 < Duct Area < 2.64 ft 2 (Reference 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-23
Figure 5.1-19 Total Capital Investment vs. Inlet Duct Area
for Duct Area > 2.64 ft 2 (Reference 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-24
Figure 5.2-1 Cutaway view of Wire-Pipe Electrostatic Precipitator (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
Figure 5.2-2 Wire-Plate Electrostatic Precipitator (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-8
Figure 5.2-3 Wire-Pipe Electrostatic Precipitator (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-9
Figure 5.2-4 Square, Hexagonal, and Circular Pipe Arrangements for Wire-Pipe
Precipitators (adapted from Reference 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-10

xi
 FIGURES (continued)
Figure 5.2-5 Rigid Frame Electrode (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-12
Figure 5.2-6 Various Discharge Electrodes and Collection Plate Designs
(Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-13
Figure 5.2-7 Concentric Plate Precipitator (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-14
Figure 5.2-8 Cumulative Collection Efficiency Data for Electrostatic
Precipitators at Coal-Fired Boilers, Primary Copper Producers,
and Iron and Steel Production Operations (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-17
Figure 5.2-9 Effect of Collection Efficiency on ESP TCI Costs
(Reference 14). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-22
Figure 5.2-10 Effect of the Use of Corrosion Resistant Materials on
ESP TCI Costs (Reference 14). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-23
Figure 5.2-11 TCI Costs for ESPs With and Without Various Standard
Design Features (Reference 14). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-23
Figure 5.3-1 Collection Mechanisms of Fabric Filtration (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-2
Figure 5.3-2 Fractional Efficiency of Fabric Filters vs. Particle Size
(Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-4
Figure 5.3-3 Cutaway View of a Typical Shaker Fabric Filter (Reference 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-7
Figure 5.3-4 Typical Shaker Mechanism (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-8
Figure 5.3-5 Typical Design of One Compartment of a Reverse-air Cleaning
Fabric Filter (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-10
Figure 5.3-6 Reverse-Air Fabric filter with Traveling Mechanism and
External Cake Collection (Reference 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-11
Figure 5.3-7 Schematic of a Pulse-Jet Fabric filter with Enlarged View of Pulse Inlet Area
(Reference 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-13
Figure 5.3-8 Cumulative Collection Efficiency for Fabric Filters at
Coal Combustors, Ferroalloy Electric Arc Furnaces, and
Iron and Steel Production Operations (Reference 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-18
Figure 5.3-9 Effect of Cleaning Mechanism on Fabric Filter Capital Costs
(Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-24
Figure 5.3-10 Effect of Gas-to-Cloth Ratios on Fabric Filter Capital Costs
(Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-24
Figure 5.3-11 Effect of the Use of Insulation and Stainless Steel on
Fabric Filter Capital Costs (Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-25
Figure 5.3-12 Effect of Fabric Type on Capital Costs - Reverse-Air
Fabric Filter, G/C = 2.5 (Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-27
Figure 5.3-13 Effect of Fabric Type on Capital Costs - Pulse-Jet
Fabric Filter, G/C = 5 (Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-27
Figure 5.3-14 Annual Fabric Filter Operating Costs (Reference 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-29
Figure 5.4-1 Schematic Diagram of a Spray Tower Scrubber (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-4

xii
 FIGURES (continued)
Figure 5.4-2 Schematic Diagram of a Cyclonic Spray Chamber Scrubber
(Reference 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.4-5
Figure 5.4-3 Typical Packing Materials for Packed Bed Scrubbers (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . 5.4-6
Figure 5.4-4 Schematic Diagram of a Packed Tower Scrubber (Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-7
Figure 5.4-5 Common Plate Designs for Impingement Plate Scrubbers
(adapted from Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-9
Figure 5.4-6 Schematic Diagram of a Plate Tower Scrubber
(adapted from Reference 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-10
Figure 5.4-7 Diagram of a Mechanically-aided Scrubber (Reference 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-11
Figure 5.4-8 Schematic Diagram of a Venturi Scrubber with Cyclonic
Separation (Reference 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-13
Figure 5.4-9 Diagram of an Orifice Scrubber (Reference 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-14
Figure 5.4-10 Diagram of a Sludge Ejector in an Orifice Scrubber
(Reference 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-15
Figure 5.4-11 Schematic Diagram of a Condensation "Growth" Scrubber
(adapted from Reference 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-17
Figure 5.4-12 Schematic Diagram of Charged Wet Scrubber (adapted
from Reference 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-18
Figure 5.4-13 Cumulative Collection Efficiency Data for PM Wet Scrubbers
at Coal, Oil, Wood, and Bark Combustion Sources, and Coke
Production Operations (Reference 6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-20
Figure 5.4-14 Venturi Scrubber Capital Costs, Inlet Gas Flowrate
<19,000 ACFM (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-28
Figure 5.4-15 Venturi Scrubber Capital Costs, Inlet Gas Flowrate
>19,000 ACFM (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-28
Figure 5.4-16 Impingement Plate Scrubber Capital Costs, Inlet Gas Flowrate
<77,000 ACFM (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-29
Figure 5.4-17 Impingement Plate Scrubber Capital Costs, Total Gas Flowrate
>77,000 ACFM (Reference 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-29
Figure 5.4-18 Vertical Packed-bed Scrubber Capital Costs (Reference 9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-30
Figure 5.4-19 Horizontal Packed-bed Scrubber Capital Costs (Reference 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-30
Figure 5.5-1 Calculated Theoretical Residence Times for Various-sized
Coke PM in an Incinerator, at Various Temperatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-2
Figure 5.5-2 Schematic Diagram of a Discrete Burner Thermal Incinerator
(Reference 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-4
Figure 5.5-3 Schematic Diagram of a Distributed Burner Thermal Incinerator
(Reference 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.5-6
Figure 5.5-4 Schematic Diagram of a Catalytic Incinerator (Reference 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-7
Figure 5.5-5 Total Capital Investment vs. Flow Rate for a Thermal

xiii
 FIGURES (continued)
Incinerator with 0, 35, and 50 Percent Recuperative
Heat Recovery (Reference 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-14
Figure 5.5-6 Total Capital Investment vs. Flow Rate for a Thermal
Incinerator with 85 and 95 Percent Regenerative Heat
Recovery (Reference 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-14
Figure 5.5-7 Annual Cost Curves for Incinerators with Recuperative (REC)
and Regenerative (REG) Heat Recovery (HR) (Reference 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-18

Figure 6-1 Schematic of a Slag-tapping Hood at a Blast Furnace

(Reference 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Figure 6-2 Schematic of a Local Ventilation System at a "Skip Hoist"
Loading Station (Reference 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

xiv
 SECTIONS 1 and 2

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 OTHER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

2. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 TRENDS IN AMBIENT PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND
PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE CONTROL PROGRAMS AND EMISSIONS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3 SOURCES OF PM10 AND PM2.5 EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3.1 Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3.2 Area Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently analyzed information on the
health effects of elevated concentrations of respirable particulate matter (PM) in ambient air. This
analysis lead to revisions of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM. The EPA has
also added a new "indicator" to measure respirable PM concentrations. The previous indicator was
PM10, which is defined as particle matter having a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometer
(m) or less. The additional indicator is based on smaller particles, PM2.5, defined as PM less than or
equal to 2.5 micrometer in aerodynamic diameter.1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The purpose of this document is to support the development of implementation strategies for
attaining revised ambient standards for PM, based on PM2.5 and PM10. This document is a revision of
the EPA's 1982 guidance on Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources.2 The focus of this document is on the control of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from industrial
sources. This document does not address nonindustrial sources, such as residential wood combustion
and windblown dust, which are covered by separate guidance documents.

Although they account for a smaller fraction of national PM10 emissions than nonindustrial
sources (see Section 2), industrial sources can have significant ambient impacts. These can be
especially important in urbanized areas which are typically centers of both population and industrial
activity. In addition, PM emissions from industrial sources tend to be concentrated in the smaller size
ranges, increasing their importance in the implementation of a potential standard for PM2.5.

1.2 OTHER RESOURCES

The EPA has recently developed control techniques documents for a number of nonindustrial
sources of PM emissions. In addition, reports have been prepared assessing the overall levels of
control that could be achieved both in direct emissions of PM, and in emissions of gaseous pollutants
that can react to produce secondary PM. Secondary PM is produced mainly from sulfur oxides (SOx),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). These precursor
gases react with one another and with oxygen and water in the atmosphere to form condensible
compounds. Appendix A gives a summary of control techniques documents and other EPA documents
available to support the development of control strategies for primary PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, and
emissions of precursor gases for secondary PM.

1.3 ORGANIZATION

This document is organized in seven sections, including this introduction. Section 2 gives
background information on trends in PM air quality and emissions, projected future impacts of control

1-1
programs, and major current sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

Section 3 discusses the methods available to measure PM emissions. These techniques are
needed to estimate the level of emissions from the source before and after control, as well as determine
the control efficiency of the PM control devices/techniques. This section discusses established as well
as innovative procedures that have been developed to measure the mass and/or size of PM, especially
for PM10 and PM2.5. Techniques for identifying and measuring the chemical species of the PM are
discussed as well.

Section 4 presents approaches for reducing PM emissions through the use of fuel substitution
and source reduction techniques, i.e. process modifications or optimization.

Section 5 is the heart of this document, and contains detailed descriptions of the primary
devices used to control PM at stationary sources: electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), fabric filters, wet
scrubbers, and incinerators. For each of these control devices, the various designs of the devices are
discussed along with the principles of operation. The range of control efficiencies for each device is
then discussed and the source categories to which the devices are applicable are presented. The
capital and annual costs for each device are also included in Section 5 along with the energy and other
secondary environmental impacts of the technologies. Section 5 begins with a discussion of
pretreatment techniques, that is similar in format to the primary device discussion. The pretreatment
devices are used to reduce the PM loading on the primary PM collection devices, in order to reduce
the size and, potentially, the costs of the primary control device, and to possibly increase the overall
PM collection efficiency.

Section 6 discusses industrial fugitive emission controls that include enclosures, ventilation
techniques, and optimization of equipment and operations. Where available, the reported control
efficiencies of the control measures are presented.

Section 7 discusses the emerging PM control technologies that are being investigated by the
EPA and industry to increase the control efficiency of PM control and/or to target fine particles. Many
of these technologies have been implemented in pilot- or full-scale operation.

1-2
1.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1

1. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information - External Review Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1996.

2. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources--Volume 1. (EPA-

450/3-81-005a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. September 1982.

1-3
2. BACKGROUND

National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) were first
established in 1971. These standards applied to total suspended PM (TSP) as measured by a high
volume sampler. The sampler design favored the collection of particles with aerodynamic diameters up
to 50 :m. In 1987, the EPA changed the indicator for PM from TSP to PM10. The NAAQS levels
for PM10 were set at a 24-hour average of 150 :g/m3 (with no more than one expected exceedance
per year), and an annual average of 50 :g/m3 (expected arithmetic mean).1 In 1997, the EPA revised
the form of the 24-hour (daily) PM10 NAAQS and established PM2.5 as a new fine PM indicator.

Prior to the revision, the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS was met when the expected number of days
per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 :g/m3 was less than or equal to one
(averaged over 3 calendar years). The revised 24-hour PM10 standard is met when the 99th percentile
of the distribution of 24-hour concentrations at each monitor in an area for a period of one year
(averaged over 3 calendar years) does not exceed 150 :g/m3. The annual PM10 standard was not
impacted by the 1997 revisions.

The new PM2.5 NAAQS are set at an annual mean concentration of less than or equal to 15
:g/m and a 24-hour (daily) concentration less than or equal to 65 :g/m3. The annual standard is met
3

when the three year average of the annual arithmetic mean of the 24-hour concentrations from single or
multiple community-oriented monitors does not exceed 15 :g/m3. The daily standard is met when the
98th percentile of the distribution of the 24-hour concentrations for a period of one year (averaged over
3 calendar years) does not exceed 65 :g/m3 at each monitor within an area.

2.1 TRENDS IN AMBIENT PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS AND

PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS

The most recent EPA report on trends in ambient PM concentrations covers PM10 for the years
1988 through 1996.2 Complete data on ambient PM10 concentrations are available from 900
monitoring sites with urban, suburban and rural locations. The annual arithmetic mean PM10
concentration for all sites (national average) during 1988 was 32 :g/m3. By 1996, the annual arithmetic
mean concentration had decreased to 24 :g/m3, a 25 percent improvement over 1988 levels. The
trend of PM10 concentrations at urban and suburban sites was essentially the same with the annual mean
decreasing from about 34 :g/m3 in 1988 to about 26 :g/m3 in 1996. The annual arithmetic mean at
rural sites in 1988 was 25 :g/m3. The mean decreased 20 percent to 20 :g/m3 in 1996.

An independent analysis of PM10 trends, conducted by Darlington, [Link]., found the same
improvements in concentrations.3 Data from monitoring sites that reported at least one reading each
year from 1988 through 1995 (585 sites) to the Atmospheric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
were used in this analysis. Nationwide, the analysis indicated a 24 percent reduction in PM10
concentrations from 34 :g/m3 in 1988 to 26 :g/m3 in 1995. About 160 of the monitoring sites used by

2-1
Darlington were located in counties designated as nonattainment for PM10 and 425 were located in
attainment counties. The annual mean concentration for all the nonattainment counties in 1988 was 41
:g/m3. This was reduced by 26 percent to 31 :g/m3 in 1995. The mean in the attainment counties
decreased 20 percent, from 30 :g/m3 in 1988 to 24 :g/m3 in 1995.

Table 2-1 shows trends in PM10 emissions for major emission sources from 1987 to 1996.
The table shows a good deal of fluctuation in emissions, mainly due to changes in natural wind erosion.
It must also be noted that fugitive dust emissions estimates in the table are subject to a high degree of
uncertainty (e.g. paved and unpaved roads, construction, agricultural operations, and wind erosion).
These fugitive dust emissions are overestimated when compared to ambient measurements of the
mineral-related components of PM2.5.

Ambient concentration data are not available to assess historical trends in PM2.5 ambient
concentrations or emissions. However, visibility can be viewed as a surrogate measure of trends in fine
particles in the range of 2.5 micrometers and under. Particles in this size range contribute greatly to the
scattering and absorption of light (known as light extinction). There are two large contiguous haze areas
in the continental U.S. One encompasses the eastern U.S. and the other includes the western Pacific
states. There has been a marked decrease in haze over the 30 year period from 1960 to 1990 in the
western Pacific states. The mid-continent section of the eastern haze area has remained relatively
constant over this period, whereas the eastern U.S. has shown a change from winter-dominated haze to
summer-dominated haze.2

2.2 PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE CONTROL PROGRAMS AND EMISSIONS

The EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) has projected emission levels for
PM10 and PM2.5 based on implementation of control programs required under the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Control programs for PM under Title I of the CAAA are projected to
have only a small impact on overall future emissions--a reduction of about 3 percent for PM10 and less
than 0.1 percent for PM2.5.2

Because of a lack of available data, OPPE's projections did not take into account the impact of
regulations for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under Title III of the CAAA. However, a number of
the Title III HAPs are metals that are emitted in fine PM, both in bulk and trace quantities. Standards
implemented for these particulate HAPs will have some impacts on PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

Substantial reductions in SO2 emissions are projected by OPPE as a result of acid rain control
programs implemented under Title IV of the CAAA. In addition, reductions in NOx emissions are
projected as a result of Title IV, and reductions in both NOx and VOC are projected as a result of
ozone control programs under Title I. All of these pollutants are precursors of secondary PM.
Therefore, emission reductions for these pollutants are expected to produce reductions in the formation
of secondary PM.

2-2
2-3
 Table 2-1. Summary of Trends in PM-10 Emissions from 1987 through 1996 (Reference 2)

Estimated Emissions (million tons)

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fuel combustion - utility and industrial 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

Fuel combustion - residential wood and other 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Metals processing 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Other industrial 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Open burning and other waste disposal 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Motor vehicles and off-highway engines 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9

Wildfires and managed burning 1.0 1.7 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8

*Agriculture 7.3 7.5 7.3 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7

2-4
*Natural wind erosion 1.6 18.1 12.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 0.5 2.2 1.1 5.3

*Paved and unpaved roads 16.6 18.3 17.6 13.5 13.6 13.3 13.9 13.9 12.8 12.7

*Construction, mining, and quarrying 12.5 12.0 11.7 4.6 4.4 4.8 5.1 5.8 4.2 4.5

Total 42.5 61.3 53.2 29.9 29.6 29.5 28.0 30.9 26.9 31.3

* Emissions from agricultural operations, wind erosion, paved and unpaved roads, and construction are far too large when reconciled with levels of
the mineral-related components of PM 2.5 measured in the ambient air.
2.3 SOURCES OF PM 10 AND PM 2.5 EMISSIONS

Emission sources can be broadly classified as point sources and area sources. Point sources
are large emission sources that are treated on a point-by-point basis in emissions inventories. These are
typically industrial facilities, utilities, or large commercial or institutional emission sources. Area sources
are defined as emission sources that are too numerous or dispersed to be treated individually in an
emissions inventory. This category also includes highway vehicles and nonroad engines and equipment.

The emissions discussed in the next two sections are based on the 1990 National Inventory.
The 1990 National Inventory attributed approximately 90 percent of PM10 and 70 percent of PM2.5
emissions to fugitive dust from agriculture, paved roads, unpaved roads, and construction activities.
While these are certainly major sources of PM emissions, the confidence in these estimates is low.
These estimates are believed to be high, and the inventory is being reviewed and revised to improve
these estimates. For this reason, the following two sections discuss important sources of PM emissions
in general terms without estimates of impact on emissions.

2.3.1 Point Sources

Particulate matter emissions from utility, industrial and commercial/institutional combustion

sources are small in comparison with emissions from area combustion sources. This is due both to
superior combustion conditions, which result in higher combustion efficiencies, and also to add-on PM
controls for coal combustion and some oil combustion sources. Utility, industrial, and
commercial/institutional combustion were the most significant point sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in 1990.
Other significant industrial sources included metal processing, mineral products processing, and wood
products processing. 2

2.3.2 Area Sources

Fugitive emissions from agriculture, paved roads, unpaved roads, and construction activities
represent a major portion of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. However, as stated above, these emissions
appear to be overestimated when reconciled to ambient measurements of the mineral-related
components of PM2.5. In addition to these fugitive dust emission sources, area source combustion
categories including residential wood burning, wildfires, and prescribed burning of forest residues were
important sources. Highway vehicles, nonroad engines and equipment, and open burning of wastes
also made significant contributions.2

2-5
2.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF PM 2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Ambient samples of PM2.5 from eight research studies are summarized in Figures 1 and 2.4,5
The PM2.5 samples were chemically analyzed to determine the amounts of ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate, carbon, and soil present. Ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate are secondary
particles formed in the atmosphere from the reaction of ammonia with sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX), respectively. Carbon and soil are primary particles. These are generally emitted
directly into the atmosphere, or generated by processes such as wind erosion, construction, or traffic on
paved or unpaved roads. The results of these analyses for eastern states are shown in Figure 1. Figure
2 summarizes the results for western states.

Figure 1 indicates that in the eastern states, PM2.5 was dominated by ammonium sulfate
particles which accounted for 40 to 60 percent of the total mass. Ammonium nitrate particles
contributed another 5 to 15 percent. Carbon particles, from sources such as incomplete combustion,
accounted for 30 to 40 percent of the PM2.5 mass. The fraction of soil in the eastern samples ranged
from 5 to 10 percent.5

Figure 2 shows that only 5 to 15 percent of the PM2.5 was ammonium sulfate, and ammonium
nitrate accounted for 1 to 35 percent of the total mass. The percentage of carbon from incomplete
combustion ranged from 35 to 65 percent of the western samples. Soil content in the western samples
contributed 5 to 15 percent of the total mass of PM2.5.5

The following sections of this document address techniques for reducing primary particulate
emissions from stationary combustion sources and industrial processes. As illustrated above,
secondary particles (ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate) comprise a large percentage of the
PM2.5 samples in both the Eastern and Western United States. This is indicative of the need to address
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia when considering means of reducing PM2.5
concentrations in the future.

2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2

1. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information - External Review Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1996.

2. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report: Report Number EPA-454/R-97-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1998.

3. Darlington, T.L., Kahlbaum, D.F., Heuss, J.M., and Wolff, G.T. Analysis of PM10 Trends in
the United States from 1988 through 1995. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association. October 1997. 1070-1078.

4. Pace, T.G. "PM2.5 in the Ambient Air". Proceedings on the AWMA Specialty Conference
PM2.5 - A Fine Particle Standard. Long Beach, California. January, 1997.

5. Pace, T.G. and Kuykendal, W.B. "Planning Tools for PM2.5 Emission Factors and
Inventories". Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 91st Annual Meeting
and Exhibition. San Diego, California. June 1998.

2-11
 SECTION 3

3 MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 List of EPA PM Mass Measurement Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 EPA Stationary (Point) Source PM Mass Measurement Test Methods . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.1 EPA Test Method 5 for Total PM Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.2 EPA Test Method 5 Variations: 5A - 5H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.2.3 EPA Test Methods for PM10 from Stationary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
[Link] Method 201: Determination of PM10 Emissions--Exhaust Gas Recycle
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
[Link] Methods 201A: Determination of PM10 Emissions--Constant Sampling
Rate Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.2.4 EPA Test Method 17: Determination of PM Emissions from Stationary
Sources-- In-Stack Filtration Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.2.5 Method 202 for Condensible PM Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.2.6 EPA Test Method 9: Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from
Stationary Sources, and Alternate Method 1 for the Use of Remote Lidar . 3-9
3.2.7 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
(CEM) Used to Monitor Opacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.3 Other Stationary (Point) Source PM Mass Measurement Test Methods . . . . . . . 3-10
3.4 Fugitive PM Measurement Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.5 Particle Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
3.5.1 Cascade Impactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
3.5.2 Sampling Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
3.5.3 Real-Time Size Distribution Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.5.4 Size Distribution of Bulk Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
3.6 Speciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.6.1 EPA Test Method 29 for Metals and PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.6.2 EPA Office of Solid Waste Test Method 0010 (SW-846) . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.6.3 Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Atomic Absorption Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Optical Emission Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Mass Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
[Link] Neutron Activation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
[Link] X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.6.4 Electrochemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.6.5 Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.7 References for Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
 3 MEASUREMENT

The determination of the control efficiency of PM control devices requires the use of methods
to determine the control device inlet and outlet PM emissions. This section discusses established as
well as innovative procedures that have been developed to measure the mass and/or size of PM,
especially for PM10 and PM2.5. Techniques for identifying and measuring the chemical species of the
PM are discussed as well.

The most precise method of determining the mass concentration of PM is to collect the entire
volume of gas (and PM) and to determine the mass concentration from this sample. This procedure,
however, is feasible only with a few sources where there are very low flow rates. Procedures have
been developed to sample small portions of the gas stream to obtain a representative sample so that
estimates of PM mass emissions can be made. These procedures are called "extractive" methods, since
a portion of the gas stream is removed from the source and sampled elsewhere. Other more innovative
procedures are being used to determine PM mass concentrations in situ. Also, as part of a PM
emission characterization of a source or control device, the size distribution of the PM may be needed.
This is especially true for PM2.5 emission determinations, since procedures to determine PM2.5 mass
emissions directly are still under development (see Section 3.5, below).

In the measurement of PM during extractive methods, it is important that the gas be sampled
isokinetically so that a representative sample of PM enters the sampling device. The term "isokinetic"
refers to the situation where the gas streamlines of the source gas are preserved within the sampling
probe so that the concentration and size distribution of the PM in the sample probe is the same as that
in the source effluent duct. The parameter that must be controlled to establish isokinetics is the gas
velocity within the sample probe, which must be equal to the actual gas velocity at the sample point in
the source exhaust duct. Since the sample probe will have a smaller diameter than the source exhaust
duct and possibly a lower temperature, the actual gas flow rate used to extract gas through the sampling
probe must be controlled to establish an isokinetic sampling velocity.

Anisokinetics, or the lack of isokinetics, can lead to either over or under sampling of particles of
a certain size. Sampling velocities less than isokinetic will lead to an overestimation of larger-sized
particles and a higher than actual PM mass concentration; conversely, sampling velocities higher than
isokinetic will lead to an overestimation of smaller particles with a lower than actual PM mass
concentration.

3.1 List of EPA PM Mass Measurement Test Methods

Table 3-1 lists the EPA test methods applicable to the measurement of PM mass emissions.
These methods are discussed further in the next section. To obtain a detailed

3-1
 Table 3-1. EPA Test Methods for PM

EPA Method Federal Register Reference Description of Method

Method 5 36 FR 24877 12/23/71 PM from stationary sources

Method 5A 47 FR 34137 08/06/82 PM from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing

Method 5B 51 FR 42839 11/26/86 Nonsulfuric acid PM

Method 5C tentative PM from small ducts

Method 5D 49 FR 43847 10/31/84 PM from (positive pressure) fabric filters

Method 5E 50 FR 07701 02/25/85 PM from wool fiberglass plants

Method 5F 51 FR 42839 11/26/86 Nonsulfate PM

Method 5G 53 FR 05860 02/26/88 PM from wood heaters - dilution tunnel

Method 5H 53 FR 05860 02/26/88 PM from wood heaters - stack

3-2
Method 201 55 FR 14246 04/17/90 PM/PM-10 - exhaust gas recycle (EGR) procedure

Method 201A 55 FR 14246 04/17/90 PM/PM-10 - constant sampling rate (CSR) pocedure

Method 17 43 FR 07568 02/23/78 In-stack filtration method for PM

Method 202 56 FR 65433 12/17/91 Condensible particulate emissions from stationary sources

Method 9 39 FR 39872 11/12/74 Visual determination of stack opacity; remote Lidar

Performance Specification 1 36 FR 24877 12/23/71 CEMS for opacity at stationary sources

Method 29 59 FR 48259 09/20/94 Metal emissions (and PM)

description of these methods, the EPA's Technology Transfer Network, an electronic bulletin board, can
be viewed at [Link]

3.2 EPA Stationary (Point) Source PM Mass Measurement Test Methods

The following sections describe the EPA Test Methods for the sampling and analysis of PM mass
that include test methods for the measurement of total PM, PM10, condensible PM, and opacity.

EPA Test Method 5, that measures total PM from stationary sources, is the predominant test
procedure used to measure PM mass emissions. The sampling train and isokinetic sampling procedures
described in Method 5 are also the basis for many other EPA test methods. The Method 5 sampling train
and procedures also has been modified and adapted into test methods that are designed to measure other
gas constituents, such as semi-volatile compounds, in exhaust gases where PM is likely to also exist. In
some cases, this is because PM mass measurements are desired in addition to the target compounds; in
other cases, the PM is collected so as to remove the potential for interference with the measurement of the
target compounds.

Method 5 and the other stationary source measurement methods described below rely on the use
of EPA Test Methods 1 through 4. These methods describe the appropriate techniques to be used to
sample the exhaust gas from stationary sources, and also the techniques used to obtain data on the
physical and chemical characteristics of the exhaust gas which are needed to calculate PM emissions.
These auxiliary test methods and their variations are listed in Table 3-2.

3.2.1 EPA Test Method 5 for Total PM Mass

This method is applicable for the determination of PM mass emissions from stationary sources.
Particulate matter (PM) is withdrawn isokinetically from the source and collected on a glass fiber filter
maintained at a temperature in the range of l20 l4C or another temperature as specified in a regulation
or approved for special purposes by the EPA for the specific application. The PM mass, which includes
any material that condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is determined gravimetrically after
removal of uncombined water.

A schematic of the sampling train used in this method is shown in Figure 3-l. Complete
construction details are given in "APTD-0581: Construction Details of Isokinetic Source-Sampling
Equipment;"1 commercial models of this train are also available. Changes from APTD-058l and allowable
modifications of the train shown in Figure 3-l can be obtained

3-3
 Table 3-2. EPA Test Methods 1 through 4: General Stack Sampling Procedures

EPA Test
Method Description of Method
Method 1 Sample and velocity traverses for stationary sources
Method 1A Sample and velocity traverses for stationary sources with small stacks or ducts
Method 2 Determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate (Type S pitot tube)
Method 2A Direct measurement of gas volume through pipes and small ducts
Method 2B Determination of exhaust gas flow rate from gasoline vapor incinerators
Method 2C Determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate in small stacks or ducts
(standard pitot tube)

3-4
Method 2D Measurement of gas volumetric flow rates in small pipes and ducts
Method 2E Determination of landfill gas; gas production flow rate
Method 3 Gas analysis for carbon dioxide, oxygen, excess air, and dry molecular weight
Method 3A Determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in emissions from stationary
sources (instrumental analyzer procedure)
Method 3B Gas analysis for the determination of emission rate correction factor or excess air
Method 3C Determination of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, and oxygen from stationary sources
Method 4 Determination of moisture content in stack gases
Figure 3-1. EPA Test Method 5 Sampling Train.

3-5
 from the EPA's Emission Measurement Technical Information Center.a The operating and maintenance
procedures for the sampling train are described in APTD-0576: "Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation
of Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment."2 Correct usage of the sampling train is important in obtaining
valid results with this method.

3.2.2 EPA Test Method 5 Variations: 5A - 5H

The following methods are considered variations of Method 5 that target a specific industry or type
of PM emissions. The specifics of each method are summarized below and include the differences
between the method and Method 5, and any other noteworthy details. Otherwise, the methods are largely
identical to Method 5.

C Method 5A: Determination of PM Emissions from the Asphalt Processing and

Asphalt Roofing Industry. This method is similar to Method 5 except that in this
method the PM catch is maintained at a slightly lower temperature in Method 5A, 42C
vs. 120C in Method 5, and a precollector cyclone is used.

C Method 5B: Determination of Nonsulfuric Acid PM from Stationary Sources.

This method is similar to Method 5 except that the sample train is maintained at a higher
temperature in Method 5B, 160C vs. 120C in Method 5, and the collected sample is
heated in the oven for 6 hours to volatilize any sulfuric acid that may have collected. The
nonsulfuric acid PM is then determined by the method.

C Method 5C: Determination of PM in Small Ducts. A test method to address PM

measurement in small ducts is tentatively planned; no information about the method is
currently available.

C Method 5D: Determination of PM Emissions from Positive Pressure Fabric

Filters. Method 5D is similar to Method 5, except that it provides alternatives to Method
1 in terms of determining the measurement site, and location and number of sampling
(traverse) points. Since the velocities of the exhaust gases from positive pressure fabric
filters are often too low to measure accurately with the type S pitot specified in Method 2,
alternative velocity determinations are presented in Method 5D. Because of the allowable
changes to site selection and velocity determination in Method 5D, alternative calculations
for PM concentration and gas flow are presented with the method.

a
Emission Monitoring and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 27711

3-6
 C Method 5E: Determination of PM Emissions from the Wool Fiberglass Insulation
Manufacturing Industry. This method is similar to Method 5 except that it measures
both filterable and condensed PM enabling the determination of total PM. A sodium
hydroxide impinger solution is used to collect the condensed PM.

C Method 5F: Determination of Nonsulfate PM Emissions from Stationary

Sources. This method is similar to Method 5 except that the sample train is maintained at
a higher temperature in Method 5F, 160C vs. 120C in Method 5, and the collected
sample is extracted with water to analyze for sulfate content.

C Method 5G: Determination of PM Emissions from Wood Heaters from a Dilution

Tunnel Sampling Location. This method differs substantially from Method 5 in that
there are different sampling trains specified for Method 5G and that the PM is withdrawn
from a single point from a total collection hood and sampling tunnel that combines the
wood heater exhaust with ambient dilution air. The PM is collected on two glass fiber
filters in series, as opposed to only one used in Method 5. The fiber filters are also
maintained at a much lower temperature in Method 5G, 32C vs. 120C in Method 5.

C Method 5H: Determination of PM Emissions from Wood Heaters from a Stack

Location. This method is more similar than Method 5G to Method 5, since the filter is
maintained at 120C. Although, a dual filter sampling train from a single point is used, as in
Method 5G, the two filters are separated by the impingers.

3.2.3 EPA Test Methods for PM 10 from Stationary Sources

The following are two methods to measure PM10 emissions from stationary sources. Both
methods are in-stack procedures; one method uses exhaust gas recycling and the other constant sampling.
Since condensible emissions not collected by these methods are also PM10 that contribute to ambient
PM10 levels, the EPA suggests that source PM10 measurements include both in-stack PM10 methods, such
as method 201 or 201A, and condensible emissions measurements to establish source contributions to
ambient levels of PM10, such as for emission inventory purposes. Condensible emissions may be
measured by an impinger analysis in combination with Method 201 and 201A, or by Method 202.
Method 202 is discussed below in Section 3.2.5

[Link] Method 201: Determination of PM 10 Emissions--Exhaust Gas Recycle Procedure

Method 201 applies to the in-stack measurement of PM10 emissions. In Method 201, a gas
sample is isokinetically extracted from the source. An in-stack cyclone is used to separate PM greater

3-7
than PM10, and an in-stack glass fiber filter is used to collect the PM10. To maintain isokinetic flow rate
conditions at the tip of the probe and a constant flow rate through the cyclone, a clean dried portion of the
sample gas at stack temperature is recycled into the nozzle. The particulate mass is then determined
gravimetrically after removal of uncombined water. Further information on this method can be found in the
EPA document Application Guide for Source PM10 Measurement with Exhaust Gas Recycle
Sampling System.3

[Link] Methods 201A: Determination of PM 10 Emissions--Constant Sampling Rate Procedure

Method 201A is a variation of Method 201, and may be used for the same purposes as Method
201. In Method 201A, a gas sample is extracted at a constant flow rate through an in-stack sizing device,
which separates PM greater than PM10, attached to a PM sampling train. The sizing device can be either
a cyclone that meets the specifications in the method or a cascade impactor that has been calibrated using
a specified procedure. Variations from isokinetic sampling conditions are maintained in the sampling train
within well-defined limits. With the exception of the PM10 sizing device and in-stack filter, this train is the
same as an EPA Method 17 train. The particulate mass collected with the sampling train is then
determined gravimetrically after removal of uncombined water. Further information on this method can be
found in the EPA document Application Guide for Source PM10 Measurement with Constant
Sampling Rate.4

3.2.4 EPA Test Method 17: Determination of PM Emissions from Stationary Sources-- In-
Stack Filtration Method

This method describes an in-stack gas sampling method that can be used in situations where PM
concentrations are not influenced by stack temperatures, over the normal range of temperatures associated
with the source category. Therefore, Method 17 eliminates the use of the heated glass sampling probe and
heated filter holder required in the "out-of-stack" Method 5, that is cumbersome and requires careful
operation by usually trained operators. Method 17 can only be used to fulfill EPA requirements when
specified by an EPA standard, and only used within the stack temperature range also specified by the
EPA. Method 17 is especially not applicable to gas streams containing liquid droplets or which are
saturated with water vapor. Also, Method 17 should not be used if the projected cross-sectional area of
the probe/filter holder assembly covers more than 5 percent of the stack cross-sectional area.

3.2.5 Method 202 for Condensible PM Measurement

This method applies to the determination of condensible particulate matter (CPM) emissions from
stationary sources. It is intended to represent condensible matter as material that condenses after passing
through a filter. In Method 202, condensible PM is collected in the impinger portion of a Method 17 type
sampling train. The impinger contents are immediately purged after the run with nitrogen gas to remove

3-8
dissolved sulfur dioxide gases from the impinger contents. The impinger solution is then extracted with
methylene chloride. The organic and aqueous fractions are then taken to dryness and the residues
weighed. The total of both fractions represents the condensible PM.

There is the potential for low collection efficiency at oil-fired boilers with this method. To improve
the collection efficiency at these sources, an additional filter should be placed between the second and
third impinger. In sources that use ammonia (NH3) injection as a control technique for hydrogen chloride
(HCl), NH3 can interfere with the determination of condensible PM by Method 202 by reacting with HCl
in the gas stream to form ammonium chloride, which is then measured as condensible PM. The method
describes measures that can be taken to correct for this interference.

The filter catch of this method can be analyzed according to the appropriate method to speciate
the PM. Method 202 also may be used in conjunction with the methods designed to measure PM10
(Method 201 or 201A) if the probes are glass-lined. If Method 202 is used in conjunction with Method
201 or 201A, the impinger train configuration and analysis specified in Method 202 should be used in
conjunction with a sample train operation and front end recovery and analysis conducted according to
Method 201 or 201A. Method 202 may also be modified to measure material that condenses at other
temperatures by specifying the filter and probe temperature. A heated Method 5 out-of-stack filter may
be used instead of the in-stack filter to determine condensible emissions at wet sources.

The following documents discuss the measurement of condensible PM and the development of this
method in more detail: Measurement of Condensible Vapor Contribution to PM10 Emissions,5 A
Review of Current Methods for Measuring Particulate Matter Including Condensibles from
Stationary Sources,6 and Method Development and Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement
of Condensible Particulate Emissions.7

3.2.6 EPA Test Method 9: Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary
Sources, and Alternate Method 1 for the Use of Remote Lidar

This method involves the determination of plume opacity by qualified observers that are trained
and certified according to procedures described in the method. Method 9 describes the procedures that
are to be used by these observers to determine plume opacity in the field. The method also includes
performance criteria that are applicable to the method variables which, unless controlled, may exert
significant influence upon plume appearance to the observer.

Alternate Method 1 to Method 9 provides for the remote determination of opacity using a Lidar
(laser radar light detection and ranging) system that employs a ruby (red) laser. The Lidar uses its own
light source and, therefore, can be used in the day or night. The Alternative Method includes design,
calibration, and performance evaluation procedures for the Lidar system. The method is applicable to a
stationary or mobile Lidar system.

3-9
3.2.7 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEM) Used
to Monitor Opacity

The EPA has published performance specifications (PS 1) for the use of CEMS to monitor
opacity at new stationary sources (40 CFR 60, Appendix B). This performance specification applies to
opacity monitors installed after March 30, 1996. The CEMS monitors PM using the principle of
transmissometry of light. Light that has specific spectral characteristics is projected from a lamp in the
CEMS through the stack gas. The intensity of the light after passing through the gas is attenuated
(absorbed and scattered) by the PM and then measured by a sensor. The percentage of the projected
light attenuated is defined to be the opacity. Transmittance is defined to be the opposite of opacity, i.e.,
opaque stack emissions that attenuate all of the light will have a transmittance of zero and an opacity of
100 percent, and transparent stack emissions have a transmittance of 100 percent and opacity of zero.

This performance specification establishes specific design criteria for an opacity

monitor/transmissometer CEMS. The performance specification also specifies installation, calibration, and
evaluating criteria to ensure proper performance of the CEMS.

3.3 Other Stationary (Point) Source PM Mass Measurement Test Methods

Other test methods for the measurement of PM mass include ASTM Method D3685/D3685M8
and ASME Power Test Code 27.9 A piezoelectric quart crystal has been used to measure "quasi-
continuous" PM mass emissions.10 The device directly measures the electrical frequency shift of the crystal
due to the accumulating PM mass.

A triboelectric instrument has been developed for use as a continuous PM mass emissions monitor
by Auburn International, called the Triboflow CEM 2604. The triboelectric effect is the transfer of
electrical charge that takes place when two objects rub or abrade each other. In the Triboflow CEM, the
tribolelectrical charge that is transferred from PM in a duct to a stainless steel probe is monitored as a
current flow. Note that the triboelectric effect is different from static electricity, which is the storage as
opposed to the transfer of charge. The Triboflow CEM is suited for monitoring the PM mass emissions of
a relatively low level PM source, such as at the exit of a high efficiency PM control device.11

The use of CEMs for PM mass measurement is currently being investigated by EPA's Office of
Research and Development. An EPA "Application Guide" for the mass measurement of PM2.5 is also
under development, but has not been validated yet.12

3.4 Fugitive PM Measurement Methods

The following are brief descriptions of eight methods that are available to measure PM10 from
fugitive dust sources. These methods are described in detail in the EPA document: A Review of Methods
for Measuring Fugitive PM-10 Emission Rates.13 Some of these methods have been available for a

3-10
long time while others have been developed recently. Many are not frequently used and/or they were
developed for other purposes (e.g., soil science). Guidance on selecting the most appropriate method for
a given source type has been developed14 and can be found as an appendix in the above EPA review
document (Reference 13). Another document that discusses many of the methods described below is
Techniques and Equipment for Measuring Inhalable Particulate Fugitive Emissions.15

Other documents that discuss the individual methods are referenced below with the description of
each method. Because many of these methods were developed before PM10 was a concern, some of the
methods manuals referenced here describe only the measurement of total suspended PM. Therefore,
although these earlier documents contain a substantial amount of valuable information, the equipment
described for use in the methods are likely to be outdated. More current documents are referenced where
available.

C Quasi-stack Method. This method consists of enclosing or hooding the fugitive dust
source, on either a permanent or temporary basis, with the use of a fan and then sampling
the exhaust isokinetically using EPA Test Methods 201 or 201A. This method is
considered to be potentially the most accurate because the entire plume is captured and
measured close to the source. Care must be taken, however, not to artificially generate
emissions from the source with the sampling equipment. Additional information about this
method can be found in Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Quasi-Stack Sampling Method.16 More current equipment is described in
Technical Manual: Hood System Capture of Process Fugitive Emissions17 and
Evaluation of an Air Curtain Hooding System for a Primary Copper Converter,
Volume I.18

C Roof Monitor Method.19 This method may be the best means of measuring fugitive PM
when a number of processes are located within a building. The PM is measured from all
openings in the building and the total fugitive emission rate is the sum of the emission rates
from all the openings. This method is best used when the building itself is construed as the
"source." The method involves the measurement of the PM10 concentration (with EPA
Test Method 201 or 201A) in the duct exhaust, which is then multiplied times the air exit
velocity and the opening cross-sectional area to produce the emission rate. Since the dust
concentration may vary across the duct opening, a number of sites along the cross section
of each duct should be sampled, as in stack testing (EPA Test Method 1). If sampling is
performed in an actual roof monitor vent, it is recommended that sampling be done
according to EPA Method 5D.

In the event that isokinetic sampling is not feasible because of the variation in air velocity in
the openings, ambient PM10 measurement techniques may be used. Ambient samplers that
have met EPA criteria are described in the "List of Designated Reference and Equivalent

3-11
 Methods" issued by the EPA's Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory. b Reference 13 contains the list as of February 8, 1993.

C Upwind-downwind Method.20 In this method, ambient PM10 concentrations are

measured upwind and downwind of a dust source. The difference between the two
concentrations is considered to be the PM10 concentration due to the fugitive emission
source. Using wind speed, direction, and other meteorological data obtained during the
PM10 sampling period, the emission rate is determined using dispersion models. The EPA
"Industrial Source Complex" model is being revised to develop an improved deposition
term to make it more accurate for use with PM.

While the upwind-downwind method is considered the most versatile of the fugitive
measurement methods, it has also been considered the least accurate, since only a small
portion of a greatly diluted plume is sampled. Recent studies, however, have found that
fugitive emission rates estimated using the upwind-downwind method are within a factor of
two 80 percent of the time as with the quasi-stack method.21

C Exposure Profile Method.22 This method consists of using a number of ambient

samplers (typically 4 or 5) at several heights along a vertical tower (4 to 10 meters in
height) equipped with nozzles and flow rate adjustments to sample the fugitive PM plume
isokinetically. The tower is also equipped to measure wind speed and direction. The
towers are placed downwind of the source, with ambient samplers (1 to 4) also placed
upwind of the source to determine the background PM concentration. Ambient data
obtained from these samplers are used to determine the total mass flux of dust emitted
from the source; this is done by integration of the dust exposure values obtained from the
various sampling points.23

The Exposure Profile Method is largely constrained to situations where sampling close to
the source is possible, except where extensions to the towers are used.24 However, even
with these extensions, the exposure profiling method may not be practical for sampling
large area sources. Losses of PM10 may occur if the source is close to the ground, but
since this dust would not become airborne and contribute to emissions, the measurement
of these "relevant emissions" is possibly just as desirable as the actual emissions from the
source.13 The exposure profiling method is considered more accurate than the upwind-
downwind method and is considered to be comparable to the roof monitor method13 and
is considered well suited to roads.13

b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory, Methods Research and Development Division (MD-77), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 27711. (919)541-2622 or 4599.

3-12
C Portable Wind Tunnel Method. This method is applicable to wind-generated fugitive
emissions only. It was developed in the 1970's to study the effects of wind-blown sand on
vegetation and to quantify the sources of wind erosion. It has been used since to quantify
wind-generated emissions from exposed soil and coal storage piles.25,26,27 The portable
wind tunnel consists of a vacuum cleaner-shaped device, the mouth of which is placed
directly on the surface to be tested using an airtight seal. A fan draws air through the
mouth of the tunnel, through a long tube into a raised duct section where PM sampling can
occur. Sampling can be performed using EPA Method 201 or 201A. The fugitive dust
emission rate is equal to the particle concentration times the tunnel flow rate. Over flat
ground, the tunnel centerline wind speed can be related to wind speed at 10 meters
altitude.

C Scale-Model Wind Tunnel Method. This method involves creating a wind tunnel that
resembles the source or terrain to be sampled with the use of, in many cases, a to-scale
recreation of the source within the wind tunnel. Parameters such as turbulence, velocity
profile, wind shear, and other physical quantities, such as air moisture and terrain
roughness, are usually duplicated within the wind tunnel. The advantage of using a scale-
model wind tunnel is that the individual parameters affecting dust emissions can then be
controlled. The disadvantage is that the relationship between the tests and actual field
measurements is "uncertain."

C Tracer Method. This method uses either a gas or particles as a tracer for dust from the
source to be measured. Common tracers are sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)28 and fluorescent
or phosphorescent materials or coatings. The assumption is that the tracer plume will
strongly resemble the dust plume if the tracer is released in the same place and time as the
dust. Downwind measurements of the tracer and dust concentrations are used to quantify
the (upwind) dust emission rate by a direct proportion using the (upwind) tracer release
rate (i.e. emission rate). A study was done to determine the accuracy of the gas tracer
method. This study determined that using a correction factor of 1.03 to calculate the
source emission rate increases the accuracy of the method.29

C Balloon Method.30,25 This method is a variation of the exposure profiling method,

discussed above. In the Balloon Method, a balloon is used to suspend ambient samplers
at varying heights instead of the sampling tower used in the exposure profiling method.
This method is especially suited for sampling large area sources and/or sources which may
not be closely approached. The problem with the Balloon method is that often the
sampling is not done isokinetically, since once the balloon is aloft, nozzles cannot be
changed. If variable flow rate sampling is not possible, the fixed flow rate in the samplers
may also contribute to anisokinetics. However, isokinetic sampling is less critical to
accurate measurement of PM10 than for total suspended PM.31

3-13
 3.5 Particle Size Analysis

The size distribution of a particulate dust stream is sometimes desired to determine the emissions
from a source or collection efficiency of a PM control device. Various measurement approaches are
available to determining the size distribution of a particulate stream that include cascade impactors,
sampling cyclones, centrifugal separators, and more advanced techniques that utilize lasers. Note that
EPA Test Method 201 and 201A can be used directly to determine PM10 emissions and collection
efficiency; however, for PM2.5 and other particle sizes, one of the methods discussed below is needed to
determine emissions or collection efficiency.32

3.5.1 Cascade Impactors

Cascade impactors are a widely used method to size particles that have been commercially
available for source testing since the early 1970's,33 and have a relatively well-developed theoretical
basis.32,34 Impactors collect particles by inertial impaction and utilize a series of plates (discs) or stages
with various-sized holes (jets) that alter the velocity of the gas passing onto the next stage. Particles of a
specific size or larger will impact each plate, while smaller particles will pass through to the next plate. The
plates are coated with a sticky material (substrate) that causes the PM impacting the plates to be
irreversibly collected. The selection of cascade impactor substrates is an important part of impactor
use.32,35

Cascade impactors generally can determine particle sizes between 0.3 to 16 m, 32 with low
pressure impactors commercially available (Pollution Control Systems Corp.)c that measure particles
between 0.02 and 10 m. 36,37 The major limitation of cascade impactors is that only a small amount of
PM (usually less than 10 mg) can be collected on each stage;32 therefore, the gas sampling volume/time
must be adjusted to accommodate for this upper limit. Cascade impactors may also be subject to biases
towards small particles because of particle bounce and reentrainment, and because of fracturing of larger
particles during impaction.

The proper operation of cascade impactors for source testing is described in the EPA document,
Procedures for Cascade Impactor Calibration and Operation in Process Streams.38

3.5.2 Sampling Cyclones

Cyclone samplers operate in the same manner as cyclones used for PM collection, in that the gas
with PM is forced to spin so that some of the PM hits the cyclone walls and is collected. PM above a
certain size specific to the cyclone will be largely collected and particles below a certain size will mostly
pass through the cyclone uncollected. Individual sampling cyclones are only able to determine the mass of

c
Pollution Control Systems Corporation, Seattle, Washington.

3-14
 particles either above and below a specific size. However, if various-sized sampling cyclones are used in
series, PM sizes over a (relatively broad) range can be determined. The limitations of the sampling
cyclones are that they are inadequate for sampling gases with low PM concentrations.32

In the late 1970's, the EPA developed the Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) as a
broad source assessment tool to screen for PM, organics, and inorganics in one sampling train. 39,40 The
SASS train included a series of three cyclones and a back-up filter that separated PM into the following
size categories: >10 m, 3 to 10 m, 1 to 3 m, and <1 m. Because the SASS train was constructed out
of stainless steel to better withstand field conditions, the recovery rates for the chemical analyses were not
as high as sampling trains made out of glass, such as the Office of Solid Waste's method, SW846-Method
0010 (Modified Method 5) described in Section [Link] The OSW method, however, does not
fractionate PM by size.

A system of five cyclones nested in series has also been developed42,43 and is commercially
available from vendors, including Sierra Instruments, Inc.d The five cyclones have progressively smaller
cut points, with reported d50's of 5.4, 2.1, 1.4, 0.65, and 0.32 m.
3.5.3 Real-Time Size Distribution Measurement

An Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) has been developed that can determines the "real-time" size
of particles by measuring their velocity as the particles accelerate through a plate orifice.44 The particle
velocity measurements are made with a laser Doppler velocimeter.45,46 The instrument is commercially
available from TSI Inc.e

The in situ measurement of PM using lasers have been reported to be successful for small
particles, less than 1 m.47 The laser is used to heat the PM and, based on the PM cooling rates, size
differentiation is possible. This method has the advantage of a very short measurement time period
(microseconds), so that the effect of rapidly changing processes on the particle size distribution can be
determined.

Acoustical techniques are also being used to size PM. This technique relies on the detection and
measurement of elastic waves arising from the impact of the particles on a surface, such as a plate,48 or
other particles.49 The acoustic signal can be measured inexpensively by a high fidelity piezoelectric
transducer48 or with the use of a simple microphone.49 The latter method is better suited to regularly-
shaped PM, while the former is not recommended for high number concentration particle streams (>109
per m3).

d
Sierra Instruments, Inc., Carmel Valley, California.
e
TSI Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.

3-15
 An optical method has been developed from an EPA funded study by Insitec Measurement
Systems.f The method, known as Transform method for Extinction-Scattering with Spatial resolution
(TESS), is a patented technique based on laser light scattering. 50 TESS measures total particle
concentration. The measurement is independent of particle composition, velocity, and size distribution.
The particle concentration is measured as a ratio of scattered to transmitted light.

A diffusion battery that can be used in a source situation has been developed.51 Diffusion batteries
utilize arrays of screens, tubes, or plates, which present a large surface area for the deposition of particles
by Brownian diffusion. Particulate matter of different sizes can be classified with diffusion batteries
because of the difference in diffusion coefficients for particles of different sizes.52,53

Other real-time particle sizing/counting methods are available. These devices include optical
devices, condensation nuclei counters, and electrical mobility analyzers. 54,55,56, 57,58,59 Some of these
devices may not be appropriate for source level PM concentrations and/or can not properly account for
particle refractive index or shape.

3.5.4 Size Distribution of Bulk Samples

Particulate matter can be collected from the source and later analyzed for the particle size
distribution in the laboratory using various available techniques. These techniques should be used with
caution, however, because the original flue gas particle distribution may be altered by agglomeration,
particle breakup, chemical reactions, or loss of volatiles that occur during sample collection and storage.
Also, artifact mass may be formed from filter materials, such as glass fiber, that oxidize in contact with acid
gases in the sample air. Therefore, the size distribution results obtained with these methods are meaningful
only if the effects of sample collection and storage are negligible or clearly known.

Particle size of PM collected on filters can be determined with scanning electron microscopes
60
(SEM) . The particle volume size distribution is estimated from the size distribution determined by the
SEM. SEM can be used down to 0.01 m. 61

Another device used for particle sizing electrically stimulates the particles that are resuspended in a
conductive fluid. The amplitude of the resulting electrical pulse generated by each particle is measured as
the particles pass individually through an orifice or aperture. Because the electrical pulse is proportional to
the particle volume, particle diameter can be estimated by assuming a spherically-shaped particle.
Instruments such as a Coulterg Counter62 and Elzoneh Electrozone63 are commercially available to

f
Insitec Measurement Systems, San Ramon, California.
g
Coulter Electronics, Hialeah, Florida.
h
Particle Data Laboratories, Ltd., Elmhurst, Illinois.

3-16
 provide this type of analysis.64,65 These devices can provide analysis of particle with sizes >20 m and as
low as 0.35m.62

A Bahco Micro-Particle Classifier is the particle sizing device recommended by the Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institutei to determine particle size and collection efficiency of mechanical collectors, for
particles of 1 to over 20 m in diameter. Procedures for calibration of the Bahco are found in the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Power Test Code 289 that describes procedures to be used
for determining the size of fine PM found in dust and smoke. The Bahco is one of a class of instruments
called centrifugal classifiers, that in effect determine the terminal velocity distribution of the PM, which can
be related to particle size using Stokes' Law. In reality, these instruments determine the diameter of
equivalent solid spherical particles and, therefore, may not provide useful information if the PM is
significantly nonspherical.

An across-duct laminar flow device has been developed that collects PM for later size analysis by
a Malvern laser diffraction size analyzer.66 This instrument also measures the electric charge of the
particles so that it can be used to optimize ESP operation.

3.6 Speciation

Extractive PM sampling procedures, such as EPA Test Method 5, allow for the chemical
speciation of the collected PM. Most methods for speciation of PM use spectroscopic detection, although
other analytical procedures can also be used. The following sections discuss the various techniques that
can be used to speciate PM. Descriptions of two EPA test methods that detail procedures to collect as
well as analyze PM for individual species are also included below.

3.6.1 EPA Test Method 29 for Metals and PM

Method 29 is applicable to the determination of antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba),
beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn),
mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), phosphorus (P), selenium (Se), silver (Ag),
thallium (Tl), and zinc (Zn) emissions from stationary sources. This method may be used to determine total
PM emissions, in addition to the metals emissions, if the prescribed procedures and precautions are
followed.

In Method 29, a stack sample is withdrawn isokinetically from the source; PM emissions are
collected in the probe and on a heated filter, and gaseous emissions are then collected in an aqueous acidic
solution of hydrogen peroxide (analyzed for all metals including Hg) and an aqueous acidic solution of
potassium permanganate (analyzed only for Hg). The recovered samples are digested, and appropriate

i
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut.

3-17
fractions are analyzed for Hg by cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS) and for Sb, As,
Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Ni, P, Se, Ag, Tl, and Zn by inductively coupled argon plasma emission
spectroscopy (ICAP) or atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). Iron (Fe) can be a spectral interference
during the analysis of As, Cr, and Cd by ICAP. Aluminum (Al) can be a spectral interference during the
analysis of As and Pb by ICAP.

Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAAS) is used for analysis of Sb, As, Cd,
Co, Pb, Se, and Tl if these elements require greater analytical sensitivity than can be obtained by ICAP. If
desired, AAS may be used for analysis of all listed metals if the resulting in-stack method detection limits
meet the goal of the testing program. Similarly, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS)
may be used for analysis of Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Ni, As, Tl and Zn.

Method 29 is discussed in more detail in the EPA document Multiple Metals Stack Emissions
Measurement Methodology.67 Method 29 is virtually identical to two other EPA methods:

C EPA's Office of Solid Waste method SW-848-0012,68 "Methodology for the

Determination of Metals Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incineration and Similar
Combustion Sources;" and

C EPA's Office of Solid Waste method: "Methodology for the Determination of Metals
Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incineration and Similar Combustion Sources," that was
developed for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF)69.

3.6.2 EPA Office of Solid Waste Test Method 0010 (SW-846)41

This method is used to determine the amount of semivolatile organic constituents

in exhaust gas, as well as to determine total PM, as per EPA Method 5; hence, the common name of
"Modified Method 5." OSW Test Method 0010 can be used to detect polychlorinated biphenyls,
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, polycyclic organic matter, and other semivolatile organic
compounds. The method is used by OSW to determine the destruction and removal efficiency of the
principle organic hazardous constituents from waste incinerators.

Test Method 0010 is an EPA Test Method 5 sampling train modified to include a high efficiency
filter and a packed bed of XAD-2 or foam resin. The filter collects the organic-laden PM and the packed
bed adsorbs the semivolatile organic species in the flue gas. The method includes a description of a variety
of comprehensive chemical analyses to determine the identity and concentration of the organic material.
Analysis of the filter only yields PM speciation information.70

3-18
3.6.3 Spectrometry

Spectrometry is a common technique used to determine the species present in PM. However,
since the spectrometric detectors respond to the presence of only the element, they provide no information
about chemical compounds and, in most cases, do not indicate the oxidation state of the element.

[Link] Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS)71 usually involves some type of (acid) extraction of the
analyte followed by excitation of the solution in a flame. Light with a wavelength characteristic of the
element of interest traverses the flame. The amount of light absorbed is then related to the quantity of the
element present. In AAS, individual elements must be determined sequentially. Thus, although any
element can be determined for which a lamp is available to produce the characteristic light, most PM
samples are large enough to allow only half a dozen determinations. Some elements, if present in the PM,
(such as antimony and arsenic), may require the application of special methods. Atomic absorption is
subject to interferences which can lead to substantial errors. If recognized, however, these errors
generally can be accounted for or eliminated to produce good quantitative analyses.

[Link] Optical Emission Spectrometry

Optical emission spectrometry (OES) involves the excitation of the loosely bound electrons in
elements to observe their characteristic emissions as de-excitation occurs. The wavelength of the resultant
light is characteristic of the element, and the intensity is an indication of the quantity of the element present.

The most desirable OES technique is argon plasma excitation.72 Plasma spectrometry offers more
advantages than AAS, with similar sample preparation, analysis rates, and detection limits. The OES
techniques can simultaneously determine anywhere up to 50 elements. Optical emission spectrometry is, in
general, more interference-free than atomic absorption.

[Link] Mass Spectrometry

Mass spectrometry (MS) is a currently expanding field of analysis, whose growth has been fueled
by the need for increased accuracy and detection of highly toxic pollutants that are present in small
concentrations in the environment. Spectral interferences with MS are important, but generally can be
overcome by use of a spectrometer with high resolution. As with any multi-element technique, the
accuracy of MS depends on the elements to be analyzed and on the sample matrix. The advantage of MS
is that every element in the periodic table can be simultaneously detected, with roughly equal sensitivity in
the parts per million (ppm) and sub-ppm ranges. The MS techniques are also able to distinguish between
isotopes, which is sometimes desirable in the determination of isotope ratios.

3-19
 Two specific types of MS techniques applicable to PM samples are spark source mass
spectrometry73 and laser ion source MS, sometimes called laser microprobe mass analysis (LAMMA).74
Both techniques use an energy source to vaporize and partly ionize small amounts of the PM which, under
specially controlled conditions, are then accessible for MS analysis. LAMMA has the advantage in that it
can also determine particle size and shape with the same resolution as a light microscope (approximately
0.13 m).

[Link] Neutron Activation Analysis

Neutron activation analysis (NAA) consists of a variety of distinct methods, all of which produce
unstable nuclei that emit gamma radiation.75,76 The energy and intensity of the gamma rays are indicators
of the element and its quantity. Instrumental thermal NAA is the most commonly used method for PM. In
this approach, a nuclear reactor is used to produce unstable nuclei. Neutron activation analysis can
simultaneously determine up to 25 elements in on PM sample. Another advantage is that particles can be
analyzed directly on the collecting filter surface.

[Link] X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry

X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry involves excitation of tightly bound electrons and observation of
the X-ray emission as de-excitation occurs.75,77 Excitation may be done by a variety of techniques, but
use of an x-ray generator is the most common. The technique may be either multielement (up to perhaps
30) energy dispersive detection or wavelength dispersive detection (up to perhaps 10 elements). Only
elements with atomic numbers greater than that of magnesium can be analyzed. Particles can be analyzed
nondestructively, directly on a filter. Interferences are common and calibration can be a problem.

3.6.4 Electrochemical

Electrochemical methods have been used to a limited extent to determine a small number of
elements in PM samples. Some of these methods are: potentiometry with ion-selective electrodes,
polarography, and anodic stripping voltametry.75 Electrochemical methods have few advantages for PM
analysis aside from the low initial capital costs of equipment relative to other techniques.

3.6.5 Chemical

Many wet chemical procedures constitute the classical methods used for trace element analysis of
particulate. In general, a color-forming reagent is used, and the amount of an element is determined by the
extent of color development. Probably the best known of these procedures is based on the use of
dithiocarbazone (dithizone)78 as the colorimetric reagent for lead. Wet chemical procedures are labor-
intensive and slow, compared with spectral techniques, particularly since only one element can be
determined at a time. Interferences can also be a problem.

3-20
 Methods for estimating the total mass of benzene-extractable organic material in PM are available.
In this technique, a portion of the front-half catch from EPA Test Method 5 is placed in a Soxhlet
extractor and refluxed with benzene for several hours. The benzene is then volatilized and the mass of
residue is measured.

Methods of identifying and determining individual organic species abound. These methods use
different sequences of solvent extractions that separate groups of different organic species on the basis of
solubility. Solutions are often subjected to chromatographic separation with mass spectral detection. For
organic compounds that are volatile up to about 300C, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-
MS) can be used.79 For organic species with lower volatility, liquid chromatography might be used. High-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)80 is typically used, but none of these procedures permits a
high rate of analysis.

For analysis of one organic species of longstanding interest, benzo-a-pyrene (BaP), thin layer
chromatography (TLC) with fluorescence detection has been used. This procedure requires a
cyclohexane extraction, spotting, and development of a TLC plate, with fluorescence detection. This TLC
procedure is more interference-free than some HPLC methods and has a higher yield rate.81

3-21
3.7 References for Section 3

1. Martin, R.M. Construction Details of Isokinetic Source-Sampling Equipment (APTD-058l).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April l97l.

2. Rom, J.J. Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment
(APTD-0576). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. March l972.

3. Application Guide for Source PM10 Measurement with Exhaust Gas Recycle Sampling System
(EPA/600/3-88-058). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 1988.

4. Application Guide for Source PM10 Measurement with Constant Sampling Rate (EPA/600/3-
88-057). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
1988.

5. Measurement of Condensible Vapor Contribution to PM10 Emissions (EPA-600/D-89/103;

NTIS PB89-224521). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. June 1985.

6. A Review of Current Methods for Measuring Particulate Matter Including Condensibles from
Stationary Sources (EPA-600/3-89/020; NTIS PB89-169973). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1989.

7. Method Development and Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement of Condensible

Particulate Emissions (EPA-450/4-90-012; NTIS PB90-24805). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1990.

8. 1995 Annual Book of Standards, Section 11: Water and Environmental Technology, Volume
11.03: Atmospheric Analyses. American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. 1995

9. Determining the Properties of Fine Particulate Matter: Power Test Codes. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York. 1996.

10. Fissan, H. and D.F. Schulze-Froehlich. "A New Piezoelectric Quartz Crystal for Particle Mass
Determination" in Proceedings: Advances in Particle Sampling and Measurement (EPA-600/9-
89-004; NTIS PB89-166615), Daytona Beach, Florida, October 1981. February 1989.

11. Tacelli, R.W., R.E. Newton, and J.M. Andrews. "Triboelectric Instrument for Use as a
Continuous Particulate Emission Rate Monitor," in Continuous Emission Monitoring: A
Technology for the 90s, Proceedings of an International Specialty Conference. Air &

3-22
 Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1993.

12. Personal Communication. Ward, Tom, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, with Jones, Donna Lee, EC/R Inc., Durham, North Carolina.
August 27, 1996.

13. A Review of Methods for Measuring Fugitive PM-10 Emission Rates (EPA/454-R-93-037;
NTIS PB94-204203). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1993.

14. Protocol for the Measurement of Inhalable Particulate Fugitive Emissions from Stationary
Sources. Draft report prepared under EPA Contract 68-04-3115 by TRC Environmental
Consultants, Inc., Wethersfield, Connecticut, for Mr. D. Bruce Harris, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1980.

15. Techniques and Equipment for Measuring Inhalable Particulate Fugitive Emissions (EPA-
600/9-82-005d; NTIS PB-83-149617). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982.

16. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions: Quasi-stack Sampling Method
(EPA-600/2-76-089c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. 1976.

17. Technical Manual: Hood System Capture of Process Fugitive Emissions (EPA-600/7-86-016;
NTIS PB86-19044). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 1986.

18. Evaluation of an Air Curtain Hooding System for a Primary Copper Converter, Volume I
(EPA-600/2-84-042a: NTIS PB84-160514). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1984.

19. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions: Roof Monitor Sampling Method
for Industrial Fugitive Emissions (EPA-600/2-76-089b). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1976.

20. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions: Upwind/Downwind Sampling
Method for Industrial Emissions (EPA-600/2-76-089a). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1976.

21. Gengxin, H., X. Liguo, and H. Yanfeng. "A Study of Diffusion Models Applied to Dust
Emissions from Industrial Complexes." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 22 (89-
105). 1992.

3-23
22. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-450/3-74-037; NTIS PB-
238262). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
1974.

23. Garman, G and G.E. Muleski. Example Test Plan for Point or Nonuniform Line Sources.
Prepared under EPA Contract 68-DO-0123, Work Assignment 11-44. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1993.

24. Clayton, P., S.C. Wallin, B.J. Davis, and A.C. Simmonds. Methods for Determining
Particulate Fugitive Emissions from Stationary Sources (NTIS PB-85-181717). National
Technical Information Service, Washington, DC. 1984.

25. Improved Emission factors for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources
(EPA-600/7-84-048; NTIS PB84-170802). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1984.

26. Cowherd, C. A New Approach to Estimating Wind-Generated Emissions from Coal Storage
Piles. Air Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference Proceedings (SP-51): Fugitive
Dust Issues in the Coal Use Cycle. Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. 1983.

27. Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation (EPA-600/2-83-110;
NTIS PB84-110568). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 1983.

28. On the Use of SF6-Tracer Releases for the Determination of Fugitive Emissions (EPA-600/9-
82-005d; NTIS PB83-149617). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. 1982.

29. Frankel, R.G. Fugitive Dust Emissions: Accuracy of Gas Tracer Determinations. Masters
Report. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1995.

30. Balloon Sampling to Characterize Particle Emissions from Fugitive Sources (EPA-600/9-82-
005d; NTIS PB83-149617). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. 1982.

31. Davies, C.N. The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes. British Journal of Applied
Physics. 2:291. 1968.

32. Shendrikar, A.D. and D.S. Ensor. "Sampling and Measurement of Trace Element Emissions
from Particulate Control Devices," in Toxic Metals in the Atmosphere, J.O. Nriagu and C.I.
Davidson, Eds. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 1986.

3-24
33. Pilat, M.J. D. S. Ensor, and J.C. Bosch. Source Test Cascade Impactor. Atmospheric
Environment. 4:671-679. 1970.

34. Marple, V.A. and B.Y.H. Liu. Characteristics of Laminar Jet Impactors. Environmental
Science and Technology. 8:648. 1974.

35. Felix, L.G., G.I. Clinard, G.E. Lacey, and J.D. McCain. Inertial Cascade Impactor Substrate
Media for Flue Gas Sampling (EPA-600/7-77-060). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. 1977.

36. Pilat, M.J. G.A. Raemhild, E.B. Powell, G.M. Fiorette, and D.F. Meyer. Development of
Cascade Impactor System for Sampling 0.02 to 20-micron Diameter Particles (FP-844,
Volume 1). University of Seattle, Seattle Washington. 1978.

37. Nelson, P.A., D.S. Mummey, and W.D. Snowden. "Ultra-Fine Cascade Impactor Particle
Size Data Relationships to Opacity: Case Histories" in Proceedings: Advances in Particle
Sampling and Measurement (EPA-600/9-89-004; NTIS PB89-166615), Daytona Beach,
Florida, October 1981. February 1989.

38. Procedures for Cascade Impactor Calibration and Operation in Process Streams (EPA-600/2-
77-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 1977.

39. Source Assessment Sampling System: Design and Development (EPA-600/7-78-018). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. February 1978.

40. Merrill, R.G., J. Lewtas, and R.E. Hall. "Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) Versus
Dilution Tunnel Sampling," in Proceedings: Advances in Particle Sampling and Measurement
(EPA-600/9-89-004; NTIS PB89-166615), Daytona Beach, Florida, October 1981.
February 1989.

41. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Third Edition. Report No. SW-848. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC. 1986.

42. Smith. W.B. and R.R. Wilson. Development and Laboratory Evaluation of a Five-Stage
Cyclone System (EPA-600/7-78-008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1978.

43. Smith, W.B. and R.R. Wilson. A Five-Stage Cyclone System for In Situ Sampling.
Environmental Science and Technology. 13(11). November 1979.

44. Agarwal, J.K. and R.J. Remiarz. "Development of an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer" in
Proceedings: Advances in Particle Sampling and Measurement (EPA-600/9-89-004; NTIS

3-25
 PB89-166615), Daytona Beach, Florida, October 1981. February 1989.

45. J.C. Wilson and B.Y.H. Liu. Aerodynamic Particle Size Measurement by Laser-Doppler
Velocimetry. J. Aerosol Science. 11:139-150. 1980.

46. Agarwal, J.K. and L.M. Fingerson. Real-Time Aerodynamic Particle Size Measurement with a
Laser Velocimeter. TSI Quarterly. V(1). 1979.

47. Roth, P. and V. Filippov. In Situ Ultrafine Particle Sizing by a Combination of Pulsed Laser
Heatup and Particle Thermal Emission. J. Aerosol Science. 27(1):95-104. 1996.

48. Buttle, D.J., S.R. Martin, and C.B. Scruby. Particle Sizing by Quantitative Acoustic Emission.
Research in Nondestructive Evaluation. 3(1):1-26. 1981.

49. M.F. Leach, G.A. Rubin, and J.C. Williams. Particle Size Distribution Characterization from
Acoustic Emissions. Powder Technology. 19(2):157. March/April 1978.

50. Correspondence and product literature from Mr. Hugh North, Malvern/Insitec, San Ramon,
California, to Mr. Kenneth Woodard, U.S. EPA. January 14, 1998.

51. Knapp, K.T. "Elemental Composition of Sized Profiles Emitted from Stationary Sources," in
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Recent Advances in Particulate Science
and Technology held on December 8-10, 1982, in Madras, India. Department of Chemical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India. 1986.

52. Chen, B.T., Y.S. Cheng, and H.C. Yeh. Tests of the Size resolution and Size Accuracy of the
Lovelace Parallel-Flow Diffusion Battery. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 52(2):75. February 1,
1991.

53. Barr, E.B., Y.S. Cheng, and H.C. Yeh. Size Characterization of Carbonaceous Particles
Using a Lovelace Multijet Cascade Impactor/Parallel-Flow Diffusion Battery Serial Sampling
Train. Aerosol Science and Technology. 10(1):205. 1989.

54. Hinds, W.C. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne
Particles. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 1982.

55. "Particle Sizing--Past and Present" (Particle Sizing Editorial Review). Filtration and Separation.
July/August 1993.

56. McCain, J.D., W.G. Kistler, J.W. Ragland, R.L. Merritt. "Aerosol Size and Chemistry at a
Coal-Fired Power Plant" in Proceedings: Advances in Particle Sampling and Measurement
(EPA-600/9-89-004; NTIS PB89-166615), Daytona Beach, Florida, October 1981.
February 1989.

3-26
57. Cushing, K.M., R.R. Wilson, W.E. Farthing, and D.B. Harris. "A Comparison of Several
Particle-Sizing Techniques" in Proceedings: Advances in Particle Sampling and Measurement
(EPA-600/9-89-004; NTIS PB89-166615), Daytona Beach, Florida, October 1981.
February 1989.

58. Steele, W.J., W.B. Smith, W.E. Farthing, and R.C. Carr. "A Sensitive Particulate Monitor for
Measuring the Approximate Opacity for Fabric Filter Systems" in Proceedings: Advances in
Particle Sampling and Measurement (EPA-600/9-89-004; NTIS PB89-166615), Daytona
Beach, Florida, October 1981. February 1989.

59. Sadakata. M., M. Motegi, Y. Mashio, T. Ishada, A. Harano, and H.J. Kim. Growth of
Primary Soot Particles in an Atmospheric Premixed Methane Oxygen Flame. Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, Part A: Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers.
73(42):142-146. March 1995.

60. Huggins, F.E. D.A. Kosmack, G.P. Huffman, and R.J. Lee. "Coal Mineralogies by SEM
Automatic Image Analyses," in Scanning Electron Microscopy/I. SEM Inc., AMF O'Hare,
Chicago, Illinois. 1980.

61. Davidson, D.L. "The Analysis of particles by Electron Microscopy and Spectroscopy," in
Particle Characterization in Technology, Vol. I: Applications and Microanalysis, J.K.
Beddow, Ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. 1984.

62. van de Plaats, G., H. Harps, and L. Willeams. Size Determination of Conductive Particles with
a Coulter Counter. Proceedings of the Particle Size Analysis Conference, Loughborough
Tech. University, Loughborough, England. September 1981.

63. Berg, R.H. Electronic Size Analysis of Subsieve Particles by Flowing Through a Small Liquid
Resistance (STP No. 234). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. 1958.

64. Karuhn, R.F. and R.H. Berg. "Practical Aspects of Electrozone Size Analysis," in Particle
Characterization in Technology, Vol. I: Applications and Microanalysis, J.K. Beddow,
Ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. 1984.

65. Kinsman, S. "Particle Size Instrumentation--Coulter Counter," in Particle Characterization

in Technology, Vol. I: Applications and Microanalysis, J.K. Beddow, Ed. CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. 1984.

66. Corbin, R.G., J.K. Horrocks, D. Towell, and C. Wainwright. Measurement of Particle Size
and Charge from an Electrostatic Filter. Filtration and Separation. 24(4):248-251. July-
August 1988.

3-27
67. Multiple Metals Stack Emissions Measurement Methodology (EPA/600-A-93/089; NTIS
PB93-185734). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 1993.

68. "Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Hazardous
Waste Incineration and Similar Combustion Sources," in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846, Third Edition). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
September 1988.

69. "Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incineration
and Similar Combustion Sources," in Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF
Regulations Burning Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (EPA/530-SW-91-
010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC. December 1990.

70. Screening Methods for the Development of Air Toxics Emission Factors (EPA-450/4-91-
021). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
September 1991.

71. Ahearn, A.I. Trace Analysis by Mass Spectrometry. Academic Press, New York, New
York. 1972.

72. Fassel, V. A. Quantitative Elemental Analyses by Plasma Emission Spectroscopy. Science,

Vol. 202, 1978.

73. Morrison, G. H. Trace Analysis Physical Methods. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1965.

74. Kaufman, R. and P. Wieser. "Laser Microprobe Mass Analysis in Particle Analysis," in
Particle Characterization in Technology, Vol. I: Applications and Microanalysis, J.K.
Beddow, Ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. 1984.

75. Priorities and Procedures for Development of Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources of Atmospheric Emissions (EPA-450/3-76-020). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1976.

76. Lambert, J.P.F., and F.W. Wilshire. Neutron Activation Analysis for Simultaneous
Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Air Collected on Glass-Fiber Filters. Anal.
Chem. 51. 1979.

77. Goold, R.W., C.S. Barrett, J.B. Newkirk, and C.O. Ruud. Advances in X-ray Analysis.
Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa. 1976.

3-28
78. Snell, F.D. Photometric and Fluorometric Methods of Analysis: Metals, Part I. John
Wiley, New York, New York. 1978.

79. McFadden, W.H. Techniques of Combined Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.

John Wiley, New York, New York. 1978.

80. Kirkland, J.J. Modern Practice of Liquid Chromatography. John Wiley, New York, New
York. 1971.

81. Swanson, D., et al. A Rapid Analytical Procedure for the Analysis of BaP in
Environmental Samples. Trends Fluoresc. 1. 1978.

3-29
4. FUEL SUBSTITUTION AND SOURCE REDUCTION APPROACHES FOR
PARTICULATE MATTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Fuel Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.1 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.2 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.1.3 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.1.4 Other Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.2 Process Modification/Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.3 References for Section 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
 SECTION 4

4. FUEL SUBSTITUTION AND SOURCE REDUCTION APPROACHES FOR

PARTICULATE MATTER

This section discusses the use of fuel substitution and process optimization to achieve reductions
in PM emissions. In many cases, these practices can be easier and less expensive than upgrading
existing control technology or investing in new add-on controls.

Fuel substitution, or fuel switching, is typically used as a means of reducing emissions from
combustion sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. It involves replacing the current fuel
with a fuel which emits less of a given pollutant when burned. Common examples of this would be
replacing coal with oil or natural gas at an electric utility plant. Source reduction techniques generally
consist of modifying or optimizing a given process to improve its operation, since many PM emissions
are the result of processes which are not performing to their potential. These emissions can be reduced
or eliminated by altering the process.

4.1 Fuel Substitution

Fuel substitution can be an effective means of reducing emissions for many types of processes
which use fuel combustion to provide heat for the process or to produce electricity. Fuel combustion is
responsible for significant emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, as well as SOx and NOx. Control devices,
such as fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators are often the first option for PM control for fuel
combustion sources. However, add-on PM controls can require a very large capital investment.

The type of fuel and process have a great impact on the PM emissions from combustion. Coal,
oil, and natural gas are the most common fuels used. Of these fuels, coal combustion generally results
in the highest PM emissions. The four major types of coal are bituminous, subbituminous, anthracite,
and lignite;1 their characteristics and emissions are very different. Oil is broadly classified as residual or
distillate. Residual oils contain more sulfur and ash which contribute to higher emissions. Fuel oils are
also described by numbers. Numbers 1 and 2 fuel oils are distillate, Nos. 5 and 6 are residual, and No.
4 fuel oil can be distillate or a mixture of residual and distillate.1 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning
fuel and typically results in much less PM than oil or coal.1

4.1.1 Applicability

There are several considerations to determine if fuel switching is the best option for reducing
emissions from a given combustion source. For many older boilers, the expense associated with new
add-on PM controls or modifications to existing controls is not practical. Fuel switching is an especially
attractive option for these boilers because the capital investment is usually small when compared to that
of control devices.

4-1
 For fuel substitution to be practical, there must be a suitable replacement fuel available at an
acceptable cost. Prospective fuels must be evaluated using the criteria of performance, availability, and
cost.2 The first requirement is that the replacement fuel provides a significant reduction in emissions
versus the original fuel. The effect that the replacement fuel has on emissions of other pollutants should
be considered as well. For example, switching to low sulfur coal to reduce SOx emissions may
increase PM emissions.2 In many cases fuel substitution will reduce more than one type of pollutant.
For instance, substituting natural gas for coal will reduce PM emissions and virtually eliminate SOx.

While most industrialized areas have access to a variety of fuels, some fuels may not be
practical in certain locations because of cost. Natural gas and fuel oil are generally supplied by pipeline.
Locations which are not near existing pipelines may find it expensive to arrange for a natural gas or fuel
oil supply. Smaller industrial or commercial units can rely on delivery by truck. Since coal is typically
supplied by railroad and the characteristics of coal from different areas of the country vary widely,
some types of coal may not be applicable as a replacement fuel for a given location because they must
be shipped from an unreasonable distance.

In most cases, the process will have to be modified to accommodate switching to a different
type of fuel. For certain types of coal fired boilers, such as stokers, it may be impractical to retrofit
them to burn a liquid or gaseous fuel. Fuel switching will often require retrofitting the current control
device in addition to the process. Fuel substitution therefore, would not be applicable to sources with
excessive retrofit costs.

In addition to the requirements for source modification, fuel prices can be a determining cost
factor for fuel switching. Since coal, oil, and natural gas all have different prices based on their heating
values, fuel switching may also increase operating costs. The costs of fuel substitution will be discussed
further in section 4.1.3.

4.1.2 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching

If fuel substitution is applicable to a given combustion process, it can result in significant

reductions in PM emissions. In general, PM and SO2 emissions are highest for coal and lowest for
natural gas. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show potential PM10 and PM2.5 emission reductions, respectively, with
fuel switching. The tables provide matrices showing the approximate emissions reductions for switching
from bituminous coal to subbituminous coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. Distillate oil was not
provided as a replacement fuel for utility sources because it is not typically burned in utility boilers.

The emission reductions were calculated based on emission factors and fuel composition.1
Emission factors are dependent on the type of fuel and the type of combustion process which is
employed. The potential reductions achieved by switching from bituminous and subbituminous coal in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 were based on emissions from dry bottom

4-2
 Table 4.1. Potential PM10 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching (References 1, 4, and 5)

Estimated PM 10 Reductions with Replacement Fuel (percent)

Industrial Utility

Original Fuel Subbituminous Residual Oila Natural Gas Distillate Oilb Subbituminous Residual Oila Natural Gas

Bituminous Coal 21.4 62.9 98.2 99.0 21.4 69.5 99.3

Subbituminous Coal -- 52.8 97.7 98.8 -- 61.2 99.2

Residual Oila -- -- 95.1 97.4 -- -- 97.9

a
Residual Oil includes No. 4, 5, and 6 fuel oil.
b
Distillate Oil is No. 2 fuel oil.

4-3
Table 4.2. Potential PM2.5 Emission Reductions with Fuel Switching (References 1, 4, and 5)

Estimated PM 2.5 Reductions with Replacement Fuel (percent)

Industrial Utility

Original Fuel Subbituminous Residual Oila Natural Gas Distillate Oilb Subbituminous Residual Oila Natural Gas

Bituminous Coal 21.4 7.4 93.1 99.1 21.4 14.8 97.5

Subbituminous Coal -- -- 91.2 98.8 -- -- 96.8

Residual Oila -- -- 92.5 99.0 -- -- 97.0

a
Residual Oil includes No. 4, 5, and 6 fuel oil.
b
Distillate Oil is No. 2 fuel oil.
boilers, since dry bottom boilers are responsible for the highest percentage of PM emissions from coal
combustion.3 In addition, dry bottom boilers have lower PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors than wet
bottom boilers and all types of stokers.1 Emission factors for utility and industrial coal combustion in the
same type of boilers were assumed to be the same.1 Variation in PM emissions from oil combustion is
due to differences in utility and industrial units. Utility units tend to operate more efficiently than industrial
units and, therefore, have lower PM emissions. This is also the case with natural gas combustion.1

In terms of fuel composition, the ash content of the fuel is a major factor in determining PM
emissions. In general, the higher ash content a given fuel, the more PM will be emitted when burned.1
For these calculations, an average value of 8.6 weight percent ash (6.62 lb/106 Btu) in bituminous coal
was used. The average ash content of subbituminous coal was assumed to be 5.2 percent (4 lb/106
Btu).4 Particulate emissions from oil combustion are dependent on ash and sulfur content.1 Increasing
sulfur content will increase PM emissions from oil combustion because the sulfur inhibits complete
combustion.1 Also, a small percentage (1% to 3%) of the sulfur in oil is emitted as sulfate particulate.1
Residual oil was estimated to have ash content of 0.03 weight percent (0.016 lb/106 Btu) and sulfur
content of 2.5 percent (1.3 lb/106 Btu).4 Distillate oil was estimated to have ash content of less than 0.01
percent (<0.005 lb/106 Btu) and sulfur content of 0.22 percent (0.115 lb/106 Btu).4 A sample calculation
of the potential PM10 emission reduction associated with switching from bituminous coal to distillate oil
follows.

The PM10 emission factors for bituminous coal and distillate oil combustion in dry bottom boilers
are 2.3(A) lb/ton and 1 lb/103 gallons, respectively.1 In the coal emission factor, (A) refers to the ash
content of the fuel. Because these factors are based on tons of coal and gallons of oil, they must be
converted into factors based on the heating value of the fuel in order to be useful. This is done by dividing
the emission factor by the heating value:

Bituminous coal: (2.3 lb/ton)(8.6)/(26,000,000 Btu/ton) = 0.761 lb/106 Btu

Distillate oil: (1 lb/103 gal)/(138,000,000 Btu/103 gal) = 0.007 lb/106 Btu

The potential reduction in PM10 emissions when switching from bituminous coal to distillate oil is
calculated by subtracting the emission factor for oil (EFoil) from the emission factor for coal (EFcoal ) and
then dividing by the coal emission factor:

Potential reduction =[(EF coal ) - (EF oil)]/(EF coal )

=[(0.761 lb/106 Btu) - (0.007 lb/106 Btu)]/ (0.761 lb/106 Btu)
= 0.99 or 99 percent

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicate that the maximum reductions in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions can be
obtained by switching to from coal or residual oil to natural gas or distillate oil. The reductions presented
in these tables were based on the average values discussed above; actual reductions will vary with
specific fuel composition.

4-4
4.1.3 Costs

The costs associated with fuel substitution are related to retrofitting the current unit and
purchasing the replacement fuel. Retrofitting the combustion process to burn another fuel can be a major
undertaking, with the necessary modifications unique to each site. Generally, switching from one kind of
coal or grade of oil to another is less costly than switching from coal to oil or natural gas. In some cases,
the cost of modifying the combustion process to utilize the new fuel makes the fuel substitution
impractical. Another possible retrofit cost is related to the existing control devices, which also may
require modifications to accommodate the type of emissions associated with the new fuel.

A cost differential may also exist between fuels. If the replacement fuel is much more expensive
than the fuel which is currently in use, operating costs may noticeably increase. Table 4.3 provides
average prices for coal, oil, and natural gas, in terms of common units and heating value.5,6,7 These prices

Table 4.3. Average Prices of Coal, Oil, and

Natural Gasa (References 5, 6, and 7)

Average Price
Fuel Common Price $/MMBtu
Subbituminous coalb
Utility $27.01/ton 1.35
Industrial $32.37/ton 1.62
Bituminous coalb
Utility $27.01/ton 1.04
Industrial $32.37/ton 1.25
Residual oilc $390/103 gal 2.60
Distillate oilc $616/103 gal 4.47
Natural gasc $1680/106 scf 1.68
a
More current prices are available from the Monthly Energy
Review, published by the U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
b
1995 average prices.
c
Average prices as of September, 1996.

4-5
will vary depending on the actual location in the U.S.
4.1.4 Other Impacts

In addition to reducing PM emissions, fuel substitution can also reduce emissions of other
pollutants, such as SOx and NOx. Potential SOx reductions with fuel switching are provided in Table 4.4.
Natural gas is especially effective for SOx control, eliminating nearly 100 percent of SOx. Coal burning
power plants have been switching to Western coal as a means of reducing SOx emissions,2 since western
coals have lower sulfur contents than many otherwise comparable Eastern coals. Unfortunately, low
sulfur ash is more difficult to collect in ESPs, so that switching to Western coal will usually require flue gas
conditioning or a control device modification to maintain PM collection efficiency.2

Substituting natural gas for coal has been shown to be effective at reducing NOx emissions. In
1992, Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) demonstrated seasonal control of NOx emissions by
operating two utility boilers with natural gas instead of coal for the 3-month ozone season (June, July, and

Table 4.4. Potential SOx Reductions with Fuel Switching

Estimated SOx Reductions with Replacement Fuel (percent)

Subbituminous Lignite No. 4 No.2 Natural
Original Fuel Coal Coala Fuel Oilb Fuel Oilc Gas
Bituminous Coal 72.9 80.2 47.4 91.2 99.9
Subbituminous Coal -- 26.9 -- 69.5 99.9
No. 6 Fuel Oild -- -- 46.2 91.5 99.9
No. 4 Fuel Oilb -- -- -- 84.3 99.9
No. 2 Fuel Oilc -- -- -- -- 99.7
a
Lignite coal with high sodium ash content and sulfur content of 0.4 percent by weight.
b
Distillate/residual mixture with average sulfur content of 1.35 percent by weight.
c
Distillate oil with average sulfur content of 0.22 percent by weight, typically not used in utility
boilers.
d
Residual oil with average sulfur content of 2.5 percent by weight.

August).8

4-6
4.2 Process Modification/Optimization

Process modification and/or optimization can be an effective means of reducing PM emissions.

Some general examples of process optimization include reducing the frequency of mass transfer
operations, improving operational efficiency, and the proper use of dust collection devices at the point of
generation.

Manufacturing can require many individual process steps involving simple functions. Material
transfer steps can cause fugitive PM emissions and costly loss of product. A careful analysis of all
process steps may reveal some unnecessary or repetitive steps which can be eliminated, resulting in fewer
fugitive PM emissions.9

Particle characteristics can also have a significant impact on PM emission rates. Particle size has
a direct effect in that larger particles settle more quickly and are more easily collected in control devices.
Therefore, wetting and agglomeration techniques in general increase particle size and the efficiency of
control equipment.9 The performance of some control devices, such as ESPs, is also influenced by the
chemical composition of the particles. Flue gas conditioning (see Section 5.1) is a means of altering the
composition of particles and improving the conditions for electrostatic precipitation.

Some specific process modification/optimization techniques to reduce PM emissions are:

C Changing from a cupola to an electric arc furnace.9

C Changing from an (open) bucket elevator to more efficient (closed) pneumatic conveyor.9

C Screening out undersized coke (<1 inch) to reduce blast furnace fugitive emissions in
primary metal smelting.10

C Improving blast furnace combustion efficiency during primary lead smelting by improving
the furnace water cooling system.10

C Eliminating fugitive PM from transporting, pouring, and stirring molten metal by the use of
continuous kettle drossing rather than manual in primary metal smelting (as is currently
done in only foreign facilities).10

C Improving raw material quality, e.g. improve the quality of coke and sinter concentrate
used in primary metal production.10

C Cooling metal pots to reduce fume generation during kettle drossing in primary metal
production. 10

4-7
C Pumping (primary) metal directly to dross kettles using an electromagnetic pump.10

C Agglomerating blast furnace flue dust in an agglomerating furnace to reduce the load on
the fabric filter to improve its performance. This process completely eliminates handling
of the dust and the associated fugitive emissions, and eliminates fugitive emissions from
flue dust storage piles.10

C Using permanent mold castings in gray iron foundries instead of green sand. This is
reported to reduce PM emissions by 99 percent.10

C Pre-treating glass manufacturing raw materials to reduce the amount of fine particles.
Pretreatments include: presintering, briquetting, pelletizing, or liquid alkali treatment.10

C Replacing grease and oil lubricants (e.g. in glass manufacturing) with silicone emulsions
and water-soluble oils that eliminate the smoke generated from flash vaporization of
hydrocarbons from greases and oils that come into contact with process materials.10

C Tuning industrial boilers to achieve more efficient combustion to reduce PM that occurs
as a result of incomplete combustion.

C ABB Industry Oy of Finland's Burning Image analyZER (BIZER) that allows combustion
control for kraft pulp mill recovery boilers. In this process, infrared cameras view the
smelt pile and provide digital image processing to present burning information. This
technique can be used for automatic burning control.11

C Hitachi, Ltd., of Japan's Oilless, Dry Centrifugal "Leak-Free" Compressors eliminate

fugitive leaks and save energy. The PM reduction is achieved through energy efficiency.
This device is currently being used at petroleum refineries.11

C Poland has developed a coal pyrolysis technique that produces a better fuel. Crushed
dried coal is decomposed into gas and char in a circulating fluidized bed reactor. The gas
is burned in a turbine and the char is mixed with coal and pressed into briquettes of
smokeless fuel called ECOCOAL. ECOCOAL has 1.2 to 1.7 times the thermal
efficiency of coal with PM emissions up to 50 percent lower.11

C Lurgi Metallurgie's (FRG) QSL Process for Secondary Lead Smelting. Use of a
completely closed reactor designed to treat all grades results in >90 percent control of
PM.11

C Fluidized-bed heat treatment technology for primary metal manufacturing developed by

Quality Heat Treatment Pty, Ltd., of Australia. A gas-phase heat treatment process uses

4-8
 a fluidized bed of alumina particles and is completely enclosed, enabling collection of
fugitive PM emissions.11

C Dow Chemical Ferroalloy Process. Pure oxygen is used instead of air in a closed furnace
that produces no dust.

4.3 References for Section 4

1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). volume I (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1995.

2. Rembold, D. and R. Rupinkas. CAA Compliance: Fuel Switching Can Be Complex, Yet
Rewarding. Electrical World. April 1994.

3. Source Category Emission Reductions with Particulate Matter and Precursor Control
Techniques. Prepared for K. Woodard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (AQSSD/IPSG), under Work Assignment II-16 (EPA Contract
No. 68-03-0034), "Evaluation of Fine Particulate Matter Control." September 30, 1996.

4. Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook (6th Edition).
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York. 1984.

5. Quarterly Coal Report, October-December 1995 (DOE/EIA-0121(95/4Q)). Energy

Information Administration, Department of Energy, Washington, DC. May 1996.

6. Electric Power Monthly, April 1996 (DOE/EIA-0226(96/04)). Department of Energy,

Washington, DC. April 1996.

7. Industry Statistics. Oil & Gas Journal. September 16, 1996.

8. Control Costs for VOC and NOx Measures for Non-Traditional Sources for Ozone NAAQS
Review. Final Report for Work Assignment No. 06; EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0034. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 30,
1994.

9. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-18-005a, NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

10. Estimating and Controlling Fugitive Lead Emissions from Industrial Sources (EPA-452/R-96-
006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1996.

4-9
11. Assessment of International Air Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Title IX of the
Clean Air Act Amendments. Draft Report to Congress. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. July 1996.

4-10
5. EXHAUST GAS CLEANING SYSTEMS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

This section discusses the exhaust gas cleaning systems for stationary sources that can be used
in industries with particulate-bearing exhaust streams. The devices discussed are electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs), fabric filters, wet scrubbers and incinerators (used for streams with especially high
VOC contents as well as PM). The section begins with a discussion of pretreatment devices that can
be used to reduce the PM loading onto the primary control device and flue gas conditioning which can
enhance particle collection.

Each section includes a description of the device, the collection mechanisms, and discussion of
different systems designs. Also included is a discussion of the applicability of the device to the various
processes to which the controls can be applied. The effectiveness of the device, in terms of the range
of efficiencies for various types of systems and applications, is then discussed, with a special focus on
PM10 and PM2.5. General curves relating particle size and efficiency are included along with a
discussion of the parameters influencing efficiency and their quantitative impacts. Two types of
efficiency, fractional and cumulative, are discussed in this section. Fractional efficiency refers to the
efficiency of a control device for a particular size of particle only, such as 10 :m in aerodynamic
diameter. Cumulative efficiency is the efficiency of a control device for a particular particle size and all
the particles smaller that size particle, such as PM10, which includes all particles with aerodynamic
diameters of 10 :m or smaller.

Costs of the devices are discussed, and include cost tables and curves derived using standard
EPA protocol. A discussion of the parameters affecting cost and the relationship between costs and
these parameters is included in each cost section. In many cases, the costs have been updated to fourth
quarter 1996 using the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Index (VAPPCI). This index is provided in
Appendix B. The index is also published monthly in Chemical Engineering. Finally, the energy and
other secondary environmental impacts, such as water pollution and waste generation, are discussed
along with potential mitigation measures.

5-1
5.1 PRETREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1.1 Precollection Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
[Link] Settling Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
[Link] Elutriators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
[Link] Momentum Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
[Link] Mechanically-Aided Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
[Link] Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8
5.1.2 Collection Efficiency of Precollectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Gravity Settling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Momentum Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Mechanically-Aided Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
[Link] Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-16
5.1.3 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-20
5.1.4 Costs of Precollectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-22
[Link] Capital Costs of Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-22
[Link] Annual Costs of Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-24
5.1.5 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts of Precollectors
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-27
5.1.6 Flue Gas Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-27
[Link] Sulfur Trioxide Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-28
[Link] Ammonia Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-29
[Link] Ammonium Compound Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-30
[Link] Organic Amine Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-31
[Link] Alkali Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-31
5.1.7 Costs of Flue Gas Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-32
5.1.8 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts of Flue Gas Conditioning 5.1-32
5.1.9 References for Section 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-34

0
5.1 PRETREATMENT

The performance of particulate control devices can often be improved through pretreatment of
the gas stream. For PM control devices, pretreatment consists of two categories: precollection and flue
gas conditioning. Precollection devices remove large particles from the gas stream, reducing the loading
on the primary control device. Gas conditioning techniques alter the characteristics of the particles
and/or the gas stream to allow the primary control device to function more effectively. Both types of
pretreatment can lead to increased collection efficiency and operating life, while reducing operating
costs. The performance of precollection devices is discussed in Section 5.1.2.

5.1.1 Precollection Devices

The vast majority of precollection devices are mechanical collectors. Mechanical collectors are
a class of devices that rely on gravity and inertia for particle collection. They are used extensively in
industry because of several advantages they possess. Mechanical collectors have low capital costs, the
ability to operate in harsh environments, and low maintenance requirements because they lack moving
parts.1 There are also disadvantages associated with mechanical collectors, such as the relatively low
collection efficiencies for small particles. While this does prevent their use as primary collection devices
in many applications, it is not a major concern when mechanical collectors are used for precollection.
Some mechanical collectors can achieve high collection efficiencies, but only with the high operating
costs associated with large pressure drops.1 The five major types of mechanical collectors are settling
chambers, elutriators, momentum separators, mechanically aided collectors, and centrifugal separators
(cyclones); these devices are discussed separately below.

[Link] Settling Chambers

The simplest mechanical collectors are settling chambers, which rely on gravitational settling as
a collection mechanism. Settling chambers prevent excessive abrasion and dust loading in primary
collection devices by removing large particles from the gas stream.2 Despite low collection efficiencies,
settling chambers are still used extensively. They are particularly useful for industries that also need to
cool the gas stream prior to treatment in a fabric filter. The mineral products and metals processing
industries have several applications for settling chambers. There are two primary types of settling
chambers: the expansion chamber and the multiple-tray chamber. In the expansion chamber, the
velocity of the gas stream is significantly reduced as the gas expands into a large chamber. The
reduction in velocity allows larger particles to settle out of the gas stream.3 Figure 5.1-1 shows a
schematic diagram of an expansion chamber, which consists of a simple chamber with collection
hoppers.2

A multiple-tray settling chamber, shown in Figure 5.1-2, is an expansion chamber with a

number of thin trays closely spaced within the chamber, which causes the gas to flow

5.1-1
5.1-2
5.1-3
horizontally between them.2 While the gas velocity is increased slightly in a multiple-tray chamber, the
collection efficiency generally improves because the particles have a much shorter distance to fall before
they are collected. An expansion chamber must be very large to collect any small particles, but
multiple-tray chambers have lower volume requirements for the collection of small particles ($15 :m).3

[Link] Elutriators

Like settling chambers, elutriators also rely on gravitational settling to collect particles. An
elutriator is made up of one or more vertical tubes or towers in series, where the gas stream passes
upward through the tubes. Larger particles whose terminal settling velocity is greater than the upward
gas velocity are collected at the bottom of the tube, while smaller particles are carried out of the top of
the tube. Size classification of the collected particles can be achieved by using a series of tubes with
increasing diameters, as shown in Figure 5.1-3.2,3

[Link] Momentum Separators

Momentum separators utilize both gravity and inertia to separate particles from the gas stream.
Separation is accomplished by forcing the gas flow to sharply change direction within a gravity settling
chamber through the use of strategically placed baffles. Typically, the gas first flows downward and
then is forced by the baffles to suddenly flow upwards. Inertial momentum and gravity act in the
downward direction on the particles, which causes larger particles to cross the flow lines of the gas and
collect in the bottom of the chamber.2,3

There are several common arrangements of baffles in momentum separators, as illustrated in

Figure 5.1-4.2,3 Momentum separators are capable of collecting particles as small as 10 :m at low
efficiency (10-20 percent). These devices require less space than gravity settlers, but have higher
pressure drops.3

[Link] Mechanically-Aided Separators

Mechanically-aided separators rely on inertia as a separation mechanism. The gas stream is

accelerated mechanically, which increases the effectiveness of the inertia separation. As a result,
mechanically-aided separators can collect smaller particles than momentum separators. Unfortunately,
they also have higher operating costs as a result of higher pressure drops. A common type of
mechanically-aided collector is the modified radial blade fan, shown in Figure 5.1-5.3 In this device, the
gas stream enters at the center of the fan, perpendicular to the blade rotation. The blades propel the
particles across the gas flow lines, where they are concentrated on the inside wall of the casing. From
there, the particles are diverted into a collection hopper while the gas continues out of the separator.
Mechanically-aided separators are subject to abrasive wear from large particles and clogging from
particles which cake or accumulate on the blades. Consequently, these devices have higher
maintenance requirements than other separators.2,3,4

5.1-4
5.1-5
5.1-6
5.1-7
[Link] Cyclones

Cyclones use inertia to remove particles from a spinning gas stream. Within a cyclone, the gas
stream is forced to spin within an usually conical-shaped chamber. Cyclones operate by creating a
double vortex inside the cyclone body. The incoming gas is forced into circular motion either by
tangential inlet or by turning vanes in the axial inlet. The gas spirals down the cyclone near the inner
surface of the cyclone tube. At the bottom of the cyclone, the gas turns and spirals up through the
center of the tube and out of the top of the cyclone. Figure 5.1-6 illustrates the double vortex operation
in a cyclone.1

Particles in the gas stream are forced toward the cyclone walls by the centrifugal force of the
spinning gas, but are opposed by the fluid drag force of the gas traveling through and out of the cyclone.
For particles that are large, inertial momentum overcomes the fluid drag force so that the particles reach
the cyclone walls and are collected; while for smaller particles, the fluid drag force overwhelms the
inertial momentum and causes these particles to leave the cyclone with the exiting gas. Gravity also
causes the larger particles that reach the cyclone walls to travel down into a bottom hopper. While they
rely on the same separation mechanism as momentum separators, cyclones are more effective because
they have a more complex gas flow pattern.2,3

Cyclone collectors are generally classified into four types, based on how the gas stream is
introduced and how the collected dust is discharged:

C Tangential inlet, axial discharge

C Axial inlet, axial discharge
C Tangential inlet, peripheral discharge
C Axial inlet, peripheral discharge

The first two types are the most commonly used cyclones. Schematic diagrams of the four types of
cyclones are provided in Figure 5.1-7.2,3

Cyclone collectors can be designed for many applications, and they are typically categorized as
high efficiency, conventional, or high throughput. High efficiency cyclones are likely to have the highest
pressure drops of the three cyclone types; high throughput cyclones can treat large volumes of gas with
a low pressure drop.1,5 Each of these three cyclone types have the same basic design. Different levels
of collection efficiency and operation are achieved by varying the standard cyclone dimensions,
identified in Figure 5.1-8,6 according to the values7,8,9 shown in Table 5.1-1.1,6

5.1-8
5.1-9
5.1-10
 Table 5.1-1 Characteristics of Common Cyclones

Cyclone Type

High Efficiency Conventional High Throughput

Cyclone Dimension (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)

Body Diameter, D/D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Inlet Height, a/D 0.5 0.44 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.8

Inlet Width, b/D 0.2 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.375 0.35

Gas Exit Diameter, De /D 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75

Vortex Finder Length, S/D 0.5 0.5 0.625 0.6 0.875 0.85

Body Length, h/D 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.75 1.5 1.7

Cone Length, Lc /D 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0

Dust Outlet Diameter, B/D 0.375 0.4 0.25 0.4 0.375 0.4

Note: The various cyclone designs correspond to the following literature references:
cyclone I and V from Reference 7, cyclones II, IV, and VI from Reference 8,

5.1-11
and cyclone III from Reference 9.

5.1-12
 A multiple cyclone, shown in Figure 5.1-9, is a type of high efficiency cyclone which consists of
many small diameter cyclones operating in parallel. This arrangement allows for the treatment of large
flow rates at higher efficiencies than for single cyclones.2

The greatest limitation in the use of cyclones is the energy needed to force the gas through the
narrow cyclone body. The pressure drop within the cyclone generally increases with increasing gas
flow rate and decreasing cyclone diameter. Cyclone pressure drop can be estimated from a number of
equations that are based on both theory and experimental data.10

5.1.2 Collection Efficiency of Precollectors

Mechanical precollectors have a wide range of collection efficiencies. Collectors which rely
only on gravity settling, such as settling chambers and elutriators, typically have the lowest collection
efficiencies. Cyclones are the most effective mechanical collectors, with multicyclones achieving the
highest collection efficiencies.

[Link] Gravity Settling

Gravity settling chambers are most effective for large and/or dense particles. Collection
efficiency for PM10 is very low, typically less than 10 percent. The efficiency of settling chambers
increases with the residence time of gas in the chamber. Because of this, gravity settling chambers are
often operated at the lowest possible gas velocities. Unfortunately, as the gas velocity decreases, the
size of the chamber must increase. In reality, the gas velocity must be low enough to prevent dust from
becoming reentrained, but not so low that the chamber becomes unreasonably large.3 Figure 5.1-10
presents a typical fractional collection efficiency curve for settling chambers.2 The impact of particle
density is illustrated in Figure 5.1-11.3 The more dense particles of iron oxide, with a specific gravity of
4.5, are collected more efficiently than the quartz dust which has a specific gravity of 2.6.2,3

[Link] Momentum Separators

Because these devices utilize inertia in addition to gravity, momentum separators achieve
collection efficiencies approaching 20 percent for PM10. Collection efficiency for momentum
separators will increase as the gas velocity increases. The pressure drop and corresponding operating
costs will also increase with gas velocity, so the optimum velocity must be chosen to balance the
efficiency and operating costs.2,3 Figure 5.1-12 presents efficiency data for momentum separators
collecting fly ash.

[Link] Mechanically-Aided Separators

Figure 5.1-13 provides efficiency curves for two types of mechanically-aided separators.2
Mechanically-aided separators are capable of collection efficiencies approaching 30 percent for PM10.?
Mechanically-aided separators generally produce more centrifugal

5.1-13
5.1-14
 100

90

80

70
Fractional Collection Efficiency (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

1 10 100

Particle Size (
m )

Figure 5.1-10. Typical Fractional Collection Efficiency Curve for Settling Chamber (Reference 2).

100
100

90

90
80

80
70
(%) (%)
Efficiency

67 00
Efficiency

56 0
Compound
Collection

40 Scroll Collector Scroll

50
Collection

Collector
Iron Oxide,
30
40 S.G. = 4.5
Fractional

20
Fractional

30
Quartz,
10
S.G. = 2.6
20
0

10 1 10 100

0
Particle Size (
m )
10 100

Figure 5.1-13. Typical Fractional Collection Efficiency Curve for a Mechanically-Aided Separator Particle Size ( m)

Figure 5.1-11. (Reference 2). Density on Settling Chamber Fractional Collection Efficiency
Impact of Particle
(Reference 3).

5.1-15
 1 0 0

90

80
Fractional Collection Efficiency (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

1 10 1 0 0

Particle Size (
m )

Figure 5.1-12. Typical Fractional Collection Efficiency Curve for a Momentum Separator (Reference
2).

force than cyclones, but they also have shorter residence times and more reentrainment as a result of
turbulence. A major advantage of these separators is their compact size.4

[Link] Cyclones

There are many factors which affect the collection efficiency of cyclones. Cyclone efficiency
has generally been shown to increase with the following parameters: (1) particle size and/or density, (2)
inlet duct velocity, (3) cyclone body length, (4) number of gas revolutions in the cyclone, (5) ratio of
cyclone body diameter to gas exit diameter, (6) dust loading, and (7) smoothness of the cyclone inner
wall.11

The cyclone efficiency will decrease with increases in the following parameters: (1) gas
viscosity, (2) cyclone body diameter, (3) gas exit diameter, (4) gas inlet duct area, and (5) gas density.
Another common cause of cyclone ineffectiveness is leakage of air into the dust outlet. Specifically, this
will decrease the efficiency for fine particles.11

Several approaches for estimating cyclone efficiency have been developed. Most cyclone
theories utilize a particle size term, called a "particle cut size," that defines the particle size for a specific
collection efficiency. Particles greater than the cut size will be collected with greater than the specified
efficiency, and smaller particles will be collected less efficiently. Usually, the particle cut size

5.1-16
 100

Fractional Collection Efficiency (%)

10

0.1 1 10

P a r t i c l e S i z e R a t i o ( d /d )
50

corresponds to 50 percent collection efficiency and is called the "d 50." Another important cyclone sizing
parameter is the "critical particle size." Particles of this size and larger are captured with 100 percent
efficiency. Two general types of cyclone fractional efficiency curves are shown in Figure 5.1-14; the
first curve "A" is hyperbolic, the second curve "B" is sigmoid shaped. Most cyclone efficiency theories
will produce a curve similar to one of the two shown in this figure.6,15

Lapple12 developed a relatively simple model to predict cyclone efficiency that was derived
from particle motion theory and requires an assumption about the number of turns the gas makes within
the cyclone. Leith and Licht13 developed an efficiency theory that was based on an approximate
solution to theoretical particle motion equations using the assumption of turbulence within the cyclone.
Both these theories produce a cyclone efficiency curve of type "A" in Figure 5.1-14. More recently,
Iozia and Leith14,15 developed a cyclone efficiency theory based on theoretical particle motion that uses
empirically developed coefficients. This theory produces a cyclone efficiency curve of type "B" in
Figure 5.1-14. The Iozia and Leith theory was shown to predict cyclone efficiency better than the
theories of Lapple, and Leith and Licht, using cyclone laboratory test data available in the literature.15
The Lapple theory and the Iozia and Leith theory are discussed in more detail below.

According to the Lapple theory, 12 d50 is calculated as follows:

d50 = [9 : b /(2 B N Vi (Dp - Dg))] (Eq. 5.1-1)

A: Log-log Scale
B: Linear Scale

5.1-17
Figure 5.1-14. Typical Cyclone Efficiency Curve in Log-log (A) and Linear (B) Scales (References 6
and 15).

100

90

80

70
Fractional Collection Efficiency (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

P a r t i c l e S i z e R a t i o ( d /d )
50

5.1-18
where d50 is the diameter of particle collected with 50 percent efficiency (ft), : is the gas viscosity
(lb/sec-ft), b is the cyclone inlet duct width (ft), N is the number of gas revolutions in cyclone (estimated
to be between 0.3 and 10, with a mean value of approximately 516), Vi is the inlet duct gas velocity
(ft/sec), Dp is the particle density (lb/ft3), and Dg is the gas density (lb/ft3). The limitation on this equation
is that N, the number of gas revolutions within the cyclone, is unknown and estimates for this value do
not take into account individual cyclone design or other operating conditions. Also, the Lapple theory
does not allow for calculation of collection efficiency for other particle sizes.

The efficiency theory developed by Iozia and Leith14,15 to predict cyclone fractional collection
efficiency utilizes an equation, called a "logistic equation," that approximates a sigmoid-shaped efficiency
curve:

CE = 1/(1 + (d50/d)) (Eq. 5.1-2)

where CE is the control efficiency (expressed as a fraction for a particle of diameter d,

d50 is the diameter of the particle collected with 50 percent efficiency, and beta () is a coefficient.
Iozia and Leith developed an equation to predict from cyclone dimensions using laboratory test data
from a 25 cm diameter cyclone:15

ln = 0.62 - 0.87 ln (d50) + 5.21 ln (ab/D2) + 1.05 (ln (ab/D2)2 (Eq. 5.1-3)

where d50, as above, is expressed in centimeters; a is the cyclone inlet duct height, b is the cyclone inlet
duct width, and D is the cyclone diameter. An equation to predict d50 was also developed:

d50 = {(9 Q)/(B z Dp Vtmax2)} (Eq. 5.1-4)

where : is gas viscosity, Q is gas flow, z is approximately equal to the cyclone height minus the height
of the extension of the exit duct into the cyclone, Dp is the particle density, and Vtmax2 is the maximum
tangential gas velocity within the cyclone and is calculated as below:

Vtmax2 = 6.1Vi {(ab/D2)0.61 (De/D)-0.74 (H/D)-0.33} (Eq. 5.1-5)

where Vi is the gas inlet duct velocity; a, b, and D are as above; De is cyclone outlet duct diameter; and
H is the cyclone overall height (h + Lc).

Iozia and Leith used their cyclone efficiency theory to optimize cyclone design.17 Using a
computerized cyclone optimization program, they developed curves to predict the cyclone dimensions
of a cyclone with the highest efficiency possible for a given situation.18 Figure 5.1-15 shows the inlet
and outlet duct dimensions needed to achieve this optimized cyclone design.17 The predictions of Iozia
and Leith, however, have not yet been tested in full-scale industrial applications.

5.1-19
 For single cyclones, conventional cyclones can remove 10 :m particles with 85 to 90 percent
efficiency, 5 m particles with 75 - 85 percent efficiency, and 2.5 m particles with 60 to 75 percent
efficiency.6 High efficiency single cyclones can remove 5 m particles at up to 90 percent efficiency,
with higher efficiencies achievable for larger particles.1 High throughput cyclones are only guaranteed to
remove particles greater than 20 m, although collection of smaller particles does occur to some
extent.19

Multicyclones are reported to achieve from 80 percent efficiency up to 95 percent efficiency for
particles 5 m.1,5,19 In some cases, multiple cyclones have been used as primary collection devices.19
Multiple cyclones are often used as precollectors at industrial combustion operations. Figure 5.1-16
shows the collection efficiency for multiple cyclones at a boiler that is burning oil. At many large
industrial combustion units, PM emissions include significant amounts of carbon which was not fully
combusted. To improve the efficiency of these units, collected fly ash from the multiple cyclones (or
other precollection devices) is reinjected into the combustion unit. This operation, known as fly ash
reinjection, increases the particulate loading considerably, and leads to lower collection efficiencies for
small particles.5 Figure 5.1-17 illustrates this effect, showing efficiency curves for multiple cyclones at
coal and wood boilers with and without fly ash injection.

5.1-20
 100

90

80

70
Cumulative Collection Efficiency (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

1 10 100

Particle Size (
m )

Figure 5.1-16. Cumulative Collection Efficiency Data for Multiple Cyclones at a Residual Oil-Fired
Boiler (Reference 5).

5.1.3 Applicability

Mechanical precollectors have very few limitations in their application as precollectors, although
they are not generally used where there is no coarse PM. Mechanical precollectors can be used to
treat small and large flow rates and remove a wide range of particle sizes. Mechanical collectors are
simple in design and inexpensive to purchase and operate. In addition, their use will reduce the
particulate loading on primary collection devices which will extend operating life.2

The vast majority of dusts are suitable for collection in mechanical precollectors. One
exception may be sticky dusts, which can clog cyclones. In addition, mechanical precollectors would
not be effective for gas streams where the bulk of the PM is small (<3 m). Mechanical collectors can
be constructed out of various materials and are capable of operating under any conditions which the
construction materials allow. Typically, any industry which uses large and relatively expensive control
devices, such as a fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), will also employ mechanical
precollectors. Multiple cyclones are the most common device for industrial applications, especially for
boilers and other combustion units that generate smaller particles. Some industries also use mechanical
collectors for product or catalyst recovery, since these collectors are nondestructive and allow reuse or
sale of the recovered material. 2

5.1-21
 100

90

80
Cumulative Collection Efficiency (%)

70
Without Fly Ash
60 Reinjection

50

40

30 With Fly Ash

Reinjection
20

10

1 10 100

P a r t i c l e S i z e ( m )

Coal (Spreader Stoker)

100

90

80
Cumulative Collection Efficiency (%)

70
Without Fly Ash

60 Reinjection

50

40

30
With Fly Ash

20 Reinjection

10

0.1 1 10 100

Particle Size (
m)

Wood Bark
Figure 5.1-17. Cumulative Collection Efficiency Data for Multiple Cyclones at Coal and Wood Bark
Boilers, With and Without Fly Ash Reinjection (Reference 5).

5.1-22
5.1.4 Costs of Precollectors

The costs of installing and operating a mechanical pre-collector include both capital and annual
costs. Capital costs are all of the initial costs related to collector equipment and installation. Annual
costs are the direct yearly costs of operating the device, plus indirect costs such as overhead; capital
recovery; and taxes, insurance, and administrative charges. The following sections discuss capital and
annual costs for mechanical collectors, referenced to the third quarter of 1995 unless otherwise noted.
Since cyclones are the most common and generally most effective mechanical precollectors for
industrial applications, this section will focus only on the costs of these devices.

[Link] Capital Costs of Cyclones

The total capital investment (TCI) for cyclones includes all of the initial capital costs, both direct
and indirect. Direct capital costs are the purchased equipment costs (PEC), and the costs of installation
(supports, etc.). Indirect costs are related to the installation and include engineering, construction,
contractors, start-up, testing, and contingencies. The PEC is calculated based on the cyclone
specifications. The direct and indirect installation costs are calculated as factors of the PEC. For
cyclones, installation costs are generally low, with the combination of direct and indirect costs assumed
to be about 25 percent of the PEC. Hence, the TCI for cyclones is typically calculated as 1.25 times
the PEC.20

The most important parameter for sizing cyclones is the inlet duct area (A), which can be
calculated from the following equations:19

A = Q/Vi (Eq. 5.1-6)

A = (Q(Dp - Dg)/:)1.33 dc2.67 (Eq. 5.1-7)

where A is the cyclone inlet duct area (ft2), Q is the cyclone gas flow rate (ACFM), Vi is the cyclone
inlet duct velocity (ft/min), Dp is the particle density (lb/ft3), Dg is the gas density (lb/ft3), : is the gas
viscosity (lb/ft-sec), and dc is the critical particle size (m).

By selecting an inlet duct gas velocity (Vi) for Equation 5.1-2, the inlet duct area can be
determined and Equation 5.1-3 can be solved for the critical particle size (dc). The critical particle size
is defined for this equation as the smallest particle that the cyclone can collect with 100 percent
efficiency. Similarly, the inlet duct gas velocity can be calculated for a given critical particle size.19

Cyclone costs are based on the inlet duct area, and include the cyclone, fan, motor, supports,
hopper (or drum), and rotary air lock. Figure 5.1-18 presents a cost curve for cyclones

5.1-23
 30

25
)
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

20

15

10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

2
Inlet Area (ft )

Figure 5.1-18. Total Capital Investment vs. Inlet Duct Area for
0.2 ft2 < Duct Area < 2.64 ft 2 (Reference 19).

with inlet duct areas between 0.2 and 2.64 ft 2. The step in this curve at 0.35 ft2 is a result of the fact
that cyclones with inlet duct areas less than 0.35 ft2 do not require air locks, which are dampers that
prevent the gas in the cyclone from entering the dust hopper during dust removal.19 For cyclones with
required total inlet duct areas greater than 2.64 ft 2, the total inlet duct area must be divided equally
between 2 or more cyclones, each with inlet duct areas less than 2.64 ft 2.
Figure 5.1-19 provides a cost curve for cyclones with total inlet duct areas greater than 2.64
2 19
ft . The steps in this curve indicate the flow rates at which an additional cyclone becomes necessary.
The step function approximates a straight line. The cost curves in this document are for carbon steel
cyclones, other materials may increase costs.20

Capital costs obtained from this document can be escalated to more current values through the
use of the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes (VAPCCI), which are published monthly and
updated quarterly in Chemical Engineering magazine. The VAPCCI updates the PEC and, since
capital costs are based only on the PEC, capital costs can be easily adjusted using the VAPCCI. To
escalate capital costs from one year (Costold) to another more recent year (Costnew), a simple
proportion can be used, as follows:21

Costnew = Costold(VAPCCInew/VAPCCIold) (Eq. 5.1-8)

The VAPCCI for mechanical collectors from fourth quarter 1996 was 103.3.

5.1-24
 150

4 units
)

required
3 units
100
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

required

2 units

required

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Total Inlet Area (ft2)

Figure 5.1-19. Total Capital Investment vs. Inlet Duct Area for Duct Area > 2.64 ft 2 (Reference 19).

[Link] Annual Costs of Cyclones

The total annual costs for a cyclone consist of both direct and indirect costs. Direct annual
costs are those associated with the operation and maintenance of the cyclone. These include
maintenance labor, maintenance materials, electricity, and dust disposal. Typical nonhazardous dust
disposal costs are $20-$30/ton, excluding transportation costs. Hazardous dusts can cost ten times as
much to dispose of.22 Cyclones are assumed to have no need for operator and supervisor labor.20

The indirect annual costs for cyclones include taxes, insurance, administrative costs, overhead,
and capital recovery. All of these costs but overhead are dependent on the TCI. Table 5.1-2 provides
the parameters which impact annual costs and estimates of typical values. Table 5.1-3 provides the
annual cost factors for cyclones.20 Annual costs are very site-specific and, therefore, difficult to
generalize.

5.1-25
 Table 5.1-2. Annual Cost Parameters for Cyclones (Reference 9).

Parameter Description Typical Values

Direct Cost Parameters
Operating factor (OF) Hours of cyclone operation per year 8,640 hr/yr
Maintenance labor rate (MR) Maintenance labor pay rate $14.00/hr b
Maintenance shift (MS) factor Fraction of maintenance shift on cyclone 0.25b
Maintenance materials factor (MF) Fraction of maintenance labor cost 1.0b
Electricity rate (ER) Cost of electricity $0.07/kW-hr a
Dust disposal cost (DC) Cost of dust disposal $20-$30/tona
Indirect Cost Parameters
Overhead factor (OV) Fraction of total labor and (MM) costs 0.60b
Annual interest rate (I) Opportunity cost of the capital 7 percent b
Operating life (n) Expected operating life of cyclone 20 yearsb

5.1-26
Capital recovery factor (CRF) Function of (n) and (I) 0.0944c
Taxes (TAX) Fraction of the TCId 0.01b
Insurance (INS) Fraction of the TCId 0.01b
Administrative costs (AC) Fraction of the TCId 0.02b
a
Estimated for 1996 from currently available information.
b
Estimates from "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets (Reference 20).
c
Capital Recovery Factor is calculated from the following formula: CRF = {I(1 + I)n} {(1 + I)n - 1},
where I = interest rate (fraction) and n = operating life (years).
d
The total capital investment (TCI) can be escalated to current values by using the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes
(VAPCCI), described in Section [Link].
 Table 5.1-3. Annual Cost Factors for Cyclones (Reference 20).

Cost Item Formula Factor

Direct Costs
Maintenance labor (ML) (OF)(MR)(MS) A
Maintenance materials (MM) (MF)(ML) A
Electricity (E) Fan Power (ER) E
Dust disposal (D) (DC) Tons per year D
Total Direct Cost (DC) 2A+E+D
Indirect Costs
Overhead (OV)(ML+MM) 1.2 A
Capital Recovery (CRF)(TCI) 0.0944 TCI
Taxes (TAX)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Insurance (INS)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Administrative Costs (AC)(TCI) 0.02 TCI

5.1-27
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 1.2 A + 0.1344 TCI

Total Annual Cost (DC + IC) 3.2 A + 0.1344 TCI + E + D

Note: These values are also described in Table 5.1-2.

5.1.5 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts of Precollectors

The secondary environmental impacts of cyclone operation are related to energy consumption
and solid waste generation. The energy demands for cyclones consist of electricity requirements for fan
operation. The fan power needed for a specific cyclone is dependent on the pressure drop and can be
estimated with the following equations:19

)P = 2.36 10-7(Vi2) (Eq. 5.1-9)

Fan Power (kW-hr/yr) = 1.81 10-4(Q)()P)(t) (Eq. 5.1-10)

where )P is the cyclone pressure drop (in. water), Vi is the inlet duct gas velocity (ft/min), Q is the gas
flow rate (ACFM), and t is the operating time (hr/yr).

Dust which is collected in mechanical collectors may be sold or recycled if it has intrinsic value
or can be recycled by use in other materials, such as concrete. Otherwise, the fly ash must be
disposed. Most inert, nonhazardous dusts can be landfilled. Dusts which are hazardous or reactive will
typically require treatment or disposal in a secure landfill.

5.1.6 Flue Gas Conditioning

Gas conditioning is used to modify the characteristics of the gas stream and particles to enhance
particle removal in the primary collection device. Flue gas conditioning at coal fired power plants is the
most widespread application of this practice. Usually, flue gas conditioning involves the use of
chemicals that are added to the gas stream to improve the fly ash properties and electrical conditions in
electrostatic precipitators. See Section 5.2 for a detailed discussion of ESP operation. Fabric filter
and scrubber performance is far less dependent on the chemical composition of the gas and particles,
so these devices typically do not employ chemical conditioning for particle removal. Any gas
conditioning for fabric filters or scrubbers usually consists of controlling the temperature and moisture of
the gas stream. Therefore, this section will only discuss flue gas conditioning for ESPs.

Flue gas conditioning is most often used to retrofit ESP's which are not operating up to the
design efficiency. This often occurs as a result of switching to low-sulfur coal,1,11 which produces a high
resistivity fly ash that is difficult to collect in an ESP. Collection efficiency of an ESP is dependent on
the electric field strength and ion density; the adhesive and cohesive properties of the fly ash; and the
particle size and size distribution. Flue gas conditioning can influence all of these parameters.23
Conditioning agents can improve ESP collection efficiency with one or more of the following
mechani[Link]

C Adsorb on surface of fly ash and reduce surface resistivity

C Adsorb on fly ash and change adhesion/cohesion properties
C Increase ultrafine particle concentration for space charge improvement

5.1-28
 C Increase sparkover voltage of flue gas (reduce back corona)
C Increase mean particle size
C Decrease acid dew point in flue gas

Common conditioning agents include sulfur trioxide (SO3), ammonia, ammonium compounds, organic
amines, and dry alkalis.11

The effect of flue gas conditioning on collection efficiency is difficult to quantify because it differs
greatly between applications. In some cases, a small dose of conditioning agent will provide a
significant improvement in collection efficiency while subsequently larger doses show little additional
improvement. Other users have reported steady increases in collection efficiency with increasing
doses.23 In Flue Gas Conditioning (Reference 23), a variety of SO3 conditioning users reported
increases in collection efficiency ranging from 1.7 percent up to 18 percent with SO3 doses ranging
from 5 ppmv to 64 ppmv.23

[Link] Sulfur Trioxide Conditioning

The most commonly used flue gas conditioning agent for power plants in the U.S. is SO3.
Sulfur trioxide is injected into the gas stream after the air preheater, which is a heat exchanger that uses
the hot flue gases to preheat the combustion intake air. Sulfuric acid is actually the active agent in
conditioning. Virtually all of the SO3 is hydrated to sulfuric acid at the temperature and humidity of the
flue gas stream. Sulfuric acid has a strong affinity for water and readily dissociates to two hydrogen
ions and one sulfate ion in solution. This property makes the solution highly conductive. Sulfuric acid
also has a low vapor pressure; as a result, sulfuric acid will not easily vaporize, even from a
concentrated solution to a dilute vapor phase. This combination of low volatility and high conductivity
make sulfuric acid very effective at lowering the resistivity of fly ash.11,23

Sulfuric acid reduces the resistivity of particles in ESP's by establishing a layer of conductive
solution on the particle surface through adsorption and/or condensation of sulfuric acid and water. A
layer of acid solution also forms on particles which have already been collected on the collection
plate.11,23

Sulfur trioxide used for gas conditioning is commonly generated by one of the following four
methods: 1) vaporization of sulfuric acid solution, 2) vaporization of liquid SO3, 3) vaporization of liquid
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and subsequent catalytic oxidation to SO3, and 4) combustion of liquid sulfur in air
to produce SO2 with subsequent oxidation to SO3. Methods 3 and 4 are the most reliable, with
method 3 the most economical.11,23

A typical dosage of SO3 ranges from 5 to 30 ppmv, though the dose may be as high as 70
ppmv. A dosage of 20 ppmv can decrease fly ash resistivity by two orders of magnitude.11,23

5.1-29
 The flue gas temperature and PM composition of the gas stream determine how effective
SO3/sulfuric acid will be in reducing resistivity. At high temperatures (>200C), sulfuric acid is less
effective for two reasons. First, temperatures above the acid dew point prevent sulfuric acid from
adsorbing or condensing in appreciable quantities on the particles. Second, volume conduction through
the bulk of the particles becomes dominant over surface conduction at high temperatures. A
conductive layer of sulfuric acid will only improve surface conduction. If the PM includes a large
amount of alkaline compounds, the PM will react with the acid to form a nonconductive layer of salts.
A higher dosage of SO3 will provide excess acid to adsorb or condense on top of the salt layer.11,23

Users of SO3 conditioning have reported problems with corrosion, catalyst deactivation, and
over conditioning. At temperatures below the acid dew point, sulfuric acid will condense in the pipes
leading to the injection nozzles. This can lead to corrosion and clogging of the lines. Installations that
rely on catalytic oxidation of sulfur dioxide to produce SO3 have found it necessary to replace the
catalyst approximately once a year. Conditioning with excessive doses of sulfuric acid can also over-
condition the ash. In such cases, the resistivity becomes too low and particles are easily reentrained. In
addition, the acid can form a solution which binds particles to the plates, making them difficult to
remove with normal rapping.11,23

[Link] Ammonia Conditioning

Ammonia conditioning has been shown to be an effective gas conditioning agent for ESPs
operating with low sulfur coals. In Australia, ammonia is the most popular ESP conditioning agent,
because Australian coal produces ash with very high resistivity. In the U.S., ammonia conditioning has
become important with the increased use of low sulfur coals, that are being used to offset the generation
of acid rain precursors, like SO2.11,23
Ammonia is also being used to optimize the operation of fabric filters.24 Both of these applications are
discussed below.

Ammonia Conditioning in ESPs. In an ESP, ammonia can be injected either as a vapor or in

solution before or after the air preheater. While the conditioning mechanisms of ammonia have not
been fully explained, two distinct effects have been reported. The first effect is the enhancement of the
space charge in the ESP. The ammonia reacts with sulfuric acid vapor in the flue gas and forms a fume
of fine ammonium salt particles. The fine particles increase the resistivity of the gas phase in the
interelectrode space. The increased gas resistivity increases the voltage drop and the field strength
between the electrodes, allowing for operation at higher voltages. The second effect is an increase in
the cohesiveness of the particles. Condensation of sulfuric acid in the presence of ammonium salts
contributes to the adsorption of acid and salts to water on the surface of particles. The layer of surface
deposits is very sticky and increases the cohesive force between particles on the collection plate,
reducing reentrainment.11,23

The effects of ammonia on resistivity are not entirely clear. Evidence has shown that fly ash
conditioned with ammonia may have resistivity that is less than, the same as, or greater than

5.1-30
unconditioned ash. Ammonia conditioning is very sensitive to temperature, and is more effective at low
temperatures (<110C). Ammonia conditioning has generally been shown to increase collection
efficiency; however, the increase in ESP efficiency does not necessarily correlate with a decrease in fly
ash resistivity. Users of ammonia have reported problems with plugging of nozzles and build-up of
deposits on the discharge electrodes.11,23

Ammonia Conditioning in Fabric Filters.24 Ammonia additions to flue gas containing SO3
produces ammonium sulfate compounds. These byproducts have been found to increase ash
cohesivity, thereby reducing PM emissions during the cleaning cycle of fabric filters. The presence of
ammonium sulfate compounds also produces a higher porosity dust cake that results in a lower pressure
drop in the fabric filter. In addition, ammonia conditioning reduces the corrosion and bag failure that
results with SO3 condensation.

[Link] Ammonium Compound Conditioning

Ammonium compounds provide a more convenient method of conditioning with ammonia.

Sulfamic acid (NH3SO2OH), ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4], and ammonium bisulfate (NH4HSO4)
are the most common ammonium compounds for conditioning. Several proprietary conditioning agents
also contain ammonium compounds. These compounds can dissociate into ammonia and sulfuric acid
in the gas stream, and may provide the effects of both ammonia and sulfuric acid (from SO3)
conditioning. Ammonium compounds can be introduced upstream or downstream of the air
preheater.11,23

Ammonium compounds can enhance ESP performance by decreasing particle resistivity,

increasing space charge, and/or increasing particle cohesion. Particle resistivity can be reduced by
ammonium sulfate and ammonium bisulfate. Both compounds behave like sulfuric acid, forming a layer
of conductive solution on the surface of the collected fly ash.
The sulfuric acid and ammonia formed when ammonium compounds decompose can react to form fine
salt particles which increase the space charge. These particles increase the gas resistivity, which
increases the voltage drop between the electrodes and allows for ESP operation at higher applied
voltage. The cohesion of the particles is also increased, which increases collection efficiency, through
condensation of sulfuric acid and through the adsorption of compounds that form a viscous, sticky layer
on the particles.11,23

Ammonium sulfate, ammonium bisulfate, and sulfamic acid are effective in reducing ash
resistivity because they can form a layer of conductive solution on the particles or decompose into SO3.
Ammonium compounds can reduce resistivity by approximately a factor of 5. While ammonium
compounds are effective in reducing resistivity, they are not as effective as SO3. Problems of plugging
in the air preheater have been reported when the agents are injected prior to the preheater.11,23

Apollo LPA-445, a proprietary conditioning agent containing ammonium compounds,

effectively increases ash cohesiveness. Apollo LPA-445 has also demonstrated that it increases the

5.1-31
number of fine particles when used as a conditioning agent. Space charge increases with an increase in
fine particles.11,23

[Link] Organic Amine Conditioning

Research on organic amines as conditioning agents has been conducted in laboratories and
pilot-scale ESP's. Of all the amines, triethylamine [N(C2H5)3] has been studied most extensively.
Triethylamine is an organic nitrogen compound which behaves similar to ammonia, but is a stronger
base than ammonia. The conditioning mechanism for triethylamine is not completely understood, but it
appears to also reduce the fly ash resistivity by forming a conductive layer on the surface of the fly
ash.11,23

A dose of 60 ppm triethylamine has been demonstrated to reduce ash resistivity from 3 109
ohm-m to 5 107 ohm-m in a pilot scale boiler. A laboratory study has shown resistivity reductions of
1 to 2 orders of magnitude for a 25 ppm dose at temperatures of 102C to 150C. Triethylamine is
more effective with lower temperatures, less basic ash, and higher doses of the agent.11,23

[Link] Alkali Conditioning

Many coals from the western U.S. produce fly ash with high resistivity when combusted. It has
been determined that the fly ash has low alkali content. Fly ash resistivity has been found to be
inversely proportional to the concentration of lithium and sodium in the ash. Hence, alkali conditioning
is used to reduce resistivity by increasing alkali concentration in the ash. Sodium compounds are the
most widely used conditioning agents. Sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate are commonly used.
Sodium chloride has shown to be effective in laboratory tests, but it is not used industrially because of
its potential for corrosion.11,23

Sodium compounds can reduce resistivity in two ways. The compound can be injected prior to
the ESP and collected with the fly ash. In this case, the sodium compound mixes with the ash and
serves as a conductive medium. It also reduces the resistivity of the layer of dust which collects on the
plates. The second means of reducing fly ash resistivity is unique to alkali conditioning. Sodium
compounds can be injected into the boiler and combusted with the coal. In this method, the sodium is
bound to the fly ash and reduces resistivity as the presence of natural sodium would.11,23

Compounds of sodium are effective at reducing the resistivity of fly ash if the sodium and ash
are well mixed. A 1.0 to 1.5 percent concentration of sodium carbonate has been demonstrated to
reduce resistivity from 2.1 1010 to 3.7 109 in a pilot scale ESP. Ash resistivity reductions of two
orders of magnitude have been reported from field tests. Problems with boiler fouling may occur when
sodium compounds are introduced to the coal prior to combustion. 11,23

5.1.7 Costs of Flue Gas Conditioning

5.1-32
 Costs of flue gas conditioning vary with the size of the power plant and the type of conditioning
installed. There are also several site specific factors which will influence flue gas conditioning costs,
such as the sulfur content of the fuel, fly ash resistivity, and the initial collection efficiency of the ESP
prior to flue gas conditioning. Table 5.1-4 provides estimates of capital and annual costs for flue gas
conditioning at electric utility plants.23,25 The cost data in Table 5.1-4 has been escalated to February
1996 where possible through the use of Chemical Engineering magazine's "Plant Cost Index."26 No
cost data were available for ammonium compounds and organic amines; this is probably due to the
limited industrial experience with these conditioning agents.11,23

5.1.8 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts of Flue Gas Conditioning

Flue gas conditioning can lead to air emissions from compounds formed by the conditioning
agents.11,23 No energy impacts, however, are associated with flue gas conditioning.

Sulfur trioxide conditioning can lead to emissions of sulfuric acid mist and particulate sulfate
compounds caused by the condensation of acid and formation of sulfate on fly ash particles. The ESP
performance, ash composition, and gas temperature effect the emission rates of these compounds.11,23

Ammonium sulfate conditioning can result in increased sulfate emissions. Most sulfate particle
emissions are smaller than 1 :m. Ammonium phosphates can decompose to form ammonia and either
phosphorous pentoxide or condensed phosphates.11,23

Although ammonia conditioning in the presence of SO3 forms ammonium bisulfate aerosol, the
ammonium bisulfate should be collected by the ESP. A secondary benefit of ammonia conditioning is
that large amounts of ammonia will react with nitrogen oxides to form elemental nitrogen.11,23

5.1-33
 Table 5.1-4. Costs of Flue Gas Conditioning

Capital Cost Annual Cost

Conditioning Agent ($/kW)a,c (mills/kWh)a,b Comments
Sulfur trioxide 6.24 0.191 Capital costs developed from 1982 data
(Reference 23). Annual costs based on
current costs for sulfur ($300/Mg) from
Reference 25.
Ammonia 0.25 0.024c Capital costs data from Reference 23.
Annual costs based on 1996 costs for
ammonia ($325/Mg) from Reference 25, and
costs for steam ($17.22/Mg) escalated from
1982 data from Reference 23.
Alkali 2.47 - 4.78 0.03 Capital costs from Reference 23.

5.1-34
Annual costs based on 1979 data from
Reference 23; available information not
detailed enough to allow for escalation to
current prices.

a
Kilowatts of power plant capacity.
b
1 mill = $0.001.
c
Escalated to February 1996 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (Reference 26).
5.1.9 References for Section 5.1

1. Cooper, C.D. and F.C. Alley. Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach. Second edition.
Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. 1994.

2. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a; NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

3. Theodore, L. and A.J. Buonicore. Air Pollution Control Equipment, Volume I:

Particulates. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 1988.

4. Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. Sixth edition.
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. 1984.

5. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42). Volume I (5th Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1995.

6. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. A.J. Buonicore, and W.T. Davis, Eds. Air & Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
New York. 1992.

7. Stairmand, C.J. "The Design and Performance of Cyclone Separators." Trans. Ind. Chem.
Eng. 29. 1951.

8. Swift, P. "Dust Control in Industry." Steam Heating Engineering. 38. 1969.

9. Lapple, C.E. "Processes Use Many Collector Types." Chem. Eng. 58:144-151. 1951.

10. Leith, D. and D. Mehta. Atmospheric Environment. 7:527. 1973.

11. The Electrostatic Precipitator Manual (Revised). The McIlvaine Company. Northbrook,
Illinois. January 1992.

12. Lapple, L.E. Industrial Hygiene Quarterly. 11:40. 1950.

13. Leith, D. and W. Licht. AIChE Symposium Series. 68:196. 1972.

14. Iozia, D.L. and D. Leith. "Effect of Cyclone Dimensions on Gas Flow Pattern." Aerosol
Science and Technology. 10(3):491-500. 1989.

15. Iozia, D.L. and D. Leith. "The Logistic Equation and Cyclone Fractional Efficiency." Aerosol
Science and Technology. 13(1). 1990.

5.1-35
16. Friedlander, S.K, L. Silverman, P. Drinker, and M.W. First. Handbook on Air Cleaning.
USAEC (AECD-3361, NYO-1572), Washington, DC. 1952.

17. Iozia, D.L. and D. Leith. "Optimizing Cyclone Design and Performance." Filtration and
Separation. 24(4):272-274. 1989.

18. Leith, D. and D.L. Jones. Chapter 15: "Cyclones," in Handbook of Powder Science and
Technology, M.E. Fayed and L. Otten, Eds. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.
1997.

19. Vatavuk, W.M. Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan. 1990.

20. Vatavuk, W.M. "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets. Innovative Strategies and
Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1996.

21. Vatavuk, W.M. "Escalate Equipment Costs." Chemical Engineering. December 1995.

22. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. January 1990.

23. Flue Gas Conditioning (EPA-600/7-85-005, NTIS PB85-173912). U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1985.

24. Oglesby, S., Jr. Future Directions of Particulate Control Technology: A Perspective. J. Air
Waste Management Assoc. 40(8): 1184-1185. August 1990.

25. "Chemical Prices." Chemical Marketing Reporter. 250:7. August 12, 1996.

26. "Plant Cost Index." Chemical Engineering. July 1996.

5.1-36
5.2 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1 Particle Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
[Link] Electric Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
[Link] Corona Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-3
[Link] Particle Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-4
[Link] Particle Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-4
5.2.2 Penetration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
[Link] Back Corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
[Link] Dust Reentrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
[Link] Dust Sneakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
5.2.3 Types of Electrostatic Precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
[Link] Dry ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-6
[Link] Wet ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-7
[Link] Wire-Plate ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-7
[Link] Wire-Pipe ESPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-9
[Link] Other ESP Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-9
5.2.4 Collection Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-14
5.2.5 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-17
5.2.6 Costs of Electrostatic Precipitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-20
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-20
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-24
5.2.7 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-27
5.2.8 References for Section 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-28
5.2 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS

This section discusses the basic operating principles, typical designs, industrial applications, and
costs of electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Collection of particles by electrostatic precipitation involves
the ionization of the stream passing though the ESP, the charging, migration, and collection of particles
on oppositely charged surfaces, and the removal of particles from the collection surfaces. In dry ESPs
the particulate is removed by rappers which vibrate the collection surface. Wet ESPs use water to
rinse the particles off.

Electrostatic precipitators have several advantages when compared with other control devices.
They are very efficient collectors, even for small particles. Because the collection forces act only on the
particles, ESPs can treat large volumes of gas with low pressure drops. They can collect dry materials,
fumes, or mists. Electrostatic precipitators can also operate over a wide range of temperatures and
generally have low operating costs. Possible disadvantages of ESPs include high capital costs, large
space requirements, inflexibility with regard to operating conditions, and difficulty in controlling particles
with high resistivity.1
Disadvantages of ESPs can be controlled with proper design.

5.2.1 Particle Collection

Particle collection during electrostatic precipitation is the end result of several steps. These
steps include the establishment of an electric field, corona generation, gas stream ionization, particulate
charging, and migration to the collection electrode. One typical ESP arrangement is shown in Figure
5.2-1.2 In this illustration, the discharge electrode is a weighted wire and the collection electrode is a
pipe. A wire-pipe ESP would contain many such wires and pipes.

[Link] Electric Field

The electric field plays an important role in the precipitation process in that it provides the basis
for generation of corona required for charging and the necessary conditions for establishing a force to
separate particulate from the gas streams.2 An electric field is formed from application of high voltage
to the ESP discharge electrodes; the strength of this electric field is a critical factor in ESP
performance.3

The electric field develops in the interelectrode space of an ESP and serves a three-fold
purpose. First, the high electric field in the vicinity of the discharge electrode causes the generation of
the charging ions in an electrical corona; second, the field provides the driving force that moves these
ions to impact with and attach their charge to the particles; and thirdly, it provides the force that drives
the charged particulate to the collection electrode for removal from the effluent gas stream.2

5.2-1
5.2-2
 The electric field in an ESP is the result of three contributing factors: the electrostatic
component resulting from the application of a voltage in a dual electrode system, the component
resulting from the space charge from the ions and free electrons, and the component resulting from the
charged particulate. Each of these factors may assume a dominant role in the determination of the field
in a given set of circumstances. For example, the electric field in the vicinity of the first few feet of the
inlet section of an ESP collecting particulate from a heavily particulate-laden gas stream may be
dominated by the particle space charge; while the field in the outlet section of a highly efficient ESP is
usually dominated by the ionic space charge.2

The strength or magnitude of the electric field is an indication of the effectiveness of an ESP.3
Two factors are critical to the attainable magnitude of the electric field in an ESP. First, the mechanical
alignment of the unit is important. If a misalignment occurs in a localized region that results in a close
approach between the corona and collection electrodes, the sparking voltage for that entire electrical
section will be limited. The second is the resistivity of the collected particulate, which can limit the
operating current density and applied voltage that results in a reduced electric field.2

[Link] Corona Generation

The corona is the electrically active region of a gas stream, formed by the electric field, where
electrons are stripped from neutral gas molecules leaving positive ions. The positive ions are driven in
one direction and the free electrons in another. The necessary conditions for corona formation include
the presence of an electric field with a magnitude sufficient to accelerate a free electron to an energy
required to ionize a neutral gas molecule on impact, and a source of electrons to act as initiating
electrons for the process.2

Details of electric field generation were discussed above. In terms of electron sources, there is
always a supply of free electrons available from the ionization of gas molecules by either cosmic rays,
natural radioactivity, photoionization, or the thermal energy of the gas.2
The corona is generated by a mechanism which is commonly referred to as electron avalanche. This
mechanism occurs when the magnitude of the applied electric field is great enough to accelerate the free
electrons. When free electrons attain sufficient velocity, they collide with and ionize neutral gas
molecules. Ionization occurs when the force of the collision removes an electron from the gas
molecule, resulting in a positively charged gas molecule and another free electron. These newly-freed
electrons are also accelerated and cause additional ionization. 2

The corona can be either positive or negative; but the negative corona is used in most industrial
ESPs since it has inherently superior electrical characteristics that enhance collection efficiency under
most operating conditions.3

5.2-3
[Link] Particle Charging

Particle charging in an ESP (and subsequent collection) takes place in the region between the
boundary of the corona glow and the collection electrode, where gas particles are subject to the
generation of negative ions from the (negative) corona process.3

Upon entering the ESP, the uncharged dust particles suspended in the effluent gas stream are
exposed to a region of space filled with ions and, in the case of negative corona, perhaps some free
electrons. As these electrical charges approach the electrically neutral dust particles, an induced dipole
is established in the particulate matter by the separation of charge within the particles.2 As a dipole, the
particle itself remains neutral while positive and negative charges within the particle concentrate within
separate areas. The positive charges within the particle are drawn to the area of the particle closest to
the approaching negative ion. As a negative ion contacts the particulate matter, the induced positive
charges will retain some electrical charge from the ion. This results in a net negative charge on the
previously neutral particulate. The presence of an electrical charge is required in order for the electric
field to exert a force on the particle and remove the particulate from the gas stream. 2

Charging is generally done by both field and diffusion mechanisms. The dominant mechanism
varies with particle size. In field charging, ions from the corona are driven onto the particles by the
electric field. As the ions continue to impinge on the dust particles, the charge on it increases until the
local field developed by the charge on the particle causes a distortion of the electric field lines so that
they no longer intercept the particle and no further charging takes place. This is the dominant
mechanism for particles larger than about 0.5 :m.3

Diffusion charging is associated with ion attachment resulting from random thermal motion; this
is the dominant charging mechanism for particles below about 0.2 :m. As with field charging, diffusion
charging is influenced by the magnitude of the electric field, since ion movement is governed by
electrical as well as diffusional forces. Neglecting electrical forces, diffusion charging results when the
thermal motion of molecules causes them to diffuse through the gas and contact the particles. The
charging rate decreases as the particle acquires charge and repels additional gas ions, but charging
continues to a certain extent.3

The particle size range of approximately 0.2 to 0.5 :m is a transitional region in which both
charging mechanisms are present but neither dominates. Fractional efficiency test data for ESPs have
shown reduced collection efficiency in this transitional size range, where diffusion and field charging
overlap.3

[Link] Particle Collection

The final step in particle collection in an ESP involves the movement of the charged particles
towards an oppositely-charged electrode that holds the particles in place until the electrode is cleaned.

5.2-4
Typically, the collection electrodes are parallel flat plates or pipes that are cylindrical, square, or
hexagonal.2

The movement of particles toward the collection electrode is driven by the electric field. The
motion of larger particles (greater than 10 to 20 m) will more or less follow a trajectory determined by
the average gas velocity and average particle electrical velocity.2 The trajectory for smaller particles
(<10 m) will be less direct, since the inertial effects of the turbulent gas flow predominate over the
electrical velocity induced by the relatively smaller electric charge. The overall movement of smaller
particles, however, will be towards the collection electrode. The cumulative collection efficiency of an
ESP is generally dependent upon the fractional collection efficiency of these smaller particles, especially
between 0.2 to 2.0 m in size.2

5.2.2 Penetration Mechanisms

There are several conditions which can reduce the effectiveness of ESPs and lead to
penetration of particulate. These conditions include back corona, dust reentrainment, erosion, saltation,
and gas sneakage.

[Link] Back Corona

Back corona or reverse ionization describes the conditions where an electrical breakdown
occurs in an ESP. Normally in an ESP, a corona is formed at the discharge electrode, creating
electrons and negative ions which are driven toward the (positive) collection electrode by the electric
field. This situation is reversed if the corona is formed at the (positive) collection electrode. A corona
at this electrode generates positive ions that are projected into the interelectrode space and driven
toward the discharge electrode.2

As the positive ions flow into the interelectrode space in an ESP, they encounter negatively
charged particulate and negative ions. The electric field from the charged particulate exceeds that of an
ion at most distances. Therefore, the majority of the positive ions flow toward the negatively-charged
dust particles, neutralizing their charge. This neutralization of charge causes a proportionate reduction in
the electrical force acting to collect these particles.2

A second mechanism by which back corona may be disruptive to ESP collection is due to a
neutralization of a portion of the space charge that contributes to the electric field adjacent to the
collection electrode. The space charge component of the electric field near the collection zone may be
as much as 50 percent of the total field. Neutralization of the space charge reduces the total collection
force by the same fraction.2

[Link] Dust Reentrainment

5.2-5
 Dust reentrainment associated with dry ESP collection may occur after the dust layer is rapped
clear of the plates. The first opportunity for rapping reentrainment occurs when the dust layer begins to
fall and break up while falling. Dust particles are swept back into the circulating gas stream. The
second opportunity occurs as the dust falls into the hopper, impacts the collected dust, and puffs up to
form a dust cloud. Portions of this dust cloud are picked up by the circulating gas stream. Some of the
dust may be recollected.2

Direct erosion of the collected dust from the collection electrode can occur when gas velocities
exceed 10 feet per second (fps). Most ESPs have gas velocities less than 8 fps, while newer
installations have velocities less than 4 fps. Saltation is theorized to be a minor form of reentrainment
which occurs as particles are collected. As a particle is captured and strikes the collection electrode, it
may loosen other particles which are resuspended in the gas stream. Other causes of reentrainment in
an ESP are electric sparking, air leakage through the hopper, and electrical reentrainment associated
with low resistivity particles.2

[Link] Dust Sneakage

The construction of an ESP is such that nonelectrified regions exist in the top of the ESP where
the electrical distribution, plate support, and rapper systems are located. Similarly, portions of the
collection hopper and the bottom of the electrode system contain nonelectrified regions. Particle-laden
gas streams flowing through these regions will not be subjected to the collection forces and tend to pass
through the ESP uncollected. The amount of gas sneakage and bypassing through nonelectrified
regions will place an upper limit on the collection efficiency of an ESP.2

5.2.3 Types of Electrostatic Precipitators

Electrostatic precipitators are generally divided into two broad groups, dry ESPs and wet
ESPs. The distinction is based on what method is used to remove particulate from the collection
electrodes. In both cases, particulate collection occurs in the same manner. In addition to wet and dry
options, there are variations of internal ESP designs available. The two most common designs are
wire-plate and wire-pipe collectors. Electrostatic precipitators are often designed with several
compartments, to facilitate cleaning and maintenance.

[Link] Dry ESPs

Dry ESPs remove dust from the collection electrodes by vibrating the electrodes through the
use of rappers. Common types of rappers are gravity impact hammers and electric vibrators. For a
given ESP, the rapping intensity and frequency must be adjusted to optimize performance. Sonic
energy is also used to assist dust removal in some dry ESPs. The main components of dry ESPs are an
outside shell to house the unit, high voltage discharge electrodes, grounded collection electrodes, a high
voltage source, a rapping system, and hoppers. Dry ESPs can be designed to operate in many different

5.2-6
stream conditions, temperatures, and pressures. However, once an ESP is designed and installed,
changes in operating conditions are likely to degrade performance.1,2,3

[Link] Wet ESPs

The basic components of a wet ESP are the same as those of a dry ESP with the exception that
a wet ESP requires a water spray system rather than a system of rappers. Because the dust is removed
from a wet ESP in the form of a slurry, hoppers are typically replaced with a drainage system. Wet
ESPs have several advantages over dry ESPs. They can adsorb gases, cause some pollutants to
condense, are easily integrated with scrubbers, and eliminate reentrainment of captured particles. Wet
ESPs are not limited by the resistivity of particles since the humidity in a wet ESP lowers the resistivity
of normally high resistivity particles.2,4

Previously, the use of wet ESPs was restricted to a few specialized applications. As higher
efficiencies have currently become more desirable, wet ESP applications have been increasing. Wet
ESPs are limited to operating at stream temperatures under approximately 170F. In a wet ESP,
collected particulate is washed from the collection electrodes with water or another suitable liquid.
Some ESP applications require that liquid is sprayed continuously into the gas stream; in other cases,
the liquid may be sprayed intermittently. Since the liquid spray saturates the gas stream in a wet ESP, it
also provides gas cooling and conditioning. The liquid droplets in the gas stream are collected along
with particles and provide another means of rinsing the collection electrodes. Some ESP designs
establish a thin film of liquid which continuously rinses the collection electrodes.2,3

[Link] Wire-Plate ESPs

Wire-plate ESPs are by far the most common design of an ESP. In a wire-plate ESP, a series
of wires are suspended from a frame at the top of the unit. The wires are usually weighted at the
bottom to keep them straight. In some designs, a frame is also provided at the bottom of the wires to
maintain their spacing. The wires, arranged in rows, act as discharge electrodes and are centered
between large parallel plates, which act as collection electrodes. The flow areas between the plates of
wire-plate ESPs are called ducts. Duct heights are typically 20 to 45 feet.2 A typical wire-plate ESP is
shown in Figure 5.2-2.2

Wire-plate ESPs can be designed for wet or dry cleaning. Most large wire-plate ESPs, which
are constructed on-site, are dry. Wet wire-plate ESPs are more common among smaller units that are
pre-assembled and packaged for delivery to the site.4 In a wet wire-plate ESP, the wash system is
located above the electrodes.2

[Link] Wire-Pipe ESPs

5.2-7
 In a wire-pipe ESP, a wire that functions as the discharge electrode runs through the axis of a
long pipe, which serves as the collection electrode. The weighted wires are suspended from a frame in
the upper part of the ESP. The pipes can be cylindrical, square, or hexagonal. An example of a wire-
pipe design is provided in Figure 5.2-3. Previously, only cylindrical pipes were used; square and
hexagonal pipes have currently grown in popularity. The space between cylindrical tubes creates a
great deal of wasted collection area. Square and hexagonal pipes can be packed closer together, so
that the inside wall of one tube is the outside wall of another.4 This situation is illustrated in Figure 5.2-
4.

Wire-pipe collectors are very effective for low gas flow rates and for collecting mists. They can
use dry or wet cleaning methods, but the vast majority are cleaned by a liquid wash. As with wire-plate
collectors, the cleaning mechanism in a wire-pipe ESP is located above the electrodes. These pipes are
generally 6 to 12 inches in diameter and 6 to 15 feet in length.2

5.2-8
5.2-9
5.2-10
5.2-11
5.2-12
5.2-13
5.2-14
[Link] Other ESP Designs

Rigid-Frame Plate. This ESP design is very similar to the wire-plate ESP, with the exception
that the discharge electrode is a rigid frame, rather than a series of weighted wires, that is placed
between plates. The frame supports wire discharge electrodes. This type of ESP operates in the same
manner as the wire-plate and can be wet or dry. In general, the rigid frame design is more durable than
weighted wires, but has higher initial (capital) expense.2,3 Rigid frames have become the preferred
design in some industries, such as pulp and paper.5 Figure 5.2-5 provides an example of a rigid frame-
plate ESP.

Wide-Plate Spacing.6 The flow areas between the plates of a conventional wire-plate ESP
usually vary from 8 to 12 inches in width. A recent enhancement in these units has been wide-plate
spacings of up to 20 inches. Wide spacing gives a higher collecting field strength due to the resultant
increase in space charge, a more uniform current density, and higher migration velocities. More
variation in the discharge electrode geometry is also possible with wide-plate spacing. Because of the
increased efficiency associated with this technique, less plate area is needed, thereby reducing the
overall size and cost of the ESP.7

Electrode Variations.1,2 In addition to the rigid frames, there are several other variations of
electrodes that are not as common. In some cases, completely rigid discharge electrodes are preferred
over weighted wires or rigid frames with wires.1 Other discharge electrode designs are square wires,
barbed wires, serrated strips of metal, and strips of metal with needles at regular intervals. The barbs,
serration, and needles on the discharge electrodes help to establish a uniform electric field. In some
cases, flat plates are used both as discharge and collection electrodes. Collection electrodes are often
modified with baffles to improve gas flow and particle collection. Some ESPs use wire mesh rather
than flat plates as collection electrodes. Examples of discharge electrodes and collection plates are
shown in Figure 5.2-6.

Concentric Plate.3 In this design, the ESP consists of vertical cylinders that are arranged
concentrically and act as collection electrodes. The walls of the cylinders are continually rinsed by a
thin film of liquid which is supplied by a system above the electrodes. The discharge electrodes are
made of wire mesh located between the cylinders. This type of ESP is only operated as a wet ESP.
The gas stream is wetted in a scrubber before it reaches the ESP. The concentric plate ESP is
illustrated in Figure 5.2-7.

Pulsed Energization.2 Some ESPs have experienced success with pulsed energization.
Conventional ESPs rely on a constant base voltage applied to the discharge electrode to generate the
corona and electric field. In pulse energization, high voltage pulses of short duration (of a few
microseconds) are applied to the discharge electrodes. A typical pulse energization system will operate
with pulse voltages on the order of 100 kilovolts (kV) rather than the 50 kV used with conventional
energization. The pulses produce a more uniformly current distribution on the collection electrode.8

5.2-15
Pulses can be used alone or in addition to a base voltage and have been shown to increase the
collection efficiency of ESPs with poor energization. Pulse energization has been used successfully in
the electric utility industry. The Ion Physics Corp. has performed tests of this procedure at Madison
Gas and Electric, Madison, Wisconsin. 9 This technique is,

5.2-16
5.2-17
5.2-18
5.2-19
5.2-20
however, still evolving to permit a more rational approach to pulse energization and, perhaps, to reduce
the cost.6

Two-Stage ESP.2,3 All of the ESP designs mentioned previously have been single-stage ESPs.
In a single stage ESP, particle charging and collection take place simultaneously in the same physical
location. Two-stage ESPs are different in that particle charging takes place in a separate section which
precedes collection. Two-stage ESPs are best suited for low dust loadings and fine particles. It is
often used for cleaning air in buildings.

5.2.4 Collection Efficiency

Electrostatic precipitators are capable of collecting greater than 99 percent of all sizes of
particulate.1 Collection efficiency is effected by several factors including dust resistivity, gas
temperature, chemical composition (of the dust and gas), and particle size distribution.

The resistivity of a dust is a measure of its resistance to electrical conduction and it has a great
effect on the performance of dry ESPs. The efficiency of an ESP is limited by the strength of the
electric field it can generate, which in turn is dependent upon the voltage applied to the discharge
electrodes. The maximum voltage that can be applied is determined by the sparking voltage. At this
voltage, a path between the discharge and collection electrodes is ionized and sparking occurs. Highly
resistive dusts increase sparking, which forces the ESP to operate at a lower voltage. The effectiveness
of an ESP decreases as a result of the reduced operating voltage.2

High resistivity dusts also hold their electrical charge for a relatively long period of time. This
characteristic makes it difficult to remove the dust from the collection electrodes. In order to loosen the
dust, rapping intensity must be increased. High intensity rapping can damage the ESP and cause severe
reentrainment, leading to reduced collection efficiency. Low dust resistivities can also have a negative
impact on ESP performance. Low resistivity dust quickly loses its charge once collected. When the
collection electrodes are cleaned, even with light rapping, serious reentrainment can occur.2

Temperature and the chemical composition of the dust and gas stream are factors which can
influence dust resistivity. Current is conducted through dust by two means, volume conduction and
surface conduction. Volume conduction takes place through the material itself, and is dependent on the
chemical composition of the dust. Surface conduction occurs through gases or liquids adsorbed by the
particles, and is dependent on the chemical composition of the gas stream. Volume resistivity increases
with increasing temperatures and is the dominant resistant force at temperatures above approximately
350F. Surface resistivity decreases as temperature increases and predominates at temperatures below
about 250F. Between 250 and 350F, volume and surface resistivity exert a combined effect, with
total resistivity highest in this temperature range.2,3

5.2-21
 For coal fly ash, surface resistance is greatly influenced by the sulfur content of the coal. Low
sulfur coals have high resistivity, because there is decreased adsorption of conductive gases (such as
SO3) by the fly ash. The collection efficiency for high-resistance dusts can be improved with chemical
flue gas conditioning that involves the addition of small amounts of chemicals into the gas stream
(discussed in Section 5.1, Pretreatment). Typical chemicals include sulfur dioxide (SO2), ammonia
(NH3), and sodium carbonate. These chemicals provide conductive gases which can substantially
reduce the surface resistivity of the fly ash.?,10 Resistivity can also be reduced by the injection of steam
or water into the gas stream. 2

In general, dry ESPs operate most efficiently with dust resistivities between 5 103 and 2
1010 ohm-cm.2 Electrostatic precipitator design and operation is difficult for dust resistivities above
1011 ohm-cm.2 Dust resistivity is generally not a factor for wet ESPs.1,2 The particle size distribution
impacts on the overall performance of an ESP. In general, the most difficult particles to collect are
those with aerodynamic diameters between 0.1 and 1.0 :m. Particles between 0.2 and 0.4 :m usually
show the most penetration. This is most likely a result of the transition region between field and
diffusion charging. Figure 5.2-8 provides cumulative collection efficiency curves for ESPs operating in
the utility, copper, and iron and steel industries. The curves were derived from emission factors.11
Table 5.2-1 presents the cumulative collection efficiencies for PM10 and PM2.5.

5.2.5 Applicability

Approximately 80 percent of all ESPs in the U.S. are used in the electric utility industry. Many
ESPs are also used in pulp and paper (7 percent), cement and other minerals (3 percent), iron and steel
(3 percent), and nonferrous metals industries (1 percent).1 Table 5.2-2 lists common applications of
ESPs.12

The dust characteristics can be a limiting factor in the applicability of dry ESPs to various
industrial operations. Sticky or moist particles and mists can be easily collected, but often prove
difficult to remove from the collection electrodes of dry ESPs. Dusts with very high resistivities are also
not well suited for collection in dry ESPs. Dry ESPs are susceptible to explosion in applications where
flammable or explosive dusts are found.2

Wet ESPs can collect sticky particles and mists, as well as highly resistive or explosive dusts.
Wet ESPs are generally not limited by dust characteristics, but are limited by gas temperatures.
Typically, the operating temperatures of wet ESPs cannot exceed 170F. When collecting a valuable
dust which can be sold or recycled into the process, wet ESPs also may not be desirable, since the dust
is collected as a wet slurry that would likely need additional treatment.2,4

Electrostatic precipitators are usually not suited for use on processes which are highly variable,
since frequent changes in operating conditions are likely to degrade ESP performance. Electrostatic

5.2-22
precipitators are also difficult to install on sites which have limited space because ESPs must be
relatively large to obtain the low gas velocities necessary for efficient particle collection.1

5.2-23
5.2-24
5.2-25
 Table 5.2-1. PM10 and PM2.5 Cumulative Collection Efficiencies
for ESPs at Coal Combustors, Primary Copper Operations,
and Iron and Steel Production Operations (from Reference 11)

Collection Efficiency (percent)

Application PM10 PM2.5

Coal-Fired Boilers
Dry bottom (bituminous) 97.7 96.0

Spreader stoker (bituminous) 99.4 97.7

Spreader stoker (anthracite) 98.4 98.5

Primary Copper Production
Multiple hearth roaster 99.0 99.1
Reverberatory smelter 97.1 97.4

Iron and Steel Production

Open hearth furnace 99.2 99.2

Sinter oven 94.0 90.0

Table 5.2-2. Typical Industrial Applications

of Electrostatic Precipitators (from References 2 and 12)

Source Category
Application Code Type of ESPa

Utility Boilers 1-01-002...004 DESP, Wire-Plate

(Coal, Oil)
Industrial Boilers 1-02-001...005 DESP, Wire-Plate
(Coal, Oil, Wood, Liq. Waste) 1-02-009, -013

Commercial/Institutional Boilers 1-03-001...005 DESP, Wire-Plate

(Coal, Oil, Wood) 1-03-009

5.2-26
 Source Category
Application Code Type of ESPa

Chemical Manufacture 3-01-001...999 Site specific

Non-Ferrous Metals Processing

(Primary and Secondary)

Copper 3-03-005 DESP, WESP, Plate-Plate, Wire-Plate,

3-04-002 Wire-Pipe, Rigid Frame-Plate
Lead 3-03-010 DESP, WESP, Plate-Plate, Wire-Plate,
3-04-004 Wire-Pipe, Rigid Frame-Plate

Zinc 3-03-030 DESP, WESP, Plate-Plate, Wire-Plate,

3-04-008 Wire-Pipe, Rigid Frame-Plate

Aluminum 3-03-000...002 DESP, WESP, Wire-Plate, Wire-Pipe

3-04-001 Rigid Frame-Plate
Other 3-03-011...014 DESP, WESP, Wire-Plate, Wire-Pipe
3-04-005...006
3-04-010...022

Ferrous Metals Processing

Coke Production 3-03-003...004 WESP, Wire-Pipe

Ferroalloy Production 3-03-006...007 DESP, Wire-Plate

Iron and Steel Production 3-03-008...009 DESP, WESP, Wire-Plate, Wire-Pipe

Gray Iron Foundries 3-04-003 DESP, Wire-Plate

Steel Foundries 3-04-007, -009 DESP, WESP, Wire-Plate, Wire-Pipe

Petroleum Refineries and 3-06-001...999 DESP, Wire-Plate
Related Industries

Mineral Products

Cement Manufacturing 3-05-006...007 DESP, Wire-Plate

Stone Quarrying and Processing 3-05-020 Site specific

Other 3-05-003...999 DESP, WESP, Wire-Plate, Needle-Plate

Wood, Pulp, and Paper 3-07-001 DESP, Wire-Plate, Rigid Frame-Plate

Incineration 5-01-001 DESP, Wire-Plate, Rigid Frame-Plate
(Municipal Waste)
a
DESP = Dry ESP, WESP = Wet ESP.

5.2-27
 Table 5.2-2, continued

5.2.6 Costs of Electrostatic Precipitators

The costs of installing and operating an ESP include both capital and annual costs. Capital
costs are all of the initial equipment-related costs of the ESP. Annual costs are the
direct costs of operating and maintaining the ESP for one year, plus such indirect costs as overhead;
capital recovery; and taxes, insurance, and administrative charges. Please refer to Chapter 6 of the
OAQPS Control Cost Manual for cost equations.13

[Link] Capital Costs

The total capital investment (TCI) for ESPs includes all of the initial capital costs, both direct
and indirect. Direct capital costs are the purchased equipment costs (PEC), and the costs of installation
(foundations, electrical, piping, etc.). Indirect costs are related to the installation and include
engineering, construction, contractors, start-up, testing, and contingencies. The direct and indirect
installation costs are calculated as factors of the PEC.13 Table 5.2-3 presents the TCI cost factors for
ESPs. There are several aspects of ESPs which impact the PEC. These factors include inlet gas flow
rate, collection efficiency, dust and gas characteristics, and various standard design features. The PEC
is estimated based on the ESP specifications and is typically correlated with the collecting area in two
ways, the Deutsch-Anderson equation or the sectional method.13 Please refer to Chapter 6 of the
OAQPS Cost Manual (Reference 13) for ESP cost estimation equations.

Inlet Flow Rate. The inlet flow rate has the greatest effect on TCI because it determines the
overall size of the ESP. As the gas flow rate increases so does the ESP size and, in turn, the costs.
Typical gas flow rates for ESPs are 10,000 to 1,000,000 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM).2
Electrostatic precipitator costs increase approximately linearly with gas flow rate, with the slope of the
cost curves dependent on the other factors discussed below.

Collection Efficiency. Electrostatic precipitators are designed to achieve a specific collection

efficiency. The TCI costs of ESPs increase as greater efficiencies are achieved. To attain higher
collection efficiencies, ESPs must be larger to provide greater collection areas. In addition, extremely
high efficiencies may require special control instrumentation and internal modifications to improve gas
flow and rapping efficiency. Figure 5.2-9 shows the effect of collection efficiency on TCI costs for an
ESP.14

Dust Characteristics. Particle size distribution, adhesiveness, and resistivity are dust
characteristics that affect ESP costs. The size distribution of the dust influences the overall ESP
collection efficiency. For example, particles in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 :m are the most difficult for an
ESP to collect. If many of the particles are in this range, it will be more difficult to achieve a given

5.2-28
collection efficiency and a larger, more expensive ESP will be required. If the dust is very sticky, dry
ESPs will need to be made of more durable (and costly) materials to withstand the intense rapping
needed to remove the dust from the collection electrodes. For this reason, a wet ESP is often
preferred for very sticky dusts, which drives costs higher. Dust resistivity influences costs, since highly
resistive particles will require the added operating expense of flue gas conditioning or the use of wet
ESPs.13

5.2-29
 Table 5.2-3. Capital Cost Factors for Electrostatic Precipitators (from Reference 10)

Cost Item Factor

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

ESP + auxiliary equipment As estimated (A)

Instrumentation 0.10 A
Sales taxes 0.03 A
Freight 0.05 A
Total Purchased Equipment Cost, (PEC) B = 1.18 A

Direct installation costs

Foundations and supports 0.04 B

Handling and erection 0.50 B
Electrical 0.08 B
Piping 0.01 B
Insulation for ductwork 0.02 B
Painting 0.02 B
Total direct installation cost 0.67 B

Site Preparation and Buildings As required (Site)

Total Direct Cost, DC 1.67 B + Site

Indirect Costs (installation)

Engineering 0.20 B
Construction and field expense 0.20 B
Contractor fees 0.10 B
Start-up 0.01 B
Performance test 0.01 B
Model study 0.02 B
Contingencies 0.03 B
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 0.57 B

Total Capital Investment = DC + IC 2.24 B + Site

5.2-30
 30

25 99.9%
)

Efficiency

99.5%
20 Efficiency

99.0%
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

Efficiency
15
95.0%

Efficiency

10

Note:
5
Costs are referenced to

fourth quarter 1996.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

6
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 10 )

Figure 5.2-9. Effect of Design Collection Efficiency on ESP TCI Costs (Reference 14).

Gas Stream Characteristics. Important gas stream characteristics are temperature, moisture,
and chemical composition. Gas stream temperature affects particle resistivity and, consequently, ESP
efficiency and costs. Very moist streams and mists generally require the use of wet ESPs. The
chemical composition of the gas stream may restrict the construction materials appropriate for the ESP.
Most ESPs are constructed of carbon steel; however when the stream is highly corrosive, more costly
corrosion resistant materials such as stainless steel, carpenter, monel, nickel, and titanium are needed.13
Figure 5.2-10 shows the impact of the use of corrosion resistant materials on ESP TCI costs.14

Design Features. There are several design features that are considered standard for most ESPs
and which can add up to 50 percent of the PEC. These options include inlet and outlet nozzles, diffuser
plates, hopper auxiliaries (heaters, level detectors, etc.), weather enclosures, stair access, structural
supports, and insulation.13 Figure 5.2-11 shows ESP costs with and without these standard design
features.14 Wet ESPs and rigid-frame designs typically have higher initial (capital) expenses than dry
and wire-plate ESPs.

[Link] Annual Costs

The total annual cost of an ESP consists of both direct and indirect costs. Direct annual costs
are those associated with the operation and maintenance of the ESP. These include labor (operating,
supervisory, coordinating, and maintenance), maintenance materials, operating

5.2-31
 100

90
)

80

Titanium
70
Nickel

60 Monel
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

50 Carpenter

Stainless Steel
40

Carbon Steel
30

20
Note:
10 Costs are referenced

to fourth quarter

1996, and are for 99.5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
percent efficiency.

6
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 10 )

Figure 5.2-10. Effect of the Use of Corrosion Resistant Materials on ESP TCI Costs (Reference 14)

25
)

With
20 Standard

Options
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

Without
15
Standard

Options

10
Note:

Costs are referenced to

fourth quarter 1996,

5
and are for 99.5

percent efficiency.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

6
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 10 )

Figure 5.2-11. TCI Costs for ESPs With and Without Various Standard Design Features (Reference
14).

5.2-32
materials, electricity, dust disposal, wastewater treatment (wet ESPs), compressed air (for rappers),
conditioning agents, and heating or cooling costs.13 Some operating costs are not applicable to all ESPs.
For ESPs collecting dusts which have no value, dust disposal can be expensive. Gas conditioning agents
are used for ESPs that need to collect highly resistive dusts. Some ESP installations also require heating
or cooling of the gas stream for effective operation. The cost of the heating fuel can be significant;
cooling water costs generally are not.13

Indirect annual costs include taxes, insurance, administrative costs, overhead, and capital
recovery. All of these costs except overhead are dependent on the TCI. Table 5.2-4 lists the annual
cost parameters that impact ESP costs, with typical values provided for each parameter. Table 5.2-5
provides the annual cost factors for ESPs. It is difficult to generalize these costs for all ESPs, since
annual costs are very site-specific.13

5.2.7 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts of ESP operation include those associated with energy demand, solid
waste generation in the form of the collected dust, and water pollution for wet ESPs. The energy
requirements for operation of an ESP consist mainly of electricity demand for fan operation, and electric
field generation, and cleaning. Fan power is dependent on the pressure drop across the ESP, the flow
rate, and the operating time. Assuming a fan-motor efficiency of 65 percent and a ratio of the gas
specific gravity to that of air equal to 1.0, the fan power requirement can be estimated from the following
equation:13

Fan Power (kW-hr/yr) = 1.81 10-4 (V)()P)(t) (Eq. 5.2-1)

where V is gas flow rate (ACFM), )P is pressure drop (inches H2O), t is annual operating time (hr/yr),
and 1.81 10-4 is a unit conversion factor.

The operating power requirements for the electrodes and the energy for the rapper systems can
be estimated from the following relationship:13

Operating Power (kW-hr/yr) = 1.94 10-3 (A)(t) (Eq. 5.2-2)

where A is ESP plate area (ft 2), t is annual operating time (in hr/yr), and 1.94 10-3 is a unit conversion
factor.

Wet ESPs have the additional energy requirement of pumping the rinse liquid into the ESP.
Pump power requirements can be calculated as follows:13

Pump Power (kW-hr/yr) = (0.746(Ql)(Z)(Sg)(t)) / (3,960 0) (Eq. 5.2-3)

5.2-33
where Ql is the liquid flow rate (gal/min), Z is the fluid head (ft), Sg is the specific gravity of the liquid, t is
the annual operating time (hr/yr), 0 is the pump-motor efficiency, and 0.746 and 3,960 are unit
conversion factors.

5.2-34
 Table 5.2-4. Annual Cost Parameters for Electrostatic Precipitators (Reference 14).

Parameter Description Typical Values

Direct Cost Parameters

Operating factor (OF) Hours of scrubber operation per year 8,640 hr/yr
Operator labor rate (OR) Operator labor pay rate $12.50/hra
Operator shift factor (OS) Fraction of operator shift on scrubber 0.25b
Supervisor labor factor (SF) Fraction of operator labor cost 0.15b
Coordinator labor factor (CF) Fraction of operator labor cost 0.33b
Maintenance labor (ML) Dependent on plate collector area Site specific
Maintenance materials factor (MF) Fraction of Purchased Equipment Cost 0.01b
Electricity rate (ER) Cost of electricity $0.07/kW-hra
Chemicals (C) Cost of chemical conditioning agents Site specific (sect. 5.1)
Compressed air (CA) Cost of compressed air for rappers $0.18/1000 scfa
Wastewater treatment (W) Cost of treating wet ESP effluent $1.55-$2.55/1000 gala
Waste disposal (D) Cost of disposing of dust/sludge $20-30/tona

5.2-35
Indirect Cost Parameters
Overhead factor (OV) Fraction of total labor and (MM) costs 0.60b
Annual interest rate (I) Opportunity cost of the capital 7 percentb
Operating life (n) Expected operating life of scrubber 20 yearsb
Capital recovery factor (CRF) Function of (n) and (I) 0.0944c
Taxes (TAX) Fraction of the TCI d 0.01b
Insurance (INS) Fraction of the TCI d 0.01b
Administrative costs (AC) Fraction of the TCI d 0.02b
a
Estimated for 1996 from currently available information.
b
Estimates from "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets (Reference 14).
c
Capital Recovery Factor is calculated from the following formula: CRF = {I(1 + I)n} {(1 + I)n - 1},
where I = interest rate (fraction) and n = operating life (years).
d
The total capital investment (TCI) can be escalated to current values by using the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indicies
(VAPCCI), described in Appendix B.
 Table 5.2-5. Annual Cost Factors for Electrostatic Precipitators (Reference 14).

Cost Item Formula a Factor

Direct Costs
Labor
Operator (OL) (OF)(OR)(OS) A
Supervisor (SL) (SF)(OL) 0.15 A
Coordinator (CL) (CF)(OL) 0.33 A
Maintenance (ML) Site specific ML
Maintenance materials (MM) (MF)(PEC) 0.01 PEC
Electricity (E) Powerb (ER) E
Chemicals (C) Site specific C
Compressed air (CA) (CA) CA
Wastewater treatment (W) (W) W
Waste disposal (D) (D) D

Total Direct Cost (DC) 1.48 A + ML + 0.01 PEC + E + C + CA + W + D

Indirect Costs
Overhead (OV)(OL+SL+CL 0.89 A + 0.6 ML
+ML+MM) + 0.006 PEC
Capital Recovery (CRF)(TCI) 0.1424 TCI
Taxes (TAX)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Insurance (INS)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Administrative Costs (AC)(TCI) 0.02 TCI

Total Indirect Cost (IC) 0.89 A +0.6 ML + 0.006 PEC + 0.1824 TCI

Total Annual Cost (DC + IC) 2.37 A + 1.6 ML + 0.016 PEC + 0.1824 TCI + E + C + CA + W
+D

a
Includes values also described in Table 5.2-4.
b
Equal to total power requirements, e.g. fan, pump, etc.

5.2-36
 Solid waste is generated from ESP operation in the form of the collected dust. Although the dust
is usually inert and nontoxic, dust disposal is a major factor of ESP operation. With some ESP
operations, the dust can be reused in the process or on the facility or sold. Otherwise, the dust must be
shipped offsite. Water pollution is a concern for wet ESPs. Some installations may require water
treatment facilities and other modifications to handle the slurry discharge from wet ESPs.2,13

5.2-37
5.2.8 References for Section 5.2

1. Cooper, C.D and F.C. Alley. Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach. 2nd ed.
Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. 1994.

2. The Electrostatic Precipitator Manual (Revised). The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook,

Illinois. March 1996.

3. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a, NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

4. Steinsvaag, R. Overview of Electrostatic Precipitators. Plant Engineering. July 10, 1995.

5. Mastropietro, T. and P. Dhargalkar. Electrostatic Precipitator Designs Evolve to meet Tighter

Regulations. Pulp & Paper. September 1991.

6. Oglesby, S., Jr. Future Directions of Particulate Control Technology: A Perspective. J. Air
Waste Management Assoc. 40(8): 1184-1185. August 1990.

7. Scholtens, M.J. Air Pollution Control: A Comprehensive Look. Pollution Engineering. May
1991.

8. C. Sedman, N. Plaks, W. Marchant, and G. Nichols. Advances in Fine Particle Control

Technology. Presented at the Ukraine Ministry of Energy and Electrification Conference on
Power Plant Air Pollution Control Technology, in Kiev, The Ukraine, September 9 - 10, 1996.

9. ESP Newsletter. The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. May 1996.

10. Rikhter, L.A. et. al. Improving the Efficiency of Removal of High-resistance Ash in
Electrostatic Precipitators by Chemical Conditioning of Flue Gases. Thermal Engineering.
38:3. March 1991.

11. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Volume I (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1995.

12. Source Category Emission Reductions with Particulate Matter and Precursor Control
Techniques. Prepared for K. Woodard, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (AQSSD/IPSG), under Work Assignment II-16 (EPA Contract
No. 68-03-0034), "Evaluation of Fine Particulate Matter Control." September 30, 1996.

13. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,

5.2-38
 North Carolina. January 1990.

14. Vatavuk, W.M. "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets. Provided by the Innovative
Strategies and Economics Group of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1996.

5.2-39
5..3 FABRIC FILTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-1
5.3.1 Particle Collection and Penetration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-1
5.3.2 Types of Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-5
[Link] Shaker-Cleaned Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-5
[Link] Reverse-Air Cleaned Fabric Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-7
[Link] Pulse-Jet Cleaned Fabric Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-10
[Link] Other Fabric Filter Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-14
5.3.3 Fabric Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-15
5.3.4 Collection Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-17
5.3.5 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-19
5.3.6 Costs of Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-22
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-22
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-26
5.3.7 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-30
5.3.8 References for Section 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-31
5.3 FABRIC FILTERS

This section addresses the basic operating principles of fabric filters, the cleaning methods,
fabric selection, costs, and applicability to various industries. Fabric filters are a popular means of
separating particles from a gas stream because of their relatively high efficiency and applicability to
many situations. Fabric filters can be made of either woven or felted fabrics and may be in the form of
sheets, cartridges, or bags, with a number of the individual fabric filter units housed together in a group.
Bags are by far the most common type of fabric filter, hence the use of the term "baghouses" to
describe fabric filters in general.
The major particle collection mechanisms of fabric filters are inertial impaction, diffusion from
Brownian motion, and interception. During fabric filtration, dusty gas is drawn through the fabric by
forced-draft fans. The fabric is responsible for some filtration, but more significantly it acts as support
for the dust layer that accumulates. The layer of dust, also known as a filter cake, is a highly efficient
filter, even for submicrometer particles. Woven fabrics rely on the filtration abilities of the dust cake
much more than felted fabrics.

Fabric filters possess some key advantages over other types of particle collection devices.
Along with the very high collection efficiencies, they also have the flexibility to treat many types of dusts
and a wide range of volumetric gas flows. Fabric filters can be operated with low pressure drops.
Fabric filters also have some potential disadvantages. In general, they are limited to filtering dry
streams. Also, high temperatures and certain chemicals can damage some fabrics. Fabric filters also
have the potential for fire or explosion, and can require a large area for installation.1 Proper design can
minimize or eliminate these disadvantages.

5.3.1 Particle Collection and Penetration Mechanisms

Particle capture during fabric filtration is mainly due to some combination of inertial impaction,
diffusion, and direct interception. Collection may also occur due to gravitational sedimentation and
electrostatic attraction, but usually to a lesser extent.2 Figure 5.3-1 illustrates these five particle
collection mechanisms.3

Inertial impaction occurs as a result of a change in velocity between a fluid, such as air, and a
particle suspended in the fluid. As the fluid approaches an obstacle it will accelerate and change
direction to pass around the object. Depending on the mass of the particle, it may not be able to adapt
to the fluid acceleration and a difference in velocity will develop between the particle and fluid stream.
Inertia will maintain the forward motion of the particle towards the object, but the fluid will attempt to
drag the particle around the obstacle. The resultant particle motion is a combination of these forces of
fluid drag and inertia. This results in impaction for the particles where inertia dominates, and by-pass
for those particles overwhelmed by fluid drag.2

5.3-1
 Collection by diffusion occurs as a result of both fluid motion and the Brownian (random)
motion of particles. Diffusional collection effects are most significant for particles less than 1
micrometer (m) in diameter.2 Another collection mechanism, direct interception, occurs when a
particle comes within one particle radius of an obstacle. The path that the particle takes can be a result
of inertia, diffusion, or fluid motion.2

5.3-2
5.3-3
 Gravitational sedimentation, i.e. the falling of individual or agglomerated particles, is a minor
collection mechanism for fabric filter operations.2 Electrostatic charge can play an important role in
particle collection and agglomeration in some situations. In order to maximize the electrostatic effect,
the characteristics of the particles must be understood before the fabric is selected. See Section 6,
Emerging Technologies, for more discussion of electrostatic effects in fabric filtration.

Because of the physics of each collection mechanism, the particle size will determine the
predominance of one collection mechanism over another. Generally, as particle size decreases, the
predominance of the diffusion collection mechanism increases, assuming other parameters remain
constant. As particle size increases, the impaction collection mechanism will most likely increase. The
combination of these two major particle collection effects contributes to a minimum efficiency at a given
particle size, as illustrated in Figure 5.3-2, a plot of fractional fabric filter collection efficiency versus
aerodynamic particle size.2

The fabric itself is also a factor in particle collection and penetration. In the initial stages of
filtration where the fabric is usually bare, the fabric is responsible for some filtration. More significantly,
however, it acts as support for the dust layer that accumulates over the course of operation of the fabric
filter. The dust or filter cake is a highly efficient filter, even for submicrometer particles. In terms of
fabric type, woven fabrics rely on the filtration abilities of the dust cake much more than felted fabrics.

The structure of the fabric, particularly for woven fabrics, is also very important to particle
collection. Large pores and a high free-space area within the fabric contribute to low particle removal.
Particle capture in woven fabrics is enhanced by small fibers (known as fibrils) which project into the
pores. Dust can deposit on the fibrils and bridge across the pores, which allows a filter cake to build up
and increases collection efficiency. Fabrics can have similar pore sizes and very different collection
characteristics because of the number of fibrils they possess. The electrostatic properties of fibers are
also critical. Different fibers have different electrostatic and surface characteristics. The intensity of the
electrostatic charge of the fabric has a distinct effect on particle collection efficiency and is a function of
the fabric properties and surface roughness. The resistivity of the fabric influences charge dissipation
once particles have been captured. The rate of charge dissipation affects how the dust releases from
the fabric and how easily the fabric can be cleaned.

The gas-to-cloth (G/C) ratio is an important design consideration and has a major effect on
particle collection mechanisms. This is a ratio of the volumetric flow rate of gas per unit of filtering area,
and is usually expressed in the units of cubic feet per minute of gas per square foot of fabric
[(ft3/min)/ft2]. Since these units can be reduced to feet per minute (ft/min), the G/C ratio is also referred
to as the face velocity.4 In general, as the face velocity increases, the efficiency of impaction collection
increases and diffusional collection efficiency decreases.2 Higher face velocities allow for smaller fabric
filters, all other things being constant. However, as the face velocity increases, there is increased
pressure drop, increased particle penetration, blinding of fabric, more frequent cleaning, and reduced
bag life. Table 5.3-1 shows recommended G/C ratios for various industrial dusts.4,16

5.3-4
5.3-5
Table 5.3-1. Recommended Gas-to-Cloth Ratios (acfm/ft 2)
for Common Industrial Applications of Fabric Filters
(References 4 and 13)

5.3-6
 The majority of the dust that penetrates the filter is a result of dust that is dislodged during
cleaning and penetrates to the clean side, and dust that is loosened during cleaning and cannot resist
dislodging when the flow resumes.2 The majority of submicrometer particles penetrate the fabric by
passing directly through the pores or by seepage.2 Seepage occurs when particles migrate through the
filter cake and the fabric by continuous capture and reentrainment. Seepage is more common with
smooth particles and with a lack of significant electrostatic forces.2

5.3.2 Types of Fabric Filters

There are a wide variety of materials which can be woven or felted into effective fabrics, and
there are many different sizes and arrangements of bags that can be utilized. Although the presence of a
filter cake increases collection efficiency as the cake becomes thicker, it also restricts the flow of gas.
This increases the pressure drop and energy requirements. To operate a fabric filter continuously, the
dust must be cleaned from the filters and removed from the fabric filter on a regular basis. Fabric filters
are frequently classified by their cleaning method. The three major types of fabric filter cleaning
mechanisms are mechanical shaker, reverse-air, and pulse-jet. These types are discussed below along
with a brief discussion of other less common types of cleaning methods and fabric filter configurations.

[Link] Shaker-Cleaned Fabric Filters

Shaking has been a popular cleaning method for many years because of its simplicity as well as
its effectiveness. Shaker-cleaned fabric filters utilizing specially chosen woven fabrics are more
effective than other types of fabric filters for many applications.2 For small units, shaking can be
accomplished manually. Large fabric filters require mechanical shaking. For both cases, the operation
is basically the same. In general, dusty gas enters an inlet pipe to the shaker-cleaned fabric filter and
very large particles are removed from the stream when they strike the baffle plate in the inlet duct and
fall into the hopper. The particulate-laden gas is drawn from beneath a cell plate in the floor and into
the filter bags. The gas proceeds from the inside of the bags to the outside and through the outlet pipe.
The particles are collected on the inside surface of the bags and a filter cake accumulates.

A typical mechanical shaker-cleaned fabric filter unit is shown in Figure 5.3-3.1 In mechanical
shaking units, the tops of the bags are attached to a shaker bar. When the bags are cleaned, the bar is
moved briskly, usually in a horizontal direction. This movement flexes the fabric, causing the dust cake
to crack and fall away from the fabric and into the hopper. A typical shaker mechanism is shown in
Figure 5.3-4.2 Some amount of filter cake will remain on the inside of the filter bag; as discussed
above, this is desirable and also necessary to maintain a consistently high collection efficiency. The
amount of dust that is removed during cleaning can be controlled by regulating the frequency, amplitude,
and duration of the shaking cycles. In some designs, reverse-air flow is used to enhance dust removal.

The flow of gas through the bags must be stopped during the cleaning cycle to allow the filter
cake to release from the fabric and to prevent dust from working through the bag during the

5.3-7
5.3-8
5.3-9
shaking. In order to accomplish this, shaker-cleaned fabric filters are often designed with several
separate compartments. Each compartment can then be isolated from the gas flow and cleaned while
the other compartments continue to filter the stream.

Shaker-cleaned fabric filters are very flexible in design, allowing for different types of fabrics,
bag arrangements, and fabric filter sizes. This enables shaker-cleaned fabric filters to have many
applications, with only some limitations. Shaker-cleaning fabric filters need a dust that releases fairly
easily from the fabric, or the fabric will be damaged from over shaking and bag failure will result. Glass
fabrics in particular are susceptible to degradation from shaking.2 Most other filter fabrics are less
brittle than glass and have longer service lives in shaker-cleaned applications. The shaker mechanism
itself also must be well designed and maintained or it will quickly wear and lose effectiveness. As the
shaker mechanism loses effectiveness, the operator will often increase shaking intensity in order to clean
the bags satisfactorily. Continuing this practice can eventually destroy the shaking mechanism.2

[Link] Reverse-Air Cleaned Fabric Filter

Reverse-air cleaning is another popular fabric filter cleaning method that has been used
extensively and improved over the years.5 It is a gentler but sometimes less effective cleaning
mechanism than mechanical shaking.1 Most reverse-air fabric filters operate in a manner similar to
shaker-cleaned fabric filters. The bags are open on the bottom, closed on top and the gas flows from
the inside to the outside of the bags with dust being captured on the inside. However, some reverse-air
designs collect dust on the outside of the bags. In either design, reverse-air cleaning is performed by
forcing clean air through the filters in the opposite direction of the dusty gas flow. The change in
direction of the gas flow causes the bag to flex and crack the filter cake. In internal cake collection, the
bags are allowed to collapse to some extent during reverse-air cleaning. The bags are usually
prevented from collapsing entirely by some kind of support, such as rings that are sewn into the bags.
The support enables the dust cake to fall off the bags and into the hopper. Cake release is also aided
by the reverse flow of the gas. Because felted fabrics retain dust more than woven fabrics and thus, are
more difficult to clean, felts are usually not used in reverse-air systems.2

There are several methods of reversing the flow through the filters. As with mechanical shaker-
cleaned fabric filters, the most common approach is to have separate compartments within the fabric
filter so that each compartment can be isolated and cleaned separately while the other compartments
continue to treat the dusty gas. A typical design of one compartment of a reverse-air cleaning fabric
filter is shown in Figure 5.3-5.2 One method of providing the reverse flow air is by the use of a
secondary fan or cleaned gas from the other compartments. A second method is with a traveling air
mechanism. An example of such a mechanism is shown in Figure 5.3-6.3 In this design, the dust is
collected on the outside of the bags. The air manifolds rotate around the fabric filter and provide
reverse air to each bag, allowing most of the bags to operate while a few of the bags are being cleaned.

5.3-10
 Reverse-air cleaning alone is used only in cases where the dust releases easily from the fabric.
In many instances, reverse-air is used in conjunction with shaking or pulsing. A

5.3-11
5.3-12
5.3-13
relatively recent development has been the use of sonic horns to aid cleaning (see Section [Link]).
During cleaning, sonic blasts from horns mounted in the fabric filter assist in the removal of dust from the
bags. This is an important enhancement to fabric filtration.6,7 Sonic assistance is a very popular method
for fabric filters at coal-burning utilities.1

[Link] Pulse-Jet Cleaned Fabric Filter

Pulse-jet cleaning of fabric filters is relatively new compared to other types of fabric filters,
since they have only been used for the past 30 years. This cleaning mechanism has consistently gained
in popularity because it can treat high dust loadings, operate at constant pressure drop, and occupy less
space than other types of fabric filters.8 Pulse-jet cleaned fabric filters can only operate as external
cake collection devices. A schematic of a pulse-jet cleaned fabric filter is shown in Figure 5.3-7.1 The
bags are closed at the bottom, open at the top, and supported by internal retainers, called cages.
Particulate-laden gas flows into the bag, with diffusers often used to prevent oversized particles from
damaging the bags. The gas flows from the outside to the inside of the bags, and then out the gas
exhaust. The particles are collected on the outside of the bags and drop into a hopper below the fabric
filter.

During pulse-jet cleaning a short (0.03 to 0.1 second) burst of high pressure (90 -100 psig) air
is injected into the bags. The pulse is blown through a venturi nozzle at the top of the bags and
establishes a shock wave that continues on to the bottom of the bag. The wave flexes the fabric,
pushing it away from the cage, and then snaps it back dislodging the dust cake. The cleaning cycle is
regulated by a remote timer connected to a solenoid valve. The burst of air is controlled by the
solenoid valve and is released into blow pipes that have nozzles located above the bags. The bags are
usually cleaned row by row.

There are several unique attributes of pulse-jet cleaning. Because the cleaning pulse is very
brief, the flow of dusty gas does not have to be stopped during cleaning. The other bags continue to
filter, taking on extra duty because of the bags being cleaned.9 In general, there is no change in fabric
filter pressure drop or performance as a result of pulse-jet cleaning. This enables the pulse-jet fabric
filters to operate on a continuous basis with solenoid valves as the only significant moving parts.2 Pulse-
jet cleaning is also more intense and occurs with greater frequency than the other fabric filter cleaning
methods. This intense cleaning dislodges nearly all of the dust cake each time the bag is pulsed. As a
result, pulse-jet filters do not rely on a dust cake to provide filtration. Felted fabrics are used in pulse-
jet fabric filters because they do not require a dust cake to achieve high collection efficiencies. It has
been found that woven fabrics used with pulse-jet fabric filters leak a great deal of dust after they are
cleaned.

Since bags cleaned by pulse-jet do not need to be isolated for cleaning, pulse-jet cleaning
fabric filters do not need extra compartments to maintain adequate filtration during cleaning. Also,
because of the intense and frequent nature of the cleaning, they can treat higher gas flow rates with

5.3-14
higher dust loadings. Consequently, fabric filters cleaned by pulse jet can be smaller than other types of
fabric filters in the treatment of the same amount of gas and dust, making higher gas-to-cloth ratios
achievable.

5.3-15
5.3-16
 A disadvantage of pulse-jet units that use very high gas velocities is that the dust from the
cleaned bags can be drawn immediately to the other bags.2 If this occurs, little of the dust falls into the
hopper and the dust layers on the bags becomes too thick. To prevent this, pulse-jet fabric filters can
be designed with separate compartments that can be isolated for cleaning.

[Link] Other Fabric Filter Designs

The less common fabric filter designs of reverse-jet, vibrational, and sonic cleaning, and
cartridge filters are briefly described below.

Reverse-Jet Cleaning:2 Reverse-jet fabric filters have internal cake collection and employ felted
fabrics. Each bag is cleaned by a jet ring which travels up and down the outside of the bag on a
carriage. The rings blow a small jet of moderately pressurized air through the felt, dislodging the dust
on the inside of the bags. Reverse-jet designs are generally used when high-efficiency collection is
required for fine particles at low dust loadings, such as toxic or valuable dusts. This fabric filter cleaning
method mechanism provides high efficiency at high G/C ratios, but its industrial application seems to be
declining.

Vibration Cleaning:2 Vibration cleaning is similar to mechanical shaker cleaning. However, in

vibrational cleaning, the tops of the bags are attached to one plate, rather than a series of shaker bars as
with mechanical shaker cleaning. To clean the bags, the plate is oscillated in a horizontal direction at a
high frequency. This creates a ripple in the bags which dislodges the filter cake. Vibration cleaning is
most effective for medium- to large-sized particles with weak adhesive properties, therefore this
cleaning method is limited to applications where fine particle collection is not needed.

Sonic Cleaning:6,10 Sonic cleaning is generally used to assist another cleaning method, such as
reverse air cleaning. Sonic horns are installed inside the fabric filter compartments, where the bags are
periodically blasted with sonic energy. The frequency and amplitude of the soundwaves can be
adjusted to maximize the effect for a given dust. The soundwave shock causes a boundary layer to
form in the filter cake; this allows more of the cake to be dislodged during cleaning and, hence,
improves cleaning efficiency. Over half of the reverse gas fabric filters also use sonic horns, either
continuously or intermittently.11

Cartridge Dust Collectors:2,12 Cartridge collectors are pleated fabrics that are contained in
completed closed containers, or cartridges. These collectors offer high efficiency filtration combined
with a significant size reduction in the fabric filter unit. A cartridge filter occupies much less space than
filter bags with the same amount of filtration media. In addition, cartridge collectors can operate at
higher G/C ratios than fabric filters. Cartridges can be pulse cleaned, and some types can be washed
and reused. Cartridge replacement is also much simpler than filter bag replacement. However, this
type of fabric filter has been limited to low flow rate and low temperature applications. New filter
materials and collector designs are increasing the applications of cartridge filters.

5.3-17
5.3.3 Fabric Characteristics

Fabric selection is a very important feature of fabric filter operation. There are many fibers that
can be used effectively used as filters, with different properties that determine their appropriate
applications. In general, fibers can be made into woven or felted fabrics. The cleaning method affects
the fiber choice, since some fibers wear quickly and lose their effectiveness as a result of frequent
flexing or shaking. The fabric type must also fit the cleaning method, and the stream and particle
characteristics. Woven fabrics are preferred for shaker and reverse-air fabric filters. Felted fabrics are
recommended for pulse-jet and reverse-jet fabric filters. The use of felt is generally limited to external
surface dust collection styles.2

The major gas stream characteristics to consider when selecting fabrics are temperature and
chemical composition. Most fabrics are degraded by high temperatures.2 Among the variety of
available fabrics, there is a wide range of maximum operating temperatures that can be matched to the
range of temperatures in the different applications. Some fabrics are also easily degraded by acids,
whereas others are highly resistant to acids. Alkalis, oxidizers, and solvents are other types of
chemicals that can damage filter materials.2 New fibers, such as Ryton, Gore-Tex, and Chem-
Pro, are continually in development for high temperature and other demanding applications.13
Ceramic fabrics, Nextel for example, have recently been developed and can function at temperatures
up to 1000F.13,14 Table 5.3-2 lists the maximum operating temperatures, and physical and chemical
resistances of various industrial-used fabrics.2

The important particle characteristics to consider in fabric selection are size, abrasion potential,
and release potential. The average sizes of the particles can be a factor in the selection of the type of
weave or felt that is chosen for a particular application. With very abrasive dusts, care must be taken
to insure that the fabric will not wear out too quickly. Moist or sticky dusts require a fabric that will
easily release the dust cake, or that is coated with some type of lubricant layer.2

Several different finishes and textures have been developed for fiberglass fabrics to increase
their use in filtration. There are also many coatings and chemical treatments available to provide
lubrication and other properties to fibers to improve their performance.

5.3.4 Collection Efficiency

Well-designed and maintained fabric filters that are operated correctly should collect greater
than 99 percent of particles ranging in size from submicrometer to hundreds of micrometers.1 There are
several factors which can affect the collection efficiency of fabric filters. These factors include gas
filtration velocity, particle characteristics, fabric characteristics, and cleaning mechanism. In general,
collection efficiency increases with increasing filtration velocity and particle size. Other particle
characteristics, as well as the type of cleaning method, are key variables in fabric filter design. An

5.3-18
improperly designed fabric filter will not function as well as possible and will oftentimes impact
efficiency.

5.3-19
 Table 5.3-2. Temperature Ranges, and Physical and Chemical Resistances of
Common Industrial Fabrics (from Reference 2 and 14)

Physical Resistance Chemical Resistance

Maximum
Operating
Temperature Dry Moist Shakin Mineral Organic
Fabric Type (F) Heat Heat Abrasion g Flexing Acids Acids Alkalies Oxidizers Solvents

Cotton 180 G G F G G P G F F E

Dacron 275 G F G E E G G F G E

Orlon 275 G G G G E G G F G E

Nylon 225 G G E E E P F G F E

Dynel 160 F F F F-P G G G G G G

Polypropylene 200 G F E E G E E E G G

Creslan 275 G G G G E G G F G E

Vycron 300 G F G E E G G G G E

5.3-20
Nomex 400 E E E E E F-P E G G E

Teflon 450 E E F-P G G E E E E E

Nextel 1000 E E NA NA NA E E E E E

Wool 215 F F G F G F F P P F

Glass 550 E E P P F E E G E E

Note: E = Excellent, G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor, NA = Not available.

 For a given combination of filter design and dust, the effluent particle concentration from a
fabric filter is nearly constant whereas the overall efficiency of a fabric filter is more likely to vary with
particulate loading.2 For this reason, fabric filters can be considered constant outlet devices rather than
constant efficiency devices. Constant effluent concentration is achieved because at any given time part
of the fabric filter is being cleaned. Unlike cyclones, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators, fabric
filters never really achieve a steady state of particle collection.2 As a result of the cleaning mechanisms
used in fabric filters, the collection efficiency at a given time is always changing. Each cleaning cycle
removes at least some of the filter cake and loosens particles which remain on the filter. When filtration
resumes, the filtering capability has been reduced because of the lost filter cake and loose particles are
pushed through the filter by the flow of gas. This reduces the collection efficiency. As particles are
captured the efficiency increases until the next cleaning cycle. Average collection efficiencies for fabric
filters are usually determined from tests that cover a number of cleaning cycles at a constant inlet
loading.2

Earlier, Figure 5.3-2 showed typical fractional collection efficiency curves versus particle size
for fabric filters. Figure 5.3-8 shows cumulative collection efficiency curves for fabric filters in
operation in the utility, ferroalloys, and the iron and steel industry industries, respectively, that were
calculated from reported test data.15 The collection efficiency data for PM10 and PM2.5 are provided in
Table 5.3-3.

5.3.5 Applicability

Fabric filters can perform very effectively in many different applications. The variety of designs
and fabrics allows for adaptability to most situations. For most applications, there are several
combinations of cleaning method and filter fabric that are appropriate. Table 5.3-4 lists common
applications of fabric filters and their recommended cleaning methods and fabrics. Table 5.3-1 above
provided the recommended G/C ratios for various applications of fabric filters. There are also
empirical methods for determining G/C ratios for a given application, which are described in Chapter 5
of the OAQPS Cost Manual.

Although fabric filters can be used in many different conditions, there are some factors which
limit their applications. The characteristics of the dust are one factor. Some particles are too adhesive
for fabric filters. While such particles are easily collected, they are too difficult to remove from the
bags. Particles from oil combustion are an example of a very sticky dust, most of which is thought to be
heavy hydrocarbons. For this reason, fabric filters are not recommended for boilers which fire oil
exclusively;4 however, fabric filters are often used with boilers which fire oil as a secondary fuel.

5.3-21
5.3-22
 Table 5.3-3. PM10 and PM2.5 Cumulative Collection Efficiencies for
Fabric Filters at Coal Combustors, Ferroalloy Electric Arc Furnaces, and
Iron and Steel Production Operations (from Reference 15).

Collection Efficiency (percent)

Application PM 10 PM 2.5

Coal-fired Boilers

Dry bottom (bituminous) 99.2 98.3

Spreader stoker (bituminous) 99.9 99.3

Spreader stoker (anthracite) 99.4 98.4

Ferroalloy Electric Arc Furnaces

Iron silicate 97.0 97.6

Iron manganese 98.3 98.7

Silica 96.3 96.9

Iron and Steel Production

Desulfurization 96.7 96.8

Gray iron cupolas 93.9 93.4

Table 5.3-4. Typical Cleaning Methods and Fabrics

for Industrial Applications of Fabric Filters (from Reference 2)

Source Typical
Category Cleaning
Application Code Methodsa Typical Fabrics b

Utility Boilers 1-01-002...003 MS, PJ, Fiberglass, Teflon, Teflon treated Glass
(Coal) RA with SA

Industrial Boilers 1-02-001...003 PJ, RA Fiberglass, Teflon, Teflon treated Glass

(Coal, Wood) 1-02-009

Commercial/Institutional 1-03-001...003 PJ, RA Fiberglass, Teflon, Teflon treated Glass

Boilers 1-03-009
(Coal, Wood)

Non-Ferrous Metals
Processing (Primary and
Secondary)

5.3-23
 Source Typical
Category Cleaning
Application Code Methodsa Typical Fabrics b

Copper 3-03-005 MS, RA Fiberglass, Dacron, Polypropylene, Nomex,

3-04-002 Teflon

Lead 3-03-010 MS, RA Polypropylene, Nomex, Teflon, Dacron, Orlon

3-04-004

Zinc 3-03-030 MS, RA Polypropylene, Nomex, Teflon, Dacron

3-04-008

Aluminum 3-03-000...002 MS, RA Nomex, Dacron, Teflon, Polypropylene

3-04-001

Other 3-03-011...014 MS, RA Nomex, Dacron, Teflon, Polypropylene

3-04-005...006
3-04-010...022

Ferrous Metals Processing

Coke 3-03-003...004 MS, RA Dacron Combination, Teflon

Ferroalloy 3-03-006...007 RA, MS Fiberglass (coated with graphite, silicone, Teflon),

Dacron, Nomex

Iron and Steel 3-03-008...009 RA, MS, PJ Fiberglass with lubricant (silicone, graphite,
Teflon)

Gray Iron 3-04-003 MS, RA Fiberglass (with silicone), Nomex, Orlon

Foundries

Steel Foundries 3-04-007 RA, MS, PJ Fiberglass, Nomex, Dacron, Teflon

3-04-009

Mineral Products

Cement 3-05-006...007 MS, PJ, RA Dacron, Cotton, Wool, Nomex, Fiberglass

Coal Cleaning 3-05-010

Stone Quarrying 3-05-020 MS, PJ, RA Cotton, Orlon, Dacron

and Processing

Other 3-05-003...999 MS, PJ, RA Fiberglass, Nomex, Teflon, Orlon, Nylon, Dacron,
(except above) Dynel, Cotton

Asphalt Manufacture 3-05-001...002 PJ, RA, MS Nomex, Fiberglass

Grain and Feed Milling PJ, RA Dacron

a
MS = Mechanical Shaking, RA = Reverse Air, PJ = Pulse Jet, SA = Sonic Assistance

5.3-24
 Table 5.3-4. (continued)
b
Fabrics are not specified as woven or felted. Felted fabrics are generally recommended for
pulse-jet cleaning, woven fabrics are usually utilized for reverse-air and mechanical shaker
cleaning.

5.3-25
 The potential for explosion is also a concern for certain fabric filters applications. Some fabrics
are flammable, and some dusts and stream components may form explosive mixtures. If a fabric filter is
chosen to control explosive mixtures, care must be taken when designing and operating the fabric filters
to eliminate conditions which could ignite the dust, the stream, and the bags. In addition, the fabric
filters should be designed to prevent operator injuries in the event of an explosion.

Temperature and humidity are also limiting factors in the use of fabric filters. Currently, there
are few fabric filters in applications where temperatures exceed 500F for long periods of time.
However, new fibers which can operate at temperatures in the 900 to 1000F range are commercially
available and in use at some installations. An example of such a fabric is the ceramic fabric Nextel.
This fabric is very effective, but is also very expensive and is priced much higher than Teflon, the most
expensive of the commonly used filter fabrics.13 The high cost of new filter fabrics may discourage the
use of fabric filters in very high temperature applications. Humidity can also be a problem when
considering fabric filters. Moist particles can be difficult to clean from the bags and can bridge over and
clog the hopper.1 Streams with high humidity can also require baghouses with insulation to maintain
temperatures well above the dew point to prevent condensation.

5.3.6 Costs of Fabric Filters

The costs of installing and operating a fabric filter includes capital and annual costs. Capital
costs include all of the initial equipment-related costs of the fabric filter. Annual costs are the direct
costs of operating and maintaining the fabric filter for one year, plus such indirect costs as overhead;
capital recovery; and taxes, insurance, and administrative charges. The following sections discuss
capital and annual costs for various fabric filter designs. Capital costs have been referenced to the third
quarter of 1995. The major design consideration, regarding cost, is the G/C ratio (G/C). The G/C is
dependent on several factors and must be optimized to balance the capital costs, in terms of the fabric
filters size, and the annual operating costs, in particular the pressure drop.1

[Link] Capital Costs

The total capital investment (TCI) for fabric filters includes all of the initial capital costs of the
fabric filter, both direct and indirect. Direct capital costs are the purchased equipment costs (PEC) and
the costs of physically installing the equipment (foundations and supports, electrical wiring, piping, etc.).
Indirect capital costs are also related to installation and include engineering, contractor fees, start-up,
testing, and contingencies. The PEC is dependent upon the fabric filter design specifications; direct and
indirect installation costs are generally calculated as a factors of the PEC.16 Commonly used factors for
estimating fabric filter capital costs are provided in Table 5.3-5.

There are several design factors which influence fabric filter PEC, and in turn the TCI of fabric
filters. Important factors include the inlet gas flow rate, the cleaning mechanism, the type

5.3-26
 Table 5.3-5. Capital Cost Factors for Fabric Filters (from Reference 16)

Cost Item Factor

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

Fabric filter + bags + auxiliary equipment As estimated (A)

Instrumentation 0.10 A
Sales taxes 0.03 A
Freight 0.05 A
Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) B = 1.18 A

Direct installation costs

Foundations and supports 0.04 B

Handling and erection 0.50 B
Electrical 0.08 B
Piping 0.01 B
Insulation for ductwork 0.07 B
Painting 0.02 B
Total direct installation cost 0.72 B

Site Preparation and Buildings As required (Site)

Total Direct Cost (DC) 1.72 B + Site

Indirect Costs (installation)

Engineering 0.10 B
Construction and field expense 0.20 B
Contractor fees 0.10 B
Start-up 0.01 B
Performance test 0.01 B
Contingencies 0.03 B
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 0.45 B

Total Capital Investment = DC + IC 2.17 B + Site

of dust, the dust loading, particle characteristics, gas stream characteristics, and fabric type. Please
refer to Chapter 5 of the OAQPS Control Cost Manual for cost equations.16

Gas Flow Rate: The inlet flow rate has the greatest impact on the costs of a fabric filter, since it
affects the necessary fabric filter size. For any one fabric filter cleaning type, as the gas flow rate
increases so does the fabric filter size and, consequently, the costs. Fabric filters typically treat flow
rates from 10,000 to over 1,000,000 acfm. 2 Although fabric filter costs increase approximately linearly
with gas flow rate, the slope of the cost curve depends on the other design features that are discussed
below.

5.3-27
 Cleaning Mechanism: The fabric filter cleaning mechanism is the next most important design
feature in terms of costs. Figure 5.3-9 presents cost versus gas flow rate curves for different fabric
filters cleaning mechanisms with Nomex fabric treating similar streams.17 Cost curves for two
different types of pulse-jet fabric filters, common-housing and modular, are provided in Figure 5.3-9,
along with reverse air and mechanical shaker cleaning cost information. Pulse-jet common-housing
fabric filters are fabric filter that not taken off-line for cleaning. Modular pulse-jet fabric filters are
constructed with bags in separate compartments which can be taken off-line for cleaning.16 Figure 5.3-
9 illustrates that reverse air and mechanical shaker cleaning fabric filters have higher TCI costs than
pulse-jet (with reverse air units the highest), largely due to the much lower G/C ratios, which raises
capital costs. In terms of pulse-jet cleaning fabric filters, modular pulse-jet units are slightly more
expensive than common-housing units in terms of TCI.

Although different cleaning mechanisms can operate over different ranges of G/C ratios, pulse-
jet fabric filters generally operate at higher G/C ratios compared to shaker and reverse-air models. For
this reason, pulse-jet fabric filters are usually smaller (with lower TCI costs) than other fabric filter
designs that treat the same flow rate. However, the cleaning mechanism is not chosen simply because
of the resultant fabric filter size. Some cleaning mechanisms may not be recommended for certain dust
types (See Table 5.3-4 above). In addition, the choice of cleaning mechanism also affects the choice
(and resultant costs) for fabric and auxiliary equipment. When choosing between cleaning mechanisms,
the PEC is calculated for all applicable designs to determine the least expensive option.

Gas-to-Cloth Ratio: Dust type is most responsible for determining the correct G/C ratio for a
particular fabric filter. Each combination of dust and fabric filter cleaning method has a recommended
G/C ratio that in most cases has been arrived at through actual fabric filter operations. For a given flow
rate, a higher G/C ratios will result in a smaller fabric filter and lower TCI costs. Figure 5.3-10 shows
typical cost curves for mechanical shaker and pulse-jet fabric filters operating at G/C ratios appropriate
for each cleaning type.17 Although mechanical shaker cost curves are generally higher than pulse-jet
(modular) cost curves, a fabric filter with mechanical shaker cleaning and a high G/C ratio (curve C) has
similar TCI costs to a pulse-jet cleaned fabric filter with a low G/C ratio (curve D).

Dust Loading: The dust loading is a measure of the amount of dust per volume of gas being
treated that is generally expressed as the weight of dust per unit volume of gas
(e.g. grams per cubic foot (g/ft 3)). While the type of dust generally determines the best G/C ratio, the
dust loading may cause adjustments to the recommended ratio. For high dust loadings, the G/C ratio
should be decreased so that more fabric is available to handle the high dust levels.1 With low dust
loadings, the G/C ratio can be increased, which in turn will reduce the fabric filter size.

5.3-28
 18.0
)

16.0 Reverse-Air,
G/C = 2
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

14.0
Mechanical Shaker,
12.0 G/C = 2
Pulse-Jet (modular),
10.0 G/C = 4.5
Pulse-Jet (common),
8.0
G/C = 4.5
6.0
Note:
4.0
Costs are referenced to
2.0 fourth quarter 1996, and
include Nomex filter bags.
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 106 )

Figure 5.3-9. Effect of Cleaning Mechanism on Fabric Filter TCI (Reference 17).

18.0
)

16.0
A Mechanical Shaker
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

14.0 A. G/C = 1.5

B. G/C = 2.5
12.0
B C. G/C = 3.5
10.0 Pulse-Jet (modular):
D. G/C = 5
8.0 C E. G/C = 9
6.0 F. G/C = 13
D
4.0 Note:
E
Costs are referenced to
2.0
F fourth quarter 1996, and
0.0 include Nomex filter bags.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 106 )

Figure 5.3-10. Effect of Gas-to-Cloth Ratio on Fabric Filter TCI (Reference 17).

5.3-29
 Particle Characteristics: Particle size and adhesiveness are particle characteristics that will
influence fabric filter design and costs. The G/C ratio should be decreased for small particles and
increased for large particles.1 The adhesive properties of the dust will affect the fabric and cleaning
mechanism selection. Higher intensity cleaning mechanisms, like pulse-jet, work best with sticky
particles, as well as fabrics with coatings such as teflon or other lubricants.

Gas Stream Characteristics: The two primary stream characteristics that influence fabric filter
design and capital costs are the temperature and chemical properties of the gas stream. Both
characteristics can have a major impact on the fabric selection, since the available fabrics have widely
varying resistances to heat and chemical degradation (see Table 5.3-2 above). In addition, gas stream
properties can affect the construction of the fabric filter. High temperature streams require insulation of
the fabric filters. Streams with highly corrosive components will need a fabric filter constructed of
corrosion-resistant stainless steel. Insulation and corrosion-resistant materials can be very expensive
additions to the cost of a fabric filter, as shown in Figure 5.3-11; the use of stainless steel, however, has
a greater cost impact on fabric filters than insulation.17

Fabric Type: Fabric type is usually selected to a great extent by the type of fabric filter cleaning
method, dust type, and the characteristics of the particles and the gas stream. While these factors may
limit the choices, there are usually at least two fabrics that can perform satisfactorily in a given situation.
There is a wide range of prices among the typical fabrics, but it is not recommended that fabrics be
chosen based on cost alone. Some higher priced fabrics

14.0
Insulation and
12.0 Stainless Steel
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10 )

Stainless Steel Only

10.0

Insulation Only
8.0

Basic Pulse-Jet
6.0 Fabric Filter
(modular G/C = 5)
4.0
Note:
2.0 Costs are referenced to

fourth quarter 1996 and

include glass filter bags.

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
6
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 10 )

Figure 5.3-11. Effect of Insulation and Stainless Steel on Fabric Filter TCI (Reference 17).

5.3-30
have longer operating lives, resulting in lower maintenance and replacement and costs.4 Figures 5.3-12 and
5.3-13 show capital cost curves for reverse-air and pulse-jet fabric filters, respectively, with typical fabric
types.17

[Link] Annual Costs

The total annual cost of a fabric filter consists of both direct and indirect costs. Direct annual costs
are those associated with the operation and maintenance of the fabric filter. These include labor (operating,
supervisory, and maintenance), operating materials, replacement parts, electricity, compressed air (for
pulse-jet), and dust disposal.

Disposal costs for collected dusts that have no reuse value can be high, comprising sometimes over
50 percent of the annual costs. Indirect annual costs include taxes, insurance, administrative costs,
overhead, and capital recovery costs. All indirect annual costs except overhead are dependent on the TCI.
In most cases, annual costs are difficult to generalize because they depend on many factors which can vary
widely, even among similar fabric filters. Table 5.3-6 lists the annual cost parameters that impact fabric
filter costs, with typical values provided for each parameter. Table 5.3-7 provides the annual cost factors
for fabric filters. It is difficult to generalize these costs for all fabric filters, since annual costs are very site-
specific.16

Electricity costs, however, are a significant portion of the annual costs for most fabric filters. The
fabric filters fans consume the majority of the electrical power; the cleaning equipment also requires power.
Fan power consumption is directly related to the pressure drop across the fabric filter, which in turn is
directly dependent upon the G/C ratio. As the G/C ratio increases, so does the pressure drop and resultant
electricity costs. As mentioned above, increasing the G/C ratio will decrease the fabric filters size and
capital costs. Fabric filters are generally designed to operate at a specific pressure drop. The G/C ratio
should be selected to minimize the annual costs while maintaining the design pressure drop. Power
requirements for fans can be calculated by the following relationship:

Fan Power (kW-hr/yr) = 1.81 10-4(V)()P)(t) (Eq. 5.3-1)

where V is the gas flow rate (ACFM), )P is the pressure drop (in. H2O), t is the operating hours per year,
and 1.81 x 10-4 is a unit conversion factor. Once the fan power is determined, it can be multiplied by the
cost of electricity (in $/kW-hr) to determine the electrical costs.16

Figure 5.3-14 shows annual operating cost curves for four different fabric filter types.17 The curves
represent annual costs for the same fabric filter designs used in Figure 5.3-9. For each fabric filter type,
identical values for the design parameter listed in Table 5.3-6 were used to prepare the curves in both
figures. Although the same trend in costs is observed for annual costs as for TCI costs, where reverse-air
fabric filter costs are highest and pulse-jet lowest, the advantage of pulse-jet fabric filters in terms of annual
costs is not as distinct as with capital costs.

5.3-31
5.3-32
 14.0

12.0
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10 )

10.0 Nomex

Fiberglass
8.0
Polyester
6.0

4.0
Note:
Costs are referenced to
2.0 fourth quarter 1996.

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
6
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 10 )

Figure 5.3-12. Effect of Fabric Type on TCI - Reverse-Air Fabric Filter, G/C=2.5 (Reference 17).

12.0
)

Teflon
10.0
Total Capital Investment ($ x 10

Nomex
8.0
Fiberglass

6.0 Polypropylene

4.0 Note:
Costs are referenced
to fourth quarter
2.0
1996.

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
6
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 10 )

Figure 5.3-13. Effect of Fabric Type on TCI - Pulse-Jet Fabric Filter, G/C=5 (Reference 17).

5.3-33
 Table 5.3-6. Annual Cost Parameters for Fabric Filters (Reference 17) Annual Operating Cost ($ x 10 )

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

0.0
Parameter Description Typical Values

Direct Cost Parameters

Operating factor (OF) Hours of fabric filter operation per year 8,640 hr/yr
Operator labor rate (OR) Operator labor pay rate $12.50/hra

0.2
Operator shift factor (OS) Fraction of operator shift on fabric filter 0.25b
Maintenance labor rate (MR) Maintenance labor pay rate 1.1 x ORb
Maintenance shift (MS) factor Fraction of maintenance shift on f.f. 0.125b
Electricity rate (ER) Cost of electricity $0.07/kW-hra
Compressed air (CA) Cost of compressed air $0.18/1000 scfa
0.4

Dust disposal (DD) Cost of disposing of dust $20-30/tona

Bag capital rec. factor (BCRF) Function of (b) and (i) 0.5531c
Indirect Cost Parameters
Overhead factor (OV) Fraction of total labor costs 0.60b
0.6

5.3-34
Annual interest rate (I) Opportunity cost of the capital 7 percentb
Inlet Flowrate (acfm x 106 )

Operating life (n) Expected operating life of fabric filter 20 yearsb

Capital recovery factor (CRF) Function of (n) and (i) 0.0944c
Bag life (b) Expected operating life of filter bags 2 yearsb
0.8

Taxes (TAX) Fraction of the TCI d 0.01b

Insurance (INS) Fraction of the TCI d 0.01b
Figure 5.3-14. Annual Fabric Filter Operating Costs (Reference 17).

Administrative costs (AC) Fraction of the TCI d 0.02b

a
Estimated for 1996 from currently available information.
1.0

b
Estimates from "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets (Reference 17).
c
Capital Recovery Factor is calculated from the following formula:
Note:

CRF = {i(1 + i)n} {(1 + i)n - 1},

where i = interest rate (fraction) and n (or b) = operating life (years).
d
replacement.

The total capital investment (TCI) can be escalated to current values by using the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indicies
G/C = 2
G/C = 2

(VAPCCI), described in Appendix B.

G/C = 4.5
G/C = 4.5
Reverse-Air,

Costs are referenced to

include Nomex filter bag

fourth quarter 1996, and
Mechanical Shaker,

Pulse-Jet (modular),

Pulse-Jet (common),
 Table 5.3-7. Annual Cost Factors for Fabric Filters (Reference 17).

Cost Item Formulaa Factor

Direct Costs
Labor
Operator (OL) (OF)(OR)(OS) A
Maintenance (ML) (OF)(MR)(MS) 0.55 A
Electricity (E) Powerb (ER) E
Compressed air (C) (CA) scf per year C
Dust disposal (D) (DD) tons per year D
Bag Capital Recovery (BCRF)(BAG)c 0.5531 BAG

Total Direct Cost (DC) 1.55 A + E + C + D + 0.5531 BAG

Indirect Costs
Overhead (OV)(OL+ML) 0.93 A
Capital Recovery (CRF)(TCI) 0.0944 TCI
Taxes (TAX)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Insurance (INS)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Administrative Costs (AC)(TCI) 0.02 TCI

Total Indirect Cost (IC) 0.93 A + 0.1344 TCI

Total Annual Cost (DC + IC) 2.48 A + 0.1344 TCI + 0.5531 BAG + E + C + D

a
Includes values also described in Table 5.3-6.
b
Equal to total power requirements, e.g. fan, shaker, etc.
c
BAG = the capital cost of the filter bags only.

5.3-35
5.3.7 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts

The vast majority of energy demands for fabric filters are for fan operation. Other minor energy
requirements are for cleaning mechanism operation and air compression. The
fan power requirements can be calculated from the above mentioned formula. Energy requirements for
cleaning mechanisms are very site specific.16

The major secondary environmental impact of fabric filters is the generation of solid waste. Fabric
filters collect large amounts of particulate matter, which must be disposed of in many cases. The
characteristics of the waste are ultimately dependent on the specific installation. In most applications fabric
filters collect dust which is nontoxic and suitable for landfilling, but some dusts are valuable and can be
recycled or sold. In some applications, fabric filters may collect dusts which are toxic or hazardous. Such
dusts will require special handling and treatment prior to disposal.2

5.3-36
5.3.8 References for Section 5.3

1. Cooper, C.D and F.C. Alley. Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach. 2nd ed.
Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. 1994.

2. The Fabric Filter Manual (Revised). The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. March
1996.

3. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a, NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

4. McKenna, J.D. and J.H. Turner. Fabric Filter-Baghouses I: Theory, Design, and Selection
(A Reference Text). ETS Inc., Roanoke, Virginia. 1993.

5. Jensen, R.M. Give Reverse-air Fabric Filters a Closer Look. Power, 139:2. February 1995.

6. Schlotens, M.J. Air Pollution Control: A Comprehensive Look. Pollution Engineering. May
1991.

7. Pontius, D.H. Characterization of Sonic Devices Used for Cleaning Fabric Filters. J. Air
Pollution Control Association. 35:1301. December 1985.

8. Belba, V.H., W.T. Grubb, and R. Chang. The Potential of Pulse-Jet Baghouses for Utility
Boilers. Part 1: A Worldwide Survey of Users. Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association. 42:2. February 1992.

9. Carr, R.C. Pulse-Jet Fabric Filters Vie for Utility Service. Power. December 1988.

10. Carr, R.C. and W.B. Smith. Fabric Filter Technology for Utility Coal-Fired Power Plants,
Part V: Development and Evaluation of Bag Cleaning Methods in Utility Baghouses. J. Air
Poll. Control Assoc. 34(5):584. May 1984.

11. Oglesby, S., Jr. Future Directions of Particulate Control Technology: A Perspective. J. Air
Waste Management Assoc. 40(8): 1184-1185. August 1990.

12. Grafe, T. and K. Gregg. Baghouse and Cartridge Dust Collectors: A Comparison. American
Ceramic Society Bulletin. 72:9. September 1993.

13. Parkinson, G. A Hot and Dirty Future For Baghouses. Chemical Engineering. April 1989.

14. Croom, M.L. New Developments in Filter Dust Collection. Chemical Engineering. February
1996.

5.3-37
15. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Volume I (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1995.

16. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. January 1990.

17. Vatavuk, W.M. "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets. Provided by the Innovative
Strategies and Economics Group of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1996.

5.3-38
5.4 WET SCRUBBERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1
5.4.1 Particle Collection and Penetration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1
5.4.2 Types of Wet Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-2
[Link] Spray Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-3
[Link] Packed-Bed Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-3
[Link] Impingement Plate Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-8
[Link] Mechanically-aided Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-8
[Link] Venturi Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-11
[Link] Orifice Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-11
[Link] Condensation Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-14
[Link] Charged Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-14
[Link] Fiber-Bed Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-18
5.4.3 Collection Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-18
5.4.4 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-22
5.4.5 Costs of PM Wet Scrubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-25
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-25
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-28
5.4.6 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-32
5.4.7 References for Section 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-35
5.4 WET SCRUBBERS

Wet scrubbers are PM control devices that rely on direct and irreversible contact of a liquid
(droplets, foam, or bubbles) with the PM. The liquid with the collected PM is then easily collected.
Scrubbers can be very specialized and designed in many different configurations. Wet scrubbers are
generally classified by the method that is used to induce contact between the liquid and the PM, e.g.
spray, packed-bed, plate. Scrubbers are also often described as low-, medium-, or high-energy,
where energy is often expressed as the pressure drop across the scrubber. This section addresses the
basic operating principles, designs, collection efficiency, applicability, and costs of wet scrubbers.

Wet scrubbers have important advantages when compared to other PM collection devices.
They can collect flammable and explosive dusts safely, absorb gaseous pollutants, and collect mists.
Scrubbers can also cool hot gas streams. There are also some disadvantages associated with wet
scrubbers. For example, scrubbers have the potential for corrosion and freezing. Additionally, the use
of wet scrubbers can lead to water and solid waste pollution problems.1 These disadvantages can be
minimized or avoided with good scrubber design.

5.4.1 Particle Collection and Penetration Mechanisms

The dominant means of PM capture in most industrial wet scrubbers is inertial impaction of the
PM onto liquid droplets. Brownian diffusion also leads to particle collection, but its effects are only
significant for particles approximately 0.1 micrometer (:m) in diameter or less.2 Direct interception is
another scrubber collection mechanism. Less important scrubber collection mechanisms utilize
gravitation, electrostatics, and condensation. 2

Inertial impaction in wet scrubbers occurs as a result of a change in velocity between PM

suspended in a gas, and the gas itself. As the gas approaches an obstacle, such as a liquid droplet, the
gas changes direction and flows around the droplet. The particles in the gas will also accelerate and
attempt to change direction to pass around the droplet. Inertial forces will attempt to maintain the
forward motion of the particle towards the object, but the fluid force will attempt to drag the particle
around the droplet with the gas. The resultant particle motion is a combination of these forces of fluid
drag and inertia. This results in impaction for the particles where inertia dominates, and by-pass for
those particles overwhelmed by fluid drag.2 Large particles, particles i.e. greater than 10 m are more
easily collected by inertial impaction because these particles have more inertial momentum to resist
changes in the flow of the gas and, therefore, impact the droplet. Small particles (i.e. particles <1 m)
are more difficult to collect by inertial impaction because they remain in the flow lines of the gas due to
the predominance of the fluid drag force.

Collection by diffusion occurs as a result of both fluid motion and the Brownian (random)
motion of particles. This particle motion in the scrubber chamber results in direct particle-liquid
contact. Since this contact is irreversible, collection of the PM by the liquid occurs. Diffusional

5.4-1
collection effects are most significant for particles less than 0.1 m in diameter.2 Direct interception
occurs when the path of a particle comes within one radius of the collection medium, which in a
scrubber is a liquid droplet. The path can be the result of inertia, diffusion, or fluid motion.2

Gravitational collection as a result of falling droplets colliding with particles is closely related to
impaction and interception, and is a minor mechanism in some scrubbers.2 Gravitational settling of
particles is usually not a factor because of high gas velocities and short residence times.3 Generally,
electrostatic attraction is not an important mechanism except in cases where the particles, liquid, or
both, are being deliberately charged, or where the scrubber follows an electrostatic precipitator.3
Some scrubbers are designed to enhance particle capture through condensation. In such cases, the
dust-laden stream is supersaturated with liquid (usually water). The particles then act as condensation
nuclei, growing in size as more liquid condenses around them and becoming easier to collect by inertial
impaction.2,4

The collection mechanisms of wet scrubbers are highly dependent on particle size. Inertial
impaction is the major collection mechanism for particles greater than approximately 0.1 :m in
diameter. The effectiveness of inertial impaction increases with increasing particle size. Diffusion is
generally effective only for particles less than 0.1 :m in diameter, with collection efficiency increasing
with decreasing particle size. The combination of these two major scrubber collection mechanisms
contributes to a minimum collection efficiency for PM approximately 0.1 :m in diameter.5 The exact
minimum efficiency for a specific scrubber will depend on the type of scrubber, operating conditions,
and the particle size distribution in the gas stream. Scrubber collection efficiency is discussed in more
detail in Section 5.4.3.

5.4.2 Types of Wet Scrubbers

There are a great variety of wet scrubbers that are either commercially available or can be
custom designed. While all wet scrubbers are similar to some extent, there are several distinct methods
of using the scrubbing liquid to achieve particle collection. Wet scrubbers are usually classified
according to the method that is used to contact the gas and the liquid.

The most common scrubber design is the introduction of liquid droplets into a spray chamber,
where the liquid is mixed with the gas stream to promote contact with the PM. In a packed-bed
scrubber, layers of liquid are used to coat various shapes of packing material that become impaction
surfaces for the particle-laden gas. Scrubber collection can also be achieved by forcing the gas at high
velocities though a liquid to form jet streams. Liquids are also used to supersaturate the gas stream,
leading to particle scrubbing by condensation.

5.4-2
[Link] Spray Chambers

Spray chambers are very simple, low-energy wet scrubbers. In these scrubbers, the
particulate-laden gas stream is introduced into a chamber where it comes into contact with liquid
droplets generated by spray nozzles. These scrubbers are also known as pre-formed spray scrubbers,
since the liquid is formed into droplets prior to contact with the gas stream. The size of the droplets
generated by the spray nozzles is controlled to maximize liquid-particle contact and, consequently,
scrubber collection efficiency.

The common types of spray chambers are spray towers and cyclonic chambers. Spray towers
are cylindrical or rectangular chambers that can be installed vertically or horizontally. In vertical spray
towers, the gas stream flows up through the chamber and encounters several sets of spray nozzles
producing liquid droplets. A de-mister at the top of the spray tower removes liquid droplets and
wetted PM from the exiting gas stream. Scrubbing liquid and wetted PM also drain from the bottom of
the tower in the form of a slurry. Horizontal spray chambers operate in the same manner, except for
the fact that the gas flows horizontally through the device. A typical spray tower is shown in
Figure 5.4-1.1,2,5

A cyclonic spray chamber is similar to a spray tower with one major difference. The gas
stream is introduced to produce cyclonic motion inside the chamber. This motion contributes to higher
gas velocities, more effective particle and droplet separation, and higher collection efficiency.1
Tangential inlet or turning vanes are common means of inducing cyclonic motion.5 Figure 5.4-2
provides an example of a cyclonic spray chamber.

[Link] Packed-Bed Scrubbers

Packed-bed scrubbers consist of a chamber containing layers of variously-shaped packing

material, such as raschig rings, spiral rings, and berl saddles, that provide a large surface area for liquid-
particle contact. These and other types of packings are illustrated in Figure 5.4-3.2,5 The packing is
held in place by wire mesh retainers and supported by a plate near the bottom of the scrubber.
Scrubbing liquid is evenly introduced above the packing and flows down through the bed. The liquid
coats the packing and establishes a thin film. In vertical designs, the gas stream flows up the chamber
(countercurrent to the liquid). Some packed beds are designed horizontally for gas flow across the
packing (crosscurrent).

In packed-bed scrubbers, the gas stream is forced to follow a circuitous path through the
packing, on which much of the PM impacts. The liquid on the packing collects the PM and flows down
the chamber towards the drain at the bottom of the tower. A mist eliminator (also called a "de-mister")
is typically positioned above/after the packing and scrubbing liquid supply. Any scrubbing liquid and
wetted PM entrained in the exiting gas stream will be removed by the mist eliminator and returned to
drain through the packed bed. A typical packed-bed scrubber is illustrated in Figure 5.4-4.2,5

5.4-3
 In a packed-bed scrubber, high PM concentrations can clog the bed, hence, the limitation of
these devices to streams with relatively low dust loadings.5 Plugging is a serious problem for packed-
bed scrubbers because the packing is more difficult to access and clean than other scrubber designs.2
Mobile-bed scrubbers are available that are packed with low-density plastic spheres that are free to
move within the packed bed.5 These scrubbers are less susceptible to plugging because of the
increased movement of the packing material. In general, packed-bed scrubbers are more suitable for
gas scrubbing than particulate scrubbing because of the high maintenance requirements for control of
PM.1,2

5.4-4
5.4-5
5.4-6
5.4-7
5.4-8
[Link] Impingement Plate Scrubbers

An impingement plate scrubber is a vertical chamber with plates mounted horizontally inside a
hollow shell. Impingement plate scrubbers operate as countercurrent PM collection devices. The
scrubbing liquid flows down the tower while the gas stream flows upward. Contact between the liquid
and the particle-laden gas occurs on the plates. The plates are equipped with openings that allow the
gas to pass through. Some plates are perforated or slotted, while more complex plates have valve-like
openings. Figure 5.4-5 shows common plate designs used in impingement plate scrubbers.2,5

The simplest impingement plate is the sieve plate, which has round perforations. In this type of
scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flows over the plates and the gas flows up through the holes. The gas
velocity prevents the liquid from flowing down through the perforations. Gas-liquid-particle contact is
achieved within the froth generated by the gas passing through the liquid layer. Complex plates, such as
bubble cap or baffle plates, introduce an additional means of collecting PM. The bubble caps and
baffles placed above the plate perforations force the gas to turn before escaping the layer of liquid.
While the gas turns to avoid the obstacles, most PM cannot and is collected by impaction on the caps
or baffles. Bubble caps and the like also prevent liquid from flowing down the perforations if the gas
flow is reduced.

In all types of impingement plate scrubbers, the scrubbing liquid flows across each plate and
down the inside of the tower onto the plate below. After the bottom plate, the liquid and collected PM
flow out of the bottom of the tower. A typical impingement plate scrubber is shown in Figure 5.4-6.2,5
Impingement plate scrubbers are usually designed to provide operator access to each tray, making
them relatively easy to clean and maintain.2 Consequently, impingement plate scrubbers are more
suitable for PM collection than packed-bed scrubbers. Particles greater than 1 :m in diameter can be
collected effectively by impingement plate scrubbers, but many particles <1 m will penetrate these
devices.5

[Link] Mechanically-aided Scrubbers

Mechanically-aided scrubbers (MAS) employ a motor driven fan or impeller to enhance gas-
liquid contact. Generally in MAS, the scrubbing liquid is sprayed onto the fan or impeller blades. Fans
and impellers are capable of producing very fine liquid droplets with high velocities. These droplets are
effective in contacting fine PM. Once PM has impacted on the droplets, it is normally removed by
cyclonic motion. Mechanically aided scrubbers are capable of high collection efficiencies, but only with
a commensurate high energy consumption. An example of a mechanically aided scrubber is provided in
Figure 5.4-7.1,2,5

Because many moving parts are exposed to the gas and scrubbing liquid in a MAS, these
scrubbers have high maintenance requirements. Mechanical parts are susceptible to corrosion, PM
buildup, and wear. Consequently, mechanical scrubbers have limited applications for PM control. 2,5

5.4-9
5.4-10
5.4-11
5.4-12
[Link] Venturi Scrubbers

A venturi, or gas-atomized spray, scrubber accelerates the gas stream to atomize the scrubbing
liquid and to improve gas-liquid contact. In a venturi scrubber, a "throat" section is built into the duct
that forces the gas stream to accelerate as the duct narrows and then expands. As the gas enters the
venturi throat, both gas velocity and turbulence increase. The scrubbing liquid is sprayed into the gas
stream before the gas encounters the venturi throat. The scrubbing liquid is then atomized into small
droplets by the turbulence in the throat and droplet-particle interaction is increased. After the throat
section in a venturi scrubber, the wetted PM and excess liquid droplets are separated from the gas
stream by cyclonic motion and/or a mist eliminator. Venturi scrubbers have the advantage of being
simple in design, easy to install, and with low-maintenance requirements.1 An example of a venturi
scrubber is provided in Figure 5.4-8.

The performance of a venturi scrubber is dependent to some extent on the velocity of the gas
through the throat. Several venturi scrubbers have been designed to allow velocity control by varying
the width of the venturi throat.2,5 Because of the high interaction between the PM and droplets, venturi
scrubbers are capable of high collection efficiencies for small PM. Unfortunately, increasing the venturi
scrubber efficiency requires increasing the pressure drop which, in turn, increases the energy
consumption.1

[Link] Orifice Scrubbers

Orifice scrubbers, also known as entrainment or self-induced spray scrubbers, force the
particle-laden gas stream to pass over the surface of a pool of scrubbing liquid as it enters an orifice.
With the high gas velocities typical of this type of scrubber, the liquid from the pool becomes entrained
in the gas stream as droplets. As the gas velocity and turbulence increases with the passing of the gas
through the narrow orifice, the interaction between the PM and liquid droplets also increases.
Particulate matter and droplets are then removed from the gas stream by impingement on a series of
baffles that the gas encounters after the orifice. The collected liquid and PM drain from the baffles back
into the liquid pool below the orifice.2,5 Orifice scrubbers can effectively collect particles larger than 2
:m in diameter.1,5 Some orifice scrubbers are designed with adjustable orifices to control the velocity of
the gas stream. A typical orifice scrubber is shown in Figure 5.4-9.

Orifice scrubbers usually have low liquid demands, since they use the same scrubbing liquid for
extended periods of time.1 Because orifice scrubbers are relatively simple in design and usually have
few moving parts, the major maintenance concern is the removal of the sludge which collects at the
bottom of the scrubber. Orifice scrubbers rarely drain continually from the bottom because a static
pool of scrubbing liquid is needed at all times. Therefore, the sludge is usually removed with a sludge
ejector that operates like a conveyor belt. As the sludge settles to the bottom of the scrubber, it lands
on the ejector and is conveyed up and out of the scrubber. Figure 5.4-10 shows a typical sludge
ejector.2

5.4-13
5.4-14
5.4-15
5.4-16
[Link] Condensation Scrubbers

Condensation scrubbing is a relatively recent development in wet scrubber technology. Most

conventional scrubbers rely on the mechanisms of impaction and diffusion to achieve contact between
the PM and liquid droplets. In a condensation scrubber, the PM act as condensation nuclei for the
formation of droplets. Generally, condensation scrubbing depends on first establishing saturation
conditions in the gas stream. Once saturation is achieved, steam is injected into the gas stream. The
steam creates a condition of supersaturation and leads to condensation of water on the fine PM in the
gas stream. The large condensed droplets can be removed by several conventional devices. Typically,
a high efficiency mist eliminator is also used.2,4

A high-efficiency condensation "growth" PM scrubber has been developed that is suitable for
both new and retrofit installations, and is designed specifically to capture fine PM that escapes primary
PM control devices. This type of scrubber utilizes a multistage process, including pretreatment and
growth chambers, that provide an environment that encourages the fine PM to coagulate and form
larger particles. A schematic diagram of this scrubber is provided in Figure 5.4-11.4

[Link] Charged Scrubbers

Charged, or electrically-augmented, wet scrubbers utilize electrostatic effects to improve

collection efficiencies for fine PM with wet scrubbing. Since conventional wet scrubbers rely on the
inertial impaction between PM and liquid droplets for PM collection, they are generally ineffective for
particles with diameters less than 1 :m. Pre-charging of the PM in the gas stream can significantly
increase scrubber collection efficiency for these submicrometer particles. When both the particles and
droplets are charged, collection efficiencies for submicrometer particles are highest, approaching that of
an ESP.2

There are several types of charged wet scrubbers. Particulate matter can be charged negatively
or positively, with the droplets given the opposite charge. The droplets may also be bipolar (a mixture
of positive and negative). In this case, the PM can be either bipolar or unipolar. Figure 5.4-12 is a
schematic of a charged wet scrubber.2

[Link] Fiber-Bed Scrubbers

In a fiber-bed scrubbers, the moisture-laden gas stream passes through mats of packing fibers,
such as spun glass, fiberglass, and steel. The fiber mats are often also spray wetted with the scrubbing
liquid. Depending on the scrubber requirements, there may be several fiber mats and an impingement
device for PM removal included in the design. The final fiber mat is typically dry for the removal of any
droplets that are still entrained in the stream. Fiber-bed scrubbers are best suited for the collection of
soluble PM, i.e. PM that dissolves in the scrubber liquid, since large amounts of insoluble PM will clog

5.4-17
the fiber mats with time. For this reason, fiber-bed scrubbers are more often used as mist eliminators,
i.e., for the collection of liquids, rather than for PM control.2

5.4-18
5.4-19
5.4-20
5.4.3 Collection Efficiency

Collection efficiencies for wet scrubbers are highly variable. Most conventional scrubbers can
achieve high collection efficiencies for particles greater than 1.0 :m in diameter, however they are
generally ineffective collection devices for submicrometer (<1 m) particles. Some unconventional
scrubbers, such as condensation and charged, are capable of high collection efficiencies, even for
submicrometer particles. Collection efficiencies for conventional scrubbers depend on operating factors
such as particle size distribution, inlet dust loading, and energy input. Figure 5.4-13 provides scrubber
efficiency curves for coal and oil combustion, wood combustion, and coke production. Table 5.4-1
presents the PM-10 and PM-2.5 collection efficiencies.6

Conventional scrubbers rely almost exclusively on inertial impaction for PM collection. As

discussed above, scrubber efficiency that relies on inertial impaction collection mechanisms will increase
as particle size increases. Therefore, collection efficiency for small particles (<1 m) are expected to be
low for these scrubbers. The efficiency of scrubbers that rely on inertial impaction can be improved,
however, by increasing the relative velocity between the PM and the liquid droplets. Increasing velocity
will result in more momentum for all PM, enabling smaller particles to be collected by impaction. This
can be accomplished in most scrubbers by increasing the gas stream velocity. Unfortunately, increasing
the gas velocity will also increase the pressure drop, energy demand, and operating costs for the
scrubber.1,2,5

Another factor which contributes to low scrubber efficiency for small particles is short residence
times. Typically, a particle is in the contact zone of a scrubber for only a few seconds. This is sufficient
time to collect large particles that are affected by impaction mechanisms. However, since
submicrometer particles are most effectively collected by diffusion mechanisms that depend on the
random motion of the particles, sufficient time in the contact zone is needed for this mechanism to be
effective. Consequently, increasing the gas residence time should also increase the particle/liquid
contact time and the collection efficiency for small particles.2

An important relationship between inlet dust concentration (loading) and collection efficiency for
fine PM in scrubbers has been recently found.7 Collection efficiency for scrubbers has been found to
be directly proportional to the inlet dust concentration. That is, efficiency will increase with increasing
dust loading. This suggests that scrubber removal efficiency is not constant for a given scrubber design
unless it is referenced to a specific inlet dust loading. In contrast, it has been shown that scrubber outlet
dust concentration is a constant, independent of inlet concentration. 7

5.4.4 Applicability

Wet scrubbers have numerous industrial applications and few limitations. They are capable of
collecting basically any type of dust, including flammable, explosive, moist, or sticky dusts. In addition,

5.4-21
they can collect suspended liquids (i.e. mists) or gases alone or with PM simultaneously.1 However,
while scrubbers have many potential applications, there are some

5.4-22
5.4-23
 Table 5.4-1. PM-10 and PM-2.5 Cumulative Collection Efficiencies
for Wet Scrubbers at Coal, Oil, Wood, and Bark Combustors;
and Coke Production Units (Reference 6).

Collection Efficiency (percent)

Application PM-10 PM-2.5
Combustion Sources
Bituminous coal (dry bottom) 81.7 50.0
Residual oil 91.5 88.8
Wood and bark 93.3 92.1
Bark only 85.1 83.8

Coke Production
Coal preheating (venturi scrubber) 92.9 89.0
Coke pushing (mobile-bed scrubber) 95.2 89.0

characteristics that limit their use. The most significant consideration is the relatively low collection
efficiency for fine PM, especially those less than 1.0 :m in diameter. Therefore, conventional scrubbers
may not be suitable for processes which emit many submicrometer particles. As discussed above
venturi, condensation, and charged scrubbers are capable of collecting submicrometer particles at
higher efficiencies than other scrubbers and, therefore, can be used effectively in applications where
there are a large percentage of fine PM in the gas stream. 2

Gas stream composition may also be a limiting factor in scrubber application for a specific
industry, since wet scrubbers are very susceptible to corrosion. 1 The use of wet scrubbers also may
not be desirable when collecting valuable dust which can be recycled or sold. Since scrubbers
discharge collected dust in the form of a wet slurry, reclaiming clean dry dust from this slurry is often
inconvenient and expensive.1 Because of design constraints, particulate scrubbers are generally not
used in very large installations, such as utilities where gas flowrates exceed 250,000 ACFM, since
multiple scrubbers are needed once flowrates exceed 60,000-75,000 ACFM.

5.4-24
 Table 5.4-2 lists current applications of wet scrubbers.1,2,8 It should be noted that the level of
PM control supplied by each of the scrubber types listed in Table 5.4-2 will vary according to the level
of control currently required by each industry and/or facility. The driving
Table 5.4-2. Current Industrial Applications
of Wet Scrubbers (References 1, 2, and 8)

Application Source Category Code Typical Scrubber Type

Utility Boilers 1-01-002...004 Venturi

(Coal, Oil)

Industrial Boilers 1-02-001...005, Venturi, impingement plate (baffle)

(Coal, Oil, Wood, Liquid Waste) -009, -011, -013

Commercial/Institutional Boilers 1-03-001...005 Venturi

(Coal, Oil, Wood) 1-03-009

Chemical Manufacture 3-01-001...999 Packed-bed, venturi, fiber-bed

Non-Ferrous Metals Processing

(Primary and Secondary)

Copper 3-03-005 Spray chamber

3-04-002

Lead 3-03-010 Venturi, (cyclonic) spray chamber,

3-04-004 fiber-bed, charged

Aluminum 3-03-000...002 Spray chamber, packed-bed, venturi, charged

3-04-001

Other 3-03-011...014 (Cyclonic) spray chamber

3-04-005...006
3-04-010...022

Ferrous Metals Processing

Coke Production 3-03-003...004 Charged, venturi, packed-bed (mobile)

Ferroalloy Production 3-03-006...007 Packed-bed, fiber-bed

Iron and Steel Production 3-03-008...009 Venturi

Gray Iron Foundries 3-04-003 Venturi, impingement plate (baffle)

Steel Foundries 3-04-007, -009 Venturi

Asphalt Manufacture 3-05-001...002 Venturi

Mineral Products

Coal Cleaning 3-05-010 Venturi, fiber-bed

Other 3-05-003...999 Venturi

Wood, Pulp, and Paper 3-07-001 Venturi, (cyclonic) spray chamber

5.4-25
 Application Source Category Code Typical Scrubber Type

Food and Agriculture 3-02-001...999 Impingement, fiber-bed, packed-bed

Incineration 5-01-001, Venturi, packed-bed, condensation

5-02-001, -005
5-03-001, -005
force for PM control in many industries and/or facilities is the Federal, State, and local air pollution
regulations. As more stringent PM regulations are put into place, a shift toward the use of higher
efficiency scrubbers is likely to occur. Table 5.4-3 rates the various scrubber types according to their
potential for controlling fine particles.

5.4-26
 Table 5.4-3. PM10/PM2.5 Control Potential
for Various Scrubber Designs

PM10/PM2.5
Scrubber Type Control Potential Comments
Spray Chamber Fair Cyclonic are better than conventional
spray
Packed-Bed Poor Useful for low dust loadings only

Impingement Plate Good Not as good for PM <1 m

Mechanically-aided Good High energy consumption to achieve

PM10/PM2.5 control
Venturi Good High energy consumption to achieve
PM10/PM2.5 control
Orifice Good Not as good for PM <2 m

Condensation Good Excellent control possible with

condensation "growth" scrubbers
Charged Excellent Electric power costs add to overall
scrubber costs
Fiber-Bed Fair Useful for soluble PM only

5.4-27
5.4.5 Costs of PM Wet Scrubbers

The costs of installing and operating a scrubber include both capital and annual costs. Capital
costs are all of the initial costs related to scrubber equipment and installation. Annual costs are the
direct yearly costs of operating the scrubber, plus indirect costs such as overhead, capital recovery,
taxes, insurance, and administrative charges. The following sections discuss capital and annual costs for
scrubbers, referenced to the third quarter of 1995 unless otherwise noted.

[Link] Capital Costs

The total capital investment (TCI) for scrubbers includes all of the initial capital costs, both
direct and indirect. Direct capital costs are the purchased equipment costs (PEC), and the costs of
installation (foundations, electrical, piping, etc.). Indirect costs are related to the installation and include
engineering, construction, contractors, start-up, testing, and contingencies. The PEC is calculated
based on the scrubber specifications. The direct and indirect installation costs are calculated as factors
of the PEC. Table 5.4-4 provides the TCI factors for a typical scrubber.9,10

Wet scrubber costs are dependent upon the type of scrubber selected, the required size of the
scrubber, and the materials of construction. Scrubber sizing incorporates several design parameters,
including gas velocity, liquid-to-gas ratio, and pressure drop. Gas velocity is the primary sizing factor.
Increasing the gas velocity will decrease the required size and cost of a scrubber. However, pressure
drop will increase with increasing gas velocity. This will also result in increased electricity consumption
and, therefore, higher operating costs. Determining the optimum gas velocity involves balancing the
capital and annual costs. In most cases, scrubbers are designed to operate within recommended ranges
of gas velocity, liquid-to-gas ratio, and pressure drop. These ranges are provided in Table 5.4-5.11

Another important scrubber parameter that affects costs is the temperature of the gas stream at
saturation once it has been cooled by the scrubber liquid. This temperature affects the volumetric
flowrate of the outlet gas and, consequently, the size of the scrubber. In addition, the saturation
temperature impacts the scrubbing liquid makeup and the wastewater flowrate. The saturation
temperature is a complex function of essentially three variables: the temperature of the inlet gas stream,
the absolute humidity of the inlet gas stream, and the absolute humidity at saturation. Typically, the
saturation temperature is determined graphically from a psychometric chart once these three variables
are known. For this document, the sizing and costing of wet scrubbers were aided by the use of the
CO$T-AIR Control Cost Spreadsheets,12 that employ an iterative procedure for estimating the
saturation temperature.

5.4-28
 Table 5.4-4. Capital Cost Factors for a Typical Scrubber (Reference 10).

Cost Item Factor

Direct Costs
Purchased equipment costs
Scrubber + auxiliary equipment As estimated (A)
Instrumentation 0.10 A
Sales taxes 0.03 A
Freight 0.05 A
Total Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) B = 1.18 A

Direct installation costs

Foundations and supports 0.06 B
Handling and erection 0.40 B
Electrical 0.01 B
Piping 0.05 B
Insulation for ductwork 0.03 B
Painting 0.01 B
Total direct installation cost 0.56 B

Site Preparation and Buildings (Site) As required

Total Direct Cost (DC) 1.56 B + Site

Indirect Costs (installation)

Engineering 0.10 B
Construction and field expense 0.10 B
Contractor fees 0.10 B
Start-up 0.01 B
Performance test 0.01 B
Model study Model
Contingencies 0.03 B
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 0.35 B

Total Capital Investment = DC + IC 1.91 B + Site + Model

5.4-29
 Table 5.4-5. Recommended Gas Velocities, Liquid/Gas Ratios,
and Pressure Drops for Particulate Wet Scrubbers
(Reference 9).

Liquid/Gas Ratio Pressure Drop

Scrubber Type Velocity (ft/sec) (gal/1000 ACFM) (inches H2O)

Venturi 90-400a 4-100 <100

Impingement plate <14 2-10 2-3c

Spray chamber 10 --- 2-4

Cyclonic spray chamber 105-140b 7 4-6

Packed tower
Vertical 2-6 --- ---
Horizontal 4-8 --- ---

a
Venturi throat velocity varies with pressure drop, volumetric flowrate, gas density, and
liquid/gas ratio as follows: vt = throat velocity (ft/sec) = C()P/rg)0.5, )P = pressure drop
(inches H2O), rg = gas density (lb/ft3), L/G = liquid/gas ratio (gal/1000 ACFM), C = 1,060
exp(-0.0279 L/G).
b
Varies with pressure drop and gas density.
c
Pressure drop per plate.

Once a scrubber has been properly designed and sized, the costs can generally be expressed as
a function of the inlet or total gas flowrate.9 Cost curves are shown below for the following types of
scrubbers: venturi, impingement plate, and packed tower.

All the estimates for scrubber capital costs have been escalated to third quarter 1995 dollars.
However, the capital costs presented in this section can be escalated further to reflect more current
values through the use of the Vatavuk Air Pollution Cost Control Indexes (VAPCCI), which are
updated quarterly, available on the OAQPS Technology Transfer Network (TTN), and published
monthly in Chemical Engineering magazine. The VAPCCI updates the PEC and, since capital costs are
based only on the PEC, capital costs can be easily adjusted using the VAPCCI. To escalate capital
costs from one year (Costold) to another more recent year (Costnew), a simple proportion can be used,
as follows:13

Costnew = Costold(VAPCCInew/VAPCCIold)

The VAPCCI for wet scrubbers for third quarter 1995 was 114.7.

5.4-30
5.4-31
 Venturi Scrubbers: Venturi scrubber costs are based on data for two ranges of gas flowrates.
Cost curves for scrubbers treating less than 19,000 ACFM are provided in Figure 5.4-14. Cost
curves for venturi scrubbers capable of handling greater than 19,000 ACFM but less than 59,000
ACFM are shown in Figure 5.4-15. For total flowrates greater than 59,000 ACFM, the gas stream
should be divided evenly and treated by two or more identical scrubbers (with inlet flowrates of
<59,000 ACFM) operating in parallel.

The most common construction material for venturi scrubbers is carbon steel. Special
applications may require other materials, such as rubber-lined steel, epoxy-coated steel, fiber-
reinforced plastic (FRP), that will increase the cost of the unit.9 Separate cost curves for carbon steel
and other specialized materials are included in Figures 5.4-14 and 5.4-15.12

Impingement Plate Scrubbers: Impingement plate scrubber costs are dependent on the number
of plates and the total gas flowrate. The costs for impingement scrubbers are based on data that
corresponds to a total gas flowrate between 900 and 77,000 ACFM or above. For total gas flowrates
above 77,000 ACFM, multiple scrubbers are required. Figure 5.4-16 presents cost curves for
impingement plate scrubbers with total gas flowrates between 900 and 77,000 ACFM. Cost curves
for scrubbers with total flowrates above 77,000 ACFM are shown in Figure 5.4-1712 and require the
use of 2, 3, or 4 identical scrubber units. All the cost correlations shown here are for sieve plate
scrubbers with three plates. Impingement plate scrubbers are usually constructed with carbon steel.
Some applications may require more expensive materials, such as coated carbon steel, FRP, or
polyvinyl chloride (PVC).9

Packed-bed Scrubbers: The costs for packed-bed scrubbers depend on the inlet gas
velocity/column diameter, orientation of the column (vertical vs. horizontal), height of packing material,
and the presence of any auxiliary equipment. Figures 5.4-18 and 5.4-19 present costs curves for two
types of packed-bed scrubbers. Figure 5.4-18 presents a cost
curve for a small vertical column packed-bed scrubber. The costs for this unit vary with the column
diameter, which can range from 1 to 2.5 feet. Gas flowrates range from 200 to 1200 ACFM.9 For
Figure 5.4-18, the scrubber is assumed to be constructed of FRP with 6 feet of polypropylene packing.
Costs also include the costs for a spray nozzle, liquid distributor, and mist eliminator. Figure 5.4-19
provides a cost curve for a large packed-bed scrubber with horizontal gas flow from 800 to 80,000
ACFM. Costs for this unit are based on the use of PVC or FRP construction materials and a design
that includes a spray section, a 1-foot packed bed, and a mist eliminator.9 Capital and annual costs are
also available from Chapter 9 of the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Reference 14).

[Link] Annual Costs

The total annual cost of a wet scrubber consists of both direct and indirect costs. Direct annual
costs are those associated with the operation and maintenance of the scrubber. These include labor
(operating, supervisory, coordinating, and maintenance), maintenance materials, operating materials,

5.4-32
electricity, sludge disposal, wastewater treatment, and conditioning agents.12 Heating and cooling may
be required in some climates to prevent freezing or excessive vaporation loss of the scrubbing liquid.2
Indirect annual costs include taxes, insurance, administrative costs, overhead, and capital recovery. All
of these costs except overhead are dependent on the TCI. Table 5.4-6 lists the parameters that impact
wet scrubber annual costs with typical values provided for each parameter. Table 5.4.7 provides the
annual cost factors for scrubbers. Annual costs for scrubbers are difficult to generalize because these
costs are very site-specific.

5.4.6 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts

The secondary environmental impacts of wet scrubber operation are related to energy
consumption, solid waste generation, and water pollution. The energy demands for wet scrubbers
generally consist of the electricity requirements for fan operation, pump operation, and wastewater
treatment. Charged scrubbers have additional energy demands for charging the water droplets and/or
PM. Energy demands for wastewater treatment and charged scrubbers are very site specific and,
therefore, are not estimated here.2

The fan power needed for a scrubber can be estimated by the following equation:14

Fan Power (kW-hr/yr) = 1.81 10-4(V)()P)(t) (Eq. 5.4-1)

where V is the gas flowrate (ACFM), )P is the pressure drop (in. H2O), t is the operating hours per
year, and 1.81 10-4 is a unit conversion factor. Electricity costs for fan operation can be determined
by multiplying the cost of electricity (in $/kW-hr) by the fan power. Pump power requirements for wet
scrubbers can be determined as follows:14

Pump Power (kW-hr/yr) = (0.746(Ql)(Z)(Sg)(t)) / (3,960 0) (Eq. 5.4-2)

where Ql is the liquid flowrate (gal/min), Z is the fluid head (ft), Sg is the specific gravity of the liquid, t is
the annual operating time (hr/yr), 0 is the pump-motor efficiency, and 0.746 and 3,960 are unit
conversion factors.

Wet scrubbers generate waste in the form of a slurry. This creates a need for both wastewater
treatment and solid waste disposal operations. Initially, the slurry should be treated to remove and
clean the water. This water can then be reused or discharged. Once the water is removed, the
remaining waste will be in the form of a solid or sludge. If the solid waste is inert and nontoxic, it can
generally be landfilled. Hazardous wastes will have more stringent procedures for disposal. In some
cases, the solid waste may have value and can be sold or recycled.2

5.4-33
Figura 5.4-14. Venturi Scrubber Capital Cost, Inlet Flowrate < 19,000 ACFM (Reference 11)

Figura 5.4-15. Venturi Scubber Capital Costs, Inlet Flwrate>19,000

ACFM.< 59,000(Referencia 11)

5.4-34
Figura 5.4-16. Impiggemennt Scrubber Capital Costs, Inlet Flow Rate
< 77,000 ACFM (Referencia 11).

Figure 5.4-17. Impiggemennt Scrubber Capital Costs, Inlet Flow Rate, > 77 000 ACFM (Referencia
11).

5.4-35
 Figure 5.4-18. Vertical Packed- bed Scrubber Capital Costs (Reference 9).

Figura 5.4-19. Horizontal Packed- bed Scrubber Capital Costs (Reference 9).

5.4-36
 Table 5.4-6. Annual Cost Parameters for Particulate Scrubbers (Reference 12).

Parameter Description Typical Values

Direct Cost Parameters

Operating factor (OF) Hours of scrubber operation per year 8,640 hr/yr
Operator labor rate (OR) Operator labor pay rate $12.50/hra
Operator shift factor (OS) Fraction of operator shift on scrubber 0.25b
Supervisor labor factor (SF) Fraction of operator labor cost 0.15b
Maintenance labor rate (MR) Maintenance labor pay rate 1.1 x ORb
Maintenance shift (MS) factor Fraction of maintenance shift on scrubber 0.25b
Maintenance materials factor (MF) Fraction of maintenance labor cost 1.0b
Electricity rate (ER) Cost of electricity $0.07/kW-hra
Chemical cost (CC) Cost of chemical conditioning agents $/lb (Site specific)
Chemical rate (CR) Rate of chemical use lb/hr (Site specific)
Wastewater treatment (WT) Cost of treating scrubber effluent $/gal (Site specific)
Throughput (T) Rate of liquid throughput gal/hr (Site specific)
Waste fraction (WF) Fraction of throughput that is wast Site specific

5.4-37
Indirect Cost Parameters
Overhead factor (OV) Fraction of total labor and (MM) costs 0.60b
Annual interest rate (I) Opportunity cost of the capital 7 percentb
Operating life (n) Expected operating life of scrubber 10 years b
Capital recovery factor (CRF) Function of (n) and (I) 0.1424c
Taxes (TAX) Fraction of the TCI d 0.01b
Insurance (INS) Fraction of the TCI d 0.01b
Administrative costs (AC) Fraction of the TCI d 0.02b
a
Estimated for 1996 from currently available information.
b
Estimates from "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets (Reference 12).
c
Capital Recovery Factor is calculated from the following formula: CRF = {I(1 + I)n} {(1 + I)n - 1},
where I = interest rate (fraction) and n = operating life (years).
d
The total capital investment (TCI) can be escalated to current values by using the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes
(VAPCCI), described in Section 5.4.5.
 Table 5.4-7. Annual Cost Factors for Particulate Scrubbers (Reference 11).

Cost Item Formulaa Factor

Direct Costs
Labor
Operator (OL) (OF)(OR)(OS) A
Supervisor (SL) (SF)(OL) 0.15 A
Maintenance (ML) (OF)(MR)(MS) 1.1 A
Maintenance materials (MM) (MF)(ML) 1.1 A
Electricity (E) Powerb (ER) E
Chemicals (C) (OF)(CR)(CC) C
Wastewater treatment (W) (OF)(T)(WF)(WT) W

Total Direct Cost (DC) 3.35 A + E + C + W + D

Indirect Costs
Overhead (OV)(OL+SL+ML+MM) 2.01 A
Capital Recovery (CRF)(TCI) 0.1424 TCI

5.4-38
Taxes (TAX)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Insurance (INS)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Administrative Costs (AC)(TCI) 0.02 TCI

Total Indirect Cost (IC) 2.01 A + 0.1824 TCI

Total Annual Cost (DC + IC) 5.36 A + 0.1824 TCI + E + C + W + D

a
Includes values also described in Table 5.4-6.
b
Equal to total power requirements, e.g. fan, pump, etc.
5.4.7 References for Section 5.4

1. Cooper, C.D and F.C. Alley. Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach. 2nd ed.
Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. 1994.

2. The Scrubber Manual (Revised). The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. January
1995.

3. Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook (6th Edition). McGraw-
Hill Publishing Company, Inc. New York, New York. 1984.

4. Sun, J., B.Y.H Liu, P.H. McMurry, and S. Greenwood. A Method to Increase Control
Efficiencies of Wet Scrubbers for Submicron Particles and Particulate Metals. J. Air & Waste
Management Association. 44:2. February 1994.

5. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a, NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

6. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Volume I (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1995.

7. Lerner, B.J. "Particulate Wet Scrubbing: The Efficiency Scam" in the Proceedings of the
A&WMA Specialty Conference on "Particulate Matter; Health and Regulatory Issues (VIP-
49)" held on April 4-6, 1995, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A&WMA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
1995.

8. Source Category Emission Reductions with Particulate Matter and Precursor Control
Techniques. Prepared for K. Woodard, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (AQSSD/IPSG), under Work Assignment II-16 (EPA
Contract No. 68-03-0034), "Evaluation of Fine Particulate Matter Control." September 30,
1996.

9. Vatavuk, W.M. Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan. 1990.

10. Vatavuk, W.M. and Neveril, R.B., Factors for Estimating Capital and Operating Costs,
Chemical Engineering, November 3, 1980, pp. 157-162.

11. Schifftner, K.C. and H.E. Hesketh. Wet Scrubbers: A Practical Handbook. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 1986.

5.4-39
12. Vatavuk, W.M. "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets. Innovative Strategies and
Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1996.

13. Vatavuk, W.M. Escalate Equipment Costs. Chemical Engineering. December 1995. pp. 88-
95.

14. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. January 1990.

5.4-40
5.5 INCINERATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-1
5.5.1 Incinerator Control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-1
5.5.2 Types of Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-3
[Link] Thermal Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-3
[Link].1 Discrete Burner Thermal Incinerator . . . . . . . . . 5.5-4
[Link].2 Distributed Burner Thermal Incinerator . . . . . . . 5.5-4
[Link] Catalytic Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-4
[Link] Heat Recovery Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-7
5.5.3 Control Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-9
[Link] Control Efficiency for Volatile Organic Compounds
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-9
[Link] Control Efficiency for Particulate Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-9
5.5.4 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-9
5.5.5 Costs of Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-11
[Link] Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-12
[Link] Annual Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-15
5.5.6 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-19
5.5.7 References for Section 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5-19
5.5 INCINERATORS

This section presents the basic operating principles, typical designs, industrial application, and
costs of incinerators used as control devices. An incinerator is the only PM control device that does
not concentrate the PM for subsequent disposal. An incinerator utilizes the principles of combustion to
control pollutants. Incinerators used as add-on control devices are however, seldom used to remove
only particulate matter (PM); PM control is usually desirable as a secondary treatment of a gas stream
with a high volatile organic compounds (VOC) content.1 The type of PM that is usually controlled by
an incinerator is commonly composed of soot (particles formed as a result of incomplete combustion of
hydrocarbons (HCs)), coke, or carbon residue. There are two basic types of incinerators used as add-
on control devices: thermal and catalytic. For purposes of PM control, the use of a catalytic
incinerator is limited because catalysts are subject to blinding from the PM.2

There are several advantages to using incinerators for waste air streams that contain VOC and
PM. These advantages are: simplicity of operation; capability of steam generation or heat recovery in
other forms; and capability for virtually complete destruction of organic contaminants. Disadvantages
include: relatively high operating costs (particularly associated with fuel requirements); potential for
flashback and subsequent explosion hazard; and incomplete combustion possibly creating potentially
worse pollution problems.3 High gas velocities are usually required for incinerators used for PM control
to prevent settling of PM.5 This may increase the incinerator size necessary to achieve the minimum
required gas residence time.

5.5.1 Incinerator Control Mechanisms

Incinerator control is based on the principle that at a sufficiently high temperature and adequate
residence time, any HC can be oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. In an incinerator, PM
containing HCs is first vaporized to a gas and then oxidized.1

To achieve complete combustion, i.e. convert all the HC to CO2 and water, sufficient space,
time, turbulence and temperature high enough to ignite the constituents must be provided by the
incinerator. The "three T's" of combustion: time, temperature, and turbulence, govern the speed and
completeness of the combustion reaction. For complete combustion, oxygen must come into close
contact with the combustible molecule at sufficient temperature and for a sufficient length of time for the
reaction to be complete.2

The combustion time required for PM control is dependent on particle size and composition,
oxygen content of the furnace, atmosphere, furnace temperature, gas velocity, and extent of mixing of
the combustibles. For PM less than 100 m in diameter, the combustion rate is controlled by chemical
kinetics; for PM greater than 100 m, diffusion controls the combustion rate.1 In collection devices
(ESP's, fabric filters, scrubbers) diffusion controls the collection rate of particles less than 1 m in
diameter.

5.5-1
 For particles smaller than 100 m the time required for complete combustion can be calculated
using the following equation:1

tc = (D dp)/(2 Ks pg) Eq. 5.5-1

where for coke and carbon residue,

Ks = 8,710 exp(-35,700/RTs) Eq. 5.5-2

and for soot,

Ks = (1.085 x 104 Ts- ) (exp(-39,300/RTs) Eq. 5.5-3

where tc is the combustion time for a chemical kinetics controlled reaction (sec), D is the density of
particle (g/cm3), dp is the diameter of particle (cm), Ks is the surface reaction rate coefficient (g/cm2-
sec-atm), pg is the partial pressure of oxygen in combustion air (atm), R is the universal gas law
constant (82.06 atm-cm3/mole-K), Ts is the surface temperature of the particle (assumed to be the
incinerator temperature) (K).

5.5-2
 With the proper residence time, complete combustion should result in >99 percent control of
particles containing HCs. Figure 5.5-1 shows the theoretical residence time needed for >99 percent
control of various sized coke PM in an incinerator operated from 1200-2000F calculated using the
above equations.1

Although residence time and incinerator temperature are the primary incinerator parameters
affecting incinerator performance, other important parameters are the heat content and water content of
the gas stream, and the amount of excess combustion air (i.e. amount above the stoichiometric amount
needed for combustion). Combustion of gas streams with heat contents less than 50 Btu per standard
cubic foot of air (SCF) usually will require supplemental fuel to maintain the desired combustion
temperature. Supplemental fuel may also be needed for flame stability, regardless of the heat content of
the gas.4

For incinerators operated above 1400F, the oxidation reaction rates become much faster than
the gas diffusion mixing rate. As a result, the combustion reaction may be hindered because sufficient

9.00E-07

8.00E-07

7.00E-07
Combustion Time (seconds)

6.00E-07

5.00E-07

4.00E-07 1200 F
1400 F
3.00E-07 1600 F
1800 F
2.00E-07
2000 F

1.00E-07

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Particle Size (m)

Figure 5.5-1. Calculated Theoretical Residence Times for Various-sized Coke PM in an Incinerator
at Various Temperatures
oxygen molecules are not in proximity to the HCs. To ensure that this does not occur, mixing must be

5.5-3
enhanced via vanes or other physical methods.5

5.5.2 Types of Incinerators

As discussed above, there are two basic types of incinerators, thermal and catalytic. Both
types of incinerator may use heat exchangers to recover some of the heat energy from the incinerator.
Therefore, this section discusses both types of incinerators as well as heat exchangers.

[Link] Thermal Incinerators

A typical thermal incinerator is a refractory-lined chamber containing a burner (or set of

burners) at one end. Thermal incinerators typically use natural gas to supplement the caloric content of
the waste gas stream. In a thermal incinerator, the combustible waste gases pass over or around a
burner flame into a residence chamber where oxidation of the waste gases is then completed. The most
recent guidelines for incinerators to promote more complete destruction of VOC are:5

C A chamber temperature high enough to enable the oxidation reaction to proceed rapidly
to completion (1200-2000 F or greater);

C Flow velocities of 20-40 feet per second, to promote turbulent mixing between the hot
combustion products from the burner, combustion air, and waste stream components;
and

C Sufficient residence time (approximately 0.75 seconds or more) at the chosen

temperature for the oxidation reaction to reach completion.

The following sections discuss the two types of thermal incinerators: discrete burner and
distributed burner. Both types may also use heat recovery equipment. This equipment is discussed in
Section [Link] below.

[Link].1 Discrete Burner Thermal Incinerator. In a discrete dual burner incinerator,

shown in Figure 5.5-2, the waste gas stream and combustion air feed into a

5.5-4
5.5-5
premixing chamber fitted with a (auxiliary) discrete fuel burner. In this chamber, both gases are
thoroughly mixed and pre-heated by the auxiliary burner. The mixture of hot reacting gases then passes
into the main combustion chamber where another (primary) burner is located. This chamber is sized to
allow the mixture enough time at the elevated temperature for the oxidation reaction to reach
completion. Energy can the be recovered from the hot flue gases in a heat recovery section. 6

[Link].2 Distributed Burner Thermal Incinerator. Thermal incinerators (that use

natural gas as the supplemental fuel) may also use a grid-type, or distributed, gas burner. This gas
burner configuration is shown in Figure 5.5-3. In a distributed thermal incinerator, small gas flame jets
on a grid surface ignite the vapors in the gas as it passes through the grid. The grid acts as a baffle to
promote mixing before the gases enters the second part of the incinerator chamber. Because there are
many small flames distributed on the entire cross-section of the combustion chamber and the vapors are
well-mixed, this arrangement enables the gas vapors to burn at a lower chamber temperature and
allows for the use of less fuel than the discrete burner configuration, described above.4 In the discrete
burner, vapors and particles are more likely to survive the single large flame initially, so the chamber
must be maintained at a higher temperature to ensure complete combustion.

[Link] Catalytic Incinerators

A catalytic incinerator is not usually recommended as a control device for PM since the PM,
unless removed prior to incineration, will often coat the catalyst so that the catalyst active sites are
prevented from aiding in the oxidation of pollutants in the gas stream. This effect of PM on the catalyst
is called blinding.2 Despite this drawback, catalytic incinerators are sometimes used for PM control in
the chemical manufacturing and textile industries, and for combustion sources such as IC engines,
boilers, and dryers.7 Therefore, a brief description of this type of incinerator is included here.

Catalytic incinerators are very similar to thermal oxidation, with the primary difference that the
gas, after passing through the flame area, passes through a catalyst bed.5 The catalyst has the effect of
increasing the oxidation reaction rate, enabling conversion at lower reaction temperatures than in
thermal incinerator units. Catalysts, therefore, also reduce the incinerator volume/size.5 Catalysts
typically used for VOC incineration include platinum and palladium. Other formulations include metal
oxides, which are used for gas streams containing chlorinated compounds.4

A schematic of a catalytic incinerator is presented in Figure 5.5-4.4 in a catalytic incinerator,

the gas stream is introduced into a mixing chamber where it is also heated. The waste gas usually
passes through a recuperative heat exchanger (discussed below), where it is preheated by post-
combustion gas.11 The heated gas then passes through the catalyst bed. Oxygen and VOCs migrate to
the catalyst surface by gas diffusion and are adsorbed onto the catalyst active sites on the surface of the
catalyst where oxidation then occurs. The oxidation reaction products are then desorbed from the
active sites by the gas and transferred by diffusion back into the gas stream. 8

5.5-6
5.5-7
5.5-8
 As discussed above, PM can rapidly blind the pores of the catalysts and deactivate the catalyst
over time. Because essentially all the active surface of the catalyst is contained in relatively small pores,
the PM need not be large to blind the catalyst. No general guidelines exist as to the PM concentration
and size that can be tolerated by catalysts because the pore size and volume of catalysts vary greatly. 9
This information is likely to be available from the catalyst manufacturers.

The advantages of catalytic combustion reactors over thermal incinerators, therefore, include:5

C Lower fuel requirements,

C Lower operating temperatures,
C Little or no insulation requirements,
C Reduced fire hazards, and
C Reduced flashback problems.

The disadvantages include:5

C Higher capital costs,

C Catalyst blinding causes operational problems and/or higher maintenance requirements
(annual costs),
C PM may need to be precollected, and
C Spent catalyst that cannot be regenerated may need to be disposed.

[Link] Heat Recovery Equipment

Since the flue gas that is still hot after exiting the incinerator, heat may be recovered with the
proper auxiliary incinerator equipment. Heat recovery equipment for an incinerator can be either
recuperative or regenerative. Recuperative heat exchangers, that recover heat on a continuous basis,
include crosscurrent-, countercurrent-, and cocurrent-flow heat exchangers. For a given heat flow and
temperature drop, recuperative heat exchanger surface requirements will be the lowest in a
countercurrent flow configuration.

Regenerative heat exchangers recover heat by intermittent heat exchange through alternate
heating and cooling of a solid. Heat flows alternately into and out of the same exchanger as air and flue
gas flows are periodically reversed. The heat sink and heat transfer area for regenerative heat
exchangers can be either a fixed bed, a moving bed or a rotary cylinder.1

5.5.3 Control Efficiency

[Link] Control Efficiency for Volatile Organic Compounds

Theoretically, all organic material, including VOC, are combustible with combustion efficiency

5.5-9
limited only by cost. On the basis of studies of thermal incinerator efficiency, it has been concluded that
at least 98 percent VOC destruction (or a 20 part per million by volume (ppmv) VOC exit
concentration) is achievable by all well-designed incinerators. An estimate of 98 percent efficiency is
predicted for thermal incinerators operating at 1,400F or higher, with at least 0.75 seconds residence
time.5 If a thermal incinerator is properly designed and operated to produce the optimum conditions in
the combustion chamber, it should be capable of higher than 99 percent destruction efficiencies for
nonhalogenated VOC, when the VOC concentration in the gas stream is above approximately
2,000 ppmv. 6

[Link] Control Efficiency for Particulate Matter

Controlled emissions and/or efficiency test data for PM in incinerators are not generally
available in the literature. Emission factors for PM in phthalic anhydride processes with incinerators
were available, however.10 The PM control efficiencies for these processes were calculated from the
reported emission factors and are shown in Table 5.5-1. The PM control efficiencies ranged from 79
to 96 percent control for total PM.

In EPA's 1990 National Inventory, 7 incinerators were used as control devices for PM to
achieve from 25 to 99.9 percent control of PM10 at point source facilities. The VOC control reported
for these devices ranged from 0 to 99.9 percent. These ranges of control efficiencies are large because
they include facilities that do not have VOC emissions and control only PM (these facilities would
report 0 percent efficiency for VOC control), as well as facilities which have low PM emissions and are
primarily concerned with controlling VOC.

5.5-10
5.5.4 Applicability

Although incinerators can be used to any organic material, their application is limited to a range
of gas vapor concentration. To prevent explosions, the vapor concentration must be substantially
below the gas lower flammable level (lower explosive limit [LEL]). As a rule, a factor of 4 is employed
to give a margin of for safety.2 Therefore, incinerators are not likely to be used for processes with very
high VOC content. The presence of halogens also requires additional equipment such as scrubbers for
acid gas removal.4

Thermal incinerators can be designed to handle minor fluctuations in flow rate. However,
processes with the potential for excessive fluctuations in flow rate (i.e., process upsets) may not be
suitable for incinerator use, since control efficiency could decrease outside the acceptable range.4
Flares may be an appropriate control for processes with excessive fluctuation potential. Table 5.5-2
presents the operating conditions required for satisfactory incinerator performance in various industrial
applications.3 Note that the residence time and incinerator temperature required for PM control is
much higher than for non-PM sources.

An examination of the EPA's 1990 National Inventory,7 presented in showed that the primary
source categories in which incinerators were used for PM control were:

Table 5.5-1 PM Control Efficiencies for Thermal Incinerators in

Phthalic Anhydride Manufacturing Processes (Reference 10)

PM Emission Factor Calculated

(lb PM/ton product) Control
Efficiency
Process Unit Uncontrolled Controlled (percent)

O-xylene Processing

Oxidation 138 7 95
Pretreatment 13 0.7 95
Distillation 89 4 96
Naphthalene Processing
Oxidation 56 11 80
Pretreatment 5 1 80
Distillation 38 8 79

5.5-11
 C Petroleum and Coal Production
C Chemical and Allied Product Manufacturing
C Primary Metal Industries
C Electronic and Other Electric Equipment.

These source categories were identified from the reported data in the 1990 National Inventory, 7 and
correspond to facilities that reported PM10 control efficiencies for incinerators likely to have been used
as primary control devices.

5.5.5 Costs of Incinerators

The costs of installing and operating an incinerator include both capital and annual costs.
Capital costs are all of the initial equipment-related costs of the incinerator. Annual costs are the direct
costs of operating and maintaining the incinerator for one year, plus such indirect costs as overhead;
capital recovery; and taxes, insurance, and administrative charges. The following sections discuss
capital and annual costs for incinerators, referenced to the fourth quarter of 1996, unless otherwise
noted.

Incinerators designed for PM control are likely to have higher costs than incinerators designed
for VOC control, because of the higher temperatures and longer gas residence times are needed for
PM destruction (see Table 5.5-2). Incinerators designed for PM control are also likely to need more
supplemental fuel to maintain the higher temperatures and larger combustion chambers to achieve the
longer residence times. Since the incinerator cost data presented below were probably derived for
incinerators designed for VOC control only, the actual costs for incinerators designed for PM control
are likely to be higher.

5.5-12
 Table 5.5-2 Operational Requirements for Satisfactory Incinerator
Performance for Various Industrial Applications
and Control Levels (Reference 3)

Control Residence
Level Time Temperature
Application (percent) (sec) (F)
HC Control >90 0.3-0.5 1100-1250a
HC + CO >90 0.3-0.5 1250-1500
Odor
Low control 50-90 0.3-0.5 1000-1200
Medium control 90-99 0.3-0.5 1100-1300
High control >99 0.3-0.5 1200-1500
Smokes/Plumes
White smoke (liquid mist) >99 0.3-0.5 800-1000b
HC and CO >90 0.3-0.5 1250-1500
Black smoke (soot and other >99 0.7-1.0 1400-2000
combustible PM)
a
Temperatures of 1400 to 1500F may be required if there is a significant amount of any of
the following: methane, cellosolve, and substituted aromatics (e.g., toluene and xylenes).

b
Operation for plume abatement only is not recommended, since this merely converts a
visible hydrocarbon emission into an invisible one and frequently creates a new odor
problem because of partial oxidation in the incinerator.

The use of a catalytic incinerator for PM control is limited because catalysts are subject to
poisoning/blinding from PM;2 consequently, only thermal incinerator costs are discussed in this section.
For information on the costs of catalytic incinerators, consult Estimating Costs of Air Pollution
Control11 and EPA's "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets.12

5.5-13
[Link] Capital Costs

The total capital investment (TCI) for incinerators includes all of the initial capital costs, both
direct and indirect. Direct capital costs are the purchased equipment costs (PEC), and the costs of
installation (foundations, electrical, piping, etc.). Indirect costs are related to the installation and include
engineering, construction, contractors, start-up, testing, and contingencies. The PEC is calculated
based on the incinerator specifications. The direct and indirect installation costs are calculated as
factors of the PEC.11 The equipment cost presented in Table 5.5-3 are the TCI cost factors for custom
incinerators (as opposed to packaged units).

The flue gas flow rate and auxiliary fuel requirement are the most important sizing parameters
for a thermal incinerator. The former determines the equipment size and cost, while the latter comprises
most of annual operating and maintenance costs. These parameters are interdependent, based on
material and energy balances taken around the incinerator.9

Figure 5.5-5 shows total capital investment vs. flow rate (size) for a thermal incinerator with
recuperative heat recovery equipment.12 Three levels of heat recovery are shown in Figure 5.5-5: 0
percent, 35 percent, and 50 percent. For the purposes of the figure, the thermal incinerator was
assumed to operate at a combustion temperature of 1600F and the waste gas was assumed to have a
heat content of 4 Btu/SCF. The curves illustrate two phenomena: 1) the direct proportionality of capital
cost to flow rate (size), and 2) the proportionality of capital cost to heat recovery efficiency. That is,
capital costs increase with both increasing flow rate (size) and increasing heat recovery efficiency.

Figure 5.5-6 shows total capital investment vs. flow rate (size) for thermal incinerators with 85
percent and 95 percent regenerative heat recovery systems.12 As in the previous figure, the thermal
incinerator was assumed to operate at a combustion temperature of 1700F and the waste gas was
assumed to have a heat content of 4 Btu/SCF. Also, as in the previous figure, capital costs for
incinerators with regenerative heat recovery systems increase with increasing flow rate (size) and
decrease with increasing heat recovery efficiency.

A comparison between the capital cost of incinerators with recuperative vs. regenerative heat
recovery systems shows that for the same size incinerator, the capital investment of a regenerative heat
recovery system is over twice the capital investment required for an incinerator with a recuperative heat
recovery system.

[Link] Annual Costs

The total annual cost of an incinerator consists of both direct and indirect costs. Direct annual
costs are those associated with the operation and maintenance of the incinerator. These include labor
(operating, supervisory, coordinating, and maintenance); maintenance materials; operating materials;
electricity; and supplemental fuel, if applicable.

5.5-14
 Table 5.5-3 Capital Cost Factors for Thermal Incinerators (from Reference 11)

Cost Item Factor

Direct Costs
Purchased equipment costs
Incinerator + auxiliary equipment As estimated (A)
Instrumentation 0.10 A
Sales taxes 0.03 A
Freight 0.05 A
Total Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) B = 1.18 A

Direct installation costs

Foundations and supports 0.08 B
Handling and erection 0.14 B
Electrical 0.04 B
Piping 0.02 B
Insulation for ductwork 0.01 B
Painting 0.01 B
Total direct installation cost 0.30 B

Site Preparation and Buildings As required (Site)

Total Direct Cost, DC 1.30 B + Site

Indirect Costs (installation)

Engineering 0.10 B
Construction and field expense 0.05 B
Contractor fees 0.10 B
Start-up 0.02 B
Performance test 0.01 B
Contingencies 0.03 B
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 0.31 B

Total Capital Investment = DC + IC 1.61 B + Site

5.5-15
 700,000

600,000
Total Capital Investment ($)

500,000

400,000

300,000

50% Heat Recovery

200,000
35% Heat Recovery
0% Heat Recovery
100,000

0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

Outlet Flowrate (scfm)

Figure 5.5-5. Total Capital Investment vs. Flow Rate for a Thermal Incinerator with 0, 35, and 50
Percent Recuperative Heat Recovery (Reference 12).

3.5
Total Capital Investment (millions of $)

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 95% Heat Recovery

85% Heat Recovery

0.5

0.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

Inlet Flowrate (acfm)

Figure 5.5-6. Total Capital Investment vs. Flow Rate for a Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer with 85
and 95 Percent Heat Recovery (Reference 12).

5.5-16
 Indirect annual costs include taxes, insurance, administrative costs, overhead, and capital
recovery. All of these costs except overhead are dependent on the TCI. Table 5.5-4 lists the annual
cost parameters that impact incinerator costs, with typical values provided for each parameter. Table
5.5-5 provides the annual cost factors for incinerators. It is difficult to generalize these costs for all
incinerators, since annual costs are very site-specific.11

The supplemental fuel and electricity requirements for an incinerator are likely to have a large
impact on incinerator annual costs. The requirements for each can be estimated from incinerator design
values. The auxiliary heat requirement to be supplied by the fuel, usually natural gas, can be calculated
using the incinerator design equations described below.

An incinerator is designed to handle a total volumetric gas flow rate (Qf) equal to the waste gas
inlet flow rate (Qi), which is known, and auxiliary fuel gas flow rate (Qa):

Qf = Qi + Qa (Eq. 5.5-4)

and where the requirements for auxiliary fuel gas are determined with the following equation:

Qa = (x/y)(Qi) (Eq. 5.5-5)

for x = (1.1 Cpf (Tf - Tr)) - (C pi (Ti - Tr)) - h1 (Eq. 5.5-6)

y = ha - 1.1Cpf (Tf - Tr) (Eq. 5.5-7)

where Qf is the flue gas flow rate (SCFM), Qi is the inlet waste gas flow rate (SCFM),Qa is the
auxiliary fuel gas (heat) requirement (SCFM), Cpf is the mean heat capacity of gas leaving the
combustion chamber (Btu/SCF-F), Cpi is the mean heat capacity of gas entering the combustion
chamber (Btu/SCF-F), Tf is the combustion chamber temperature (F), Ti is the waste gas inlet
temperatures (F), Tr is the reference temperature, equal to the inlet fuel temperature (typically 70F),
h1 is the waste gas heat content (Btu/SCF), and ha is the fuel heating value (Btu/SCF).

Electricity to run the incinerator exhaust fan is calculated with the following equation:

Fan Power (kW) = (1.575x10-4) )P Q / n (Eq. 5.5-8)

where )P is the system pressure drop (inches of water), Q is the waste gas volumetric flow rate
through system (ACFM), and n is the efficiency of fan and motor (generally 0.50-0.70).

Figure 5.5-7 shows annual operating cost curves for an example thermal incinerator with
recuperative heat recovery systems at three levels of heat recovery efficiency: 0, 35, and 50 percent,
and 85 percent regenerative heat recovery. For these curves, the example incinerator was assumed to

5.5-17
operate 8,000 hours per year, at a combustion temperature of 1700F, with a waste gas heat content
of 4 Btu/SCF. Figure 5.5-7 shows that annual operating costs for incinerators with recuperative heat
recovery decrease with increasing heat recovery system efficiency, and increase with increasing inlet
flow rates (size).

5.5-18
 Table 5.5-4. Incinerator Annual Cost Parameters (from Reference 11)

Parameter Description Typical Values

Direct Cost Parameters
Operating factor (OF) Yearly incinerator (INC) operation hours 8,000
Operator labor rate (OR) Cost of operator labor $12.50/hr a
Maintenance Labor Rate (ML) Cost of maintenance labor 1.1 (OR)a
Operator shift factor (OS) Fraction of operator's shift spent on INC 0.5
Maintenance shift factor (MS) Fraction of maintenance shift spent on INC 0.5
Electricity rate (ER) Cost of electricity $0.07/kW-hr a
Fuel (F) Cost of fuel (natural gas) $2.30/103 SCFa
Indirect Costs
Annual Interest Rate (I) Opportunity cost of the capital 7 percent c
Operating Life (n) Expected operating life of INC 10 yearsc?
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) Function of (n) and (I) 0.0944d

5.5-19
Taxes (TAX) Fraction of TCId 0.01c
Insurance (INS) Fraction of TCId 0.01c
Administrative Costs (AC) Fraction of TCId 0.02c
a
Estimated for 1996 from currently available information.
b
Estimates from "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets (Reference 12).
c
Capital recovery factor is calculated from the following formula:
CRF = {I(1+ I)n} {(1+ I)n - 1},
where I = interest rate (fraction) and n = operating life (years).
d
The total capital investment (TCI) can be escalated to current values by using the Vatavuk Air Pollution
Control Cost Indicies (VAPCCI), described in Section 5.4.5.
 Table 5.5-5. Annual Cost Factors for Incinerators (Reference 12).

Cost Item Formulaa Factor

Direct Costs
Labor
Operator (OL) (OF)(OR)(OS) A
Supervisor (SL) (SF)(OL) 0.15 A
Maintenance (ML) (OF)(MR)(MS) 1.1 A
Maintenance materials (MM) (MF)(ML) 1.1 A
Electricity (E) Powerb (ER) E
Fuel (F) Fuelc X (FR) F
Total Direct Cost (DC) 3.35 A + E + F
Indirect Costs
Overhead (OV)(OL+SL+ML+MM) 2.01 A
Capital Recovery (CRF)(TCI) 0.1424 TCI

5.5-20
Taxes (TAX)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Insurance (INS)(TCI) 0.01 TCI
Administrative Costs (AC)(TCI) 0.02 TCI
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 2.01 A + 0.1824 TCI

Total Annual Cost (DC + IC) 5.36 A + 0.1824 TCI + E + F

a
Includes values also described in Table 5.5-5.
b
Equal to the total power requirements, i.e. electricity and fan.
c
Equal to the auxiliary fuel requirements.
 4.0

Annual Operating Cost (millions of $)

0% Heat Recovery (HR)
3.5
35% Recuperative HR
50% Recuperative HR
3.0
85% Regenerative HR

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Inlet Flowrate (acfm)

Figure 5.5-7. Annual Costs for Incinerators with Recuperative and Regenerative Heat Recovery
(Reference 12).

Figure 5.5-7 also shows that annual costs for the example incinerator with regenerative heat
recovery increase with inlet flow rate. Regenerative thermal incinerators achieve higher heat recovery
($85 percent vs. #50 percent) at lower annual costs than recuperative systems. However, the higher
capital costs of regenerative systems (see Figure 5.5-6) compared trecuperative systems (see
Figure 5.5-5), present a trade-off in the choice incinerator type.

5.5.6 Energy and Other Secondary Environmental Impacts

No liquid, solid or hazardous wastes are generated from the use of thermal incinerators. As
discussed above, the energy impacts of incinerator operation include that associated with the energy
required to run the fan and are proportional to the gas flow rate and the system pressure drop.

Nitrogen oxides are also generated as air pollution during incineration. Because of the lower
operating temperatures of catalytic incinerators, less NOx is generated with this type of incinerator.
Based on the combustion of natural gas only, thermal incinerators have the potential to generate 100
pounds (lb) of NOx per 106 SCF of natural gas combusted, and catalytic incinerators have the potential
to generate 50 lb of NOx per 106 SCF of natural gas.13

5.5.7 References for Section 5.5

5.5-21
1. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a, NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

2. Theodore, L., and A.J. Buonicore. Air Pollution Control Equipment. Volume II: Gases.
CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. 1988.

3. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. Sixth Edition. R.H. Perry and D.W. Green, Eds.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York. 1984.

4. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry--Background Information for Proposed Standards. Volume 1B:
Control Technologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1992.

5. Buonicore, A.J. "Incineration" in the Air Pollution Engineering Manual. A.J. Buonicore, and
W.T. Davis, Eds. Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. 1992.

6. Reed, R.J. North American Combustion Handbook. North American Manufacturing

Company, Cleveland, Ohio. 1978.

7. 1990 National Inventory. (Available at [Link]/pub/gopher/[Link]). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1996.

8. Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources (EPA-450/2-78-
002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May
1978.

9. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. January 1990.

10. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Volume I (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1995.

11. Vatavuk, W.M. Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan. 1990.

12. Vatavuk, W.M. "CO$T-AIR" Control Cost Spreadsheets. Innovative Strategies and
Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1996.

5.5-22
13. Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Volume 4: Combustion Control Devices (EPA-450/3-80-
026). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
December 1980.

5.5-23
6. INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 ENCLOSURES AND VENTILATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1.1 Local Ventilation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.1.2 Building Enclosure/Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2 OPTIMIZATION OF EQUIPMENT AND OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2.1 Source Extent Reduction and Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2.2 Process Optimization/Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.2.3 Leak Prevention and Detection and Other Good O&M Practices . . . . . . . 6-8
6.3 COSTS OF HOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
6.4 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
6. INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROLS

This section describes measures used to control fugitive PM emissions from industrial sources.
Fugitive PM emission sources can be divided into two broad categories--process fugitive emission
sources and fugitive dust emission sources. Process fugitive emissions sources include emissions from
mechanical and metallurgical operations that receive and/or generate dusty material. Fugitive dust
emission sources relate to the transfer, storage, and handling of dusty materials and include those
sources from which particles are entrained by the forces of nature acting on exposed dusty surfaces or
from vehicle motion on dusty roads.

The most widely used methods of controlling process fugitives are local ventilation and building
enclosure/evacuation. Both types of systems have their advantages and drawbacks, but local
ventilation is generally more cost effective. Process optimization, good operation and maintenance
(O&M), and other industry-specific practices can also be quite effective in reducing process fugitive
emissions. However, both the selection of the system and the ultimate performance of the system are
related to industry and facility-specific design and operating characteristics.

For most industrial plants, paved and unpaved roads are the primary sources of fugitive dust
emissions. Fugitive dust emissions from handling operations for storage pile materials are usually less
significant in comparison to road sources, unless the moisture content of the storage pile materials is
extremely low. Emissions due to wind erosion of storage piles are likewise less significant unless wind
speeds are unusually high.1 Low wind speeds can result in significant emissions if storage pile materials
are fines (e.g. cement kiln dust or materials collected by fabric filters or ESPs)

The control of road dust from both paved and unpaved roads, therefore, can achieve a
significant reduction in fugitive dust emissions. Paving of unpaved roads; eliminating, reducing, or
managing truck transportation; and street cleaning are the most effective techniques to reduce fugitive
dust emissions from roads.

More information about fugitive dust emission sources and controls can be found in the EPA
publications Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best
Available Control Measures,2 and Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42),
Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.3

6.1 ENCLOSURES AND VENTILATION

Partial or full enclosures, windbreaks, hoods and other ventilation systems, and complete
building evacuation are widely used methods to capture and control fugitive PM emissions. These
methods are usually used with traditional stack PM control devices (e.g. fabric filters or scrubbers) to
collect the captured PM. Processes amenable to this type of control include materials handling devices
such as conveyors, elevators, feeders, loading and unloading operations, and bagging; solids

6-1
benefication, such as crushing, screening, and other classifying operations; mining, i.e. drilling and
crushing; and furnaces, ovens, and dryers.7

6.1.1 Local Ventilation Systems

Local ventilation systems can consist of a "secondary" hood at a localized source of PM

emissions or large canopy-type hood suspended over the entire source. An example of a secondary
local hood is a mobile hood that is used to collect emissions from pots or other containers that are set
aside for cooling. Ventilation systems are usually uniquely designed to conform with the facility
configuration and need for process access; these factors, however, can limit their performance as well
as their design. Ventilation hooding and its ductwork may be difficult to retrofit in some facilities due to
space limitations. In addition, local ventilation systems may limit personnel and equipment access. For
these reasons, a local ventilation system may not be a feasible method of process fugitive emissions
control for some operations. Design information about local ventilation systems in general and for
specific applications can be found in the most recent edition of the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) publication: Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice.

Most ventilation systems are designed to meet several objectives.1 First, the hood must enclose
the source to the degree possible without excessively interfering with the access needed for normal
operations. Second, the hood should be configured in such a way that natural buoyancy or mechanical
forces direct the plume into, rather than away from, the hood. Finally, the system must be designed
with sufficient exhaust ventilation to maintain recommended face velocities at all hood faces. Typically,
these velocities are in the range of 75 to 150 meters per minute. Additionally, for buoyant plumes that
generate a natural draft, the ventilation rate must exceed the plume generation rate, or "spillage" from
the hood will occur.1

Metal operations, both primary and secondary, generate a large quantity of fugitive PM
emissions. One of the major sources of metallurgical process fugitive emissions that can be controlled
by local ventilation are stationary-type furnaces such as blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, and
cupolas. Hoods may be designed to collect gas perpendicular to the buoyant gas flow, in which high
face velocities are required; other designs may be such that the buoyant gas plume is directed into the
hood. Figure 6-1 shows a local ventilation system at a blast furnace slag tapping area.1,4 A very
different local ventilation design would be needed for nonstationary electric arc and rotary furnaces that
rotate during operation. A key feature of these systems is that charging and tapping occur in the same
general area. Hence, hooding must be designed in such a way that it does not interfere with either
operation.

Material handling operations can also be equipped with local ventilation to control fugitive PM
emissions. Figure 6-2 shows a local ventilation system at "skip hoist" loading station that is part of a
metallurgical operation.

6-2
 An air curtain capture system is a specially designed local ventilation system that can capture
fugitive emissions from a process without interfering in normal operations, such as the use of an
overhead crane. With an air curtain, air is blown across the space above the PM-generating operation
using a plenum or row of nozzles designed to form an air sheet which causes as little turbulence as
possible. The curtain air, entrained air (from above and below the curtain) and PM, including fine PM
fumes, are captured by the exhaust system. Capture of

6-3
6-4
6-5
fugitive PM is greater than 90 percent. This type of system has been used successfully in primary
copper production. 1

6.1.2 Building Enclosure/Evacuation

Enclosing and ventilating an entire building may be the only feasible control method when the
process operation is characterized by a number of small fugitive emissions sources. A typical building
evacuation system might consist of opposing wall-mounted ventilators that force air across process
equipment and out through an overhead plenum to a fabric filter.5 In order to limit worker exposure to
emissions and expel the heat generated by process operations, large airflow rates are required. Thus,
operational costs for this type of system can be prohibitive. In addition, the need to keep the building
enclosed during operation of the ventilation system may be too restrictive on process operations, such
as the movement of forklifts and other equipment into and out of the building.1

6.2 OPTIMIZATION OF EQUIPMENT AND OPERATION

Optimization of equipment and operation includes: 1) limiting the amount of dust available for
emissions; 2) improving the arrangement of materials that generate dust; 3) optimizing the process so
that less dusty material is used, generated, or made vulnerable to air contact; 4) preventing or
minimizing leaks; and 5) other good O&M procedures that reduce PM emissions. In some industries,
optimizing equipment and operation to reduce PM emissions can also reduce operating costs if valuable
products and/or raw materials can be recovered and used.

6.2.1 Source Extent Reduction and Improvement

Source extent reduction measures are largely a function of good work practices and include
measures designed to reduce the volume and/or area of PM-generating materials disturbed or reduce
the frequency of disturbances and spills.1,7 These goals can generally be achieved through good work
practices and without a large investment in a control program.1

Examples of source extent reductions/improvements include:1

C Drop height reduction through the use of hinged-boom conveyors, rock ladders, lower
wells, etc.7 Table 6-1 lists estimated control efficiencies for improvements through drop
height reduction techniques;6

C Use of less dusty raw materials;

C Choke-feed or telescopic chutes to confine the material being transferred;7

C Increasing moisture retention in dusty areas;1

6-6
 Table 6-1. Estimated Control Efficiencies for Drop Height Reduction
Techniques (from Reference 6)

Control Efficiency
Technique (percent)
Lowering well or perforated pipe 80
Telescoping chute 75
Rock ladder 50

C Washing down or scraping conveyor belts regularly;1

C Performing PM-generating activities only as needed, e.g. in secondary lead production,

breaking of batteries only as needed to keep pace with the furnace;1

C Monitoring of feed materials to identify high PM-generating conditions;1

C Use of clean scrap in metal-melting furnaces;7 and

C Removing crankcase oil prior to automobile salvage.7

6.2.2 Process Optimization/Modification

Process optimization and/or modification can be an effective preventive measure for process
fugitive emission control. Also included in this category is the optimization of the primary PM control
devices and their capture systems. Some general techniques are:

C Mass transfer frequency reduction,

C Improved operational efficiency, and
C Use and proper operation of point-of-generation dust collection devices.

Some process-specific optimization techniques are:

C Designing a sulfuric acid plant at a primary lead smelter with sufficient capacity to
preclude the creation of back pressure and excess venting of the sinter machine.1

6-7
C Changing from a cupola to an electric arc furnace.7

C Changing from an (open) bucket elevator to more efficient (closed) pneumatic

conveyor.7

C Screening out undersized coke (<1 inch) to reduce blast furnace fugitive emissions in
primary lead smelting.1

C Improving blast furnace combustion efficiency during primary lead smelting by

improving the furnace water cooling system.1

C Injecting molten sodium in primary lead smelting kettle drossing to form liquid matte
rather than dross.1

C Eliminating fugitive PM from transporting, pouring, and stirring molten lead by the use of
continuous kettle drossing rather than manual in primary lead smelting (as is currently
done in only foreign facilities).1

C Improving raw material quality, e.g. improve the quality of coke and sinter concentrate
used in primary lead production.1

C Cooling lead pots to reduce fume generation during kettle drossing in primary lead
production. 1

C Pumping (primary) lead directly to dross kettles using an electromagnetic pump.1

C Agglomerating blast furnace flue dust in an agglomerating furnace to reduce the load on
the baghouse to improve its performance. This process completely eliminates handling
of the dust and the associated fugitive emissions, and eliminates fugitive emissions from
flue dust storage piles.1

C Using permanent mold castings in gray iron foundries instead of green sand. This is
reported to reduce PM emissions by 99 percent.1

C Pre-treating glass manufacturing raw materials to reduce the amount of fine particles.
Pretreatments include: presintering, briquetting, pelletizing, or liquid alkali treatment.

C Replacing grease and oil lubricants (e.g. in glass manufacturing) with silicone emulsions
and water-soluble oils that eliminate the smoke generated from flash vaporization of
hydrocarbons from greases and oils that come into contact with process materials.1

6-8
6.2.3 Leak Prevention and Detection and Other Good O&M Practices

Good O&M practices can help to reduce fugitive PM emissions significantly. A key aspect of
a good O&M program to reduce PM emissions is a formalized leak prevention and detection program.
Examples of items that may be included in a program are: 1) adequate design and prompt repairs of
exhaust hood leaks; 2) maintenance of door and window seals;1 and 3) repair and/or prevention of
warpage of oven doors to maintain proper seal. 7

Good housekeeping practices and/or prompt response to process upsets, accidents, and spills
are also key elements in the control of fugitive dust. This prevents the build-up of dusty material that
can be resuspended into localized drafts. Good housekeeping practices include the following
procedures:1

C Washing down of building interiors regularly,

C Wetting floors during high dust periods,
C Use of oil-based sweeping compounds,
C Wet-wiping drums after the packaging of products,

A central vacuum system may be cost-effective for especially dusty operations.1 A full-time clean-up
crew may be required for some facilities to regularly implement the above procedures.1,7
The proper operation of equipment is a good industrial practice to prevent fugitive dust
emissions. One example that may be applicable to a number of industries, especially in metallurgy, is
the operation of furnaces so that they are not overloaded to eliminate the possibility of back pressure
from the primary PM control system as well as "puffing" during opening of the charging door.7
Employee incentive programs to limit fugitive dust emissions also have been used successfully in some
industries.1

6.3 COSTS OF HOODS

Chapter 10 of the OAQPS Cost Manual provides information on estimating costs for circular
canopy, rectangular canopy, push-pull, slide-draft, and back-draft (slotted) hoods.8 Hood costs are
estimated by using parameters from Table 6.2 in the following equation:

Ch = aAfb (6.1)

where Ch = hood cost ($)

Af = hood inlet (face) area (ft 2)
a,b = equation regression parameters

6.4 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL

6-9
 For information on the control of fugitive dust, please refer to Fugitive Dust Background
Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures (EPA-
450/2-92-004) and Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-450/3-88-008).

6-10
 Table 6.2. Parameters for Hood Cost Equation (Reference 8)

Equation Material
Fabrication Equation Range
Type of Hood Materiala a b (A f, ft 2) b

Canopy, circular FRP 123 0.575 2 - 200

Canopy, rectangular FRP 294 0.505 2 - 200

Push-pull FRP 595 0.318 2 - 200

Side-draft FRP 476 0.332 2 - 200

Back-draft, slotted c PVC 303 1.43 0.6 - 2.0

Back-draft, slotted d PVC 789 0.503 1. 1- 2.1

Back-draft, slotted PP 645 0.714 1. 1- 2.1

Back-draft, slotted FRP 928 0.516 1. 1- 2.1

Back-draft, slotted Galvanized Steel 688 0.687 0.5 - 1.3

a
FRP = fiberglass reinforced plastic, PVC = polyvinyl chloride, PP = polypropylene
b
For slotted hoods, equation range indicates the range in the area of the slot openings, which is much less
than the total face area.
c
Hoods with two rows of slots and no dampers.
d
Hoods with four rows of slots and manual slot dampers.

6-11
6.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6

1. Estimating and Controlling Fugitive Lead Emissions from Industrial Sources (EPA-452/R-96-
006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1996.

2. Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical information Document for Best Available
Control Measures (EPA-450/2-92-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1992.

3. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Volume I (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1995.

4. Coleman, R., Jr. and R. Vandervort. Demonstration of Fugitive Emission Controls at a

Secondary Lead Smelter in Lead-Zinc-Tin 1980, J.M. Cigan, T.S. Mackey, and T.J. O'Keefe
(eds.). Proceedings of TMS-AIME World Symposium on Metallurgy and Environmental
Control in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 24-28, 1980. 1981.

5. Smith, R.D., O.A. Kiehn, D.R. Wilburn, and R.C. Bowyer. Lead Reduction in Ambient Air:
Technical Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Domestic Primary Lead Smelters and Refineries.
Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1987.

6. Bohn, R., T. Cuscino, Jr., and C. Cowherd, Jr. Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and
Steel Plants (EPA-600/2-78-050). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
March 1978.

7. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a, NTIS PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

8. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. January 1990.

6-12
7. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1 EMERGING FABRIC FILTER TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1.1 Ceramics: Ceramic Filter Elements and Ceramic Fiber Enhancement
........................................................ 7-1
7.1.2 Fine 1.1 dtex Fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1.3 Electrostatically-Stimulated Fabric Filtration (ESFF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2 EMERGING ESP TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.1 Sonic Horn Rappers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.2 Cold-Pipe ESP Precharger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.3 Alternating Charging and Short ESP Collector Sections (SUPER ESP)
........................................................ 7-5
7.2.4 Advanced Computer-Based ESP Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.3 EMERGING COMBINATION DEVICES .......................... 7-5
7.4 EMERGING SCRUBBER TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.4.1 Annular Orifice Venturi Scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.4.2 Waterweb Mesh Scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.5 EMERGING MECHANICAL COLLECTOR TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6 EMERGING FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6.1 High-Voltage PM Ionizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6.2 Dry Fog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.7 EMERGING SIMULTANEOUS POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
.............................................................. 7-8
7.7.1 SNRB (SOx-NO x-Rox Box) Catalytic Fabric Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.7.2 Catalyst-Coated Fabric Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.8 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

1
7. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

This section discusses the technologies that are currently being developed to enhance the
operation and/or collection efficiency of particulate control devices. In many cases, the increase in
collection efficiency is achieved through increase in collection of fine particles.
The sections below present emerging technologies for fabric filters, ESP's, scrubbers, and mechanical
control devices. Control techniques that allow for simultaneous control of PM along with other
pollutants are discussed here, despite the fact the PM collection efficiencies of the devices may not be
substantially higher than that in traditional devices; these devices are included here because of the large
savings in efficiency that are offered by the methods. Table 7-1 summarizes the technologies presented
in this section.

7.1 EMERGING FABRIC FILTER TECHNOLOGIES

Emerging technologies for fabric filters include 1) ceramic filter elements and ceramic fiber
enhancement, 2) fine 1.1 dtex fibers, and 3) electrostatically stimulated fabric filtration (ESFF). These
technologies are discussed below.

7.1.1 Ceramics: Ceramic Filter Elements and Ceramic Fiber Enhancement

Ceramic filters have become available (Altair, Ltd., UK; Didier, GmbH, FRG) that can be used
for high temperature PM filtration applications. Ceramic material is formed into stiff cylindrical filter
elements, called "candles." The tubes are generally 1 to 1.5 meters in length, with outside diameters of
60 mm and a wall thickness of 10 to 20 mm. One end of the tube is closed, and the other is open. The
open ends of the tubes are mounted either vertically or horizontally on a tubesheet, as with fabric bags.
Tubes are generally cleaned by pulse jets.1

Ceramic fibers have been successfully processed into synthetic yarns and woven into fabric
filter bag material by 3M Inc. These ceramic-enhanced bags, called Nextel, are capable of high
efficiency filtration (>99 percent) of gas streams at temperatures up to 1400F. High temperature
operation saves the expense of gas cooling, reduces maintenance due to condensation of corrosive
gases, allows for energy recovery, and allows for PM removal from the hot gas before other catalyst
processes are performed. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is currently testing the
performance of these bags.2

7.1.2 Fine 1.1 dtex Fibers

New fine fibers, of 1.1 dtex (textile density - grams fiber per 10,000 meters of fiber ) have been
developed by Dupont, GmbH (FRG), for high-efficiency fabric filtration. The fine fibers are available in
Nomex and Teflon materials. The fine fibers are half the weight of standard Nomex fibers. The

7-1
advantage of the new fibers is that while two (1.1 dtex) fine fibers will weigh the same as one standard
(2.2 dtex) fiber, the fine fibers have 40 percent

7-2
 Table 7-1. Summary of Emerging PM Control Technologies

Device Technology Benefit

Fabric Filter
1) Ceramics 1) High temperature capabilities
ceramic filter elements and ceramic
fiber bag enhancement

2) Fine 1.1 dtex Fibers 2) Higher fine PM control efficiency

3) Electrostatically-Stimulated Fabric Filtration 3) Higher PM control efficiency and lower pressure drop
(ESFF)
ESP
1) Sonic Horn Rappers 1) Better plate cleaning efficiency, lower capital costs,
lower energy requirements, less maintenance, and less

7-3
downtime

2) Cold-pipe Precharger ESP 2) Higher PM control efficiency, especially for high

resistivity PM

3) SUPER ESP 3) Higher PM control efficiency, especially for high

resistivity PM; smaller ESP; and eliminates need for flue
gas conditioning

4) Advanced Computer-Based Control 4) Higher PM control efficiency

System

(continued)
 Table 7-1. (continued)

Device Technology Benefit

Combination Devices
COHPAC Hybrid ESP/FF Higher PM control efficiency, especially for PM10;
smaller size, and less downtime than an ESP

Scrubber
1) Annular Orifice Venturi Scrubber 1) Higher PM control efficiency, especially for
PM2.5

2) Waterweb Mesh 2) Higher PM control efficiency, less clogging

Mechanical Collector Core Separator Higher PM control efficiency

Fugitive Dust

7-4
1) High-Voltage PM Ionizer 1) Higher PM control efficiency (#100 percent
control) for PM $0.005 m, as well as
$99 percent SO2 and NOx, and $95 percent
VOCs

2) Dry Fog 2) 10 percent of the water requirements for

conventional spray techniques

Simultaneous Control
1) SOx-NOx-Rox Box (SNRB) 1) Controls SOx and NOx as well as PM (Rox)
Catalytic Fabric Filter

2) Catalyst-Coated Fabric Filters 2) Controls NOx and PM

more filter surface area. This enables the construction of denser and less porous filter media. Potential
improvements in fabric filter operation include higher efficiency at the same weight of media, or lighter
media with the same or better efficiency. These fine fibers are suitable for operation in pulse jet fabric
filters.3

7.1.3 Electrostatically-Stimulated Fabric Filtration (ESFF)

Electrostatically-stimulated fabric filters (ESFF) have been developed that

reduce fabric filter pressure drop and significantly reduce particle penetration. Electrically-charged
particles have been found to form highly porous dust layers in fabric filters.4 One type of ESFF
involves the placement of discharge electrodes (wires) axially inside reverse air filter bags with
conductive fibers woven into the bags. This generates an electric field between the wire and the surface
of the bag. A second type of ESFF uses external placement of discharge wires within an array of
pulse-jet bags.17 Another variation of ESFF includes the placement of a pulse-jet ESFF module within
an existing ESP, discussed in section 7.3.5

7.2 EMERGING ESP TECHNOLOGIES

Emerging technologies for ESP's include 1) sonic horn rappers, 2) cold pipe precharger ESP,
3) alternating charging and short ESP collector sections (SUPER ESP), and 4) advanced computer-
based ESP control systems. These technologies are discussed below.

7.2.1 Sonic Horn Rappers

Sonic horn rappers for ESP cleaning have been developed by Atlantic Electric, Ltd. (UK) for
application in the electric utility industry to improve cleaning of ESP plates. The sonic horns, used with
magnetic impulse gravity impact (MIGI) rappers, were found to be superior to tumbling hammers in
terms of lower capital costs, lower energy requirements, less maintenance, and less downtime.6

7.2.2 Cold-Pipe ESP Precharger

A cold-pipe ESP precharger has been developed by Denver Research Institute. This device
circulates cool water through the pipe of a wire-pipe ESP precharger section. This configuration
reduces the resistivity of the dust layer collected on the outside surface of the cold pipe and achieves a
very high level of charge on the entrained dust particles in a very short flow distance. Retrofit of existing
ESPs with cold-pipe prechargers showed that the effect of the addition of a cold pipe section exceeded
the negative effects of back corona, and significantly improved the collection efficiency with high
resistivity dusts.7,8

One potential application of this technology entails placing a cold-pipe precharger in-line
downstream from a conventional ESP that has at least one main electrical section. The cold-pipe

7-5
precharger can have collection pipes substantially shorter than in the main ESP, and can be operated
with a current density 75 percent or lower than pipes in the main ESP section. 9 Another application
involves placing a cold-pipe precharger in front of each collection section of a wire-plate ESP. This
second application is referred to as a "multistage" ESP.17 A new concept of multi-stage ESP uses
smaller sections preceded by cold-pipe prechargers, discussed in the next section.

7.2.3 Alternating Charging and Short ESP Collector Sections (SUPER ESP)

By separating the charging and collecting sections and optimizing each separately, a new
concept called SUPER ESP has evolved. Instead of long, wire-plate ESP sections, the SUPER ESP
uses a wire-pipe (cold-pipe) precharger previously described followed by an abbreviated wire-plate
collector section. 10 Research has shown the collection efficiency of a SUPER ESP section of 3-4
wires to be equivalent to a conventional ESP section of 7-8 wires for lower resistivity dust, and a 12-14
wire section for high resistivity dust. Therefore a new ESP using this concept may be only one-half to
one-fourth the length of a conventional ESP; or an existing ESP can be upgraded by replacing one
section with two or more SUPER ESP sections in the same space.11

7.2.4 Advanced Computer-Based ESP Control Systems

The operation of an ESP can be optimized with the use of a computerized control systems. The
computer can be programmed to monitor and control the ESP parameters that influence efficiency, and
do so in a way that exceeds the capability of manual techniques. For example, the computer can
identify the existence of back corona and then change the ESP current or voltage settings so as to avoid
or minimize the influence of the back corona. Another example of advanced computer-based ESP
control is a method used by The Mitsubishi Company in Japan, where computer-controlled intermittent
energization12 is accomplished within an ESP, as needed to avoid back corona.17

7.3 EMERGING COMBINATION DEVICES

A combination fabric filter/ESP hybrid has been developed by EPRI and is called the Compact
Hybrid Particulate Collector (COHPAC). This device involves using pulse jet fabric filtration to
capture PM that escape an ESP. The device has two designs called COHPAC I and II. COHPAC I
involves placing a (pulse jet) fabric filter downstream from an ESP. COHPAC II utilizes a fabric filter in
place of the last field(s) of an ESP.13,14, 15,16 COHPAC has been successfully tested in pilot facilities at
utility boilers.17 In a similar configuration to COHPAC II, an EPA-developed innovation is to replace
the last section of an ESP with pulse-jet ESFF and maintain a high-voltage charging and collection field
with the existing ESP power supply. This results in an order of magnitude lower emissions and
significantly lower pressure loss than for an uncharged fabric filter.5

The COHPAC merges the advantages of an ESP and fabric filter. Advantages due to the
fabric filter component of the COHPAC are:17

7-6
 C Less sensitive to changes in fuel composition, than an ESP, since a fabric filter at steady
state has constant outlet emissions.

C Better collection efficiency of PM10, as typical of fabric filtration.

C On-line maintenance can be utilized for the fabric filter section of the COHPAC,
resulting in less downtime.

Advantages due to an upstream ESP collector are:17

C The PM loading to the fabric filter is low enough to allow the fabric filter to operate at a
very high gas-to-cloth ratio (10-18 ft/min), without excessive pressure drop or
penetration.

C The collection efficiency of fabric filtration is enhanced because the PM has a residual
charge from the ESP.

7.4 EMERGING SCRUBBER TECHNOLOGIES

The emerging technologies for scrubbers include: 1) annular orifice venturi scrubber and 2)
waterweb mesh scrubber. These technologies are described below.

7.4.1 Annular Orifice Venturi Scrubber

The annular orifice venturi scrubber has been developed (Leisegang QTV-Process, N.A.) that
is an alkaline scrubbing process for the removal of PM and gaseous pollutants. Flue gases are first
cooled by injection of a lime liquor and then scrubbed in an annular orifice venturi. The unit generates
no wastewater and uses the heat from the flue gases to concentrate residue into a paste with 50 percent
solids. This device has been successfully used in MSW incineration where, with a pressure drop of 16
in. water, 99 percent control efficiency of PM $ 2.5 :m was achieved. At 24 in. water pressure drop,
>99 percent control efficiency was achieved for PM $ 1.0 m and 97.5 percent for 0.5 :m PM.18

7.4.2 Waterweb Mesh Scrubber

A waterweb mesh scrubber has been developed by Mystaire Air Pollution Control Systems, of
Misonix Inc. of Farmingdale, New York, that is suitable for many types of PM, gases, vapors, odors,
and mists. Waterweb mesh is an extremely effective scrubber packing that consists of sections of
layered PVC-coated fiberglass that is compressed and bonded to create thousands of microventuri
passages where gas is forcibly dispersed through scrubbing liquid. The mesh is nonclogging and

7-7
thoroughly mixes the gas and scrubbing liquid. This scrubber is reported to be able to handle up to
50,000 CFM.19

7.5 EMERGING MECHANICAL COLLECTOR TECHNOLOGIES

An emerging technology for mechanical collectors is the "Core Separator" that has been
developed by LSR Technologies, Inc. for use with PM from coal combustion. The core separator
consists of a centrifugal separator and a conventional cyclone. The centrifugal separator is a cylindrical
chamber with a tangential inlet at the bottom and two outlets, which generates a circular motion and
centrifugal force. In the Core Separator, dust-laden gas enters the centrifugal separator, where solid
PM is forced to the wall outwards from the center of the centrifugal separator leaving clean gas. This
clean gas in the center of the separator is exhausted to the atmosphere and the remaining dust-laden
portion of the gas is sent to a cyclone for additional PM removal. The cleaned gas from the cyclone is
then recirculated back to the centrifugal separator. The Core Separator system costs about three times
more than an equivalent-sized cyclone, but removes 80 percent of what usually penetrates the
conventional cyclone, to give 95 to 98 percent overall PM control. 20,21

7.6 EMERGING FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Emerging technologies that may be applicable for PM control from fugitive PM sources are 1)
high-voltage PM ionizer and 2) dry fog. These technologies are discussed below.

7.6.1 High-Voltage PM Ionizer

A technique that utilizes high-voltage electrical pulses to control air pollutants has been
developed by two companies. One device, called the Ion Blast, has been developed by Ion Blast, Inc.
of Vantaa, Finland. In the Ion Blast, gas is blown into a chamber where a 150 kilovolt (kV) current
charges the PM in the air. The PM is then attracted towards a collection surface where they become
attached. The device is reported to have low energy requirements and no moving, wearing, or
replaceable parts. The Ion Blast is reported to be able to remove nearly 100 percent of the PM,
including biological matter such as viruses, as small as 0.005 :m. Only small quantities of gas, up to
5,000 SCFM, can be treated.22

A similar device, called the Pulsatech, has been developed by Pulsatron Technology, Ltd. of
Los Angeles, California. This technology was acquired from a Russian government agency, which had
implemented the device at four Russian industrial plants. The Pulsatech is reported to achieve 99
percent destruction of SO2 and NOx and >95 percent destruction of VOCs, while ionizing the PM so
that it collects on the chamber walls. The device uses a 22 kV charge and has a capacity of less than
1,500 SCFM.23

7-8
7.6.2 Dry Fog

A device to control fugitive coal dust emissions from transfer points has been developed and
patented by Sonic Development Corp., Parsippany, New Jersey. In the "Dry Fog" device, a fog of
micrometer-size water droplets is generated by nozzles. The water moistens the coal and triggers
agglomeration of the dust particles to sizes large enough to settle. Once the dust drops reach the
ground, the water evaporates leaving dry coal. A unit installed near the power plant of a grain
processor uses water at a rate of 1 gal/min, about 10 percent of that used in conventional wetting
techniques.24

7.7 EMERGING SIMULTANEOUS POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Emerging technologies that target the simultaneous control of PM and other pollutants include:
1) SOx-NO x-Rox Box (SNRB) catalytic fabric filter, and 2) catalyst-coated fabric filters. These
technologies are discussed below.

7.7.1 SNRB (SOx -NOx -Rox Box) Catalytic Fabric Filter

A SOx-NO x-Rox Box (SNRB) has been developed by Babcock & Wilcox (Alliance, Ohio)
for use in coal combustion, that controls PM ("Rox") as well as SOx and NOx. The device consists of a
pulse-jet fabric filter equipped with ceramic fiber filter bags for high temperature application, alkali
(sodium or calcium based) sorbent injection used for SO2 removal, and ammonia injection and selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) used for catalytic reduction and control of NOx. The catalyst is located
inside the filter bags (see Section 7.7.2 below). The alkali sorbent and ammonia injection can be
performed at the high temperatures of the fabric filter. Consolidating the removal of three pollutants into
one device saves on capital and operating costs, and the need for flue gas cooling is eliminated.
Efficiencies reported are 99.9 percent for PM, 85 percent for SOx, and 90 to 95 percent for NOx.25,26

7.7.2 Catalyst-Coated Fabric Filters

Catalyst-coated fabric filters have been developed by the Energy & Environmental Research
Center of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation use with
combustion sources. Using a sol-gel process, high temperature fabric filters are coated with a
vanadium/titanium (V/Ti) catalyst. The catalyst-coated filters can then be used in utility or industrial hot-
side fabric filter and are capable of simultaneous PM and NOx control.27

7-9
7.8 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7

1. Butcher, C. Hot News in Ceramic Filters. Chemical Engineer. October 10, 1991.

2. Fischer, E.M. "Performance of Ceramic Fiber and Composite Filters at High Temperatures,"
in Clean Air Technology News, Institute of Clean Air Companies, Washington, DC. Summer
1995.

3. Dilger, F. Lowering Emissions - More Effective Air Pollution Control with Fine Fibre Filter
Media. Filtration & Separation. March/April 1994.

4. Plaks, N. and B.E. Daniel. "Advances in Electrostatically Stimulated Fabric Filtration," in

Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate
Control Technology (EPA-600/9-89-046b). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. May 1989.

5. Plaks, N. and C.B. Sedman. Enhancement of Electrostatic Precipitation with Electrostatically

Augmented Fabric Filtration. U.S. Patent No. 5,217,511. June 8, 1993.

6. ESP Newsletter. The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. March 1996.

7. Yamamoto, T., P.A. Lawless, and N. Plaks. Evaluation of the Cold Pipe Precharger. IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications. 26(4): 639-645. July/August 1990.

8. Rinard, et al. "Development of a Charging Device for High-resistivity Dust Using Heated and
Cooled Electrodes," in Proceedings of the Third Symposium on the Transfer and
Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, Vol. II (EPA-600/9-2-005b).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 1982

9. Mosley, R.B., L.E. Sparks, and N. Plaks. Electroprecipitator with Suppression of Rapping
Reentrainment. U.S. Patent No. 4,822,381. April 18, 1989.

10. N. Plaks and L.E. Sparks. Electroprecipitator with Alternating Charging and Short Collector
Sections (SUPER ESP). U.S. Patent No. 5,059,219. October 22, 1991.

11. Plaks, N. "The SUPER ESP - Ultimate Electrostatic Precipitation," in Proceedings: 1991
Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. 1992.

12. Oglesby, S., Jr. Future Directions of Particulate Control Technology: A Perspective. J. Air
Waste Management Assoc. 40(8): 1184-1185. August 1990.

13. Fabric Filter Newsletter. The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. April 1996.

7-10
14. Miller, R.L. "Combining ESPs and Fabric Filters for Particulate Collection," in Clean Air
Technology News, Institute of Clean Air Companies, Washington, DC. Winter 1994.

15. Lamarre, L. COHPing with Particulates. EPRI Journal. July/August 1993.

16. Chang, R. Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector (COHPAC). U.S. Patent No. 5,158,580.
October 27, 1992.

17. C. Sedman, N. Plaks, W. Marchant, and G. Nichols. Advances in Fine Particle Control
Technology. Presented at the Ukraine Ministry of Energy and Electrification Conference on
Power Plant Air Pollution Control Technology, in Kiev, The Ukraine, September 9 - 10, 1996.

18. The Scrubber Manual. The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. February 1987.

19. Personal communication. C. Thomas, Misonix Inc., Farmingdale, New York, with T. Stobert,
EC/R Inc., Durham, North Carolina. Mystaire Scrubbing Systems. August 6, 1996.

20. ESP Newsletter. The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. May 1996.

21. Wysk, S.R. and L.A. Smolensky. Novel Particulate Control Device for Industrial Gas
Cleaning. Filtration & Separation. January/February 1993.

22. ESP Newsletter. The McIlvaine Company, Northbrook, Illinois. April 1996.

23. High-Power Pulses Blast Pollutants. Chemical Engineering. 103(9): 21-22. September 1996.

24. Reason, J. Dust Suppression System Doesn't Wet Coal. Power. March 1989.

25. Kudlac, G.A., et. al. SNRB Catalytic Baghouse Laboratory Pilot Testing. Environmental
Progress. 11:1. February 1992.

26. Gennrich T. Filter Bags Help Meet Particulate Control Standards. Power Engineering.
August 1993.

27. Ness, S.R., et al. SCR Catalyst-Coated Fabric Filters for Simultaneous NOx and High
Temperature Particulate Control. Environmental Progress. 14:1. February 1995.

7-11
 APPENDIX A

LIST OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR PM AND PM PRECURSOR CONTROL

The following is a list of documents that can be use as resources to identify control techniques
for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), as well as the PM precursors: sulfur oxides, ammonia,
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds.

PARTICULATE MATTER

Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (EPA-
450/3-81-005a, PB83-127498). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. 1982. (change to 1996 update, when completed)

Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures

(EPA-450/2-89-015). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. September 1989.

Technical Information Document for Residential Wood Combustion Best Available Control Measures
(EPA-450/2-92-002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. September 1992.

Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-450/3-88-008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1988.

Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control
Measures (EPA-450/2-92-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. September 1992.

Agricultural Activities Influencing Fine Particulate Matter Emissions. Draft Final Report prepared for
Mr. K. Woodard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Strategies and Standards
Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, under EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0031, Work
Assignment II-19. March 25, 1996.

SULFUR OXIDES

Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, Second Edition (EPA-450/3-
81-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1981.

A-1
AMMONIA

ApSimon, H.M., D. Cowell, and S. Couling. Assessing the Potential for Abatement of Ammonia
Emissions from Agriculture in Europe: the MARACCAS Model (Draft). International Conference on
Atmospheric Ammonia Emissions, Deposition and Environmental Impacts, NETCEN, Culham,
Oxford, England. October 2-4, 1995.

NITROGEN OXIDES

Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options.
STAPPA/ALAPCO, Washington, D.C. September 1993.

Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under Clean Air Act. STAPPA/ALAPCO and ESI International,
Washington, D.C. July 1994.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume I: Control Methods
for Surface Coating Operations. EPA-450/2-76-028 (NTIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November
1976.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume II: Surface Coating
of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-450/2-77-008. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. May 1977.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume III: Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture. EPA-450-2-77-032. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1977.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume IV: Surface Coating
for Insulation of Magnet Wire. EPA-450/2-77-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1977.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume V: Surface Coating
of Large Appliances. EPA-450/2-77-034. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1977.

A-2
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants. EPA-450/2-77-035. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. December 1977.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks.
EPA-450/2-77-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1977.

Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit
Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-77-025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1977.

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback Asphalt. EPA-450/2-77-037. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. December 1977.

Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals. EPA-450/2-77-026. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. October 1977.

Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems - Gasoline Service Stations, (no document number
issued). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1975.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning. EPA-450/2-77-022. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. November 1977.

Summary of Group I Control Technique Guideline Documents for Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources. EPA-450/3-78-120. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
December 1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume VI: Surface Coating
of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. EPA-450/2-78-015. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. June
1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume VII: Factory Surface
Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. EPA-450/2-78-032. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. June 1978.

A-3
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume VIII: Graphic Arts -
Rotogravure and Flexography. EPA-450/2-78-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. EPA-450/2-78-
036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. June 1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks.
EPA-450/2-78-047. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection
Systems. EPA-450/2-78-051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products.

EPA-450/2-78-029. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1978.

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. EPA-450/2-78-
030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1978.

Summary of Group II Control Technique Guideline Documents for Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources. EPA-450/2-80-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
December 1979.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
EPA-450/3-82-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1982.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene,

Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. EPA-450/3-83-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November
1983.

A-4
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing
Plants. EPA-450/2-83-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1983.

Control of VOC Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical, Polymer, and Resin
Manufacturing Equipment. EPA-450/3-83-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1984.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-84-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1984.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations
Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, draft. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. November 15, 1993.

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the Application of Agricultural Pesticides.
EPA-453/R-92-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1993.

Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing. EPA-450/3-88-

009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1998.

Halogenated Solvent Cleaners. EPA-450/3-89-030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1989.

Organic Waste Process Vents. EPA-450/3-91-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1990.

Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Application of Traffic Markings.

EPA-450/3-88-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1988.

VOC/HAP Emissions from Marine Vessel Loading Operations: Technical Support Document for
Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-93-001a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1992.

A-5
 APPENDIX B

VATAVUK AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COST INDEXES

The Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes (VAPPCI) are updated quarterly and
published monthly in Chemical Engineering magazine. For a detailed explanation of the development
and use of the VAPPCI, see Chemical Engineering, December 1995, pp 88-95.

Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes

(1st Quarter 1994 = 100.0)a

1995 1st Q. 2nd Q. 3rd Q. 4th Q. 1st Q.

Control Device (Avg.) 1996 1996 1996 1996b 1997b

Carbon adsorbers 110.7 109.2 107.5 105.2 103.9 104.2

Catalytic incinerators 107.1 107.7 107.0 107.1 105.8 105.6

Electrostatic precipitators 108.2 107.0 107.6 108.9 108.3 108.8

Fabric filters c 102.7 104.0 104.2 104.8 105.0 105.3

Flares 107.5 104.5 104.9 105.1 105.7 105.5

Gas absorbers 105.6 108.6 108.2 107.1 106.9 108.7

Mechanical collectors c 103.0 103.3 103.3 103.3 103.3 103.5

Refrigeration systems 103.0 104.2 104.2 104.4 104.8 105.1

Regenerative thermal oxidizers 104.4 105.8 106.0 106.7 106.5 107.3

Thermal incinerators 105.9 108.0 108.0 108.3 108.2 109.1

Wet scrubbers 112.5 111.7 110.1 109.3 109.0 108.3

a
Index values have been rounded to the nearest tenth.

b
All fourth quarter 1996 and first quarter 1997 indexes are preliminary.

c
For fabric filters and mechanical collectors, each quarterly value shown is the average of the Producer Price
Indexes (PPIs) for the three months in question, divided by the average of the PPIs for January, February,
and March 1994 (i.e., first quarter 1994)

B-1
 TECHNICAL REPORT ABSTRACT

REPORT TITLE: Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine

Particulate Matter

REPORT DATE: September 30, 1997

CONTRACT NO.: EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0034

PRIME CONTRACTOR: EC/R Incorporated, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.: III-34

PROJECT OFFICER: Ms. Mary Wilkins

ADDRESS: Information Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-

12)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

PHONE: (919) 541-5229

PROJECT OFFICE: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

NUMBER OF PAGES: 242

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified (No Confidential Business Information)

REPORT ABSTRACT:

Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter presents recent
developments in the control of particulate matter which have become available since preparation of an
earlier document entitled Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources -
Volume 1 (1982).
This document focuses on fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 - particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to an nominal 10 microns and 2.5 microns, respectively).
Information presented in this document includes background on particulate matter emissions;
measurement methods for particulate matter; types of particulate control devices, their operating
principles, design, operation, and control efficiencies; costs and environmental effects of particulate
matter control systems; and emerging technologies for particulate matter control.

KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS: Air Pollution, Air Pollution Control, Control

Devices, Fine Particulate Matter, Costs, Control
Efficiency
 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)

1. REPORT NO. 2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

EPA-452/R-97-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine October 1998
Particulate Matter 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
68-D-98-026
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Final
Office of Air and Radiation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT
Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter presents recent
developments in the control of particulate matter which have become available since preparation of an earlier
document entitled Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume 1 (1982).
This document focuses on fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 - particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to an nominal 10 microns and 2.5 microns, respectively). Information presented
in this document includes background on particulate matter emissions; measurement methods for particulate
matter; types of particulate control devices, their operating principles, design, operation, and control
efficiencies; costs and environmental effects of particulate matter control systems; and emerging technologies
for particulate matter control.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

a. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group

Air Pollution Air Pollution Control

Pollution Control Fine Particulate Matter
Fine Particulate Matter
Costs
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 242
Release Unlimited 20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified

EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE