Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014

Copyright © Taiwan Association for Aerosol Research

ISSN: 1680-8584 print / 2071-1409 online
doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2014.08.0175 
Technical Note

Filterable and Condensable Fine Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources

Hsi-Hsien Yang*, Kuei-Ting Lee, Yueh-Shu Hsieh, Shao-Wei Luo, Min-Shan Li

Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Chaoyang University of Technology, Wufeng, Taichung 413,
Taiwan

ABSTRACT

PM2.5 emissions from stationary sources contain a filterable and condensable portion. In this study, USEPA Method
201A/202 are used to measure filterable and condensable PM2.5 emissions from 5 stationary sources (power plants, boilers,
brick manufacturing plant, incinerators and arc furnaces). The average filterable PM2.5 concentrations for power plant,
boiler, brick manufacturing plant, incinerator and arc furnace are 0.75, 16.9, 8.67, 0.15 and 2.12 mg/Nm3, respectively. The
amount of PM2.5 residue on the exit tube of cyclone and front half of the filter holder is significantly higher when the
filterable PM2.5 concentrations are low. It is necessary to collect both filter and the residue particulates to avoid
underestimation of PM2.5 emissions. The condensable PM accounts for 61.2%, 73.5%, 44.2%, 52.8% and 51.2% of total
PM2.5 for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing plant, incinerator and arc furnace plant, respectively. The real PM2.5
contribution to the atmosphere would be underestimated if condensable PM is not included. The condensable PM fraction
increases as the exhaust temperature rises. The inorganic fraction accounts for 89.0%, 69.4%, 72.3%, 89.8% and 72.8% of
condensable PM, respectively, for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing plant, incinerator and arc furnace. The
inorganic fraction is dominant in the condensable PM, which might be due to the high content of SO4.

Keywords: Fine particulate; Stationary sources; Filterable PM2.5; Condensable PM2.5; Dry impinger method.

INTRODUCTION a solid or liquid at stack conditions and captured on the

filter of a sampling train. Condensable PM means material
Previous studies have shown that fine particulate that is vapor phase at stack conditions, but condenses and/or
(aerodynamic size less than 2.5 µm, PM2.5) is harmful to reacts upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air to form
human health (e.g., Pope et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2012). solid or liquid PM immediately after discharge from the
The level of atmospheric PM2.5 is associated with stack. Condensable PM is typically not measured because
cardiovascular disease and mortality (Pope et al., 2004; most countries do not require sources to measure it. PM2.5
Chiu et al., 2013). It is essential to reduce PM2.5 emission emission would be underestimated if condensable PM2.5 is
and control its formation in order to lower the level of not included since condensable PM accounts for a significant
atmospheric PM2.5. To realize the PM2.5 characteristics and portion for PM2.5. USEPA has announced Method 201A
estimate the contributions from the emission sources is the and Method 202 to measure filterable PM and Condensable
first step of emission control. PM, respectively. Numerous studies have investigated the
The main sources of atmospheric PM2.5 include volcanic measurement artifacts of Method 202. The measurement
eruption, sea salt spray, street dust, direct discharge of artifacts have been reduced by optimization of the new
industrial processes and transport emissions (Chow et al., method (Corio and Sherwell, 2000; Richards et al., 2005).
1995; Gugamsetty et al., 2012; Subramoney et al., 2013). In addition to USEPA Method 201A/202, various types
The combustion stationary sources are important PM2.5 of dilution systems for the measurement of PM2.5 have been
contributors (Sudheer and Rengarajan, 2012; Ward et al., developed (e.g., Kong et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013). Dilution
2012; Yu et al., 2013). Particulate matter emissions from sampling system collects filterable PM and condensable
stationary sources contain filterable and condensable portion. PM on the same filter and the chemical compositions can
Filterable PM are particles directly emitted from a stack as be analyzed. However, a few parameters would affect the
measurement accuracy of the dilution sampling system and
the standard specification is still developing. Before the
standard or the guidelines of the dilution methods are
*
Corresponding author. established, USEPA Method 201A and 202 are the standard
Tel.: +886-4-23323000 ext. 4451; Fax: +886-4-23742365 method for PM2.5 measurement of stationary sources.
E-mail address: [email protected] Moreover, the extremely large bulky sampling equipments
 Yang et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014  2011

make it difficult to measure PM2.5 emissions for many furnaces. At leat 3 successful samples were collected for
important sources. At this stage, USEPA Method 201A/202 the 5 stationary emission sources.
is the most practical way to collect PM2.5 samples from the
stationary sources. Since CPM is seldom measured, very Sampling Equipment and Methods
few literatures for condensable PM emission characteristics USEPA Method 201A (Determination of PM10 and PM2.5
have been reported in the literature. In this study, USEPA emissions from stationary sources) and Method 202 (Dry
Method 201A/202 are used to measure PM2.5 emissions impinger method for determining condensable particulate
from 5 stationary sources (power plants, boilers, brick emissions from stationary sources) (USEPA, 2010) were
manufacturing plant, incinerators and arc furnaces). The performed for filterable and condensable PM measurements,
emission characteristics of the filterable PM and condensable respectively. APEX XC-5000 Automated Isokinetic Sampling
PM for these important PM2.5 emission sources are discussed. Console sampling system which meet the requirement of
USEPA Method 201A and Method 202 was used in this
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION study. The main equipment of Method 201A includes front
nozzle, PM2.5 cyclone, filter holder, pitot tube and stainless
Sampling Campaign steel (with glass liner) sampling tube, vacuum pump and the
Filterable and condensable PM2.5 emitted from 5 stationary computer control console. The sampling rate is controlled
sources (power plants, boilers, brick manufacturing plants, within ± 20% isokinetically for the sampling in this study.
incinerators and arc furnaces) were collected in this study. Particulates with diameter less than 2.5 µm are sucked
Power plants use coal and oil as fuels. The electricity through the cyclone and are primarily collected on a 4.7
capacities are 240–550 MW. Electrostatic precipitators are mm filter. The temperature of cyclone sampling head is
installed to remove PM emissions for all the power plants. maintained within ± 10°C of the stack temperature to
Flue gas desulfurization is additionally used to remove ensure proper sizing and prevent condensation on the walls
SOx emissions for the coal-fired power plants. Boilers use of the cyclones.
coal as fuel. Most of these boilers are the textile industry. The equipment of Method 202 includes a condenser,
Cyclone and bag house are installed to remove PM emissions water dropout impinger, modified Greenburg Smith impinger
for the boilers. Brick manufacturing plants produce tile and and condensable PM filter (Fig. 1). Condensable PM is
brick. The main process is raw material (such as clay or mainly collected in the water dropout impinger and the
slurries) drying and firing. Incinerators have capacities (backup) modified Greenburg Smith impinger. Condensable
from 450–900 ton waste combustion per day. Bag houses PM filter placed between the second and the third impingers
are installed to remove PM emissions for all the incinerators. is used to improve the collection efficiency. Condensable
Semi-dryer absorption system is used to remove SOx PM is collected by condenser, dry impingers, pipelines and
emissions. Arc furnaces use scrap steel as feedstock. Bag the backup Teflon filter after filterable PM is removed by a
houses are installed to remove PM emissions for all the arc 4.7 mm filter. In addition, exhaust gas composition (N2, O2,

Fig. 1. USEPA Method 201A and Method 202 sampling train.

2012 Yang et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014 

CO2, CO) is measured by Orsat method. Leakage check is RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
conducted before each sampling. To collect sufficient sample,
the sampling volume is at least than 2 m3. Filterable PM2.5 Concentrations and Its Composition
Filterable PM2.5 emission concentrations for the
Sample Analysis investigated plants are shown in Fig. 2. The average
Filterable PM2.5 filterable PM2.5 concentrations for power plant, boiler, brick
Pallflex 47 mm quartz filter is used for filterable PM manufacturing plant, incinerator and arc furnace are 0.75,
collection. The filter is conditioned under temperature of 16.9, 8.67, 0.15 and 2.12 mg/Nm3, respectively. Boilers
20–23°C and relative humidity of 30–40% for 24 hrs before have highest average emission concentrations.
and after sampling. After condition, the filter is weighed by A filter with 4.7 mm is installed after the PM2.5 cyclone
the gravimetric technique (Sartorius balance, model Cubis to collect the particulate less than 2.5 µm. However, residue
6.6S-DF). In addition to the filter sample, PM2.5 on the exit might be left on the exit tube of cyclone and front half of
tube of cyclone and front half of the filter holder is collected the filter holder. According to USEPA Method 201A, the
by acetone rinses. The rinses is quantitatively transferred to residue should be collected and be combined with the filter
a tared 250 mL beaker, and evaporated to dryness at room data for the emission estimate. The residue was recovered
temperature and pressure in a laboratory hood. Desiccate by acetone washing, evaporated, conditioned and weighed.
the sample for 24 hrs and weighed (USEPA, 2010). The mass distributions for PM2.5 are shown in Fig. 3. Most
PM2.5 was collected on filter, and only about 5% PM2.5 was
Condensable PM2.5 retained at the cyclone holder. For incinerator, significant
USEPA Method 202 is used to sample and analyze amount PM2.5 is retained at the cyclone holder. The reason
condensable PM. According to USEPA Method 202, it is is that filterable PM emission concentrations low. Less
necessary to measure condensable PM if the gas filtration filterable PM2.5 is collected on the filter and the particulate
temperature exceeds 30°C. Condensable PM is collected in residue left on the exit tube of cyclone and front half of the
the water dropout impinger, the modified Greenburg Smith filter holder is similar for all the plants, which results in
impinger and the condensable PM filter of the sampling the high percentage of the residue mass. The air pollution
train. The impinger contents are purged with Ultra-High control devices can reduce PM (as well as PM2.5) emissions
Purity compressed nitrogen immediately after sample effectively. PM2.5 emissions would be even lower when the
collection to remove dissolved sulfur dioxide gases from the devices are used. The results show that it is important and
impinger. Condensable PM train is purged at a minimum of necessary to collect both filter and cyclone holder residue
14 L/min for at least 1 hr. Purified water and organic particulates to avoid underestimation of PM2.5 emission,
solvents (n-hexane and acetone) were used to rinse the especially for the stacks with low PM2.5 concentrations.
whole sampling pipeline, condenser, water dropout impinger,
modified Greenburg Smith impinger and condensable PM Condensable PM2.5 Concentrations and Its Composition
filter, respectively. The inorganic (water rinses) and organic USEPA Method 202 was used to measure the emission
(organic solvent rinses) fractions were dried and weighed of condensable PM in this study. Condensable PM is
in the laboratory. Condensable PM is the summation of the collected by condenser, dry impinger and backup filter as
two fractions. Field blanks (e.g., Organic solvents and water shown in Fig. 1. The emission concentrations of condensable
field blanks) are measured for each sampling. Detailed PM are shown in Fig. 4. The average condensable PM2.5
procedures could be referred to USEPA Method 202. concentrations for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing

40
Filterable PM 2.5 concentration (mg/Nm3 )

30
20
10

0
nt er k r e
er pla Boil Bric cinerato furanc
Po w In Arc
Fig. 2. Filterable PM2.5 concentrations for the plants.
 Yang et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014  2013

Filter Cyclone holder

100

Mass distributions of filterable PM 2.5

in filter and cyclone holder (%)
80

60

40

20

0
lant Boiler k r
Bric cinerato furanc
e
ower p In r c
P A
Fig. 3. Average mass distributions of filterable PM2.5 on filter and cyclone holder.
Condensable PM 2.5 concentration (mg/Nm 3 )

500
400
300
200
100

0
t r k r e
er plan Boile Bric cinerato furanc
Pow In Ar c
Fig. 4. Condensable PM2.5 concentrations for the plants.

plant, incinerator and arc furnace are 2.15, 29.3, 83.5, 0.17 combustion of fossil fuels, sulfur in fuel is oxidized primarily
and 2.53 mg/Nm3, respectively. The same as filterable PM, to SO2 and a small fraction is converted to SO3. SO3 reacts
incinerator has the lowest emission concentrations. with water to form H2SO4 in the stack gas. Besides, SO4
Condensable PM sample is the rinses of the sampling may form if the plants use selective catalytic reduction which
media by water and organic solvents (acetone and hexane) add ammonia (NH3) to control NOx emission. H2SO4 mist
sequentially. Condensable PM thus consists of inorganic and particulate SO4 may be emitted along with the particulate
fraction (water rinse) and organic fraction (solvent rinse). The passing through the control device (Corio and Sherwell,
partitions of inorganic and organic fraction of condensable 2000). The high content of SO4 explains the predominance
PM for the investigated plants are shown in Fig. 5. The of inorganic fraction in condensable PM.
inorganic fraction accounts for 89.0%, 69.4%, 72.3%, 89.8%
and 72.8%, respectively, for power plant, boiler, brick Percentages of Filterable and Condensable PM in PM2.5
manufacturing plant, incinerator and arc furnace. Inorganic The percentages of filterable and condensable PM in
fraction is dominated in condensable PM. The results agree PM2.5 for the investigated plants are shown in Fig. 6.
with the previous studies (Corio and Sherwell, 2000; Condensable PM dominates for most plants. The condensable
Richards et al., 2005). PM fraction accounts for 61.2%, 73.5%, 44.2%, 52.8% and
Evaluations of Method 202 for coal-fired boiler emissions 51.2% for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing plant,
showed that the inorganic fraction accounted for higher incinerator and arc furnace plant, respectively. The results
than 95% of the condensable PM (DeWees et al., 1989). of Corio and Sherwell (2000) show that condensable PM, on
SO4 compounds, primarily H2SO4, make up the largest average, comprises 76% of the total PM10 stack emissions
category of inorganic condensable emissions. During for coal-burning boilers. PM emissions were measured for
2014 Yang et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014 

Inorganic Organic

Mass distributions of condensable PM2.5

100

in inorganic and organic (%)

80

60

40

20

0
t er k r e
er plan Boil Bric cinerato furanc
Pow I n A r c

Fig. 5. Distributions of condensable PM2.5 in inorganic and organic fractions.

filterable PM 2.5 and condensable PM 2.5 (%)

FPM CPM
100

80
Mass distributions of

60

40

20

0
lant Boiler k r
Bric cinerato furanc
e
er p
P ow In A rc
Fig. 6. Mass distributions of FPM2.5 and CPM2.5 for the plants.

power plants with three different fuels (bituminous, sub- increases as the exhaust temperature increases. As mentioned
bituminous coal and lignite). The results showed that in previous section, when the stack temperature is cooler,
condensable PM accounts for 59.7%, 49.1% and 73% of total the SO4 and other condensable materials are easier to
PM emissions for fuels of bituminous, sub-bituminous coal condense on the filter, which would result in the higher
and lignite, respectively (Farber and Sloat, 2005). The results percentage of filterable PM. The results again indicate the
of this study agree with the previous studies. Condensable importance of including condensable PM in PM2.5 emission
PM concentrations are higher than filterable PM. This is measurement since stack temperature can affect filterable
partially due to better control of filterable particulate PM measurement result for in-stack measurement of
combined with emission controls for NOx that use catalysts Method 201A. No matter how the condensable and filterable
that produce SO3 or use ammonia injection. Condensable PM distributions are affected by the stack temperatures,
PM is not measured typically because regulations in most the emission of PM2.5 to the atmosphere should be sum of
countries do not require sources to measure. However, the filterable and condensable PM.
real PM2.5 contribution to the atmosphere would be
underestimated if condensable PM is not included. CONCLUSION
The percentages of condensable PM in PM2.5 for different
sources vary greatly. Condensable PM percentage depends USEPA Method 201A and 202 are used to measure
on control devices, exhaust temperature and other source- filterable and condensable PM2.5 emissions, respectively,
specific conditions. Among the factors, stack temperature is from 5 stationary sources. The average filterable PM2.5
the most significant since in-stack filter is used with Method concentrations for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing
201A. As shown in Fig. 7, condensable PM percentage plant, incinerator and arc furnace are 0.75, 16.9, 8.67, 0.15
 Yang et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014  2015

100
y = 0.2086x + 34.281
2
80 R = 0.2605

Condensable PM (%)
60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
o
Exhaust temperature ( C)
Fig. 7. Correlation between condensable PM percentage and temperature. 

and 2.12 mg/Nm3, and the average condensable PM2.5 Impinger Catch for Measuring Condensable Matter from
concentrations are 2.15, 29.3, 83.5, 0.17 and 2.53 mg/Nm3, Stationary Sources; U.S. Environmental Protection
respectively. For filterable PM2.5 collection, it is necessary Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1989.
to collect both filter and the residue particulates to avoid Farber, P.S. and Sloat D.G. (2005). Reducing Acid Mist
underestimation of PM2.5 emission since the amount of Emissions from Coal-fired Power Plants, COAL-GEN
PM2.5 residue on the exit tube of cyclone and front half of Power Generation Conference, 2005.
the filter holder is significantly high when filterable PM2.5 Gugamsetty, B., Wei, H., Liu, C.N., Awasthi, A., Hsu, S.C.,
concentrations are low. The inorganic fraction accounts for Tsai, C.J., Roam, G.D., Wu, Y.C. and Chen, C.F (2012).
89.0%, 69.4%, 72.3%, 89.8% and 72.8% of condensable Source Characterization and Apportionment of PM10,
PM, respectively, for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing PM2.5 and PM0.1 by Using Positive Matrix Factorization.
plant, incinerator and arc furnace. The condensable PM Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 12: 476–491.
accounts for 61.2%, 73.5%, 44.2%, 52.8% and 51.2% of Kong, S.F., Ji, Y.Q., Li, Z.Y., Lu, B. and Bai, Z.P. (2013).
total PM2.5 for power plant, boiler, brick manufacturing plant, Emission and Profile Characteristic of Polycyclic
incinerator and arc furnace plant, respectively. The real PM2.5 Aromatic Hydrocarbons in PM2.5 and PM10 from
contribution to the atmosphere would be underestimated if Stationary Sources Based on Dilution Sampling. Atmos.
condensable PM is not included. Stack temperature is an Environ. 77: 155–165.
important factor affecting the distribution of filterable and Lee, S.W., Herage, T., Dureau, R. and Young, B. (2013).
condensable PM2.5. Measurement of PM2.5 and Ultra-Fine Particulate
Emissions from Coal-Fired Utility Boilers. Fuel 108:
REFERENCES 60–66.
Pope, III, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thurston, G.D., Thun, M.J.,
Chang, C.J., Yang, H.H., Chang, C.A. and Tsai, H.Y. (2012). Calle, E.E., Krewski, D. and Godleski, J.J. (2004).
Relationship between Air Pollution and Outpatient Visits Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-term Exposure to
for Nonspecific Conjunctivitis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Particulate Air Pollution: Epidemiological Evidence of
Sci. 53: 429–433. General Pathophysiological Pathways of Disease.
Chiu, H.F., Peng, C.Y., Wu, T.N. and Yang, C.Y. (2013). Circulation 109: 71–77.
Short-Term Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution on Richards, J., Holder, T. and Goshaw, D. (2005). Optimized
Ischemic Heart Disease Hospitalizations in Taipei: A Case- Method 202 Sampling Train to Minimize the Biases
crossover Study. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 13: 1563–1569. Associated with Method 202 Measurement of Condensable
Chow, J.C., Fairley, D., Watson J.G., DeMandel, R., Particulate Matter Emissions, 2005 Hazardous Waste
Fujita, E.M., Lowenthal, D.H., Lu, Z., Frazier, C.A., Combustion Specialty Conference, St. Louis, Missouri,
Long, G., Cordova, J., (1995). Source Apportionment of 2005, Air & Waste Management Association.
Wintertime PM10 at San Jose, Calif. J. Environ. Eng. Subramoney, P., Karnae, S., Farooqui, Z., John, K. and
121: 378–387. Gupta, A.K. (2013). Identification of PM2.5 Sources
Corio, L.A. and Sherwell, J. (2000). In-Stack Condensable Affecting a Semi-Arid Coastal Region Using a Chemical
Particulate Matter Measurements and Issues. J. Air Waste Mass Balance Model. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 13: 60–70.
Manage. Assoc. 50: 207–218. Sudheer, A.K. and Rengarajan, R. (2012). Atmospheric
DeWees, W.G., Steinsberger, S.C., Plummer, G.M., Lay, Mineral Dust and Trace Metals over Urban Environment
L.T., McAlister, G.D. and Shigehara, R.T. (1989). in Western India during Winter. Aerosol Air Qual. Res.
Laboratory and Field Evaluation of the EPA Method 5 12: 923–933.
2016 Yang et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14: 2010–2016, 2014 

USEPA (2010). USEPA Method 201A, Determination of Yu, L.D., Wang, G.F., Zhang, R.J., Zhang, L.M., Song, Y.,
PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary Sources. Wu, B.B., Li, X.F., An, K. and Chu, J.H. (2013).
USEPA (2010). USEPA Method 202, Dry Impinger Method Characterization and Source Apportionment of PM2.5 in
for Determining Condensable Particulate Emissions from an Urban Environment in Beijing. Aerosol Air Qual.
Stationary Sources. Res. 13: 574–583.
Ward, T., Trost, B., Conner, J., Flanagan, J. and Jayanty,
R.K.M. (2012). Source Apportionment of PM2.5 in a
Subarctic Airshed-Fairbanks, Alaska. Aerosol Air Qual. Received for review, August 26, 2014
Res. 12: 536–543. Accepted, October 3, 2014