Master Trash System Particle Size Distribution ...

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

Report ID: 14-PSD-GB-17 September 2014 Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Submitted by: Dr. Michael Buser (contact) Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University 113 Agricultural Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-5288 [email protected] Mr. Thomas Moore Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University 117 Agricultural Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 (903) 477-2458 [email protected]

, Ph.D.

icultural Engineering versity

8 hone ax

Dr. Derek Whitelock Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service 300 E College Dr. Mesilla Park, NM 88047 (575) 526-6381 [email protected]

Acknowledgments: Funding Sources: California Cotton Growers and Ginners Association Cotton Foundation Cotton Incorporated Oklahoma State University San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Study Agency Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association Southern Cotton Ginners Association Texas Cotton Ginners Association Texas State Support Group USDA Agricultural Research Service USDA NIFA Hatch Project 02882

Air Quality Advisory Group: California Air Resources Board Missouri Department of Natural Resources North Carolina Department of Natural Resources San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Texas A&M University Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department Texas Commission on Environmental Quality US Environmental Protection Agency – Air Quality Analysis Group US Environmental Protection Agency – Air Quality Modeling Group US Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency – Process Modeling Research Branch, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division US Environment Protection Agency Region 4 US Environment Protection Agency Region 9 USDA NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team

Cotton Gin Advisory Group: California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association Cotton Incorporated National Cotton Council National Cotton Ginners Association Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association Southern Cotton Ginners Association Texas Cotton Ginners Association Texas A&M University Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department

Page 2 of 69

Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Answered Submitter Review ............................................................................................................ 5 Answered Regulatory Agency Review ............................................................................................. 6 Outlier Tests ...................................................................................................................................... 7 OSU Technical Report ..................................................................................................................... 8 Field and Laboratory Data .............................................................................................................. 33 Process Calibration Documents ..................................................................................................... 50 Dry Gas Meter Calibration.............................................................................................................. 52 Type "S" Pitot Tube Calibration ..................................................................................................... 57 Nozzle Inspection............................................................................................................................ 62 Cyclonic Flow Evaluation............................................................................................................... 65 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................................................ 67 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 69

Page 3 of 69

Introduction The submitted information corresponds to the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project conducted by Oklahoma State University and USDA Agricultural Research Service. This report contains particle size distribution data for the cotton Gin B master trash system based on laser diffraction particle size analyses of Method 17 filter and wash samples. As part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions Project, there were several individual submitted reports for the cotton gin master trash system. These test reports were separated by cotton gin and testing method. For the master trash system there will be 5 Method 17 reports for total PM; 5 Method 201a without a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM and PM10; 5 Method 201a with a PM2.5 sizing cyclone reports for total PM, PM10 and PM2.5 and 5 Method 17 coupled with particle size analyses for PM10 and PM2.5. The cotton gin identifiers for these reports are Gin B, Gin D, Gin E, Gin F and Gin G.

Our submitter review and suggested regulatory review ITRs were developed using the procedures described by the Eastern Research Group (2013). Our answered submitter and regulatory review questions are located on pages 5 and 6. Information corresponding to the regulatory review questions has been highlighted within the reports with the associated questions attached as comments. To see these comments, hover the cursor over or click on the highlighted portions of text. If there are any questions regarding the submitted information, please contact Dr. Michael Buser ([email protected]). Table I.1- Submitter and suggested regulatory ITRs for Gin B, Master Trash System, Method 17 & PSD analyses. Total PM PM10 PM2.5 Submitter Regulatory Emission Factor Emission Factor Emission Factor PM Subset Review Review (lbs/bale) (lbs/bale) (lbs/bale) Total PM Run 1 79 100 0.238 0.056 0.0056 Run 2 79 100 0.619 0.144 0.0155 Run 3 79 100 0.312 0.069 0.0075 79 100 0.389 0.090 0.0095 Average

Page 4 of 69

Answers to Submitter Review Questions

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Submitter Data Quality Rating Score Supporting Documentation Provided Response As described in ASTM D7036-12 Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies, does the testing firm meet the criteria as an AETB or is the person in charge of the field team a QI for the type of testing conducted? A certificate from an independent organization (e.g., Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC), Yes California Air Resources Board (CARB), National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP)) or self declaration provides documentation of competence as an AETB. Is a description and drawing of test location provided? Yes Has a description of deviations from published test methods been provided, or is there a statement that deviations were not required to obtain data representative of typical Yes facility operation? Is a full description of the process and the unit being tested (including installed Yes controls) provided? Has a detailed discussion of source operating conditions, air pollution control device operations and the representativeness of measurements made during the test been Yes provided? Were the operating parameters for the tested process unit and associated controls Yes described and reported? Is there an assessment of the validity, representativeness, achievement of DQO's and Yes usability of the data? Have field notes addressing issues that may influence data quality been provided? Yes Dry gas meter (DGM) calibrations, pitot tube and nozzle inspections? Yes Was the Method 1 sample point evaluation included in the report? Yes Were the cyclonic flow checks included in the report? Yes Were the raw sampling data and test sheets included in the report? Yes Did the report include a description and flow diagram of the recovery procedures? Yes Was the laboratory certified/accredited to perform these analyses? Yes Did the report include a complete laboratory report and flow diagram of sample Yes analysis? Were the chain-of-custody forms included in the report? Yes

Page 5 of 69

79

Answers to Regulatory Agency Review Questions

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Agency Data Quality Rating Score Supporting Documentation Provided Response As described in ASTM D7036-12 Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies, does the testing firm meet the criteria as an AETB or is the person in charge of the field team a QI for the Yes type of testing conducted? A certificate from an independent organization (e.g., STAC, CARB, NELAP) or self declaration provides documentation of competence as an AETB. Was a representative of the regulatory agency on site during the test? Yes Is a description and drawing of test location provided? Yes Is there documentation that the source or the test company sought and obtained approval for deviations from the published test method prior to conducting the test or that the tester's assertion that deviations Yes were not required to obtain data representative of operations that are typical for the facility? Were all test method deviations acceptable? N/A Is a full description of the process and the unit being tested (including installed controls) provided? Yes Has a detailed discussion of source operating conditions, air pollution control device operations and the Yes representativeness of measurements made during the test been provided? Is there documentation that the required process monitors have been calibrated and that the calibration is Yes acceptable? Was the process capacity documented? Yes Was the process operating within an appropriate range for the test program objectives? Yes Were process data concurrent with testing? Yes Were data included in the report for all parameters for which limits will be set? Yes Did the report discuss the representativeness of the facility operations, control device operation, and the measurements of the target pollutants, and were any changes from published test methods or process and Yes control device monitoring protocols identified? Were all sampling issues handled such that data quality was not adversely affected? N/A Was the DGM pre-test calibration within the criteria specified by the test method? Yes Was the DGM post-test calibration within the criteria specified by the test method? Yes Were thermocouple calibrations within method criteria? Yes Was the pitot tube inspection acceptable? Yes Were nozzle inspections acceptable? Yes Were flow meter calibrations acceptable? Yes Were the appropriate number and location of sampling points used? (Method 1) Yes Did the cyclonic flow evaluation show the presence of an acceptable average gas flow angle? Yes Were all data required by the method recorded? Yes Were required leak checks performed and did the checks meet method requirements? Yes Was the required minimum sample volume collected? Yes Did probe, filter, and impinger exit temperatures meet method criteria (as applicable)? N/A Did isokinetic sampling rates meet method criteria? Yes Was the sampling time at each point greater than 2 minutes and the same for each point? Yes Was the recovery process consistent with the method? Yes Were all required blanks collected in the field? Yes Where performed, were blank corrections handled per method requirements? Yes Were sample volumes clearly marked on the jar or measured and recorded? Yes Was the laboratory certified/accredited to perform these analyses? Yes Did the laboratory note the sample volume upon receipt? Yes

35

If sample loss occurred, was the compensation method used documented and approved for the method?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Were the physical characteristics of the samples (e.g., color, volume, integrity, pH, temperature) recorded and consistent with the method? Were sample hold times within method requirements? Does the laboratory report document the analytical procedures and techniques? Were all laboratory QA requirements documented? Were analytical standards required by the method documented? Were required laboratory duplicates within acceptable limits? Were required spike recoveries within method requirements? Were method-specified analytical blanks analyzed? If problems occurred during analysis, is there sufficient documentation to conclude that the problems did not adversely affect the sample results? Was the analytical detection limit specified in the test report? Is the reported detection limit adequate for the purposes of the test program? Do the chain-of-custody forms indicate acceptable management of collected samples between collection and analysis?

Page 6 of 69

N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes

100

Outlier Tests The following residual plots compare the master trash system test run emission factor values included in this report with those from other cotton gin tests that used Method 201a with and without a PM2.5 cyclone for PM10 and Method 201a with a PM2.5 cyclone for PM2.5. The highlighted points in the graphs indicate data included in this report. Master Trash System PM10 Residuals

Residuals

2.0

1.0 0.0 -1.0

-2.0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Test Runs

Residuals

Master Trash System PM2.5 Residuals 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 0

5

10

15

20

Test Runs

Page 7 of 69

25

30

35

OSU Technical Report OSU13-17 Ver. 2.0 – Particle Size Distribution Characteristics of Cotton Gin Master Trash System Total Particulate Emissions Note: Contains field and lab data for Gin B only.

Page 8 of 69

ABSTRACT This report is part of a project to characterize cotton gin emissions from the standpoint of total particulate stack sampling and particle size analyses. In 2013, EPA published a more stringent standard for particulate matter with nominal diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm (PM2.5). This created an urgent need to collect additional cotton gin emissions data to address current regulatory issues, because EPA AP-42 cotton gin PM2.5 emission factors did not exist. In addition, current EPA AP-42 emission factor quality ratings for cotton gin PM10 (particulate matter with nominal diameter less than or equal to 10 µm) data are questionable and extremely low. The objective of this study was to characterize particulate emissions for master trash systems from cotton gins located in regions across the cotton belt based on EPA-approved total particulate stack sampling methodologies and particle size analyses. Average measured PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 emission factors based on the mass and particle size analyses of EPA Method 17 total particulate filter and wash samples from five gins (15 total test runs) were 0.0035 kg/227-kg bale (0.0076 lb/500-lb bale), 0.048 kg/bale (0.106 lb/bale), and 0.045 kg/bale (0.098 lb/bale), respectively. Excluding data from one of the gins that had a non-standard cyclone resulted in PSD based emission factors that were lower by 8% for PM2.5, 12% for PM10, and 13% for PM10-2.5. The master trash system particle size distributions were characterized by an average mass median diameter of 20.65 µm (aerodynamic equivalent diameter) and a geometric standard deviation of 2.96. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 1.9%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 7.2%, PM10 to total was 26%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 24%. Particle size distribution based system average PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors were 83% and 86% of those measured for this project utilizing EPA-approved methods. The particle sized distribution based PM10 emission factor was 1.43 times that currently published in EPA AP-42.

INTRODUCTION In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a more stringent standard for particulate matter (PM) with a particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5m (PM2.5) aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED) (CFR, 2013). The cotton industry’s primary concern with this standard was that there were no published cotton gin PM2.5 emissions data. Also, EPA emission factors published in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42 (EPA, 1996b), are assigned a rating that is used to assess the quality of the data being

Page 9 of 69

referenced. The ratings can range from A (Excellent) to E (Poor). Current EPA emission factor quality ratings for PM with a particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10-m (PM10) AED from cotton gins are extremely low. Cotton gin data received these low ratings because it was collected almost exclusively from a single geographical region (EPA, 1996a). Cotton ginners’ associations across the cotton belt, including the National, Texas, Southern, Southeastern, and California associations, agreed that there was an urgent need to collect PM2.5 and PM10 cotton gin emissions data to address the implementation of the PM2.5 standards and current regulatory issues concerning PM10 emission factors. Current EPA-approved methodology to measure PM2.5 and PM10 point source emissions, Method 201A, utilizes size selective particulate samplers (EPA, 2010). Buser et al. (2007a) defined a true concentration as the concentration of particles with an AED less than the size of interest. A true PM10 concentration would correspond to the concentration of only particles with an AED less than 10 m. This differs from a size selective sampler concentration in that the sampler design allows for some particles with an AED less than 10 m to be scrubbed out of the airstream by the pre-collector and some of the particles with an AED greater than 10 m to pass through the pre-collector and deposit on the filter. Buser et al. (2007 b,c) reported that size selective ambient PM samplers could over-estimate PM concentrations when the particle size distribution (PSD) mass median diameter (MMD) of the sampled PM is larger than the sampler cutpoint. Buser et al. (2007b) reported that measurements from an ambient PM10 sampler could theoretically produce a concentration equivalent to the true PM10 concentration when the PSD MMD of the sampled PM was 10 m AED. Buser et al. (2007c) reported that PM2.5 ambient sampler measurements could theoretically produce a concentration that was 13 times the true PM2.5 concentration when the PSD MMD of the PM entrained in the air being sampled was 10 m AED with a GSD of 1.5. This body of work that compares sampler to true concentrations raises questions regarding sampler effectiveness and points to a critical need for additional source specific PSD information. Working with cotton ginning associations across the country and state and federal regulatory agencies, Oklahoma State University and USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) researchers developed a proposal and sampling plan that was initiated in 2008 to address this need for additional data. Buser et al. (2012) provided the details of this sampling plan. This report is part of a series that details cotton gin emission factors developed from coupling total

Page 10 of 69

particulate stack sampling concentrations and particle size analyses. Each manuscript in the series addresses a specific cotton ginning system. The systems covered in the series include: unloading, 1st stage seed-cotton cleaning, 2nd stage seed-cotton cleaning, 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning, overflow, 1st stage lint cleaning, 2nd stage lint cleaning, combined lint cleaning, cyclone robber, 1st stage mote, 2nd stage mote, combined mote, mote cyclone robber, mote cleaner, mote trash, battery condenser, and master trash. This report focuses on the characterization of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from master trash systems. Seed cotton is a perishable commodity that has no real value until the fiber and seed are separated (Wakelyn et al., 2005). Cotton must be processed or ginned at the cotton gin to separate the fiber and seed, producing 227-kg (500-lb) bales of marketable cotton fiber. Cotton ginning is considered an agricultural process and an extension of the harvest by several federal and state agencies (Wakelyn et al., 2005). Although the main function of the cotton gin is to remove the lint fiber from the seed, many other processes occur during ginning, such as cleaning, drying and packaging the lint. Pneumatic conveying systems are the primary method of material handling in a cotton gin. As material reaches a processing point, the conveying air is separated and emitted outside the gin through a pollution control device. The amount of particulate matter (PM) emitted by a system varies with the process and the composition of the material being processed. Cotton Ginning Cotton ginning is a seasonal industry with the ginning season lasting from 75 to 120 days, depending on the crop size and condition. Although the general trend for U.S. cotton production has remained flat at about 17 million bales per year during the last 20 years, production from one year to the next often varies greatly for various reasons, including climate and market pressure. The number of active gins in the U.S. has not remained constant, steadily declining to fewer than 700 in 2011. Consequently, the average cotton gin production capacity has increased to an approximate average of 25 bales per hour across the U.S. cotton belt (Valco et al., 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012). Typical cotton gin processing systems include: unloading system, dryers, seed-cotton cleaners, gin stands, overflow collector, lint cleaners, battery condenser, bale packaging system, and trash handling systems (Fig. 1); however, the number and type of machines and processes can vary. Each of these systems serves a unique function with the ultimate goal of ginning the

Page 11 of 69

cotton to produce a marketable product. Raw seed cotton harvested from the field is compacted into large units called “modules” for delivery to the gin. The unloading system removes seed cotton either mechanically or pneumatically from the module feeding system and conveys the seed cotton to the seed-cotton cleaning systems. Seed-cotton cleaning systems assist in drying the seed cotton and remove foreign matter prior to ginning. Ginning systems also remove foreign matter and separate the cotton fiber from seed. Lint cleaning systems further clean the cotton lint after ginning. The battery condenser and packaging systems combine lint from the lint cleaning systems and compress the lint into dense bales for efficient transport. Gin systems produce some type of by-products or trash, such as rocks, soil, sticks, hulls, leaf material, and short or tangled immature fiber (motes), as a result of processing the seed cotton or lint. These streams of byproducts must be removed from the machinery and handled by trash collection systems. These trash systems typically further process the by-products (e.g., mote cleaners) and/or consolidate the trash from the gin systems into a hopper or pile for subsequent removal.

Figure 1. Typical modern cotton gin layout (Courtesy Lummus Corporation, Savannah, GA).

Page 12 of 69

Gin systems produce a by-product or trash as a result of processing the cotton, lint, or further processing a by-product. In each case, the stream of trash must be removed from the machinery and handled by trash systems (Fig. 2). Typically, all trash at gins is consolidated into one storage area for subsequent removal. In some cases, the particulate abatement cyclones for different gin systems are located over a trash hopper and thus a main trash system is not necessary. In many other cases, a master trash system will remove trash from systems throughout the gin – precleaning trash conveyors, gin stands trash conveyor, and the main trash conveyor often located under the unloading system, seed-cotton cleaning system, overflow system, and other systems particulate abatement cyclones. The trash is pneumatically conveyed to one or more master trash cyclones located over either a storage hopper or a trash pile. Master trash system cyclones are often heavily loaded handling all types of trash encountered by the gin systems (rocks, soil, sticks, hulls, leaf material, and lint). A photograph exemplifying the material typically collected by the master trash system is shown in Fig. 3.

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

Figure 3. Photograph of typical trash captured by the master trash system cyclones.

Cyclones Cyclones are the most common PM abatement devices used at cotton gins. Standard cyclone designs used at cotton ginning facilities are the 2D2D and 1D3D (Whitelock et al., 2009). The first D in the designation indicates the length of the cyclone barrel relative to the cyclone barrel diameter and the second D indicates the length of the cyclone cone relative to the cyclone barrel diameter. A standard 2D2D cyclone (Fig. 4) has an inlet height of D/2 and width of D/4 and design inlet velocity of 15.2 ± 2 m/s (3000 ± 400 fpm). The standard 1D3D cyclone (Fig. 4) has the same inlet dimensions as the 2D2D or may have the original 1D3D inlet with height of D and width D/8. Also, it has a design inlet velocity of 16.3 ± 2 m/s (3200 ± 400 fpm).

Page 13 of 69

Figure 4. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics.

Cotton Gin Emission Factors EPA emission factors for cotton gins are published in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42 (EPA, 1996b). The 1996 EPA AP-42 average total particulate emission factor for the master trash fan was 0.24 kg (0.54 lb) per 217-kg [480-lb] equivalent bale with a range of 0.060 to 0.57 kg (0.13 to 1.3 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on four tests conducted in one geographical location. The EPA emission factor quality rating was D, which is the second lowest possible rating (EPA, 1996a). The 1996 EPA AP-42 PM10 average emission factor for the master trash fan was 0.034 kg (0.074 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.017 to 0.051 kg (0.038-0.11 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on two tests conducted in one geographical location and the EPA emission factor quality rating was also D. Currently there are no PM2.5 emission factor data listed in the EPA AP-42 for cotton gins.

Page 14 of 69

Buser et al. (2012) discussed the project plan of a large-scale project focused on developing cotton gin PM emission factors. Part of this project was focused on developing PM emission factors based on EPA-approved methodologies. Three studies focused on master trash systems evolved out of the Buser et al. (2012) project plan. Boykin et al. (2014) reported on one study that used EPA Method 17 to measure total particulate emission factors for the master trash systems. The system average total particulate emission factor was 0.187 kg (0.411 lb) per 227 kg (500-lb) equivalent bale with a range of 0.053 to 0.326 kg (0.118-0.720 lb) per bale. The master trash system for one of the gins was not typical for the industry. It utilized a ½D2D cyclone with the low inlet velocity and had higher total emissions, 0.326 kg/bale (0.720 lb/bale), than the other gins in the study. Boykin et al. (2014) showed that removing the gin with non-standard cyclone from the system average resulted in a reduced total emission factor of 0.152 kg/bale (0.334 lb/bale). Buser et al. (2014) reported on a second study that used EPA Method 201A with only the PM10 sizing cyclone to measure master trash system PM10 and total particulate emission factors. The system average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were 0.056 kg/227-kg bale (0.123 lb/500-lb bale) and 0.152 kg/bale (0.335 lb/bale), respectively. In the third study, reported by Whitelock et al. (2013), EPA Method 201A with both the PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones was used to measure PM2.5, PM10 and total particulate emission factors. The average measured PM2.5 emission factor was 0.0042 kg/227-kg bale (0.0093 lb/500-lb bale). The PM10 and total particulate average emission factors were 0.036 kg/bale (0.080 lb/bale) and 0.143 kg/bale (0.314 lb/bale), respectively. PSD analyses have been utilized in conjunction with total particulate sampling methods to calculate PM emissions concentration and factors for agricultural operations for more than thirty years. Some examples include: cattle feedlot operations (Sweeten et al. 1998), poultry production facilities (Lacey et al., 2003), nut harvesting operations (Faulkner et al., 2009), grain handling (Boac et al., 2009), swine finishing (Barber et al., 1991) and cotton ginning (Hughs and Wakelyn, 1997). Buser and Whitelock (2007) reported cotton ginning emission concentrations based on EPA approved PM2.5, PM10, and total particulate stack sampling methods and PSD analyses of the total particulate samples coupled with the total particulate concentrations to calculate PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations. The MMD of the PM in the samples ranged from 6 to 8 m. The study results indicated that the PSD and EPA sampler based PM10 concentrations were

Page 15 of 69

in good agreement while the PM2.5 EPA sampler concentrations ranged from 5.8 to 13.3 times the PSD based concentrations. The primary objective of this study was to develop PSD characteristics for the PM emitted from cotton gin master trash systems. The secondary objective was to develop PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors for cotton gin master trash systems equipped with cyclones on the system exhausts based on EPA-approved total particulate stack sampling methodologies and PSD analyses. METHODS Seven cotton gins were sampled across the cotton belt for the overarching project. Key factors for selecting specific cotton gins included: 1) facility location (geographically diverse), 2) production capacity (industry representative), 3) processing systems (typical for industry) and 4) particulate abatement technologies (properly designed and maintained 1D3D cyclones). Five of the seven gins had master trash systems. The master trash systems sampled were typical for the industry, but varied among gins. The master trash systems at gins B, E, F, and G handled all the material generated from processing the cotton through the gin that was considered trash. This material was picked up at individual machines within the gin plant and/or at the main trash auger under the cyclones outside of the gin and pneumatically conveyed to one or more cyclones above a trash pile or trash hopper. The master trash system at gin D did not handle trash from all of the gin systems, but consolidated and conveyed material from the unloading systems, two 2nd stage seed-cotton cleaners, four feeder and gin stand systems, and four centrifugal lint cleaners before the 1st stage lint cleaning systems. Boykin et al. (2014) provides system flow diagrams for the master trash systems that were tested. Four of the five master trash systems sampled utilized 1D3D cyclones to control emissions (Fig. 4), but there were some cyclone design variations among those gins. The system airstream for gins B and G was exhausted through a single cyclone. Gins D and F split the system exhaust flows between two cyclones in a dual configuration (side-by-side as opposed to one-behind-another). Inlets on the master trash cyclones for gins B, D, F, and G were 2D2D type. Expansion chambers were present on master trash cyclones at gins B and D. The cyclones on the master trash systems for gins F and G had standard cones. All of the cyclone variations outlined above, if properly designed and maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin

Page 16 of 69

emissions (Whitelock et al., 2009). The cyclone on the master trash system for gin E was not a 1D3D cyclone. This cyclone had proportional dimensions of about ½D2D with a square inlet that measured approximately ¼D on each side and had a standard cone with a narrow trash exit. Although the gin E master trash system was not equipped with a 1D3D cyclone, the system was sampled and included in the emissions analyses with the other four master trash systems that were equipped with 1D3D cyclones. Boykin et al. (2014) provides detailed descriptions of the abatement cyclones that were tested. EPA Method 17 Stack Sampling The samples utilized for the PSD analyses and gravimetric sample data used in developing the PSD characteristics and PSD based emission factors were obtained from EPA Method 17 stack testing that was conducted at the five gins with master trash systems as part of the overarching project. The Method 17 sampling methods and the procedures for retrieving the filter and conducting acetone wash of the sampler nozzle are described in the EPA Method 17 documentation (CFR, 1978). Further details of the project specific sampling methods, procedures, and results of the EPA Method 17 stack testing were reported by Boykin et al. (2014). Laboratory Analysis All laboratory analyses were conducted at the USDA-ARS Air Quality Lab (AQL) in Lubbock, TX. All filters were conditioned in an environmental chamber (21 ± 2oC [70 ± 3.6oF]; 35 ± 5% RH) for 48 h prior to gravimetric analyses. Filters were weighed in the environmental chamber on a Mettler MX-5 microbalance (Mettler-Toledo Inc., Columbus, OH – 1 µg readability and 0.9 µg repeatability) after being passed through an anti-static device. The MX-5 microbalance was leveled on a marble table and housed inside an acrylic box to minimize the effects of air currents and vibrations. To reduce recording errors, weights were digitally transferred from the microbalance directly to a spreadsheet. Technicians wore latex gloves and a particulate respirator mask to avoid contamination. AQL procedures required that each sample be weighed three times. If the standard deviation of the weights for a given sample exceeded 10 μg, the sample was reweighed. Gravimetric procedures for the acetone wash tubs were the same as those used for filters.

Page 17 of 69

Particle Size Analysis A Beckman Coulter LS230 laser diffraction system (Beckman Coulter Inc., Miami, FL) with software version 3.29 was used to perform the particle size analyses on the filter and wash samples. The instrument sizes particles with diameters ranging from 0.4 to 2000 µm. For this project the LS230 fluid module was used with a 5% lithium chloride/methanol suspension fluid mixture that had a fluid refractive index of 1.326. Approximately 10-L batches of the suspension fluid were prepared and stored in a self-contained, recirculating, filtration system equipped with 0.2 µm filters to keep the fluid well mixed and free of larger particles. Prior to each test run a background particle check was performed on the fluid to help minimize particulate contamination from non-sample sources. The process of analyzing the samples included the following steps: 1) pour approximately 40 mL of clean suspension fluid into a clean 100-mL beaker; 2) transfer a particulate sample to the 100-mL beaker with clean suspension fluid, a. for 47 mm filter media, remove the filter from the Petri dish with tweezers and place the filter in the 100-mL beaker with the suspension fluid, b. for the wash samples contained in a sample tub, use a small amount of the suspension fluid and a sterile foam swab to transfer the sample from the tub to the 100-mL beaker; 3) place the 100-mL beaker in an ultrasonic bath for 5 min to disperse the PM sample in the fluid; 4) using a sterile pipette, gradually introduce the PM and suspension fluid mixture into clean suspension fluid that is being monitored by the LS230 until an obscuration level of 10% is reached; 5) activate the LS230 system to measure the diffraction patterns and calculate the PSD; 6) repeat step 5 a total of three times and average the results; and 7) drain and flush/clean the LS230 system. The optical model used in calculating the PSD was based on real and imaginary refractive indices for the sample of 1.56 and 0.01, respectively. These refractive index values are valid for quartz, clay minerals, silica and feldspars (Buurman et al. 2001). Wang-Li et al. (2013) and Buser (2004) provide additional details on the PSD methodology.

Page 18 of 69

The LS230 PSD results are in the form of particle volume versus equivalent spherical diameter. The PSD results were converted to particle volume versus AED using the following equation:  p   d a  d p   w 

1/ 2

where w is the density of water with a value of 1 g/cm3, p is the particle density, and is the dynamic shape factor. The dynamic shape factor was determined to be 1.4 based on Hinds (1982) factors for quartz and sand dust. The particle density was determined to be 2.65 g/cm3 based on an unpublished study by Buser (2013). This study used a helium displacement AccuPyc 1330 Pyconometer (Micromeritics, Norcross, GA) to determine the particle density of cotton gin waste that passed through a No. 200 sieve (particles that pass through a 74 m sieve opening). The study was based on 3 random samples collected at 43 different cotton gins. Results obtained from each average adjusted PSD included: MMD, GSD, mass fraction of PM with diameter less than or equal to 10 μm (PM10), mass fraction of PM with diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm (PM10-2.5), and mass fraction of PM with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm (PM2.5). This information was coupled with the corresponding Method 17 sample mass to calculate the PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 emission factors using the following equation: ((

)

(

)

)

where EFi = emission factor for particle in the size range i; EFtot= total particulate emission factor obtained from total particulate tests (Boykin et al., 2014); MF = total mass of particulate on filter; MW = total mass of particulate in nozzle wash; wFi = mass fraction of particles on the filter in the size range i; and wWi = mass fraction of particles in the nozzle wash in the size range i.

RESULTS All system exhausts equipped with 1D3D cyclones were operated with inlet velocities within design criteria, 16.3 ± 2 m/s (3200 ± 400 fpm), except the test runs at gin D due to

Page 19 of 69

limitations in available system adjustments. The average inlet cyclone velocity for the gin D tests was 9.3 m/s (2754 fpm). The inlet velocities for test runs conducted on the non-standard ½D2D master trash cyclone at gin E were low compared to the 1D3D cyclones and ranged from 9.0 to 9.8 m/s (1,768 to 1,932 fpm). The system average ginning rate was 34.4 bales/h and the test average ginning rate at each gin ranged from 22.5 to 46.5 bales/h (based on 227-kg [500-lb] equivalent bales). There are criteria specified in EPA Method 17 for test runs to be valid for total particulate measurements (CFR, 1978). Isokinetic sampling must fall within EPA defined range of 100 ± 10%. All tests met the isokinetic criteria. The stack gas temperatures ranged from 22 to 40oC (71-105oF) and moisture content ranged from 0.1 to 3.5%. The individual systems and cyclone design variations were discussed by Boykin et al. (2014). The PSD characteristics and mass of the PM captured on the filters are shown in Table 1. The mass of the PM captured on the filter accounted for 74 to 99% of the total PM (filter and wash) collected from the individual test runs. The system average MMD and GSD for particulate on the filters were 19.68 µm AED and 2.99, respectively. Test averages ranged from 8.85 to 25.66 µm AED for MMD and from 2.42 to 2.88 for GSD. The test and system averages are based on averaging PSDs and not averaging individual test results. The mass fraction of PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 ranged from 0.80 to 4.09%, 17.3 to 55.1%, and 16.3 to 51.0%, respectively. The PSD characteristics of the PM captured on the filters from the gin E tests were similar to and within the range of those from the other four gins. Filter PM PSDs for the five gins and the system average are shown in Figure 5. In general, the PSD characteristics of the PM captured on the filters were consistent among the gins. The PSD for gin D shows a shift to the left illustrating the effect of a larger proportion of particles smaller than 10 m than the other gins. The PSD characteristics and mass of the PM captured in the washes are shown in Table 2. The mass of the PM captured in the sampler nozzle and retrieved in the wash accounted for 1 to 26% of the total PM (filter and wash) collected from the individual test runs. The system average MMD and GSD were 29.21 µm AED and 2.52, respectively. Test average MMDs ranged from 24.52 to 33.87 µm AED and GSDs ranged from 2.25 to 2.92. The mass fraction of PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 ranged from 1.05 to 2.37%, 10.8 to 22.2%, and 9.6 to 20.6%, respectively. The PSD characteristics of the PM captured in the gin E test run washes were similar to those from the other four gins. PSDs for the PM captured in the nozzle for the five gins

Page 20 of 69

and the system average are shown in Figure 6. The characteristics of the PSDs of the PM captured in the washes were similar among the gins.

Table 1. EPA Method 17 filter particle size distribution data for the master trash system.

1 2 3 z Average (n=3)

Sample Total mg 60.92 357.83 110.34

2.93 2.81 2.85 2.86

PM2.5 % 2.33 2.51 2.37 2.40

PM10-2.5 % 22.8 21.0 23.0 22.3

PM10 % 25.1 23.5 25.4 24.7

8.82 8.81 8.93 8.85

2.34 2.41 2.52 2.42

4.04 3.99 4.24 4.09

51.4 51.3 50.2 51.0

55.5 55.3 54.4 55.1

71.53 59.03 67.20


27.22 21.96 22.42 23.77

2.59 2.61 2.58 2.61

0.74 0.83 0.83 0.80

13.8 19.8 18.9 17.5

14.5 20.6 19.7 18.3

274.37 378.92 491.61


26.67 23.06 22.43 24.03

2.85 2.93 2.84 2.88

1.15 1.27 1.37 1.26

15.8 20.1 20.9 18.9

16.9 21.4 22.3 20.2

320.74 279.31 316.95

24.59 26.38 26.03 25.66

2.74 2.80 2.77 2.77

1.03 0.98 0.95 0.98

17.0 15.6 16.3 16.3

18.1 16.5 17.3 17.3

193.02 330.02 259.43

Test


System

Average (n=5)

19.68

2.99

1.91

25.2

27.1

Gin B

Test D

Test E

Test F

Test G

z

Geometric Standard Deviation

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

Mass Median Diameter µm AED 20.28 20.47 19.97 20.24

z

Based on averaged particle size distributions

Page 21 of 69

Figure 5. Gin average particle size distributions for the PM captured on a EPA-Method 17 filter from the master trash systems.

Page 22 of 69

Table 2. EPA Method 17 nozzle wash particle size distribution data for the master trash system.


Sample Total mg 9.11 10.56 37.92

2.35 2.24 2.30 2.30

PM2.5 % 2.58 2.00 2.54 2.37

PM10-2.5 % 12.0 10.8 10.3 11.1

PM10 % 14.6 12.8 12.9 13.4

25.11 21.64 27.11 24.52

2.64 2.77 2.60 2.68

2.17 1.05 1.79 1.67

19.4 25.0 17.3 20.6

21.6 26.0 19.1 22.2

11.59 7.76 10.61


33.72 32.55 35.34 33.87

2.16 2.33 2.25 2.25

1.29 1.16 1.18 1.21

9.2 10.6 9.1 9.6

10.5 11.8 10.3 10.8

25.63 42.95 45.47


27.53 28.42 27.79 27.94

2.69 2.37 2.41 2.48

1.57 1.31 1.46 1.45

15.5 13.1 14.8 14.5

17.0 14.4 16.2 15.9

15.28 11.73 16.00

27.35 21.72 29.31

2.73 2.98 3.06

1.21 1.18 0.76

15.9 21.3 15.1

17.1 22.5 15.9

5.45 2.17 2.09

Test


25.84

2.92

1.05

17.4

18.5

System

Average (n=5)

29.21

2.52

1.55

14.6

16.2

Gin B

Test D

Test E

Test F

Test G

z




z


Page 23 of 69

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

The combined PSD characteristics for the PM captured on the filter and PM captured in the wash are shown in Table 3. The master trash system average combined filter and wash PSD MMD was 20.65 µm AED (9.80 to 25.68 µm test average range) and GSD was 2.96 (2.59 to 2.86 test average range). The combined filter and wash PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5 mass fractions ranged from 0.84 to 3.78%, 17.3 to 50.7%, and 16.3 to 47.0%, respectively. The combined PSD characteristics for the PM captured on the filter and PM captured in the wash for the gin E test runs were similar to those from the other four gins. Combined PM PSDs for the five gins and the system average are shown in Figure 7. These combined PSDs were more consistent with the filter PSDs than the wash PSDs. This was expected since the majority of the PM mass was captured on the filter as compared to the nozzle wash.

Page 24 of 69

Table 3. EPA Method 17 combined filter and wash particle size distribution data for the master trash system. Gin B

Test D

Test E

Test F

Test G

Test System

z





2.88 2.80 2.82 2.84

PM2.5 % 2.36 2.50 2.41 2.42

PM10-2.5 % 21.4 20.7 19.8 20.6

PM10 % 23.7 23.2 22.2 23.0

9.81 9.54 10.11 9.80

2.51 2.54 2.73 2.59

3.78 3.65 3.91 3.78

47.0 48.2 45.7 47.0

50.7 51.9 49.6 50.7


27.80 22.84 23.29 24.55

2.55 2.61 2.58 2.59

0.79 0.86 0.86 0.84

13.4 18.9 18.1 16.8

14.2 19.7 18.9 17.6


26.70 23.28 22.68 24.19

2.84 2.91 2.82 2.86

1.17 1.27 1.37 1.27

15.8 19.8 20.6 18.7

16.9 21.1 22.0 20.0


24.66 26.35 26.06 25.68

2.74 2.80 2.77 2.77

1.03 0.98 0.94 0.99

17.0 15.6 16.3 16.3

18.0 16.6 17.3 17.3

20.65 19.64

2.96 3.04

1.86 2.12

23.9 25.7

25.7 27.8

z

Average All gins (n=5) Without gin E (n=4)


Page 25 of 69

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

The PSD based emission factors for the master trash systems are shown in Table 4. The system average PM2.5 emission factor was 0.0035 kg/bale (0.0076 lb/bale). PM2.5 emission factors ranged from 0.0013 to 0.0070 kg (0.0028-0.015 lb) per bale. The master trash system average PM10 emission factor was 0.042 kg/bale (0.093 lb/bale). The PM10 emission factors ranged from 0.023 to 0.065 kg/bale (0.051-0.144 lb/bale). The master trash system average PM102.5

emission factor was 0.045 kg/bale (0.098 lb/bale) and ranged from 0.022 to 0.076 kg (0.048-

0.167 lb) per bale. The ratios of PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, PM10 to total, and PM10-2.5 to total, based on the system averages, were 1.9, 7.2, 26, and 24%, respectively. Based on the total particulate emission factor without gin E that had a non-standard cyclone from Boykin et al. (2014) and PSD analyses excluding gin E, the PSD based PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 emissions factor were 0.0032 kg/bale (0.0071 lb/bale), 0.042 kg/bale (0.093 lb/bale), and 0.039 kg/bale (0.086 lb/bale), respectively.

Page 26 of 69

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

Total kg/balez lb/balez 0.108 0.238 0.281 0.619 0.142 0.312

x

PM10 kg/balez lb/balez 0.026 0.056 0.065 0.144 0.031 0.069

x

PM10-2.5 kg/balez lb/balez 0.023 0.051 0.058 0.128 0.028 0.062

x

PM2.5 kg/balez lb/balez 0.0025 0.0056 0.0070 0.015 0.0034 0.0075

Gin B

Test Run 1 2 3

D

1 2 3

0.057 0.047 0.056

0.125 0.104 0.124

0.029 0.025 0.028

0.064 0.054 0.061

0.027 0.023 0.026

0.059 0.050 0.057

0.0021 0.0017 0.0022

0.0047 0.0038 0.0048

E

1 2 3

0.232 0.329 0.418

0.511 0.726 0.922

0.033 0.065 0.079

0.072 0.143 0.175

0.031 0.062 0.076

0.068 0.137 0.167

0.0018 0.0028 0.0036

0.0040 0.0063 0.0079

F

1 2 3

0.197 0.197 0.227

0.435 0.434 0.500

0.033 0.042 0.050

0.074 0.092 0.110

0.031 0.039 0.047

0.069 0.086 0.103

0.0023 0.0025 0.0031

0.0051 0.0055 0.0069

G

1 2 3

0.167 0.206 0.135

0.368 0.455 0.297

0.030 0.034 0.023

0.066 0.075 0.051

0.028 0.032 0.022

0.063 0.071 0.048

0.0017 0.0020 0.0013

0.0038 0.0045 0.0028

All gins Without gin E

0.187 0.152

0.411 0.334

0.048 0.042

0.106 0.093

0.045 0.039

0.098 0.086

0.0035 0.0032

0.0076 0.0071

System Average z

227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales Taken from Boykin et al. (2014) x Factors are the product of the corresponding PM percentage from Table 3 and the total particulate emission factor. y

The PSD based master trash system PM2.5 emission factor was approximately 83% of the PM2.5 emission factor reported by Whitelock et al. (2013) and measured using EPA Method 201A, 0.0042 kg (0.0093 lb) per bale. The PSD based master trash system PM10 emission factor was 1.43 times (1.25 times without gin E) the EPA AP-42 published value for the master trash fan, 0.034 kg (0.074 lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a). Also, the PSD based system PM10 emission factor was 86% of the Method 201A (PM10 sizing cyclone only) PM10 emission factor reported by Buser et al. (2014), 0.056 kg (0.123 lb) per bale and 1.32 times of the Method 201A (PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones) PM10 emission factor reported by Whitelock et al. (2013), 0.036 kg (0.080 lb) per bale. The differences among the methods may be attributed to several sources. First, due to constraints in the EPA methods, the three studies utilizing Method 17 for total particulate sampling and PSD analyses, Method 201A for PM10 sampling, and Method 201A for PM2.5 and PM10 sampling could not be conducted simultaneously. Combined with the fact that emissions from cotton ginning can vary with the condition of incoming cotton, PM

Page 27 of 69

concentrations measured among the three studies may have varied. Second, for reasons described by Buser (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) and documented by Buser and Whitelock (2007), some larger particles may penetrate the Method 201A sampler PM10 or PM2.5 sizing cyclones and collect on the filter. Finally, cotton fibers have a cross-sectional diameter much larger than 10 m and are difficult to scrub out of air streams. These fibers may cycle in the sizing cyclones and pass through to deposit on the filters. This behavior was observed during some of the Method 201A testing where cotton fibers were found in Method 201A sampler washes and on filters (Fig. 8). Currently there are no EPA approved guidelines to adjust Method 201A PM10 or PM2.5 concentration measurements to account for these fibers.

Figure 8. Example EPA Method 201A filter and sampler head acetone washes with lint (indicated by arrows) in the washes and on the filter. Clockwise from top left: > 10 µm wash, 10 to 2.5 µm wash, ≤ 2.5 µm wash, and filter.

Page 28 of 69

SUMMARY Seven cotton gins across the U.S. cotton belt were sampled using EPA-approved methods to fill the data gap that exists for PM2.5 cotton gin emissions data and to collect additional data to improve the EPA AP-42 total and PM10 emission factor quality ratings for cotton gins. Samples were further analyzed to characterize the PSD of the particulate measured. Five of the seven gins had master trash systems that used pneumatic conveyance and had exhaust airstreams that were not combined with another system. All tested systems were similar in design and typical of the ginning industry. All systems were equipped with 1D3D cyclones for emissions control, except for gin E that was equipped with a non-standard cyclone. The gin E test data was not included in the system averages because it was equipped with a non-standard cyclone. The system average production rate was 34.4 bales/h during testing. The average PSD based master trash system PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 emission factors from the five gins tested (15 total test runs) were 0.0035 kg/227-kg bale (0.0076 lb/500-lb bale), 0.048 kg/bale (0.106 lb/bale), and 0.045 kg/bale (0.098 lb/bale), respectively. Excluding data from gin E that had a non-standard cyclone resulted in PSD based emission factors that were 0.0032 kg/bale (0.0071 lb/bale), 0.042 kg/bale (0.093 lb/bale), and 0.039 kg/bale (0.086 lb/bale) for PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5, respectively. The system average PSD based PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors including all five gins were less than those measured for this project utilizing EPA-approved PM2.5 and PM10 (PM10 sizing cyclone only) methods and the PM10 emission factor was greater than that currently published in EPA AP-42. The PSDs were characterized by an average MMD of 20.65 µm AED and a GSD of 2.96. Based on system average emission factors, the ratio of PM2.5 to total particulate was 1.9%, PM2.5 to PM10 was 7.2%, PM10 to total was 26%, and PM10-2.5 to total was 24%.

Page 29 of 69

REFERENCES

Barber, E.M., J.R. Dawson, V.A. Battams, R.A.C. Nicol. 1991. Spatial variability of airborne and settled dust in a piggery. J Agric. Eng. Res. 50(2):107-127. Boac, J.M., R.G. Maghirang, M.E. Casada, J.D. Wilson, Y.S. Jung. 2009. Size distribution and rate of dust generated during grain elevator handling, Appl. Eng. Agric. 25(4):533-541. Boykin, J.C., M.D. Buser, D.P. Whitelock, and G.A. Holt. 2014. Master trash system total particulate emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 17. J. Cotton Sci. (In Review) Buser, M.D. 2004. Errors associated with particulate matter measurements on rural sources: appropriate basis for regulating cotton gins. Ph.D. diss. Texas A&M Univ., College Station. Buser, M.D., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and R.E. Lacey. 2007a. Particulate matter sampler errors due to the interaction of particle size and sampler performance characteristics: background and theory. Trans. ASABE. 50(1): 221-228. Buser, M.D., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and R.E. Lacey. 2007b. Particulate matter sampler errors due to the interaction of particle size and sampler performance characteristics: ambient PM2.5 samplers. Trans. ASABE. 50(1): 241-254. Buser, M.D., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and R.E. Lacey. 2007c. Particulate matter sampler errors due to the interaction of particle size and sampler performance characteristics: ambient PM10 samplers. Trans. ASABE. 50(1): 229-240. Buser, M.D. and D.P. Whitelock. 2007. Preliminary field evaluation of EPA Method CTM-039 (PM2.5 stack sampling method). 10 pp. In Proc. World Cotton Conference -4, Lubbock, TX. 10-14 Sep, 2007. International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C. Buser, M.D., D.P. Whitelock, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2012. Characterization of cotton gin particulate matter emissions – project plan. J. Cotton Sci. 16(2).105-116. Buser, M.D., D.P. Whitelock, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2014. Master trash system PM10 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A PM10 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. (In Review)

Page 30 of 69

Buurman, P., Th. Pape, J.A. Reijneveld, F. de Jong, and E. van Gelder. 2001. Laser-diffraction and pipette-method grain sizing of Dutch sediments: correlations for fine fractions of marine, fluvial, and loess samples. Neth. J. Geosci. 80(2). 49-57. CFR. 1978. Method 17—Determination of particulate emissions from stationary sources (instack filtration method). 40 CFR 60 Appendix A-6. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-17.pdf (verified August 2012). CFR. 2013. National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; final rule. 40 CFR, Part 50. Available at http:// http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-15/pdf/201230946.pdf (verified July 2014). EPA. 1996a. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section 9.7, Cotton Ginning, (EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159; MRI Project No. 4603-01, April 1996). EPA. 1996b. Food and agricultural industries: cotton gins. In Compilation of air pollution emission factors, Volume 1: Stationary point and area sources. Publ. AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Frequently asked questions (FAQS) for Method 201A [Online]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method201a.html (verified 01 Jan. 2013). Faulkner, W.B., L.B. Goodrich, V.S. Botlaguduru, S.C. Capareda, and C.B. Parnell. 2009. Particulate matter emission factors for almond harvest as a function of harvester speed. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 59(8):943-9. Hinds, W.C. 1982. Aerosol Technology; Properties, Behavior and Measurement of Airborne Particles. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience 1st Ed. Hughs, S.E. and P.J. Wakelyn. 1997. Physical characteristics of cyclone particulate emissions. Appl. Eng. Aric. 13(4) p. 531-535. Lacey, R.E., J.S. Redwine, and C.B. Parnell, Jr. 2003. Particulate matter and ammonia emission factors for tunnel – ventilated broiler production houses in the Southern U.S. Trans. ASABE 46(4):1203-1214. Sweeten, J.M., C.B. Parnell Jr., B.W. Shaw, and B.W. Auverman. 1998. Particle size distribution of cattle feedlot dust emission. Trans. ASABE 41(5):1477-1481.

Page 31 of 69

Valco, T.D., H. Ashley, J.K. Green, D.S. Findley, T.L. Price, J.M. Fannin, and R.A. Isom. 2012. The cost of ginning cotton – 2010 survey results. p. 616–619 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference, Orlando, FL 3-6 Jan. 2012. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Cordova, TN. Valco, T.D., B. Collins, D.S. Findley, J.K. Green, L. Todd, R.A. Isom, and M.H. Wilcutt. 2003. The cost of ginning cotton – 2001 survey results. p. 662–670 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN 6-10 Jan. 2003. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN. Valco, T.D., J.K. Green, R.A. Isom, D.S. Findley, T.L. Price, and H. Ashley. 2009. The cost of ginning cotton – 2007 survey results. p. 540–545 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX 5-8 Jan. 2009. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Cordova, TN. Valco, T.D., J.K. Green, T.L. Price, R.A. Isom, and D.S. Findley. 2006. Cost of ginning cotton – 2004 survey results. p. 618–626 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX 3-6 Jan. 2006. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN. Wang-Li, L., Z. Cao, M. Buser, D. Whitelock, C.B. Parnell, and Y. Zhang. 2013. Techniques for measuring particle size distribution of particulate matter emitted from animal feeding operations. J. Atmospheric Environment. 66(2013): 25-32. Wakelyn, P.J., D.W. Thompson, B.M. Norman, C.B. Nevius, and D.S. Findley. 2005. Why cotton ginning is considered agriculture. Cotton Gin and Oil Mill Press 106(8), 5-9. Whitelock, D.P., M.D. Buser, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2013. Master trash system PM2.5 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201A combination PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones. J. Cotton Sci. 17(4):489-499. Whitelock, D.P., C.B. Armijo, M.D. Buser, and S.E. Hughs. 2009 Using cyclones effectively at cotton gins. Appl. Eng. Ag. 25(4): 563-576.

Page 32 of 69

Gin B Field and Laboratory Data

Page 33 of 69

Gin: B Exhaust: Trash & Burrs, 1D3D Date: 2009

Emission Factor (lbs/bale)

Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

Based on EPA Method 17

Based on EPA Method 17

Total PM

Total PM Run 1 3.5200 Run 2 17.8668 Run 3 7.4003 Average 9.5957 Condensables Run 1 0.0510 Run 2 0.0000 Run 3 0.0514 Average 0.0341

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

0.2375 0.6187 0.3121 0.3894 0.0034 0.0000 0.0022 0.0019

Page 34 of 69

Method 5 Data Average Sheet B Trash & Burrs, 1D3D 8/18/09 Raw Test Data Run 1 29.90 1.03 0.84 -0.15 20.90 0.05 68.0 101.9 82.5 0.36 0.60 0.35 9.50 18.49 26.00 0.00017 60

Run 2 29.90 1.03 0.84 -0.15 20.90 0.05 68.0 104.1 86.1 0.36 0.60 0.36 14.80 19.17 26.00 0.00017 60

Run 3 29.90 1.03 0.84 -0.15 20.90 0.05 68.0 101.8 86.8 0.37 0.60 0.36 12.50 18.87 26.00 0.00017 60

Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) Standard Temperature (deg R) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) Temperature of Meter (deg.R) Water vapor standard (scf) Sample gas volume (dscf) Moisture Content Stack Gas Dry % Nitrogen Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) Area of Stack (Ft^2)

Run 1 29.89 528.0 561.9 542.5 0.45 18.56 0.02 79.05 28.84 28.59 3.69

Run 2 29.89 528.0 564.1 546.1 0.70 19.11 0.04 79.05 28.84 28.46 3.69

Run 3 29.89 528.0 561.8 546.8 0.59 18.79 0.03 79.05 28.84 28.51 3.69

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

Run 1 34.8 7,694 7,052 3278 96.80

Run 2 35.1 7,768 7,007 3309 100.32

Run 3 35.2 7,792 7,093 3320 97.48

Run 1 0.070 0.058 3.52 14.82 0.238 1 0.238

Run 2 0.368 0.297 17.87 28.88 0.619 1 0.619

Run 3 0.148 0.122 7.40 23.71 0.312 1 0.312

Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry % Oxygen Dry % Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle Sample duration (min)

Average 29.90 1.03 Y Cp 0.84 Pg -0.15 20.90 %O2 0.05 %CO2 tsd 68.0 ts 102.6 85.1 tm 0.36 ∆P √∆P 0.60 ∆H 0.36 Vlc 12.27 Vm 18.84 Ds 26.00 An 0.000167 Time 60 Pbar

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

Average 29.89 528.0 562.6 545.1 0.58 18.82 0.030 79.05 28.84 28.52 3.69

Results Vs Qa Qstd Invs I

Average 35.0 7,751 7,051 3,302 98.20

Calculated Emission Results Particulate Weight (g) Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr) Standard 500 lb Hour (bale/hr) Particulate lb/bale Cyclones in sysytem Total System Particulate lb/bale

REM - 2003

Page 35 of 69

Ws Cs CFs Sbl/hr Cfbale #Cy Tsys

Average 0.196 0.159 9.60 22.47 0.389 1 0.39

Method 5 Data Sheet

Cyclone Dia: # in System: Stack Dia: A: 3 Port Dia: Traverse Points

52 1 26 B: 1 7

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

B

Unit: Trash & Burrs, 1D3D Job #: 709-092 Operator: CD Weather: pc Filter #: p Stack: -0.15 Ambient Temp: 88 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Y: 1.03100 Δ H @: 1.921 Pitot #: MS 5 Cp: 0.84 % 3 Nozzle #: ms2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.9812 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.008 Hg 15 OK Post Leak Check: 0.015 Hg OK Date: 8/18/09

1 3 68 29.9 LBK1 0.03

Meter Volume

√ ∆P

Meter ∆H

348.432

0.592

0.34

Start Time

0.592

0.34

0.574

0.32

0.548

0.29

0.29

0.539

0.28

0.29

0.539

0.28

81

0.34

0.583

0.33

82

0.44

0.663

0.43

99

82

0.42

0.648

0.41

22.5

96

82

0.43

0.656

0.42

25

91

82

0.45

0.671

0.44

Sample ө

Stack °F

Meter Temp

Avg

Veloctiy ∆P

Vacuum in.Hg

12

0

105

81

0.35

3

11

2.5

107

81

0.35

10

5

106

81

0.33

11:42

9

7.5

107

81

0.3

8

10

107

81

7

12.5

107

81

6

15

105

5

17.5

108

4

20

3 2 1

27.5

90

82

0.41

0.64

0.40

12

30

102

83

0.35

0.592

0.34

11

32.5

103

83

0.35

0.592

0.34

10

35

104

83

0.37

0.608

0.36

9

37.5

106

83

0.38

0.616

0.37

8

40

107

83

0.35

0.592

0.34

7 6

42.5 45

106 105

83 84

0.3 0.23

0.548 0.48

0.29 0.23

5

47.5

106

84

0.33

End Time

0.574

0.32

4

50

102

84

0.38

12:45

0.616

0.37

3 2

52.5 55

94 92

84 84

0.42 0.37

End Volume

0.648 0.608

0.41 0.36

1

57.5

91

84

0.38

366.919

0.616

0.37

101.92

82.46

0.36

18.487

0.597

0.35

60 Averages:

3.00

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g

Start Vol End Vol Start Vol End Vol

Total: REM - 2003

Page 36 of 69

1 2 3 4

Tare 758.8 733.8 611.3 858.7

Gross Total 756 -2.8 g 738.8 5 g 611.2 -0.1 g 866.1 7.4 g Total: 9.5 g

Method 5 Calculation Sheet Client : B Location: Unit : Trash & Burrs, 1D3D Run # : 1

Date : Job # : Pstd: Tstd:

8/18/2009 709-092 29.92 68

Raw Test Data Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry Concentration Oxygen Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F)

29.90 1.0310 0.84 -0.15 20.90 0.05 68.0 101.9

Pbar Y Cp Pg %O2 %CO2 tsd ts

82.5

tm

∆ P Average (in H2O)

0.359

∆P

Average √ ∆ P

0.597

√∆P

0.35

∆H

Temperature of Meter (deg.F)

∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle

Sample duration (min)

9.5

Vlc

18.487

Vm

26.0

Ds

0.00017

An

60

Time

Intermediate Calculaions 29.89

Ps

Area Standard Temperature (deg R)

528

Tstd

Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R)

562

Ts

Ts =ts+460

Temperature of Meter (deg.R)

542

Tm

Tm =tm+460

Volume of water vapor standard (scf)

0.45

Vwstd

Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc

Sample gas volume (dscf)

18.56

Vmstd

Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92)

Moisture Content Stack Gas

0.024 79.05

Bws

Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd)

dcN2

dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2))

Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry)

28.84

Md

Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28)

Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet)

28.59

Ms

Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws

3.69

As

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

34.78 7,694 7,052 96.80

Vs

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

Qa Qstd

Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg)

Dry Concentration Nitrogen

Area of Stack (Ft^2)

Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6 Tstd =tsd+460

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

I

Vs =Vs*60*As Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92) I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100

Calculated Emission Results Particulate Weight (g) Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr)

0.0700 0.0582 3.52

REM - 2003

Page 37 of 69

Ws Cs CFs

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

Method 5 Data Sheet

Cyclone Dia: # in System: Stack Dia: A: 3 Port Dia: Traverse Points 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

52 1 26 B: 1 7


B

Unit: Trash & Burrs, 1D3D Job #: 709-092 Operator: CD Weather: pc Filter #: p Stack: -0.15 Ambient Temp: 87 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: MS 5 Cp: 0.84 Y: 1.03100 Δ H @: 1.921 % 3 Nozzle #: ms2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.98 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.006 Hg OK Post Leak Check: 0.006 Hg 22 OK Date: 8/18/09

2 4 68 29.9 LBK1 0.03

Sample ө 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45 47.5 50 52.5 55 57.5 60

Stack °F 106 107 107 108 108 110 110 108 107 98 91 90 104 106 107 108 110 110 110 109 106 95 92 92

Meter Temp

Avg 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

Veloctiy ∆P 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.3 0.4 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.4 0.34

Averages:

104.13

86.13

0.36

Vacuum in.Hg

387.542

√ ∆P 0.592 0.583 0.557 0.557 0.566 0.548 0.632 0.663 0.671 0.678 0.671 0.592 0.592 0.592 0.592 0.592 0.583 0.557 0.557 0.574 0.608 0.64 0.632 0.583

Meter ∆H 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.39 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.33

19.166

0.6

0.36

Meter Volume 368.376 Start Time 1:04

End Time 2:07 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g


Total: REM - 2003

Page 38 of 69

1 2 3 4

Tare 755.1 741.9 605.9 844.3

Gross Total 758.8 3.7 g 747.2 5.3 g 606.1 0.2 g 849.9 5.6 g Total: 14.8 g



8/18/2009 709-092 29.92 68

Raw Test Data Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry Concentration Oxygen Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle


29.90 1.0310 0.84 -0.15 20.90 0.05 68.0 104.1 86.1 0.362 0.600 0.36 14.8 19.166 26.0 0.00017 60

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

Intermediate Calculaions Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) Area Standard Temperature (deg R) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) Temperature of Meter (deg.R) Volume of water vapor standard (scf) Sample gas volume (dscf) Moisture Content Stack Gas Dry Concentration Nitrogen Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) Area of Stack (Ft^2)

29.89 528 564 546 0.70 19.11 0.035 79.05 28.84 28.46 3.69

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms As

Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6 Tstd =tsd+460 Ts =ts+460 Tm =tm+460 Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92) Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd) dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2)) Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28) Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws As =3.141592654*(Ds/12)^2/4


35.11 7,768 7,007 100.32

Vs Qa Qstd I

Vs =85.49*Cp*sqrtDp*(SQRT(Ts/(Ps*Ms))) Vs =Vs*60*As Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92) I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100


0.3684 0.2975 17.87

REM - 2003

Page 39 of 69

Ws Cs CFs


Method 5 Data Sheet

Cyclone Dia: # in System: Stack Dia: A: 3 Port Dia: Traverse Points 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

52 1 26 B: 1 7


B

Unit: Trash & Burrs, 1D3D Job #: 709-092 Operator: CD Weather: Part Cloud Filter #: p Stack: -0.15 Ambient Temp: 88 % O2: 20.9 ө: 60 min. % CO2: 0.05 Pitot #: MS 5 Cp: 0.84 Y: 1.03100 Δ H @: 1.921 % 3 Nozzle #: ms2 Dia 0.175 K Fac: 0.98 Sample Run Pitot Pre Leak Check: 0.006 Hg OK Post Leak Check: 0.01 OK Hg Date: 8/18/09

3 3 68 29.9 LBK1 0.03

Sample ө 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45 47.5 50 52.5 55 57.5 60

Stack °F 105 107 107 107 107 106 104 103 94 94 88 89 102 105 106 107 107 107 108 108 102 97 92 92

Meter Temp

Avg 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 87 86 86 86 86

Veloctiy ∆P 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.28 0.43 0.5 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.42 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.33

Averages:

101.83

86.79

0.37

Vacuum in.Hg

407.674

√ ∆P 0.574 0.574 0.566 0.574 0.583 0.529 0.656 0.707 0.728 0.671 0.678 0.648 0.574 0.583 0.583 0.583 0.583 0.539 0.557 0.592 0.608 0.608 0.624 0.574

Meter ∆H 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.27 0.42 0.49 0.52 0.44 0.45 0.41 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.32

18.874

0.604

0.36

Meter Volume 388.8 Start Time 2:28

End Time 3:31 End Volume

Notes: Acetone

DI Water g g g g g


Total: REM - 2003

Page 40 of 69

1 2 3 4

Tare 747.2 731.2 602.3 825.6

Gross Total 749.4 2.2 g 732.5 1.3 g 601 -1.3 g 835.9 10.3 g Total: 12.5 g



8/18/2009 709-092 29.92 68

Raw Test Data Barometer Meter Calibration Fac. Pitot Calibration Fac. Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) Dry Concentration Oxygen Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide Area Standard Temperature (deg F) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) Temperature of Meter (deg.F) ∆ P Average (in H2O) Average √ ∆ P ∆ H Average (in H2O) Total Condensable water (g) Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) Stack Diameter (in.) Area of the Nozzle


29.90 1.0310 0.84 -0.15 20.90 0.05 68.0 101.8 86.8 0.368 0.604 0.36 12.5 18.874 26.0 0.00017 60

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

Intermediate Calculaions Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) Area Standard Temperature (deg R) Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) Temperature of Meter (deg.R) Volume of water vapor standard (scf) Sample gas volume (dscf) Moisture Content Stack Gas Dry Concentration Nitrogen Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) Area of Stack (Ft^2)

29.89 528 562 547 0.59 18.79 0.030 79.05 28.84 28.51

Ps Tstd Ts Tm Vwstd Vmstd Bws dcN2 Md Ms

3.69

As

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

35.22 7,792 7,093 97.48

Vs

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

Qa Qstd

Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6 Tstd =tsd+460 Ts =ts+460 Tm =tm+460 Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92) Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd) dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2)) Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28) Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws


I

Vs =Vs*60*As Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92) I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100


0.1483 0.1217 7.40

REM - 2003

Page 41 of 69

Ws Cs CFs


Cotton Gin Bale Test Data Plant: B Location: Unit: Trash & Burrs, 1D3D Run: 1

Date: Job #: Start Time: End Time:

Elapsed Time: 63 Bale Time: 87.00 Ave min/bale: 0:03:57

StdDev Std BPH: Ave Std BPH:

Bale No. 79704 79705 79706 79707 79708 79709 79710 79711 79712 79713 79714 79715 79716 79717 79718 79719 79720 79721 79722 79723 79724 79725 79726

Bale Wt. Time 11:19:00 477 11:51:00 486 11:54:00 493 11:56:00 492 11:58:00 468 12:00:00 491 12:02:00 488 12:04:00 499 12:07:00 484 12:09:00 485 12:12:00 489 12:14:00 482 12:18:00 483 12:21:00 485 12:25:00 487 12:28:00 494 12:31:00 491 12:35:00 500 12:38:00 475 12:40:00 491 12:42:00 498 12:44:00 506 12:46:00

8/18/2009 709-092 11:42 12:45

Test Time: 60

time/bale --0:32:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:04:00 0:03:00 0:04:00 0:03:00 0:03:00 0:04:00 0:03:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00 0:02:00

REM - 2003

Page 42 of 69

7.51 14.8

Std 500 lb BPH

Chauvenet's Criterion

--1.8 19.4 29.6 29.5 28.1 29.5 29.3 20.0 29.0 19.4 29.3 14.5 19.3 14.6 19.5 19.8 14.7 20.0 28.5 29.5 29.9 30.4

---





8/18/2009 709-092 1:04 2:07

Test Time: 60

Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 79734 13:02:00 --79735 495 13:05:00 0:03:00 79736 492 13:08:00 0:03:00 79737 483 13:11:00 0:03:00 79738 513 13:13:00 0:02:00 79739 505 13:15:00 0:02:00 79740 512 13:17:00 0:02:00 79741 485 13:19:00 0:02:00 79742 483 13:21:00 0:02:00 79743 495 13:23:00 0:02:00 79744 505 13:25:00 0:02:00 79745 512 13:27:00 0:02:00 79746 506 13:30:00 0:03:00 79747 510 13:31:00 0:01:00 79748 504 13:33:00 0:02:00 79749 483 13:35:00 0:02:00 79750 512 13:37:00 0:02:00 79751 470 13:40:00 0:03:00 79752 496 13:41:00 0:01:00 79753 499 13:43:00 0:02:00 79754 478 13:45:00 0:02:00 79755 495 13:47:00 0:02:00 79756 496 13:48:00 0:01:00 79757 495 13:50:00 0:02:00 79758 497 13:52:00 0:02:00 79759 501 13:54:00 0:02:00 496 13:56:00 0:02:00 79760 79761 473 13:58:00 0:02:00 79762 493 14:00:00 0:02:00 79763 498 14:02:00 0:02:00 79764 501 14:04:00 0:02:00 79765 505 14:06:00 0:02:00 79766 495 14:08:00 0:02:00 REM - 2003

Page 43 of 69

10.22 28.9

Std 500 lb BPH


--19.8 19.7 19.3 30.8 30.3 30.7 29.1 29.0 29.7 30.3 30.7 20.2 61.2 30.2 29.0 30.7 18.8 59.5 29.9 28.7 29.7 59.5 29.7 29.8 30.1 29.8 28.4 29.6 29.9 30.1 30.3 29.7

---

*

*

*





8/18/2009 709-092 2:28 3:31

Test Time: 60

Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale 79776 14:27:00 --79777 475 14:29:00 0:02:00 79778 485 14:32:00 0:03:00 79779 488 14:44:00 0:12:00 79780 505 14:48:00 0:04:00 79781 485 14:50:00 0:02:00 79782 495 14:53:00 0:03:00 79783 473 14:54:00 0:01:00 79784 488 14:56:00 0:02:00 79785 489 14:58:00 0:02:00 79786 488 15:00:00 0:02:00 79787 496 15:02:00 0:02:00 79788 496 15:04:00 0:02:00 79789 487 15:06:00 0:02:00 79790 486 15:08:00 0:02:00 79791 508 15:10:00 0:02:00 79792 485 15:11:00 0:01:00 79793 481 15:13:00 0:02:00 79794 479 15:15:00 0:02:00 79795 480 15:17:00 0:02:00 79796 482 15:19:00 0:02:00 79797 482 15:21:00 0:02:00 79798 498 15:23:00 0:02:00 79799 486 15:24:00 0:01:00 79800 477 15:27:00 0:03:00 79801 477 15:29:00 0:02:00 474 15:31:00 0:02:00 79802 REM - 2003

Page 44 of 69

11.86 23.7

Std 500 lb BPH


--28.5 19.4 4.9 15.1 29.1 19.8 56.8 29.3 29.3 29.3 29.8 29.8 29.2 29.2 30.5 58.2 28.9 28.7 28.8 28.9 28.9 29.9 58.3 19.1 28.6 28.4

---

*

*

*

Method 5.1 Weight, Data & Calculations

Client : B Location: Unit : Trash & Burrs, 1D3D

Solution Blanks Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue Volume: Residue:

DI Water TL-0019 646.241 644.790 1.451 250 0.006

mg mg mg g mg/g

Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue Volume: Residue:

Run 1

Acetone TS-0124 741.425 741.126 0.298 100 0.003

Date : 8/18/2009 Job # : 709-092

mg mg mg g mg/g

Run 2

Run 3

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

289.9 289.9

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

295.1 295.1

g g

Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: Total Water:

283.8 283.8

g g

13.8 50 1

g g

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

12.77 50 1

g g

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

15.3 50 1

g g

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

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

TS-0466 625.488 616.340 -0.041 9.106

mg mg mg mg

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

TS-0467 631.466 620.872 -0.038 10.556

mg mg mg mg

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

TS-0468 721.681 683.720 -0.046 37.916

mg mg mg mg

8L-1081 366.758 305.839 60.920

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

8L-1082 662.058 304.224 357.834

mg mg mg

Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

8L-1083 415.204 304.860 110.344

mg mg mg

TL-0062 687.108 684.247 2.861 -1.683 -0.149 1.029

mg mg mg mg mg mg

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

TL-0063 649.303 648.052 1.251 -1.713 -0.149 -0.611

mg mg mg mg mg mg

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

TL-0064 639.861 637.027 2.834 -1.647 -0.149 1.038

mg mg mg mg mg mg

Run 1 0.0091 0.0609 0.0010 0.0700 0.0711

g g g g g

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

Run 2 0.0106 0.3578 0.0000 0.3684 0.3684

g g g g g

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

Run 3 0.0379 0.1103 0.0010 0.1483 0.1493

g g g g g

Filter Filter # Gross: Tare: Filter Weight:

Back 1/2 Weigh Dish #: Gross: Tare: Total Residue: DI Water wt: Acetone wt: Back 1/2 Weight: Results Front 1/2 Wt: Filter Wt: Back 1/2 Wt: Filterable PM Wt: Total PM Weight:

REM Method 5.1 - 2007

Page 45 of 69

Acetone Rinse Client : B Location: Unit : Trash & Burrs, 1D3D

Total PM

Date : 8/18/2009 Job # : 709-092

Date: 8/18/09 Run 1

Run 2

Run 3 Filter ID#: 8L-1082

Filter ID#: 8L-1081

Filter ID#: 8L-1083

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 285.2 End Vol: 271.4 Total: 13.8 Tub #: TS-0466

g g g


g g g


g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 Probe End Vol: 0.0 Total: 50.0 Tub #: TL-0062

g g g


g g g


g g g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 0.0 DI H2O End Vol: 289.9 Total: 289.9 Tub #: TL-0062

g g g


g g g


g g g

Page 46 of 69

Filter/Tub Weights Client : B Location: Unit : Trash & Burrs, 1D3D

Date : 8/18/2009 Job # : 709-092

Acetone Blank DI Water Blank Filter Blank

No. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

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

100 g 250 g

Cyclone Name Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash Burrs & Trash

Method 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Run No. 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

Sample Location Front 1/2 Filter Back 1/2 Front 1/2 Filter Back 1/2 Front 1/2 Filter Back 1/2

Page 47 of 69

Filter/Tub No. TS-0466 8L-1081 TL-0062 TS-0467 8L-1082 TL-0063 TS-0468 8L-1083 TL-0064

PreWeight (mg) 741.126 644.790 249.026 PreWeight (mg) 616.340 305.839 684.247 620.872 304.224 648.052 683.720 304.860 637.027

PostNetWeight Weight (mg) (mg) 741.425 0.298 646.241 1.451 249.047 0.021 PostNetWeight Weight (mg) (mg) 625.488 9.147 366.758 60.920 687.108 2.861 631.466 10.594 662.058 357.834 649.303 1.251 721.681 37.961 415.204 110.344 639.861 2.834

3

Particle Density (g/cm ) 2.65 Dynamic Shape Factor 1.40 LS230 Summary Rep 1 MMD (m) 20.28 GSD 2.93 % H

2nd

in H20

~~E

0.5

12.00

1.0

11.00

1.5

VOL. cf

5.00

29.55 51 DRY GAS VOL. Start/End 433.472 433.711

Std Model #: Equimeter R-275 S/N#: 4040491 in. hg. F

2std AVG

Standard Pressure (Pstd): Standard Temperature (Tstd):

51.5 443.218

52.0

•y

D.G. IN

51.0

4. 4 .

29.92 68

in. hg. F

t~'>H@

in. H20 41.0

0.9824

1.9499

40.5

1.0019

1.8804

4Qc0

0.9988

1.8722

. ~.2~3t~4431~ . 5~82~~j4tt0.i10=4~0.0~ •n" L_2~JL~~1~611~!91 2.0 9.00 4S04El~ 52.0 41.0 41._0 ~~"'-"~tj0.~99~8~0t:=t1.~84~0~8d L---'-'-" 1.8858 A~"'t

Meter Factor:

Validity checks:

Ml@:

(max- min) ,;.02 ? L'>H@ - L'>H@ avg. ,; .20 in. H20 ? Calibration by:

CD

EQUATIONS USED: Y= (Vmstd*Pbar*(Tmavg+460) )/( (Vm*(Pbar+(i'>H/13.6) )* (Tmstdavg+460)) L'>H@ = ((0.0319*L'>H)/(Pbar*(Tmavg+460))*(((Tmstd+460)*Time)Nmstd)'2

Page 56 of 69

0.9953 1.8858

Type "S" Pitot Tube Inspection

Page 57 of 69

Page 58 of 69

Page 59 of 69

Page 60 of 69

Page 61 of 69

Nozzle Inspections

Page 62 of 69

6 of 21

Page 63 of 69

Page 64 of 69

Cyclonic Flow Evaluation

Page 65 of 69

Preliminary Flow Test Data Client: USDA-ARS - Gin B Location: Pbar: 29.9

Pitot #: 3

Date: 8/11/09

% O2: 20.9

Operator: Cam

% CO2: 0.05

Unit: Burrs & Trash Dia: 26" Sp: -0.12 Traverse

Stack

Velocity

Null

Points

°F

∆P

°

1

98.0

0.430

90

2

98.0

0.420

90

3

98.0

0.390

90

4

98.0

0.510

90

5

98.0

0.460

90

6

97.0

0.460

90

1

97.0

0.560

90

2

98.0

0.570

90

3

98.0

0.490

90

4

98.0

0.500

90

5

98.0

0.520

90

6

97.0

0.520

90

Page 66 of 69

Chain of Custody

Page 67 of 69

Page 68 of 69

Acknowledgement: The authors appreciate the cooperating gin managers and personnel who generously allowed and endured sampling at their gins. In addition, we thank California Cotton Ginners’ and Growers’ Association, Cotton Incorporated, San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency, Southeastern Cotton Ginners’ Association, Southern Cotton Ginners’ Association, Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association, Texas State Support Committee, and The Cotton Foundation for funding this project. This project was support in-part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project OKL02882. The authors also thank the Cotton Gin Advisory Group and Air Quality Advisory Group for their involvement and participation in planning, execution, and data analysis for this project that is essential to developing quality data that will be used by industry, regulatory agencies, and the scientific community. The advisory groups included: the funding agencies listed above, California Air Resources Board, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, National Cotton Council, National Cotton Ginners’ Association, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Texas A&M University, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, USDA-NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric Change, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (national, Region 4 and 9). Disclaimer: Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the Oklahoma State University or U.S. Department of Agriculture. Oklahoma State University and USDA are equal opportunity providers and employers. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the USDA-ARS and Oklahoma State University and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board, the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency, or its Policy Committee, their employees or their members. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.

Page 69 of 69