This article was downloaded by: [116.203.172.

122] On: 17 December 2013, At: 23:05 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Gas Cleaning Efficiency Requirements For Different Pollutants

Wesley C. L. Hemeon
a a

Director , Hemeon Associates , Pittsburgh , Pa , USA Published online: 19 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Wesley C. L. Hemeon (1962) Gas Cleaning Efficiency Requirements For Different Pollutants, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 12:3, 105-108, DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1962.10468053 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1962.10468053

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Gas Cleaning EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS For Different POLLUTANTS*

WESLEY C. L. HEMEON, Director, Hemeon Associates, Pittsburgh, Pa.

I he shotgun approach to the abatement of air pollution, apparent in control equipment engineering as well as in public administration, tends to be frustrating and ineffective or excessively wasteful. It usually results in installation of corrective equipment that either does not result in noticeable alleviation of the problem, or costs very much more than the problem demands when considered in relation to the needs of people offended thereby. The offenses of the shotgun approach may be illustrated by a consideration of the air pollution due to apartmenthouse incinerators of large cities. The offensive qualities of incinerator operation may potentially include the following three (and unrelated) effects: (./) malodors; (2) obscuring haze due to fine particulate matter in atmospheric suspension; (8) objectionable deposition of flakes of paper ash on people's premises. The shotgun approach fails to consider whether all three of these are practically objectionable and demands the neutralization of all of them for a perfect control of all emissions. If they are not all important, the cost of resulting equipment may be excessive in these terms. If careful investigation were to establish, for example, that the paper ash nuisance were of dominant importance, then an attack on this particular quality could result in the design of controls at a fraction of the cost of the more perfect shotgun solutions. Another characteristic of this faulty approach to air pollution problems is in its failure adequately to consider the quantitative aspects of some objectionable emission in relation to the affected inhabitants. A common description of gas cleaning equipment cites weight collection efficiency, and if the collection efficiency is in the 90's, some quirk of the adult mind automati* Presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of APCA, Commodore Hotel, June 11-15, 1961, New York, New York.
March 1962 / Volume 12, No. 3

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

cally concludes that this is good, perhaps a subconscious reaction resulting from school-day experience with scales of scholastic performance. A moment's reflection of course indicates in fact how meaningless such percentagefiguresare. Similarly, the common basis for specifying gas cleanliness in units of weight concentration or weight rate of emission ignores the relationship between emission rates and objectionable conditions in the neighborhood, the limitations of which will be better understood from the later discussion. Knowledge is now available whereby the particular needs of a community can be identified and from a consideration of the permissible ground concentration, engineering specifications can be derived for the performance of gas cleaning equipment, required height of stack, or other control measures. We shall illustrate these principles in terms of the following common specific nuisance pollutants which encompass the vast majority of objectionable air pollution effects: smoke and haze, dustfall, incinerator paper ash, metal corrosion, malodors.
Dust Weight Emission Rates

is in the following tabulation, comparing them with the familiar units employed for gas concentrations:
Concentration Units Ground Level

Pollutant

Gas (e.g., SO,) Dust Ft3 gas/ft3 flue gas (ppm) Mgms/ft3 flue gas

Ft3 gas/ft3 air (ppm) Mgms/M3 air

Corresponding Stack Gas Data Concentration Emission Rate

Ft3 gas/hr Mgms dust/hr

A description of weight rate of emission of dust is subject to some serious shortcomings. As everyone knows, the quantitative knowledge describing diluting power of the atmosphere, on which subject so much knowledge has developed in the past 15 to 20 years, provides the basis for calculating in given atmospheric conditions, concentration at ground level resulting from any given rate of emission. Note, however, that when the units of emission are in weight per unit time, it is possible only to compute ground-level concentrations in terms of weight per unit volume (e.g., milligrams per cubic meter) which in fact have limited practical application, since these are not the units ordinarily employed in describing intensity of particulate matter in the community. By way of introduction to later subjects, the logic of consistent units for concentration and rate of emission

Concentrations of a gaseous contaminant, usually expressed as parts per million in the ambient ground level atmosphere, demand the same kind of units to express stack gas concentrations which, when multiplied by the stack gas flow rate, give the emission rate in cubic feet per hour. Similarly as to dust, on the second line, ground level concentrations when expressed in concentration units of weight per unit volume, e.g., milligrams per cubic meter of air, require concentration units and units describing emission rate in the corresponding units shown in the third and fourth columns. The latter are those customarily employed for the description of stack dust concentrations and stack dust emission rates. Note that such stack gas data do not permit calculation of ground level concentrations of particulate matter in the more common units, COHs per 1000 feet, for smoke, etc., or tons per square mile per month, for dustfall.
Stack Gas Smoke and Haze Units

While we have previously discussed1 the practical value in measurement of smoke concentration in stack gases by the filter paper technique and expression of the results in the units, COHs/ft, it is important to our present thesis to repeat those principles here. The common description of smoke and
105

haze ground concentration in the units COHs per foot of air, it will now be seen from the preceding discussion of weight concentration, demands the same kind of units for a description of smoke concentration in stack gases and consistent units for total rate of emission of smoke. These relationships are illustrated in the following extension of the preceding tabulation:
Concentration Units Ground Level

efficiency of around 80% would be specified.

Stack Gas Dusffall

Pollutant

Smoke, haze COHs/ft air Corresponding Stack Data

Concentration Emission Rate

COHs/ft flue gas

COHs-ft2/hr

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

The peculiar units COH-ft2/hr derive from the multiplication of COHs/ft (smoke concentration) and ft3/hr(stack gas flow rate), as explained in the previously cited reference.
ExampleSmoke and Haze

In its application to the question of gas cleaning efficiency specifications, the following example is given: A flue gas stack emission flows at a rate of 550,000 cfm, the smoke concentration in which has been measured at an average intensity of 4.5 COHs per foot (4500 COHs per 1000 feet). The mass rate of emission then is 550,000 X 4.5 = 2.48 X 106 COH-ft2/min Suppose further that the stack height, the X-distance of interest, and the appropriate diffusion parameters (Sutton's Cv, C, n, and u) amount to a Meteorological Ventilation Rate* of 1.5 X 109 cu ft/min. The ground concentration then equals: . Mass Rate of Emission Met Vent Rate _ 2.48 X 106 COH-ft2/min 1.5 X 109 ft3/min - 1.6 X 10 ~3 COHs/ft

We had been concerned for many years with the problem of measuring dustfall in stack gases. The importance of such a technique is pointed up by the reminder that the dustfall nuisance is probably the most common and objectionable nuisance with which people contend. The solution to what had originally been a vexing and elusive problem appeared with the successful development of the channel elutriator.2 While originally conceived as a tool for the rating of dust collectors of a common class, it has an equally important function for the measurement of dustfall, based on its ability to measure the spectrum of settling velocities in a dust mixture. Moreover, as will be apparent from the following discussion, in the rating of dust collectors the device is applicable not only for describing the percent weight efficiency but also the dustfall collection efficiency. A review of the units describing ground level dustfall and stack dustfall emission rate, following the logic in the preceding example, looks like this:
Concentration UnitsGround Level

In the application of these relationships to an estimate of ground level dustfall intensity, we visualize that representative volumes of stack gas containing the particles of interest are diluted and transported by the turbulent diffusion process to ground level just as though it carried a gaseous contaminant, and that sedimentation does not occur appreciably except in a shallow air layer near the ground surface, such sedimentation occurring in accordance with the CV relationships cited. The assumption that no sedimentation occurs in the interval between emission from the stack and arrival of plume elements at ground level is of course not accurate. The error, however, is on the conservative side and is greatest in the case of particles having higher settling velocity, conditions of low wind speed, and for the longer distances. One may visualize the magnitude of this error by comparing the settling velocity of such particles with the vertical velocity of the turbulent eddies in the diffusion process.
ExampleDustfall Emission

Pollutant

Dustfall /

Concentration 2

Tons/mile2/month Lbs/ft2/hr Corresponding Stack Data <

Emission Rate 2

Lbs/ft /hr

Lbs-ft/hr

By way of practical illustration, consider the example which includes the data presented in Table I showing the spectrum of settling velocities and quantities obtained in a certain stack gas emission (time intervals having been changed from hours to minutes). Values of C have not been computed separately; it is more convenient to employ the product CQ. The relation between these units is
C =

These new and strange units merit some explanation. It should be noted that the rate of dust sedimentation onto a surface by gravity is a product of dust concentration and settling velocity. This will be apparent from a review of the units of concentration and velocity as displayed in the following:

lbs dust/min Q(ft8/min)

The actual value of Q, gasflowrate, is not needed since it was previously employed in the development of the total dust emission rate, 85 pounds per minute. Consider that the circumstances of stack height, X-distance of interest, and appropriate diffusion parameters, add up

= i.ecoHs/ioooft
The required efficiency of any gas cleaning equipment, additional stack height, or other corrective means, can now be determined by reference to standards appropriate to a particular situation. If for example it were felt that ground level concentration should not exceed 0.2 COH/1000 ft, an *It will be noted that Met Vent Rate is merely the ratio Mass rate of emission of any substance Calculated ground concentration
106

Dustfall Rate C V (i.e., "Dustfall Concentration") = (dust concentration) (settling velocity) Lbs/ft2/hr = (lbs/ft3) (ft/hr) = lbs/ft 2/hr (i.e.,C-F) Thus the intensity of dustfall is the product CV where C is weight concentration of suspended dust, not concentration of dustfall. Rather, "dustfall concentration" is the product CV itself. Since mass rate of emission of a pollutant from a stack is a product of concentration, C, and total volume rate of flow of flue gas, Q, the mass rate of emission has the units previously described, i.e., (C-V) (Q) = (Ibs/ft2/hr) (ft3/hr) = lbs-ft/hr2 to a Meteorological Ventilation Rate of 12 X 109 ftymin. A calculation of the "hourly" dustfall rate at ground level at the significant location is derived as follows: Mass Rate Emission Met Vent Rate lb-ft/min2 ft3/min _ 286 ~ ~ 12 X 109 = 23.8 X 10 " Ibs/ft2/min
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

Table IExample Data and Calculation of Dustfall Intensity in a Stack Gas, and Dustfall Emission Rate
C-Q-V V

Corrosion Potential The same principles have been interestingly applied by us in the measurement of corrosion potential, a term which, it will be noted, deemphasizes the chemistry of materials causing the corrosion and emphasizes as before, the objectionable effect. Selected specimens of metal, glass and other materials are mounted in an enclosure which is continuously ventilated with diluted stack gases. At the end of the exposure period, the degree of corrosion is measured, usually by determination of reduced light reflectance, and the relationship represented once again by log Io/I applied to a description of the corrosion effect in terms of reduced capacity for reflection of light. The resulting numbers which for convenience we shall term COR units, appear in the tabulation below as units of concentration and provide the basis for description of corrosion potential emission rate. (The absence of area in the concentration units has the same explanation as in the preceding case.) Concentration Units Ground Level

Settling Velocity Range, ft/min

(a) >20

Median Settling Velocity, ft/min

(b) 20 15 8.5 5.5 3 0.5

Measured Wt % Each Fraction

(c) 5.3 1.5 5.8 9.6

Dustfall Emission Rate Wt Rate in Each Each Fraction, Velocity Range, a lbs/min lb-ft/min2
C-Q (d) 4.5 1.3 4.9 8.2 (e) 90 19 42 45 41 37 12

10-20 7-10
4-7 2-4

16.0 34.7 27.1 Based on, separately measured, total lbs/min = 85; 286 V2-2 1.25

<v*

13.6 29.5 23.0 lb-ft/min2.

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

This may be converted to the units, tons per square mile per month, by multiplying it by 0.60 X 109 which results in the calculated dustfall rate of 14.3 tons per square mile per month. This is the "hourly" rate, indicating that it applies only when the wind is in a particular direction. Suppose that an analysis of wind direction frequency shows that the wind blows toward this location four percent of the total time, then the average dustfall rate is 14.3 X 0.04 = 0.6 ton per square mile per month. If the monthly measured rate at this location be, for example, 30 tons per square mile per month, it is concluded that the particular dustfall emission accounts for two percent of the total dustfall. The collection efficiency required of a dust collector to reduce this contribution can now be specified on an engineering basis and by reference to the circumstances of a particular locality. Referring to Table I, it can be seen that the dustfall contributed by particles having settling velocity less than two feet per minute* is 37 + 12, i.e., 49/286 = 17%. Therefore if the dust collector removed all larger particles, the dustfall collection efficiency would be 83%. The weight collection efficiency required for this result is found by reference to the corresponding figures in the third column (34.7 + 27.1) and indicates that a dust collector having a weight efficiency of only 38% would reduce the dustfall contribution to 17%. Incinerator Paper Ash Waste incinerators of the type used in large city apartment houses may be responsible as indicated in the introduction, for two separate kinds of particulate nuisance (in addition to that of malodors): CO haze and smoke; {2) paper ash flakes. The first of these * The settling velocity, Ut, of spherical particles, sp gr = Z, in air at 70F, corresponds to particle diameter, dm microns, as follows: dm = 10.WUt/Z
March 1962 / Volume 12, No. 3

would logically be measured and rated by reference to the COH units previously discussed. The second, however, requires separate consideration. While deposition of paper ash is essentially a dustfall nuisance, it is not adequately described by the conventional measurement of dustfall in weight units, because the magnitude of the paper ash nuisance is out of all proportion to the weight of such particles. These considerations signify the need for a quite different means for measurement of paper ash dustfall. With this single modification, all of the principles discussed in the preceding section on dustfall will still apply. We have found that incinerator stack gas sampling with the channel elutriator is an effective means for capturing them in a systematic manner and unfractured. Adhesive-coated glass slides on the elutriator plates serve conveniently to receive them. Evaluation of the quantity is most logically determined by a light-measurement means because of the optical nature of the nuisance effect. Percent light transmission and subsequent transformation according to the well-known principle embodied in the quantity log Io/I appears to be a satisfactory means for this purpose. One could thus develop and employ a system of measurements analogous to COH units. Suppose such optical density units for paper ash flakes were thus described as PAF units. Unlike the case of dustfall, they would be related only to time since area cancels out in the ratio Io/I just as in COH units for stained filter paper. The relationship between concentrations and emission rates would thus appear as in the following tabulation: Concentration Units Ground Level

Pollutant

Corrosion potential CORs/hr 'Corresponding Stack Data -^ Concentration Emission Rate COR-ft3/hr2 CORs/hr A specification for gas cleaning equipment can now be framed on exactly the same basis as the other pollution effects to insure any desired degree of accomplishment relative thereto in the neighborhood. Odors The handling of odor problems on a perfectly quantitative basis follows the same principles as apply to the previously discussed pollutants, but subject to an interesting difference in detail pertaining to a description of odor concentration. The chemistry of an odor, like the chemistry of corrosion potential, is of no particular interest. In fact, its consideration would only confuse the issue. It follows that lack of knowledge of its chemistry prevents a description of odor concentration directly. This, however, is no bar to a quantitative treatment. The approach employed in this case is to deal entirely with ratios, as illustrated by the tabulation of units below, in which Ca represents concentration of odor in the ground level atmosphere, Cg represents concentration of odor in the stack gas, and Ct represents the concentration corresponding to the threshold of perception as determined by quantitative subjective measurements, according to techniques outlined 107

Pollutant

Paper ash flakes PAFs/hr Corresponding Stack Data Concentration Emission Rate PAFs/hr PAFs-ft3/hr2

Table IISummary of a System of Consistent Units for Expressing Ground Concentrations and Stack Gas Concentrations, Respectively, for Various Air Pollution Qualities; Whereby Gas Cleaning Performance Can Be Related to Ground Level Concentrations

BOARD OF DIRECTORS HEARS ACTION REQUESTS

At its meeting on November 14, 1961, in Pittsburgh, the Board of Directors received and discussed the following letter from Raymond Smith, Chief of Air Pollution Control, City of Philadelphia, who was acting in his capacity in New York as Chairman of the Control Officials' Conference Committee. "Being duly assembled at their forum on Tuesday June 13, 1961, the control officials present did resolve by unanimous vote that the chairman of said forum (Raymond Smith) should convey to the Board of Directors of the Air Pollution Control Association the following requests for action: (1) That the designers and manufacturers of diesel operated vehicles be requested by the Air Pollution Control Association, through its Board of Directors, to energetically undertake a program for the abatement of odors characteristically associated with diesel engine operation. (2) That the Board of Directors of the Air Pollution Control Association establish a more effective and expeditious means of transmitting information between the Board and control officials on matters of specific concern to control officials. (3) That the Board of Directors of the Air Pollution Control Association formally report to the membership each year on the manner in which each objective of the Association, as listed in Article III of the By-Laws, has been met during the past year with special reference to sub-items (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), and (h) of Article III, Section 1. (4) That the Executive Secretary advise, in writing, all control officials who are members of the Air Pollution Control Association of the action taken by the Board on the disposition of each of the above three requests for action prior to the 1962 annual meeting of the Association. The following actions were taken by the Board on each paragraph of the letter: S. Smith Griswold has requested in his capacity as Chairman of TA-10 Vehicular Exhaust Committee to prepare an appropriate statement for the Board on diesel smoke and fumes. No action was taken on paragraph 2. With respect to paragraph 3 the Executive Secretary is to prepare a report annually for the President. For item 4, this note informing the member of the above actions is to be published in the JOURNAL.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

Pollutant Gas (e.g., SO2) Dust Smoke, haze Dustfall Paper ash (incinerator) Corrosion potential Odors elsewhere.3

Concentration Units Ground Level Ft3 gas/ft3 air (ppm) Mgms/M3 air COHs/ft air 2 Tons/mile /hr 2 Lbs/ft /hr PAFs/hr CORs/hr
Ca/Ct

Corresponding Stack Gas Data Concentration Emission Rate Ft3 gas/ft3 flue gas Ft3 gas/hr (ppm) Mgms/ft3 flue gas Mgms/hr COHs/ft flue gas COHs-ftVhr 2 Lbs/ft /hr Lbs-ft/hr2 PAFs/hr CORs/hr
Cg/Ct

PAFs-fF!/hT1! CORs-ft3/hr2
Ft 3 /hr

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

Pollutant Odors

Concentration Units Ground Level Ca/Ct

Corresponding Stack Data Concentration Emission Rate

cB/ct

Ft/hr (dilution air)

The subjective methods of measurement provide a direct indication of the ratio Cg/Ct which, when multiplied by the total flue gas rate of emission, results in the units cubic feet of air per hour as shown in the last column. This quantity, a description of the total rate offlowof air that would be required to dilute all the odor to the threshold level, can be applied to any quantitative engineering analysis of any means of odor abatement whether it be by scrubbers or by employment of tall stacks to elevate the source above ground level. In the case of the latter which refers to the diluting capacity of the atmosphere, the kind of calculations illustrated in the following can be applied to a quantitative conclusion. As in all the preceding examples, the ratio of mass rate of emission to Meteorological Ventilation Rate prevailing in specified weather conditions, stack height and distance, results in the resulting concentration at the location of interest: Mass Rate of Emission ft3/hr Met Vent Rate ft3/hr In this case the "concentration" appears as a dimensionless ratio which describes the number of times the actual odor concentration bears to the threshold, i.e., Ca/Ct.
Conclusion

ment methods appropriate to each demand the same kind of measurement at ground level as in stack gases. The air pollution qualities discussed and the systems of consistent units are summarized in Table II. The approach outlined here permits statements of quantitative relationships between emission quantities and concentrations at places of habitation and can provide a basis for development of sound policy for abatement of the particular air pollution nuisances that are objectionable in any community. It is sometimes suggested that a prime requirement for important progress in air pollution abatement is in the discovery of cheaper methods and equipment for the cleaning flue gases. We disagree with the implications of this viewpoint. We believe the real need is for more discriminating appraisal of the character of air pollution in a community for the design of a pin-pointed attack on the particular problems found to be of principal significance. Such progress as has been made in the Los Angeles area (and scientifically the progress is quite satisfactory) has derived from adherence to this principle of discrimination and a quantitative appraisal of their particular problem. It is hoped that the ideas presented in this paper will stimulate equally good and constructive scientific efforts for attack on the important problems of the East.
REFERENCES

1. W. C. L. Hemeon, G. F. Haines, Jr., and Harold M. Ide, "Determination of Haze and Smoke Concentrations by Filter Paper Samplers,'' Air Repair 3: 1, 22-29 (August 1953). 2. W. C. L. Hemeon, G. F. Haines, Jr., and S. D. Puntureri, "Rating of Dust Collectors According to Dust Settling

Velocities,'' J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 11:6, 264-67 (June 1961). 3. Hemeon Associates, "Odor Control Research and Engineering" (June 1958).

We have indicated in this paper the need for sorting out the different types of air pollution nuisances that may afflict a community and how measure108

1962 ANNUAL MEETING MAY 20-24