You are on page 1of 604

2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org.

This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without
ASHRAEs permission. Requests for this report should be directed to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services.
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

ASHRAE

American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc.

1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 S404-636-8400 Fax 404-321-5478

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS


FROM VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED
TO OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS

ASHRAE 745-RP
Phase I
Final Report

Submitted to ASHRAE by:


William D. Gerstler, Research Assistant
Thomas H. Kuehn, Professor
David Y. H. Pui, Professor
James W. Ramsey, Professor
Michael P. Doerr, Research Assistant

University of Minnesota
Department of Mechanical Engineering
111 Church St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111

June 13, 1996

This research report has been reprinted with the permission of ASHRAE. Distribution of the report by
PG&E's Food Service Technology Center is a service to industry and the research community.
The charge for this report is based exclusively on its printing cost.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table of Contents
Page
Number

Topic Area
List of Tables
List of Figures
A. Executive Summary
6 . Introduction
1. Kitchen Ventilation Overview
2. Hood Selection
3. Fire Protection
4. Grease Extraction
5. Exhaust Flow Rates and Energy Consumption
6. Outdoor Air Pollution
7. Optimal Kitchen Design
C. Summary of Literature Review
D. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases
1. Introduction
2. Summary of Current Available Methods of Measurement
a. Overview of Methods
i. EPA Method 5
ii. EPA Method 5G
iii. EPA Method 5H
iv. EPA Method 17
v. EPA Method 201
vi. EPA Method 201A
vii. EPA Method 202
viii.ILEPAATP-1
ix. SCAQMD Method 5.1
x. Dilution Stack Sampler
xi. Aerodynamic Particle Sizer
xii. QCM Cascade Impactor
b. Method Comparisons
c. Result of Applying Methods to Effluent Measurement
InCKV
3. Review of Previous Studies
a. Introduction
b. Study Summaries
c. Study Comparisons
4. Summary of Areas In Effluent Characterization Which Need
to be Addressed
E. Non-Condensable Gases
1. Introduction
2. Review of Previous Studies
F. Proposed Test Method For Phase II
1. Introduction
2. Testing Facility
a. Minnegasco Kitchen Test Laboratory
b. University of Minnesota Test Unit
3. Proposed Test Variables
4. Temperature and Velocity Measurements
5. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases
6. Non-Condensable Gases

iv
V

1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
7
7
7
8
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
14
15
16
17
17
18
21
23
23
23
24
29
31
31
31
33
33
33
33
33
34
36
37
39

ii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Topic Area

Page
Number

7. Proposed Time Line


G. List of People and Organizations Contacted
Appendix AAnnotated Bibliography
Appendix B-Test Methods
EPA Method 201A
EPA Method 202
EPA Method 25
Appendix C~Related Paper
"A personal cascade impactor: Design, evaluation and calibration."
Rubow et al. (1987)
Appendix DFacilities
Minnegaseco Commercial Foodservice Training Facility

40
42
A-1
B-1
B-2
B-10
B-14
C-1
C-2
D-l
D-2

iii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

List of Tables
Table
Table 1. Keywords and Assigned Number of Papers.
Table 2. Methods Summary.
Table 3. Problems Using Sampling Methods When Applied To
Cooking Emissions.
Table 4. Summary of Reviewed CKV Emission Studies.
Table 5. Comparison Between CKV Emission Studies.
Table 6. Proposed Test Variables.
Table 7. Contacts and Organizations.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

List of Figures
Figure

Page
Number

Figure 1. EPA Method 5 Sampling Train.

Figure 2. EPA Method 5G Sampling Train.

Figure 3. EPA Method 5H Sampling Train.

10

Figure 4. EPA Method 17 Sampling Train.

11

Figure 5. EPA Method 201 Sampling Train.

12

Figure 6. EPA Method 201A Sampling Train.

13

Figure 7. EPA Method 202 Sampling Train.

14

Figure 8. SCAQMD Method 5.1 Sampling Train.

15

Figure 9. The Dilution Stack Sampler.

16

Figure 10. QCM Cascade Impactor Sample Train Example.


Figure 11. Comparison of SCAQMD Method 5.1 and EPA Method
201A and 202, both modified for CKV applications.
Data for hamburger cooked on a charbroiler.

17
24

Figure 12. Comparison of CE-CERT and Dowell and Dashner studies


for solid and total particulate emissions. -Data is for hamburger
cooking on a chainbroiler using a Modified SCAQMD 5.1
sampling method and ASTM standard cooking procedures.

27

Figure 13. Comparison of total particulate concentrations from


various appliances between the Hildemann, and
Dowell and Dashner studies. In stack measurements
taken while cooking hamburgers.

28

Figure 14. Particle size distribution comparison between Dawson,


Annis and Annis, and Gordon studies.

29

Figure 15. Schematic of the proposed test facility at the University


of Minnesota.

34

Figure 16. Schematic of the proposed sampling train.

37

Figure 17. Grease particle size range and ranges covered by


various methods.
Figure 16. Phase II proposed research schedule.

39
41

v
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARATERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS FROM


VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED TO
OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
ASHRAE 745-RP, Phase I
W.D. Gerstler ,T.H. Kuehn, D.Y.H. Pui, J.W. Ramsey, M.P. Doerr
University of Minnesota
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Minneapolis, Minnesota
A. Executive Summary
This report includes the results of Phase I of this research project. The main objectives of
Phase I are to review the literature for information regarding previous measurements of
effluent from cooking processes and test methods used, compile this information into
summary tables and charts, and to propose an improved test method for the laboratory and
field measurements to be implemented in Phase H.
Information was obtained from the published literature, personal contacts and research
reports. An annotated bibliography is given in Appendix A. No two previous studies can
be compared directly as differences exist in test methods, sample locations, appliances and
food products. Summary tables are presented that compare the test variables used in these
studies. Only very limited data comparisons can be made. It is not possible with the
existing information to produce a clear understanding of cooking emissions, both quantity
and particle size and gas characterization.
A proposed sampling system is given for the Phase II measurements of cooking effluent
above cooking appliances. This follows EPA Methods 201A and 202. The main
difference is the addition of a multistage impactor upstream. The impactor will be
immersed into the thermal plume to collect solid and liquid particles at the sampling location
temperature. Aerosol will also be sampled into an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer or a Laser
Particle Counter for real time measurements. Gas sampling and analysis essentially
follows the EPA methods. Appliances, food products, and other test variables for Phase II
are given.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

B. Introduction
1. Kitchen Ventilation Overview
Kitchen ventilation is an integral part of heating, ventilating and air conditioning design and
construction. It generally can be divided into two major categories, residential, and
commercial (institutional). Building codes and regulations are quite different for the two
types of kitchen ventilation, because the typical residential kitchen does not experience the
same level of contaminant generation produced by commercial kitchens (ASHRAE 1995).
While residential kitchen ventilation is a matter of concern, this study concentrates on the
specific problems of commercial and institutional kitchen ventilation.
Kitchen ventilation system design addresses many areas. These include fire protection,
indoor air quality, indoor thermal comfort, overall energy usage including appliances and
HVAC systems, and outdoor air contamination (ASHRAE 1995; Gordon et al. 1994; Li et
al. 1993; Wolbrink and Sarnosky 1992; Frey et al 1993; Gladstone 1985; Horton et al.
1993). Current methods of kitchen ventilation are based on a limited understanding of the
mechanisms involved in the contaminant generation process and do not address all of these
concerns (ASHRAE 1994). Kitchen ventilation designers choose a type of hood and an
airflow rate based on the appliance and type of vented effluent This ventilation rate is
spelled out in standards that may be from national, state or local codes (ASHRAE 1995;
Talbert et al. 1973).
In general, the type of hood and the exhaust airflow rate will adequately address the
problem of fire protection (ASHRAE 1995), but at the expense of energy consumption
(Horton et al 1993) and outdoor air contamination (Bornstein 1978; Gordon et al. 1994)
and to a lesser degree, indoor air quality and comfort (Pekkinen and Takki-Haltrunen
1992). Many observers believe that the exhaust air flow rates can be reduced safely,
resulting in substantial energy savings (Conover 1992; ASHRAE 1994). Others suggest
lower exhaust rates do not address all of the energy concerns (Spata and Turgeon 1995;
Horton et al. 1993;). Instead, they suggest a comprehensive approach that integrates
exhaust and make-up flow rates with total HVAC design. In addition, there are many areas
where the level of pollution emitted from commercial cooking operations is a concern, and
there is very little information available regarding how to address this problem (Bornstein
1978; Francis and Lipinski 1977; Gordon et al. 1994). The goal of this study is to provide
fundamental information identifying and quantifying effluent generated by typical
commercial kitchen processes.
2. Hood Selection
The design of a commercial kitchen ventilation system begins with identifying the type of
appliances used. If the process will not produce grease, which is often the case with
steamers and kettles, a Type II hood is all that is required. Type II hoods do not require
grease extractors, and are responsible for only removing water vapor or steam and fumes.
On the other hand, if the process produces grease, which is common to most fast food
cooking operations, as well as most other restaurants and institutional kitchens, a Type I
hood is required. Currently, Type I hoods are categorized as either standard or listed. A
standard hood conforms to the code requirements of the location where it is used. A listed
hood does not necessarily conform to these exact requirements, instead, its design and
performance is listed by the manufacturer and can be shown to be equivalent to the local
code requirements if it meets certain criteria set up by nationally recognized standards.
Type I hoods must provide fire protection, grease removal and adequate ventilation

2
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

(ASHRAE 1995). This study will concentrate mainly of grease producing operations, but
certain aspects of non-grease producing operations will also be addressed.
3. Fire Protection
The area of fire protection is probably the most understood and best controlled part of
commercial kitchen ventilation. According to the National Fire Protection Agency's
(NFPA) Standard 96, all grease filters must be listed. Li order to be listed, they are tested
and certified by a standardized test laboratory under UL Standard 1046. Among other
things, the grease filter must protect the ventilation system from the hazard of open flame.
It is generally accepted that listed grease extractors/filters work well as a fire preventive
device (ASHRAE 1995).

4. Grease Extraction

The effectiveness of grease extractors at removing grease from the ventilation stream is
another matter. There are numerous tests that manufacturers perform or have independent
laboratories perform, which allow them to claim their extractor is efficient to a certain extent
(ASHRAE 1995; Gordon et al. 1994). Often this leads to claims of 95 to 99 % grease
removal efficiency. Overall, there is little confidence in the industry that these tests actually
measure the true grease extraction efficiency. For instance, some methods do not account
for grease in the vapor form. In general, the methods are based on limited knowledge and
data of the actual effluent being generated. All parties involved, including HVAC system
designers, electric and gas utilities, environmental monitoring agencies and hood and
appliance manufacturers, have an interest in the development of a standard method to
measure the effectiveness of grease extractors. Currently, ASHRAE is funding a project
where the end result will be a proposed grease extraction test method (Kleva 1996). Key
information provided by this study, such as the size of the grease particles and the amount
of grease in the vapor form, will be an invaluable tool for the development of a such a
method.
5. Exhaust Flow Rates and Energy Consumption

*
s

*
%
*
t

'.

'
t

'
t

Another area where an understanding of the fundamental nature of the cooking effluent is
necessary is the development of minimum exhaust flow rate requirements. As stated
above, these rates are usually determined by what appears to be adequate. The flow rate is
determined by the hood style and position, the type of appliance and product, and the size
of the area that must be ventilated (ASHRAE 1995; Talbert et al. 1973). After the physical
characteristics are determined, the expected thermal currents are estimated and, allowing for
a safety factor, the minimum flow rate is determined. To many observers, the required
ventilation rate often exceeds what appears to be necessary. This method is applied
because given the amount of reliable information, it is the best method currently available.
Recent studies suggest that simply reducing the exhaust rate is not the answer (Horton et al.
1993). The study recommends a comprehensive approach to energy gains and losses.
Applying this method suggests that many times during the year, when the outdoor
temperatures are favorable, high ventilation rates, with equally high make-up air from the
outdoors, will decrease the need for conditioned make-up air, thereby lowering costs. One
result of the study is an energy balance protocol in the form of standard test method for
ventilation system performance (Gordon et al. 1994; Smith et al. 1995) Approval of the
method as an ASTM standard is pending. If more detailed information is available about
the size, quantity and behavior of the cooking effluent, then more sophisticated methods
could be used to determine exhaust flow rates. The end result will be a safe and
comfortable working environment, with substantial energy savings.

'
%

"
$
*
f

,
'
.
<
,
f
f

X
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

6. Outdoor Air Pollution


In all areas of the country there is concern about the quality of outdoor air. Under current
environmental law, cooking effluent from commercial and institutional kitchens is simply
vented to the atmosphere with little or no monitoring of how much pollution it causes. This
pollution contributes to the overall pollution level in the vicinity of the restaurant. EPA
regulations limit the level of pollutants in the atmosphere by means of a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). In this sense, contamination from kitchen ventilation is
counted (Gordon et al. 1994). However, individual source control focuses on large
industrial producers of pollutants such as electric utilities and chemical manufacturers and
does not yet include commercial cooking operations. Studies indicate that pollution from
cooking processes contribute a substantial amount of contamination into the atmosphere. A
study by Hildemann et al. (1991) at the California Institute of Technology, suggests that
almost one quarter of primary organic aerosol emissions from the Los Angeles area are
attributable to meat-cooking operations. One reason for this is that many other major
sources of pollution, such as utility plants and automobiles, are heavily monitored and
controlled. Furthermore, since thefirstversion of the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970,
there has been an enormous increase in the amount of fast food restaurants (Bornstein
1978). It follows that for a cleaner environment commercial and institutional kitchen
contributions to the pollution problem must be addressed.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is responsible for air
quality in the Los Angeles area, has considered regulating the emissions from restaurants.
Since this effort began, there have been numerous problems, including the fact that a
reliable test to measure the amount of emissions from cooking operations is not available.
A number of studies, including one at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona
(Dowell and Dashner 1991) have had a limited amount of success solving these problems.
Currently, the Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) at the
University of California, Riverside, is working to develop a method to test the emission
rates from commercial cooking operations. However, these efforts are proceeding without
a fundamental knowledge of cooking effluent. An understanding of the nature of cooking
effluent will assist these efforts. It is expected that a successful test method for measuring
cooking emissions will lead to wide scale monitoring of cooking operations, and an
increase in the development of technologies to reduce emission rates.
7. Optimal Kitchen Design
A final benefit of understanding cooking effluent generation is the overall integration of
kitchen design. Cooking appliances may be designed to operate more efficiently. The
amount of conditioned air needed for make-up air may be reduced. There is a possibility
that heated air from kitchen ventilation systems could be used elsewhere as a heat source (to
heat water for the dishwasher). Patel et al. (1993) estimate that improved technology
in
12
electric
appliance
and
gas
appliance
designs
show
a
potential
savings
of
70
x
10
and
73 x
1012 BTU's/year respectively. This is about one-quarter of the estimated energy now used
yearly for appliance operation in commercial/institutional kitchens. 12
In addition, they state
that heat recovery from appliances
can
result
in
a
saving
of
27
x
10
BTU's/year. Finally,
they estimate that 44 to 77 x 1012 addtitional BTU's could be saved by kitchen integration
design. Understanding the processes and behavior of cooking effluent will assist in the
effort for integrated kitchen design.

4
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

C. Summary of Literature Review


A literature review was conducted of the published work regarding commercial kitchen
ventilation and generated effluent. Electronic searches included COMPENDEX,
CURRENT CONTENTS, LUMINA, INDEXES and ASTL Hand searches of selected
journals revealing recent articles not yet added to the electronic data bases were also made.
Members of the technical committee overseeing the project were contacted and any
information or papers they were able to contribute were collected. Finally, at the
suggestion of some of the committee members, other people active in the industry,
including manufacturer's and consultants, were contacted and information was collected.
There were some papers available in the published literature, but very few in the area of
effluent characterization. Most of these papers concentrated on the ventilation system from
an energy conservation point of view. Furthermore, these papers contained general
information on commercial kitchen ventilation, which proved to be a good overview of the
subject.
The majority of the information concerning cooking effluent was contained in papers and
reports made available by the personal contacts. These include studies that actually
quantified emissions in one way or another. Since this is the focus of the current study,
particular attention was given to these papers.
In addition to the studies related to commercial kitchen ventilation, testing methods for
appliance performance and sampling were collected. Sampling methods include those for
particulate matter and non-condensable gases.
The literature was sorted into a number of different categories. Any single source could
have information pertaining to one or several of the categories. Table 1 lists the categories
as keywords and the number of papers or reports assigned to each keyword.
The first part of this report discusses the studies which focused on emission measurements
and summarizes their contribution to the characterization of cooking effluent. The final part
of this report proposes a testing matrix and sampling method which will provide a means to
identify and characterize cooking effluent more completely.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table 1. Keywords and Assigned Number of Papers


Keyword
above appliance
ASTM cooking method
charbroilers
CKV integration
CKV performance test
commercial kitchens
control devices
electric appliances
exhaust CKV
filtration
fire protection
fryers
gas appliances
grease chemistry
griddles
heat gain
hood design
in room
in stack
indoor air pollution
kitchen CFD
measurement devices
modeling
non-condensable gases
outdoor air pollution
particle concentration
particulate measurements
residential studies
ROC-ROG
ROG measurements
sampling methods
SCAQMD
size classification
size estimate
source identification
ventilation rates
VOC

Number of
Papers
3
11
11
13
6
25
7
5
4
4
1
1
10
3
6
11
7
3
9
11
4
5
10
14
14
1
21
8
5
3
2
5
6
1
4
21
5

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

D. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases


1. Introduction
The major concern in determining the nature of effluents generated by commercial kitchen
appliances is the characterization of the particulate matter and condensable gases. Because
of the complicated processes involved in the generation of these contaminants, there is not a
clear distinction between them (Gordon et al. 1994). During the various cooking
processes, food heats, emitting numerous solid, liquid and gaseous substances. These
substances include water and grease in both the liquid and vapor phases, non-condensable
gases such as CO, C02,NOx, various other gases and solid organic matter. A separate
section of this report addresses the non-condensable gases. Grease and water vapor
condense in the air stream and on the ventilation equipment. This condensation depends on
a number of factors including the temperature of the gas and surrounding surfaces, as well
as the concentration of the vapors. In addition, solid particulates resulting from organic
matter "burning" and violently emitting into the thermal plume as a result of the
"explosion'' of grease or water vapor that occurs during the cooking process can become a
means by which the grease and water vapor condense (Sarnosky 1987; Dawson 1991;
Annis and Annis 1989).
The understanding of condensation of vapor on airborne particulates is not complete, but it
depends on factors such as temperature, vapor pressure, and the nucleation particle.
Further complications in dealing with these physical phenomena arise from the transient
nature of the cooking process. For instance, when turning hamburgers during cooking,
the rate of emissions increases enormously. As a consequence of these physical realities,
the results from previous studies on cooking effluent emissions are highly dependent on
capture and characterization methods, as well as cooking methods. Previous studies have
adapted measurement methods from protocols designed to measure particulates and
condensable gases in other applications. Applying these methods to kitchen emissions has
various consequences, which partially accounts for the wide variation in quantitative
results.
Results also vary due to the previous lack of a standard method for cooking protocol. The
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for appliance performance,
which includes a cooking protocol, now exist for most appliances, but were unavailable
before 1990. Therefore, section D.2.a. presents a review of the methods currently
available for measuring particulate matter and condensable vapor. Sections D.2.b.
compares the methods and section D.2.c.explains the consequences of applying them to
kitchen emission measurement. Section D.3. reviews previous studies, keeping in mind
the cooking and measurement techniques used. Finally, Section D.4. presents a summary
of the areas of cooking effluent characterization that need further study.
2. Summary of Current Available Methods of Measurement
There are a large number of methods currently available to measure concentrations of
particulate matter and condensable vapor. Because none were designed specifically for
kitchen application, previous studies chose different methods and modified them
accordingly. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 5 is the basis for most
of these methods. EPA Method 5 has numerous variations and certain state agencies
adopted their own variations. Hildemann et al. (1991) developed a vastly different method
for measuring aerosol concentrations. Some studies investigated the size distribution of the
particulate emissions (Annis and Annis 1989; Dawson 1991; Gordon 1994), which
involved using particle size classifiers. This section reviews and compares these methods
and explains the consequences of applying them to kitchen emission measurement
7
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

a. Overview of Methods
i. EPA Method 5
The EPA designed Method 5 to determine overall particulate matter concentrations from
stationary sources. Generally this includes stack emissionsfromcombustion processes.
Figure 1 shows the sample train for EPA Method 5.
TEMPERATURE SENSOR

IMPIN6ER TRAIN OPTIONAL,MAY BE REPLACED


BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDENSER

CHECK
VALVE

VACUUM
LINE

VACUUM
GAUGE
MAIN VALVE

THERMOMETERS
DRY GAS METER

AIR-TIGHT
PUMP

Figure 1. EPA Method 5 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


The sample probe isokinetically draws the samplefromthe airflowinto a heated tube and
then a filter. Both the tube and filter remain at a temperature at or below 120 degrees C.
The filtered sample flows into the condensing unit where it passes through impingers
submersed in an ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two
impingers contain water, the third is empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The
temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A
pump draws the remaining sample through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which
measures the dry gas volume. After afinalpressure determination, the sample air exhausts
to the test area. Particles and condensate collected on or before the heatedfiltercount as
total particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers and moisture absorbed by the
silica gel count as moisture.
ii. EPA Method 5G
The EPA designed Method 5G to determine particulate matter concentrationsfromwood
heaters or stoves, using a dilution tunnel to achieve a constant sampling rate. Figure 2
shows the sample train for EPA Method 5G.

8
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure 2. EPA Method 5G Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


Emissions mix with room air in a dilution tunnel where a damper and blower keep the flow
rate constant. Isokinetic sampling of the mixed air in the dilution chamber occurs and the
sample passes through two filters kept at a temperature less than 32 degrees C. The
remaining sample air dries in an unspecified drying device. A set of impingers similar to
those used in EPA Method 5 may be used. A pump draws the remaining sample through a
series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures, the dry gas volume. After a final
pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate
collected on or before the two filters count as total particulate matter.

9
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

iii. EPA Method 5H


The EPA designed Method 5H to determine particulate matter concentrationfromwood
heater or stoves from the stack location, without a dilution tunnel. Figure 3 shows the
sample train for EPA Method 5H.
Filler

Filler

Figure 3. EPA Method 5H Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow into a heated tube and
then a filter. Both the tube and filter remain at a temperature at or below 120 degrees C.
The filtered sample flows into the condensing unit where it passes through impingers
submersed in an ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two
impingers contain water, the third is empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The
temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A
filter between the third and fourth impinger collects any particles or condensate that passes
through the first three impingers. A pump draws the remaining sample through a series of
valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a final pressure
determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate collected
on or before the second filter, including those in the first three impingers, count as total
particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers and moisture absorbed by the silica gel
count as moisture.

10
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

iv. EPA Method 17


The EPA designed Method 17 to determine particulate matter concentrations from sources
where the concentrations are independent of temperature, thus allowing sampling at instack temperature. Figure 4 shows the sample train for EPA Method 17.

mnmiMiuiiiicMiiinara

Figure 4. EPA Method 17 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow into the filter that is instack and at stack temperature. The filtered sample flows into the condensing unit where it
passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the
impingers. The first two impingers contain water, the third is empty and the fourth
contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain
below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the remaining sample through a series of valves and a
dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a final pressure determination,
the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate collected on or before the
filter at stack temperature count as total particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers
and moisture absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.

e
e

ii

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

<^

v. EPA Method 201


The EPA designed Method 201 to determine the concentration of particulate matter less than
10 micrometers in diameter (PM,0) from stationary sources. This became necessary when
data confirmed the additional health hazard of airborne fine particulate matter. Figure 5
shows the sample train for EPA Method 201.
EGR PROBE ASSEMBLY

-, METER AND FLOW


'CONTROL CONSOLE

SEALED PUMP

Figure 5. EPA Method 201 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow into the PM-10 cyclone
where it mixes with conditioned recycled air to maintain proper cyclone operating
conditions. Particles and condensate larger than 10 micrometers collect here. The sample
flows into the filter heated to stack temperature. The filtered sample flows into the
condensing unit where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath. Condensate
and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two impingers contain water, the third is
empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last
impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the remaining sample through
a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. At this point
some of the gas is conditioned and re-circulated to the PM-10 cyclone. The rest of the
sample air exhausts to the test area, after a final pressure determination. Particles and
condensate collected on or before the filter at stack temperature, including those which
collect in the cyclone count as total particulate matter. Total particulate matter minus the
particles collected by the cyclone count as PM-10. Liquid collected in the impingers and
moisture absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.

12
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

vi. EPA Method 201A


The EPA designed Method 201A as an alternate method to determine the concentration of
particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) from stationary sources.
EPA Method 201A does not require conditioned make-up air for the cyclone operation as
does Method 201. Figure 6 shows the sample train for EPA Method 201 A. .
IMPINGER TRAIN

SILICA GEL
V ; INCLINED
MANOMETER

FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM


GAS

X ORIFICE"

**

FINE
"*

CALIBRATED

Ear

co

\
X

%j,

VACUUM
VA0
G
GAUGE

(?

=C5J
}

INCLINED
. MANOMETER

VACUUM
PUMP

DRY GAS
METER

Figure 6. EPA Method 201A Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


The sample probe isokinetically draws the samplefromthe air flow into the PM-10 cyclone
or cascade impactor. Particles and condensate larger than 10 micrometers collect here. The
sample flows into the filter hsated to stack temperature. The filtered sample flows into the
condensing unit .where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath. Condensate
and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two impingers contain water, the third is
empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last
impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the rernaining sample through
a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a final
pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate
collected on or before the filter at stack temperature, including those which collect in the
cyclone count as total particulate matter. Total particulate matter minus the particles
collected by the cyclone or cascade impactor count as PM-10. Liquid collected in the
impingers and moisture absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

vii. EPA Method 202


EPA Methods 17,201 or 201A constitute the first half of the EPA 202 sampling train.
EPA 202 specifies a different method of handling the condensate portion of the sampling.
The EPA designed Method 202 to determine the concentration of condensable vapors and
to specify the amount of organic and inorganic material collected. Figure 7 shows the
sample train for EPA Method 202.
,

Thwinoeoupto

Q^J,

Figure 7. EPA Method 202 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).


After passing through the first half of the sampling train specified by the other methods, the
sample flows into the condensing unit where is passes through impingers submersed in an
ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. Thefirstthree impingers
contain water and the fourth contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving
the last impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the remaining sample
through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a
final pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Determining total
particulate matter depends on the front half method. The method uses methelene chloride,
an organic solvent, to dissolve the organic particulates and condensables found in the
impinger water and surrounding connections. The determination of organic and inorganic
composition of the particulates and condensables follows.
viii.ILEPAATP-1
a

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency adopted a version of EPA Method 5 for
determining the particulate emissions from incinerators. Stanley and Co. (1973) modified
this test for their purposes. While a diagram of the method is not available, a description
follows.

14
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

The sample probe isokinetically draws the samplefromthe airflowinto the condensing
unit where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bam. Condensate and moisture
collect in the impingers. The first two impingers contain water, and the third is empty. A
pump draws the remaining sample through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which
measures the dry gas volume. After a final pressure determination, the sample air exhausts
to the test area. Particles and condensate collected on or in the impingers count as total
particulate matter.
ix.SCAQMD Method 5.1
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted a version of EPA
Method 5 for their purposes. Figure 8 shows the sample train for SCAQMD Method 5.1

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Temperature Sensor
Nozzle
Glass Lined Stainless Steel Probe
Stack Wall
S-typePitotTube
Temperature Sensor Meter
Pitot Tube Inclined Manomenter
Empty Impinger
Impinger with 100 ml of H 2 0
Empty Bubbler
Bubbler with Silica Gel

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Ice Bath
Filter
TCASmplingTee
Sealed Pump (Leak Free)
Filter for Pump
Metering Valve
Vacuum Gauge
By-Pass Valve
Temperature Compensated
Dry Gas Meter
21. Orifice
22. Orifice Inclined Manomenter

Figure 8. SCAQMD Method 5.1 Sampling Train (Gordon et al. 1994).

15
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the airflowthrough a tube and into
the condensing unit where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath.
Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. The first impinger is empty, the second
and third impingers contain water, the fourth impinger is empty and the fifth impinger
contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain
below 20 degrees C. A filter between the fourth and fifth impingers collect any particles or
condensate mat passes through the first four impingers. A pump draws the remaining
sample through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume.
After a final pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and
condensate collected on or before the second filter, including those in the first four
impingers, count as total particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers and moisture
absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.
x. Dilution Stack Sampler
Hildemann et al. (1991) designed a sampling system specifically to collect organic
particulate matter that would condense under ambient conditions. Figure 9 shows the
sampling train for the Dilution Stack Sampler.

ACCESS
PORTS-

1^.

10/im
CYCLONE

C3=c

2.1pm
CYCLONES

HEATED INLET LINE

STACK
EMISSIONS 1MLET

COOLING
UNIT

ISAMPLE
FILTER HOLDERS

lji-l

KEPA
FILTER

|
I

DILUTION
AJR INLET

I i I
30

45

VII

I
'

VACUUM
PUMPS

60cm

Figure 9. The Dilution Stack Sampler (Hildemann et al. 1989).


The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow through a 10
micrometer cyclone and into a heated inlet line. Cooled and filtered air blows into a dilution
tunnel where it pulls the sample air via a venturi effect The two streams mix and then a
portion of this diluted sample collects in a residence time chamber. After allowing time for
condensation at ambient temperature, a vacuum pump draws the sample into six parallel 2
micrometer cyclones. Three filters following each cyclone collect the remaining particles
that pass through the sizing device. Two of the filters are Teflon and particles collected
here determine the aerosol mass, trace metal content and ionic species. The remaining
sixteen filters are quartz fiber and particles collected on one also helps determine bulk fine
aerosol chemical properties. Detailed gas chromatography and gas chromatography/mass
16
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

spectroscopy analysis determine organic species from the particles collected on the fifteen
remaining filters.
xi Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS)
The APS counts and sizes particles in the range of 0.3 to 30 micrometers. It is a laser
based instrument that accelerates particles in a nozzle and measures the transit time through
a set of laser beams to obtain the aerodynamic diameter. A sampling probe isokinetically
collects particles and condensate from the air flow where they follow a sample tube into the
APS nozzle. The APS determines the particle count within preset size intervals.
xii. QCM Cascade Impactor
The quartz crystal micro-balance (QCM) cascade impactor determines aerosol particle size
through inertial impaction. Figure 10 shows a typical sample train.

Exhaust Syslcn

Figure 10. QCM Cascade Impactor Sample Train Example (Dawson 1991).
A sampling probe isokinetically draws the sample from the airflow where it moves through
a sample line. A flow splitter removes a portion of the flow to allow the proper operating
flow rate for the QCM cascade impactor. The sample flows through a series of inertial
impactors that allow for the determination of aerodynamic particle size. A quartz crystal
lies on the bottom of each impaction plate and its frequency changes according to the mass
of particles it contains. A computer compares this frequency with an identical quartz crystal
that is not in the particle stream, but is kept at the same temperature. The computer
determines the mass of each size fraction by analyzing the frequency difference. Particles
smaller than 0.05 micrometers and all un-condensed gas exhausts to the test area.

17
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

b. Method Comparisons
Table 2 compares and summarizes the different aspects of the testing methods mentioned in
section D.2.a.
The first column describes the quantities calculated using the given method. Every method
except the APS particle size analyzer, QCM cascade impactor and EPA Method 202
calculates the dry air volume. This quantity is necessary for mass and moisture
concentrations. The two size classification methods require other techniques, such as total
volume flow measurement with adjustments for moisture and standard atmospheric
conditions, to determine the dry air volume. For EPA Method 202, the method used in the
front half of the sample train determines the dry gas volume, the total particulate mass and
the moisture. EPA Method 5G, IL EPA Method ATP-1, the Dilution Stack Sampler, and
the size classifiers neglect moisture calculations. Users must apply separate moisture
determination techniques when using these methods. Determining total particulate matter is
common to all the methods, although its definition varies widely from method to method.
EPA Method 202 is the only method that breaks the condensable particulate matter into its
organic and inorganic species. EPA Methods 201,201A, and the Dilution Stack Sampler
determine the quantity of PM-10. However, Hildemann et al.used the Dilution Stack
Sampler only for fine organic aerosol particles smaller than 2 micrometers and therefore did
not determine PM-10.
All methods employ isokinetic conditions for sample capture. However, the definition of
acceptable values varies considerably. The Dilution Stack Sampler and the QCM cascade
impactor methods do not give a quantitative definition of acceptable isokinetic conditions.
Methods determining PM-10 include a size selective inlet. EPA Method 201 and the
Dilution Stack Sampler specify cyclones, while EPA Method 201A allows substituting a
cascade impactor.
Size classification is the main intent of using the APS particle size analyzer and QCM
cascade impactor. The range of the APS is from 0.3 to 30 micrometers, but it loses its
accuracy below about 0.8 micrometers. The QCM cascade impactor is efficient from 0.05
to 25 micrometers, but can be easily overloaded. EPA Method 201A does not specify the
type of cascade impactor used, except to follow manufacturers' instructions.
The presence of a filter before the condenser and its specified temperature is extremely
important when defining particulate matter for cooking applications. These specifications
vary widely from method to method.
The temperature of the sample leaving the condenser is also important to the definition of
the particulate matter and moisture quantities. Every method with a condenser except IL
EPA ATP-1 and SCAQMD Method 5.1 specifies the temperature must remain below 20
degrees C. IL EPA ATP-1 does not give a specified temperature, while SCAQMD Method
5.1 specifies the temperature remain below 15 degrees C.
EPA Method 5H and SCAQMD Method 5.1 include afilterafter the condenser. Particles
collected on this filter count as total particulate matter, thus the presence of a filter after the
condenser is important to the definition of the moisture and particulate matter quantities.

18
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table 2. Methods Summary.


Method

Quantities
Determined

Location
Sampled

Acceptable
Isokinetic
Conditions

Size
Selective
Inlet

Size
Classifier
(Range)

EPA 5

V ra ,M,
PMT
Vm, PMT

Iave = 10%

None

None

A,B

1 ^ = 10%
I im * = 20%
I m = 10%
I i m a = 25%
Iave = 10%

None

None

None

None

None

None

Iave = 10%

None
If chosen,
cascade
impactor

EPA5G
EPA5H
EPA 17
EPA 201
EPA 201A

V^M,
PMT(I)
Vm, PMT

A,B

'lLEPAATP-1
(modified by
McDonald's)
SCAQMD-5.1

Dilution Stack
Sampler
APS Particle
Size Analyzer

QCM Cascade
Impactor

(?

Temperature at
exit
(Condensation
Device)
<, 20"C (a)

Temperature at
Back Filter
(after
condenser)
No Filter

Comments

References

2 Filters
S32C
120 C

<, 20C (b)

No Filter

1,2,3

20C(a)

^20C

1,2,4

Hildemann, et
al. (1989)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)

Stack
Temperature
Stack
Temperature
Stack
Temperature

20C (a)

No Filter

1,5

< 20"C (a)

No Filter

6,7

20C (a)

No Filter

CE-CERT
(1996)

n/a

n/a

20C (c)

No Filter

CE-CERT
(1996)

Stanley & Co.


(1973)

Iave = 20%

n/a

10 um
cyclone
10 um
cyclone or
cascade
impactor
n/a

^ = 10%

None

None

No Filter

<. 20C (d)

No Filter

V m ,M,
PMT

A.B

n/a

None

None

No Filter

15C (e)

S20C

Vm, PMT,
PM,n
Particle
size
distribution
(0.3-30
Um)
Particle
size
distribution
(0.05-25
um)

unspecified

None

No Filter

ambient (f)

No Filter

10

U = io%

10 um
cyclone
None

APS (0.3-30
Um)

No Filter

None

No Filter

11

unspecified

None

Cascade
Impactor
(0.05-25 um)

No Filter

None

No Filter

11

V ra ,M,
PMT, PM,
V ra ,M,
PMT, PM10

00
EPA 202

Temperature at
Front Filter
(before
condenser)^
120 14 C

Organic &
Inorganic
CPMCHI)
Vro, PMT

c* ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
C* / > <y
if
t~* <"* <~* >~* i~* (.~* <* -'^' .<> -"* >yj ** *T *"* " * '* ""'

Dowell, et al.
(1991); CECERT (1996)
Hildemann, et
al. (1989)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)

Dawson (1991);
Annis, et al.
(1989)

Table 2. Methods Summary (continued).

Definitions:
Vm = Dry air volume (standard)
M = Moisture (could include total water vapor and/or % moisture)*
PMT = Total Particulate Matter*
PM10 = Particulate Matter < 10 urn in diameter
= Condensable Particulate Matter
* See Table 3 for definitions of moisture and total particlulate matter.

Condensation Devices:
a) 4 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first 2 with 100ml H 2 0, third empty,
fourth with silica gel.
b) Any system to lower temperature to < 20C.
c) 4 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first 3 with 100ml H 2 0, fourth with CPM
silica gel.
d) 3 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first 2 with 100ml H 2 0, third empty.
e) 5 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first empty, second and third 100ml
H 2 0, fourth empty, fifth with silica gel.
f) Dilution tunnel with large amounts of conditioned air to bring
temperature of gas to ambient conditions. This is followed by
a residence time chamber before particle collection.

Sample Locations Used In CKV Applications:


A) In exhaust duct
B) Above Appliance
Notes concerning Determined Quantities:
(I) Carbon balance for exhaust gas/kg wood burned also included, but not applicable to CKV procedures.
(II) If a cascade impactor is used instead of cyclone, size distributions are included by manufacturer's specifications.
^ (HI) Also includes quantities for whichever method (17, 201, or 201 A) is used in front half of sample train.
Comments:
1) Designed for stationary source stack PM emission when PM,0 is not needed. '
2) Designed for determining PM emission from wood stoves.
3) Has a dilution stack to mix emitted effluent with room air.
4) Can be used with EPA 5G dilution stack.
5) Designed for same as EPA 5 but filtered at stack temperature, not 120C.
6) Designed for stationary source stack PM emission where PM10 must be determined.
7) Filtered and conditioned air is added to cyclone to assure proper operation.
8) Used in conjunction with EPA 17,201, or 201A. Organic or inorganic fraction can be determined by using MeCl2 as an organic solvent.
9) No filter or silica gel used to dry the gas or collect the particles.
10) 2 urn cyclone used after dilution tunnel and residence settling chamber. Everything that passes 2 (im cyclone is then collected on an absolute filter.
11) Only used as a size classifier.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c. Result of Applying Methods to Effluent Measurement in CKV


When applying any of the particulate measurement methods to cooking emissions, it is
important to realize the designed use of the method. Emission measurements from cooking
processes involve the specific problem of high grease and water vapor levels in the
effluent. Methods designed for other applications rightfully do not take this into
consideration. The temperatures and conditions where the filtering and condensation occur
determine what counts as moisture and particulate matter. The temperatures specified in the
methods vary from stack temperature, which may be above 120 degrees C, down to 15
degrees C. The amount of grease and water vapor that condenses above 120 degrees C is
much less than the amount that condenses at 15 degrees C. Comparing particulate matter
concentrations defined by two different temperatures leads to confusing results. Table 3
summarizes the designed use of each method, states the definition of moisture and
particulate matter for the method, and explains the problems this causes when applying the
method to cooking emissions. It should be noted that the criticism is not directed at the
methods described. They work extremely well when applied to their designed use.
Applying EPA Methods 17,201, and 201A to cooking effluent results in only counting
particles and condensate that collect at stack temperature. If the stack temperature is high,
very little grease condenses and PM values are low. Grease vapor that passes through the
filter condenses in the impingers and counts as moisture. Therefore, the method overstates
the amount of water vapor.
Applying EPA Method 5 to cooking effluent results in the same problem, the only
difference being the filter temperature is defined at 120 degrees C. EPA Method 5G
defines particulate matter at 32 degrees C, which will certainly include some water vapor.
Additional problems occur because of the dilution tunnel, where particle losses could be
substantial.
EPA Methods 5H and 202 as well as SCAQMD Method 5.1 count grease condensate and
particles collected in the impinger water as moisture and particulate matter. Furthermore,
the counting of grease and water vapor that might not condense at ambient temperature
occurs, because the temperature at the exit may be substantially lower than 15 or 20 degrees
C. Therefore, these methods may overstate particulate matter concentrations.
IL EPA ATP-1 does not include any filters or temperature specifications so particulate
matter concentrations obtained are ambiguous.
Particulate matter and condensate loss occur in the Dilution Stack Sampler, especially at the
opening of the dilution tunnel. Furthermore, because a second proportional sampling
occurs at the residence time chamber, the sample collected may not be representative of the
original air flow.
The two size classifiers require long sample lines. The condensate that forms in the line
does not count as particulate matter. Larger particles have a greater chance of impacting the
sample line wall, causing subsequent size distributions to under count the amount of larger
particles. Because temperature is not specified in the sizing apparatus, grease vapor that
would condense at ambient temperature might still be in the vapor phase and pass through
the sizer.

21
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table 3. Problems Using Sampling Methods When Applied To Cooking Emissions.


Method
EPA 17

Definition of PM
All particles and condensate
collected on or before afilterat
stack temperature

EPA 201
EPA201A
EPA 5

Designed use
PM when concentrations are
independent of temperature
In stack PMin
From stationary sources
PM from stationary sources

EPA5G

PM from wood heaters(stoves)

All particles and condensate


collected on or before a set of 2
filters at T<32C

EPA5H

to
to
SCAQMD-5.1
ILEPAATP-1
(modified by
McDonald's)

PM from wood heater from stack


location
Organic/Inorganic condensable
PM from stationary sources

AH particles and condensate


collected on or before afilterat
T20C including condensate
collected in impinger water.

PM from stationary sources


PM from incinerators

Same as above exept TS15C


All particles and condensate
collected in or before impinger
water.

Dilution Stack
Sampler

Organic aerosol determined from


combustible sources

ADS Particle
Size Analyzer

Particle size distribution of


aerosols

All particle and condensate


collected after dilution of effluent
in a large dilution stack to
ambient air temperature.
All particles and condensate
selectively sized within the
sizing apparatus.

EPA 202

All particles and condensate


collected on or before a filter at
T^120C

Definition of Moisture
Liquid condensed in impinger
plus moisture absorbed by silica
gel. Note: No filter after
condensate.
Liquid condensed in impinger
plus moisture absorbed by silica
gel. Note: no filter after
condensation.
Moisture determined by separate
method.

Liquid condensed in impinger


plus moisture absorbed by silica,
gel. Note: Filter after
condensate is present.

Problems for kitchen effluent determination


1) Grease in vapor form at stack temperature is
counted as moisture, if condensed in impinger.
2) Many grease particles which will be PM at
ambient temperature are not counted as PM.
1) Grease in vapor form at 120C is counted as
moisture, if condensed in impinger.
2) Many grease particles which will be PM at
ambient temperature are not counted as PM.
1) Some grease in vapor form at 32C will not be
counted as PM, but may be PM at ambient
temperatures.
2) Some particles and condensate will be lost in
dilution chamber.
1) Grease and particles collected in impingers are
counted as PM and moisture.
2) Some grease vapor condensed at T<20C
(T515C for SCAQMD 5.1) might not have
formed PM at ambient conditions.

Moisture determined by separate


method.

1) Condensed grease and particles are counted as


both PM and moisture.
2) Because there are no filters, particles not
collected in impingers are lost.
1) Grease and particles when condense and collect
before the residence time chamber are not counted.

Moisture determined by separate


method.

1) Grease that is in the vapor phase at the


temperature of the analyzer is not counted.

All liquid condensed in impinger.

QCM Cascade
Impactor

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

3. Review of Previous Studies


a. Introduction
A thorough search for investigations related to cooking effluent measurement found seven
studies that made various measurements of effluent from real cooking processes. We do
not include studies that measured particulates in the surrounding room (Sarnosky 1987; Li
et al. 1993) and those that used an effluent generator instead of actual food (Pauch 1964;
Annis and Annis 1971; Annis 1978; Annis 1983). Three studies (Annis and Annis 1989;
Dawson 1991; Gordon et al. 1984) measured above the cooking surface and below the
hood. The remaining studies (Stanley and Co. 1973; Hildemann et al. 1989; Dowell and
Dashner 1991; CE-CERT 1996) as well as Gorden et al. (1994) made measurements instack. A brief summary of each study follows.
b. Study Summaries
Stanley and Co. (1973) conducted an emission test for McDonalds to investigate if the
restaurant would meet the anticipated requirements of EPA regulations. They determined
total particulate concentration, condensable hydrocarbons, and odor emissions. They
concluded that McDonalds would meet the anticipated level of allowable emissions.
Hildemann et al. (1991) conducted an extensive study on fine organic aerosol emissions
from numerous sources. One source included meat cooking operations. They concluded
meat cooking accounted for up to 21 % of fine organic aerosol emissions in the Los
Angeles area basin. Another result of their study included the contention that cholesterol is
a good marker for identifying the level of meat cooking emissions in the surrounding
atmosphere. Other papers written from the same data extensively looked at chemical
composition (Rogge et al 1991) and compared fossil and contemporary carbonaceous
organic concentrations (Hildemann et al. 1994).
Annis and Annis (1989) investigated the size distribution of cooking effluent from an
electric skillet. They reported the effects of ventilation rates, sample tube length and
composition, and types of food cooked. They also compared the size distributions from
actual cooking processes to an aerosol generator. The study found that concentrations were
mainly dependent on sample line length (inversely proportional), and that the aerosol
generator did not produce the same type of particle distribution as real food.
Dawson (1991) studied the particle size distribution of emissions from a naval ship kitchen.
The study measured particle sizes during real time operation on a not to interfere basis. The
general shape of the distributions compared well with the Annis study. The study
recommended the Navy consider large and small aerosol particles when evaluating hood
capture efficiency.
Dowell and Dashner (1991) conducted tests on a large number of broilers and griddles.
The study included measuring particulate matter concentration and Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG) levels. The tests reported severe repeatability problems with particulate
measurements.
Gordon et al. (1994) investigated particle size distribution and total concentration using
several methods. The particle size distributions varied greatly from the Annis and Dawson
studies, but the total concentrations agreed well with some of the data from the Dowell
study. The study recommends alternative methods for properly determining grease and
particulate emissions.

23
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Resultsfroma current study by CE-CERT (1996) compare particulate concentrations taken


using EPA Method 201A and SCAQMD Method 5.1. The resulting particulate
concentrations appear to match well. The study is now investigating other variables as well
as trying to verify repeatability.
c. Study Comparisons
Each study reviewed had a different goal that it tried to accomplish. For this reason,
sample methods, cooking methods, foods cooked and appliances used varied widely.
Therefore, there are very few valid direct comparisons. Table 4 summarizes the studies
comparing each of the important categories.
From the table, it is easy to understand why kitchen ventilation system designers do not use
available emission data for determining performance criteria. Table 5 summarizes the
similarities and differences in each study.
Table 5 shows that only a few studies validly compare with one another. CE-CERT (1996)
compared two different sample methods keeping every other variable constant. Figure 11
shows these results compare well.
CE-CERT (1996)
0

Solids

SCAQMD 5.1

Total

EPA 201 A, 202

% Soluble % Organic Extract

Figure 11. Comparison of SCAQMD Method 5.1 and EPA Method 201A and 202, both
modified for CKV applications. Data is from hamburger cooked on a chainbroiler.
(Data from CE-CERT 1996)
The solid and total particulate concentrations agree extremely well. The percent soluble and
organic extract do compare as well. This may be die to the difference in the condenser part
of the sample train. It should be noted that these results are from a preliminary
presentation, and should be regarded as such. The final report was not available in time for
this paper, but should be completed soon.

24
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table 4. Summary of Reviewed CKV Emission Studies.


Reference
CE-CERT
(1996)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)

Sampling
Methods
SCAQMD 5.1,
EPA 201A,
EPA 202
EPA 5G,
EPA5H

Dowell, et al.
(1991)

SCAQMD 5.1

Hildemann, et
al. (1989),
(1991)
Dawson
(1991)

Dilution Stack
Sampler,
EPA 5
QCM Cascade
Impactor

Annis, et al.
(1989)

QCM Cascade
Impactor

Stanley & Co.


(1973)

IL - EPA,
ATP-1

Foods Cooked
Hamburger

Hamburger
Chicken Breast
Potatoes
Hamburger

Hamburger
Hamburger
Potatoes
Eggs
Hamburger
Potatoes
Chicken Thighs
&Legs
Bacon
Sausage
Hamburger
Potatoes
Fish Filets
Pies

Food
Specifications*
20% Fat, 1/4 lb
each

Appliance Used / Type

27% Fat, 1/4 lb


each; 2% Fat
(Chicken Breast)
23% Fat, 62%
Moisture, 1/4 lb
each
21% Fat, 1/4 lb
each; 10% Fat,
1/4 lb each
n/a

Griddle /Gas
Griddle/Gas
Fryers / Gas
Griddle /Gas & Electric
Broiler/Gas
Chain Broiler / Gas
Broiler/Gas
Griddle/Gas

'20% Fat, 1/4 lb


each;
30% Fat, 1/4 lb
each

Skillet / Electric

18% Fat, 1/4 lb


or 1/10 lb each

Griddle/Gas
Fryer / Gas

Chainbroiler/Gas

Griddle/Electric
Fryer / Electric
Griddle /Electric

General Description of Cooking Method


Modified ASTM Standard for broilers.

ASTM standards for performance of given appliance. Examples:


Griddle: 24 patties at 375"F for 6 minutes until T=163F.
Fryer: 3 lbs potatoes at 350F for 10 minutes.
ASTM standards for performance of given appliance. Examples:
See above.
80 patties, cooked 8 at a time to medium or well done continuously
for 70-80 minutes.
Conducted field measurements of various cooking operations.
Examples: Hamburgers: batches of 30-75 cooked continuously for
10 minutes each.
Potatoes: 6 minutes to cook.
Eggs: Cooked sporadically, 10 minutes each.
Hamburgers: 2 at a time at 350F for 4-5 minutes.
Potatoes: 1 lb at 400F in 3 cups- oil for 8 minutes.
Chicken: at 360F in 2 cups oil for 15 minutes.

Hamburgers: at 325F, light load and continuous load.


Potatoes: at 340F, 2 lbs continuously cooked.
Fish filets: at 335F continuously cooked.
Pies: at 335F, continuously cooked.

* Food specifications are for hamburger unless otherwise noted.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table 5. Comparison Between CKV Emission Studies.


Reference
CE-CERT
(1996)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Dowell, et al.
(1991)
Hildemann, et al.
(1989), (1991)
Dawson
(1991)
Annis, et al.
(1989)

o^

CE-CERT
(1996)
Compared two
sample methods

Gordon, et al.
(1994)
a, d
b, c

Dowell, et al.
(1991)
a, b, c,
d
a, b, c,
d

Hildemann, et al.
(1989), (1991)

Dawson
(1991)
a, b, c
d

a, b, c

c,d

a,b

a, b, c

a, b, c

Cd

a, b

c,d

a, b

Cd

a, b

a, b, c

c, d

a, b

c, d

a, b

a, b, c

c, d

a, b

a,d

b, c

c, d

a,b

a, b, c

**

Stanley & Co.


(1973)
d
a, b, c

** Compared EPA Method 5 with Dilution Stack Sampler, measuring particulate matter from a fuel oil boiler.
Key:

Annis, et al.
(1989)
d
a, b, c

X: Similarities between the two studies being compared.


Y: Differences between the two studies being compared.

Variables:
a) Sample Method
b) Cooking Method
c) Appliance
d) Food

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Comparisons of the Dowell and Dashner study with the CE-CERT study are also valid.
Figure 12 shows these results.

CE-CERT

Dowell and Dashner

Solids

Total

Figure 12. Comparison of CE-CERT and Dowell and Dashner studies for solid and total
particulate emissions. Data is for hamburger cooking on a chainbroiler using a Modified
SCAQMD 5.1 sampling method and ASTM standard cooking procedures.
(Data from CE-CERT 1996^Dowell and Dashner 1991)
The only common data presented in these studies is the solid and total particulate
concentrations. The results show significant variation. Conclusionsfromthese results
should be cautious due to the fact the CE-CERT data is preliminary and Dowell and
Dashner had trouble with reproducibility.
Although the sampling methods and cooking methods are quite different, it is interesting to
compare the Hildemann study with the Dowell study. An earlier study by Hildemann et al.
(1989) compared the results of the dilution stack sampler with EPA Method 5. The study
measured particulate concentrations from an oil fired boiler, and found the dilution stack
sampler reported concentrations 7 to 16 times higher than EPA Method 5. Keeping this in
mind, Figure 13 shows the results of total particle concentrations in the two studies, where
common variables allow.

27
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Hildemann

Dowell and Dashner

Indicates data range.

o
o
o
..GriddkLL
Gnddle 2

Broiler

Griddle

Figure 13. Comparison of total particulate concentrations from various appliances between
the Hildemann, and Dowell and Dashner studies. In stack measurements taken while
cooking hamburgers.
(DatafromHildemann 1991; Dowell and Dashner 1992)
Hildemann et al. tested a broiler and a griddle. Dowell and Dashner tested a number of
broilers and griddles. The first part of Figure 13 shows Hildemann's concentrations were
over four times the concentrations found in the lower range of the Dowell and Dashner
study. However, Dowell and Dashner reported one data point from a broiler where
emission levels were almost twice that found in the Hildemann study. Therefore part of the
data can be explained partially by Hildemann's earlier study comparing EPA Method 5 to
the Dilution Stack Sampler, but it is certainly not conclusive. The second part of Figure 13
compares the griddle tests by Hildemann and Dowell and Dashner. Here, Hildemann
determined the particle concentrations to be very low, while the Dowell and Dashner study,
using two different griddles, showed data variations over a wide range. Figure 13
accentuates the problem of obtaining an accurate representation of particulate emissions
from commercial cooking processes.
Finally it is interesting to compare the size distributions of the Gordon study to the Annis
and Dawson study. Figure 14 shows the mass distribution results from the three studies.

28
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Particle Size Distribution Comparison

Dawson
Annis and Anois
Gordon et al.

Figure 14. Particle size distribution comparison between Dawson, Annis and Annis, and
Gordon studies. (Curvefitswere generated at the University of Minnesota using DISTFTT
software, from Dawson 1991; Annis and Annis 1989; Gordon et al. 1994).
Total concentration values were not available for each study, therefore, Figure 14 shows
the relative percentage of mass collected in each size interval. This means Figure 14
accurately depicts the relative size distribution from the total mass collected in each study.
However, the total concentration needs to be known to give a quantitative comparison of
the actual amount of material collected at each interval. Even without the total
concentration, valuable information is available from this comparison.
The Annis and Dawson studies both report a large number of particles with a mass diameter
below 0.7 micrometers. This reflects the efficiency of the QCM cascade impactor at that
size range. However, there are few particles with diameters larger than 5 micrometers.
The Dawson study does report one data point of large diameter, but reports little in the
particle size range before it The reason for this may be that the larger particles never enter
the impactor due to condensation in the sample line. The Gordon study reports a large
number of particles with a mass diameter above 5 micrometers. The lack of particles below
0.7 micrometers is a consequence of using the APS particle size analyzer. Figure 14
shows the lack of completeness in the knowledge of cooking effluent characteristics.
4. Summary of Areas In Effluent Characterization Which Need to be Addressed
Previous cooking effluent studies do exist, but most researchers limited the scope of their
investigation to a small portion of the problem. Factoring in problems that arise from
measuring and cooking techniques as well as different foods and appliances tested, leaves
the state of cooking effluent knowledge as sketchy at best There is certainly a need for a
comprehensive approach to the problem.

29

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

First, previous studies only include measurements taken from a limited number of
appliances. These include griddles, chain and under-fire broilers, and fryers. Some
studies tested gas versions, others electric versions. Of all kitchen appliances these three
are certainly the most important, because they produce the most contamination. There is a
need for data from these appliances in both the gas and electric version, as well as data
from other appliances such as ovens and ranges.
The availability of the ASTM standards for appliance performance is a large step forward in
producing repeatable results. Comparing studies and validating results will be much easier
if all future studies adopt these tests and use them as the cooking method for producing
effluent. There is also a need for testing a larger selection of common foods.
The area most lacking in cooking effluent characterization is the existence of a sampling
protocol that defines particulate matter and condensable vapors properly. There is a need
for the size distribution of the particulate matter at different points along the ventilation
path. It is also important to document how much grease is in the vapor form throughout
the ventilation system. This information may lead to insights into the behavior of grease,
and assist in the development of a more efficient grease extractor.
A complete understanding of the nature of cooking effluent is probably not possible in the
near future, considering that fundamental mechanisms of particle condensation are not
understood at the most basic level. However, this information is not necessary for
advancing the technology of kitchen ventilation systems. Instead, studies that carefully
define and quantify particulate and condensable matter in the cooking effluent plume can be
used to help develop the next generation of cooking appliances and ventilation equipment.
Furthermore, the development of badly needed testing methods for grease extraction
efficiency and contaminant emission rates can accelerate with the availability of this
information.

30
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

. Non-Condensable Gases
1. Introduction
Effluent emittedfromcooking processes not only produce particulate matter and
condensable vapors, but also emit a wide variety of non-condensable gases. The most
widely recognized of these gases include CO, C02, and NOx. There are other less
recognized gases of interest. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) include all organic
compounds that are volatile except CO. Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organics (TGNMO)
represent VOC's according to EPA definitions. There is a specific sub-class of VOC's
which are of particular interest called reactive organic compounds (ROC) or reactive
organic gases (ROG). Gordon etal. and the Federal Register define ROG's. The
importance of VOC and ROG emissions vary according to the group concerned.
Previous studies attempted to look at non-condensable gaseous emissions, but usually were
side-tracked by the difficulties in the particulate matter and condensable vapor
quantification's. Of the seven studies mentioned previously, three pursued some type of
non-condensable gas quantification. Hildemann et al. (1991) performed Gas
Chromatography (GC) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS) analysis on
collected particulates, and therefore did not search for emitted gases. Instead, die study
concentrated on an elemental analysis of the fine organic aerosol collected. Stanley and
Co., did analyze non-condensable gases using GC. They reported non-condensable
hydrocarbons from this analysis, but their concentration was on odor emissions, which is
difficult to apply in characterizing cooking effluent emissions. Therefore, this paper does
not include results from the Stanley study. The two studies classifying particle size (Annis
and Annis 1991; Dawson 1991) did not report any investigation into non-condensable
gases.
Most experts in the industry believe the understanding of particulate matter and condensable
vapor is more crucial to kitchen ventilation systems than non-condensable gases.
However, addressing this matter concerns those who monitor atmospheric emissions and
any study attempting to be comprehensive in cooking effluent characterization should
include it
2. Review of Previous Studies
In a section of Gordon's topical paper it is stated of VOC emissions:
"However, no studies exist to provide a definite quantitative analysis for emissions
in commercial cooking operations."
Review of previous studies certainly finds this to be a true statement.
SCAQMD's intention during the early 1990's was to reduce the emissions of particulate
matter, condensable vapors, and ROG's (Rule 1138). The first study to investigate these
premises was by Dowell and Dashner (1991). SCAQMD's main goal was identifying and
quantifying ROG's and the proposed method used SCAQMD Method 25.1, which is
similar to EPA Method 25. The method specifically identifies TGNMO's as carbon, which
are basically defined as VOC's. The first phase of Dowell and Dashner's study provides a
quantitative analysis of the gases. However, numerous problems encountered in the
particulate matter and condensable vapor analysis portion of the study leads them to neglect
this aspect of the study in phases II and HI. Therefore, the validity of ROG quantitative
results from phase I is suspect.
Gordon et al. (1994) reviewed a number of studies identifying and quantifying VOC's and
ROG's from emissions andfromoxidation occurring during storage of these compounds.
31
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

They concluded that cooking operations contribute very little to ozone generation and that
even the most polluting cooking operations produce little environmental and health
threatening substances.
CE-CERT (1996) spends a fair amount of effort on quantifying ROG's. Several methods
including a modified SCAQMD Method 25.1, a continuous flame ionization detector, and
GC/MS on gases collected in a summa canister or tedelar bag were compared in their
preliminary study. The SCAQMD Method 25.1 proved to have poor repeatability. The
GC/MS is an expensive alternative, and considered impractical in terms of field tests
possibilities. Instead, CE-CERT has recommended the use of the continuous flame
ionization detector to quantify ROG's. The most recent data shows this may be a
promising alternative, and verification testing is currently being pursued in their
investigation. It is expected that more will be known on this matter in the near future.
Overall, definitive information about the emissions of non-condensable gases, including
VOC's and/or ROG's is almost non-existent for cooking processes. CE-CERT is currently
pursuing several promising methods, which will clearly help determine the extent of the
problem. Clearly future studies must address this area.

32
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

F. Proposed Test Method For Phase II


1. Introduction
Phase II of ASHRAE 745-RP involves implementing a test procedure, measuring
particulate, condensable and non-condensable gas emissions from typical commercial
kitchen appliances and food products, and reporting these findings. This portion of the
Phase I report describes the testing facilities, gives the proposed test matrix, and discusses
methods of measuring temperature, velocity, particulate matter and condensable vapors,
and non-condensable gases, all for the Phase n part of the project. Finally, a time table
gives the approximate schedule of completing the Phase II work.
2. Testing Facility
a. Minnegasco Commercial Foodservice Training Facility
Minnegasco, a public utility that provides the majority of the natural gas throughout the
twin city metropolitan area, offered their Commercial Foodservice Training Facility for our
use in this project. Appendix C shows a copy of the brochure Minnegasco distributes,
briefly describing the facility and some of its benefits. Renovations at the facility currently
include several suggestions from this research group. These renovations include the
installation of a hew hood by July 1996. New renovations will also provide access to the
exhaust duct work.
Minnegasco's cooperation provides easy access to a testing facility that will meet most of
our needs. Minnegaseco provides the appliances at no cost, and any additional appliances
we request can easily be moved into the facility. Meters and other equipment for measuring
gas flow and energy consumption are readily available, as the training facility was designed
for this purpose. Equipment for our sample train will be moved into the facility, where
there is plenty of room for use and storage.
b. University ofMinnesota Test Unit
In addition to the Commercial Foodservice Training Facility at Minnegaseco, a small
kitchen test facility will be built in the Mechanical Engineering Building at the University of
Minnesota. Figure 15 shows a rough idea of the facility, including ductwork and fan
placement.

33
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table 6. Possible Test Variables.


Appliance

Type

Load

Food

Chain
Broiler

Gas

Heavy
Light

Hamburgers

Under-fired
Broilers

Electric
Gas

Heavy
Light

Hamburger
Chicken

Griddles

Electric
Gas

Heavy
Light

Hamburgers

Fryers

Electric
Gas

Heavy
Light

Ovens

Electric
Gas

Heavy
Light

Potatoes
Fish
Chicken
Potatoes
Beef Roast

Ranges

Electric
Gas

Heavy
Light

Water

Ventilation
Rate
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum

Sampling Location
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work

Table 6 shows all of the different possibilities. After determining variable dependencies
during the early tests, the latter tests will only involve changing the variables that prove to
be the most important. Thefirstappliance tests will involve a chainbroiler, which is only
available in a gas model. The current study at CE-CERT involves data from the
chainbroiler, using hamburger meat. The first tests will purposely mimic the test
conditions used in the CE-CERT study. This allows direct comparison, in hopes of
confirming our test procedure as reasonable and valid. A chainbroiler will also be used by
AGA Research in their ASHRAE-sponsored study.
Tests for five other appliances include underfired broilers, griddles, fryers, ovens and
ranges. Preferable testing will occur in that order, because it indicates the relative level of
expected contaminant emission levels, from most to least. Planned tests including using
available gas and electric versions of each appliance. Tests also will include each load level
specified by me ASTM standard for performance of appliances. Finally, as recommended
by the committee, several food types will be used for certain appliances.
Inclusion of two other variables is important to this study. First, experimenters can adjust
the volume of air vented through the hood. The investigation includes testing at low,
medium, and high flow rates, with emphasis placed on low flow rates needed for plume
capture and containment Second, it is important to test from several locations. Testing
will include two different locations under the hood, one close to the cooking surface and
another near the hood opening. Preliminary tests involving temperature and velocity
measurements of the thermal plume will help determine roughly where to position the
sample probe for the under the hood tests. Then, several positions within the selected area
will be sampled, and the best position will be used for the remaining tests. Samples will
also be taken immediately after the hood, in the exhaust ductwork. Other possible areas for
tests include further along the ductwork and at the stack exit. The results from the other
testing positions determine the necessity of these tests.

35
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

4. Temperature and Velocity Measurements


An important aspect of cooking effluent characterization is documenting the temperature
and velocity profiles of the thermal plume, during the cooking process. Total
characterization of this aspect will include measuring temperatures and velocities at various
ventilation rates, with the appliance turned off. Other measurements taken will include
ventilation rates varying from 0 to a maximum, with idling appliances. Further
measurements include those during the various cooking processes, being sure to include
data from each cooking load. Reporting of all temperature and velocity profiles will include
time averages, but just as important, if not more so, will be documentation of the changes
in the thermal plume during the cooking process. This information is crucial to
understanding the formation of grease and water vapor particles throughout the cooking
and ventilating process.
A grid of shielded thermocouples will provide the means to measure the temperature of the
thermal plume. Shields minimize the expected effects of radiant heat transmission from the
cooking surface. The thermocouples connect to a data acquisition board that interfaces to a
computer, for recording and storage. The grid will traverse the volume under the hood,
with temperature measurements taken along the way, measuring an entire cross sectional
area at a time. Once the data is in the computer, there are numerous software programs
available to present the data and display the transient nature of the temperature distribution.
A similar method will be used to determine the velocity profiles. We have used a TSI
omni-directional hot film anemometer for previous velocity measurements beneath
residential exhaust hoods. This sensor is temperature compensated and can measure
temperature and velocity at the same location. We will mount the probe on a manual
traversing system to traverse the entire plume. Radiation from the cooking appliance may
affect the readings. Initial measurements will be made with little or no effluent to determine
what radiation correction will be necessary if any. We may also photograph and/or
videotape the plume to record the flow qualitatively. Water fog from a fog generator could
be used to visualize the flow when the plume is not visible as has been done with previous
measurements on residential hoods.

36
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

5. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases


The proposed method for characterizing particulate matter and condensable gases includes
using EPA Method 201 A, with Method 202 for detennining the organic and inorganic
condensables. EPA Method 201A allows for the use of a cascade impactor before the
condenser stage. In this case, the choice is a compact cascade impactor. Figure 16 shows
a schematic of the sample train.

Non-condensablegm analyzers

EPA25
CTNMGO)

(Impact Cascade
hipaaor
HIter
1

Isokinetic Probe

Temperature
Conditioner

EBMO
CO

EBV7
CO2,02

Em 3
CO

GC/MS

EB\ 202 Condenser

with
T ri*er

Impnger
VUveJ. wth
silica gel

Diy gas metering

Aerosol Dilutor

H * I
I^P^c~]
Figure 16. Schematic of the proposed sampling train.
The sampling method starts by placing a compact cascade impactor into the airflow at the
point of sampling, with an isokinetic nozzle. The apparatus reaches a temperature equal to
the surrounding environment after a short time. After determining the range of expected
velocities at the sample point, the experimenter selects an appropriate nozzle. The compact
cascade impactor determines the size distribution of any particles present in the liquid or
solid phase, at the temperature where the sampling takes place. There is very little distance
between the nozzle and the first impactor, and the temperature during this traverse equals
the temperature at the sample point. This aspect of the sample strain is important because
only two previous studies (Annis and Annis 1989; Dawson 1991) attempt to classify
particles in the effluent stream.
Both previous studies used rather long sample lines, and did not specify the temperature of
their cascade impactor. Annis and Annis did attempt to place their impactor in theflowof
the effluent for one test, but due to the inlet position and the need for the QCM cascade
impactor to be right side up, the particles had to take a 180 degree turn, adversely affecting
their data. Therefore, Annis and Annis used sample lines that varied from 24 to 96 inches.
Results indicate that the overall concentration levels measured were inversely proportional
to sample line length, indicating particle deposition in the sample line may effect the size
distributions. Dawson used a sample line mat varied from 8 to 13 feet. He encountered the
same problems as Annis. By placing the cascade impactor in the hot air plume directly,
there will be no sample line and no losses at that point. The proposed use of a cascade

37
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

impactor placed in the flow, at temperature, allows, for the first time, the determination of
the true particle size distribution at a well-defined point above the cooking appliance. This
would be a significant advance in the characterization of cooking effluent.
At the end of the cascade impactor is an absolute filter (filter 1). This insures that only
substances in the gaseous phase at the temperature of the sampling point, pass on to the
condenser. This infers that any condensable material collected in the sample line, between
the cascade impactor and the condenser, or in the condenser, was in the vapor state at the
point of collection. Thermocouples will monitor the temperature of the gas in the sample
line near the entrance of the isokinetic nozzle and at the exit point, after filter 1, assuring the
gas is at sampling temperature. Another thermocouple will monitor the temperature of the
gas as it enters the condenser. This allows liquids condensed in the line to be quantified at
a given temperature. The condensate will include water vapor and grease.
Details specified in EPA Method 202 describe the back half of the sample train. A slight
modification of EPA Method 202 includes the addition of a filter (filter 2) after the
impingers with water. Filter 2 ensures only substances in the gaseous state at the
condenser temperature will pass to the non-condensable gas analysis unit and the dry gas
meter. The addition of a thermocouple at the wet impinger exit, after filter 2, helps define
the material collected in the impinger water and surrounding fittings. Previous studies, by
following the method protocol, simply keep the temperature below a given value. The
importance of knowing the exact value of the temperature where the condensation occurs
cannot be overemphasized. EPA Method 202 allows for the breakdown of the
condensation into organic and inorganic phases.
A final addition to the EPA Method 202 condenser is a valve placed after filter 2. This
valve allows the analysis of non-condensable gases. The non-condensable gas analysis
requires the removal of particulates in the gas stream. The EPA Method 202 condenser is
adequate for this purpose. Periodically, during sampling, the valve will divert the flow of
gasfromthe condenser into the non-condensable gas analysis unit. The following section
describes these methods of analysis.
Using this sample train gives the particle size distribution at the point of collection. It also
determines the amount of condensables in vapor form at the collection point and defines the
conditions under which condensation occurs. Finally it determines the breakdown of the
condensable matter. Note that the collection conditions define the condensable matter
collected. This is not equivalent to saying that these condensables represent the material
that will condense after the effluent leaves the ventilation system.
Alternate methods of particle size classification will include the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer
(APS) and the Laser Particle Counter (LPS). Both classifiers require an isokinetic sample
probe. The sampled effluent moves from the probe into a sample line. Here, the sample
must be conditioned to a certain temperature and concentration range. This is done with a
temperature conditioner and aerosol diluter. Requiring the sample to be cooled will cause
some condensation to occur. For this reason, the use of these methods is to supplement
information obtained from the personal cascade impactor and the EPA Method 202
condenser. The advantage of using these classifiers is that they give a real time count of the
particle size distribution. This will allow us to observe some of the transient tendencies of
the cooking process, and quantify them. Furthermore, the range of temperatures at which
the sample is conditioned can be varied, giving insight into the relationship between
contaminated gas stream temperature and particle size of the pollutants.
The end result of this proposed sample train is a quantification of the entire size distribution
of particulate matter at the sampling point. Figure 17 shows the range of particle sizes from
38
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

the cooking process obtained by reviewing the literature, and compares the proposed
sampling method with previously used methods.

Dp (Mm)

0.01

o.l

1-0

10

100

Grease
Particles

-H

APS

|*

QCM
Cascade
Impactor
UofM
Sample
Train

j ^

!
^j

,
M

J
,
M

Figure 17. Grease particle size range and ranges covered by various methods.
It is believed that grease particles range in size from 0.01 micrometers to 100 micrometers.
The APS range is generally from 0.7 or 0.8 to 10 micrometers. Even though the device
states it can measure particle sizes down to 0.3 micrometers, it is less reliable at small sizes.
The QCM cascade impactor's range is from 0.05 to particles over 25 micrometers, but
neither research group which used the QCM reported the larger sizes, perhaps due to
sample line losses. The proposed test method here is capable of measuring the entire
range. Particles larger than 25 micrometers collect on the first impactor stage. The
impactor stages classify particles from 0.05 to 25 micrometers. Finally, the absolute filter
after the last impaction stage collects all particulate matter smaller than 0.05 micrometers.
Therefore, a complete picture of the particulate size range at the sampling temperature will
be available.
Near the end of the study, the sampling train will be used to take field measurements at a
few selected working kitchens. Several food service kitchens at the University of
Minnesota are available. This part of the study allows verification of the sampling method
in real world applications. Furthermore, it will provide an opportunity to iron out any
problems encountered when applying the method in a non-laboratory environment
6. Non-condensable Gases
Determination of the quantity of non-condensable gases requires the removal of the large
amount of grease present in the gas stream. The condenser used for determining
condensable matter should adequately accomplish this. No particles and matter condensed
above 20 degrees C should exit the condenser. A valve installed in the condenser will
allow the gas stream to be drawn off whenever necessary. The previous section explains
this further.
The dry gas moves into the non-condensable portion of the sample train where test methods
determine CO, C0 2 , NOx and VOC levels. The test methods used for every quantity
described are well accepted and widely used. A brief description of each method follows.

39
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

EPA Method 10 determines the amount of CO by collecting the gas sample and analyzing it
using a Luft-type non-disperse infrared analyzer (NDIR). Corrections for C0 2 and H20
levels are necessary. The gas travels through a condenser to remove moisture and into the
analyzer. The minimum gas concentration for proper accuracy is 20 PPM.
EPA Method 3 determines the concentrations of CO?, 0 2 , and dry molecular weight using
either an Orsat or a Fyrite gas analyzer. Using a Fyrite gas analyzer is fine if dry molecular
weight is not needed. The gas flows through a condenser and a flow meter, into a bag.
The gas analyzer determines the emission levels from the bag contents.
EPA Method 7 gives several options in determining the concentration and breakdowns of
NOx's. The emission level determines the proper version of the test. NOx levels from the
testing cooking operations is expected to be minimal for gas appliances and almost zero for
electric appliances.
EPA Method 25 determines the concentration of total gaseous non-methane organics
(TGNMO) as carbon. These are the volatile organic compounds (VOC). A condenser is
necessary because organic particular matter will interfere with the analysis. The gas sample
passes through the condenser, which is immersed in dry ice. Condensate collects here and
the remaining gas collects in an evacuated tank. Independent analysis of the tank and
condensate takes place using a flame ionization detector (FID). It is important that the
sample is condensed separately using EPA Method 202 before the condenser described
here. Failure to do so will result in the condensable vapors counting as particulate matter
and VOC's.
The sample train will employ these methods to analyze the non-condensable gases found in
the cooking effluent. GC/MS analysis will also be used as an alternative method to
analyzing the non-condensable gases. Sample will collect in an evacuated canister
periodically during testing. This will be done by diverting the flow in the condenser
portion of the sampling train. The collected sample will be analyzed using GC/MS. This
gives an independent means to check the emissions of non-condensable gases.
When more information becomes available on the use of the continuous flame ionization
detector used by CE-CERT, it will be considered as an alternative for ROG quantification.
7. Proposed Time Line
After completing the literature review, the next step involves devising and constructing a
test kitchen, acquiring and installing test equipment and instrumentation, and conducting
and analyzing results. Figure 18 shows the proposed research schedule for Phase n.
The construction at the Minnegasco test kitchen facility is almost complete. The
construction of the test facility at the University of Minnesota is expected to take 3 to 4
months. Graduate and undergraduate students as well as technical staff at the University
will participate in the project.

40
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Months from Start of Project


jasks:

10

12

14

16

18

20

22'

24

Construct Facility
Instrumentation
Appliance Acquisition
Laboratory Tests
Chain Broiler
Underfire Broiler
Gridiles
Fryers
Ovens
Ranges
Field Tests
Final Report
Technical Paper

Figure 18. Phase II proposed research schedule.


The development of the instrumentation begins soon after the construction. Most of the
equipment, including the cascade impactor, the EPA Methods 201A and 202, the APS, the
LPC, and the non-condensable gas analysis equipment is already available from the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University. Expected modifications will be
made as necessary throughout the testing period.
Minnegasco will provide the appliances needed through a number of vendor's, supplying
the equipment as needed. Thefirsttests will be done with a chain broiler. During this first
set of tests, modifications to the testing procedure will be done. For this reason, the first
set of tests will take the longest time to complete.
The following tests will be done with the under-fire broilers, griddles, fryers, ovens and
ranges, preferably in that order. This order reflects the decreasing amount of effluent
generation expected from the listed appliances.
After modifying the testing procedure to obtain satisfactory results, field tests will begin.
They will be conducted parallel to the last few appliance laboratory tests. Measurements
from appliances similar to those already completed in the laboratory will be the focus of the
field measurements.
The last part of the study includes a presentation of the findings in the form of a final report
to the committee. This report will summarize all the information collected during the
experimental study. A technical paper will also be written, allowing others to view the
results of the study.
41
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

G. List of People and Organizations Contacted


Table 7. Contacts and Organizations.
Contact

Organization

Rick Bagwell
Craig CanChris Check
Mary Cheese
Charles Claar
Gary Elovitz
Don Fisher
Damn Holthaus
Ron Huffman
Joe Knapp
Benjamin Y.H. Liu
Bruce Lundquist
Virgil Marple
Phil Morton
DickMuckler
Bob Niemaier
Rueben Palm
Fuoad Parvin
David Russel
Vernon Smith
Rich Swiercztna
Bill Welch
Bruce Zimmermann

Halton Company
Southern Engineering
Greenheck
Minnegasco
International Facility Management
Energy Economics Inc.
Fisher Consultants
Van Hemert, Hahn and Associates
LCI Manufacturing Co. Inc.
McDonald's Corporation
University of Minnesota
Captive Aire
University of Minnesota
Gaylord
Muckler Industries
Southern Engineering
Palm Brothers
AGA Research
Quest Metalwork's
Architectural Energy Corporation
Architectural Energy Corporation
CE-CERT (U of Calf., Riverside)
Avtec Industries
Air King
Ventmaster
Vader and Landcraft

42
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

APPENDIX A
Annotated Bibliography
\._Airpollution information activities at state and local agencies - United States, 1992.
Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1993. 41(52,53): p. 967-969.
Keywords
outdoor air pollution
This paper generally discusses the state of air pollution control in the U.S.
2._Annis, J.C. and P.J. Annis, Size distributions and mass concentrations ofnaturally
generated cooking aerosols. ASHRAE Transactions, 1989. 95(1).
Keywords
particulate measurements, residential studies, indoor air pollution, size classification,
above appliance
The authors reported the effects of flow rate, sample tube lengths and different foods on
the particle size distribution collected above the electric skillet.
3._ASHRAE, Invitation to submit a research proposal on an ASHRAE research project.
1994, ASHRAE.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, VOC, ROC-ROG
This is the invitation for a research proposal and discusses the need for research into
cooking effluent characterization.
4._ASHRAE, ed. ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Applications. 1995.
Keywords
ventilation rates, commercial kitchens, residential studies, hood design, control devices
Chapter 28 of this book gives a thorough description of the current state of kitchen
ventilation.

A-l
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

5._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Griddles, 1990, ASTM.


Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedures for the ASTM standard for performance of griddles.
6._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers, 1991,
ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for performance of flyers.
7._ASTM, Standard Test Method for the Performance of Steam Cookers, 1993, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for performance of steam cookers.
8._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Convection Ovens, 1993,
ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of convection
ovens.
9._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance ofRange Tops, 1994, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of range tops.

A-2
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

10._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Underfired Broilers, Pub.


pending, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the proposed procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of
underfired broilers.
1 l._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance ofDouble Sided Griddles, Pub.
pending, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of double sided
griddles.
12._AVTEC, In-Vent Integrated Ventilation Hood and Conveyer System, B.O. Company,
Editor. 1995, Blodgett: Burlington VT.
Keywords
hood design, heat gain
Gives a description on an integrated hood and vent system, and uses the technique
developed by Gordon at AGA to prove it is more energy efficient than competitors.
13._Bornstem, MJ., Study to develop background information for the direct meat-firing
industry, 1978, GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division.
Keywords
outdoor air pollution, control devices, charbroilers, commercial kitchens, non-condensable
gases
This paper gives an overview of the direct meatfiringindustry. Some data is presented
for emission levels takenfroma Hardees study. Total emission estimatesfromthe meat
firing industry are given including particulates and non-condensable gases.

A-3
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

14_CE-CERT, Restaurant emissions technical advisory committee meeting. Data


presented at meeting, January, 1996.
Keywords
charbroilers, in stack, non-condensable gases, outdoor air pollution, particulate
measurements, ROC-ROG, ROG measurements
These are preliminary results of a study due to be published in late June 1996. PM and
ROG measurements from the stack are included. The study emphasizes developing
consistant protocol for emissions inventory including particles and gases. Comparisions
of SCAQMD 5.1 and EPA 201A and 202 are made. Comparisions of SCAQMD 25.1
and continuous FID are also made. These are allfrommeeting notes, not in the published
form.
15._Chang, S.K.W., Air velocity profiles around a person standing infrontof exhaust
hoods. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2): p. 439-447.
Keywords
ventilation rates, hood design
Experimental data was taken for velocity profiles around a person standing infrontof a
kitchen exhaust hood. Results show the effects of the human body on overall flow
patterns.
16._Condver, D.R., Building construction regulation impacts on commercial kitchen
ventilation and exhaust systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992.98(2): p. 1227-1235.
Keywords
heat gain, ventilation rates, indoor air pollution
This paper discusses regulations and their effects on CKV systems. Suggestions are made
with ways to meet conditions and reduce cost. A brief summary of the contradictions in
current code regulations is given.

A4
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

17._Dawson, C , Emissions testing on a working submarine, 1991, Department of the


Navy.
Keywords
particulate measurements, size classification, above appliance, indoor air pollution
This report discussesfieldmeasurements takenfroma Naval submarine. The
measurements included particle size distribution taken above the appliance before the
hood.
18._Dockery, D.W., et aL, An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S.
cities. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1993.329(24): p. 1753-1759.
Keywords
indoor air pollution, outdoor air pollution
This study reports on a mortality rate in six U.S cities in its association with air
pollution.
19._Dowell, D. and P. Dashner, Emissionsfromcharbroilers and griddles, Phase I,.
1991, Office of Engineering Research, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Keywords
gas appliances, electric appliances, particulate measurements, VOC, ROC-ROG, noncondensable gases, charbroilers, griddles, SCAQMD, ROG measurements, ASTM
cooking method, outdoor air pollution, in stack
This report discusses measurements takenfromfivecharbroilers and griddles of gas and
electric origin. Particulate concentrations and ROG measurements were made and
compared.
20._DoweIl, D. and P. Dashner, Emissionsfromcharbroilers and griddles, Phase II,.
1991, Office of Engineering Research, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method, SCAQMD, particulate measurements, electric appliances, gas
appliances, griddles, charbroilers, outdoor air pollution, in stack
This report checks the repeatability of the measurements made in Phase I. Also,
differentcontrol devices were tested. The results showed problems with reproducability.

A-5
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

'
1

21 .JDowell, D. and P. Dashner, Emissionsfromcharbroilers and griddles, Phase III,.


1991, Office of Engineering Research, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
California State Polytechic University, Pomona.

Keywords
outdoor air pollution, ASTM cooking method, SCAQMD, particulate measurements,
commercial kitchens, gas appliances, charbroilers, in stack
This report measures the particulate concentrations at three points from the stack to
check for reproducability during a single run. Using this method, the three measurements
taken gave consistent results, but only one test was run.
22._Elovitz, G.M., Design considerations for master kitchen exhaust systems. ASHRAE
Transactions, 1992. X2):p. 1199-1213.
Keywords
ventilation rates, CKV integration
This paper discusses the design of master kitchen exhaust systems and how they are to
be implemented.
23._Farnsworth, C , et aL, Development ofa fully vented gas range. ASHRAE
Transactions, 1989. 95(1): p. 759-768.
Keywords
gas appliances, ventilation rates, indoor air pollution, residential studies, non-condensable
gases
The authors developed a test method to evaluate the capture effectiveness of residential
range/vent systems. Measurements included efficiency ofNOx, water, and heat removal.
24._Federal Register, 40 CFR Ck 1,. 1995.
Keywords
sampling methods
The Federal Register provides a description and protocol for all the EPA sampling
methods.

A-6
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

25 .Francis, G.Z. and R.E. Lupinski, Control of air pollutionfromrestuarant


charbroilers. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 1977. 27(7): p. 643-647.
Keywords
charbroilers, control devices, grease chemistry, griddles, particle concentration, size
estimate, non-condensable gases
The authors discuss resultsfroma study giving total particle concentration and noncondensable gas emissions. They also discusscontrol devices such as after burners,
electrostatic preciptators and fiber pad mist eliminators as well as alternatives to
charbroiling.
26._Frey, D.J., et aL, Computer modeling analysis of commercial kitchen equipment and
engineered ventilation. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993. 99(2): p. 890-908.
Keywords
modeling, CKV integration, ventilation rates
This study identified and investigated technologies to improve energy efficiency in a
variety of restaurant types and climates. Computer modeling was done to analyze the
variables.
27._Fritz, R.L., A realistic evaluation ofkitchen ventilation hood design, Captive-Aire
Systems Inc.
Keywords
hood design, ventilation rates
This report discusses design considerations for commercial kitchen ventilation.
28._Garret, R.T., Commercial/Institutional kitchen exhaust and make-up air analysis,
design and selection application guide, 1984, Muckler Industries.
Keywords
hood design, commercial kitchens, ventilation rates
This report describes selection and application for hood and exhaust rates.

A-7
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

29._Giammer, R.D., D.W. Lockin, and S.G. Talbert, Preliminary study ofventilation
requirements for commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Journal, 1971.13(11): p. 51-55.
Keywords
heat gain, hood design, electric appliances, commercial kitchens
This a preliminary paper to Talbert's 1973 paper which discusses new criteria for
ventilation rates in commercial kitchens using electric appliances.
30._Gladstone, J., BeyondNFPA 96: Practical design for restaurantfire prevention.
Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning, 1985.57(1): p. 97-105.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, tire protection, heat gain
This paper discusses the design of HVAC systems in respect to fire protection.
Discussions on the different requirements for ventilation rates in building codes are given.
Suggestions on how to develop the best system are given.
31._Gordon, E.B. and N.D. Burk, A two-dimensional finite-element analysis of a simple
commercial kitchen ventilation system. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993. 99(2): p. 909-914.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, CKV integration, kitchen CFD, ventilation rates, modeling
A two dimensional model is given to describe flow fields in CKV systems.
32._Gordon, E.B., V. Kam, and F. Parvin, Emissions from commercial cooking
operations and methods for their determination, 1994, American Gas Association
Laboratories.
Keywords
in stack, above appliance, VOC, ROC-ROG, non-condensable gases, charbroilers,
griddles, outdoor air pollution, gas appliances, commercial kitchens, particulate
measurements, ASTM cooking method, size classification
This paper tracks the history of commercial cooking effluent emissions and discusses
many of the problems associated with conclusive results from prior studies. Data is also
presented from preliminary AGA studies including the use of the APS for particle size
distribution.

A-8
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

33._Gordon, E.B. and F.A. Parvin, Afield test method for determining exhaust rates in
grease hoods for commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2).
Keywords
ventilation rates, commercial kitchens
This paper discusses afieldtest method to determine grease exhause rates in exhaust
hoods. The method, if adopted, will allow for easier determination of valid exhaust rates.
34._Gordon, E.B., D.J. Horton, and F. Parvin, Development and application ofa
standard test method for the performance of exhaust hoods with commercial cooking
appliances. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2).
Keywords
heat gain, CKV performance test, ventilation rates, commercial kitchens, CKV integration
This paper describes the development of an energy balance protocol to evaluate EKV
system performance. The method is under review for adoption by ASTM.
35._Gordon, E.B. and D. Horton, If you can't stand the heat, get it out of the kitchen, in
Cooking For Profit. 1995.
Keywords
heat gain, commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, gas appliances, CKV performance test,
CKV integration
This article gives a brief overview of AGA's work to develop test methods for energy
balance protocol. The importance to applying these methods in determining optimum
kitchen performance is emphasized.
36._Gordon, E.B., DJ . Horton, and F.A. Parvin, Description ofa commercial kitchen
ventilation (CKV) laboratoryfacility. ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(1).
Keywords
commercial kitchens
This paper describes AGA labs CKV laboratory facility.

A-9
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

37._Hildemann, L., G.R. Cass, and G.R. Markowski, A dilution stack samplerfor
collection of organic aerosol emissions: Design, characterization andfieldtests. Aerosol
Science and Technology, 1989.10: p. 193-204.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices, sampling methods
This paper discusses a new technique to sample particulate emissions. It simulates
atmospheric conditions for dilution and condensation.
38._Hildemann, L.M., G.R. Markowski, and G.R. Cass, Chemical composition of
emissions from urban sources offineorganic aerosol. Environmental Science and
Technology, 1991.25(4): p. 744-759.
Keywords
particulate measurements, source identification, in stack, non-condensable gases,
charbroilers, outdoor air pollution, griddles, commercial kitchens
This study investigated the sources offineorganic aerosols and measured the emissions
the chemical compositionsfromeach source. One source was meat cooking operations
and was proven to be a major contributor of organic fine aerosols. Another paper by
Rogge (1991)discusses other aspects of the data collectedfromthis study.
39._Hildemann, L.M., et al, Sources of urban contemporary aerosol. Environmental
Science Technology, 1994.28(9): p. 1565-1576.
Keywords
particulate measurements, outdoor air pollution, charbroilers, in stack, source
identification
The authors take data presented in an earlier paper and determine the percentage of
Carbon emissions that comefromfossil sources and contemporary sources. Their
conclusions showed during most times of the year meat cooking comprises the majority
of contemporary Carbon sources.
40._Horton, D.J., Combined impact of ventilation rates and internal heat gains on HVAC
operating costs in commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993.99(2): p. 877-883.
Keywords
heat gain, CKV performance test, CKV integration
This paper discusses the implications of integrating kitchen exhaust systems. Suggestions
include lowering the kitchen exhaust rate may not be the best thing to do.
A40
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

41._Horton, D., Knowing thefacts about appliance energy efficiency, 1995.


Keywords
heat gain
Meeting at Minnegasco, going over the new way to rate efficiencies of appliances and
promoting the fact less air flow might not equal less energy spent
42._Kanury, A.M., Burning of Liquid Fuel Surfaces, p. 175-200.
Keywords
grease chemistry
This book section describes the chemistry and mechanisms of the burning of liquid fuel
surfaces.
43 .Kelly, T.J. and G.F. Ward, Final report on national archives II: Testing of filters for
removal of gas-phase air pollutants, 1991, Battele.
Keywords
non-condensable gases, filtration
Testing was done on the efficiency of different filters placed in an air stream. Efficiency
for removing different types of gases were reported including 0 3 , S02, N02.
44._Kelso, R.M.,etaL, Computational simulation of kitchen airflows with commercial
hoods. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992. 98(1): p. 1219-1226.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, CKV integration, kitchen CFD, ventilation rates, modeling
This paper discusses commercial kitchen hood effects on air flow. Predictions are made
using a two dimensional CFD platform.
45 .Kinney, P.D. and D.Y.H. Pui, Inlet efficiency studyfor the TSIAerodynamic Particle
Sizer. Particle and Particle Systems Characteristics, 1995.12: p. 188-193.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices
This study discusses the particle sampling efficiency for the inlet system of the APS.

A41
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

46_Kleva, James A., Grease extraction and removal from exhaust air streams of cooking
processes. Task I Draft Report, ASHRAE 851-TRP, May, 1996.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, particulate measurements, sampling methods, control devices
This study investigates the different methods used to quantify grease extraction and gives
a recommendation for the best available method.
47._Knapp, J.N. and W.A. Cheney, Development of high-efficiency air cleaners for
grilling and deep frying operations. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993.99(2): p. 884-889.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, control devices
This report describes the use of an ESP for cleaning exhaust air streams for a McDonald's
application.
48._Kulmala, I., Numerical calculation of airflow fields generated by exhaust openings.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1993.37(5): p. 451-467.
Keywords
modeling, exhaust CKV
Modeling was done to calculate the air flow fields by exhaust openings. This was a two
dimensional study.
49._KulmaIa, I., Numerical simulation of the capture efficiency of an unflanged
rectangular exhaust opening in a coaxial airflow. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1995.
39(1): p. 21-33.
Keywords
exhaust CKV, modeling
Capture efficiency was estimated using numerical simulation of an unflanged rectangular
exhaust opening in a coaxial air flow.

A42
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

50._Leson, G., Biofiltration-Investigation of a Novel Air Pollution Control Technology for


the South Coast Air Basin, 1993. University of California at Los Angeles.
Keywords
filtration, VOC, ROC-ROG, control devices, non-condensable gases
The author discusses bio-filtration as a possible means for removing reactive organic gases
from the effluent stream provided the grease particulates are removed first
51. Li, C.-S., W.-H. Lin, and F.-T. Jenq, Removal efficiency of particulate matter by a
range exhaust fan. Environment International, 1993.19: p. 371-380.
Keywords
particulate measurements, residential studies, indoor air pollution, in room, size
classification
The authors studied concentration levels produced from cooking eggs, chicken, and soup
in a residential kitchen. Particle size ranges were on the order of 50-100 nm's. The device
used for the measurement was an electrical mobility aerosol spectrometer including a
differential mobility particle sizer and a condensation particle counter.
52._Lui, B.Y.H. and D.Y.H. Pui, Aerosol sampling inlets and inhalable particles.
Atmospheric Environment, 1981.15: p. 589-600.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices
This paper discusses the theoretical considerations for aerosol sampling inlet design. The
particle size concentrated on was inhalable particles (diameter < 15 micrometers).
53._LuL B.Y.BL, et ah, Electrostatic effects in aerosol sampling and filtration. Annals of
Occupational Hygiene, 1985. 29(2): p. 251-269.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices, filtration
This paper discusses electrostatic effects on aerosol sampling, concentrating on the
sampling tube. Filter housing electrostatic effects are also discussed with regard to to
filter efficiency.

A43

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

54._Madsen, U., N.O. Bruem, and P.V. Nielsen, A numerical and experimental study of
local exhaust capture efficiency. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1993.37(6): p. 593605.
Keywords
modeling, exhaust CKV
Experiments were used to confirm numerical calculations of local exhaust capture
efficiencies. Some of these results can be applied to CKV.
55._Madsen, U., N.O. Breum, and P.V. Nielsen, Local exhaust ventilation-A numerical
and experimental study of capture efficiency. Building and Environment, 1994.29(3): p.
319-323.
Keywords
modeling, exhaust CKV, ventilation rates
This report compares numerical and experimental results in capture efficiency from local
exhaust ventilation systems such as a CKV hood.
56._Parvin, F., Standard Test Method For The Performance Of Commercial Kitchen
Ventilation Systems, Revised Edition, 1995, American Gas Association Laboratories.
Keywords
CKV performance test, CKV integration
This is the updated version of the proposed standard for performance of kitchen
ventilation systems.
57._Pasch, R.M., Design and application of grease filters. ASHRAE Journal, 1964: p.
64-72.
Keywords
filtration, commercial kitchens, particulate measurements
This study tested and rated grease filters by the use of an aerosol generator. The aerosol
was generated by throwing grease into hot water in a kettle. Particle concentrations were
measured before and after the grease extractor.

A44
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

58._Patel, R.F., P. Teagan, and J.T. Dieckmann, Characterization of commercial


building appliances, 1993. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, electric appliances, gas appliances, CKV integration
This paper discusses the possible savings from improved technology in commercial
building appliances. Kitchen appliances are included in this study. Estimates are made of
expected future savings from the use of the new appliance technology and the integrated
kitchen concept.
59._Pekkinen, J.S. and Takki-Halttunen, Ventilation efficiency and thermal comfort in
commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992.98(2): p. 1214-1218.
Keywords
ventilation rates, indoor air pollution, commercial kitchens
This paper discusses the thermal comfort conditions and ventilation effectiveness in
commercial kitchens. Suggestions for exhaust rates and positions of supply air units are
given.
60._Raloff, Cholesterol: Up in smoke. Science News, 1991.140: p. 60-61.
Keywords
outdoor air pollution
This article reports some of the results from the Cal Tech group including their findings
that cholesterol is a good marker to identify meat cooking emissions.
61._Rogge, W.F., et aL, Sources of fine organic aerosol 1. Charbroilers and meat
cooking operations. Environmental Science and Technology, 1991. 25(6): p. 1112-1125.
Keywords
charbroilers, source identification, outdoor air pollution, particulate measurements, noncondensable gases, in stack, grease chemistry
This study discusses the amount of organic compounds emitted from meat cooking
operations. A special sampling technique was used (The dilution stack sampler) in an
attempt to simulate real life condensation conditions.

A45
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

62._Roy, S., R.M. Kelso, and AJ . Baker, An efficient CFD algorithm for the prediction
of contaminant dispersion in room air motion. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2): p.
980-987.
Keywords
kitchen CFD, CKV integration, commercial kitchens, modeling, ventilation rates
This report discussess a method to predict contaminate dispersion in room air relating to
commercial kitchen ventilation.
63._Rubow, K.L., et al, A personal cascade impactor: Design, evaluation and
calibration. American Industial Hygiene Association Journal, 1987.48(6): p. 532-538.
Keywords
measurement devices, particulate measurements
This paper discusses a personal cascade impactor including its design, how well it works,
and how to calibrate the device.
64._Sarnosky, J.R. Air quality and pollution in the kitchen, in Proceedings of the 38th
Annual International Appliance Technology Conference. 1987. Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
Keywords
particulate measurements, in room, size classification, indoor air pollution, residential
studies
This paper presents data from a residential and laboratory study measuring particulate
levels over a period of time during and after the cooking process.
65._Schaub, E.G., et al, On development of a CFD platform for prediction of
commercial kitchen ventilation flow fields. ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(2).
Keywords
kitchen CFD, ventilation rates, commercial kitchens, CKV integration, modeling
This reports the development of a CFD program to predict CKV flow fields. The model
is three dimensional.

A46
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

66._Smith, V.A., R.T. Swierczyna, and C. Claar, Application and enhancement ofthe
standard test method for the performance ofcommercial kitchen ventilation systems.
ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(2).
Keywords
CKV integration, CKV performance test, commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, heat gain
This paper reports on the standard test method for CKV system performance and suggest
refinements. It is a step toward final approval for the method.
67._Spata, A.J. and S.M. Turgeon, Impact ofreduced exhaust and ventilation rate at
"No Load" cooking conditions in a commercial kitchen during winter operation.
ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(2).
Keywords
heat gain, CKV performance test, CKV integration
This paper examines the heat gains experienced at no load conditions under reduced
exhaust rates during winter operation.
68._Stanley and Associates, Inc., Emission evaluation for grilling and deep frying at a
McDonald's unit, 1973, McDonalds Corporation.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, non-condensable gases, griddles, particulate measurements, outdoor
air pollution, fryers, in stack
This report was prepared for McDonald's and includes particulate and odor
measurementsfromstack measurements for griddle and fryer operations.
69._Talbert, S.G., LJ. Flanigan, and J.A. Eibling, An experimental study ofventilation
requirements of commercial electric kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1973. 79: p. 34-47.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, electric appliances, hood design, heat gain
The authors discuss the state of ventiation requirements for commercial electric kitchens
in 1973. They suggest new criteria for determing minimum ventilation rates as opposed
to the old minimum requirements which were based solely on physical dimensions.

A47

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

70._Traynor, G.W., D.W. Anthony, and C D . Hollowell, Technique for determining


pollution emisionsfrom a gas fired range. Atmospheric Environment, 1982.16(12): p.
2979-2987.
Keywords
indoor air pollution, gas appliances, residential studies, control devices, non-condensable
gases, modeling
The authors discuss CO, C02, and NOX emissions from a residential gas range. Thge
study includes both modeling and experimental data.
71._Traynor, G.W., et al, The effects of ventilation of residential air pollution due to
emissions from a gas-fired range. Environmental International, 1982. 8: p. 447-452.
Keywords
residential studies, gas appliances, indoor air pollution, non-condensable gases, control
devices
The authors discuss the concentrations of CO, C02, NOX from a gas fired range in a
residence. They suggest range hoods as the most effective way to remove pollutants.
72._Venkataraman, C. and SJK. Friedlander, Source resolution of fine particulate
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using a receptor model modifiedfor reactivity. Journal
of the Air and Waste Management Association, 44: p. 1103-1106.
Keywords
source identification, outdoor air pollution
This paper estimates the source contributions from vehicles and meat cooking operations
for PAH and EC concentrations. The study was done at two Los Angeles sites.
73._Wolbrink, D.W. and J.R. Sarnosky, Residential kitchen ventilation-A guidefor the
specifying engineer. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992.98(2): p. 1187-1198.
Keywords
particulate measurements, in room, size classification, residential studies, indoor air
pollution
This paper summarizes the results of an earlier study related to particle size
measurements from residential cooking. The authors explain how the results of the earleir
study can be applied to designing current residential cooking devices.

A48
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

74._Zheng, M.,etaL, Characterization oftheNon -Volatile Organic Compounds in the


Aerosols of Hong Kong-Identification Abundance and Origin, The Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology, Publication Pending.
Keywords
non-condensable gases, outdoor air pollution
This paper partially discusses the contributions of kitchen emissions to non VOC
compounds in Hong Kong. This is a concern because of the high amounts of stir frying in
Chinese cooking which may explain the high levels of octadecenoic acid in the Hong Kong
area.

t
ft

Q
Q

r
<*

A49
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c
c
c
c
c
c
c

Appendix B
Test Methods
EPA Method 201A
EPA Method 202
EPA Method 25

B-l
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

\" BMI88I0M GAS RECYCLE, DATA REDUCTION,


0VERSION 3.4 MAV1986

Column
Raw Masses: '
Cyclone 1
Filter
'.
'.
Impingor Residue
Blank Values;
OYO Rinse
Filter Holder Rinse
Filter Blank
Impinger Rinse ..:.'.

:'(!
*~ Test ID. Code: Chapel Hill 2.
; Test Location: Baghouse Outlet.
| H Test Hlto: Cliapol Hill.
!{',.; Test Date: 10/20/88.
|i,;.Operators(s): JB RH MH.
iy.
Entered Run Data

& Temperaturos:
fe- T(STK)
' T(RCL)
'',' T(LFE)
V T(DGM)
Systom Pressures:
'' DH(ORI)
. DP(TOT)
" P(INL)
DP(RCL)
DP(PTO)
Mlsoellanoa:
P(BAR)
DP(STK)
V(DGM)
TIME
%C02
% 02

figure 13.

NOZ(IN)
Wator Con ton t:
KstlmaUo
or
Condenser

Efficiency envelope for cha

0.0 GM
21.7 MG
11.7 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG

Calibration Values:
CP(PITOT)

2S1.0F
289.0 P
81.0 F
76.0 P

DH@(ORI)
MCTOTLFE)
B(TOT LPE)
M(RCL LPE)
B(RCL LPE)
DGM GAMMA

1.18 INWG
1.91 INWG
12.16 INWG
2.21 INWG
0.08 INWG

o.84o

10.880
0.2298
-.0058
;.. 0.0948
-.0007
0.9940

Reduced Data
Stack Voloolty (FT/SEC)
Stack Gas Moisture (%)
Sample Flow Rate (ACFM)
Total Flow Rate (ACFM)
Recycle Flow Rate (ACFM)
Percent Reoyclo
,
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
.'

29.99 INWG
0.10 INWG
13.744 FT3
60.00 MIN
8.00
20.00

0.2500

15.95
2,4
0.3104
0.6819
0.2760
46.7
95.1

0.0%
7.0 ML
(Particulate)

10.15

(%<)

(MG/DNCM)

35.8

58.6
30.5
87.2

(GFVACF)

(GR/DCF)

III
III

(UM)

(IJVDSCF)
(X 1E6)
3.53701
1.807
5.444

Nolo: Figure 14. Example Inputs and outputs of the EQR reduction program.

poses, EPA suggests that source PMI0 measurement Include both ln-atack PMio and condonslble emissions. Condonslble omissions
may be measured by an Implnger analysis in
/. Applicability and Principle
combination with this method.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample Is extracted at
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the in-stnek measurement of, particulate a constant flow rate through an In-stack
matter (I'M) emissions equal to or less than sizing device, which separates -PM greater
an aerodynamic diameter of nominally 10 than PMio. Variations from Isokinetic sam(PMio) from stationary sources. The EPA pling conditions are maintained within wellrecognizes that condonslble emissions not defined limits. The particulate mass is detercolloctod by an In-stack' mothod are also mined gravimetrically after .removal of
PMio, and that emissions that contribute to uncomblned water.
ambient, PMio lovols are the sum of condens2. Apparatus
Iblc cinl.'uiomi and emissions measured by an
NOTE:
Methods
cited In this method arc
In-stuck I'M,ii method, such as this mothod
or Mothoil 201. Therefore, for establishing part of 40 CFR part 60. appendix A.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the
source contributions to ambient levels of
PMio, such as for emission Inventory pur- Method 201A sampling train is shown in FlgMETHOD 201ADETERMINATION OF PMIO EMIS-

'3:

SIONS (CONSTANT SAMPMNO RATE PROCEDURE)

972
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

973

. %. win uioLuou. with the exoeptlon of


the PMio Biting device and in-staok Alter,
this train la the same aa an EPA Method 17
train.
'.
2.1.1 Nozzie. Stainless steel (316 or equivalent) with a isharp tapered leading edge. Eleven nozzles that meet the design speoiaoatlon
In Figure 2 of thia method are recommended.
A larger number of nozzles with email nozzle
Increments increase the likelihood that a
single nozzle can bo used for the entire traverse. If the nozzles do not meet the design'
specifications in Figure 2 of this method,
then the nozzles must moet the criteria In
Sootlon 5.2 of thl mothod.
2.1.2 PM,0 Slzer. Stainless steel (316 or
equivalent), capable of determining the PMio
fraction. The sizing device shall be either a
cyclone that meets the specifications in Section 6.2 of this method or a cascade lmpactor
that has been calibrated using the prooedure
In Section 5.4 of this method.
2.1.3 Filter Holder. 63-mm, stainless steel.
An Andersen filter, part number SE274, has
beon found to be acceptable for the in-staok
filter. NOTE: Mention of trade names or specific produots does not constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
2.1.4 Pltot Tube. Same as in Method 6,
Section 2.1.3. The pltot lines shall be made of
heat resistant tubing and attaohed to the
probe with stainless steel fittings.
2.1.5 Probe Liner. Optional, same aa In
Method S, Section 2.1.2.
2.1.6 Differential Pressure Gauge, Condenser, Metering System, Barometer, and
Qas Density Determination Equipment.
Same as In Method S, Suctions 2.1.4, and 2.1.7
through 2.1.10, respectively.
2.2 Sample Recovery.
2.2.1 Nozzle, Sizing Dovlco, Probe, and Filler Holder Drui.hus. Nylon brUtlo brushes
wllh stainless steal wire shafts and handles,
jroporly sized anil shaped for cleaning the
lozzle, sizing device, probe or probe liner,
.ml filter holders.
2.2.2 Wash Bottles, Glass Sample Storage
iontalners. Petri Dishes, Graduated Cylinder
nd Balance, Plastic Storage Containers,
'umiel and Rubber Policeman, and Funnel.
ame as in Method S, Sections 2.2.2 through
2.8, respectively
2.3 AnalyslB. Same as in Method 5, Seeon 2.3.
J. Reagents
The roagonts for sampling, sample rocovy, and analysis uro the same as that speclid In Method 5, Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, resctlvely.
4. Procedure
.1 Sampling. The complexity of this
thod is such that, in order to obtain reli-

able results, testers should be trained, audi


experienced with the test procedures! - "il'^J
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Same as llnfl
Method 5. Seotlon 4.1.1.
"
WM
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Samel
as in Method 6, Seotlon 4.1.2, exoept use tnei
directions on nozzle size selection and sam-1
pling time in this iriethod. Use of any nozzles
. greater than 0.16 In. in diameter requires a*|
sampling port diameter of 6 inches. Also, the I
required maximum number of traverse!
points at any location shall he 12.
j |$
4.1.2.1 The sizing devloe must be in-staok '
or malntalnod at stack temporaturo during :
sampling. The blookage effeot of the CSR
sampling assembly t7lll.be minimal If the
cross-seotibnol area of the sampling assembly is 3 percent or lees of the cross-seotlonal
area of the duot. If the cross-seotional area'.'
of the assembly is greater than 3 percent of
the cross-seotlonal area of the duot, then el-'
ther determine the pltot ooefflolent at sam-.'S
pling conditions or use a- standard pltot with 1
a known, coefficient In a configuration with
the CSR sampling assembly such that flow !!$
disturbances are minimized.
'"Mil
4.1.2.2 The setup calculations oan be performed by using the following procedures.
4.1.2.2.1 In order to maintain a out size of
10 inn In the sizing devloe, the flow rate
through the sizing device must be maintained at a constant, disorete value during
the run. If the sizing devloe Is a oyolons that
meets the design speoifioations in Figure 3 of
..this method, use the equations in Figure 4 of
this method to calculate three orifice heads
(AH): one at the average etaok temperature,
and the other two at temperatures 28 *0 (160
*F) of the average staok temperature. Use AH
calculated at the average staok temperature
as the pressure head for the sample flow rate
as long as the staok temperature during the
run Is within 28 *C (60 *F) of tho avorage
stack tomporature. If the staok temperature
varies by moro than 28 *C (60 *F), then use
the appropriate AH.
4.1.2.2.2 If the sizing device Is a cyclone
that does not meet the design speoifioations
in Figure 3 of this method, use the equations
in Figure 4 of this method, excopt una the
procedures in Section 6.3 of this method to
determine Q,, the correot cyclone flow rate
for a 10 nm size.
4.1.2.2.3 To seleot a nozzle, use the equations in Figure 6 of this method to calculate
APmin and Apu for eaoh nozzle at all three
temperatures. If tho sizing devloe Is a oyolone that does not meet the design speolflcatlonB In Figure 3 of this method, the oxample worksheets can be used.
4.1.2.2.4 Correot tho Method 2 pltot readings to Method 201A pltot readings by mul- i
tiplying the Method 2 pltot readings by the
square of a ratio of the Method 201A pltot coefficient to the Method 2 pltot coefficient.
Seleot the nozzle for which Ap, and Ap,
bracket all of the corrected Method 2 pltot

gs. If more than one nozzle meets this the large PM catch. Quantitatively recover
julrement, se.leot the nozzle giving the the PM from the'Interior surfaces of the nozgreatest symmetry. Note that If the expected zle and oyolone, exoludlng the "turn around"
iltot reading for one or more points Is.near oup and the Interior surfaces of the exit
{limit for a ohosen nozzle, It may be outside tube. The reoovery shall be -the same as that
for Container Number 2 In Method 6, Section
pie limits at the time of the. run.
.4.1.2.2.6 Vary the dwell time, or sampling 4.2.
time, at eaoh traverse point proportionately
4.2.4 Container Number 3 (PMio).. Quanwith the point velocity. Use the equations in titatively recover the .PM from all of the surFigure 6 of this method to calculate the faces from the oyolone exit to the front half
'dwell time at the first point and at eaoh sub- of the in-staok filter holder, .lnoludlng the
sequent point. It ia recommended that the "turn around" oup Inside the cyolone and
number of minutes sampled at eaoh point be the Interior surfaces of the exit tube. The regrounded to Clio noarost 16 seconds.
oovery shall be the same as'that for Conii.'l 4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. tainer Number 2 in Method 6, Seotlon'4.2.
['Same as in Method 6, Seotlon 4.1.3, exoept
4.2.6 Container Number 4 (Silica Gel). The
omit directions about a glass oyolone.
reoovery shall be the some as that for Con-
f?'4.1.4 Leak-Check Prooedure. The sizing, talner Number 3 in Method 6, Seotlon 4.2.'
deyioa is removed before the post-test leak4.2.7 Impinger Water. Same as In Method 6,
oheok to prevent any disturbance of the col- Seotlon 4.2,-under "Impinger Water." , .'.
lected sample prior to analysis.
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 6, Seop
|?!'4.1.4.1 Pretest Leak-Cheok. A pretest tion 4.3, except handle Method 201A Conn
jieak-oheok of the entire sampling train, in- talner Number 1 like Container Number i,1
cluding the sizing devloe, is required. Use the Method 201A Container Numbers 2 and 3 like
leak-oheok prooedure In Method 6, Seotlon ! Container Number 2, and Method 201A Con4.1.4.1 to conduot a pretest leak-oheok.
tainer Number 4 like Container Number' 3.
I,;'4.1.4.2 Leak-Checks During Sample Run. Use Figure 7 of this method to record the
'Same as In Method 6, Seotlon 4.1.4.1.
weights of PM oolleoted. Use .Figure 6-3 in
.,: 4.1.4.3. Post-Test Leak-Cheok. A leak- Method 6, Seotlon 4.3, to record the volume
"loheok is required at the conclusion of eaoh of water oolleoted.
4.4 Quality Control Procedures. Same as
* sampling run. Remove the cyclone before the
' leak-oheok to prevent the vacuum created by In Method 6, Seotlon 4.4.
4.6 PMio Emission Calculation and Acthe cooling of the probe from disturbing the
' oolleoted sample and use the procedure In ceptability of Results. Use the procedures in
', Method 6, Section 4.1.4.3 to oonduot a post- seotlon 6 to calculate PMio emissions and the
criteria in section 6.3.6 to determine the acI' test leak-oheok.'
4.1.6 Method 201A Train Operation. Same ceptability of the results.
as in Method 6, Section 4.1.6, exoept use the '
5. Calibration
procedures In this section for Isokinetic sampling and flow rate adjustment. Maintain the
Maintain an accurate laboratory log of all
flow rate calculated in Seotlon 4.1.2.2.1 of calibrations.
this method throughout the run provided the
6.1 Probe Nozzle, Pltot Tube, Motoring
stack tomporature is within 28 *C (60 "F) of System, Probe Heater Calibration, Temperathe tomporature used to calculate AH. If ture Gauges, Leak-oheok of Metering Sysstack temperatures vary by more than 28 C tem, and Barometer. Same aB In Method 6,
(60 *F), use the appropriate AH value cal- Seotlon 6.1 through 6.7, respectively.
culated In Section 4.1.2.2.1 of this method.
6.2 Probe Cyclone and Nozzle CombinaCalculate the dwell time at eaoh traverse tions. The probe oyolone and nozzle combinapoint as In Figure 6 of this method.
tions need not be calibrated if both meet de4.2 Sample Recovery. If a cascade Impac- sign specifications In Figures 2 and 3 of this
tor is used, use the - manufacturer's reo- method. If the nozzles do not meet design
ommended procedures for Bample recovery. If speoifioations, then test the oyolone and nozr
a cyclone Is used, use the same sample recov- zle combinations for conformity with perery as that in Method 6, Seotlon'4.2, exoept formance specifications (PS's) In Table 1 of
an lnoreased number of sample reoovery con- this method. If the oyolone doeB not meet detainers is rsqulrod.
sign specifications, then the oyloone and noz4.2.1 Container Number 1 (m-Staok Filter). zle combination shall oonform to the PS's
The reoovory shall be the same as that for and calibrate the oyolone to dotermlne the
Container Number 1 In Method 6, Seotlon 4.2. relationship between flow .rate, gas viscosity,
4.2.3 Container Number Z (Cyolone or Large and gas density. Use the procedures In SeoPM Catch). This step is optional. The tlon 6.2 of this method to conduct PS tests
anlsoklnetlo error for the oyolone PM is. and the procedures In Section 6.3 of this
theoretically larger than the error for the method to oalibrate the oyolone. The purposo
PMio catch. Therefore, adding all the frac- of the PS tests are to coniform that the cytions to get a total PM oatoh Is not as accu- clone and nozzle combination has the desired
rate as Method 6 or Method 201. Disassemble sharpness of out. .Conduct the PS testa in a
the cyolone and remove the nozzle to recover wind tunnel described In Section 6.2.1 of this

974
,1
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

975

luubiutu generation system is unacceptable.";*';


scribed In Section 5.2.2 of this method. Use
for the purpose of this test. Multiplots dntM
five particle sizes and three wind velocities
as listed in Taplo 2 of this method. A miniparticles that are agglomerated, and sattjsjii
mum of three, replicate measurements of colellites are particles that are smaller than?si
lection efficiency shall be performed for each
the specified size range.
'
"'< $)M
of the 15 conditions listed, for a minimum of
5.2.3 Sohematio
Drawings.
Sonem&tib^jW
45 measurements.

drawings of the wind tunnel and blower WB-:'M


5.2.1 Wind Tunnel. Perform the calibratern and other information showing complete 1 V||
tion and PS tests in a wind tunnol (or equiv- procedural details of i the - test atmosphere' i-p
alent test apparatus) capable of establishing generation,. verification, and delivery teoh- &'-'
and maintaining' the required gas stream veniques shall be furnished with calibration'1',',locities within 10 percent.
' data to the reviewing agency.
"
5.2.2 Particle Generation System. The ' 6.2.'i Plow Measurements. Measure the oyparticle generation system shall be capable
clone air flow rates with a dry gas meter andof producing solid monodlspersed dye para stopwatch, or a calibrated orifice system
ticles with the mass median aerodynamic (11capable of measuring flow rates to within 2
imeters specified in Table 2 of this method.
percent.
Perform the particle size distribution ver5,2.5 Performance Specification Proceflcatlon on an integrated sample obtained
dure. Establish test partiole generator operluring the sampling period of each test. An
ation and verify particle size microacopl-,
icceptable alternative Is to verify the size
cally. If monodlsperity Is to be verified by'
llstributlon of samples obtained before and
measurements at the beginning and the end.
,fter each test, with both samples required
of the run rather than by an integrated samo meet the diameter and monodisperslty re- ple,
these measurements, may be made at
ulroments for an acceptable test run.
this time..
_
''*'.
5.2.2.1 Establish the size of the solid dye
5.2.5.1 The cyclone out size, or D J0 , of a oyarticles delivered to the test section of the ' clone is defined here as the particle size hav'Ind tunnel by using the operating paraming a 50 percent probability of penetration.
ters of the particle generation system, and
Determine the cyclone flow rate at which Dm,
srlfy them during the tests by microscopic
is 10 urn. A suggested procedure is to vary,
camination of samples of the particles colthe cyclone flow rate while keeping a con T |
cted on a mumbrane filter. The particle
stent particle size of 10 urn. Measure the PM'
ze, as established by the operating paramcollected in the cyclone (mc), the exit tube
-ors of the generation system, shall be wlth(mi), and the filter (mf). Calculate cyclone efthe tolerance specified In Table 2 of this
ficiency (Be) for each flow rate as follows:
ethod. The precision of the particle size
rlficatlon technique shall be at least 0.5,
m
1, and particle size determined by the verK.
x loo
catlon technique shall not differ by more
(me+m,+mf)
an 10 percent from that established by the
crating paramotora n[ tlio partlclo gonora5.2.5.2. Do thruu roplicatos and calculate)
m system.
the average cyclono offiolonoy (Bcbvu) as fol.2.2.2 Certify the monodisperslty of the
lows:
rtlcles for each test either by microscopic
ipoctlon of collected particles on filters or
lS,(..,)=(E,+B2+Bj)/3
other suitable monitoring techniques
Whero Ei, Bi, and E 3 are replicate measure:h as an optical particle counter followed
ments of Be.
a multichannel pulso height analyzer. If
5.2.5.3 Calculate the standard deviation
proportion of multiplets and satellites In
(a) for the replicate measurements of & as
aorosol exceeds 10 porcent by mass, the
follows:

'M

(Ei+Ea+Ej)*
(B,*+E2+Ej*) -

exceeds 0.10. repeat the replicated runs.


1.5.4 Measure the overall efficiency of
cyclone and nozzle, E,,. at the particle
i and nominal gas velocities In Table 2 of
motliod using the following procedure.
.5.5 Set tli.i air velocity and particle
from one of the conditions in Table 2 of

V6

this method. Establish Isokinetic sampling


conditions and the correct flow rate in the
cyclone (obtained by procedures in this section) such that the Dj 0 is 10 am. Sample long
enough to obtain 5 porcent precision on
total collected mass as determined by the
precision and the sensitivity of measuring

technique. Dotermlne separately the nozzle


catch (m), cyclone catch (nO. oyclone exit
tube (MO, and collection filter catch (nv) for
each particle .size and nominal gas velooity
In Tablo 2 of this method. Calculate overall
efficiency (Bo) as follows:
B.=.

5.3.1 Calculate cyclone Kiow Kate. .Determine flow rates and Djo's for three different
partiole sizes between 5 urn and 16 |im, one of
which shall be'lO urn. All sizes must be determined within 0.5 urn. For eaoh size, use a different temperature within 60 *C (108 F) of
the temperature at which the cyclone is to
be used and conduct triplicate runs. A suggested procedure is to keep the partiole size
constant and vary the flow rate.
6.3.1.1 On log-log graph paper, plot the
Reynolds number (Re) on the abscissa,' and
the square root of the 'Stokes 60 number
((Stkjo)' 3 ] on the ordinate for each temperature. Use the following equations to compute
both values:

(m+m)
(m+mc+m,+mf)

xlOO

5.2.5.6 Do three repllcateB for each combination of gas velooity and partiole size In
Table 2 of this method. Use the equation
below to calculate the average overall efficiency [E^.v,)) for each combination following the procedures described in this section
for determining efficiency.
Eo<..f)=(Ei+Ej+EjV3
Where Ei, Ej, and Ej are replicate measurements of Ba.

Re >
dcycll'tl ,

6.2.5.7 Use the formula in Section" 6.2.6.3 to


calculate a for the replloate measurements.
If a exceeds 0.10 or if the particle sizes and
nominal gas velocities are not within the
limits specified in Table 2 of this method, repeat the replicate runs.
6.2.6 Criteria for Acceptance. For eaoh of
the three gas stream velocities, plot the
Eo<.,,) as a function of particle size on Figure
8 of this method. Draw smooth curves
through all particle sizes. E*,,,, shall be
within the banded region for all sizes, and
the E<(.v shall be 5010.6 percent at 10 pm.
6.3 Cyclone Calibration Procedure. The
purpose of this procedure is to develop the
relationship between flow rate, gas viscosity,
gas density, and D M .
>< \u
Q.-

976

n/(m-O.J)

<"> O" ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.


-*~* i~* fT- -<>

J'

(l(ni.|.5)/(in-<M)

cific to the impactor and which permits the


accurate determination of the out size of the
Impactor stages at field conditions. It is not
necessary to calibrate each Individual Impactor. Once an Impactor has been calibrated, the calibration data can be applied to.
other impaotors of identical design.
5.4.1 Wind Tunnel. Same as In Seotlon
6.2.1 of this method.
6.4.2 Partiole Generation System. Some
as in Seotion 5.2.2 of this method.
6.4.3 Hardware Configuration for Calibrations. An impaction stage constrains an aerosol to form circular or rectangular Jets,
which are directed toward a suitable substrate where the larger aerosol particles are
collected. For calibration purposes, three
stages of the cascade impactor shall be discussed and designated calibration stages 1, 2,

977
iTf

T ,

where:
Qcyc^Cyolone flow rate, cmVseo.
p=Gaa density, g/om1.
d ^ D i a m e t e r of oyclone inlet, cm.
u^Viscosity of staok gas, mioropoise.
Dso^Aerodynamlc diameter of a partiole
having a 50 percent probability of penetration, cm.
6.3.1.2 Use a linear regression analysis to
determine the slope (m) and the Y-intercept
(b). Use the following formula to determine
Q, the pyolone flow rate required for a cut
size of 10 (Jim.

[ <3>0)<K,).b ]-< [ ~ ]

where:
mSlopo of the calibration line.
b=>y-lntorcept of the calibration line.
Q.=Cyclone flow rate for a out size of 10 urn,
cmVsec.
d=Dlameter of nozzle, cm.
T.cSteck gas temperature, *R.
P.oAbsoluto stack pressure, In. Hg.
M=Wot molocular wolght of the stack gas,
lb/lb-mole.
K,a4.O77xl0->.
5.3.1.3 Refer to the Method 201A operators
manual, entitled Application Guide for Source
PM,0 Measurement with Constant Sampling
Rate, for directions in the use of this equation for Q in the setup calculations.
5.4 Cascade Impactor. The purpose of calibrating a cascade Impactor Is to determine
the empirical constant (STK M ), which is spe-

4Qcy.(D)'

9 it u,)' ( d ^

and 3. The first calibration stage consists of


the colleuiion substrate of an Impaction
aUgo and all upstream surfaces up to and Including thn nozzle. This may Include other
preceding impactor stages. The second and
third calibration stages consist of each respective collection substrate and all upstream surfaces up to but excluding the collection substrate of the preceding calibration stage. This may Include Intervening Impactor staires which are not designated as
calibration stages. The cut Bize, or D, of the
adjacent calibration stages shall differ by a
factor of not less than 1.6 and not more than
2.0. For example, If the first calibration
stage has a DM of 12 urn, then the D of the
downstream stage shall be between 6 and 8
um.
5.4.3.1 It Is expected, but not necessary,
that the complete hardware assembly will be
used In each of the sampling runs of the calibration and performance determinations.
Only the first calibration stage must bo tested under Isokinetic sampling conditions. The
second and third calibration stages must'be
calibrated with the collection substrate of
the preceding calibration 3tage in place, so
that gas flow patterns existing In field operation will be simulated.
5.4.3.2 Each of the PM,0 stages should be
calibrated with the type of collection substrate, viscid material (suoh as grease) or
glass fiber, used in PMio measurements. Note
that most materials used as substrates at
elevated temperatures are not viscid at normal laboratory conditions. The substrate
material used for calibrations should minimize particle bounce, yet be viscous enough
to withstand erosion or deformation by tho
impactor Jsts and not interfere with tho procedure for measuring tho collected PM.
5.4.4 Calibration Procedure. Establish test
particle generator operation and verify particle size microscopically. If monodisperslty
Is to be verified by measurements at the beginning ar<d the end of the run rather than
by an Integrated sample, these measurements shall he mude at this time. Measure In
triplicate tho PM collected by tho calibration stage (riu and the PM on all surfaces
(Jown8U'ea.ii o( the respective calibration
stage, (m*) for all of the flow rates and particle MIZII ooinlilmalomi shown In Tnblo 2 of
this rnolhoil. Tuchnlqucs of mass measurement may include the use of a dye and
spectrophotometer. Particles on the' upstream side of a Jet plate shall be Included
with the substrate downstream, excopt* agglomerates of particles, which shall be Included with tho preceding or upstream substrate Ufo the following formula to calculate the collection efficiency (K) for oauh
stage.
5.4.4.1 Use the formula in Section 5.2.5.3 of
this method to calculate the standard deviation (a) for the ropllcalo measurements. If a
Hxcouda 0.10, rupuut Mi(i ropllcnto runs.

5.4.4.2 Use the following formula to calculate the average collection efflolenoy (E.,,)
for eaoh set of replicate measurements.
E.,=(Ei+E2+E3)/3
where Ei, Ea, and Ej are replicate measurements of E.
j
5.4.4.3, Use the following formula to calculate Stk for each
Stk=

D'Q
9uAdj

where:
DsAerodynamio diameter
of the test particle, cm (g/cmJ)'/4.
Q=Gas flow rate through the calibration
stage at Inlet conditions, em'/seo.
u=Oaa viscosity, mlcropolae.
A-Total cross-sectional area3 of the jets of.
tho calibration stage, cm .
(l,=Dlamotor of one Jot of tho calibration
stage, om.
5.4.4.4 Determine Stk M for eaoh calibration stage by plotting E,, versua 8tk on loglog paper. Stkjo is the Stk number at 60 percent efficiency. Note that partlole bounce
can cause efflolenoy to deorease at high valuos of Stk. Thus, 60 percent efflolenoy can
occur at multiple values of Stk. The calibration data should clearly Indicate the value of
Stk.io for minimum partlole bounce. Impactor efflolenoy versus Stk with minimal particle bounce . Is characterized by a
monotonically Increasing function with constant or increasing slope with increasing
Stk.
5.4.4.5 The Stkjo of tho first calibration
stage can potentially deorease with decreasing nozzle size. Thereforo, calibrations
should be performed with enough nozzle sizes
to provide a measured value within 25 per-
cent of any nozzle size used in PM10 measurements.
5.4.5 Criteria For Acceptance. Plot E., for
the first calibration stage versus the square
root of the ratio of Stk to Stk on Figure 9
of this motliod. Draw a smooth curve
through all of tho points. Tho curve shall be
within the banded region.
6. Calculations
Calculations are as specified in Method 5,
sections 6.3 through 6.7, and 6.9 through 6.11,
with tho addition of the following:
6.1 Nomenclature.
Bi=Molsturo fraction of slack, by volume,
dlmenslonloss.
Ci-Vlscoslty constant, lil.12 nilcropolso for
K (61.05 mioropolso for R).
Cj=Viscoslty constant. 0.372 mlcropoiao/K
(0.207 mlcropolse/R).
C3=VlHcoslty < , constant,
1.08x10-*
mlcropol80/ 'K (3.24x10- mlcropolso/R?).

u.fC,+OiT,+C,T,+C4foj-OjB.
C=ViscoBlty oonetant, 63.147 mlcropoise/
6.3.4.1 The PMio flow rate, at aotual :oyfraction Oi.
, ,
Cj=Vlsoosity oonstant, 74.143 mlcropoise/ clone conditions, Is calculated as follows:
fraction H20.
T, r .
V. ( r t i )'l
Dj0=Dlameter of particles having a 50 perQ,=
Q.(.wi)+

cent probability of penetration, um,


8
K,P. L
J
f=Staok gas fraction Oa, by volume, dry
basis.
6.3.4.2 Calculate the molecular weight on
K,=0.3B58 "K/mm Hg (17.641'R/in. Hg).
Mw=Wet molecular weight of stack gas. g/ a wet basis of the staok gas as follows:
g-mole (lb/lb-mole).
M=M4(1-B,)+18.0(B.)
Ma=Dry molecular weight of stack gas, g/g6.3.4.3 Caloulate the aotual DM of the cymole (lb/lb-mole).
Pb=Barometric pressure at sampling site, clone for the given conditions as follows:
mm Hg (in. Hg).
P,=Absolute stack pressure, mm Hg (in.
D=Bi
Hg).
Q,=Total cyclone flow rate at wet cyclone
conditions, mVmln (ftVmin).
Q.(iui)=Total cyclone flow rate at standard where Bi=0.027754 for metrio units (0.16626 foi
English units).
conditions, dscm/mln (dsof/min).
6.3.5 Acoep'tablo Rosults. Tho results an
T,=Average absolute tempbrature. of dry
acceptable If two conditions are met. Thi
motor, 'K CR).
T,=Avorago absoluto staok gas tompora- first is that 9.0 um i Djo i 11.0 um. The secon<
is that no sampling points are outside APmi
ture. K ("It).
Apm.,, or that 80 percent SI i 120 percen'
Vui)=Volume of water vapor in gas sim- and
and no more than one sampling point Is out
ple (standard conditions), scm (sof).
side Apmte and ap. If D is less than 9.0 urr.
0=Total sampling time, mln.
rejeot the results and ropoat the test.
u.=Vlscoslty of stack gas, mlcropoise.
6.2 Analysis of Cascade Impaotor Data.
7. Bibliography
Uso the manufacturer's recommended proce1.
Same
as
Bibliography
in Method 6.
dures to analyze data from cascade impac2. McCain, J.D.. J.W. Ragland.and A.I
tors.
6.3 Analysis or Cyclone Data. Use the fol- Williamson. Recommended Methodology fe
lowing procedures to analyze data from a the Determination of Partlole Size Dlstrlbi
Blngle stage cyclone.
tlons in Ducted Sources, Final Report. Pr<
6.3.1 PMio Weight. Determine the PM pored for the California Air Resources Boar
catch In the PMio range from the sum of the by Southern Research Institute. May 1988.
weights obtained from Container Numbers 1
3. Farthing. W.E., S.S, Dawes, A.I
and 3 IOBB tho aoetone blank.
Williamson, J.D. McCain, R.S. Martin, an
6.3.2 Total PM Weight (optional). Deter- J.W. Ragland. Development of Barn pi In
mlno the PM catoh for greater than PMio Methods for Source PMio Emissions. Bout!
from tho weight obtained from Container em Research Institute for the Envlroi
Number 2 less the acetone blank, and add It mental Protection Agency. April 1989. NT!
to tho PMio weight.
PB 69 190375, EPA/60CV3-e8-056.
6.3.3 PM,o Fraction. Determine the PMio
4. Application Guide for Source PMm Mea
fraction of the total particulate weight by
dividing the PMio particulate weight by the urement with Constant Sampling Rate, EPA/6C
3-88-057.
total particulate weight.
6.3.1 Aorodynamlc Cut Slzo. Calculate tho
stack gas viscosity as follows;

978
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

979

W. SI, App. M

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)

Envlrpnmental Protection Agency

Pt, 51, App.

f^^g^s^j
h H

kmmTTM0P^\
"co
O)

c
MM

H.
E

CO

CO

DC

(0

O
CD
3

Nozzle
Diameter
(Inches)

Cone
Angle, 6
(degrees)

Outside
taper, $
(degrees)

0.136
0.150
0.164
0.180
0.197
0.215
0.233
0.264
0.300
0.342
0.390

4
4
S
6 '
6
6
6
5
4
4
3

15
IS
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

Straight Inlet
length, t
(Inches)
<0.05
<0.0S
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.0S
<0.05
<0.05

O)
Figure 2. Nozzle design specifications.

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
,
. "T

T o t a l Lengt
L
(Inches)
2.653*0.05
2.5S3t0.0S
1.9700.05
1.57210.05
1.491S0."05
1.45 0.05
1.4S 1 0 . 0 5
1.45.tO.05
1.48 0 . 0 5
i . 4 5 0.05
1.45 0.OS

'*' rff* "

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition) J I i Environmental Protection Agency


Barometric pressure.
fXP,,in.Hg=
*' Stack static pressure,
S,ij: P i n . HiO=
Hi?i:.. Average stack temperature,
#.t,.'F=
'
;; Meter temperature, tm, P=
BOrlfloe AH. in. H 2 0=
\
Qas analysis:
%C02=
%Oa=
%Na+%CO=
Fraction moisture content,
Bw= _ _ _
Moleoular weight of Btack gas, dry basis:

Cyclone Interior Dloenjfonj

0.10 In. J

Pt. 51, App. M

"^

Q.=0.002837

Mj=0.44
(%COj)+0.32
(%Oj)+0.28
(%N2+%CO)=
1Mb mole
:;
Moleoular weight of stack gas, wet basis;
M=M* (1-B)+18 (B,,)=
1Mb mole
Absolute stack pressure:
,-i
P.=Ptar+

P.

. m. Hg

13.6

Viscosity of stack gas;


u,=162.418+0.2552 t,+3.2365xl0-J ' t,+0.53147
(%02>-74;143 Bw.=
micropoise
v
Cyclone flow rate:

(t,+460) I 0.2949

. fSVmln

M.P. J

Figuro 4. Example worksheet 1, oyolone


flow rate and AH.
Orlfloe pressure head (AH) needed for oyclone
flow rate:
AH

D l n n s l o i u (10.02 en, tO.Ol I n . )

t,+460

1*4.*soMj 1.083 AH

Or

Hop

Dcup

<;

U7

4.47

1.50

1.88

.SS

2.24

4.71

1.57

Z.25

4.4S

1.02

U4

Inchu

0.5Q

I.7S

0.59

0.74

174

0.8B

US

an

089

1.7S

0.40

0.43

o.

Method 201A pi tot coefficient,

t.*F
AH, In. H,0

Cyolono flow rato. ft'/mln.


Q.'
Method 2 pi tot coefficient,
Moleoular weight of stack gas, wet basis,
M
Nozzle diameter, D, In. =
.
Nozzle velocity:

Stack viscosity, IU,


micropoise =
Absolute stack pressure,
P in. Hg =
Average stack temperature,
t,, > =
Meter temperature, tm, F = .
Vmln

Vm

Vn

0.4457 +

[
[

3.056 Q,

v!

0.5690-

V"

0.2603 Q.'/4 u,

v"

/*,, = 0.2457 +
)M.
w.,1.5
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

. ft/sec

. ft/sec

If Rmi., i s l e s s t h a n 0.5, or if a n i m a g i nary number occurs when calculating


Rmi, u s e E q u a t i o n 1 t o c a l c u l a t e vmi.
Otherwise), uao E q u a t i o n 2.
ft/sec
Eq.
Vmln = V (0.5)
ft/sec
Eq.
Vmln =Vn Rmln = .

C a l c u l a t e Rmin

0.3072-

. ft/80O

D*

0.2603 Q,'/i p, "1


0.3072

M a x i m u m and m i n i m u m v e l o c i t i e s :

982

. in. H 2 0

Pb

Caloulato AH for three temperatures:

Ob

(Moure 3. Cyclone design ipeclMcUtonj.

r Q. (1-B.) P. 1

983.

,.^..:il.^',i.i<J.

n. a i , App. M

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)^

Calouiate Rm.
C

If Rm la greater than 1.5, use Bqua-p


tion 3 to calculate Vm. Otherwise,
use'J
Equation 4.
' '
'': ( v|
Bq. 3 v^jV. (1.5) =
ft/sec . '; V I
Eq.,4 v = v I U =
ft/seo

a 0.4457 +
t

0.6690 +

Environmental Protection Agency

0.2603 (*?,) u.
1.S

Figure 6. Example worksheet 3, dwell time.


Port
Point No.
AD
1
2
3
4
5

Figuro 5. Example worksheet 2, nozzle seleotlon.

Aiw = 1.3686x10-'*

. In. H20

P. M . ( v w . >
.ln.HiO

(t, + 460) C,*


Nozzle No.
D.,ln
v, ft/sec ,....
vi ft/sec
v, >t R/aec

..

..

..

..... .....

.....
*****
*****

Api, In. HjO ~~._..._..,^...^...


ApBU,ln.HiO
_.

Total run time, minutes =.


Number of traverse points =

T1

(Total run tlmo)


(Number of points)

L AP... J

where:

(Ap,)"

...

... .....

*****

-.

,; ?

-. i

I'

Ap

4 --

t
3

fiJ'

t,=dwell time at first traverse point, minutoa.


Ap'i=>tho veloolty head at the first traverse
point (from a previous traverse), in. Ha0.
Ap'.y,=the square of the average square root
of the Ap's (from a previous veloolty traverse), in. HjO.
At subsequent traverse points, measure the
velocity Ap and caloulate the dwell time
by using the following equation:

Rnal
weight

Tare.weight ;

Weight
gam

:-~

.,.,.

!.'
'

Tola!

.............

U s , aoolono Monk ......


'i

Weight of PM,

TABLE 1.PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS'FOR


SOURCE PMio CYCLONES AND NOZZLE C O M BINATIONS

TABLE 2.PARTICLE SIZES AND NOMINAL GAS


VELOCITIES FOR EFFICIENCY
Target gas velocities (m/seo)

Parameter
t. Collection
efficiency.

2. Cyclone cut
Size ( D M ) .

Unite
Pen

Particle size (|un)

Specifications

7t.O

Such that collection efficiency fads within envolope specified "by Section
5.2.6 and Figure 8.
10t |im aerodynamic diameter.

50.5
70.6
10 0.5
141.0
20t.O ........

15H.5

..............

() Mass median aerodynamic diameter.

Ap,=measured velocity bead at point 1 in.


H,0.

\
A % i~*
.t * i t

4 > * > 4> > *
*
o - <r>ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
o> o o <- <s" *" <>

252.6

HjO.

...

Weight ol PM I 0 (mg)
Container No.

(An,)"1. n=2,3,* * * total number of sampling


points

where:
t=dwell time at traverse point n, minutes.
Aps^measured velocity head at point n, in

...

Figure 7. Method 201A analysis sheet.

Veloolty traverse data:

Ap(Method 201A) = Ap(Method

Ap

Aoetone blank cone, mg/mg (Equation 5-4,


Method 6)
Aoetone wash blank, mg (Equation 6-5,
Method 5)

Nozzle No.

...._.....

AD

Plant
Date
Kun no.
Filter no.
Amount of liquid lost during
transport
Aoetone blank volume, ml
Aoetono wash volume, ml (4).

P. M , (v wb )a
(t, + 460) 0,*

Maximum and minimum velocity head values:


APnln = 1.3688 Xl0-<

Pt. 51, App. M-

At

'

>.

b.

Pt. 51, App. M

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1T95 Edition)

g
1 70

'I
%

"V

so

ui-

40

if

17 < v < 27 m/

30
9 < v < 17 m/

1
.:

1
I

90

:
. } .

i..fi'

z 00
ui
o 70
VL

%
UI

60
so
90

40

a.

30

U.
Ill

UI

''

17 < V < 27 to/ ] / / /


/

'

'-r
:U

"~

^ ^

':

20

v < 9 m/
10

1 I

8 tO

AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER (pm)

Figure 8.

1.

99

9<v<17m/i

20

-i\ iOMVM

tIP

90

Pt. 51; App.

ir

Environmental Protection Agency

20

I'I

v < 9 m/t
9
0.1

40

10

1
02

II

0.4

0.6

O i l

VSTK/STK B 0
Ul-lt

Efficiency envelope for the PMl(; cyclone.

i! ft

r
4'
Ull-Jl

Figure 9. Efficiency envelope for first calibration stage.


[65 FR 14249, Apr. 17,1990; 65 FR 24687, June 18, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 37607, Sept. 10, 199
66 FR 6278, Fob. 16, 1991]

.uttii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Pt. 51,App. M
METHOD SM DliTBHMtNATlON OF CONDBNflrDLE
PAimcUI-ATK ICMIHHIONa PllOM STATIONAIiy
SOUUCBB

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)


then allowed to air dry at ambient temperauiro to provont any NH<C1 from vaporizing.

3.,Apparatus
1. Applicability and Principle
3.1 Sampling Train. Same as in Method
1.1 Applicability. 1.1.1 TbiB method ap- 17, seotion 2.1, with the following exceptions
plies to the determination or condonslble noted below (see Figure 202-1). Note: Mention
particulate matter (CPM) emissions from of trade names or speolflo products does not
stationary sources. It Is intended to rep- constitute endorsement by EPA.
' resent condensible matter aa material that
3.1.1 The probe extension shall be glasscondenses after passing- through a Alter and . lined or Teflon. "V
as measured by this method (Note: Tho filter
3.1.2 Both the first and second implngers
catch can he analyzed according* to the ap- shall be of the GreenUurg-Smith design with
propriate method).
the standard tip.
1.1.2 This method may be used in conjunc3.1.3 All sampling train glassware shall be
tion with Method 201 or 201A if the probes oleaned prior to the test with soap and tap
are glass-liaed. Using Method 202 in conjunc- water, water, and rinsed using tap water,
tion with Method 201 or 201 A, only .the im- water, acetone, and finally, MeOb. It is impinger train configuration and analysis is ad- portant to completely remove all silicone
dressed by ;hls method. The sample train op- grease from areas that will be exposed to the
eration and front end recovery and analysis
shall be conducted according to Method 201 MeCli during, sample recovery.
3.2 Sample Recovery. Same as In Method
or 201A.
17, seotion 2.2, with the following additions:
1.1.3 This method may also be modified to
3.2.1 Ni Purge Lino. Inert tubing and fitmeasure material that condenses at other tings capable of delivering 0 to 28 llters/mln
temperatures by specifying the filter and of N gas to the impinger train from a stand2
probe temperature. A heated Method 5 out- ard gas
cylinder (see Figure 202-2). Standard
of-staok filter may be used instead of the ln- 0.95 cm (%-lnch) plastic tubing and compresstack filter to determine condensible emis- sion fittings In conjunction with an adjustsions at wet sources.
able prossuro regulator and needle valve may
1.2 Principle. 1.2.1 The CPM is collected be used.
In tho Impinger portion of a Method 17 (ap3.2.2 Rotameter. Capable of measuring gas
pendix A, 40 CFR part 60) typo sampling flow
at 20 llters/mln.
train. Tho Impinger contents are Imme3.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
diately purged after the run with nitrogen necessary
in addition to that listed in Meth(Nj) to remove dissolved sulfur dioxide (SOi)
gases from tho impinger contents. The im- od'17, section 2.3:
3.3.1 Separatory Funnel. Glass, 1-liter.
pinger solution is then extracted with meth3.3.2 Weighing Tins. 350-ml.
ylene chloride (MoCh). The organic and
3.3.3 Dry Equipment. Hot plate and oven
aqueous fractions are then taken to dryness
and the residues weighed. The total of both with temperature control.
3.3.4 Plpots. S-ml.
fractions represent:) tho CPM.
3.3.6 Ion Chromatography Same as In
1.2.2 The potential for low collection efficiency exist at oll-flrod boilers. To improve Method SF, Section 2.1.6.
' the collection efficiency at these type of
i. Reagents
sources, an addltlonul filter placed betwoon
the scconc. and third Impinger la recUnless othorwlso indicated, all reagents
ommended.
must conform to tho specifications established by tho Committee on Analytical
2. Precision and Interference
Reagents of the American Chemical Society.
2.1 Precision. The precision based on Where such specifications are not available,
method development teats at an oil-fired use the best available grado.
4.1 Sampling. Samo as in Method 17, secboiler and a catalytic cracker were 11.7 and
tion 3.1, with the addition of dolonized dis4.8 porceht, respectively.
2.2 Inter.'erencc. Ammonia. In sources tilled water to conform to the American Sothat use ammonia injection as a control ciety for Testing and Materials Specification
loahnlquo for hydrogen chloride (1ICI), tho D 1193-74, Typo II and tho omlttanco of sooitiuimmlu lr.l.rliinm by rmuibliiK wll.li HOI In l.lon 3.1.4.
i.lHI Kim itUmmi (.i, I'orin umnuinliim chloride
4.2 Humplo Recovery. Same an In Mothod
(NlljClj which would ho measurod ai* OPM.
17, uoctlon 3.2, with tho following additions:
The sample may bo analyzed for chloride and
4.2.1 N3 Gas. Zero Na gaii at delivery presthe equivalent amount of NH4C1 can be sub- sures high enough to provide a flow of 20 lltracted from the CPM weight. However, if ters/mln for 1 hour through the sampling
NH.Cl Is to bo counted as CPM, the inor- train.
ganic fraction should be takon to near dry4.2.2 Mothyleno Chloride, ACS grade.
ness (less than 1 ml liquid) in tho oven and -Blanks shall bo run prior to use and only

Environmental Protection Agency


methylene chloride with low blank values
(0.001 porcont) shall bo uaod.
4.2.3 Water. Same as in section 4.1.
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 17, section 3.3, with the following additions:
4.3.1 Methylene Chloride. Same as section
4.2.2.
I
4.3.2 Ammonium Hydroxide. Concentrated
(14.8 M) NHHOH.

4.3.3 Water. Same as in seotion 4.1.


4.3.4 Phenolphthaleln. The pH indicator
solution, 0.05 percent In SO percent alcohol.
5. Procedure
5.1 Sampling. Same as in Method 17, section 4.1, with the following exceptions:
'6.1,1 Place 100 ml of water
In the first
N
throe Implngers.
6.1.2 Tho use of silicone grease in train assembly Is not reoommended because it is
very Bolublo In MoOlj which may result in
sample contamination. Teflon tape or similar means may be used to provide leak-free
connections between glassware.
6.2 Sample Recovery. Same as. in Method
17, section 4.2 with the addition of a post-test
Na purge and specific changes In handling of
Individual samples as described below.; .
6.2.1 Post-test N3 Purge for Sourcos Emitting SCb. (Note: This step Is recommended,
but Is optional. With little or no SOa Is
present In the gas stream. I.e., the pH of the
impinger solution Is greater than 4.6, purging has been found to be unnecessary.) As
soon as possible after the post-test leak
check, detach tho probe and filter from the
Impinger train. Leave the Ice in the impinger box to prevent removal of moisture
during the purge. If necessary, add more Ice
during tho purge to maintain the gas tempore turo bolow 20 C. With no flow of gas
through the clean purge line and fittings, attach it to the input of the impinger train
(soo Klguro 202-2). To avoid over- or undorprossurizlng tho Implngor array, slowly commence tho N2 gas flow through tho lino while
simultaneously opening tho meter box pump
valve(s). Whon using the gas cylinder pressure to push the purge gas, through tho sample train, adjust the flow rate to 20 llters/mln
through the rotameter. When pulling the
purge gas through the sample train using the
meter box vacuum pump, sot the orifice pressure differential to AH and maintain an
overflow rate through the rotameter of less
than 2 lltorti/mln. This will guarantuo that
the Nj ilcllvui'.v nyaloin lu oporatlng nt groalor UIRII ambient prossuro and proven La tho
possibility of passing amblont air (rather
than Na) through the Implngers. Continue
the purge under these conditions for 1 hour,
checking the rotameter and AH value(s) periodically. After. 1 hour, simultaneously'turn
off tlie delivery and pumping systems.
5.2.2 Sample Handling.

r> o O OThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
O O O C* O O <0
4> n> A>. c* r* o i> > < r*

Pt. 51,App..M
5.2.2.1 Container Nos. 1, 2, and 3.!If filter
co.ton is to be dotormlnod, as detallod In
Method 17, section 4.2.
1.
6.2.2.2 Container No. 4 (Impinger Contents). Measure the liquid in the first, three
Implngers to within 1 ml using a clean graduated cylinder or by weighing it to within 0.6
g using a balance. Record the volume' or
weight of liquid present to be used to calculate the moisture content of the!effluent
gas. Quantitatively transfer this liquid Into
a clean sample bottlo (glass- or plastic); rlnso
each Impinger and the connecting glassware,
Including probe extension, twice with water,''
recover the rinse water, and add \\ to the
same sample bottle. Mark the liquid level on
the bottle.
;/'
6.2.2.3 Container No. 6 (MeCJj Ringe). Follow the water rinses of each Impinger''and
the connecting glassware, including . the
probe extension with two rinses of MeCh;
save the rinse products In a'clean,-glass sample Jar. Mark the liquid level oh the Jar. '
6.2.2.4 Container No. 6 (Water! Blank).
Once during each field test, plaoe 600 ml of
water in a separate sample-container.
.6.2.2.5 Container No. 7 (MeClaj Blank).
Onoe during each field test, place in a separate glass sample Jar a' volume of MeCla approximately equivalent to tho volume used
to conduct the MeCl3 rinse of the Implngers.
6.3 Analysis. Record the data required on
a sheet such as the one shown in Figure 2023. Handle eaoh sample container as follows:
5:3.1 Container Nos. 1, 2, and 3. If filter
catch Is analyzed, as detailed In Method 17,
section 4.3:
6.3.2 Container Nos. 4 and 5. Noto the level
of liquid in the containers and confirm on
tho analytical data sheet whether' leakage
occurred during transport. If a noticeable
amount of leakage has occurred, either void
tho sample or use methodB, subject to the approval of the Administrator, to correct the
final results. Measure the liquid in Container
No. 4 elthor volumetrically to 1 ml pr gravlmetrically to 0.5 g. Rcmovo a 6-ml aliquot
and set aside for later Ion. chromatographic
(IC) analysis of sulfates. (Noto: Do hot use
this aliquot to determine chlorides since the
HC1 will be evaporated during the first drying step; Section 8.2 details a procedure for
this analysis.)
5.3.2.1 Extraction, Separate the organic
fraction of the sample by adding tho contents of Container No. 4 (MeCla) to the contents of Container No. 4 In a 1000-ml
separatory funnel. Artor mixing, allow tho
rupiooua and organic phasus to fully sopamto,
and drain off most of tho organic/MoCla
phase. Then add 75 ml of MeCla to tho funnel,
mix well, and drain off the lower., organic
phase. Repeat with another 75 ml of MeClj.
This extraction should yield about 250 ml ol
organic extract. Each time, leave a small
amount of the organlc/MeClj phase. In the
separatory funnel ensuring that no water la
>-&

f>

r> i

* ? * **>"*

Pt. 51, App. M


collected In the organic phase. Place the organic extract in a tared 350-ml weighing bin.
6.3.2.2 Organic Fraotlon Weight Determination (Organic Phase from Container
Nos. 4 and 6). Evaporate the organic extract
at room temperature and pressure in a lab-,
oratory hood. Following evaporation, des-.
locate the organic fraction for 24 hours in a
desiccator containing anhydrous calcium
sulfate. Weigh to a constant weight and report the resvuts to the nearest 0.1 mg.
5.3.2.3 Inorganic Fraction Weight Determination. (Note: If NH<C1 is to b'o counted as
CPM, the Inorganic fraction should be taken
to near dryness (less than 1 ml liquid) in the
oven and then allow to air dry at ambient
temperature. If multiple acid emissions are
suspected, the ammonia titration .procedure
In section 8.1 may be preferred.) Using a hot
plate, or equivalent, evaporate the aqueous
phase to approximately 50 ml; then, evaporate to drynuss In a 105 "0 ovon. Redlssovle
the residue in 100 ml of water. Add five drops
of phenolphthaleln to this solution; then,
add concentrated (14.8 M) NH.OH until the
sample turns pink. Any exoess NH3OH will be
evaporated during the drying step. Evaporate the sample to dryness in a 105 C oven,
desiccate the sample for 24 hours, weigh to a
constant weight, and record the results to
the nearost 0.1 mg. (Note: The addition of
NH4OH is recommended, but is optional when
little or no SO is present in the gas stream,
I.a., wliun l.ho uH of the Implngor solution is
Ui'imUir Limit 4.6. Mm addition of NIUOII lu

not necessary.)
5.3.2.4 Analysis of Sulfate by IC to Determine Ammonium Ion (Ntt, + ) Retained in the
Sample. (Note: If NH4OH is not added, omit
this step.) Determine the amount of sulfate
in the aliquot taken from Container No. 4
earlier as described in Method 5F (appendix2
A, 40 CFR part 60). Based on the IC SO<~
analysis of tho aliquot, calculate the correction factor to subtract the NH^ retained In
the sample and to add the combined water
removed by the acid-base reaction (see section 7.2).
5.3.3 Analysis of Water and MeCl2 Blanks
(Container Nos. 6 and 7). Analyze these sample blanks as described above in sections
5.3.2.3 and 5.3.2.2, respectively.
5.3.4 Analysis of Acetone Blank (Container No. 8). Same as In Method 17, section
4.3.
6. Calibration
Sumo IIH In Molliod 17, noctlon S, oxoopt for.
II10 following:
6.1 IC Calibration. Same as Method 5F,
section 5.
6.2 Audit Proituilurn. Concurrently, analyv.i! Uu> mill 11, .wniiili) mid a uuL of compliance sample* In the same manner to evaluate the technique of the analyst and the
standards preparation. The same analyst, analytical reairents, and analytical system

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)


shall be used both for compliance samples
and the EPA audit sample. If this oondltion
is met, auditing of, subsequent compliance
analyses for. the saime, enforcement agency
within 30 days is not required. An audit sample set may not be used to validate different
sets of compliance samples under the jurisdiction of different enforcement agencies,
unless prior arrangements are made with
both enforcement agencies.
ti.3 Audit Samples^'Audit Sample Availability, Audit samples will be supplied only
to enforcement agencies for compliance
tests. The availability of audit samples may
be obtained by writing:
Source Test Audit Coordinator (MD-77B),
Quality Assuranoe Division, Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle, Park, NO 27711
or by oalling the Source Test Audit Coordinator (STAC) at (819) 541-7834. The request
for the audit sample must be made at least
30 days prior to the soheduled compliance
sample analysis.
6.4 Audit Results. Calculate the audit
sample concentration aooordlng to the calculation procedure described In the audit instructions lnoluded with the audit sample.
Fill in the audit sample ocncentration and
the analyst's name on the audit response
form Included with the audit instructions.
Sond one copy to the EPA Regional Offioe or
l.ho appropriate onforoomont agonoy'and a
uoooud copy to tho STAC. Tho EPA Regional
Office or the appropriate enforcement agency will report the results of the audit to the
laboratory being audited. Include this response with the results of the compliance
samples in'relevant reports to the EPA Regional Office or the appropriate enforcement
agency.
7. Calculations
Same as in Method 17, section 6, with the
following additions:
7.1 Nomenclature. Same as In Method 17,
section 6.1 with the following additions.
Ccpm=Concentration of the CPM in the stack
gas, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions, g/dsom (g/dscf).
Cs04=Concentratlon of SO<-' in the sample,
mg/ml.
mb=Sum of tho mass of the water and MeCh
blanks, mg.
mc=Mass of the NH4+ added to sample to
form ammonium sulfate, mg.
mi-Mass of Inorganio CPM matter, mg.
m=Mass of organic CPM, mg.
mf=Mass of dried sample from inorganio fraotlon, mg.
Vb-Volumo or aliquot taken for IC analysis,
ml.
Vic=Volume of implngor contonts sample, ml.
7.2 Correction for NBU+ and HjO. Calculate tho correction factor to subtract the

Environmental Protection Agency


NH4+3retained in the sample based on the IC
SO.. ~ and if desired, add the oombined water
removed by the acid-base reaction.
nv=K C.j Vi

Eq. 202-1

where:
K=0.0205, when correcting for NH<+ and H20.
=0.1840, when only oorreotlng for NH4+.
7.3 Mass of Inorganio CPM.

xnpxn,

-m

V-Vb

Eq. 202-2

7.4

Concentration of CPM.
O c p =

\ Si
tit.,
.'

I'

iw

P-

I
&

nio+mimb

Eq, 202-3

VM

m;>:

3, Alternative Procedures
8.1 Determination of NHi* Retained in
Sample by Titration.
8.1.1 An alternative procedure to determine the amount of NH+ added to the Inorganic fraction by titration may be used.
After dissolving the Inorganio residue in 100
ml of water, titrate the solution with 0.1 N
NH.OH to a pll of 7.0, as lndfcatod by a pH
motor. Tho 0.1 N NIUOII Is mado as follows:
Add 7 ml of concentrated (14.8 M) N&.OH to
1 liter of water. Standardize against standardized 0.1 N HaSO< and calculate the exaot
normality using a procedure parallel to that
described In section 6.5 of Method 6 (appendix
A, 40. CFR part 60). Alternatively, purchase
0.1 N NH4OH that has been standardized
against a National Institute of Standards
and Technology reference material.
8.1.2 Calculate the concentration of SO->
in the sample using the following equation.
CS04=

drying of the sample should have removed all


HOI. Therefore, the 'remaining chlorides
measured by IC can be assumed to be NR.C1,
and this; weight con be subtracted from' the
weight determined for CPM.
8.3 Air Purge to Remove SO] from Implnger Contents. As an alternative to the
post-test N] purge described in section 6.2.1,
the tester may opt to conduot the post-test
purge with air at 20 llter/mln. Note: The use
of an air purge Is not as effective ai a N3
purge.'"'

Vic

It

Pt.51.App.lv!

48.03
V,N
V,f<

Eq. 202-4

100

where
N=Normallty of the NH4OH, mg/ml.
V,=Volume of NH..OH titrant, ml.
48.03-mg/meq.
100=Volumo of solution, ml.
8.3.1 Calculate the CPM as doscrlbod In
section 7.
8.2 Analysis of Chlorides by IC. At the
conclusion of the final weighing as doscrlbod
in section 6.3.2.3. rodlssolvo tho Inorganio
fraction in 100 ml of water. Analyze an aliquot of the redlssolved sample for chlorides
by IC using techniques similar to those described in Method 5F for sulfates. Previous

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

,"' :' .

8:4 Chloroform-ether Extraction.'As an alternative to the methylene chloride extraction described in section 6.3.2.1, the tester
may 'opt to conduct a chloroform-ether extraction. Note: The Chloroform-ether was
not as effective as the MeCh in removing the
brganlos,-'but it'was found to be an'aooeptable'(organio : ex'traotaht. Chloroform and
'dlethyle'therjof ACS grade, with low,blank
values (0.001 percent), shall be used.' Analysis
of the chloroform and dlethylether blanks
shall be conducted according to Section 6.3.3
forMe012.
8.4.1 Add the contents of Container No. 4
to a 1000-ml separatory funnel. Then add 76
ml of chloroform to the funnel, mix well, and
drain off the lower organio phase. Repeat
two more times with 75 ml of chloroform.
Then perform three extractions with 76 ml of
dlethylether. This extraction should yield
approximately 460 ml of organic extraotlon.
Eaoh time, leave a small amount of the organlc/MeCli phase In the separatory funnel
ensuring that no water is collected in the organio phase.
8.4.2 Add the contents of Container No. 6
to the organio extraotlon. Place approximately 300 ml of the organio extract In a
tared 350-ml weighing tin while storing the
remaining organio extract In a sample container. As the organio extract evaporates,
add the remaining extract to the weighing
tin.
.
8.4.3 Determine the weight of the organio
phase as described in Section 5.3.2.2.
8.5 Improving Collection Efficiency. If low
implnger collection efflolency Is Buspeoted,
the following procedure may be used.
8.5.1 Place an out-of-stook filter as described in Method 8 between tho second and
third lmplngers.
8.5.2 Recover and analyze the filter according to Method 17, Section 4.2. Inolude
the filter holder as part of tho connecting
glassware and handlo as described In sections
5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3.
8.5.3 Calculate the Concentration of CPM
as follows:
mo+mi+mi-mb
VM.U

Eq. 2025

Pt.5l,App. M

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 EdWorij

where:
mf = amount of OPM' collected on out-ofstacfc fllcer, mgr.
8.6 Wet Source Testing. When testing at a
wet source, use a heated out-of-staok filter
as described In Method 5.
9. Bibliography
' 1. DeWees, W.D., S.O. Stelnsberger; Q.M.
Plummer. L.T. Lay, O.D. MoAUster, and R.T.
Shlgehara. "Laboratory and Fiold Evaluation of the EPA Method 6 Implnger Catch for
Measuring Oondenslble Matter from Stationary Sources." Paper presented at the 1989
EPA/AWMA International Symposium on
Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Raleigh, North Carolina. May 1-5,
1989.
2. DeWees, W.D. and K.C. Stelnsberger.
"Method Development and Evaluation of
Draft Protocol for Measurement of Oondenslble Particulate Emissions." Draft Report.
November 17,1989.
3. Texas Air Control Board, Laboratory Division. "Determination of Particulate in

iinvlronmental Protection Agency

Staok Oases Containing Sulfurlo Aoid and/dr}


Sulfur Dioxide." Laboratory Methods fortDfk
termination of Air Pollutants. Modified Dedeniber3.197fl.
'
.'^r^L
4. Nothsteln, dreg. Masters Thesis. Unive'r|s
sity of Washington. Department of Environ-^
mental Health. Seattle, Washington. i"}'M.,
5. "Particulate Source Test Prooeduresjj
Adopted by Puget Sqund Air Pollution Con-!$
trol Agonoy Board 'of Dlreotors." Puget!;)'
Sound Air Pollution Control Agenoy, Engi-^
neering Division. Seattle, Washington. Au-ff
gust 11,1983.
. vaif
6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Depart-s
ment of Environmental Resources. Chapterjl
139, Sampling and Testing (Title 26, Rules /f
and Regulations, Part I, Department of Envi-%
ronmental Resources, Subpart 0, Protection j |
of Natural Resources, Artiole m , Air Re-j
aouroes). January 8,1960.
'
'.\i'fif7. Wisconsin Dopartment of Natural Re-j
souroes. Air Management Operations Hand-l
book. Revision 3. January 11,1988.

Pt.51,App. M

c.
-
a
n

I
a

3
i
CD

.8
"8
5
,2

4T>

<;>

,f

f*

4>

>

>

*>

* *

'*

**" - a * - * '

<

c* ctThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
c* c* (y

Tt.61.App. M

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1^95 Edition);$

^Environmental Protection Agency

Pi. 51/App.M

:'.
Moisture Determination
,
''Volume or weight of liquid In lmpingers:'
>''<'."
ml org: '-'.i
''
g
: Weight of moisture In silica gel:
-'-!' Sample Preparation (Container No. 4)
.Amount of liquid lost during: transport:
,'
ml
Final volume:;
ml
pH of sample prior to analysis:
Addition of NR.OH required:.
Sample extracted 2X with 75 ml MeOW:
For Titration of Sulfate
, .Normality of NHaOH:
.N
.ml
Volume of sample titrated:
Volume of tltrant:..
.ml
Sample Analysis
f

Weight of condenalble
partlculals, mg

Container number

;4 (Inorganic)
4 & 6 (Organic)

Final
weight

Tare
weight

Weight
gain

....

Total:
Less Blank:
. Weight of Consenslble Particulate:
Figure 202-3. Analytical data-Bheet.
METHOD 205VERIFICATION OF GAS DILUTION
SYSTEMS FOR FIELD INSTRUMENT CALIBRATIONS

J. Introduction
1.1 Applicability. A gas dilution system
can provide known values of calibration
gases through controlled dilution of highlevel calibration gases with an appropriate
dilution gas. The instrumental test methods
i
in 40 CFR part 60e.g., Methods 3A, 6C, 7E,
10, 16, 16. 20, 25A and 25Brequire on-site,
multi-point calibration using gases of known
concentrations. A gaB -dilution system that
produces known low-level calibration gases
from high-level calibration' gases, with a degree or confidence similar to that for Proto. col' gases, may be used for compliance tests
in lieu of multiple calibration gases when
the gas dilution system is demonstrated to
meet the requirements of this method. The
Administrator may also use a gaB dilution
system In order to produce a wide range of
Cylinder Gas Audit concentrations when
conducting performance specifications according to appendix F, 40 CFR part 60. As
long as the acceptance criteria of this method are met, this method is applicable to gas
dilution systems using any type of dilution
technology, not solely the ones mentioned In
this method.
. . . . 1.2 Principle. The gas dilution system
feisball be evaluated on ope.analyzer^ once dtyr^.
i;v..*iiiv.vii. ..iv;.t. Mit-.. i.l--.i^fsBl
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

if

ing eaoh field test. A precallbrated analyzer


Is chosen, at- the discretion of the source
owner or operator, to demonstrate that the
gas dilution aystem produces predictable gas
concentrations . spanning a range < of. ooncentratlons. After meeting the requirements
of this method, the remaining analyzers may
be calibrated with the dilution system in accordance to the requirements of the applicable method for the duration of the field test.
In Methods 16 and 16, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, reactive compounds may be lost In the
gas dilution system.. Also, In Methods 2SA
and 26B, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, calibration with target compounds other than propane is allowed. In these cases, a laboratory
evaluation is required once per year in order
to assure the Administrator, that the' system
will' dilute these reactive gases without significant loss.
>'... .;.
NOTE: The laboratory evaluation .is.(required only If, the source owner or operator
plans'to utilize the dilution system< to prepare gases mentioned above as being .'reactive.
;. ; ,.-.'
2. Specifications. ''.''.',';'..
2.1 Gas Dilution System. The gas dilution'
system shall produce calibration gases whose
measured values are within. 2 percent of the
predloted values. The predloted values are
calculated based on the certified concentration of the supply gas (Protocol gases, when
available, are recommended for their aoouraoy) and the gas flow rates (or dilution ratios) through the gas dilution' system.
2.1.1 The gas dilution system shall be
recalibrated onoe per calendar year using
NIST-tracoablo primary flow standards with
an uncertainty 0.25 percent. A label shall be
affixed at all times to the gas dilution system listing the date of the most reoent calibration, the due date for the next calibration, and the person or manufacturer who
carried out the 6allbratlon. Fpllow the manufacturer's Instructions for the operation
and use of the gas dilution system. A oopy of
the manufacturer's instructions for the operation of the instrument, as well as the most
reoent recallbratlon documentation shall be
made available for the Administrator's, inspection upon request.
2.1.2 Some manufacturers of mass flow
controllers recommend that flow rates below
10 percent of flow controller capaolty bo
avoided; check for this recommendation and
follow the manufacturer's Instructions. One
study has Indicated that silicone oil from a
positive displacement pump produoes an Interference in SO] analyzers utilizing ultraviolet fluorescence; follow laboratory procedures similar to those outlined In Section 3.1
in order to demonstrate the significance ol
any resulting effect on instrument perform-

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edlllon)!

Pt. tO, App. A, Meth. 24A


ards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reseatch Tiliuifcle Park, NC 27711.
4.4 Confidence Limit Calculations for Watcrborne Coatings. Based on the between-laboratory precision statements, calculate the
confldenco limits for waterborne coatings as
follows:
To calculate the lower confidence limit,
subtract the appropriate between-laboratory
precision value from the measured mean
value for that parameter. To caloulate the
upper confidence limit, add the appropriate
between-laboratory precision value to the
measured mean value for that parameter.
For Wv and D 0 . use the lower confidence limits, and lor Ww, use the upper confidence
limit. Because V. Is calculated, there Is no
adjustment for the parameter.
5. Calculations
5.1 Noiin(iuooua Volatllo Mattor.
5.1.1 Solvent-borne Coatings.
W0=WV
Eci. 24-2
Where:
W0=Weight fraction nonaqueous volatllo
matter, g/g.
5.1.2 'Waterborne Coatings.
Wo=Wv-Ww
Bq. 24-3
5.1.3 Coatings Containing Exempt Solvents.
W=W.-W E -W

Eq. 244

where:
Wg-welitht fraction of exempt solvents, g/
g.
5.2 Weight Fraction Solids.
W,=l-W

Eq. 254

where:
W,=weU;ht fraction of solids, gig.
METHOD 24ADETERMINATION OP VOLATILE
MATTED CONTENT AND DENSITY OK PMNTINO
, INKS ANO RELATED COATINOB

1. Applicability and Principle


1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of the volatile organic
compound (VOC) content and density of solvent-borne (solvent reducible) printing Inks
or related coatings.
1.2 Principle. Separate procedures are
used to determine the VOC weight fraction
and density of the coating and the density of
the solvent in the coating. The VOC weight
fraction Is determined by measuring the
weight loss of a known sample quantity
which has been heated for a specified length
of time at a specified temperature. The density of both the coating and solvent aro
measured by a standard procedure. From

this Information, the VOC volume fraction isM


nnlnnln>.Ari
calculated.

.-:'.f*rr?i

2. Procedure
2.1 Weight Fraction VOC
-.firra!
2.1.1 Apparatu's. ,
.-.-Nil
2.1.1.1 Weighing Dishes. Aluminum foil, 58^
mm in diameter by 18 mm high, with a fla'l&j
bottom. There must be at least three welghjw
ing dishes per sample.
, . y:;'{|J!
2.1.1.2 Disposable Syringe. 6 ml.
';. i\ij$$
2.1.1.3 Analytical Balance. To measure t o . |
:,i
within 0.1 mg.
.
>}'3
2.1.1.4 Oven. Vacuum oven capable rof::|
maintaining a temperature of 1202C and an'Si
absolute pressure of 510 51 mm Hg for'4 <
hours. Alternatively, a forced draft oven 'capable of maintaining a temperature' of
1202C for 24 hours.,
' '(.
2.1.2 Analysis. Shako or mix tho sample
thoroughly to 'assuro that all the solids are
completely suspended. Label and weigh to
the nearest 0.1 mg a weighing dish and
record this weight (M,i).
.'.'
Using a 6-ml syringe without a needle re-.
move a sample of the coating. Weigh the sy-|
rlnge and sample to the nearest 0.1 mg and
record this weight (M<yi). Transfer 1 to 3 g of
the sample to the tared weighing dish. Reweigh the syringe and sample to the nearest
0.1 mg and record this weight (MYJ). Heat
the weighing dish and sample in a vaouum
oven at an absolute pressure of 51051 mm Hg
and a temperature of 1202O for 4'hours. Alternatively, heat the weighing dish and sample in a forced draft oven at a temperature of
1202"O for 24 hours. After the weighing dish
has cooled, reweigh it to the nearest 0.1 mg
and record the weight (Ma). Repeat this procedure for a total of three determinations for
each sample.
2.2 Coating Density. Determine the density of the ink or related coating according
to the procedure outlined in ASTM D 1476-60
(Reapproved 1980), (incorporated by referencesee J 60.17).
2.3 Solvent Donalty. Dotormlno the density of the solvent according to the procedure outlined in ASTM D 1475-60 (reapproved
1980). Make a total of three determinations
for each coating. Report the density Do as
the arlthmetio average of the three determinations.
3. Calculations
3.1 Weight Fraction VOC. Calculate the
weight fraction volatile organlo content W
using the following equation:

il

Mxi+MoYi-Mcvr-MKa

W
MVI-MCYI

I Environmental Protection Agency


W. Report the weight fraction VOC W as the
^arithmetic average of the three determlna&tlons.
'/';3.2 Volume Fraction VOC. Caloulate the
[^volume fraction volatile organic oontent V
s w i n g the following equation:

p.f
S

V.=(WJDc/D.

|
Eq. 24A-2

,A; Bibliography
'1. Standard TeBt Method for Density of
Faint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products.
ASTM
Designation
D
1476-60
|(Reapproved 1980).
p .2. Teleconversatlon.
Wright,
Chuck,
!j;'Inmont Corporation with Reich, R. A., Ra\\y. dlan Corporation. September 25, 1979.- Qranfl',vure Ink AnalyslB.
v
?!?: 3. Teleconversatlon. Oppenheimer, Robjy ert, Qravuro Research Institute with Burt,
if' Rlok, Radian Corporation, November 6, 1979.
1
Gravure Ink Analysis.
6-",'.'
" .. METHOD 25DETERMINATION OF TOTAL Q A S E Y.:' OUB NONMETHANE OROANIO EMISBIONS AB
CARBON

Ing emission data semlcontlnuously over an


extended time period.
Direct measurement of an effluent with a
flamp ionization detector (FID) analyzer
may.be appropriate with prior characterization of the gas stream and knowledge that
the detector responds predictably to the organlo compounds In the stream. If present,
methane (OHO will, of course, also be measured. The FID oan be applied to the determination of the mass concentration of the
tota,l moleoular structure of the organlo
emissions under any of the following limited
conditions: (1) Where only one compound is
known to exist; (2) when the organlo compounds consist of only hydrogen and carbon;
(3) where the relative percentages .of the
compounds are known or oan be determined,
and the FID responses to the compounds are
known; (4) where a consistent mixture of the
compounds exists before and after emission
control and only the relative concentrations
are to be assessed; or (5) where the FID ban
be calibrated against mass standards of the
compounds emitted (solvent emissions, for
example).

Another example of'the uso of a direct FID


is as a soreenlng, method. If there is enough
information available to provide a rough es1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
timate of the analyzer accuracy, the FED an;j;.the measurement of volatile organlo comalyzer can be used to determine the VOC
pounds (VOC) es total gaseous nonmethane
oontent of an unoharacterized gas stream:
oirganlos (TONMO) as carbon in source emls! slons. Organic particulate matter will inter- With a sufficient buffer to adoount for possible inaccuracies, the direct FID can be a
fere with the analysis and, therefore, a paruseful tool to obtain the desired results
ticulate filter is required. The minimum dei.teotable for the method Is 60 ppm as carbon. - without costly exact determination.
In situations where a qualitative/quan" When carbon dioxide (CO*) and water vapor
titative analysis of an effluent stream is de.are present together in the staok, they can
sired or required, a gas chromatographic FID
produoe a positive bias in the sample. The
system may apply. However, for sources
magnitude of the bias depends on the conemitting numerous organlos, the time and
centrations of CO] and water vapor. As a
expense of this approach will be formidable.
guideline, multiply the COi concentration,
expressed as volume percent, times the water
1.2 Prlnolple. An emission sample is withvapor concentration. If this product does not
drawn from the staok at a constant rate
exceed 100, the bias can be considered insigthrough a heated filter and a chilled condennificant. For example, the bias is not signifisate trap by means of an evacuated sample
cant for a Bourco having 10 percent COj and
tank. After sampling is completed, the
10 porcont water vapor, but.lt would be sigTONMO are determined by Independently
nificant for a source near the detection limit
analyzing tho condensate trap and sample
having 10 percent COi and 20 percent water
tank fractions and combining the analytical
vapor.
results. The organic content of the condensate trap fraction is determined by oxidizing
This method is not the only method that
the NMO to CO] and quantitatively collectapplies to the measurement of TONMO.
ing the effluent in an evacuated vessel; then
Costs, logistics, and other practicalities of
source testing may make other test methods a portion of the COj is reduced to CH* and
more desirable for measuring VOC contents
measured by an FID. The organlo oontent of
of oertain effluent streams. Proper Judgment
the sample tank fraction is measured by InIs required in determining the most applicajecting a portion of the sample into a gas
ble VOC test method. For example, dependchromatographic column to separate the
ing upon tho molecular weight of tho
NMO from carbon monoxide (CO), COi. and
organlcs in the effluent stream, a totally
OR,; the NMO are oxidized to COj, reduced to
automated
semloontlnuous
nonmethane
CH*, and measured by an FID. In this manorganlcs (NMO) analyzer interfaced dlreotly
ner, the variable response of the FID associto tho uourco may yield accurate results.
ated with different typOB of organlcs Is elimiThis approach has tho advantage of provldnated.
1. Applicability and Principle

1
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
r*ocA

i^

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

81

MU W W l l . I \,' - I

Z. Apparatus
2.1 Sampling. The sampling system consists of a hoaccd probo, hoatod flltor, condensate trap, flow control system, and sample
tank (Figuro 26-1). The TGNMO sampling
oqulpment can be constructed from commercially available components and components
fabricated In a machine shop. The following
equipment 1B required:
2.1.1 Heated Probe. 6.4-mm (Vi-ln.) OD.
stainless steel tubing with a heating system
capable of maintaining a gas temperature at
the exit end of at least 129C (285F). The
probe shall be equipped with a thermocouple
at the exit end to monitor the gas temperature.
A suitable probe* Is shown in Figure 25-1.
The nozzle is an elbow fitting attaohed to
the front end of the probe while the thermocouple Is Inserted In the side arm of a tee fitting attaohed to the rear of the probe. The
probe is wrapped with a suitable length9 of
high temperature) heating tape, and then
covered with two layers of glass cloth insular
tlon and one layer of aluminum foil.
NOTE:.If It Is not poselblo to use a hoatlng
system for safety reasons, an unheated system with an ln-atack filter is a suitable alternative.
2.1.2 Filter Holder. 25-mm ("Me-ln.) ID
Qelman filter holder with stainless steel
body and stainless steel support screen with
the Viton O-ring replaoed by a Teflon O-ring.
NOTE.Mention of trade names or speoiflo
products does not constitute endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agenoy.
2.1.3 Filter Heating System. A metal box
consisting of an inner and an outer shell separated by insulating material with a heating
element in the lnnor shell capable of maintaining a gas temperature at the filter of
1213 *C (2808 *F).
A suitable hoatlng box Is shown In Figure
25-2. The outer shell Is a metal box that
measures 102 mmx280 mmx292 mm (4 ln.xll
ln.xllH in.), while the inner shell is-a metal
box measuring 76 mmx229 mmx241 mm (3
In.xS In.x9'/4 in.). The Inner box is supported
by 13-mm (V4-in.) phenolic rods. The void
space between the boxes is filled with
fiberfrax insulation which Is sealed in place
by means of a silicon rubber bead around the
uppor aides of the box. A removable lid made
In a similar mannor, with a 25-mm (1-ln.) gap
between the parts. Is used to cover the heating chamber.
The Inner box is heated wltn a 260-watt
cartridge heator, shielded by a stainless steel
shroud. The healer Is regulated by a
thormoatatlo temperature controller which
is sot to maintain a temperature of 121 C as
measured by a thermocouple in the gas line
just before the filter. An additional thermocouple is used to monitor the temperature of
the gas bohind the filter.

tsl UIIIUI!/.l(t

2.1.4 Condensate Trap. 9.6-mm 04-in.)'pE


316 stainless steel tubing bent intoia^M
shape. Exact dimensions ore shown in Flgiiite
25-3. The tubing shall be packed with coarwj
quartz wool, to a density of approximate!]"
0.11 g/co before bending. While the:condeng
sate trap Is paoked- with dry ice ln|'t'
Dewar, an ioe bridge'may form between^
arms of the condensate trap making ittf
floult to remove the condensate trap.;1]
problem can be prevented by attaohing?
steel plate between the arms of thepondei
sate trap in the same plane as the arm2
completely fill the intervening space. '."
2.1.6 Valve. Stainless steel shut-off .ya
for starting and Btopplng sample flow. ,.P
2.1.6 Metering Valve. Stainless steel'.._,
trol valve for regulating the' sample flow raV
through the sample train.
'; '^M
2.1.7 Rotameter. Glass tube with stainlessl
steel fittings, capable of measuring sample^*
flow in the range of 60 to 100 oc/mln. .'',- M{L,
2.1.8 Sample Tank. Stainless steel or.'alnflS
mlnum tank with- a minimum volume of iji-m

tera.

,..^

2.1.9 Mercury Manometer or Absolute!


ProoBuro Qaugo. Capable of measuring pres-ft
sure to within 1 mm Hg in the range of 0'U>$
900 mm.
2.1.10 Vacuum Pump, Capable of evaouat-'il(
ire of 10 mm Hg.
ing to an absolute pressure
Hg, W$S
2.2 Condensate Recovery Apparatus. Tl
system for the recovery of the organlcs: oa]
tured in the condensate trap oonsists' df>,
heat
source,
oxidation.
eatalystjj
nondisperaive infrared (NDIR) analyzer andan intermediate oolleotion vessel (IGVVFigVj
ure 25-4 is a sohematlo of a typical system.'
The system shall be capable of proper oxidation and recovery, as specified in Seotion 6,
The following major components are
quired:
'
!!'
2.2.1 Heat Source. Sufficient to heat the1
condensate trap (inoluding connecting tub-].;
ing) to a temperature of 200 C. A system'
using both a heat gun and an el eotrio tube'
furnace is recommended.
''! j*
2.2.2 Heat Tape. Sufficient to heat the connecting tubing between the water trap and';
the oxidation catalyst to 100 *C.
": *
2.2.3 Oxidation Catalyst. A suitable length'
of 9.6-mm (%-in.) OD Inconel 600 tubing!;
packed with 15 om (6 in.) of 3.2-mm (H-ln.)
diameter 19 percent chromla on alumina pellots. The catalyst material is packed in the
center of the oatalyet tube with quartz wool'
paokod on either end to hold it in place. The
catalyst tube shall be mounted vertically In
a 650 "O tube furnace.
2.2.4 Water Trap. Leak proof, oapable of;
removing moisture from the gas stream
2.2.5 Syringe Port. A 6.4-mm (H-in.) OD.
stainless steel tee fitting with a rubber septum placed In the side arm.
' 2.2.6 NDIR Detector. Capable of indicating'
CO} concentration in the range of zero to 5
percent, to monitor tho progress of combus-

tlon of the organic compounds from the oon'densato trap.


",1-2.3.7 Flow-Control Valve. Stainless steel,
maintain the trap conditioning system
'hear atmospherio pressure.
i jjff2.2.8 Intermediate
Collection . Vessel.
' Stainless steel or aluminum, equipped with a
female quick conneot. Tanks with nominal
! [volumes of at least 6 liters are reoi bmmended.
i
.. .2.9 Mercury Manometer or Absolute
pressure Gauge. Capable of measuring pres|iure: to within 1 mm Hg in the range of 0 to
jWO mm.
|p 2.2.10 Syringe. 10-ml gas-tight, glass syrhige equipped with an appropriate needle.
1J2.3 NMO Analyzer. The NMO analyzer is a
|:gas ohromatograph (GO) with baokflush capability for NMO analysis and is equipped
with an oxidation catalyst, reduction catalyst, and FID. Figures 25-5 and 25-6 are^schefoatloa of a typical NMO analyzer. This
iemloontlnuous GO/FID analyzer shall be oapable of: (1) Separating CO, CO?, and Ctt,
'from NMO, (2) reducing the COi to CH. and
! Quantifying as OIL, and (3) oxidizing the
;NMO to COi, roduclng the CO? to OH* and
' quantifying as CHU, according to Seotion 6.2.
The analyzer oonslsts of the following major
bomponents:
r,!'2.S.l Oxidation Catalyst. A suitable
length of 9.5-mm (H-in.) OD Inconel 600 tubing packed with 6.1 cm (2 in.) of 19 percent
'bhromla on 3.2-mm (H-ln.) alumina pellets.
The catalyst material is paoked in the center
of the tube supported on either side by
quartz wool. The catalyst tube must be
.mounted vertically in a 650 *C furnace.
HI 2.3.2 Reduction Catalyst. A 7.6-om (3-ln.)
! length of 6.4-mm (Vi-in.) OD Inconel tubing
fully paoked with 100-mesh pure nlokel pow(der. The catalyst tube muBt be mounted ver tloally in a 400 "O furnace.
(2.3.3 Separation Column(s). A 30-om (1-ft)
[length of 3.2-mm (H-ln.) OD stainless steel
$ tubing paoked with 60/80 mesh Unlbeads IS
' j followed by a 61-om (2-ft) length of 3.2-mm
(H-ln.) OD stainless steel tubing paoked with
' 60/80 mesh Carbosleve G. The Carbosieve and
UnibeadB columns must be baked separately
(gi at 200 *C with carrier gas flowing through
them for 24 hours before Initial Use.
!i . 2.3.4 Sample Injection System. A 10-port
00 sample injection valve fitted with a sample loop properly sized to Interfaoe with the
NMO analyzer (l-oo loop recommended).
2.3.6 FID. An FID meeting the following
specifications Is required:
2.3.5.1 Linearity. A linear response (6
percent) over the operating range as demonstrated by the procedures established In
Seotion 6.2.3.
2.3.6.2 Range. A full scale range of 10 to
60,000 ppm OIL. Signal attenuators shall be
available to produce a minimum signal response of 10 porcent of full scale.

2.3.6 Data Reoordlng System. Analog strip


chart recorder or'dlgital-Integration system
compatible with the FDD for permanently, recording the analytical results.
2.4 Other Analysis Apparatus.
2.4.1 Barometer. Meroury, aneroid, or
other barometer oapable of measuring atmospherio pressure to within 1 mm Hg.
2.4.2 Thermometer. Capable of measuring
the laboratory temperature to within 10..
2.4.3 Vaouum: Pump. Capable of evaouat-'
ing to an absolute pressure of 10 mm Hg, ' 2.4.4 Syringes. 10-ul and 60-ul liquid injeotlon syringes. '
,
2.4.6 Liquid Sample Injection Unit.'316 SS
U-tube fitted with an Injection septum) see
Figure 26-7.'.'
'
3. Reagents
3.1 Sampling. The following are required
for sampling:
3.1.1 Crushed Dry Ice.
3.1.2 Coarse Quartz Wool. 8 to 16 urn.
3.1.3 Filters. Glass fiber filters, without
organic binder.
3.2 NMO Analysis. The following gases *ro
needed:
3.2.1 Carrier Qaoea. Zero grade helium
(He) and oxygen (Oa containing lees than 1
ppm COa and less than 0.1 ppm C as hydrocarbon.
3.2.2 Fuel Gas.- Zero grade hydrogen (Ha)/
99.999 percent pure.
3.2.3 Combustion Gas. Zero grade air or Oa
as required by the detector.
3.3 Condensate Analysis. The following,
gases are needed:
3.3.1 Carrier Gas. Zero grade air, containing less than 1 ppm O.
3.3.2 Auxiliary Oa. Zero grade Oa, containing less than 1 ppm C.
3.3.3 Hexane. ACS grade, for liquid injection.
3.3.4 Deoane. ACS grade, for liquid Injection.
3.4 Calibration. For all calibration gases,
the manufacturer must recommend a maximum shelf life for each oyllnder (I.e., the
length of time the gas concentration is not
expected to change.more than 6 percent
from Its certified value). The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified organic concentration, and recommended maximum
shelf life must be affixed to each cylinder before shipment from the gas manufacturer to
the buyer. The following calibration gases
are required:
3.4.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Check
Calibration Gas. Gas mixture standard with
nominal concentration of 1 percent methane
in air.
3.4.2 FID Linearity and NMO Calibration
Gases. Three gas mixture standards with
nominal propane concentrations of 20 ppm,
200 ppm, and 3000 ppm, in air.
3.4.3 COa Calibration Gases. Three gas.
mixture standards with nominal CO] con-

853

852
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

P t*

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)'^

i'Environmental Protection Agency

vf

' ccntratlons of SO ppm, 600 ppm, and 1 per- valve to an absolute pressure of 10 ppm Hg ot\
|j}.'4.2 Sample' Recovery. After sampling Is
^'pompleted, close the flow control valve, and
cent. In air.
less. Close the purge valve, turn oft' the1.;
record the final tank vacuum; then record
NOTE.Total NMO of less than 1 ppm re- pump, wait a minimum period of 6 minutes^
t the. tank temperature and barometrlo presliilruil for 1 poruont mlxturo.
and reoheok the indicated vacuum. CaloulatoV;
s u r e . Oloso tho samplo tank valve, and dls3.4.4 NMO Analyzer System Chock Cali- the maximum ajlowablo prossure change;
[fjaonneat the sample tank from the sample
bration GB.SOS. Flour calibration gases are based on a leak r a t e of 1 percent of the sam-jj'
' system. Disconnect the oondensate trap a t
pling rate using Equation 25-1, Section 6.2. Ifjjj
needed as follows:
the flowmetering system, and tightly seal
3.4.4.1 Propane Mixture. Gas mixture the measured pressure change exoeeds thii
both ends of the condensate trap. Do not inBtandard containing (nominal) SO ppm CO, 60 calculated limit, correct the problem before:>
clude the probe from the stack to the filter
' ppm CR,, 2 porcent CO], and 20 ppm C3HB, beginning sampling. The results of the leak*]
as part of the condensate sample. Keep the
check should be lnoluded In the test report.^
prepared In air.
trap'paoked in dry ice until the samples are
3.4.4.2 Hexane. Oas mixture Btandard con- - 4.1.5 Sample Train Operation. Unplug the-"
returned t o the laboratory for analysis. Enprobe tip, and place the probe into the staok:
taining (nominal) 50 ppm hexane in air.
sure t h a t the test run number is properly
3.4.4.3 Toluene. Oas mixture standard con- such t h a t the probe is perpendicular to the1
Identified on the condensate trap and the
duot or stack axis; locate the probe tip a t a
taining (nominal) 20 ppm toluene in air.
sample tank(s).
3.4.4.4 Methanol. Gas mixture standard single preselected point of average velocity,1
U.4.3 Condensate Recovery. See Figure 25-9.
containing (nominal) 100 ppm methanol in facing away from t h e dlreotion of gas flow.
;8et t h e carrier gas flow rate, and h e a t t h e
For stabka having a negative statio pressure;
air.
oatalyst t o Its operating temperature
to conseal the sample port sufficiently to preventj
N
dition the apparatus.
air ln-leakage around the probe. Set.the-,
4. Procedure
>V/4.3.1 Daily Performance Cheoks. Each day
probe temperature controller to 129 "0 (2651
4.1 Sampling;
before analyzing any samples, perform the
F) and t h e filter temperature controller t o .1,
4.1.1 Cleaning Sampling Equipment. Be- 121 C (250 *F). Allow the probe and filter t o '
/following tests:
fore Its Initial use and after each subsequent h e a t for about 30 minutes before purging.the
v: 4.3.1.1 Leak Check. With the oarrler gas
use. a condensate trap should be thoroughly sample train.
'[Inlets and the flow oontrol valve olosed, In>{i%
cleaned and checked t o ensure t h a t i t is not
stall a clean condensate trap In the system,
Close t h e sample valve, open the purge'
contaminated. Both cleaning and checking
^ and evacuate the system to 10 mm Hg absocan be accomplished by installing the trap in valve, and s t a r t t h e vacuum pump. Set the";;
l u t e pressure or less. Close the vaouum pump
the condensate recovery system and treating flow rate between 60 and 100 cc/mln, a n d p
A", valve and turn off the vaouum pump. Monit as If i t were a sample. The trap should be purge the train with staok gas for a t least 10'.;
R i t o r the system pressure for 10 minutes. The
1
heated as deB6rlbod In the final paragraph of minutes. When the temperatures a t the exit ,',
'j Bystem Is acceptable If the pressure change
Soctlon 4.3.3. A trap m a y be considered clean ends of the probe and filter are within their..! : ls less than 2 mm Hg.
..c/ ; .when the COj concentration in i t s offluont specified range, sampling may begin.
4.3.1.2 System Background Test. Adjust
Check the dry ice level around the oonden- '
gas drops below 10 ppm. This check is opthe carrier gas and auxiliary oxygen flow
tional for traps t h a t have been used to col- sate trap, and add dry Ice if necessary.'
rate to their normal values of 100 cc/mln and
lect samples which were then recovered ac- Record tho d o c k time. To begin sampling,
150 cc/mln, respectively, with the sample roclose the purge valve and stop the pump.'
cording to the procedure In Section 4.3.3.
;!; oovery valve in vent position. Using a 10-ml
Open
the
sample
valve
and
the
sample
tank'
4.1.2 Sample Tank Evacuation and Leak
\jC;\. syringe withdraw a sample from the system
Check. Evacuate the sample tank to 10 mm valve. UBing the flow control valve, set the
?,';' effluent through the syringe port. Inject this
flow
through
the
sample
train
to
the
proper
Hg absolute pressure or less. Then close the
M sample into thfi NMO analyzer, and measure
rate.
Adjust
the
flow
rate
as
neoessary
tor
sample tank valve, and allow the t a n k t o sit
"i\l the CO] content. The system background Is
for 0 minutes. The tank is acceptable If no maintain a constant rate (10 percent)
'/ acceptable If the CO] concentration -Is less
throughout
the
duration
of
the
sampling
pechange in tank vacuum is noted. The evacu[>-. than 10 ppm.
riod.
Record
the
sample
tank
vacuum
and',
ation and leak check may be oonducted eiIf- > 4.3.1.3 Oxidation
Catalyst
Efficiency
ther in the laboratory or the field. The re- flowmeter setting a t 5-minute Intervals. (See
i'Cheok. Conduct a catalyst effloienoy t e s t as
il 8 e o l f i e d l n
Figure
25-6.)
Select
a
total
sample
time'
sults of the leak check should be lnoluded In
6.1.2 of this method. If
greater than or equal t o the minimum sam- %ffli" 't i lPe criterionSection
the test report.
of this test cannot be met,
pling time specified in the applicable subpart
make the necessary repairs to the system be4.1.3 Sample Train Assembly. J u s t before of the regulation; end the sampling when,
fore proceeding.
assembly, measure the tank vacuum using a this time period Is reaohod or when a con4.3.2 Condensate Trap .CO] Purgo and
morcury U-tubo manomotor or absolute pros- stant flow rate can no longer be maintained
Sample
Tank Pressurizatlon. After sampling
Buro gauge. Record this vacuum, the ambient because of reduced sample tank vacuum.
B
v>'- ' completed,
the condensate trap will contemperature, and the barometric pressure a t
condellse
d water and organ!ca and a
this time. Close the sample t a n k valve and
NOTE: If sampling had t o be stopped before i $' **'n
assemble the sampling system as shown in obtaining the minimum sampling time (spec- ' l i f v small volume of sampled gas. This gas from
It:- the stack may contain a significant amount
Figure 25-1. Immerse the condensate trap ified in the applicable subpart) because a
< of CO-2 which must be removed from the conbody In dry Ice. The point where the inlet constant flow r a t e oould not be maintained,
,-;.:' densate trap before the sample is recovered.
tube joins the trap body should be 2.5 t o 5 cm proceed as follows: After closing the sample
This is accomplished by purging the condenabove the top of the dry ice.
t a n k valve,' remove the used sample tank
sate trap with zero air and collecting the
4.1.4 Protest Leak Check. A pretest leak from the sampling train (without disoonneotpurgod KIWI In tho original samplo tank.
IIIK otlmr portions of clio aiimpllng train).
iihnck In 1111)111 mil. Ciihnlliil.n in* niiiiiiiliro till)
BOKIH with Ihu iiampla l a n k unci OOIHIHIITakn luiollwi' uvauuuloil mid loak-ohoolcod
KPliritxInikUi vuluinn of l.lui luimpliiiK Lrulli
sate trap from tho test run to be analyzed.
from the probe trip to the sainplo tank valve. sample tank, measure and record the tank
Set the four-port valve of the condensate reAfter assembling tho sampling train, plug vacuum, and a t t a c h the new tank to the
covery system ln the COi purge position as
tho probe tip, and mako certain t h a t tho uampllng train. After the new tank Is atshown ln Figure 25-9. With the sample tank
sample tank valve is closed. Turn on the vac- tached t o the sample train, proceed with the
valve olosod, attach the sample tank to tho
uum pump, and ovaouato tho sampling sys- sampling until tho required minimum samsample rocovory system. With the samplo rotem from the probe t i p to tho sample tank pling time has been exceeded.

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth; 25


covery valve in the vent position and the
flow oontrol valve fully open, evacuate the
manometer or pressure gauge to the vaouum
of the sample tank. Next, close the vacuum
pump valvo, opon the sample tank valve, and
record the tank pressure.
Attach the dry-lce-oooled condensate trap
to the recovery system, and initiate the
purge by switching the sample reoovery
valve from vent to collect position. Adjust
the flow control valve t o maintain atmospheric pressure ln the recovery system. Continue the purge until the CO] concentration
of t h e trap effluent is less than 6 ppm. CO]
concentration ln the trap effluent should be
measured by extracting Byringe samples
from the reoovery system and analyzing the
samples with the NMO analyzer. This procedure should be used only after the NDIR response has reaohed a minimum level. Using a
10-ml syringe; extract a sample from the syringe port prior to the NDIR, and lnjeot this
sample into the NMO analyzer.
After the completion of t h e CO] purge, use
the carrier- gas bypass valve to pressurize the
sample tank t o approximately 1060 mm Hg
absolute pressure with zero air.
4.3.3 Reoovery of- the Condensate Trap
Sample. See Figure 25-10. Attach the IOV to
the sample reoovery system. With the sample recovery valve ln a closed-position, between vent and colleot. and the flow oontrol
and IOV valves fully' open, evaouate the manometer or gauge, the connecting tubing,
and the ICV to 10 mm Hg absolute pressure.
Close tho flow-control and vacuum pump
valves.
Begin auxiliary oxygen flow to the oxidation catalyst at. a rate of 160' cc/mln, then
switch the four-way valve to the trap reoovery position and the sample reoovery valve
to colleot position. The system should now
be s e t up to operate as Indicated ln Figure
25-10. After the manometer or pressure gauge
begins to register a slight positive pressure,
open tho flow control valve. Adjust the flowcontrol valve to maintain atmospheric pressure in the system within 10 percent.
Now, remove the condensate trap from the
dry ice, and allow i t to warm to ambient
temperature while monitoring tho NDIR response. If after 6 minutes, the CO] concentration of the catalyst effluent Is below 10,000
ppm, discontinue-the auxiliary oxygen flow
to t h e oxidation catalyst. Begin heating the
trap by placing It ln a furnaoe preheated to
200 C. Once heating has begun, carefully
monitor the NDIR response t o ensure t h a t
the catalyst effluent concentration does not
oxcoed 60.000 ppm. Whenever tho CO] conuunl.nil.lon OXOOOIIH W.OOO ppm. mipply auxiliary oxygen to the catalyst a t the rate of 150
cc/mln. Begin heating the tubing t h a t connected the heated sample box to the condensate trap only after the CO] concentration
falls below 10,000 ppm. This tubing may bo
heated In the Bamo ovon as tho condonsate

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE. P.KR

IT. OU,_App. AriYlOTl.-ZS


trap or with an auxiliary heat source suoh as
a beat gun. Heating- toniperature must not
exceed 200 C. If a heat gun la used, heat the
tubing slowly along its entire length from
the upstream end to the downstream end,
and repeat the pattern for a total of three
times. Continue the recovery until the CO]
concentration drops to less than 10 ppm aa
determined by syringe Injection as described
under the condensate trap CO] purge Procedure, Section 4.3.2.
, After the sample recovery is oompleted,
use the carrier gas bypass valve to pressurize
the ICV to approximately 1060 mm Hg absolute pressure with zero air.
4.4 Analysis. Before putting the NMO analyzer into routine operation, conduct an Initial performance test. Start the analyzer,
and perform all the necessary functions in
order to put the analyzer into proper working order; then conduct the performance test
according to the procedures established In
Section 6.2. Once the performance test has
been successfully completed and the CO] and
NMO calibration rosponso faotors have been
determined, proceed with sample analysis as
follows:
4.4.1 Daily Operations and Calibration
Cheoks. Before and Immediately after the
analysis of each set of samples or on a daily
basis (whichever-occurs first), conduct a calibration test according to the procedures established In Section 5.3. If the criteria of the
daily calibration test cannot be met, repeat
the NMO analyzer performance test (Seotlon
6.2) before proceeding.
4.4.2 Operating Conditions. The carrier
gas flow rate is 29.fi cc/mln He and 2.2 cc/mln
Oj. The column oven is heated to 85 C. The
order of elutlon for the sample from the column Is CO, C1L, CO], and NMO.
4.4.3 Analysis of Recovered Condensate
Sample. Purge the sample loop with sample,
and then inject the sample. Under the specified operating conditions, the CO? in the
sample will elute In approximately 100 seconds. As soon aa the deteotor response returns to baseline following the CO* peak,
switch the carrier gas flow to backfiush, and
raise the column oven temperature to 195 "C
as rapidly as possible A rate of 30 "C/mln has
boon shown to bo ailo<]iinta. Raoorcl tho valuo
obtained for l.ho uomlonulbjo brgunlo material (Ccn) measured as CO> and any measured
NMO. Return the column oven temperature
to 65 C in preparation for the next analysis.
Analyze each sample In triplicate, and report
the average C..
4.4.4 'Analysis of Sample Tank. Perform
the analysis as described In Section 4.4.3, but
record only the value measured for NMO
(CU).
4.5 Audit Samples. Analyze a set of two
audit samples concurrently with any compliance samples and In exactly the same manner to ovalualo the analyst's technique and
the Instrument calibration. The same ana-

lysts, analytical reagents, and analytical;


system shall be used for the compliance earn*!
pies and the EPA audit samples; If this conj
dltlon is met, auditing of subsequent oomplK.
ance analyses for the same ' enforcement)
agenoy within 30 days Is not required;i>Ari[
audit sample set may not be used to validate!
different sets of compliance samples)under
the Jurisdiction of different enforcement;
agencies, unless prior arrangements'-are
made with both enforcement agendas. :&$&
Calculate the oonoentratlons of the audit,
samples in ppm using the specified sample
volume In the audit instructions. (NOTE.In|
dlcatton of acceptable'results may be oWi
tained Immediately by reporting the audit
results in ppm and compliance results :in
ppm by telephone to the responsible enforcement agenoy.) Znolude the results of both!
audit samples, their identification numbers)]
and .the analyst's name with the results .of
the compliance determination samples in apr
propriate reports-to the EPA regional office''f
or the appropriate enforcement agency dm>.';j
lng the 30-day period.
'nl ' |fl
The concentration of the audit samples ob-.j,-'-'
talned by the analyst shall agree within 20 .-
peroent of the actual concentrations. Failure V
to meet the 20-peroent specification may re- %
quire retests until'the audit problems are re^.resolved. However, if the audit results do not''
affect the compliance or noncompliance sta-';;',
tus of the affected faolllty, the Admlms-'V;
trator may waive the reanalysls require- %
ment, further audits, or retests and aocept
the results of the compliance test. While
steps are being taken to resolve audit analy- .
sis problems, the Administrator may also%
choose to use the data to determine the com- sfi
pliance or noncompliance of the affeoted fa- U
&
oility.
.-/J :f
5. Calibration and Operational Checks
Maintain a record of performance of each
item.
5.1 Initial Performance Oheok of Condensate Reoovery Apparatus. Perform these
testa before the system is first plaoed in operation, after any shutdown of 6 months or
more, and after any major modification of
tho uyatom, or at the speoiflod frequenoy.
6.1.1 Ottirlor das and Auxiliary. Oi Blank
Chock. Analyze oaoh new tank of oarrier gas
or auxiliary Oj with the NMO analyzer to
check for contamination. Treat the gas cylinders as noncondenslble gaa samples, and
analyze according to the procedure in Seotlon 4.4.3. Add together any measured OIL,
CO, COj. or NMO. The total concentration
must be lesB than 6 ppm.
6.1.2 Catalyst Efflolenoy Cheok. With a
clean condensate trap Installed in the recovery system, replace the carrier gas oylindsr
with the high level methane standard gas
cylinder (Sbotion 3.4.1). Set the four-port
valve to the recovory position, and attaoh an
ICV to the recovery systom. With tho samplo

V''
I'reoovery valve in vent position and the flowf: control and ICV valves fully open, evacuate
the manometer or gauge, the connecting tub<lng, and the ICV to 10 mm Hg absolute pressure. Close the flow-oontrol and vacuum
pump valves.
j
^After the NDIR response has stabilized,
switch the sample recovery valve from vent
to collect. When the manometer lor pressure
gauge begins to register a slight positive
pressure, open the flow-control valve. Keep
the flow adjusted so that atmospnerio pressure Is maintained in the system within 10
peroent. Continue collecting the sample in a
: normal manner until the ICV is filled to a
nominal gauge pressure of 300 mm Hg. Close
the ICV valve, and remove the ICV from the
system. Place the sample reoovery valve in
the vent position, and return the reoovery '
-system to its normal carrier gas and-normal
{^operating conditions. Analyze the ICV for
iJ'COj using the NMO analyzer; the catalyst ef!<:'fiolenoy is acceptable if the CO] oonoentraji; tlon is within 2 percent of the methane
it standard concentration.
W
'!, 6.1.3 System Performance Check. Construct a liquid sample lnjeotlon unit similar
.In design to the unit shown in Figure 26-7.
[ Insert this unit into the condensate recovery
IV and conditioning system in place of a con- densate trap, and set the oarrier gas and auxiliary Oa flow rates to normal operating lev,. ele. Attach an evaouated ICV to the system,
-and switch from system vent to collect. With
1? the carrier gas routed through the lnjeotlon
"; unit and the oxidation catalyst, Inject a llq|uld sample (See Seotlons 6.1.3.1 to 6.1.3.4)
|ii Into the lnjeotlon port. Operate the trap re' eovery system as described in Seotlon 4.3.3.
j,, Measure the flna?. ICV pressure, and then
W' analyze the vessel to determine the CO] concentration. For eaoh Injection, calculate the
peroent recovery using the equation in Section 6.6.
. The performance test is acceptable If the
average percent recovery is 100*10 percent
with a relative standard deviation (Seotlon
6.9) of less than 6 peroent for each set of triplicate Injections as follows:
6.1.3.1 60 |il Hoxane.
5.1.3.2 10 |il Hoxano.
- 6.1.3.3 60 ul Docane.
6.1.3.4 10 td Decane.
6.2 Initial NMO Analyzer Performance
Test. Perform these tests before the system
Is first placed In operation, after any shutdown longer than 6 months, and after any
major modification of the system.
6.2.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Cheok.
Turn off or bypass tho NMO analyzor reduction oatalyst. Mako triplicate Injootlons of
the high lovel methane standard (Section
3.4.1). The oxidation catalyst operation is acceptable If the FID response is less than 1
percent of the Injected methane concentration.

856
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

6.2.2 Reduction
Catalyst
Efflolenoy
Oheok. With the oxidation oatalyst unheated
or bypassed and the heated reduction catalyst bypassed, make triplicate Injections of
the i high level methane standard (Seotlon
3.4.1). Repeat'this procedure with both catalysts operative. The reduotlon catalyst operation is acceptable if the response under
both conditions agree within 6 peroent. -' "
6.2.3.- Analyzer Linearity Check and NMO
Calibration. While operating both the oxidation and reduction catalysts, conduct a linearity oheok of the analyzer using -the propane standards specified in Section 3.4.2.
Make triplicate injections of each calibration gas, and then calculate the average response factor (area/ppm C) for eaoh gas, as
well as the overall mean Of the response faotor values. The instrument linearity is acceptable If the average response factor of
eaoh calibration gas is within 2.6 percent of
the overall mean value and if the relative
standard deviation (Seotlon 6.9) for each set
of triplicate injections is less than 2 percent.
Record the overall mean of the propane response factor values as. the NMO calibration
response factor (RFNMO).
Repeat the linearity. oheok using the CO]
standards specified in Section 3.4.3. Make
triplicate lnjeotlons of each gas, and then
calculate'the average response faotor (area/
ppm O) for each gas, as well as the overall
mean of the response faotor values. Record
the overall mean of the response faotor'.'values as the CO] calibration response faotor
(RFcoi). Linearity is acceptable if the average response faotor of eaoh calibration gas is
within 2.6 peroent of the overall mean .value
and If the relative standard deviation for
eaoh set of triplicate lnjeotlons Is less than
2 percent. The RFcoa must be wltnln 10 percent of the RFNMO.

6.2.4 System Peformance Cheok. Check


the column separation and overall performance of the analyzer by making triplicate injections of the calibration gases listed in
Seotlon 3.4.4. The analyzer performance is
acceptable if the measured NMO value for
eaoh gas- (average of triplicate injections) is
within 5 peroent of the expected value.
6.3 NMO Analyzor Dally Calibration.
6.3.1 CO] Response Faotor. Inject triplicate samples of the high level CO] calibration gas (Section 3.4.3), and calculate the average response faotor. The system operation
Is adequate if the calculated response factor
is within 5 percent of the RFctn calculated
during tho Initial porformanoo tost (Sootlon
6.2.3). Use the dally response factor (DRFco,)
for analyzer calibration and tho calculation ,
of measured COi oonoontnUlonB In tho ICV
samplos.
6.3.2 NMO Response Factors. Inject triplicate samples of the mixed propane calibration cylinder (Section 3.4.4.1), and calculate
the average NMO response faotor. The eysLom operation 1B adequate If the calculated

857

PI. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)

response factor Is within 5 percent of the ' Tf=Final temperature of intermediate colRFHMO calculated during the initial performlection vessel, TC.
'<
ance teat (Section 5.2.4); Use the daily re- Tu=Sample tank {temperature before samsponse faotor (DRFNMO) for analyzer calibrapling, TC.

,1
tion and calculation of NMO concentrations T,=8ample tank temperature at completion
in the sample tanks.
of sampling, *K.
5.4 Sample Tank and ICV Volume. The Ttf=Sample tank temperature after'pressur, volume of the gas sampling tankB used must
izing, TC.
' be determined. Determine the tank and ICV V=Bample tank volume, m".
volumes by weighing them empty and then V,=Sample train volume, co.
filled with delonlzed distilled water; weigh to Vi,=Intermedlate collection vessel volume;
the nearest 6 g, and record the'results. Alterm.
natively, measure the volume of water used
V,=aas volume sampled, dsms.
to fill them to the nearest S ml.
n=Number of data points.
q=Total number of analyzer Injections of in6. Calculations
termediate collection vessel during analAll equations are written using absolute
ysis (where k=Injeotlon number, 1. . . q).
pressure; absolute pressures are determined r=Total number of 'analyzer lnjeotlons of
by adding the measured barometric pressure
sample tank during analysis (where
to the measured gauge or manometer presjojnjeotlon number, 1. .<. r).
sure.
x,=Individual measurements.
6.1 Nomenclature.
x=Mean value.
C=TQNMO concentration of tbo effluont, p=Denslty of liquid injected, g/co.
ppm C equivalent.
e=Leak oheok period, min.
Cc=Caloulated condenslble organlo (conden- AP=AUowable
pressure change, om Hg.
sate trap) concentration of the effluent,
6.2 Allowable Pressure Change. For the pieppm 0 equivalent.
test leak oheok, caloulate the allowable
CcusMeasured concentration (NMO analyzer)
pressure change:
for the condensate trap ICV, ppm COi.
C,=Calculated noncondensible organic concentration (sample tank) of the effluent,
ppm C equivalent.
AP 0 . 0 1 ^ M
Eq. 25-1
C^Measured concentration (NMO analyzer)
for the sample tank, ppm NMO.
FsSampUng flow rate, cc/mln.
6.3 Sample Volume. For eaoh test run,
L=Volume of liquid injected, ul.
caloulate the gas volume sampled:
M=Molecular weight of the liquid lnjeoted, g/
g-mole.
mc=TGNMO mass concentration of the effluent, mg C/dam*.
N=Carbon number of the liquid compound in0.3857 V
jected (N=12 for decane, N=6 for hexane).
Pi=Flnal pressure of the Intermediate collection vessel, mm Hg absolute.
Pb-Barometric pressure, om Hg.
Pu-Gas sample tank pressure before samEq. 25-2
pling, mm Hg absolute.
P,=Qaa sample tank pressure after sampling,
6.4 Noncondensible Organlcs. For each
but before pressurizing, mm Hg absolute.
Ptf=Pinal gas samplo tank pressure after sample tank, determine the concentration of
nonmothane organlcs (ppm C):
prossurlztng, mm Hg absoluto.

Environmental Protection Agency

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

tf
1

r ,i,- '-J

Eq. 25-3

6.6 CondenBlble Organlcs. For eaoh condensate trap determine the concentration of
organlcs (ppm C):

V.. P,

)c = 0.3857 JLJL

I c
Eq. 25-4

6.6 TGNMO. To determine the TONMO


concentration for eaoh test run, use the following equation:
C=C,+C
Eq. 26-4
6.7 TGNMO Mass Concentration, To determine the TONMO mass concentration as carbon for each test run, use the following equation:
m.sO.4993 C
Eq.25-6
6.8 Percent Recovery. To caloulate the
peroont rocovery for the liquid lnjeotlonu to
the condensate recovery and conditioning
system use the following equation.
Percent recovery=1.604 -

P.
Tf

Eq. 25-7
6.9 Relative Standard Deviation.

<- /- r%
rt> r* r*> r* it n> /- r*- r* *~t- o *> r v . r> r>- o " ;-y
> *> 4i r* .s*.,*v. *> i i i>
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Eq. 25-8
7. Bibliography
1. Salo, Albert E., Samuel Wltz, and Robert
D. MaoPhee. Determination of Solvent Vapor
Concentrations by Total Combustion Analysis: A Comparison of Infrared with Flame
Ionization Detectors. Paper No. 75-33.2. (Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air '
Pollution Control Association..Boston, Massachusetts. June 15-20,1976.) 14 p.
2. Salo, Albert E.. William L. Oaks, and
Robert D. MaoPhee. Measuring the Organlo
Carbon Content of Source Emissions for Air
Pollution Control. Paper No. 74-180. (Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the'Air
Pollution Control Association. Denver, Colorado. June 8-13,1974.) 25 p.

c* cf r i i - r\ it it ti i* .r* ..c-

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)

PI. 60, App. A. Moth. 25

Sir
jj|.' Environmental Protection Agency

REOULAtlMa
VALVE

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

VACUUM PUMP
CONNECTOR

SAMPLE
SHUT-OFF
VALVE

2M
U
FIIERFAX
INSULATION

&*
3.175

>

OZS
CONDENSATE
TRAPPROIE
J-l
BULKHEAD
,lJ
^^ONNECTOH

DIMENSIONS;

PROIE
CONNECTOR
Figure 2&-1. Sampling train.

TO TEMPERATURE
CONTROLLER
PROIE LINE
THERMOCOUPLE

FILTER HEAT
TEMPERATURE
CONTROLLER
THERMOCOUPLE

CONOENSATE
TRAPPROIE
CONNECTOR
. THERMOCOUPLE

Figure 2 5 - 2 . Out-of-tteck filter box.

m>

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

R1iv

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition) ,

PI. 60, App. A, Moth. 25

0^

Pt. 6 0 , A p p . A, M a t h . 25
HEAT TRACE (100 C)

3,,SSHUT

DIMENSIONS: 5 ?

ol7 0 0 *oir$ W A U

FLOW
T^
CONTROLii?)

COARSE QUARTZ
WOOL PACKING

VAIV

SAMPLE
RECOVERY
VALVE

!/|_

ICV
VALVE

" * V =

IC7

ICV

VACUUM PUMP
Figure 25-4. Condensate recovery system.

Figure 25-3. Condensate trap.

>

^ >

4 V ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
4 > 4 > 4 t
<0
4 V 4 4 .4 . . < '

SYRINGE PORT.

Pf. 60, App. A, Melh. 25

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edltton)g

I Environmental Protection Agency

Pt. 60. App. A, Meth. 25

CARRIER GAS

COLUMN OVEN

-1
1

CALIBRATION STANDARDSSAMPLE T A N K -

SAMPLE
INJECTION
LOOP

QCCOLUMN

V,

tmrmmnmrs

INTERMEDIATE COLLECTION
VESSEL (CONDITIONED 4
TRAP SAMPLE

REDUCTION

OXIDATION

CATAivrr

CATALYST

l
I
I
_l
VALVE OVEN
Hi CARRIER'
GAS

r?

SEPARATION
COLUMN
^

'BACKFLUSH

no

NONMETHANE
ORGANICS

CO, CH4, C0 2

;Hj AIR
VENT

OXIDATION
CATALYST

SAMPLE INLET

Figure 25-6. Nonmethane organic analyzer ( N M O ) .

REDUCTION
CATALYST

HYOROGEN

FLAME
IONIZATION
DETECTOR

COMBUSTION
AIR

DATA RECORDER

Figure 25-5. Simplified schematic of nonmethane organic (NMO) analyzer.

|
$

:,:>UM&
Bfaif:.'
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

'

Ut

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition) ML.

Environmental Protection Agency

INJECTION
SEFTUM

CONNECTINS T

FROM CARRIER

V =

-K

V O L A T I l l ORGANIC CARBON

CONNECTINS ELIOW

Ife

OATI.

IS

-TO CATALYST

';

11

1*138

31ISSTUIINO
DIMENSIONS: .^f

Figure 25-7. Liquid sample injection unit.

Figure 25-8. Example field dm form.

J'
a

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
!T<%
i T,
< V
O'W
J >
.I.DHNBHI..

Pt. 60,'App. A, Meth. 25

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25

40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-W EdrHon)'. !&&

Environmental Protection Agency

Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25


HEAT TRACE (100 C)-

mm

0XI0ATI0N
REACTOR

NOIR
ANALYZER

SYRINGE PORT

VACUUM PUMP

Figure 25-9. Condensate recovery system, CO2 purge.


Figure 25-10. Condensate recovery system, collectionof trap organic*.

868
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
869

Appendix C
Related Paper
'A Personal Cascade Impactor: Design, Evaluation and Calibration"
K.L. Rubow, V.A. Marple, J. Olin and M.A. McCawley
American Industial Hygenists Association Journal
Vol. 48, no. 6, 1987..

C-l
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48(6):532-538 (1987)

A Personal Cascade Impactor: Design, Evaluation and Calibration*


KENNETH L. RUBOW'\ VIRGIL A. MARPLE'\ JOHN OLlNBand MICHAEL A. McCAWLEY*'
Particle Technology Laboratory. Mechanical Engineering Department. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. MN 55455-0111: "Sierra
Instruments. Inc.. P.O. Box 909. Carmel Valley. CA 93924: and 'National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 944 Chestnut Ridge
Road. Morgantown. WV 26505
A

A cascade impactor has been developed that is suitable for personal sampling. The impactor can be used with four, six, or eight stages with cut
points ranging from 0.5 yun to 21 Aim aerodynamic diameter. Although the impactor can be operated over a fairly wideflowrate range, it is
designed specifically to be operated at 2 L/ min so that a personal sampler pump may be used as the air mover. The nozzles of the impactor are
radial slots with six slots per stage for the first six stages. Circular nozzles arranged in a radial pattern are used for the last two stages. On each
stage, the area between the nozzles is used as the impaction surface for the stage before it. This design allows for the impactor to be compact,
rugged and lightweight (170 gm for the four-stage design). The impactor stages are contained in a mounting bracket that can be clipped to the
lapel or pocket. Although the impactor is designed for personal use, it also can be used as a compact impactor for general sampling tasks. The
particle cut-off characteristics of each stage and the interstage losses were determined using monodisperse aerosols. The particle losses were
found to be low and the cut-off characteristics sharp. Thus, size distributions can be obtained as accurately as with larger cascade impactors.

Introduction
The ability to measure the size of airborne particles is important in both the ambient and workplace atmosphere. In the
ambient atmosphere, different size classes of aerosols can be
associated with different sources and methods of generation,11' information that can help target control efforts. In
the workplace, size-related standards, such as the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist(ACGlH)
and the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) respirable dust criteria,'2,3' have been applied to pneumoconiotic
dusts. These respirable particulate standards are defined by
the amount of particulate matter that will reach the nonciliated, lower (pulmonary) portion of the human lung.12'
The probability that a particle will be deposited in the pulmonary portion of the lung is governed largely by particle
aerodynamic diameter. Recently, the ACGIH Air Sampling
Procedures Committee has recommended size-selective
sampling for inspirable and thoracic sampling as well as
respirable sampling.'4,5'
Two-stage, personal respirable samplers have been used
to monitor exposure to these respirable particulate matter.'3,6' The cut-off characteristics of the first stage, which is
typically a cyclone, are approximately equivalent to the
respirable criteria. The quantity of respirable aerosol is
determined through gravimetric analysis of the material collected on a filter that serves as the second stage in these
two-stage samplers.
In addition to two-stage personal samplers, a four-stage
mini-cascade impactor suitable for personnel sampling was
marketed briefly by Andersen Samplers, Inc. in the late
1970s. Size distributions of aerosols in the respirable size
range could be obtained with this sampler. The cutpoints of
" Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.

this impactor ranged from 0.65 to 4.7 /jm when operated at a


sampling flow rate of 1.4 L/ min. A description and evaluation of the impactor is given by Martonen et al.a)
A more complete assessment of the workplace aerosol,
than just the measurement of respirable mass concentration,
is essential to ascertain health effects. Knowledge of the
aerosol size distribution is essential since particle deposition
in the various portions of the human respiratory tract and
perhaps the composition of the workplace aerosol are
particle-size dependent. Respirable mass concentration is a
measure only of that material that can reach the pulmonary
region. The pulmonary region of the lung, however, is only
one of three major regions. The others are the nasopharynx
and tracheal-bronchial tree.'8' Deposition of particles in
these other regions is also related to particle size. 1 n addition
to these various regions, particle deposition is subject to
variation between individuals as well as within individuals.'8'
The variability depends not only on anatomical differences
but also on breathing patterns'10' which, of course, change
with workload and subject fitness. Knowing the particle-size
distribution might make it possible for allowances to be
made for the variation in deposition. Most size distribution
measurements, however, have been area samples and, therefore, not always representative of individual exposures.
As with ambient aerosols, the composition of the workplace aerosol may vary because of multiple sources. For
example, in a coal mine in which diesel powered equipment
is used, ambient aerosols would consist of both diesel
exhaust that is almost exclusively less than I pm in size'11'
and other mine dust generated by the mechanical processes
that would be expected to be mostly greater than I jum on a
mass basis.'12' In cases like the diesel exhaust/mechanical
process dust, the respirable sampler cannot separate the two
aerosols. It can provide only a measure of the quantity of
respirable matter in the two aerosols combined. Knowledge

Copyright 19B7. American Industrial Hygiene Association

532

Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

pumps. This means a maximum flow rate of 2 L/min %


pressure drop across the sampler(including the afterfilter)!
less than 38 cm water.
t.
The design, operation and evaluation of this impactor tdescribed in this paper. The evaluation includes the calibrl
tion of the particle cut-off characteristics of each stage, u
measurement of internal particle losses and the determiistion of the aerosol sampling efficiency of the impactor inle;

of the amount of particles in the proper size ranges,, however,


would help to identify particles from the different sources.
To obtain more information about the particle-size distribution than that which can be found from the two-stage
samplers, a personal cascade impactor has been developed.
This impactor is the Marple Personal Cascade Impactor
(Sierra Andersen Div., Andersen Samplers, Inc., Atlanta,
Ga.). A sampling device that classifies particles based on the
principle of inertial impaction was chosen because it classifies the particles according to their aerodynamic diameter, a
major parameter in predicting particle deposition in the
respiratory tract.

Impactor Description and Operation


The Marple Personal Cascade Impactor, shown in Figures"
and 2, is marketed as a four-, six-, or eight-stage impactt,
with cut points ranging from 0.5 jum to 21 /zm aerodynam^
diameter. The four-, six- and eight-stage versions of tffi
Series 290 impactor are referred to as Models 294, 296 ar,
298, respectively. Although the impactor can be operate^,
over a fairly wide flow rate range, it is designed specifically t
be operated at 2 L/ min so that a personal sampler pump cart,
be used as the air mover. The pressure drop across th>
eight-stage impactor together with a Millipore PVC-5 afteN
Filter is 20 cm of water at this flow rate. As shown in Figure
the nozzles of the impactor for the first six stages are radia-'
slots with six slots per stage. The nozzles in Stages 7 and 2
consist of 12 circular holes arranged in a radial fashion. Th*
location of the nozzles are staggered from stage to stage $e
that the area between the nozzles can be used as the impaction surface for the stage before it. This design allows thi
impactor to be compact, rugged and lightweight (170 gm for
four-stage model). The impactor stages are contained in a
mounting bracket that can be clipped to the lapel or pocketi
The impactor inlet consists of a cowl and optional inlevisor. The optional visor is used when there is a danger of
large wood chips, cigarette ashes or other large diameter*
debris entring the impactor.
Although the impactor is designed for personal use, it also,,
can be used as a compact impactor for general sampling-'
tasks. For this type of sampling the mounting bracket and'^
inlet cowl can be removed. In'addition to the standard cowl^
inlet, an alternate in-line inlet, shown in Figure 2, has been*
designed and is available from the manufacturer.
*
The design parameters and particle cut-point diameters,.,
for each stage of the impactor are given in Table 1. For each"
stage, the shape, number, size of the nozzle, S/ W and Re are',;
given. S/ W is a ratio of the distance from the nozzle exit to s
the impaction surface (S) to the nozzle diameter or width *
(W). Re is the nozzle Reynolds number corresponding to a *
total sample flow rate of 2 L/min. The particle cut points of t,
the stages correspond to the particle size collected with 50% *
efficiency.
*

Design constraints on the sampler requires that it be compact, lightweight and rugged in order to be comfortable
when worn by a worker. The sampler also has to provide
accurate particle-size distribution data with high sampling
efficiency and low particle loss for particles up to 20 /nm in
diameter. Furthermore, the sampler has to operate at a flow
rate that is compatible with existing personal sampler

The cascade impactor is commercially available in either a -,


four-, six- or eight-stage version; these versions are designated Model 294,296 and 298, respectively. The four-stage Z
version uses Stages 1,2,3 and 5, while the six-stage unit used
Stages 3 to 8 of the eight-stage unit.
The use and operation of the personal impactor is similar -
to that for any cascade impactor. Particles larger than the *

Figure 1 Marple personal cascade impactor.

Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

533 '-

Figure 2 Components of the Model 298 cascade impactor: A. Alternate in-line inlet; B. Standard inlet with optional visor; C. Impactor
Stages 1 to 8, collection substrates (circular discs with six radial slots), and afterfilter; D. Impactor base and mounting bracket.

cut point for each stage are collected on perforated collection substrates. These substrates, as shown in Figure 2, are
34 mm in diameter and are available in either Mylar or
stainless steel. Those particles that are smaller than the cut
point of the last stage are collected on a 34 mm afterfilter.
This filter is contained in a filter holder that is an integral
part of the impactor base. The aerosol size distribution is
determined through gravimetric analysis of the sample collected on each substrate and the afterfilter.
Evaluation Studies
Performance characteristics of the cascade impactor have
been determined extensively using a variety of liquid and
solid spherical monodisperse aerosols. Tests were performed
to determine, as a function of particle size, the following: 1)
particle cut-off characteristics of each stage; 2) particle loss
within the impactor; 3) particle sampling efficiency of the
impactor with the standard cowl inlet; and 4) the degree of
solid particle bounce as a function of impactor substrate
surface coating. A sampling flow rate of 2 L/ min was used in
all tests.
Particle collection characteristics of each stage in the
cascade impactor, the particle loss within the impactor. and
the inlet sampling efficiency were determined using liquid
and solid spherical monodisperse particles. Liquid oleic acid
particles containing a uranine dye tracer and solid ammonium fluorescein were produced with a TSI Model 3050
vibrating orifice monodisperse aerosol generatort VOM AG)

534

(TSI. Inc. St. Paul, Minn.). 03 'The use of ammonium fluorescein as a test aerosol and a description of its pertinent
properties are described by Stober and Flachsbart."'" Particles in the 0.68 to 23 nm size range were produced using this
generator.
The test procedure involved the impactor sampling monodisperse aerosols while it was located inside of an aerosol test
chamber. (ls, The pump pulling air through the impactor was
located outside of the chamber with a sampling line running
from the impactor through bulkhead fittings located on the
bottom of the chamber to the pump. For each test, aerosol
from the VOM AG was injected continuously into the top of
the chamber at a flow rate of 100 L/ min, drawn through the
central test section of the chamber, and exhausted through
an absolute filter at the lower portion of the chamber by a
blower. At a throughput flow rate of 100 L/min. the
downward air velocity in the chamber is 0.17 cm/sec. Thus,
the impactor was essentially sampling the aerosol from a
quiescent environment inside the chamber. The duration of
each test ranged from 0.5 to 3 hr. After each run, the impactor was disassembled completely and the deposited particles
washed from each surface with 20 cc of 0.001 N aqueous
solution of sodium hydroxide for the case of the liquid
particles or 0.1 N ammonium hydroxide for the solid particles. The uranine or ammonium fluorescein concentration in
the wash liquid was measured with a fluorometcr (Model
110. Turner Associates. Palo Alto. Calif.). From these data
the particle collection efficiencies of each stage as well as the

Am. Int. Hyg. Assoc. J. (48)

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100

1iir

Series 290
STAGE %
Flow rote "2.0 L/min
Aerosol Type
_ 0 Oleic Acid (I)
80
>A Ammonium
o
Fluorescein^
zUl
O PSL(s)

o
u. 60
u
_
UJ
z
o

\- 4 0

o
UJ
_l

-1

o
<J 20

0.3

1.0

3.0

10

30

AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER , pm


Figure 3 Cut-off characteristics of each stage of the cascade impactor.

particle loss on each surface within the impactor could be


determined since the uranine concentration present in the
wash was proportional to the quantity of particles collected
on each surface within the impactor.
In addition, a test method based on Polystyrene latex
(PS L) particles was used to determine the particle collection
characteristics of the impactor. Particles in the 0.481 to 1.0
/im diameter size range were generated by aerosolizing a
solution containing Dow PSL particles (Dow Chemical
Company, Indianapolis, Ind.) with an atomizer. The particle
concentration upstream and downstream of a given stage
was determined with a Particle Measurement Systems

Model ASAS-300X active scattering aerosol spectrometer


(Particle Measurement Systems, Inc., Boulder, Colo.).
Particle cut-off characteristics of each stage of the cascade
impactor for both liquid and solid particles are shown in
Figure 3. A classical **s" shaped efficiency curve was
obtained for each stage. The resulting impactor cut points
for each stage are given in Table 1.
The sharpness of the particle cut-off and the similarity
between curves for each stage can be observed in Figure 4. In
this figure the collection efficiency data for each stage has
been normalized by the cut point for that stage. The data
show two distinct curves. The curve for stage one is less

TABLE I
Design Parameters and Cut-Point Diameters
of Marple Personal Cascade Impactor
Nozzle

Stage

Nozzle
Shape

N o . of
Nozzles

width
(cm)

diameter
(cm)

Slot
Length
(cm)

S/W

ReA

Cut-Point
Diameter'' 1
(Mm)

slot

0.264

0.953

1.2

76

21.3

slot

0.145

0.953

13.

76

14.8

slot

0.0813

0.953

1.3

76

9.8

slot

0.0432

0.953

2.4

76

6.0

slot

0.0254

0.953

2.0

76

3.5

slot

0.0173

0.480

2.9

230

1.55

round

12

0.0457

1.7

490

0.93

round

12

0.0318

2.4

710

0.52

Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)

A t a sample flow rate of 2 L/min.

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

535

c
c.
r

100

^so
o
z

Series 290
Flow rate =2.0 L/min

UJ

Stage

o
d 60
u.

LU

o
a
O

40

0
0
4

UJ

Stage 2 - 8

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

g-20

0
0.1

n
0.3

|.0

3.0

PARTICLE DIAMETER
CUT-POINT
Figure 4 Normalized collection efficiency data for each stage.

sharp than that obtained for the other stages primarily


because of size limitations of the impaction surface for this
stage. The width of the impactor surface for Stage 1 is
comparable to the nozzle width of Stage 1. Ideally, the
impaction surface width should be several nozzle diameters
wide, a criterion that is met by the other stages. The sharpness of the cut can be characterized by the geometric standard deviation (aK) that is defined as the square root of the
ratio of the particle diameter at the 84th percentile to that
diameteF-at the 16th percentile. The ae for stages two to eight
is 1.21.
Impaction substrates, when coated with silicone oil,
showed no- evidence of particle bounce. The coating used
was Hercules Industrial F.D.A. Silicone (Hercules Product
Div., The Richardson Co., Alden, N.Y.). The collection
efficiency data presented in Figure 3 and obtained with
both liquid and solid particles show that the same fraction
of both types of particles were found to be collected by each
stage. Tests performed with uncoated impaction substrates,
however, clearly showed particle bounce of solid particles,
particularly for Stages 7 and 8.
The degree of particle loss on various surfaces of the
impactor and the total loss within both the Models 294 and
298 impactors are presented in Figure 5. Surface loss data
are presented for the visor, the cowl and the upper surface of
stage one. The largest losses were found on the upper surface
of stage one.
536

The inlet sampling efficiency of the impactor in a quiescent environment, both with and without the visor, is presented in Figure 6. These data were obtained by comparing
the total amount of sampled aerosol, collected both within
the impactor and lost on the visor to that simultaneously
30

-iII

I I l

-l

1I I I I l |

Onfall last for


both modtU'
Flow role 2.0 L/min

29

20

w
w
o

IS -

< 10

o.
5 -

Modol 2 9 8 - ^

I
0.3

<
1.0

Modal 294
3.0

10

30

AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER,/tm


Figure 5 Particle loss in the Model 294 and 298 impactors.
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

collected on an upward facing open-faced 37-mm plastic


fiter cassette. Both the impactor and filter cassette were
operated at sampling flow rates of 2 L/min. The inlet sampling efficiency of the open-faced filter cassette was determined to be near 100% based on the theory of Agarwal and
Liu.(16> These tests were performed in the aerosol test
chamber since the particle concentration is known to be
uniform at the test section." 4 ' The data show that the sampling efficiency is greater than 95% for all particle sizes less
than 8 /im and decreases to only 80% at 20 jum. Use of the
visor was found to decrease only the sampling efficiency by,
at most, 3%.
Overall particle sampling effectiveness of the cascade
impactor is presented in Figure 7 as a function of particle size.
The effectiveness, E, for the entire impactor, is defined as

too

i y i a=d_LI
Mattel 294
Modal 298

IOO

UJ

Z
UJ

>
Ul
Colm air sampling

20 -

Flow rote 2 . 0 L/min

_J

UJ

with visor-'

10

30

Figure 7 Effectiveness for Models 294 and 298.

than 7 jum in diameter, is 84% for 10 nm diameter particles


and falls to 56% and 64% at 20 jum for samplers with and
without the inlet visor, respectively.
Summary
A cascade impactor, suitable for personal use. has been
designed, built and extensively evaluated. This impactor is
compatible for use with existing personal sampler pumps
when operated with a sample flow rate of 2 L/ min. The
impactor is designed to be used in either a four-, six- or
eight-stage configuration with particle cut points ranging
from 0.52 to 21 ftm aerodynamic diameter. Evaluations of
the impactor with monodisperse particles in the size range of
0.48 to 23 urn have shown that the impactor has sharp
cut-off characteristics with low particle loss for particles less
than 10 Mm and high inlet sampling efficiency.

1.

2.

60-

3.

-J

2
<
to

3.0

References

o
z
a.

l l II
1.0

AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER,/im

u.
u.

r- without visor

>-

o
z

' ' ' I

to 60
tu

(1)

i~ r r m r"

'

Both modeli1
without ierithisor-

where e is the inlet sampling efficiency and f the internal


particle loss. Thus, the effectiveness is the fraction of particles in the air being sampled that is collected on all impaction
substrates. The particle concentration in the air being
sampled is equal to that measured divided by the effectiveness. For particles less than 6 pm the effectiveness is model
dependent [i.e., dependent on number of stages in impactor.
as the effectiveness is affected primarily by particle loss
(Figure 5)]. For particles greater than 6 nm, however, the
effectiveness is independent of model, but rather affected by
inlet sampling efficiency (Figure 6Jand particle loss on the
first impactor stage. The effectiveness for both the Model
294 and 298 impactors is greater than 90% for particles less
I20

80 -

0.3

E = e(l-0

4 0 --

Series 2 9 0 with cowl inlet


Calm air sampling
Flow rate = 2.0 L/min

4.

20-

5.

I
1.0

I I

I I

3.0

.LI, I L
10

'
30

AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER , //.m


Figure 6 Inlet sampling efficiency.
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. (48)

6.
7.

Willeke, K. and K.T. Whitby: Atmospheric Aerosols Size


Distribution and Interpretation. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc.
25:529-32(1975).
AIHA Aerosol Technology Committee: Guide for Respirable Mass Sampling. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 37:133-137
(1970).
Lippmann, M.: Size Selective Health Hazard Sampling. In
Air Sampling Instruments, 6 ed., edited by P.S. Lioy.
Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, 1983. pp. H-1 to H-22.
American Conference of* Governmental Industrial Hygienists Technical Committee on Air Sampling Procedures:
Particle Size-Selective Sampling in the Workplace. Annals
ofACGIH 77:23-100 (1984).
Phalen, R.E., W.C. Hinds, W.John, P.J. Lioy, M. Lippmann,
M.A. McCawiey, O.G. Raabe, S.C. Soderholm and B.O.
Stuart: Rationale and Recommendations for Particle SizeSelective Sampling in the Workplace. Appl. Ind. Hyg. 7:3-14
(1986).
Lippmann, M.: Respirable Dust Sampling. Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J. 37:138-159 (1970).
Martonen, T., M. Clark, D. Nelson, D. Wlllard and E.
Rossignol: Evaluation of Mini Cascade Impactor for Sam-

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

537

8.

9.

10.

11.

538

pling Exposure Chamber Atmospheres. Fundam. Appl.


Toxicol. 2:149-152 (1982).
Task Group on Lung Dynamics lo ICRP Committee 2:
Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of
the Human Respiratory Tract. Health Phys. 72:173-207
(1966).
Lippmann, M. and R.E. Albert The Effect of Particle Size on
the Regional Deposition of Inhaled Aerosols in the Human
Respiratory Tract. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 30:257-275
(1969).
Heyden, J., L. Ambruster, J. Gebhart, E. Grein and W.
Stahlhofen: Total Deposition of Aerosol Particles in the
Human Respiratory Tract for Nose and Mouth Breathing. J.
Aerosol Sci. 6:311-328 (1975).
Vuk, C.T., M.A. Jones and J.H. Johnson: "The Measurement and Analysis of the Physical Character of Diesel Particulate Emissions." Paper presented at the Automotive

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Mich. 23-27


Feb. 1976.
Burkhart, J.E., M.A. McCawley and R.W. Wheeler: Particle
Size Distributions in Underground Coal Mines. Am. Ind.
Hyg. Assoc. J. 48:122-126 (1987).
Berglund, R.N. and B.Y.H. Liu: Generation of Monodisperse
Aerosol Standards. Environ. Sci. Technol. 7:147-153 (1973).
Stober, W. and H. Flaschbarfc An Evaluation of Nebulized
Ammonium Fluorescein as a Laboratory Aerosol. Atmos.
Environ. 7:737 (1973).
Marple, V.A. and K.L. Rubow: An Aerosol Chamber for
Instrument Evaluation and Calibration. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc.
J. 44:361-367 (1983).
Agarwal, J.K. and B.Y.H. Liu: A Criterion for Accurate Aerosol Sampling in Calm Air. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 47:191197 (1980).
11 October 1985; Revised 15 December 1986

fin. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)

June. 1987

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Appendix D
Facilities
Minnegasco Commercial Foodservice Training Facility

D-l
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Directions to Minnegasco Commercial


Foodservice Training Facility
From 35W north or south and 1-94 west, take
Hennepin/Lyndale exit. Follow Lyndale north and
then Hennepin to front of Basilica. Turn left and go
through first intersection; tum right on linden Ave.
From 1-94 East take Lyndale exit south to Dunwoody
Blvd., turn right on Linden Ave. From 394, take
Hennepin-Dunwoody exit, U turn as shown on map,
turn right at Linden Ave.
Proceed to parking Lot E.

Hfimnagasco
700 W. linden Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55403

Our full scale facilities include:


llu Idli st iii i UIIUIK 11 nl loulang equipment,
all A.( i A , N b ! and U L ipproved
n ^citjtif/ for o u r ioil pencil
n trds'v.itxv,jt>lunjj sj luii
B pluil> olpdiking
\ \ c elnvne your uiquiru s JII 1 visits. To make a
day 01 cvt nlng appointim.nl, i II your Minnegasco
1'ouilsLivicc iepxi!bi!iilative jl Lite number below.

Commercial FoodServlee
gaining fRcllSty
Maty Chccoo
SUMitft Holman
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

touchyp-oawiuy

iiaiuidi y a UUUKIIiy

equipment
At the Minnegasco Commercial Foodservice
Training Facility, our fully (rained professional
staff will help you select new gas commercial
cooking equipment and brain you in its
proper use.
It's an opportunity for you to try out die latest
in new equipment before you buy, to make sure
you select equipment that will work best in your
operation. Our staff can introduce you to:
combi ovens
m pasta cookers
m convection ovens
tilting braising pans
conveyor ovens
compartment steamers
i booster water heaters
a gas warewashing equipment
two-sided griddles and more.
We'll also provide you with equipment "spec"
sheets and a complete list of foodservice
equipment manufacturers in the United Slates.

Conveyor Oven

Natural gas gives you more for your


anergy dollars
a Its' economical. When used properly, new
natural gas cooking equipment can save 1/4 or
more In operating costs over electric.
n It's efficient Recent innovations have produced
nevy equipment that substantially reduces cooking
lime and fuel consumption, and increases
productivity.
Unreliable and easy to maintain. Natural gas
gives you the advantages of piei ise control and
<Ms>y|iriexpensive maintenance.

Almost anyone involved in planning or running a


commercial foodservice operation can benefit
from our facility.
Manufacturers a n d representatives can display
and demonstrate their equipment.
I >,
*\'
' '

Food brokers and commercial dealers can


arrange to demonstrate their products to
prospective buyers.

k> <

J'j^,
j.^

Foodservice operators can tiy out products


and recipes on our gas equipment and lest new
gas equipment before investing in it.
Architects and designers can receive individual
consultation on the use of natural gas equipment
in foodservice facilities.
Student groups can learn about the advantages
of high tech gas equipment.

- . - ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
-. > \ r\ <r> o C n r X / f l * ^io*~fJ'* "1 *

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS


FROM VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED
TO OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
Final Report
ASHRAE 745-RP Phase II

Submitted by:
William D. Gerstler, Research Assistant
Thomas H. Kuehn, Professor
David Y. H. Pui, Professor
James W. Ramsey, Professor
Michael J. Rosen, Undergraduate researcher
Richard R. Carlson, Undergraduate researcher
Sean D. Petersen, Research Assistant
University of Minnesota
Department of Mechanical Engineering
111 Church St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111

July 21,1998

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge numerous manufacturers and their representatives, whose
loans and/or donations of equipment helped make much of this testing possible:
Greenheck, Keating of Chicago, Inc., Frymaster Corporation, Magikitch'n, Inc., Wells
Manufacturing Company, G.S. Blodgett Corporation, Vulcan Hart Corporation, Avtec
Industries, Inc., Lloyd Hollander Company, and North Star Agency.
A special thanks is given to Minnegasco Food Services and Pacific Gas and Electric
Company's Food Service Technology Center for their help in arranging the equipment,
and invaluable support throughout the entire project.
Finally, we would like to thank members of the ASHRAE Kitchen Ventilation (TC 5.10)
Research sub-committee, for their support, guidance, and interest in this investigation.

i
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table of Contents
Page
Number

Topic Area

Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
A. Executive Summary
B. Introduction
1 Overview
2 Background
3 Description of Report Structure
C. Description of Test Kitchen and Ventilation System
D. Emission Comparisons From Various Cooking Processes
1 Introduction
2 Grease Particulates and Vapor
3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions
4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions
5 Nitrous Oxide Emissions
6 Hydrocarbon Emissions
7 Thermal Plume Volume Flowrate
8 Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By Process
9 Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
10 Particulate Emission Concentrations
E. Individual Cooking Processes
1 Gas Griddle
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
i Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
2 Electric Griddle
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution

ii

i
ix
xii
1
4
4
5
8
9
15
15
16
46
55
58
61
69
72
76
79
86
86
86
86
86
89
89
93
97
101
103
105
105
105
105
107
107
109
113

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Topic Area

h Gaseous Emissions
Gas Fryer
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
i Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Electric Fryer
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
Gas Broiler
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
i Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Electric Broiler
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
i Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Gas Oven
a Appliance Description

Page
Number
119
119
119
119
120
122
122
126
130
132
135
135
135
135
137
139
139
139
142
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
152
160
170
174
174
174
176
176
176
176
180
186
196
200
202
202

iii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Page
Number

Topic Area
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
8 Electric Oven
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
9 Gas Range
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
10 Electric Range
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
F. Field Test From Middlebrook Hall Using a Briquette Style Gas Broiler
G. Exhaust Duct Fine Particle Measurements
1 Introduction
2 Comparison of ELPI Results With MOUDI Results
3 Gas Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
4 Electric Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
5 Gas Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
6 Electric Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements

iv

202
202
203
203
207
207
213
214
214
214
214
214
215
215
219
223
223
223
223
224
224
226
226
231
236
238
238
238
238
239
239
242
246
251
252
259
259
260
264
264
264
264

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Topic Area

7
8
9
10
11
12

Gas Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements


Electric Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Gas and Electric Oven Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Gas Range Find Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Electric Range Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Comparison With Exhaust Duct Data From CE-CERT' s "Further
Development of Emission Test Methods and Development of
Emission Factors For Various Cooking Operations" Final Report
to the SCAQMD.
H. Recommendations
I. Bibliography

Page
Number
269
269
273
273
273

276
283
288

APPENDICES
A. Appliance List and Description
B. Food Product List and Description
C. Sampling and Instrumentation Equipment
1 Particulates
2 Grease Vapor
3 Temperature
4 Velocity
5 Gases
6 Flow Visualization
7 Energy Measurement
8 Analytic
9 Schematic Drawings and Pictures of the Marple and MOUDI
Impactors, and the EPA Sampler
10 Schematic Drawing of the Gas Sampling
D. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration Procedures
A Griddles
1 Energy Input Rate
2 Thermostat Calibration
B Fryers
1 Energy Input Rate
2 Thermostat Calibration
C Broilers
1 Energy Input Rate
2 Thermostat Calibration
D Ovens
1 Energy Input Rate
2 Thermostat Calibration

A-l
B-1
C-l
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-4
C-7
D-l
D-2
D-2
D-2
D-3
D-3
D-3
D-4
D-4
D-4
D-5
D-5
D-5

V
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Topic Area

E.

F.

G.

H.

E Ranges
1 Energy Input Rate
2 Thermostat Calibration
Cooking Procedures
A Griddles
B Fryers
C Broilers
D Ovens
E Ranges
Test and Sampling Procedures
A Grease Emission Particle Size and Vapor Content
B Temperature Distribution
C Velocity Distribution
D CO/C0 2 Emissions
E NOx Emissions
F Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions
G Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI)
H Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI)
Analytic Procedures
A Particle Size Distribution
B Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5
C Grease Vapor
D Carbon Dioxide Emissions
1 Total CO2 Emissions
2 Maximum CO2 Contributions From Combustion
3 CO2 Emissions After Subtracting Room Air Contributions
a. Plume Temperature, Tpiume
b. Flow Rate From the Food Product Gases, Qfood
c. Volumetric Flow Rate From the Flue, QflUe
d. Volumetric Flow Rate of the Plume, Qpime
e. Steps To Finding C 0 2 Emissions After Subtracting
Room Air Contributions
E Carbon Monoxide Emissions
F Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
G Hydrocarbons Emissions
H Thermal Plume Volumetric Flow Rate
I Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By the Process
J Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
Uncertainty Analysis
A Particle Size Distribution
B Total Particulates, PM 10 and PM 2.5

Page
Number
D-6
D-6
D-6
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-7
E-ll
E-13
F-l
F-2
F-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-12
E-12
G-l
G-2
G-12
G-15
G-17
G-17
G-18
G-19
G-22
G-24
G-26
G-30
G-31
G-32
G-33
G-34
G-35
G-35
G-36
H-l
H-2
H-10

vi
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Topic Area

C Grease Vapor
D Carbon Dioxide Emissions
1 Total CO2 Emissions
E Carbon Monoxide Emissions
F Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
G Mass How and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
H Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties Per
Appliance For Each Test
1 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas Griddle
2 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Electric Griddle
3 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas Fryer
4 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Electric Fryer
5 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas Broiler While Cooking Hamburger
6 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Electric Broiler While Cooking Hamburger
7 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas and Electric Broilers While Cooking
Chicken Breast
8 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas Oven
9 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Electric Oven
10 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas Range
11 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Electric Range
12 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Briquette Gas Broiler Used During the
Field Testing
I. Sample Calculations
A. Particle Size Distribution
B. Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5
C. Grease Vapor
D. Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Page
Number
H-13
H-15
H-15
H-16
H-16
H-18
H-21
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26

H-27
H-28
H-29
H-30
H-32

H-33
1-1
1-2
1-12
1-15
1-17

vii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Topic Area

J.
K.
L.

M.

1. Total C0 2 Emissions
2. Maximum CO2 Contributions From Combustion
3. CO2 Emissions After Subtracting Room Air Contributions
E. Carbon Monoxide Emissions
F. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
G. Hydrocarbon Emissions
H. Thermal Plume Volumetric Flow Rate
I. Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By the Cooking Process
J. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
K. Particle Size Distribution Uncertainty
L. Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Uncertainty
M. Grease Vapor Uncertainty
N. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Uncertainty
1. Total CO2 Emissions Uncertainty
O. Carbon Monoxide Emissions Uncertainty
P. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Uncertainty
Q. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Uncertainties at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
Kitchen Hood Ventilation Rate Calibration
Kitchen Scale Calibration
Temperature Corrections For Radiation Heat Transfer
A. Equation Development For Temperature Corrections
B. Sample Temperature Correction
C. Determination of the View Factors
Appliance Brand, Model, and Source

Page
Number
1-17
1-18
1-19
1-25
1-26
1-27
1-27
1-27
1-27
1-29
1-39
1-42
1-44
1-44
1-45
1-46
1-47
J-l
K-l
L-l
L-2
L-10
L-l3
M-l

viii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

List of Tables
Table

Page
Number

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Griddles


Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Fryers
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Broilers
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Ovens
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Ranges
Synonyms for Tested Hydrocarbons
Temperatures Used for Thermal Plume Boundaries
Measured Concentrations at the Sampling Point for Total Particulates
PM 10, and PM 2.5 (All Include Vapor)
Table 9. Estimated Total Particulate, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Source
Concentration Emissions Normalized to Standard Hood Volumetric
Flow Rates (Includes Vapor)
Table 10. Estimated Total Particulate, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Source
Concentration Emissions Normalized to Square Foot of Hood
Entrance (Includes Vapor)
Table 11. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Griddle
Table 12. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Griddle
Table 13. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Fryer
Table 14. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Fryer
Table 15. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Hamburger
Table 16. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Table 17. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Broiler Cooking Hamburger
Table 18. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Table 19. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Oven
Table 20. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Oven
Table 21. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Range
Table 22. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Range
Table 23. Gas Broiler Field Test Gaseous Emissions
Table 24. Comparison of Emission Data From the Gas Broiler While
Cooking Hamburger
Table 25. Comparison of Emission Data From the Electric Griddle
While Cooking Hamburger
Table A-l. List and Description of Griddles, Fryers, and Underfired Broilers
Table A-2. List and Description of Ovens and Ranges
Table B-l. Description of Food Products For Griddles, Fryers, Underfired
Broilers, and Ovens
Table B-2. Description of Food Products For Ranges and the Field Test
Table G-l. Impactor Internal Losses
Table G-2. Critical Nozzle Dimension
Table G-3. STK50 Values for the Marple Impactor

63
64
65
66
67
68
70
81

83

85
101
119
132
148
170
173
196
199
213
223
236
251
254
278
281
A-2
A-3
B-2
B-3
G-4
G-6
G-7

ix
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Table

Page
Number

Table 1-1. Mass Collected On Each Impactor Stage


Table 1-2. Mass Collected in the Sample and Blank Containers For the
90 Inlet Probe
Table 1-3. Collected Mass, Correction Factor, and Corrected Collected
Mass for the Various Impactor Stages
Table 1-4. Particle Concentration for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-5. Critical Nozzle Dimension for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-6. Characteristic Stokesso Number for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-7. Air Velocity Within the Nozzle for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-8. Cunningham Slip Correction and 50 Percent Particle Cut
Size Diameter for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-9. Normalized Particle Concentrations
Table I-10. Total Particulates Collected
Table I-11. Dilution Ratios Obtained from the MOUDI and ELPI Impactors
Table 1-12. Determination of the Net Mass Collected In Each Container
for Grease Vapor Calculations
Table 1-13. Quantities needed to Find the Average Plume Temperature
Table 1-14. Uncertainty In the Mass Collected On Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-15. Mass Collected In the Sample and Blank Containers For the
90 Inlet Probe With Associated Standard Deviations
Table 1-16. Uncertainties Associated With the Corrected Collected
Particulate Mass For Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-17. Particle Concentration Uncertainties For Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-18. Critical Nozzle Dimensions and Uncertainties For Impactor
Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-19. Characteristic Stokesso Numbers and Uncertainties For
Impactor Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-20. Uncertainties Associated With the Nozzle Air Flow Velocities
and Areas For Impactor Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-21. Cunningham Slip Correction Factor and Associated
Uncertainties For Impactor Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-22. Particle Cut Sizes and Associated Uncertainties For Impactor
Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-23. Normalized Particle Size Concentrations and Associated
Uncertainties
Table 1-24. Standard Deviation Associated With the Weight of Each
Container Used For Grease Vapor Mass Determination
Table 1-25. Mass Flow rates and Associated Uncertainties For Each
Control Volume At the Hood Entrance
Table 1-26. Net Energy Rates and Associated Uncertainties For Each
Control Volume At the Hood Entrance
Table J-1. Actual Position of Measurements

1-2
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-9
1-12
1-12
1-14
1-15
1-20
1-29
1-30
1-31
1-32
1-33
1-34
1-35
1-37
1-37
1-39
1-42
1-48
1-50
J-3

x
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Page
Number

Table
Table L-l. Measured and Corrected Thermocouple Temperatures and
Associated Differences and Uncertainties
Table M-l. List of Appliance Brand, Model, and Source

L-11
M-2

xi
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

List of Figures
Figure

Page
Number

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.

Schematic of the test kitchen and exhaust ventilation system


Schematic of test kitchen
Schematic of the ventilation hood
Schematic of the ventilation hood modified for the
under-fired broilers
Figure 5. Total grease emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 6. Collected total grease emissions per appliance
Figure 7. Average total grease emissions per appliance
Figure 8. Average grease distribution per appliance
Figure 9. Average grease distribution percentage per appliance
Figure 10. Particulate vs. vapor phase emission percentage per appliance
(average)
Figure 11. Total grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 12. Average grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 13. Collected total grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 14. PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 15. Average PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 16. Collected PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 17. PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 18. Average PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 19. Collected PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 20. Grease vapor emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 21. Average grease vapor emissions per appliance
Figure 22. Collected grease vapor emissions per appliance
Figure 23. Total CO2 emissions per appliance (normalized to food
product mass)
Figure 24. Total CO2 emissions per appliance (normalized to 1 hour of
full load operation)
Figure 25. Total CO2 emissions per appliance (with maximum combustion
contributions)
Figure 26. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the exiting
flue gas
Figure 27. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the
thermal plume
Figure 28. Total C0 2 emissions per 1000 lb. food product (all C0 2
contributions from room dilution air subtracted)
Figure 29. Total CO2 emissions per hour of full load operation (all CO2
contributions from room dilution air subtracted)
Figure 30. Total CO emissions per appliance (normalized to food
product mass)

11
12
13
14
19
23
24
26
27
29
31
32
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
56

xii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Page
Number

Figure 31. Total CO emissions per appliance (normalized to 1000 hours


of full load operation)
Figure 32. NOx emissions per appliance (normalized to food product mass)
Figure 33. NOx emissions per appliance (normalized to 1000 hours of
full load operation)
Figure 34. Estimated volumetric flow rate of the cooking plume at
ventilation hood entrance per appliance
Figure 35. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per electric appliance
Figure 36. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per gas appliance
Figure 37. Comparison of mass flow calculations at the hood entrance and
in the exhaust duct
Figure 38. Comparison of net energy rates at the hood entrance and in
the exhaust duct
Figure 39. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas griddle energy
input rates
Figure 40. Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas griddle energy to the food
and griddle, per mass of food cooked
Figure 41. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas griddle cooking
efficiencies and product capacities
Figure 42. Position of the gas and electric griddles
Figure 43. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the
gas and electric griddles
Figure 44. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
gas griddle
Figure 45. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
gas griddle
Figure 46. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches
above the gas griddle
Figure 47. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas griddle
Figure 48. Gas griddle particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 49. Gas griddle particle distribution (3 tests). Zoom on small
particles
Figure 50. Gas griddle normalized grease emissions
Figure 51. Gas griddle collected grease emissions
Figure 52. Gas griddle real time particle number concentrations. Taken
with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point
Figure 53 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy
input rates
Figure 54 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy to the
food and griddle, per mass of food cooked

57
59
60
71
73
74
77
78
87
88
88
90
91
92
94
95
96
98
99
100
102
104
105
106

xiii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Page
Number

Figure 55 Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric griddle cooking


efficiencies and product capacities
Figure 56 Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
electric griddle
Figure 57 Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
electric griddle
Figure 58 Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches
above the electric griddle
Figure 59 Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the electric griddle
Figure 60 Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 61 Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests). Zoom on small
particles
Figure 62 Electric griddle normalized grease emissions
Figure 63 Electric griddle collected grease emissions
Figure 64 Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas fryer energy input
rates
Figure 65 Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas fryer energy to the food and
fryer, per mass of food cooked
Figure 66 Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas fryer cooking efficiencies
and product capacities
Figure 67 Position of the gas and electric fryers
Figure 68 Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the
gas and electric fryers
Figure 69 Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the gas
fryer
Figure 70 Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
gas fryer
Figure 71 Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches
above the gas fryer
Figure 72 Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas fryer
Figure 73 Gas fryer particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 74 Gas fryer normalized grease emissions
Figure 75 Gas fryer collected grease emissions
Figure 76 Gas fryer real time particle number concentrations. Taken with
the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point
Figure 77 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric fryer energy input rates
Figure 78 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric fryer energy to the food
and fryer, per mass of food cooked
Figure 79 Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric fryer cooking
efficiencies and product capacities

106
108
110
111
112
114
115
116
118
120
121
121
123
124
125
127
128
129
131
133
134
136
137
13 8
138

xiv
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Page
Number

Figure 80. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
electric fryer
Figure 81. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
electric fryer
Figure 82. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches
above the electric fryer
Figure 83. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the electric fryer
Figure 84. Electric fryer particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 85. Electric fryer normalized grease emissions
Figure 86. Electric fryer collected grease emissions
Figure 87. Position of the gas broiler
Figure 88. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas
for the gas broiler
Figure 89. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the modified hood opening
for the gas broiler
Figure 90. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)
Figure 91. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches
above the gas broiler while cooking hamburger (modified
hood used)
Figure 92. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas broiler while cooking hamburger
(modified hood used)
Figure 93. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the gas
broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
Figure 94. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
Figure 95. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
Figure 96. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 97. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests).
Zoom on small particles
Figure 98. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01
and 1.0 ^im. Data taken with the ELPI during the cooking
process at the sampling point
Figure 99. Gas broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions
Figure 100. Gas broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions
Figure 101. Gas broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)

140
141
143
144
145
146
147
150
151
153
154

155

157
158

159

161
162
163

164
166
167
168

xv
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Page
Number

Figure 102. Gas broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test).


Zoom on small particles
Figure 103. Gas broiler (chicken breast) normalized grease emissions
Figure 104. Gas broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions
Figure 105. Gas broiler (hamburger) real time particle number
concentrations. Taken with the ELPI during the cooking
process at the sampling point
Figure 106. Position of the electric broiler
Figure 107. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas
for the electric broiler
Figure 108. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the modified hood
opening for the electric broiler
Figure 109. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
electric broiler while cooking hamburger (modified
hood used)
Figure 110. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36
inches above the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
(modified hood used)
Figure 111. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
(modified hood used)
Figure 112. Average temperature contour plot at 24 inches above the
electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
Figure 113. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 24 inches above
the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood
used)
Figure 114. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 24 inches
above the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
Figure 115. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 116. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests).
Zoom on small particles
Figure 117. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01
and 1.0 \im. Data taken with the ELPI during the cooking
process at the sampling point
Figure 118. Electric broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions
Figure 119. Electric broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions
Figure 120. Electric broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)
Figure 121. Electric broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test).
Zoom on small particles

169
171
172

175
177
178
179

181

182

183
184

185

187
188
189

191
192
193
194
195

xvi
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Figure 122. Electric broiler (chicken breast) normalized grease emissions


Figure 123. Electric broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions
Figure 124. Electric broiler (hamburger) real time particle number
concentrations. Taken with the ELPI during the cooking
process at the sampling point
Figure 125. Position of the gas and electric ovens
Figure 126. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas
for the electric and gas ovens and ranges
Figure 127. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for
the gas oven
Figure 128. Average temperature contour plot at 15 inches above the
gas oven
Figure 129. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 15 inches above
the gas oven
Figure 130. Gas oven particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 131. Gas oven normalized grease emissions
Figure 132. Gas oven collected grease emissions
Figure 133. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
electric oven
Figure 134. Average temperature contour plot at 12 inches above the
electric oven
Figure 135. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12 inches above
the electric oven
Figure 136. Electric oven particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 137. Electric oven normalized grease emissions
Figure 138. Gas oven collected grease emissions
Figure 139. Position of the gas range
Figure 140. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
gas range
Figure 141. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
gas range
Figure 142. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas range
Figure 143. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas range
Figure 144. Gas range particle distribution (4 tests)
Figure 145. Gas range particle distribution (4 tests). Zoom on small
particles
Figure 146. Gas range normalized grease emissions
Figure 147. Gas range collected grease emissions
Figure 148. Position of the electric range

197
198

201
202
205
206
208
209
210
211
212
216
217
218
221
222
223
225
227
228
230
232
233
234
235
237
240

xvii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Page
Number

Figure 149. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for
the electric range
Figure 150. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
electric range
Figure 151. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36
inches above the electric range
Figure 152. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the electric range
Figure 153. Electric range particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 154. Electric range particle distribution (3 tests). Zoom on
small particles
Figure 155. Electric range normalized grease emissions
Figure 156. Electric range collected grease emissions
Figure 157. Gas broiler field test particle distribution. 25% fat hamburger,
briquette style broiler
Figure 158. Gas broiler field test normalized grease emissions. 25% fat
hamburger, briquette style broiler
Figure 159. Gas broiler field test collected grease emissions. 25% fat
hamburger, briquette style broiler
Figure 160. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size
distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas griddle
Figure 161. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size
distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas broiler
while cooking hamburger
Figure 162. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size
distributions from the sampling point above the gas broiler
while cooking hamburger
Figure 163. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for
the gas griddle during three different tests
Figure 164. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for
the electric griddle during two different tests
Figure 165. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for
the gas fryer
Figure 166. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for
the electric fryer
Figure 167. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct
for the gas broiler while cooking chicken breast
Figure 168. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for
the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
Figure 169. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct
for the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast

241
243
244
245
247
248
249
250
253
255
256
261

262

263
265
266
267
268
270
271
272

xviii
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure

Page
Number

Figure 170. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct
for the gas range
Figure 171. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct
for the electric range
Figure 172. Fine particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. Data taken in the exhaust duct with the MOUDI
impactor
Figure 173. Particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger
Figure 174. Fine particle size distribution from the gas griddle cooking
hamburger. Data taken in the exhaust duct with the
MOUDI impactor
Figure 175. Particle size distribution from the electric griddle cooking
hamburger
Figure C-l. Components of the model 298 Marple Impactor
Figure C-2. Schematic of the impactor, in-line adapter, and 90 sample probe
Figure C-3. Schematic of the EPA Method 5 sample train
Figure C-4. The MOUDI impactor
Figure C-5. Schematic diagram of a MOUDI impaction stage
Figure C-6. Schematic diagram of CO/CO2 sampling
Figure C-7. Schematic diagram of NO* sampling
Figure C-8. Schematic diagram of the sampling train for hydrocarbons
Figure D-l. Thermocouple Placement
Figure E-l. Position of the gas and electric griddles
Figure E-2. Position of the gas and electric fryers
Figure E-3. Position of the gas broiler
Figure E-4. Position of the electric broiler
Figure E-5. Position of the gas and electric ovens
Figure E-6. Position of the gas range
Figure E-7. Position of the electric range
Figure J-l. Positions for measuring average velocity in a round duct
Figure J-2. Flow rate vs. fan frequency using pitot tube
Figure J-3. Flow rate vs. fan frequency (doors and windows shut, griddle
idle at 375 F using the anemometer)
Figure J-4. Flow rate vs. centerline velocity as measured by the anemometer
Figure K-l. Calibration of the kitchen scale
Figure L-l. Schematic diagram of the energy to and from the thermocouple
with associated temperatures and areas
Figure L-2. Schematic diagram of the convection velocity components
Figure L-3. Measured and corrected thermocouple temperatures and their
associated uncertainties
Figure L-4. Schematic diagram of the view factor relationships

274
275

277
277

280
280
C-4
C-5
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-7
C-8
C-9
D-7
E-3
E-5
E-8
E-9
E-l2
E-l4
E-l5
J-2
J-3
J-4
J-5
K-l
L-3
L-5
L-l2
L-l4

xix
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARATERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS FROM


VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED TO
OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
ASHRAE 745-RP, Phase II
W.D. Gerstler ,T.H. Kuehn, D.Y.H. Pui, J.W. Ramsey, M.P. Rosen,
R.R. Carlson, and S.D. Petersen
University of Minnesota
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Minneapolis, Minnesota
A. Executive Summary
This report includes the results of Phase II of this research project. The main objective is
to characterize the effluent emissions from various grease producing cooking processes.
The cooking processes, as determined by the research committee, include gas and electric
versions of single sided griddles, open-vat deep fat fryers, under-fired broilers, full size
convection ovens, and six burner ranges. Measurements include plume velocity and
temperature profiles, grease particulate and vapor emissions, dry gas emissions including
CO, C0 2 , and NOx, and hydrocarbon emissions including aromatic hydrocarbons.
Additional measurements include real time particle size distributions during some
cooking processes as well as fine particulate distributions within the exhaust duct. The
report also presents results from a field test conducted at a working dormitory cafeteria
kitchen.
Velocity measurements were taken with an anemometer at the ventilation hood entrance,
therefore, the presence of grease laden vapor prevented measurements during actual
cooking processes. Alternative methods, such as boiling trays of water, were used to
simulate cooking plume conditions. Temperature measurements were taken with a
thermocouple grid placed at various heights above the cooking surface during the cooking
process. Therefore, real-time, as well as time averaged three-dimensional temperature
profiles of the cooking plume are available. The temperature and velocity time averaged
data were used to determine mass and energy balances for the cooking plume providing
estimates of the volumetric flow rate generated by the cooking processes.
Grease particulates and vapor were captured in the cooking plume by a sampling probe
connected to a Marple inertial impactor and an EPA Method 5 sampler. Grease
particulate size distributions in the plume were determined by the impactor, while the
EPA sampler cold box impinger condensation train condensed grease vapor, measured
using methods specified by EPA method 201 A. Real-time fine particulates were
measured using the Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) in the cooking plume and
the exhaust duct. When the ELPI was not available, the Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit
Impactor (MOUDI) was used to find integrated mass concentrations of fine particulates in
the cooking plume and exhaust duct.

1
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CO and C0 2 measurements from the cooking plume were made with a portable IAQ
monitor connected to the sampling probe. Dry gas samples were collected in Tedlar bags
and NOx concentrations were determined with an EPA high sensitivity NDIR NOx
analyzer. Hydrocarbons were collected in charcoal sorbent tubes and analyzed using
NIOSH methods 1501 and 1003.
Results show effluent generation is highly process dependent. For instance, ovens and
fryers generate little or no grease particulate emissions, while other process generate
significant amounts. However, the broilers generate much smaller sized particulates
compared to the griddles and ranges. It appears CO and C0 2 emissions are generally
dictated by the natural gas combustion process and thus not present in processes from
electrical appliances. This is not true for the boilers, where it appears grease drippings,
which can land on extremely hot surfaces, provide additional CO and C0 2 emissions even
from the electric broiler. NOx emissions appear to be exclusively associated with gas
appliances, and the level of emission is related to the total gas consumption. However,
the gas oven does not follow this model and emits considerably higher NOx. Regardless,
NOx emissions are generally low in magnitude, even for the gas oven. For all processes,
hydrocarbon emissions were negligible above the method detection limit for all the
hydrocarbons tested. This is not to say there are no hydrocarbons emitted. It is possible
significant levels of emitted hydrocarbons exist for species not tested or included in the
grease particulates.
One of the most significant findings is the percentage of grease emissions in the vapor
form. It has long been suspected that significant levels of grease vapor are present in
cooking effluent. Results show the proportion of grease in the vapor phase varies from
30 % to over 90 % by mass. This is highly influential on the approach one should take in
designing grease removal strategies. For instance, while grease particulate emissions
from the ranges are mostly in the form of relatively easy to remove large particles, most
of the range grease emission is in the vapor form. This implies some type of
condensation mechanism is needed to remove the majority of the grease emissions.
Another significant finding includes the level of fine particulates emitted by the underfired broilers. Particulates less than 10 urn (PM 10) and those less than 2.5 \tm (PM 2.5)
differ significantly from larger particulates. They are not easily removed by traditional
inertial methods such as those associated with grease baffles. In addition, they pose much
higher risks to human health. Unlike other processes, effluent from the broilers contains
high concentrations of these fine particulates, and measurements taken in the exhaust duct
show that most of these particles pass through the grease baffles.
Recommendations include further testing and subsequent classification of under-fired
broilers. This investigation tested only two types of broilers, and data show there are a
great deal of variation between them. This is probably due mainly to the broiler design.
While the energy source probably plays a role in some differences seen, it appears the
addition of a water pan beneath the electric broiler is more significant. Other types of
broilers also exist, which have entirely different designs. A significant factor in effluent
emissions from broilers appears to be how the broiler design affects the fate of grease
2
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

drippings. Perhaps classification of broilers based on design, not necessarily energy


source, would be appropriate.
Another recommendation is to develop a test which can accurately determine grease
vapor removal efficiency. Data from this investigation shows it is extremely important to
eliminate grease vapor if one is to remove a significant portion of the overall grease
emissions. Quantifying grease vapor removal efficiency is an important step towards
recommending removal devices. Fundamental measurement of grease vapor
concentrations in an air stream is probably not sufficiently developed at this point to
properly implement a standard method. The technique used to quantify grease vapor in
this investigation appears to be promising, but more information is needed regarding what
is actually measured, how efficiently grease vapor is captured, and what sort of problems
could arise during the analytic procedures. Once grease vapor concentration
measurements are well understood, tested, and accepted, grease vapor removal
efficiencies of filters can be determined.
A final recommendation is to test for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's)
adsorbed into fine grease particulates. Evidence previously unavailable has recently been
presented suggesting carcinogenic PAH's are present in fine cooking oil particulates
(Siegmann and Sattler pub. pending). This information was available too late to be
incorporated in the present investigation, but it appears it may be an important aspect
affecting effluent emissions from commercial cooking processes.

3
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

B. Introduction

1. Overview
The goal of this investigation is to identify and characterize the effluent from various
commercial cooking processes. Testing involved ten appliances, including gas and
electric versions of griddles, open deep fat fryers, under-fired broilers, convection ovens,
and ranges. Measurements within the effluent plume included temperature and velocity
distributions, particulate concentrations and size distributions, and concentrations of
grease vapor, CO and CO2, NOx, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Additional measurements
within the exhaust duct included particulate concentrations and size distributions.
When possible, testing was conducted following procedures from the ASTM standard test
methods for appliance performance. These test methods specify product type, cooking
procedures, analysis procedures, and various other aspects of the cooking process. For
some appliances, such as the ranges and ovens, the ASTM test method calls for the use of
cooking products that produce little effluent. Therefore, the research committee
recommended alternative cooking products and the cooking procedures were adjusted
accordingly. For the under-fired broilers, testing included boneless, skinless, chicken
breasts, in addition to the 1/3 pound beef hamburgers called for in the ASTM test method.
The test kitchen exhaust ventilation system controls the removal of the cooking effluent.
Exhaust rates used during testing conform to the exhaust rates specified in the ASTM test
methods. A two-dimensional computational turbulent room air flow program assisted in
designing the test kitchen so that air flow into the ventilation hood was similar to the air
flow one would expect from an exhaust hood placed in a larger commercial type kitchen.
A clean room fog generator provides a qualitative means to assure the flow patterns
within the test kitchen closely followed those predicted by the simulation.
Information from the temperature and velocity profiles assisted in estimating the mass
and volume flow from the effluent plume. Information obtained from the loss of food
product mass and moisture mass, as well as information from the combustion process,
helped estimate the minimum mass and volume flow produced solely by the cooking
process. Particulate size information provided a means to divide the particulate emissions
into three categories: total particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5. An EPA Method 5 type
sample train was used to condense cooking generated grease vapor, providing information
on the quantity present in the effluent plume. Because most of the gases tested are not
present in the room air, it can be assumed they are generated during the cooking process
from either the food or combustion. However, CO2 is found in the room air at significant
levels. Therefore, CO2 found in the effluent plume was divided into three sources:
combustion, room air, and actual cooking emissions.
While one objective of the investigation was to characterize the effluent present in the
cooking plume, another was to provide information on the total emissions expected per

4
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

amount of food product. This requires knowledge of the amount of room air dilution that
occurs. The dilution level was estimated using several techniques. Tracer particle
concentrations were measured in the plume and exhaust duct, and the ratio of their
concentrations relates to the amount of dilution. Likewise, temperature measurements
from the room air, plume, and exhaust duct, were used to estimate the amount of dilution.
Each process was tested several times to check for repeatability. As expected, the results
show effluent emissions are highly dependent on the cooking process as well as cooking
product. Data obtained from this investigation should prove to be a valuable resource for
those involved in further research, code development, and design guidelines, pertaining to
commercial cooking ventilation.
2. Background
Commercial kitchen ventilation is an integral part of heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC) design and construction. Currently, several issues must be
addressed by commercial kitchen ventilation designers and code officials. These issues
include energy efficiency, fire protection, effluent emissions to the ambient atmosphere,
and indoor air quality. The level of knowledge currently available in each of these areas
varies. The fundamental information from this investigation can assist the development
needed in each of these areas. The following provides some background into these issues
and how they relate to commercial kitchen ventilation.

Before the energy crisis of the 1970's, little attention was paid to energy efficiency
throughout the HVAC industry (McQuiston and Parker 1994). Since that time, the
HVAC industry has changed dramatically, reflecting the concerns of the building owners
and occupants. However, until recently, there has not been much information available
pertaining to commercial kitchen ventilation. As a result, codes relating to commercial
kitchen ventilation vary from municipality to municipality, and their enforcement is often
different depending on the code official (ASHRAE 1995; Fisher 1997).
Originally, kitchen hood ventilation requirements were adopted from industrial
ventilation practices (ASHRAE 1995; Talbert et al. 1973). Often, these original
requirements are found in current codes. It is observed that for many cooking processes,
the ventilation required by the code far exceeds what is necessary to ventilate the cooking
effluent. This apparent excess ventilation results in huge energy costs. The mass of air
ventilated must be replaced by make-up air, which is usually conditioned at a high cost.
One remedy to this situation is to bring in unconditioned make-up air directly into the
kitchen hood. This practice is known by several names such as "internal compensation",
or "short circuiting," To avoid confusion, it is necessary to differentiate this make-up air
from the conditioned make-up air. Therefore, we will refer to it as internal compensation
make-up air. Some ventilation hoods provide make-up air from the front or bottom
panel. However, this air does not go directly into the hood and is not considered internal
compensation. Internal compensation eliminates the need to condition a portion of the

5
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

make-up air, therefore saving money. Internal compensation often provides up to 80


percent of total air exhausted. This practice can become problematic especially in
climates where the internal compensation air is extremely cold. In fact, the state of
Minnesota now limits internal compensation to 20 percent of the total air exhausted.
Another solution to high ventilation requirements is the listed ventilation hood. A
manufacturer can list a hood by having it tested by Underwriter's Laboratories (UL). The
test is Standard UL 710, and covers areas including electrical safety requirements, fire
protection and capture and containment of the effluent plume. In general, manufacturers
can show that the minimum ventilation rate for their particular hood can be much lower
than the requirements from standard mechanical codes. This reduces the overall cost of
the HVAC system by reducing the required fan size and power, and the amount of makeup air needed. While listed hoods often work well, some problems exist. The capture
and containment part of the test is a qualitative assessment for a particular application.
Smoke or fire can not be "observed" outside of the hood. The test is supposed to
represent a worse case scenario. However, if the hood was listed for one use, and then it
is actually used in another manner, the listed exhaust may not be sufficient. For example,
a restaurant may purchase a broiler and place it under a hood with an oven used for
baking bread. The hood may have worked fine removing the effluent from the oven, but
now smoke fills the room. The consequences can include the need for a much larger fan,
a larger make-up air system, and other system requirements. Needless to say the cost is
high. Worse, it provides understandable reasons for code officials to distrust listed hood
ratings.
Recent research has concentrated on developing alternate methods for determining
capture and containment. One is based on the Schlieren effect, which is used to visualize
any heat that escapes during the cooking process. While the present use of the Schlieren
effect is also qualitative, it provides a much more reliable and sensitive method of
visualizing capture and containment of cooking effluent. It is currently in the research
phase and is thus not widely available, but holds much promise. With additional
research, it is believed the Schlieren effect can be used to determine capture and
containment quantitatively using methods similar to PIV (particle image velocimetry).
Another method recently developed is the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance
of Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Systems (ASTM F 1704 - 96). An energy balance
from the appliance to the room and exhaust duct is used to quantitatively determine the
minimum flow rate where capture and containment occurs. One advantage of this
standard is it is based on quantitative measurements.
Other factors confound the ability to determine the minimum flow rate for optimum
capture efficiency. The type and positioning of room air diffusers can create pressure
gradients that "pull" effluent from the kitchen hood. Room air disturbances, caused by
people passing in front of the hood, can affect capture of the effluent. This is especially
troublesome when the hood is positioned near a high traffic area, as is often the case in
cramped kitchen environments. Pressure gradients caused by the opening and closing of
doors can affect capture efficiency. Some appliances, such as pressure cookers, require a

6
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

low ventilation rate while they are closed, but create a large volume of effluent during the
short period after they are opened. All of these factors, and many not mentioned, make
the proposition of minimizing energy costs, while providing adequate ventilation,
challenging.
The general problem of determining the minimal requirements to ventilate a cooking
process has not been solved. Minimizing the energy requirements for commercial
cooking ventilation will not only depend on determining the minimal capture
requirements, but also on integrating kitchen ventilation design with the rest of the
HVAC system and the needs of the kitchen appliances (Patel et al. 1993). Recent
research has provided additional tools to develop an acceptable method. The future holds
the possibility of universally accepted and enforced codes and regulations.
Fire protection is extremely important in commercial kitchen ventilation due to the large
amounts of flammable grease used and released during cooking processes (ASHRAE
1995). The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) has developed standards that most
local authorities have adopted as law (NFPA Standard 96). These standards pertain to
requirements for electrical and gas connections, lighting, smoke and fire detectors,
sprinkler systems, grease baffles, exhaust ducts, fans, and other equipment found in
commercial buildings. It is generally accepted that these standards are well developed
and enforced properly in the building codes. One aspect currently scrutinized is the
minimum duct velocities of 1500 fpm required for kitchen exhaust systems (ASHRAE
1997). The idea of a minimum duct velocity is to prevent the deposition of grease
particles on the inner exhaust duct walls, thus reducing fire hazard. Once again, this
value is largely based on industrial ventilation. From this and other recent investigations,
it has been discovered that many of the exhausted grease particles are in a size range
which may actually deposit at a higher rate when subjected to highly turbulent flows.
Future research will address this concern.
Since the Clean Air Act of 1970, many industries have been affected by the amount of
pollutants they are allowed to emit to the atmosphere. In the early 1990's, a study of
smog particulate sources showed that about 24 percent of carbonaceous smog particulates
in the LA basin originated from meat cooking (Hildemann et al. 1991). Meat cooking
was the most prevalent source of these particles, exceeding even automobile
contributions. As a result, legislation was passed limiting the emissions from commercial
restaurants. It was soon recognized that methods used to measure emissions from sources
such as utility boilers were not reliable when applied to cooking emissions. Recent
research shows emissions from chain driven char-broilers can be effectively reduced
(SCAQMD 1997). The current legislation, named Rule 1138 of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and adopted November 1997, applies only to
these chain driven char-broilers. Eventually, other appliances will also be subjected to
legislation. It is probable that legislation adopted in southern California will eventually
be applied to other regions of the U.S.

7
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Most ventilation systems rely only on grease baffles to remove grease particles from the
effluent exhaust. Some ventilation systems include a water wash or an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP). The grease removal device in a ventilation hood is commonly referred
to as a grease extractor. However, the term grease extractor is a misnomer because its
only requirement is to prevent open flames from penetrating into the exhaust hood.
Because there is no accepted test for grease removal efficiency, manufacturers can choose
one of several methods used in the past, or develop their own (ASHRAE 1995; Gorden et
al. 1994). Therefore, it is common to see grease extractors with claimed efficiencies in
the range of 95 to 99 percent. Many, including manufacturers, believe these testing
methods are flawed, and do not address the real removal efficiency. Current research
focuses on the development of a test protocol to determine the true grease removal
efficiency. Ideally, such a test could be used for all grease removal devices including
water washes and ESP's. Most, if not all, manufacturers welcome such as test, allowing
them to market their products based on a fair, scientifically based standard test.
While indoor air quality has been acknowledged in the HVAC industry for a number of
years, it is now becoming a central issue. In the past, the focus has been on human
comfort in terms of temperature and humidity (McQuiston and Parker 1994). Currently,
much more attention is being paid to the health effects associated with poor indoor air
quality. Very little information is available regarding health effects from poorly
ventilated kitchens. However, recent work currently awaiting publication, found
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a known human carcinogen, dissolved within grease
particulates (Siegmann and Sattler pub. Pending). The indoor air quality issue will
certainly grow in the coming years, and it is likely to affect commercial kitchen
ventilation.
One of the major factors limiting the development of these aforementioned issues has
been the lack of scientific data. This investigation, along with several other concurrent
investigations, provides some of the necessary information. A comprehensive literature
review of previous commercial kitchen effluent investigations is presented in Phase I of
this project (Gerstler et. al., 1996).
3. Description of Report Structure
It is recognized that some readers may wish to find information regarding individual
cooking processes, others may only wish to see how processes compare, while still others
may be interested in the procedural and analytic details. This report is structured in a way
intended to assist those who wish to find particular information without having to
struggle through a large amount of extraneous data.
The first section provides a description of the test kitchen and the ventilation system. The
second section compares the emissions from different cooking processes. Discussions of
the cooking processes in this section are provided in the context of explaining the
differences seen in emission data. The third section discusses each process individually
and presents the emission results in detail. While comparisons to other processes are

8
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

discussed, comparisons of separate tests may be discussed when necessary. For each
process, a brief description of the appliance energy input rate and calibration, along with
the cooking procedure is given. Details of the procedures are presented in the appendices.
The fourth section shows the results from the testing done at a dormitory cafeteria. The
fifth section focuses on data collected in the exhaust duct. Recommendations for future
work are described in the sixth section. A detailed documentation of the cooking
appliances, food products, sampling equipment and instrumentation, energy input rate and
calibration, cooking procedures, test and sampling procedures, analytic procedures,
uncertainty analysis, sample calculations, and several instrument calibrations, is provided
in the appendices.

C. Description Of The Test Kitchen And Ventilation System

The test kitchen is a rectangular room built inside a large laboratory in the University of
Minnesota's Mechanical Engineering building. Figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of
the kitchen and exhaust ventilation system. Construction consists of a unistrut steel
frame, with floor dimensions of 10 x 10 ft. (3.05 x 3.05 m) and a height of 9 ft. (2.74 m).
Studs made of pine 2 by 4's attach to the metal frame and hold 5/8 in. (1.59 cm) fire rated
sheetrock. The sheetrock covers the ceiling, both side walls, and the back wall. The left
side wall has a 3 ft (0.91 m) door, 6.5 ft (1.98 m) high. The front wall consists of two
sections entirely covered with fine mesh vinyl screening. The first section is 4 ft. (1.22
m) wide and is not removable. The removable second section is 6 ft. (1.83 m) wide,
allowing appliance installation and removal. It consists of a wooden frame, attached to
the room via four door hinges. Door hinge pins secure the section in place. Twenty gauge
stainless steel panels entirely cover the sheetrock on the back wall. In addition, stainless
steel covers the back 4 ft (1.22 m) of each side wall. Appliance connections secured
along the back wall include one three-phase 208 V electrical outlet, one 4-plug 115 V
grounded outlet, and a 1 in. (2.54 cm) natural gas line. One 4-plug 115 V grounded outlet
and a variable speed fan control connect through the right side wall. The left side wall
holds a fire extinguisher secured next to the door. A single sheet of linoleum covers the
floor. Figure 2 shows a detailed schematic of the test kitchen.
A unistrut steel frame, bolted to the laboratory concrete ceiling, holds an 8 ft. (2.44 m)
long by 4 ft. (1.22 m) wide type 1 wall-mounted canopy listed ventilation hood. The
hood has in internal depth of 2 ft. (0.61 m), and is placed against the back wall at a height
of 6.5 ft. (1.98 m) above the kitchen floor. A 16 in. (40.64 cm) diameter collar connects
the hood to galvanized steel ducting of the same diameter. The ducting consists of a 3
piece 90-degree elbow with a 14 in. (35.56 cm) centerline bending radius, connected to a
9.83 ft. (3 m) horizontal duct run. The ducting connects to a 16 in. (40.64 cm) centrifugal
roof fan with a 1 HP motor, modified by the manufacturer to operate in a horizontal
position. The fan exhausts to the outside air. An access port attaches to the ducting 5.25
duct diameters (7 ft. or 2.13 m) from the elbow. A Styrofoam insert within the access

9
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

port, shaped to the same dimensions as the ducting, minimizes flow disturbances from the
access port. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the ventilation hood.
Ventilation requirements for the under-fired broilers (from ASTM F 1695-96) exceed the
capability of the exhaust fan. Reducing the total area of the ventilation hood allows for
the proper ventilation rate. Figure 4 shows a schematic of the modified ventilation hood.
Wooden dividers reduce the hood area 7.5 in. (19.05 cm) from each side of the existing
hood. Stainless steel covers the bottom of the hood from the sides to the dividers. The
stainless steel extends 1.5 in. (3.81 cm) past the wooden dividers. This duplicates the 1.5
in. (3.81 cm) right angle flange extending from the sides and front of the unmodified
hood. The modification reduced the effective capture area of the hood from 32 ft2 (2.97
m2) to 27 ft2 (2.51 m2), allowing the required 400 cfm (0.19 m3/s) of ventilation per
square foot of hood area.
A two-dimensional turbulent air flow modeling program (SHEBANG, by H. Han, 1990)
provided assistance in determining the test kitchen design. The goal was to design a
small test kitchen which did not greatly alter natural air flow patterns into the ventilation
hood. The program modeled air flow into a wall mounted kitchen hood with an
appliance, placed in a large room. The flow patterns from the large room were compared
to several designs of smaller rooms. The program approximated the air flow patterns
from make-up air along the ceiling, along the top of the front wall, along the bottom of
the front wall, along the entire front wall, and several variations combining these
locations. The comparisons showed the best design was to allow make-up air to enter the
test kitchen from the entire front wall.
After completing test kitchen construction, flow visualization of the air flow patterns into
the test kitchen and the hood was performed with a clean room fogger. The fogger
produces a fine water fog which adjusts to almost any level of desired buoyancy. To test
the kitchen design, we video taped approximately neutrally buoyant fog entering the test
kitchen and the hood. The air flow patterns were similar to those predicted by the model.
In addition, after modifying the hood for the broilers, we used the clean room fogger flow
visualization to determine if there was a large effect on the air flow patterns. The results
showed little or no effect from the modifications.

10
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure 1. Schematic of the test kitchen and exhaust ventilation system

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

20tn.

IGiatCa.

46
In.

COOAR TO EXHAUST DUCT

30 In.

11.5

to
16 f a

i GREASE BAFFLES
^

VENTILATION HOOD

9 6 In.

10.78 In.

11.78 In.

SCREEN
DIVIDER

78 in.

681a

S0.BIn.

12&SIn.

LEFT SIDE VIEW

FRONT VIEW

Figure 2. Schematic of test kitchen

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

8.75 in.

28 in.

48 in
TOP VIEW
[|] Collar to exhaust duct
[7] 1.5 in. right angle flange at lower lip of ventilation hood (all
sides except back side)

U)

2 in.
S

20 in-

1.5 in.

16 in.

1.5 in.

-,

-J-

CZ1T'
24.5 in.

B-

v-

48 in.
4 In.

LEFT SIDE VIEW


fTl Grease drip tray and collector pan
|"2~| Grease baffle

5.5 in.

FRONT VIEW

2.75 in.
[3] Lowest boundary for grease baffle
[4] Grease drip tray
HTl Grease collector pan

Figure 3. Schematic of the ventilation hood


ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

7 ^

2 in.

-3 in.

8.75 In.

28 in.

7.5 in.

48 In
96 in.
TOP VIEW
ITI Collar to exhaust duct

2 in.

____xrg

1.5 In.

16 in.

B19 In

1.5 in.

24.5 in.

i_
I

48 in.

"

2 in.

7.5 in.

FRONT VIEW

5.5 in.
4 In.

LEFT SIDE VIEW

f J l Grease drip tray and collector pan


\i\ Grease baffle

7 In.

Lowest boundary for grease baffle


_4j Grease drip tray
Grease collector pan
Area covered by wooden partition

Figure 4. Schematic of the ventilation hood modified for the under-fired broilers

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i.
T
- 3 in.

D. Emission Comparisons From Various Cooking Processes

1. Introduction
During the cooking process, food products emit various compounds including grease,
water, and other materials such as protein. In addition, there is a release of combustion
by-products, from either primary combustion of the energy source or secondary
combustion of food products (such as grease drippings). The source of these emissions is
primarily from chemical reactions and phase changes due to heating. The form of the
released material can be gaseous, liquid, and/or solid. Some of the material is left on the
cooking surface or other areas of the appliance as burnt solids and/or liquid grease. The
rest of the material enters the cooking plume. Characterization of the material entering
the cooking plume is the primary objective of this research project.
The actual composition of the emitted products is extremely complex. These products
include non-condensable gases, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides. Water and grease are present in the vapor as well as liquid form. Solid materials
such as burnt grease and protein are also present. For the purposes of this report, the
emission products are classified into three categories, non-condensable gases,
condensable gases, and particulates. Non-condensable gases only exist in the gaseous
form at normal room temperature and pressure. Condensables include grease and water
vapor, as well as condensable hydrocarbon compounds. The condensables are considered
vapors when in the gaseous form, but they may condense into the particulate form.
Particulates can be in the liquid or solid state, or a combination of both. In addition,
particulates may contain dissolved gases.
A common source of confusion is the difference between vapors and particulates.
Because vapors have the potential to form particulates, many people consider them very
small particulates. However, vapors behave as gases, and therefore must be treated as
such. The current science addressing very small particles (nanoparticles) is in its infancy.
Experimental techniques to systematically produce, control, and measure these particles
are just now developing. Therefore, the most often used definition of a particulate is its
ability to be filtered. It is well known that particulates with diameters down to 0.01 um
can be filtered to almost 100 percent efficiency. It is equally well known that gaseous
molecules with diameters of 0.0001 to 0.001 um pass through a high efficiency filter
unaffected. There are several current investigations studying the effect of filtration
between these size ranges. For this investigation, material collected on the absolute filter
are considered particulates, with a lower size limit of 0.01 um. Any material condensed
past the absolute filter is considered to have been in vapor form at the point of filtration.
While it may be the case that material smaller than 0.01 um is collected on the filter, it is
unproven. Besides, the contributions to the overall mass collected in this size range
would most likely be insignificant.

15
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

In the first part of this section we address the emission of grease particulates and vapors
from various cooking processes. The remainder of the section discusses the emission of
various gases.
2. Grease Particulates and Vapor
While Appendix F gives a detailed description of the test and sampling procedures, and
Appendix G details analytic procedures, a brief procedural summary follows.
The center of the cooking plume is estimated visually during tests conducted to find the
temperature distribution. A personal inertial impactor is positioned close to the estimated
plume center. The sampling position for each cooking process is shown in section E (also
in Appendix E). The impactor connects to an EPA Method 5 sample train and remains
above the idling appliance until it reaches the approximate temperature of the thermal
plume. In addition, the EPA Method 5 probe and oven hot box heat up, reaching a final
temperature at or above the temperature of the thermal plume. The temperature of the
cold box condensation train, consisting of impingers within an ice bath, stabilizes at or
below the required level (60 F or 15.6 C). Once the aforementioned preparatory steps
are complete, the cooking and sampling processes begin simultaneously. Appendix E
gives a detailed description of the cooking procedures used for each appliance.
Particles collect on the inside surface of the inlet probe, and inside the impactor on the
substrates and filter. Grease and water vapor pass through the impactor and condense in
the impinger train. The inlet probe is weighed before and after sampling. In addition, the
inside surface of the inlet probe is washed with acetone which collects and evaporates in a
pre-weighed beaker. For the inlet probe, the grease particulate mass is determined by the
net mass gain in the beaker. The substrates and filter are first desiccated, then weighed,
and finally placed securely in the impactor before sampling. As quickly as possible after
sampling (usually about 15 to 30 minutes after the cooking procedure ends), they are
weighed, then desiccated for a minimum of 24 hours and weighed again. The substrate or
filter net mass gain after sampling and desiccation, determines the grease particulate mass
for the size range pertaining to the impactor stage from which the substrate or filter
comes. Using only the desiccated masses eliminates all of the moisture that may collect
on the inlet probe, substrates, and filter. As a result of this methodology, any solid or
liquid material which collects on the filter and substrates, and does not volatilize in the
desiccator, is assumed to be grease particulates. Likewise, any material collected on the
substrates or filter, which volatilizes in the desiccator, is not counted as grease
particulates.
Testing shows that for most appliances, the mass lost during desiccation is less than two
percent. The only exceptions are the electric and gas fryers, which produce large amounts
of water that collects on the substrates. In addition, qualitative inspection shows a light
colored oily film on the substrates after sampling from most processes. This suggests the
majority of the collected particulates are in fact made of liquid grease. However, the
smallest particle sizes collected for the under-fired broiler process do show large amounts

16
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

of what appears to be solid black particulates. It is likely these are burnt solid pieces of
either fat, protein, or some other carbonaceous material emitted into the cooking plume.
Therefore, what is referred to in this investigation as grease particulates, may, in some
cases, contain material that strictly speaking, is not grease.
The sampling air that passes through the impactor enters the EPA Method 5 probe, which
is heated above the sampling temperature, to prevent particulate formation and
condensation. After leaving the probe the air enters the oven, or hot box. It passes
through the filter holder within the hot box, which does not contain a filter. During the
earliest tests, a filter was installed in the hot box filter holder, yet never collected any
material. This suggests all particulates were removed from the sampling air at the
impactor filter, and there was no additional particulate formation in the EPA Method 5
probe or the hot box. For this reason, the hot box filter was no longer used. The air
enters the impinger train, or cold box, consisting of three modified Greenberg-Smith
bubblers and one standard Greenberg-Smith impinger, all partially submerged in an ice
bath. The modified bubblers have a straight tube stem, while the standard impinger stem
narrows to a small opening at the bottom. The first bubbler is empty, the second is the
standard Greenberg-Smith impinger, containing 100 ml of DI water. The third bubbler
contains 100 ml of DI water and the fourth bubbler contains 200 g of silica gel.
Condensable material condenses within the first three bubblers, while the fourth bubbler
removes any additional moisture. The remaining dry air flows through the pump into the
gas meter, where the volume is measured, and vents to the room.
The bubbler bottles are weighed after sampling. All internal surfaces between the
impactor filter and the hot box filter holder are washed with acetone that collects and
evaporates in a pre-weighed glass beaker. The DI water from impingers 2 and 3 is
collected in separate pre-weighed glass beakers. Finally, all surfaces between the hot box
filter holder and the bubbler containing the silica gel are washed with acetone and
collected in a pre-weighed glass beaker. The beakers containing collected acetone and DI
water are placed under a laboratory ventilation hood to evaporate along with control
beakers containing acetone and DI water. After the necessary corrections given by mass
changes in the control beakers, the net mass gain in the evaporated beakers gives the mass
of collected grease vapor.
The material collected as grease vapor may in fact contain other condensable material. A
chemical analysis of the material was beyond the scope of the present investigation.
However, it is suspected that on a mass basis, the majority of the condensables are either
water or grease, and the aforementioned method certainly removes water. The method's
efficiency at removing grease vapor from the sampling air is unknown, and should be
addressed in the future.
To compare the emissions from various processes, the grease emissions are divided into
several categories, namely total grease, total grease particulates, PM 10 grease
particulates, PM 2.5 grease particulates, and grease vapor. Total grease includes all
grease particulates as well as all grease vapor. Total grease particulates includes all

17
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

grease particulate sizes. PM 10 grease particulates refers to all grease particulates less
than 10 um in diameter, while PM 2.5 refers to grease particulates less than 2.5 um.
Grease vapor includes all grease collected in the condensation impinger train.
Figure 5 shows the total grease emissions per appliance, for each of the performed tests.
The data are normalized to 1000 lb. of cooking product.
Data from the two griddles shows approximately equal quantities of total grease
emissions. This is not surprising considering the griddles were from the same
manufacturer, with identical designs except for the energy source. The proportion of the
total grease in the vapor and particulate form from the two griddles is not identical, and is
addressed later. The fryers and ovens show very little grease emission. The electric and
gas versions of each emit approximately the same amount. The food products used for
the fryers and ovens have a relatively low fat content (2-3% for the fryers, 8% for the
oven), which partially accounts for the low emissions. However, some may expect high
grease emission from the fryers due to the cooking medium, which is pure vegetable oil.
Testing shows that for these fryers, very little oil emits into the cooking plume. This may
be a function of the oil temperature and volatility. It is conceivable that a fryer using an
oil with a low boiling point, such as olive oil, while cooking a food product which
requires a high temperature, may emit a substantially larger amount of grease. However,
the conditions used for this investigation are probably much more typical of most
commercial fryer applications. For the oven, it is probable that emissions from a high fat
content product, such as a pork roast, will exceed those measured here. However, many
products cooked in ovens have a much lower fat content than the pizza used during these
tests, so emissions under those conditions may be much lower.
Emissions from the broilers show a discernible difference between the electric and gas
versions, when cooking hamburger. The electric broiler has a pan of water under each of
the two cooking grills, therefore, when grease drips from the meat, and does not land on
one of the electric coils, it falls into the water and cannot enter the cooking plume. The
gas broiler does not have a water pan and any grease which falls past the radiants hits a
collection tray beneath the burners. This collection tray is very hot, and burnt grease is
always present after cooking. In fact, grease fires from the pan occasionally flair up
during the cooking process. In addition, the total area of the hot radiants on the gas
broiler exceeds the total area of the electric coils on the electric broiler by a factor of
about 2. This is significant because grease drippings have a greater chance of falling on
the radiants, emitting grease vapor and particulates, than on falling on the electric coils.
Therefore, it is likely the difference in emissions from the gas versus the electric broiler is
due to the probability of liquid grease drippings reaching a surface hot enough to combust
the liquid grease or change it into the particulate and/or vapor form. Further support for
this argument is seen in the emissions from the broilers when cooking boneless skinless
chicken breast. The chicken breast is very low in fat content (2.7%), and evidence of
grease drippings is minimal. The emissions from the gas and electric broilers are
virtually identical, suggesting when dripping grease is minimized, as in cooking chicken
breast, the broilers emit similar levels of grease.

18
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

SO

ca p

if 8
o to

CO CO

CO

HX
UJ

CD

~ o>
o m si

Ill

CD X

*?

.2 X

- CO

S 3

trie Broi
ken Bre

CD .
> > CO

Gas Broile
hicken Bre

Z3

ctric Brc
amburg

(5 -Q
co w

-2 .
n V
u)

T)

ric Gri
urg

a S>

UJ

CO

CO

| N

fc--

8.

CO CO

B co
o to

o> c co
2 W
DC a) <B

CO

2 3

o &
CO

Appliance

Figure 5. Total grease emissions per appliance for each test

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

to51

^(5

CO

c/>

2.
O
0>._- 3
5 c co

o
UJ

CO
D) ffl
CO D5
CO

CO

It is interesting to compare the broiler emissions from the hamburger product to the
chicken product. While the fat content of the hamburger is about seven to eight times
that of the chicken breast, the grease emissions are only two to four times greater. When
performing a mass balance estimate on the fat content, it is discovered that only 20 to 30
percent of the fat lost from the hamburger during cooking is accounted for as grease in the
effluent emissions. For the chicken breast, this number rises to over 50 percent. While
the absolute value of the grease emissions from the hamburger is still higher, it is
significant that foods with higher fat content may emit a lower proportion of their fat
content to the cooking plume.
While this study only investigated two broilers with two food products, enough
information is available to make some important observations. From personal
observation and some scientific studies, many in the industry believe that in general, most
appliances behave similarly to other appliance of the same type, in terms of emissions,
regardless of make or design. A major exception to this has been the under-fired broiler.
In other words, while a griddle is a griddle, and a fryer is a fryer, all broilers are not the
same. While this is not surprising due the large number of variations of broilers
available, compared to other common appliances, there has never been an adequate
amount of information available to properly classify broilers.
It appears that the removal of grease drippings from areas where further volatilization
may occur greatly affects the grease emissions. For instance, it is likely that the tested gas
broiler would emit substantially less grease if the hot grease pan beneath the radiants was
replaced by a water tray. In fact, the company which manufactures the tested gas broiler
also manufactures such a model. Likewise, an electric broiler with a hot pan beneath the
coils instead of a water tray would likely emit more grease than the tested model.
Another major style of broiler is the briquette style under-fired broiler. A typical
briquette style broiler provides little opportunity for grease drippings to fall anywhere
except onto a hot briquette. The result may be a larger amount of grease emissions than
either model tested. It is likely that the fate of the grease drippings not only affects the
amount of total grease emissions, but also changes the size distribution and proportion of
grease which is present in the vapor and particulate form. If guidelines for grease
removal from under-fired broilers are to be effective, it is important to understand the
nature and differences of emissions from different broiler types.
Another important observation relates to the effect of cooking product fat content used on
the under-fired broiler. It appears that products of higher fat content emit a smaller
percentage, compared to lower fat products, of their total grease content directly into the
effluent plume. If this is true, a larger percentage of the fat must be in the form of grease
drippings. This provides an opportunity to reduce grease emissions by broiler design. If
a broiler is designed such that drippings are removed before having a chance to volatilize,
the grease emission level from an extremely high fat content food product, such as
sausage, may be closer to the emission level from a low fat content food. On the other
hand, if the broiler design enhances the chance of grease dripping onto a hot surface, the
emission difference between a low and high fat content food product will increase

20
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

dramatically. Another way to view this is to consider the total mass of fat lost in the food
product during cooking as the theoretical maximum grease emissions. Reducing
emissions into the cooking plume requires maximizing the amount of fat that is removed
from the system in the form of liquid grease.
Total grease emissions from the ranges show a 30 percent larger value from the gas
compared to the electric version.. The maximum temperature reached by the gas range
burner was about 800 F (427 C), while the maximum temperature reached by the
electric range French plate burner (used for cooking the sausage) was only 580 F (304
C). These temperatures were measured using a steel plate as described in ASTM
Standard Test Method 1521-96. If we assume the temperature of the cooking surface
reaches these values, it provides an explanation for the difference in emissions between
the gas and electric versions. The amount of liquid grease resulting from cooking the
sausage should be similar for each appliance, considering the product was identical and
the net mass loss of fat and moisture was similar. However, the fate of the liquid fat
might deviate when the surface temperature of the skillet differs. For both appliances, the
burners were set to a maximum output, therefore, the temperature of the skillet on the gas
range was likely higher than that of the electric range. The temperature range of interest
here is within the boiling point range of most oils and fats. Therefore, liquid grease from
the sausage on the gas griddle has a greater chance of vaporizing and entering the cooking
plume because it is heated to a higher temperature.
One would expect to see a longer cooking time to reach the same level of doneness on a
cooler surface compared to a hotter surface. Tests from this investigation do not show
this effect. A possible explanation may be that the sausages have a very small surface
area which is directly exposed to the cooking surface at any one time. While the sausage
contact area on a hot surface would certainly have a higher temperature than the same
area on a cooler surface, the distribution of this heat throughout the sausage may not be
dramatically affected by the actual temperature at the contact area. The sausage has a
high moisture content (51%), which is largely responsible for heating the internal regions
of the meat. The area of the sausage contacting the skillet heats moisture near the outer
part of the sausage, which in turn transfers the heat to the inner part of the sausage. The
difference in temperatures seen may not be enough to affect the overall cooking time.
However the same difference in temperatures may greatly affect the fate of the liquid
grease which drips to the skillet surface.
The grease emission from the ranges must be dependent on the cooking product and the
temperature used for cooking the product. A typical use of the gas range to cook sausage
may involve using a lower burner temperature, which would effect the total emissions.
The electric range has two speed coil burners which reach a temperature close to 800 F
(427 C). If the sausage was cooked on those burners set to their maximum output, the
emissions would probably increase. The burners were not used for cooking the sausage
because they were located on the left side of the range. Moving the position of the
sausage skillet would in turn produce a whole new set of variables related to the position

21
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

of the sauce and boiling water, affecting the behavior of the cooking plume. This would
make direct comparisons of emissions from the ranges more difficult.
The error bars in figure 5 are a result of uncertainties in the total mass of grease collected,
the mass of food product, the ratio of the sampling flow rate to the total exhaust flow rate,
and the ratio of dilution between the sampling point and the exhaust duct. Appendix H
shows a detailed analysis of the uncertainties. In almost all cases, the dilution ratio
dominates the uncertainty.
Figure 6 shows the actual amount of total grease collected for each run per appliance.
The data are not normalized. The total amount of grease collected per appliance was
generally of the same magnitude. This is a result of trying to collect enough material for
analysis, accomplished by adjusting the amount of food product cooked to reasonable
levels. For instance, the fryers required 24 lb. (10.9 kg) of potatoes to collect about 5 mg
(1.1 x 10"5 lb.) of grease, while the griddles required only 12 lb. (5.5 kg) of hamburger.
For most of the appliances, the level of collected grease was similar for all runs. It is
important to remember the data in figure 6 are not normalized, therefore it is necessary to
be cautious when making comparisons of emissions levels between appliances and even
between different runs from the same appliance. This is because factors such as the
exhaust flow rate, food product mass, and cooking time, are not considered.
The error bars in figure 6 are a result of the uncertainties in the mass of grease collected
in the inlet probe, the impactor substrates and filter, and the impinger train. The absolute
value of the uncertainties are almost identical because the measurement techniques were
similar for each test. The largest portion of uncertainty comes from determining the
contributions from the inlet stage and grease vapor. For these values, it was necessary to
use a scale with a resolution of 0.1 mg (2.2 x 10"7 lb.) to find net mass gain from grease
deposits in beakers weighing 50 to 100 g (0.11 to 0.22 lb.). The net mass loss was on the
order of mg's. In contrast, the substrates and filters weigh about 10 to 20 mg (2.2 x 10"5 to
4.4 x 10"5 lb.), and are measured on a scale with a resolution of 0.1 to 1 |ig (2.2 x 10~10 to
2.2 x 10"9 lb.).
Figure 7 shows the average total grease emissions from each appliance, normalized to the
mass of food product. The values in figure 7 are determined by averaging the data from
each run presented in figure 5. Figure 7 provides information for easy comparison
between appliance emissions. Discussion of the comparisons were previously given.
Uncertainties are not included in figure 7 for several reasons. Time constraints arising
from the desire to test many cooking processes limit the number of tests run for each
process. While the number of controllable variables is high, the number of uncontrollable
and/or unknown variables that may affect emissions is even higher. Therefore, a large
number of tests for each process is necessary to provide statistically significant
uncertainty for a given process. If we were to simply use the uncertainty from each
individual test, and consider only their influence on the average emissions, the resulting
uncertainty would most likely be understated. Therefore, those wishing to determine the
range of emissions from a given process can use the information available in figure 5 as

22
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD

CO

c E
tJ
ci> X

UJ " "

<2

co p

UJ

roiler
urger)

E>

CD ^ >
> . CO
ii

lectric
(Potat

"u.

Fryer
atoes)

"if
CD

riddle
rger)

to

m x>
2 E
CO

CO

2
ffl
CD
is <8

9m

Ii

n c
8

t3 to
UJ

3 ?

J? 8
8

fi m

o C=D

O
O
CD ;=

CD

CO

CD Q.

52 g>
CO

UJ O

CO
CO

CO

Appliance
EH Test 2

I Test 3

Figure 6. Collected total grease emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD
O)

t3 co
iUJ
n co
CO

iS -c

CE D ) CD

8 S.S*
CO

CO

ni

CD

S *= CO
OCO
c S en
UJ

CO
CO

S.

C ffl O)

Appliance
Figure 7. Average total grease emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

,55

estimates, keeping in mind that reproducing the results may depend not only on the
variables controlled and documented in this report, but also on factors which have not yet
been investigated (the effect of different appliance models, food products, ventilation
system, etc.).
Figure 8 shows the average grease distribution per appliance. Figure 9 shows the same
information in percentage terms. The emission data are normalized to the mass of food
product.
In figures 8 and 9, the average total grease emissions shown in figure 7 are divided into
the average contribution from each particulate size range and grease in the vapor phase.
The area shaded with horizontal lines, shown on the bottom of the histogram, represents
the mass contribution from grease in the vapor phase. The area above the grease vapor,
shaded with diagonal lines from the lower left to the upper right, represents the
contribution of particulates smaller than 2.5 (am. Above the 2.5 um particulates are the
particulates between 2.5 and 10 um, represented by the shaded area with diagonal lines
from the upper left to the lower right. Finally, the top of the histogram, shaded by vertical
lines, represents the mass contribution from particulates larger than 10 um.
These comparisons show considerable fluctuation of particle size distribution and vapor
contributions across the processes. While each of these size ranges will be compared
independently later, some comments are appropriate at this point. First, discussion will
focus on the difference in emissions from the gas and electric versions of each appliance.
Then, we will discuss the difference in emissions from process to process.
The cooking process from the gas versus the electric griddle shows the largest difference
in distribution. The gas griddle has a much higher percentage of grease in all the
particulate sizes, compared to the electric griddle. The majority of grease emissions from
the electric griddle are in the vapor form. Considering the griddles are identical in all
ways except for the energy source, this may appear suspect. However, the phase of the
grease emissions is dependent on the sampling position, which might explain the
differences seen.
The approximately equal value of total grease emitted from the griddles is somewhat
reassuring. This means identical food products cooked on identical surfaces heated to the
same temperature emit the same total amount of grease. The behavior of the emitted
grease is dynamic, and can be expected to change with the various conditions it
encounters during the ventilation process. The position of the sampling probe is
physically identical for the gas and electric griddles. However, the difference in the
thermal plume at that point is vastly different for the two appliances. The gas griddle has
a flue emitting hot combustion gases located along the entire back length of the appliance.
While the manufacturer uses an identical frame for the electric version, the flue is covered
with stainless steel and provides no contribution to the thermal plume. A very hot
thermal plume from the flue can be expected to entrain a large amount of dilution room
air. Much of this room air must travel across the area above the griddle surface. This

25
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

JB K

.2

?i

11

at

II

CO

J*

<D , - .

II

I*

fete

<D-C

to

1!

*i

at

>- t n

.-

<0

<

21

1^ 14" ?|"

^ 2.5 micrometers<Dp<=10 micrometers

EH Dp>10 micrometers

|l

if

II

ill Hi

Appliance

I Vapor

M Dp<=2.5 micrometers

Figure 8. Average grease distribution per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100%

80%--

)
<a

60%

CD

40%

to

20%--

0 -o

m (0
<D

I
CD fc

O <D

IT g
To

00 S3

0Ui ^"

o x

.2 -o
'5 8,
oo ^
U -Q
E
u co
X
UJ '

*0 S3

2 2
co m

in
UJ

_-3

o 8.
52

1
CO

0)

CO

roc a

o g>
^-^

(ox:
CC O) in

Gas
(Spa
usag

Elect
Sausa

J2

CO
CO

lectri Range
(Spa hetti,
usag Sauce

0%

UJ

Q> <B

CO
CO

Appliance
B Vapor

W Dp<=2.5 micrometers

2.5 micrometers<Dp<=10 micrometers

Figure 9. Average grease distribution percentage per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

HD Dp>10 micrometers

may cause some of the grease vapor to condense on existing particulates, allowing
particulates to grow while removing grease vapor. The process should be minimal for the
electric griddle, because there is less entrained air. The temperature distribution
measured 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the two griddles supports this argument. The air near
the front and middle of the gas griddle (away from the flue) is closer to room temperature
than the air near the front and middle of the electric griddle.
By the time the plume reaches the sampling point, the gases from the gas griddle flue
have heated it to a higher temperature than that experienced by the electric griddle. A
question that needs to be answered is why would the grease vapor condense on
particulates at the relatively low temperature experienced near the griddle surface, and yet
not evaporate into the vapor form at the higher temperatures reached before sampling.
Perhaps the conditions for the vaporization of grease, present at the cooking surface, do
not exist between the cooking surface and the sampling point. Factors affecting the
vaporization of grease include not only the temperature, but the pressure, moisture and
other composition of the surrounding air, and the surface tension of the liquefied grease.
The affect of each of these factors is unknown, but they may play a role in explaining the
differences seen in the gas and electric griddle grease emissions.
The grease distribution from the fryers is slightly different, with the electric fryer having a
higher proportion of grease in the vapor phase and a lower proportion of grease in the
largest particle size range. Like the gas and electric griddles, the fryers are virtually
identical except for the energy source. The gas fryer produces flue emissions of much
higher temperature. Therefore, the same effect seen for the griddles may occur for the
fryers. The reason the effect may be less pronounced is the gas fryer flue is about one foot
above the cooking oil level, lowering the amount of possible room air entrainment before
the sampling point.
For the broilers, the distribution of particle sizes is basically the same for the electric and
gas versions. The slightly larger percentage of grease vapor seen for the gas version is
probably due to the very hot surface onto which the grease drippings fall. This slight
increase in percentage of grease vapor from the gas broiler, compared to the electric
broiler, is evident for both the hamburger and chicken breast products.
The electric and gas versions of the oven emit grease in mostly the vapor form. Because
the total mass of particulates is so low, the slightly larger percentage seen in the gas oven
is probably insignificant.
Grease emissions from the ranges show a higher percentage of grease in the vapor form
from the gas version. This is probably due to the higher burner temperature used to cook
the sausage.
To assist in comparing total grease emission distribution from the different processes,
figure 10 shows the percentage of emissions for the total particulate and vapor phase.

28
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100%
90%
80%
70%
CO

O)

60%

50%

CD

40%

CO

2
Q.

30%
20%
10%

c
CD .O

E
CO
O l

.2 ,-.

o -9
2
c E
t3
3
CD X
UJ

fi

CD
^
>> to

CD CD

if 8

P 3E

UJ

mE
CO
a I

Si
o
HI

CD

mc

'oiler
reast]

E>

CQ CO

CO
CO

<".
^

C CD

o ?

O -*
O

hie

CD

lectric
(Potat

Gas
(Poti

JP.

reast]

0%
ridd
rger

to

UJ O

CO
CD Q_

S,
(/)

0}

cd co

CO

CD

CO

O 0.
o CDD)
c CCOO

1
UJ

3
CO

CO

a--
O ) * S CO

CC D J to
CO
CO

, 9 - co
CO co
-

3
CO

CO

Appliance
a % Vapor

D>

ED % Particles

Figure 10. Particulate vs. vapor phase emission percentage per appliance (average)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

01

Si CD
o
>._- 3

* * CO

D ) CD"

c eg

D)

The percentage of grease emissions in the vapor form ranges from 30 percent for the
electric broiler while cooking hamburger to over 95 percent for the electric oven. The
percentage of grease present in the vapor phase is important to know because vapor
emissions cannot be removed by physical mechanisms alone. That is, when grease vapor
passes through a traditional grease baffle, the inertial forces responsible for removing
large particulates are ineffective at removing vapor. In light of the information shown in
figure 10, it is doubtful that claims of grease removal efficiencies in the 95 percent range
are accurate for grease extractors operating with only inertial removal mechanisms.
It is clear from figure 10 that the ovens and ranges have the highest percentage of grease
present in the vapor form. The percentage of grease vapor from the broilers cooking
chicken breast is fairly high, while there is much less, in percentage terms, cooking
hamburger. For reasons discussed earlier, the griddles and fryers differ from gas to
electric version much more than the other appliances. The range for percentage of grease
in the vapor form from the griddles and fryers fall between those seen from the broilers
cooking hamburger and the ranges.
The implications of a high percentage of grease emitting in the vapor form is great from
the perspective of grease removal. Grease vapor passing through any physical barriers
such as grease baffles, will eventually condense. This may occur on the surface of the
exhaust duct, on the internal surfaces of the exhaust fan, or somewhere outside the
building. The fate of the vapor within the exhaust system is probably dependent on the
temperatures it experiences within the system. For instance, if the exhaust duct lies along
the outside of the building, or within an unheated space within the building, and it is not
insulated, its internal surface may be quite cool. Under these conditions, grease vapor
condensation on the exhaust duct surface is likely. Some types of grease extractors, such
as water wash mists, may be very effective at condensing grease vapor before it enters the
exhaust duct.
It is worthwhile to compare the contributions from each particulate size range for the
various processes. Figure 11 shows the total particulate grease emissions per appliance
normalized to the mass of food product for each test. Figure 12 shows the average
particulate grease emissions for each process.
Total grease particulate emissions include all particulates collected. The emissions from
the fryers, ovens, and ranges, show a level of total particulates within or near the noise
range of our testing methodology. The griddles show a significant level of particulate
emissions, on the order of 5 to 10 lb. per 1000 lb. food product. When the food product is
hamburger, particulate emissions from the broiler cooking process significantly exceeds
that of the other cooking processes. The gas broiler emits an average of about 34 lb. per
1000 lb. of cooking product, with a standard deviation of about 8 lb. per 1000 lb. The
electric broiler emits about 15 percent less grease particulates. There is a dramatic
difference in grease particulate emissions when the broilers are used to cook chicken
breast. The particulate emissions fall by a factor of

30
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

OJ

o o> oj"

CO

Appliance
STestl

DD Test 2

0 Test 3

D Test 4

Figure 11. Total grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

(Tl o

o it

CO . a

CD Q .

LU

CD
LU

CD

58

CO CO

a i

JCD

2>

m n3
o
e E
t3

CO

jD
LU

CD

m c

8
u
o

o s
c
8
O

2
Z
Ul O

''

CO
CD

V)
2
CO

CO
"

Appliance
Figure 12. Average grease particulate emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD
D> *3 CO

5*
"
T->
S
o

CD

D)
CD
CO
co
3

L"W

^~'

18
CC

O ) CD

CO

CO

2.
o
S>. - 3

Rar
hett
Sa

en

CD CD

LL o
O to

&

Gas
(Spa
usag

o -9c
c

CD

Ove n
gePizza

O .O

t
to eg

Broiler
Breast,

c g>

b
LL

Breast

C 3

fl) (0

tati

.2

o a

C
K

JJ

CO D )
Q . CO

> co w

CD 5ii- 3
LU
CO

CO

5 to ten times the level seen from the boilers cooking hamburger, a direct result of the
lower fat content of the chicken breast. It is interesting to note the total particulate
emissions from the gas and electric versions of the broilers are identical when cooking
chicken breast, but when cooking hamburger, the gas broiler emits more particulates than
the electric broiler. This evidence supports the hypothesis that the hot grease collection
surface beneath the gas broiler causes additional grease emissions while cooking a higher
fat content food product.
Figure 13 shows the total mass of grease particulates actually collected during each test.
The data are not normalized. The total grease particulate collection ranged from below 1
mg to above 12 mg. Note the absolute value of the error bars are almost identical. This
is a result of employing consistent measurement and analysis techniques. The uncertainty
of 1 mg comes mostly from the uncertainty associated with the mass measurement of
the largest particles. The smaller uncertainties seen in the first range tests result from
collecting particulate data during three sequential runs (during the temperature
distribution tests). Therefore, to compare the collected grease emissions with other tests
from the same process, the collected mass from these tests was divided by three. The
additional collection time from these tests results in improved resolution, apparent in the
reduced uncertainty.
Figure 14 shows the PM 10 grease particulate emissions from each process normalized to
the mass of food product for all separate tests. Figure 15 shows the average PM 10 grease
emissions for each process. Comparing the level of PM 10 grease emissions from the
electric and gas versions of each appliance shows the energy source has little or no effect.
Therefore, the difference in grease emissions from the gas and electric versions of some
appliances, apparent in earlier figures, are not caused by these smaller particulates, but
result from a difference in large particulate and grease vapor emissions.
Figure 14 shows PM 10 particulate emissions from the fryers and ovens are essentially
undetectable. The levels for the griddles and ranges are also quite low. The level of PM
10 emissions is significant from the grease removal standpoint. Small particulates are
aerodynamic and follow the flow of the surrounding gas very closely. The smaller the
particle, the more likely it will follow the surrounding air stream. Therefore, it is likely
small particulates are not removed efficiently by traditional grease baffles, which employ
inertial separation mechanisms. While little information is available regarding the
relationship between grease baffle removal efficiency and particle size, it is likely
particles 10 ]im in diameter and smaller are not efficiently removed. The Stokes number,
typically used to characterized inertial impaction, is the ratio of the distance a particle will
travel before reacting to a change in air flow, to the characteristic size of the obstruction
causing the change in air flow. In fact, when the ventilation rate is maximized, the Stokes
number for a 10 ^.m particle entering the baffles used for this investigation is about 0.25.
This tells us some 10 |im particles may impact within the baffles, but many will also pass
through. Experimental tests are necessary to determine the actual removal efficiency.

33
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Ul

CO CO

(D X

o XI

I
Ul

CO
X

Ul O

CO

CD

&--
ra c co

fa CO
O

CO

2 2

CC D) a)
to S

Ol

188

CO
CO

Appliance
m Test 2

ic Oven
ge Pizza

m xi
52 E

*i
S
m3

Gas Oven
ausa ge Pizza

u E
o
j) I

to

CD CD

lectri c Broiler
hicke n Breast

IS E
CO

"D "5-"

Gas Broiler
hicke n Breast

P>
3
.O

Electric
(Potat

.
CD

Gas Fryei
(Potatoes

i2

I Test 3

m Test 4

Figure 13. Collected total grease particulate emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD

CD
D) . _ - O3
C

CO

e ca

CC CO

o
C

CO O )

I W co
W

CO
CO

14
12

o
g 10
Q.
O

o
o

c
g
"(0

co

"E
UJ

iBL

CD

CO

if 8
CD Q -

LU

LU

jD 0

2 2>
m XI
E

co

to

CD

'2 2>
m
o

r Eco
5 I
JD
LU

UJ O

CO

Eiectric Oven
Sausage Pizza

Gri
urg

"- 13
So

CD
^
> < CO

Gas Oven
ausage Pizza

m (0

lectri c Broiler
licke n Breast

CD

Gas Broiler
hicke n Breast

CO < 0

qui

E>

=n

_isCSl2EBfS5L

H-"

CD

S.--3
D> n co
co .c
CC 0 > CD
CO S >

BTesM

O Test 2

0 Test 3

S Test 4

Figure 14. PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Cj

D ) CD"

r 5 o

lai its
CO

CO

Appliance

Si.

UJ

CO

CO

Si.

O D) ffl

c 5 o)

Appliance
Figure 15. Average PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

While the PM 10 grease emissions from most processes are relatively low, the broilers
produce large amounts. Even the emissions while cooking the chicken breast, with a fat
content of only 2 to 3 percent, produced more PM 10 than the other appliances. The level
of PM 10 emissions while cooking hamburger on the broilers is almost an order of
magnitude greater than the emissions from other processes. Because much of the grease
from the broilers consists of small particulates, grease removal strategies must differ.
When designing inertial impaction to affect very small particles, one requires high airflow
velocities. To reach such velocities, a high pressure drop is usually necessary, requiring a
more powerful and energy intensive ventilation fan. At the present time, it seems
unlikely that traditional grease baffles can effectively remove PM 10 sized particulates in
a kitchen ventilation system. Strategies similar to those employed to remove grease
vapor, such as water washes, may be effective at removing small particulates. In
addition, one particulate removal strategy, electrostatic precipitation (ESP), is a well
known and proven method for removing small particulates from air streams. ESP's are
commonly used in traditional HVAC ventilation filtration and have more recently been
employed for kitchen ventilation. However, its effectiveness under the high loading
conditions seen in commercial cooking applications deserves investigation.
Figure 16 shows the collected mass of PM 10 grease particulates for each process. The
data are not normalized. The small error bars reflect accuracy and precision of the microbalance used to measurethe collected small particulates. While grease collection was on
the order of mg, the scale resolution was on the order of u.g. The uncertainties seen in
figure 14 reflect the inaccuracies involved finding the dilution ratio. Because figure 16
strictly shows raw collection data, dilution ratio errors are not included.
Figure 17 shows the PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions from each process, normalized
to the mass of food product, for each test. Figure 18 shows the average PM 2.5 emissions
for each process. Similar to the PM 10 grease emissions, the PM 2.5 grease emissions are
low for most processes except the broilers. In fact, the difference between PM 2.5
emissions from the broilers compared to the other processes is even greater than the
difference seen for PM 10 emissions. The Stokes number for a 2.5 fim particle traveling
through the grease baffles used in this investigation under maximum ventilation is only
0.015. Therefore, most PM 2.5 particulates will pass through the grease extractor and
enter the exhaust duct. While everything regarding the removal strategies of PM 10
particulates applies to PM 2.5 particulates, another important point regarding the
emission of small particulates should be addressed.
The human health effects regarding small particulates has been studied intensively over
the last 20 years. Particles below 10 p.m are considered inhalable, while particles 2.5 \im
in diameter and below are considered respirable, that is, they reach the lower regions of
the human respiratory tract. Cooking emissions have the potential to carry carcinogenic
material to the deep regions of the human lung. A recent study (Siegmann and Sattler
pub. pending) shows that cooking oil particulates can carry dissolved polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH). PAH's are considered human carcinogens. Section D-6 discusses
the study in greater detail. While the PAH's were identified within cooking oil

37
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c
o
'w
to

"E
ill

o
CD

J2
o

o
c F

CO

"-1
2
CO

CD S ^

0 CD

if g
UJ

Ui

l Test 1

O *CD 13

2 E
O X
CO CO

11

2 m
m c
c E
3&
CO
o o
UJ X
O
Appliance
m
o

DDTest2

.Q

I Test 3

s 3
S
CQ CQ
c

o
Z

UJ O

CO

S Q.
o
O)
2

cO co

3
w
B Test 4

Figure 16. Collected PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c m
0

6 a.

CQ

D) tS CO

trie
age

CO

lectric
(Potat

P>

mM

RShm

er)

oo

iS -c -

CO
3
UJ CO

<

u
Cl>

>._- 3

oco

CC D 5 CD

CO

CO

SSI

So

a J=.

8 3
CJ3 L _

HI

.03 - C

8 >
m E5

CO . O

CO CO
(3
X

*1

O CO
03 X
w
LU

03

Sg

om
m c
m 03
2 -*
CO

<Q

ID cO
.2
p

m
o
T"

CO
c
U3
Jd
O O
03 i -

UJ O

CO

r 9

-
<5 9

icOv
gePi

it g

"

03 CD

1 ff

Ove
gePi

a> ,
> . CO

G
Chi

<D 2

2
CO
w

i s co
o w
CD g

CO

rn CO

(3 C=O

Appliance
8 Test 1

IDlTest2

I Test 3

B Test 4

Figure 17. PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

03

fc--
0 > * 3 CO
C O ) ] )
CO
CO

en

03

>._- 3

oco
O

2 * 03"

CO

CO

Hi
"B 2
UJ

h
UJ

m .o

52

CO CO
CD
X

roil

52 -R

j e - CD
p

m
C>

Electri

Fryer
atoes)

CD 3

roiler
urger)

riddle
rger)

CD -Q

lectric
(Potat

riddle
urger)

3
XI

E
CO

X,

jD

CO

p
'g m
m c
CO CD
CO ^
o
CD

CD

"3"

P
mm

o c

SI

2
o
CD

ID !c

| a

CD C L

2 co
CO CO

CO
CO

Appliance
Figure 18. Average PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD

CO

-2 3

^5

CD

ft--
D ) t J CO
S
co x2: co.

co

CC

O ) CD

CO

co en

CD

.9- <
CO co
CO
CO

o
c
.CD

Ui

OCO

D)
CO

CD"

D)

-9-
C O , co

CO
CO

particulates under non-cooking conditions, there is a strong possibility they are present in
commercial cooking operations. In addition, there may be other carcinogenic material
present within the particulates. Given the increased importance of both indoor and
ambient air quality, future studies will certainly address the potential dangers of long term
human exposure to cooking emissions.
Figure 19 shows the collected mass of PM 2.5 grease particulates for each process. The
data are not normalized. Similar to results shown in figure 16, much more PM 2.5 grease
particulates were collected from the broiler processes than any other process. The small
uncertainties result from the high resolution of the micro-balance used to measure the
substrates and filters which collect the smallest particulates.
Figure 20 shows the grease vapor emissions from each process normalized to the food
product mass, for each test. Figure 21 shows the average grease vapor emissions for each
process. Grease vapor emissions differ between electric and gas versions for several
appliances. The electric griddle produces more grease vapor than the gas griddle. As
previously discussed, this may be a result of room air entrained by the gas griddle flue
condensing grease vapor into particulates. The gas versions of the broiler cooking
hamburger and the range have higher grease vapor emissions than the electric versions.
The difference seen in the broiler probably relates to liquid grease landing on the hot
grease collection tray, where the drippings heat up and enter the cooking plume as grease
vapor.
The majority of the grease vapor from the ranges is a result of the sausage. The
temperature of the burner used to heat the sausage skillet is considerable higher on the gas
range compared to the electric range. Therefore, it is likely the grease drippings are
exposed to higher temperatures, producing more grease vapor. The ovens and the fryers
do not emit much grease vapor compared to the other processes.
The actual level of grease vapor emissions is significant. For instance, if a process
similar to the one used for the gas broiler is used constantly in a commercial process, a
great deal of grease vapor will be released. If the ventilation system simply relies on
grease baffles as a removal mechanism, as many do, almost all of the grease vapor will
vent to the atmosphere. This leaves the grease to condense somewhere, such as on the
building roof, or on other nearby buildings. The odor from the grease vapor may carry
great distances, causing many neighbors to consider the commercial cooking operation a
nuisance. As previously mentioned, the removal of grease vapor from an air stream is
challenging, and must be addressed in future investigations.
Figure 22 shows the collected grease vapor from each process. The data are not
normalized. The actual amount of grease vapor collected varied from about 1 to 22 mg.
The error bars shown in figure 22 reflect the uncertainty from the measurement errors.
They do not reflect the true accuracy of the method. The true accuracy of the method is
unknown because the efficiency with which the method condenses grease vapor is
unknown. While it is possible almost 100 percent of the grease vapor present in the

41
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

81
ts

Ul

if 8
Ul

ffl CD

CO . o

= CD

0)
CO
_CD CD

.2 co

2m

CD CD

SK

CO CO

II

m c

a i

tS co

5 o
0

III"

a*

CO

2 2

CD C L

o&

= .?

LU O

TO

2
CO ( 0
CO
CO

Appliance
IE Test 2

m CO

m Test 3

B Test 4

Figure 19. Collected PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CZ
CD

CD

CO

>
O

Q.

o
CD
tu

CO
D
CO
CO

trie
age

S 1
cCOBCo
x

CO ^
> CO

lectric
(Potat

(5 .3

Gas Fryer
(Pot atoes)

riddle
rger)

riddle
urger)

to

D ) t S CO

c o>u)
Co - C
co D ) CD
CC

CO S

D)

O .9- <
CO co
' ' 3
CO
CO

Si.

CO

O
C

D ) CD"
CO D )

SSI

tt

as
5 X

LU

co
CO

CD 5>

Mk

2 [?

CO

JD^
1 2

Gas Bro
hicken B

8 5,
C3

ft.
P
b

qui

a)

c
CJ

"ST

GasB
(Hamb

c = 3
(D E

T
TJ

|0

CD

Electric
(Potat

Electric Broilei
(Hamburger)

4*.

CD

m CO
o c
i- w
.se
o o
.{D
j=

tU O

o
CO

O)
CO
CO

CO

m Test 3

Figure 20. Grease vapor emissions per appliance for each test

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD

CO
DJ * 3

JD Q_

Appliance
CD Test 2

,-

CO

S 2 CO
co
O

(0

DC D ) CD
CO O )
CO

^ co
o S5 gj"

.9"

"~" CO
CO

HI

CO, W

CO O )

sag

CO

CO

o -g
o
G) X
UJ

Is
a|

CD (=.

>. to

*8
Si.

II
m .0
9

(0 (0

CD X

to

UJ

1
w

%r (0

ta 2

trie Broi
ken Bre

a
c a
CD
E
IS as
CD X

ias Broile
cken Bre

m (0

ctric Broil
amburge

.
a

(0
Q_

o
2

td 03
CO

Appliance

Figure 21. Average grease vapor emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i3
B to
o

O) S3 t0

5 -c
2 to
iS
H
a ID-

03

2 5
CO

fll

._- 3
CO

o 2> "
c 5 g
UJ

to
CO

Appliance
STest!

Test 2

I Test 3

Figure 22. Collected grease vapor emissions per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

incoming air stream condenses in the impinger train, this is not proven. Therefore, we are
truly measuring the mass of grease vapor which condenses from an air stream cooled to
below 60 F (15 C) by water filled glass impingers submerged in an ice bath. Further
research is necessary to find the relationship between this measurement and the true
amount of grease vapor present.
As part of this investigation, a grease mass balance from the gas griddle process was used
to determine if the grease vapor measurement levels were feasible. The total product fat
loss was compared to sum of the mass of grease collected in the particulate form, the
vapor form, and the mass of grease left on the griddle surface. Given the uncertainties in
the fat content before and after cooking, the total mass accounted for from particulate and
vapor collected emissions and grease left on the griddle surface, was within the range of
total product fat loss. This suggests the method used for grease vapor collection is
probably a decent approximation of the grease vapor present in the air stream.
3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions
A stainless steel probe, connected to a personal sampling pump and a CO2 analyzer, was
used to sample air from the thermal plume at the same position as the probe for the grease
emissions. Figure 23 shows the total CO2 emissions normalized to the food product
mass.
The CO2 emissions shown in figure 23 include contributions from the room air. That is,
room air, with a CO2 level from 350 to 450 ppm enters the thermal plume from several
sources. The largest contribution is from air entering the thermal plume between the
cooking surface and the sampling point. The thermal plume entrains this air, cooling the
plume before it reaches the exhaust duct. Smaller contributions come from excess
combustion air, necessary for complete combustion. In addition, within the gas
appliances, room air enters and cools the exhaust air. This dilution air differs from the
excess air in that it is not necessary for the combustion process. Instead, its purpose is to
reduce the temperature of the combustion products before they exit the flue. The values
from figure 23 reflect the total amount of CO2 which must exhaust through the ducting.
The CO2 emissions from the electric appliances are mainly from the dilution air. There
might be a slight effect seen from the food product, especially from the electric broiler.
For each appliance, it is clear the combustion process from the gas version causes higher
CO2 emissions than those seen from the electric version.
The largest CO2 emitter is the gas broiler. At first, it may appear peculiar that emissions
on the order of 1000 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product are produced. However, this
translates into about 5 cfm of CO2 in the exhaust duct or 2000 ppm for an exhaust flow
rate of 2400 cfm. Duct CO2 measurements show this value to be accurate.
While figure 23 shows the CO2 emissions normalized to the food product mass, it is
interesting to view the emissions per hour of operation. For instance, for the griddles, a

46
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1600

1400

t3
.= 1200

Q.
rA 1000
o
o

800

c
Jo 600
<n
400

i
T5 X
in ^

vuMim

35

lea

g m

> co

if

lectric
(Potat

CO 3
CO
C

Gas Fryer
(Pot atoes)

S 1

ricG riddle
mbu rger)

riddle
urger)

m&m*

CD ja

HI

o x

CO (0

co J2
co -g
O

CD CD

II

o o
LU O

CO

CO

CO

O CO2
CO

Appliance
Figure 23. Total C0 2 emissions per appliance
(normalized to food product mass)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

-
CDa

tricOv
age Pi

200

sOve
age Pi

CO

CD

CD

O ) t i CO
<o
OC
CO
co

x: _
O ) CD
eg o )
,9- *
CO co
co
CO

CO

O ) CD"

sss

ID

co
CO

45
40

c 35
o

30

Q.
O
3 25
O
-C

"e/5 20
c
g

rih
i
"5
CD

UJ

S3

<

LU

CO X )

a
CO CO

f
II
tS co

.2 X
UJ "-'

^
_g>
2
m
w
co

.C
2D CO

CD

1
mm
p

m
c
J2
"5

CO

_ "co"

CD

2> ts co
S 2 w
.2 -c -

a *
o =C>
CO
O

4= co
o co
CD 3

CO

co

ffl

icOv
gePi

co eg
O 5 .

(3 3

if

= CD

Ovei
gePi

roiler
urger)

CJ .Q

lectric
(Potat

CD T~"
D E>

Fryer
atoes)

0
riddle
rger)

oo

'to
| 15
HI
10

o
c
*=
o

S
ffi
.*
o

UJ O

CO (0

Appliance
Figure 24. Total C0 2 emissions per appliance
(normalized to 1 hour of full load operation)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

m CO

DC D ) CD

CO
CO

>._- 3

* S CO
CO
O ) CD*

388
10

<5

full load test consists of only 6 lb. of hamburger, while a full load test for the oven
consists of 25 lb. of pizza. Therefore, the griddles must operate for a much longer time
period to reach 1000 lb. of food product, compared to the oven. Figure 24 shows the CO2
emissions normalized to one hour of full load operation.
The emissions from the electric appliances are almost identical when normalized to time.
This fact supports the notion that, for the electric appliances, the majority of the CO>
emissions are from the dilution room air. Emissions from the gas versions of the griddle,
fryer, oven, and range, have similar CO? emissions. Because the energy input from these
appliances are relatively similar, this suggests the majority of the CQ2 emissions are due
to combustion. However, the gas broiler shows much larger emissions even though its
energy input is similar to the other gas appliances. This suggests the food product
provides additional CO2 emissions. The food product CO2 contribution is most likely
from the grease drippings combusting on the hot surface of the radiants. The radiant
temperature was measured at about 1200 F (649 C), which is probably adequate to cause
a combustion type chemical reaction. The large difference in emissions from the gas
broiler cooking chicken breast compared to hamburger reflects the greater volume of
grease dripping from the hamburger product.
The average energy rate during cooking was used to estimate the total CQ2 contributions
from the combustion process. The assumption was that all the natural gas fed to the
appliance was combusted under stoichiometric conditions. Therefore, 2.74 lb. of CO2 is
released for each lb. of NH4 burned. Stoichiometric conditions will give the maximum
possible CO2 contributions from combustion. Figure 25 shows the total CO2 emissions
with the maximum contributions from combustion.
The histogram area with vertical lines shows the estimated maximum contribution from
combustion of natural gas. The remaining CO2 emissions, shown with horizontal lines,
represents contributions from the other possible sources, including grease combustion,
dilution air, and excess air. Emissions from the electric appliances must come from
grease combustion or dilution air. The gas griddle shows a large contribution from the
combustion process. For the gas griddle, the contribution from sources other than
combustion is similar to the CO2 emissions from the electric griddle. Because the
griddles are essentially identical, we would expect the CQ2 from sources other than
combustion to be equal for the gas and electric versions. We would expect the same for
the fryers and ovens, and figure 25 shows this to be true.
The gas broiler shows equal contributions from combustion while cooking either chicken
breast or hamburger. This is a result of the energy input being equal. The most
noticeable difference seen in the broilers is the contributions from grease combustion,
dilution air and excess air. The gas broiler emissions from these sources far exceeds that
from the electric broiler. The most probable explanation is the difference in broiler
design. The gas broiler has extremely hot radiants and a grease drip tray below the
cooking surface. Grease drippings from the food product frequently fall onto these hot
surfaces. It is common to have the grease drip tray catch fire, probably emitting

49
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1200
o
T3

2
a.
o
o
o

1000-

800

3T
w
c
,o

600

co

400

"E
o

200

<p co

O -a
co <S

0 X

ffl . - .

>> co

il g
0 9z-

I*

CD

UJ

O I

ik
CO CO

o
&
c P>

en 5
u a

2 m
c
u

II

IE
O

cd

ia

CD

8) _

|J

to

CO

Js

CO

CO

o o
UJ o

o> e co
CO

co

IX

SI

Q> CD

co 2 2>
CO

Appliance
DO Combustion Estimate

M From Grease Combustion, Dilution Air, and Excess Air

Figure 25. Total C 0 2 emissions per appliance


(with maximum combustion contributions)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

significant levels of CCh. The electric broiler does have electric heating elements which
have a temperature which we measured identical to the temperature of the gas broiler
radiants (1200 F or 649 C). However, they comprise an area smaller than that of the
radiants. In addition, the electric broiler has a water pan beneath the cooking surface, so
grease that drips past the heating elements is removed from the system, contributing no
emissions. The lower emissions from the chicken product reflects its lower fat content.
One would expect to see the CO2 contributions from the sources other than combustion
for the gas range to be similar to the contributions from the electric range. However, the
maximum combustion contributions can account for the entire measured CO2 emissions.
It is unlikely perfect combustion conditions exist, making the actual CQ2 contributions
from combustion lower. Besides, the amount of CO2 from the electric range is quite low,
therefore, we would expect for the combustion contributions from the gas range to
overshadow the contributions from the food product. The effect seen for the gas range
should remind readers of an important point, that is the data shown in figure 25 shows the
maximum possible combustion contributions, not the actual amounts.
While the previous figures show the total CO2 emissions including contributions from the
room air, it is possible to estimate the CO2 emissions when the room air CO2 is
subtracted. The result is an estimate of the amount of CO2 the process actually generates.
The amount of room air from the appliance flue, which includes excess combustion air
and dilution air used to cool the combustion gases, is estimated by performing an energy
and mass balance between the combustion flame, the room air, and the exiting flue gas.
Figure 26 shows a simple schematic of the process.

Aflame

Flame

Mflame

"Iroomaiir

k
W Flue

Appliance

"-room

Room Air

Eflue

\ -Eradiation

Mflue

Figure 26. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the exiting flue gas
The total mass of the gas exiting at the flue must equal the sum of the combustion gas
mass and the dilution room air mass used to cool the combustion gases before they exit
the flue. The same conservation also applies to the energy. The value for the flame
temperature of natural gas was estimated at 4000 R (2222 K), which is slightly below the
adiabatic flame temperature. Energy lost to the food product (as determined for each test)
was subtracted from the total energy contributions from the natural gas combustion. In
addition, energy losses due to infrared radiation to the surroundings were estimated at 50
percent based on available heat gain information (ASHRAE 1997). The remaining energy
from the flame is accounted for at the flue exit. For the gas griddle and gas fryer, the flue
temperature was measured at about 500 F (260 C). The same value was estimated for

51
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

the gas oven. The broiler and range do not have flues, but from our cooking surface
temperature calibrations we know the approximate temperature at the cooking surface is
about 500 F (260 C). The estimated amount of room air comes from the necessary mass
flow needed to balance the mass and energy of the gas exiting the flue.
A mass and energy balance on the room dilution air, the exiting flue gas, the food product
emissions, and the thermal plume at the sampling point determines the room air
contributions added to the plume between the appliance surface and the sampling point.
The mass and energy associated with the exiting flue gas was previously discussed. The
mass and energy contributions from the food product emissions are estimated by the net
mass loss from the cooking product. The velocity and temperature data helps in
estimating the thermal plume volume. The temperature data points that exceed the room
air temperature by a given amount determine the cross-sectional area boundary of the
thermal plume at the sampling point. The temperature used for the boundary was 5 F
(2.8 C) plus 15 percent of the difference found between the room air and the maximum
temperature found in the plume. The minimum value of 5 F (2.8 C) provides a realistic
boundary for the processes which have very low maximum plume temperatures. The
temperature and velocity data within the plume control boundary are used to find the
mass flow and energy of the thermal plume. An estimate for the amount of dilution room
air comes from balancing the mass and energy at the thermal plume. Figure 27 shows a
schematic of the process.
Eflue

Flue
Food
Product
Emissions

Mfl n e

Efood
Mfood

Volume Between the


Appliance and the
w Sampling Point

Uplume

Thermal Plume at the


Sampling Point
Mplume

Dilution
Room Air

Uroom
W
IVlroom

Figure 27. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the thermal plume
Once the mass flow of air from the room is known, its contribution to the CO2 measured
at the sampling point can be subtracted. Figures 28 and 29 show the estimated CQ2
contributions from the cooking process only, normalized to the mass of food product and
time, respectively.
After subtracting the contributions from the room air, the CO2 emissions from the electric
appliances essentially fall to zero. This is appropriate considering there is no combustion

52
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

to

E
to

u.

2
c
-CD

UJ

E
X

CO

"

<S

CO CO

5.

Broile
urger)

a
X3

"D "C

8 E

Elec
(Ha

CD

Broiler
burger

CD

, I 111 , Electric Frye


(Potatoes)

.
T3

sFrye
tatoes

DHL

, IMlll ,
_

o m
m c

w5
CO o
OS
O

, ill ,
1

03

11
LU O

"5"
c W
Q.

S>
CO

CO

3
CO

Appliance
Figure 28. Total C 0 2 emissions per 1000 lb. food product
(all C 0 2 contributions from room dilution air subtracted)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

. 11 .
iB
o 8,
5

co

CO

8
._- 3
o> * s co

2 co
OC o )
CO
CO

2>
CO

CO

a 8
ff._- 3
CO
o f feg o)
*
c

SSI
UJ

CO

CO

30

25

20

15

10

c
CD

O)
w
3
XI

< 5 CO

S o

liT

CD

,*8

CD =
c E
13

<2 g

LL
O

0 X

LU

CD 9 ^

& w
CD
O

15
o
a> a.

LU

'2 S>
m 3

3
CD

E
CO
X

co

CD

2>
XI

E
CO

gm
CO c

ofo

a) CO
CO
"5 p
m co
c

9
i ; J*
9 o
LU O

CD

CO

Q.

O 2,
O)

co co
CO
CO

c W
CD
> a.
O

trie
age

ctri

< "=
(D

CO
3

a>
LU

CO

CO

Appliance
Figure 29. Total C0 2 emissions per hour of full load operation
(all C0 2 contributions from room dilution air subtracted)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

o> e co
co . c
CC

O ) CD

w a. ^

c3&!
CO
CO

JOT
C 2

D)

SSI
LU

CO
CO

process. The electric boiler might be expected to emit CO2 from grease falling on the
heating coils. Data from the electric broiler cooking hamburger does show CQ>
emissions slightly above zero, but this is within the measurement noise.
The CO2 emissions from the gas griddle, fryer, oven, and range are all below the
maximum combustion contributions shown in figure 25. This suggests most, if not all, of
the CO2 emitted from the processes is from combustion. However, natural gas
combustion does not account for the CO2 levels seen from the gas broiler. The maximum
combustion contribution from the gas broiler shown in figure 25 is about 400 lb. per 1000
lb. of food product. This is true for both the hamburger and chicken breast. However, the
CO2 emissions while cooking chicken breast and hamburger, after subtracting room air
contributions, are about 475 and 750 lb./l 0001b., respectively. Given the sources of error
it is possible the emissions from chicken breast are mostly from combustion, but this
cannot explain the hamburger emissions.
As mentioned earlier, the most likely source of CQ2 contributions from the gas broiler, in
addition to natural gas combustion, is the combustion of grease drippings. Data from
figures 28 and 29 support the hypothesis that some combustion must occur when grease
falls on the hot radiants, as well as when grease fires flare-up on the grease drip tray
beneath the burners. The latter phenomena results in thick black smoke emitting to the
thermal plume. These grease fires certainly emit CQ2. It is likely this effect dominates
the additional CO2 emissions seen from the gas broiler. Contributions from grease
dripping on the radiants is probably not as great. Evidence which suggests this is the fact
we do not see significant CO2 contributions from the electric broiler. While the electric
coils only comprise about one half the area of the gas broiler radiants, the temperatures at
the coils and radiants are almost identical. Therefore, if large amounts of CQ2 were
coming from grease dripping on the radiants, it would be logical to expect somewhat
significant CO2 emissions from the electric broiler originating from grease dripping on
the electric coils. There is no evidence of this.
Except for the gas oven, the CO2 emissions normalized to time are generally in the same
proportion, in respect to cooking processes, as the emissions normalized to food product
mass. Compared to the other processes, the mass of food product used per test for the
oven (25 lb. or 11.4 kg) was large. Therefore, when the CQ2 emissions from the gas oven
are normalized to time, they are of the same order of magnitude as emissions from the gas
griddle, oven, and fryer.
4. Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Figures 30 and 31 show the CO emissions from each process, normalized to food product
mass and time, respectively. Carbon monoxide emissions from the sampling point were
taken along with the carbon dioxide emissions described in the previous section. The

55
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

12

10
o
3
o
O

o
o

c5
O

"CO*

o -g3
c t

.2 3L
LU

0) Q)

0) Ft.
LU ""'

OQ . a
8 E
co co
O X

if g
co o

CO

E
u n3

CD

CO

a> X

LU

w
CD

co
a)

" ft

>. co

2
em

.2
CO
co

CO

cfl

CO

c
5^
.*!
O
o
CO
LU O
f>
p

r W

CL

o
CO

CO

co

CO

Appliance

Figure 30. Total CO emissions per appliance


(normalized to food product mass)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Ia
3*
.g S>
B co
o

co

-2 2
l^co

CD

O)

CD
O

e co

c
c0 j g CO
rr O) CD"

Gas

ctri

Si

oile

ON

,9OT.co
CO

O)

CO

CO

rx J? O T
O

O) cu"

SSI
LU

CO

300

o 250
CD
Q.

200

to
3
O
JZ

150

o
"cS

.2 100
CO
CO

LU

50

"5
3
8 x
UJ

if
UJ

CD

CD

CO . O

<
2 E
CO CO
(3 X

.2 -c-

is
It
CD

CO

_<D
3

.2 X
UJ "-'

g CO

V)
(D 10

2 2
CQ CD

CD
CO o

O P

CO

r N

TO

CO

O CO2
V

UJ

CO

CD

o
to
CD 3

E<8

i2 -c

CC O ) <B

CO D )
8 CO
Q . CO

'

3
CO

CO

Appliance
Figure 31. Total CO emissions per appliance
(normalized to 1000 hours of full load operation)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD

CO

fe N

tricOv
age Pi

*-.

> , co

sOve
age Pi

CD

lectric
(Potat

to (0

0 X

Gas Fryer
(Pot,atoes)

ricG riddle
mbu rger)

riddle
urger)

^BBBOIk

o 9 o
C S D)

SSI
m

.55

carbon monoxide sensor is on the same instrument as the carbon dioxide sensor,
therefore, an additional sampling tube connected the sampling pump to the sensor.
The background CO levels were below the minimum detection level of the
instrumentation (1 ppm), therefore, all measured CO must originate from either the
cooking process or the natural gas combustion. CO emissions from the gas and electric
versions of the fryers, ovens and ranges are within the detection noise level. Therefore,
given the measurement method, CO emissions are insignificant for these processes.
While the gas griddle shows a slightly significant level of CO emission, the electric
griddle does not. If CO contributions were from the actual meat cooking process, we
would expect to see significant CO emissions from the electric griddle. This suggests the
gas griddle may have operated under incomplete combustion conditions.
The broilers do show significant CO emission levels. By far, the highest emissions come
from the gas broiler cooking hamburger. CO emissions from the gas broiler fall by a
factor of six when cooking low fat chicken breast. The CO contributions from natural gas
combustion should be approximately the same regardless of cooking product. This
suggests the majority of the CO emissions relates to the cooking product. Data from the
electric broiler support this. CO emissions from the electric boiler cooking hamburger
are rather high, while emissions cooking chicken breast are insignificant. This shows the
cooking product affects the CO emissions from the electric broiler. Because the CO
emissions from the electric broiler cooking chicken breast are insignificant, it is plausible
to assume the majority of the CO emissions from the gas broiler cooking chicken breast is
from incomplete fuel combustion. Furthermore, contributions from incomplete
combustion for the gas broiler should be equal for the either food product. Therefore,
approximately 7/8 of the CO emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger are
probably associated with the hamburger product.
The most likely source of CO generation is the hamburger grease drippings. Some grease
falls on the hot radiants, while much of it lands on the grease drip tray beneath the
burners. The occasional flare-ups, described earlier, must generate a large proportion of
the CO emissions. While testing, there is a noticeable increase in CO levels when a flareup occurs. This evidence, along with data from grease particulate, grease vapor, and CO2
emissions, supports the notion that it is important to remove grease drippings from areas
of the cooking appliance where the grease can combust and add to overall emissions.
5. Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Air samples from the thermal plume at the sampling point were collected in Tedlar bags
and analyzed using a high sensitivity non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) NO* detector.
Samples from the room air determined the background levels, which were always found
to be near zero. Therefore, it can be assumed that any detected NOx originates from the
natural gas combustion or the cooking process. Figures 32 and 33 show the NOx
emissions from each process, normalized to the food product mass and time, respectively.

58
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

0.140
0.120
2 0.100
O 0.080
?

0.060

j j 0.040

0.020

U
CO
CO

o-g

t3
CD X

UU

,8
ca P

CD f t .

if
~

CD

^CD 5P >

1=
aE

CO CO

CD X

CD - C
= 5 CD
CD

II
O CO

.2 X

UJ """

UJ O

CO

Appliance
Figure 32. NOx emissions per appliance
(normalized to food product mass)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

, - CO

| N
P a

Electr
[Sausa

CD 3

CD CD

Gas Oven
ausa ge Pizza

CD - 9

3 S>

Q) CO

lectri 3 Broiler
hicke n Breast

CD
"O "C"

Gas Broiler
hicken Breast

CD *C" .

=5

^^^^^^*

0.000

CD

CD

a--

C CO

CT * 3 CO

&&*

CJBJ
CO

co

UJ

CO
CO

CO CO

t3 co

a x

LU " "

m
CO
CO

ic Oven
ge Pizza

CD 3

Oven
ge Pizza

m&
2 E

CD

c Broiler
n Breast

CD CD

n Breast

SS

ED~

Electric
(Potat

( 5 1

Gas Fryer
(Pot atoes]

(3 .0

ricG riddle
mburger)

riddle
urger)

CO

= 8

2
co
CO CO

.fa CO

o
CD sz
O

O o

O 3

LU O

CO

co

Appliance

Figure 33. NOx emissions per appliance


(normalized to 1000 hours of full load operation)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD
D > t 3 CO

= w

U CO
CD 3

<

CO

CO

CD

CD

>._-

c
CO
-

a co
^ CO
O) of

388

UJ

CO

CO

The absolute value of the NOx emissions are very low. In fact, they are generally two
orders of magnitude lower than the CO emissions. Figures 32 and 33 show essentially no
NOx emissions from the electric appliances. Unlike the CO and CO2 emissions, even the
electric broiler shows no NOx emissions. This suggests the food product is not involved
at all in NOx production. One might expect NOx generation from the flare-ups that occur
while cooking hamburger on the gas broiler. However, the data shows the NOx emissions
from the broiler cooking hamburger to be about equal to the emissions while cooking
chicken breast. Therefore, conditions present during the grease fire flare-ups must be
unfavorable to NOx generation. Because NOx generation is not associated with food
product, it is probably more appropriate to view the NOx emissions from the data
normalized to time.
Figure 33 shows the NOx emissions from the gas griddle, fryer, broiler, and range, at
relatively equal values. The NOx emission from the gas oven is about four times that of
the other gas appliances. A possible explanation may lie in the fact the combustion air
recirculates within the gas oven burner area. This is not true for any other appliance. It is
well known that NOx generation from combustion is associated with high combustion
temperatures. In fact, a common problem with low NQx combustion in utility boilers is
the required low flame temperature reduces the percentage of fuel which undergoes
complete combustion. It is likely the temperature experienced by the combustion gasses
in the gas oven exceeds that seen in the other appliances. Therefore, the gas oven
generates substantially higher levels of NQx emissions.
6. Hydrocarbon Emissions
The classification of hydrocarbons and their method of detection appears confusing to
most who do not commonly work with them. Much of the confusion comes from the
terminology used to describe certain subgroups. Some of the terminology includes VOC
(volatile organic compounds), SVOC (semi-volatile organic compounds), ROC (reactive
organic compounds), ROG (reactive organic gases), TGNMO (total gaseous non-methane
organics), total hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and PAH (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons). In addition, there are many other subgroups of organic compounds.
Individual hydrocarbon gases may belong to one or many of these categories, with a
specific analytic test used to detect and measure each different subgroup. Emission
effects from these gasses on the environment and human health varies from compound to
compound. The most problematic aspect arising from this apparent confusion is the
intermingling of terminology. For this investigation, the goal was to test for aromatic
hydrocarbons emitted in the gaseous form. A personal sampling pump pulled air from the
thermal plume at the sampling point through an activated carbon sorbent tube. The
carbon within the sorbent tube adsorbs aromatic hydrocarbons, as well as other
compounds. The tube is sealed after sampling and sent to a laboratory where gas
chromatography is used to measure adsorbed gases. The specific tests performed were
NIOSH methods 1501 and 1003, for aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons,
respectively. The halogenated hydrocarbons were included because the laboratory usually
performs the two tests together.

61
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Tables 1 through 5 show the lower detection limit for each of the specified gases tested,
for which we did not detect emissions from any process. This is not to say that
hydrocarbon emissions do not exist in cooking processes. The lower detection levels
shown are about an order of magnitude higher than hydrocarbon emission data from some
previous studies. Performing experiments of sufficient length to reach these levels was
impractical in this investigation. The lower detection levels reached during this
investigation were around 100 ppb for most processes and up to several hundred ppb for
others. The limit depends on the sampling time period and rate, as well as the molecular
weight of the compound.
Each table shows the lower detection limit for a certain appliance, for both the gas and
electric versions. Tables 1 through 5 refer to the griddles, fryers, broilers, ovens, and
ranges, in that order. The gasses analyzed are specified by the aforementioned NIOSH
test method and include aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons. The names used are
those found in the testing procedure. However, there are numerous synonyms for most
compounds, and some of which are shown in table 6.
There are several explanations as to why there were no hydrocarbons detected. First, as
discussed earlier, they may be present in levels below the detection limit. However, we
do detect a substantial amount of grease in the vapor form, and grease consists of
hydrocarbons. This leads to the conclusion that there may in fact be substantial levels of
hydrocarbons, but not the ones tested for. For instance, animal fat grease consists of
several different compounds, all of which are long, complicated hydrocarbon chains. If
the grease vaporizes and remains a long chain of hydrocarbons in the vapor form, it will
not be detected by the methods used. Perhaps a total hydrocarbon test would detect the
grease vapor. The grease vapor chemical composition does have implications to both the
environment and human health. For instance, if in fact most of the grease vapor remains
as long hydrocarbon chains, it is likely the grease will condense on a surface somewhere
in the exhaust system or outside the building. Therefore, it would be proper to treat the
grease vapor as an alternate phase of grease particulates. However, if the grease is
chemically altered in the vaporization process, that is the long hydrocarbon chains are
broken into different hydrocarbon compounds, it is possible some of these compounds
may be more harmful than grease. An example would be if PAH's were formed. PAH's
are known human carcinogens, therefore, according to OSHA standards, no detectable
level is acceptable in the work environment. From this investigation, we can conclude
that aromatic hydrocarbons are not emitted in the gaseous form in significant amounts,
but PAH levels were not tested and thus remain unknown.
Another possibility is that hydrocarbon gases may be dissolved within the grease
particulates. A recent study (Siegmann and Sattler pub. pending) shows that cooking oil

62
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 1. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR GRIDDLES

Gas Griddle

HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroprop
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dlchloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1.1 Dichloropropene
cls-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene

Electric Griddle

Molecular Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit


mg/m A 3
ppb
ppb
Weight
mg/m A 3
157
0.5
157
0.5
78.11
0.5
78
78
157.02
0.5
0.5
95
95
129.39
0.5
0.5
75
75
163.85
0.5
0.5
252.75
48
48
0.5
0.5
91
91
134.21
0.5
0.5
91
0.5
91
134.21
0.5
91
91
0.5
134.21
153.84
0.5
80
0.5
80
0.5
109
109
112.56
0.5
103
119.39
0.5
103
0.5
97
0.5
97
126.58
0.5
97
0.5
126.58
0.5
97
52
0.5
236.33
0.5
52
71
0.5
172.89
0.5
71
65
0.5
65
187.86
0.5
70
0.5
173.85
70
0.5
83
0.5
83
0.5
147
83
0.5
83
0.5
147
83
0.5
147
83
0.5
124
0.5
124
98.46
0.5
124
124
98.96
0.5
0.5
96.94
126
0.5
126
0.5
112.99
108
0.5
108
0.5
108
112.99
0.5
108
0.5
112.99
108
0.5
108
0.5
110.98
110
0.5
110
0.5
110.98
110
0.5
110
0.5
110.98
0.5
110
0.5
no
106.17
115
0.5
115
0.5
260.79
47
0.5
47
0.5
120.2
102
0.5
102
0.5
91
134.22
0.5
91
0.5
83
0.5
83
148.21
0.5
122
100.16
0.5
122
0.5
128.18
96
0.5
0.5
96
120.19
102
0.5
102
0.5
118
104.15
118
0.5
0.5
167.85
0.5
73
0.5
73
167.85
73
0.5
73
0.5
74
0.5
74
165.83
0.5
72.1
170
0.5
170
0.5
92.14
133
0.5
0.5
133
181.46
0.5
0.5
68
68
181.46
68
0.5
68
0.5
133.42
92
0.5
92
0.5
133.41
0.5
92
92
0.5
131.39
93
0.5
93
0.5
147.43
83
0.5
83
0.5
102
0.5
102
120.2
0.5
0.5
120.2
102
0.5
102
106.17
115
0.5
115
0.5
106.17
0.9
208
0.9
208
106.17
208
208
0.9
0.9

63
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 2. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR FRYERS

Gas Fryer

HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroprop
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene

Electric Fryer

Molecular Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit


mg/m A 3
ppb
Weight
PPb
mg/m A 3
78.11
878
2.8
376
1.2
437
187
157.02
2.8
1.2
227
129.39
530
2.8
1.2
419
179
163.85
2.8
1.2
271
2.8
116
252.75
1.2
511
219
134.21
2.8
1.2
511
219
134.21
2.8
1.2
511
219
134.21
2.8
1.2
153.84
446
2.8
191
1.2
609
2.8
261
112.56
1.2
575
2.8
246
119.39
1.2
542
126.58
2.8
1.2
232
542
2.8
232
126.58
1.2
124
290
2.8
1.2
236.33
397
172.89
2.8
170
1.2
365
187.86
2.8
156
1.2
395
2.8
169
1.2
173.85
467
147
2.8
200
1.2
467
2.8
200
147
1.2
467
147
2.8
200
1.2
697
2.8
299
1.2
98.46
693
2.8
297
1.2
98.96
96.94
708
303
2.8
1.2
112.99
607
2.8
260
1.2
607
2.8
260
112.99
1.2
607
2.8
260
112.99
1.2
618
2.8
265
1.2
110.98
110.98
618
2.8
265
1.2
618
265
110.98
2.8
1.2
106.17
646
2.8
277
1.2
260.79
263
2.8
113
1.2
571
120.2
2.8
245
1.2
219
134.22
511
2.8
1.2
198
148.21
463
2.8
1.2
294
685
2.8
100.16
1.2
535
229
2.8
1.2
128.18
571
2.8
245
120.19
1.2
282
104.15
659
2.8
1.2
175
167.85
409
2.8
1.2
409
175
167.85
2.8
1.2
414
165.83
2.8
177
1.2
408
951
2.8
1.2
72.1
92.14
2.8
319
745
1.2
181.46
378
2.8
162
1.2
378
2.8
162
1.2
181.46
514
2.8
220
133.42
1.2
514
133.41
2.8
1.2
220
224
131.39
522
2.8
1.2
147.43
465
2.8
199
1.2
571
245
1.2
120.2
2.8
245
120.2
571
2.8
1.2
106.17
2.8
277
1.2
646
531
106.17
1292
5.6
2.3
106.17
1292
5.6
2.3
531

64
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 3. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR BROILERS

Gas Broiler

HC ANALYSIS

Electric Broiler

Molecular Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit


mg/m A 3
Weight
mg/m A 3
PPb
PPb
188
1129
78.11
0.6
3.6
Benzene
94
562
0.6
3.6
157.02
Bromobenzene
114
682
129.39
0.6
3.6
Bromochloromethane
90
538
Bromodichloromettiane
0.6
3.6
163.85
58
349
0.6
252.75
Bromoform
3.6
110
657
134.21
n-Butylbenzene
0.6
3.6
110
657
0.6
3.6
134.21
sec-Birtylbenzene
110
657
tert-Butylbenzene
0.6
3.6
134.21
96
0.6
573
3.6
153.84
Carbon tetrachloride
131
0.6
784
3.6
112.56
Chlorobenzene
123
0.6
739
119.39
3.6
Chloroform
116
0.6
697
126.58
2-Chlorotuluene
3.6
116
0.6
697
4-Chlorotuluene
3.6
126.58
0.6
62
373
3.6
236.33
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropc
85
0.6
510
172.89
Dlbromochloromethane
3.6
78
0.6
469
187.86
1,2-Dibromoethane
3.6
85
0.6
507
173.85
Dibromomethane
3.6
100
0.6
600
147
3.6
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
100
0.6
600
147
3.6
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
100
0.6
600
3.6
147
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
149
896
98.46
1,1-Dlchloroethane
0.6
3.6
149
0.6
891
98.96
3.6
1,2-Dichloroethane
152
0.6
910
3.6
96.94
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
781
112.99
130
0.6
3.6
1,2-Dlchloropropane
781
112.99
1,3-Dichloropropane
130
0.6
3.6
112.99
130
0.6
781
3.6
2,2-Dlchloropropane
132
0.6
795
3.6
110.98
1.1 Dichloropropene
795
110.98
132
0.6
3.6
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
795
3.6
110.98
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene
132
0.6
138
3.6
106.17
Ethyl benzene
0.6
831
338
260.79
0.6
3.6
Hexachlorobutadlene
56
734
120.2
Isopropylbenzene
122
0.6
3.6
657
3.6
134.22
p-lsopropyltoluene
110
0.6
595
148.21
Methyl ethyl ketone
99
0.6
3.6
147
881
3.6
100.16
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.6
344
1.8
688
3.6
128.18
Naphthalene
734
120.19
n-Propylbenzene
122
0.6
3.6
Styrene
0.6
847
3.6
104.15
141
167.85
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.6
525
3.6
88
0.6
525
3.6
167.85
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
88
0.6
532
165.83
Tetrachloroethene
89
3.6
Tetrahydrofuran
204
1223
3.6
72.1
0.6
Toluene
957
92.14
160
0.6
3.6
486
181.46
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1.2
3.6
162
181.46
0.6
486
3.6
1 ,Z4-Trich!orobenzene
81
133.42
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
110
0.6
661
3.6
133.41
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
110
0.6
661
3.6
3.6
131.39
Trlchloroethene
112
0.6
671
1 ,Z3-Trichloropropane
100
0.6
598
3.6
147.43
734
3.6
120.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
122
0.6
734
0.6
3.6
120.2
1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
122
106.17
o-Xylene
831
3.6
138
0.6
m-Xylene
1661
106.17
1.2
7.2
277
1661
106.17
p-Xylene
7.2
277
1.2
Hydrocarbons

65
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 4. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR OVENS

Gas Oven

HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Bulylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroprop
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-DIchloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloropropene
cls-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyr ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1.1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,Z3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene

Electric Oven

Molecular Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit


mg/m A 3
Weight
ppb
ppb
mg/m A 3
0.5
151
0.48
157
78.11
0.5
75
157.02
78
0.48
0.5
129.39
91
0.48
95
0.5
72
0.48
163.85
75
0.5
47
0.48
252.75
48
88
0.48
134.21
91
0.5
91
0.5
88
0.48
134.21
88
0.48
91
0.5
134.21
76
153.84
80
0.5
0.48
104
109
0.5
0.48
112.56
103
99
0.48
119.39
0.5
97
0.5
93
0.48
126.58
97
0.5
93
0.48
126.58
52
0.5
50
0.48
236.33
71
0.5
68
0.48
172.89
63
65
0.5
0.48
187.86
0.48
70
0.5
68
173.85
0.5
0.48
147
83
80
80
0.48
147
83
0.5
83
0.5
80
0.48
147
124
119
0.5
0.48
98.46
124
0.48
98.96
0.5
119
96.94
121
0.48
126
0.5
104
112.99
0.5
0.48
108
104
0.48
112.99
108
0.5
104
0.48
112.99
108
0.5
0.5
106
0.48
110.98
110
0.48
0.5
106
110.98
no
0.48
110.98
110
0.5
106
0.48
106.17
0.5
111
115
45
0.48
260.79
47
0.5
98
0.48
120.2
102
0.5
88
0.48
134.22
91
0.5
79
0.48
148.21
83
0.5
117
0.48
100.16
122
0.5
128.18
0.5
92
0.48
96
98
0.48
120.19
0.5
102
0.5
113
0.48
104.15
118
70
0.48
167.85
73
0.5
0.48
73
0.5
70
167.85
74
0.5
71
0.48
165.83
163
0.48
170
0.5
72.1
92.14
0.48
133
0.5
128
181.46
0.5
65
0.48
68
65
0.48
181.46
68
0.5
133.42
92
0.5
88
0.48
133.41
0.5
88
0.48
92
90
0.48
131.39
0.5
93
147.43
0.5
80
0.48
83
98
0.48
120.2
102
0.5
98
120.2
0.5
0.48
102
111
0.48
106.17
115
0.5
219
0.95
106.17
1
231
219
0.95
106.17
1
231

66
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 5. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR RANGES

Gas Range

HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroprop
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trlchloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
c-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene

Electric Range

Molecular Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit


mg/m A 3
mg/m A 3
Weight
PPb
PPb
188
94
0.3
78.11
0.6
94
0.6
47
0.3
157.02
114
57
129.39
0.6
0.3
90
45
0.6
0.3
163.85
58
29
0.6
0.3
252.75
110
0.6
55
0.3
134.21
110
0.6
55
0.3
134.21
110
0.6
55
0.3
134.21
153.84
96
0.6
48
0.3
131
0.6
65
0.3
112.56
123
0.6
62
0.3
119.39
116
58
0.6
0.3
126.58
116
0.6
58
0.3
126.58
62
0.6
31
0.3
236.33
85
0.6
43
172.89
0.3
78
0.6
39
187.86
0.3
85
0.6
42
173.85
0.3
100
0.6
50
147
0.3
100
0.6
50
0.3
147
50
147
100
0.6
0.3
149
75
0.6
0.3
98.46
74
149
0.6
0.3
98.96
96.94
152
0.6
76
0.3
130
0.6
65
0.3
112.99
65
112.99
130
0.6
0.3
130
0.6
65
0.3
112.99
132
0.6
66
0.3
110.98
66
132
0.6
0.3
110.98
0.6
66
0.3
110.98
132
69
106.17
138
0.6
0.3
28
260.79
56
0.6
0.3
0.6
61
120.2
122
0.3
55
134.22
110
0.6
0.3
99
0.6
50
0.3
148.21
73
0.6
147
0.3
100.16
134
134
0.7
128.18
0.7
61
120.19
122
0.6
0.3
141
71
0.6
0.3
104.15
44
0.6
0.3
167.85
88
44
0.6
0.3
167.85
88
44
0.3
165.83
89
0.6
102
72.1
0.6
204
0.3
92.14
0.6
80
0.3
160
41
0.6
0.3
181.46
81
41
0.3
181.46
81
0.6
133.42
0.6
55
0.3
no
133.41
55
0.3
110
0.6
56
131.39
0.6
0.3
112
50
0.3
147.43
100
0.6
61
120.2
0.6
0.3
122
61
0.6
0.3
120.2
122
69
0.3
106.17
0.6
138
106.17
162
0.7
300
1.3
106.17
162
0.7
1.3
300

67
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 6. SYNONYMS FOR TESTED HYDROCARBONS

Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Ethyl benzene
Isopropylbenzene
Styrene
Napthalene
Bromobenzene
1.2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trlchlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Common Synonyms
Aromatics and Benzenes
Benzol, Phene
Methylbenzene, Phenylmethane
1,2-dimethylbenzene
1,3-dimethylbenzene
1,4-dimethylbenzene
X

cumene
Ethylbenzene, Phenylethylene, Vlnylbenzene
X

Phenyl Bromide
Psuedocumene
Mesitylene
X
X
X
X

o-Dichlorobenzene
X

p-Dichlorobenzene
X
X

Other Hydrocarbons
Chlorobromomethane
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane X
tribromomethane
Bromoform
tetrachloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Phenyl chloride, Monochlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
trichloromethane
Chloroform
o-Tolyl chloride. Benzyl chloride, Chloromethylbenzene
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
p-Tolyl chloride. Benzyl chloride, Chloromethylbenzene
1,2-Dlbromo-3-chloropropane
Dlbromochloromethane
Ethylene Bromide
1,2-Dlbromoethane
Methylene bromide
Dibromomethane
Ethylldene chloride
1,1-Dlchloroethane
Ethylene chloride
1,2-Dlchloroethane
cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dlchloroethylene, Acetylene dlchloride
Propylene dlchloride
1,2-Dlchloropropane
Trimethylene chloride
1,3-Dlchloropropane
Acetone dlchloride, Isopropylidene chloride
2,2-Dichloropropane
X
1,1 Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene X
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene X
X
Hexachlorobutadlene
p-lsopropyltoluene
2-Butanone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
4-methyl-2 pentanone
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane X
1,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane Acetylene tetrachloride
Perchlorotheylene
Tetrachloroethene
1,4-Epoxybutane, Tetramethylene oxide
Tetrahydrofuran
Methylchloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
vinyl trichloride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
X
Trichloroethene
Trichlorohydrln, Allyl trichloride. Glycerol Trichlorohydrin
1,2,3-Trichloropropane

68
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

particulates carry dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The study was
initiated to test the hypothesis that the level of lung cancer in Chinese women, which
cannot be explained by smoking, is related to cooking with extremely hot oil in poorly
ventilated conditions. In the investigation, testing consisted of heating cooking oil to
several different temperatures. The heated oil produced vapors and particulates. The
particulates were collected on a filter and analyzed for PAH content. Significant levels of
PAH's were found within the particulates. It should be stressed that this study did not use
an actual cooking process. This matter is worthy of further investigation under actual
cooking conditions.
7. Thermal Plume Volume Flow Rate
The volumetric flow rate of the thermal plume at the ventilation hood entrance was
estimated for each of the cooking processes. The hood entrance was divided into control
volumes determined by the temperature and velocity data positions. Section E shows the
control volumes used for each process. Temperature distribution data determined which
control volumes belonged in the thermal plume, and which did not, effectively forming a
plume boundary. For each process, the temperature used to find the thermal plume
boundary was 5 F (2.8 C) plus 15 percent of the maximum temperature difference
between the room air and the thermal plume. The use of a formula to find the
temperature cut-off for the plume boundary provides a systematic method applicable to
all processes. Temperature data used was taken from the highest point above the
appliance surface. For the ovens, die temperature data from the hood entrance was
available. Boundaries from all other appliances used the temperature data from 36 inches
above the cooking surface. This height is typically only 4 to 7 inches below the hood
entrance, depending on the cooking surface height.
For example, the electric griddle has a maximum temperature difference between the
room air and the plume of 8.8 F (4.9 C) at 36 in., therefore, the plume boundary was
determined by temperatures of the thermal plume exceeding 6.32 F (3.51 C). Some
appliances have much higher temperature differences, such as the gas fryer. For the gas
fryer the maximum temperature difference was 38.59 F (21.44 C) therefore the
boundary was determined by temperatures exceeding 10.79 F (5.99 C). The gas range
and gas broiler were problematic in that they have maximum temperature differences of
195 F (108 C), and 102 F (56 C), much higher than other appliances. The gas range
has an oven flue extension protruding 24 in. above the cooking surface along its back side
which traps heat from the burners, resulting in a small region of extremely hot emissions
near the center of the flue extension . If we use the same formula used for all other
processes, the temperature used to find the plume boundary is above 34 F (18.9). For the
gas broiler, the resulting temperature to find the plume boundary would be 20.3 F (11.28
C). We believe this falsely reduces the true size of the thermal plume. Therefore, a
value of 12 T (6.67 C) was used to find the plume boundary for the gas range and gas
broiler. Table 7 shows the maximum temperature difference between the thermal plume
and room air, and the temperature used to determine the plume boundaries, for each
appliance.

69
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 7. TEMPERATURES USED FOR THERMAL PLUME BOUNDARIES

Appliance

A max plume" 1 room air


Op ( O Q

1 boundary cut-off
Op ( O Q

Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
Hamburger
Gas Broiler
Chicken Breast
Electric Broiler
Hamburger
Electric Broiler
Chicken Breast
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas range
Electric Range

37.14 (20.63)
8.81 (4.89)
38.59(21.44)
15.01 (8.34)
101.93
(56.63)
96.11
(53.39)
23.85
(13.25)
36.60
(20.33)
34.05 (18.92)
27.84(15.47)
195.16(108.42)
16.53(9.18)

10.57 (5.87)
6.32(3.51)
10.79 (5.99)
7.25 (4.03)
12
(6.67)
12
(6.67)
8.58
(4.77)
10.49
(5.87)
10.10(5.61)
9.18 (5.10)
12 (6.67)
7.48 (4.16)

After establishing the boundary of the thermal plume, the temperature and velocity data
determines the mass flow rate through each control volume in the thermal plume. The
mass flow rate is converted into a volume flow rate using the measured barometric
pressure and the bulk temperature of the thermal plume. It should be noted the velocity
data were not taken during the cooking process due to difficulties from the grease
emissions. Therefore alternatives, such as boiling trays of water on the cooking surface,
were applied to simulate the plume velocity during cooking. This worked for the griddles
and the ranges. For the fryers, ovens, and broilers, velocities were taken while the
appliance was idling, at times when the burners were cycling on. Figure 34 shows the
resulting estimates for the volumetric flow rate of the cooking plume as it enters the
ventilation hood.
The broilers produce the largest thermal plume, exceeding all other processes by a factor
of at least two. This supports the belief that broilers need greater ventilation compared to
most other cooking processes. The data show the gas broiler has a higher thermal plume
flow rate than the electric broiler, regardless of cooking product. This is appropriate due
to the increase volume generated by the natural gas combustion process. In fact, one
probably expects to see an even larger difference in thermal plume volumes between the
two types of broilers. Perhaps the temperature used for the gas broiler plume boundary is
over estimated, and portions of the plume are neglected in our estimates.

70
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1400

1200

U_ 1000
O
CD

to

800

600

E
3
>

400

CD

3
*
C 3

P>

CD

U)

qui

CD -Q
co S
co

=R "ST

ectric Gri
urg

CD

CO

in

CO

CD J L

lect Frye
(Potatoes)

200

CD CD
~
O)
CO X )
E

CO CO

CD X

S-e
CD
m E>
3
o X)
c E
CO

ui

_CD

2 CO
m c
CO
CO

o
CD !c
O

CO

CO

g
m co

c .8
CD

Q.

52

Ul O

CO

CO

CO
CO

Appliance

r-

CD

Ia

8.--S

o-

iS -*= -

" g>

Ul
C
O

CO
CJ

CO

2 > * 3 CO
0C

D ) ID
CO

CO

CD
O
3
CO
CO

CO

O)

DC
o a>

"5
JD co, co
CO
ui ^ " CO

Figure 34. Estimated volumetric flow rate of the cooking plume at the ventilation hood entrance per appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CD
D ) ._C tS
CO
CD

The gas griddle, fryer, and range show higher volumetric flow rates than their electric
version counter parts. This reflects the extra flow rate generated by the combustion
process. The volumetric flow rates from the ovens are similar for both versions. For
ovens, table 6 shows almost equal maximum temperature differences between the plume
and the room air. For all other appliances, the gas version always has a substantially
higher temperature difference. This implies the volume generated by the gas oven
combustion process does not greatly affect the overall thermal plume volumetric flow
rate.
8. Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By Process
Figures 35 and 36 show the minimum volumetric flow rates for the electric and gas
appliances, respectively. They are separated because the natural gas combustion process
greatly affects the minimum exhaust requirements.
For the electric appliances, the volume of air generated by the cooking process defines the
minimum volumetric flow rate. No other volume generation mechanism, such as dilution
air, was considered. Therefore, this flow rate could be considered the lowest possible
ventilation rate.
Finding the volumetric flow rate generated by the cooking product requires several
assumptions. First, we assume water, grease, or something other than water or grease
(designated "other") must account for the total food product mass lost during cooking.
Each of these components can be in the particulate, bulk liquid, or vapor phase. We
assume the temperature at the cooking surface for each process, which is well above the
boiling point of water, prevents any water from being lost to the bulk liquid phase.
Furthermore, because we assume dilution air is not present, the temperature of the
generated air will be above the boiling point of water, preventing any water in the
particulate form. Therefore we assume the total mass of water lost is released in the
vapor form. Next, we assume that contributions from components other than water or
grease are insignificant. In fact, for each test, the total water mass loss plus the collected
grease vapor and particulates, usually accounts for more than 95 percent of the total
product mass loss during cooking.
We assume the mass lost to grease particulates does not add significantly to the air flow
generation. On a mass basis, grease particulate and grease vapor generation occurs at rates
which have a similar order of magnitude. However, a given mass of grease vapor
occupies about 50,000 times more volume than the same mass of grease particulate,
under identical conditions. This justifies ignoring grease particulate contributions to the
generated volume.

72
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

ID "

14.1
14-

^
LL

11.6

12- -

lio-

1 8- -

5.1

14

3.4

>

"> -9

2.5

lilt

2- -

;::.-::::

':.:'.-::::

:CiS'-: : : : , : : : , v : : *.:

sa
c

P>

1
CD

o
c

LU

ii

IS

cu

CO

CO 3
O -O

<i
T"

t3 ca
5 X

&

-i

O o
CD J=

LU * - '

LU O

* :
c
cu
> Q.
O
o d)
cd

tri

Broi
Bre

0-

lect Fry
tatoes

-J

CO

letric

LL

o w
<x>3

TTi 55
LU
CO

Appliance
LU

Volume Generated From Food

Figure 35. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per electric appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1
to
X.

& **

ra

O) CD
0
C S D5

** ,9"
1

CO CO
' 3
A
LU
CO

140

Gas Griddle
(Hamburger)

Gas Fryer
(Potatoes)

Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)

Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)

Gas Oven
(Sausage Pizza)

Appliance
E Volume Generated From Food

Combustion Air

H Dilution Air

Figure 36. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per gas appliance

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Gas Range
(Spaghetti, Sausage,
Sauce)

The volumetric flow rate generated by the food product can now be viewed simply as the
total product moisture loss, plus contributions from grease in the vapor form. Because
the moisture mass loss always exceeds the grease vapor generation by a large amount, we
assume the temperature of the generated volume of air is 212 F (100 C). In addition, the
grease vapor is estimated to have the same specific volume as water vapor at 212 F (100
C). Therefore, the volumetric flow rate from the cooking product is the mass of food
product moisture loss plus grease vapor mass generated, multiplied by the specific
volume of water vapor at 212 F (100 C), per time cooked.
Figure 35 shows the electric cooking processes have very low minimum exhaust
volumetric flow rates. Of course, these values are probably not achievable for most
processes. They would require an entirely sealed cooking and ventilation system, and
achieving ventilation without using dilution air, would cause high duct temperatures. The
electric range and fryer produce the largest flow rates. For the range, the amount of
moisture lost from the 3 pots of boiling water, as well as moisture lost from the two pots
of sauce contributes most of the volume generation. By comparison, the moisture loss
and grease vapor generation from the sausages is much less. Likewise, for the fryer,
almost all the volume generated is associated with the high loss of moisture content from
the fries. For the griddle and broiler, meat was the food product, and the generated
volumetric flow rates were less than half that of the fryer and range. For these appliances,
the grease vapor contributes a substantially higher portion of the volume, compared to
the fryer and range, but the majority is still from water vapor. The volume generated by
the electric oven is mostly from moisture lost from the pizza.
For the gas appliances, the minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate must include not only
the volume generated by the food, but the volume generated by the natural gas
combustion and subsequent dilution before leaving the flue. Figure 36 shows the volume
generated by the food for each gas appliance is nearly equivalent to the volume generated
by the food for the electric appliances. This reflects the effort to perform testing using
identical conditions, thus producing similar product mass loss for each test. In other
words, for the gas and electric appliances, the food was cooked to the same doneness.
The volume generated by combustion was determined by assuming stoichiometric
conditions to find the mass generated by each of the combustion products. The specific
volume for the resulting combustion by-products at the flue temperature converted the
mass flow into a volume flow from the flue. The mass of room air necessary to reduce the
temperature of the combustion by products from the flame temperature to the exiting flue
temperature determined the dilution air contribution. See figure 26 and the discussion
following it for details.
For most gas appliances, the volume generated by the food and combustion was less than
the volume from the dilution air. This is not true for the gas fryer and gas oven, where
the dilution air is about equal to the combustion air. It is important to note this is the
dilution air within the gas appliance, used to cool the combustion gas before it leaves the
flue. It does not refer to any dilution air entering the thermal plume above the appliance.

75
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

The gas broiler generates the largest minimum volumetric exhaust rate. The cooking
product has little effect on its overall minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate. Perhaps the
reason for the large amount of dilution air is the gas broiler does not have a flue,
therefore, the heat from the broiler's burners entrains room air throughout the volume
beneath the cooking surface. Similarly, the gas range does not have a flue, entraining
room air from the sides and beneath the burners. The gas griddle, fryer, and oven, have
similar minimum exhaust volumetric flow rates. All have nearly identical energy input
rates, and similar flue exit temperatures. Therefore, nearly equivalent dilution air flow
rates should be expected.
9. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance and Exhaust Duct
The average mass flow rates and net energy gains at the ventilation hood entrance and in
exhaust duct were calculated for each process. The temperature and velocity data were
used to determine the average mass flow and net energy gain (above the room air energy)
for each control volume defined at the hood entrance. The results from each control
volume were summed to find the mass flow rate and net energy gain at the hood entrance.
Likewise, the mass flow rate and net energy gain in the exhaust duct were determined by
the average exhaust duct flow rate and the average temperature in the duct during
sampling. Ideally, if no losses occur between the hood entrance and exhaust duct
entrance, the results should be identical. Figure 37 shows a comparison between the mass
flow calculations at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct.
The results generally show excellent agreement. For most appliances, the flow rates at
the hood entrance are identical to the flow rates in the exhaust duct, when the
uncertainties are considered. Only the electric griddle and electric broiler results fall
outside of the uncertainty bars. The mass flow rates are not very dependent on the
temperature measurements, but are extremely sensitive to the velocity measurements.
This is because the temperatures used for the calculations were absolute temperatures, as
required by the ideal gas law. The uncertainty in the velocity was estimated to be 20 %
for the values shown. Because the velocities were not taken during the cooking process,
and they vary widely during the process, this error might be underestimated. In fact, for
the electric griddle and electric broiler, the results fall within the error bars when an
uncertainty of 35 % is used for the velocity measurements.
It is interesting to note that the broilers had a volumetric flow rate 300 cfm higher than
the other appliances. However, for the gas broiler, the mass flow rate is about equal to
that of the other appliances. This is because of the elevated temperature from the gas
broiler plume. The same mass flow rate results in a higher volumetric flow rate. For the
electric broiler the plume and duct temperatures were not nearly as high, and the mass
flow rates are thus higher than rates from other appliances.
Figure 38 shows the net energy rates at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct. The
net energy rate is the amount of energy contained in the air stream above the energy found
in the room air. Therefore, the temperature used to find these values is the difference in

76
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

^ 200
c
!
si
5=. 150 - H

CD

To
DC

5
.o
u.

100

W
<0
CO

Appliance
ED Hood Entrance

S Exhaust Duct

Figure 37. Comparison of mass flow calculations at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1600

00

CO 0

c E
"5
JE

=1

CO -S
P
O 8>

CD * -

>.1o
lt

1 E>
co E

a s
UJ

CO .Q
CO CO

a x

co

CD

CD

CD

2 E>
3

trie

C9 3
-Q

<5 *%

lect
(Po

CD

ridd
rger

<D " C
S

.Q

o ca
I

UJ

8 2
mm

11
O

o -E
UJ o

CD

ft--

a.

o&
CO CO

O ) t J CO

o &
5 co
o w

iS -c .
OC O > CD

3
CO

Appliance
DD Hood Entrance

S Exhaust Duct

Figure 38. Comparison of net energy rates at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

CO
CO

CO

Cj O) CD"

sai

UJ

CO
CO

temperature between the control volume and the room air. This makes the calculations
extremely sensitive to the room air and control volume temperatures, unlike the mass
flow rate calculations, which require absolute temperatures. For the appliances which
have a low temperature thermal plume, the net energy gain was usually within the noise
level, due to the uncertainties in the net temperature values.
Even though the uncertainties were rather high, making the energy measurements less
useful for other calculations, there was good agreement between the energy in the exhaust
duct and the energy at the hood entrance. In fact, for the appliances with high plume
temperatures, the gas griddle, gas range, and both the electric and gas broiler, the relative
uncertainties were low enough to provide a basis to determine the dilution ratio in an
alternative way, using temperature as a tracer. The results validated the dilution ratios
determined by the small particulate tracers.
The results shown in figure 38 basically give information regarding the size and energy
content of the thermal plume produced by each process. Here, it is clear the gas broiler
and gas range deliver the most energy from the appliance to the exhaust duct. These
results should compliment the plume flow rates shown in figure 34. The most noticeable
difference is in the comparison between the gas and electric broilers. While the plume
flow rates show the gas broiler produces a slightly larger plume, the energy rate
comparison shows the gas broiler generates much more energy than the electric boiler.
One explanation for this difference may be the temperatures used for the plume boundary
in the plume flow rate calculations. The boundary cut-off for the gas broiler may have
been too high, thus eliminating part of the thermal plume. The energy rate at the hood
entrance includes all control volumes under the hood. Another explanation is that the
higher heat emitted by the gas broiler affects the net energy rate much more than the
volumetric flow rate. While a hotter thermal plume may only increase the volumetric
flow rate minimally, it will increase the net energy rate considerably.
In general, the mass flow through the hood entrance balanced well with the mass flow
rate calculated in the exhaust duct. The energy rate also balanced well for the hood
entrance and exhaust duct, but the uncertainties were high for appliances with low
temperature thermal plumes.
10. Particulate Emission Concentrations
In the future, it is likely commercial cooking processes will be categorized according to
their emission potential. While one way to view this is in terms of emissions per food
product mass, another is the concentration of emissions per volume of air. This report
has earlier documented the former view of particulate emissions. This section will
address particulate emission concentrations for each cooking process.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes there are numerous ways to
define total, PM 10, and PM 2.5 particulate matter due to the various volatility of the
chemical species comprising the particulates. Strictly speaking, total, or TSP (total

79
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

suspended particulates) include any size of solid and/or liquid particles which under
normal conditions remain suspended in the air. PM 10 and PM 2.5 only include
suspended liquid and/or solid particulates with nominal aerodynamic diameters below 10
and 2.5 urn, respectively. However, because the chemical species are often volatile or
semi-volatile, the total mass associated with these particulates can vary depending on the
sampling conditions. For this reason, the EPA defines "in-stack" particulate
concentrations as the concentration of matter in the particulate phase at in-stack
temperature and pressure. On the other hand, "source" particulate concentrations are
defined as the concentration of matter from a source in the particulate phase at ambient
conditions. Therefore, if sampling in an exhaust stack under conditions other than
ambient, as is most often the case, all condensable matter, other than water vapor, must
also be included as particulate matter when recording "source" particulate concentrations.
The logic behind this is that the EPA recognizes the condensables will most likely change
to the particulate form once released into the atmosphere.
Because the purpose of this investigation is to characterize the emissions from various
cooking processes close to the emission generating source, the particulate emissions
given thus far have been in terms of "in-stack" measurements. The condensables have
been reported separately as grease vapor. This gives information about emissions in the
particulate as well as vapor phase. However, for categorizing cooking emissions for
regulatory purposes, it is likely most authoritative agencies would not separate the
condensables from the particulates, but would instead view emission concentrations from
the "source" point of view. Therefore, the total, PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations given
in this section are "source" concentrations. These concentrations are determined by
adding the vapor, or condensable, mass collected, to the particulate mass collected. As
with the previous sections, the remainder of the report uses the "in-stack" definition of
particulates. Besides this section, the only exception to using the "in-stack" definition is
when the exhaust duct particulate matter concentrations are compared to the data
compiled by CE-CERT in section G.12. Because the goal of the CE-CERT investigation
was to measure source total particulate emissions, they combined the condensables with
the particulates when reporting total particulate emissions. It should be clear in section
G.12 when the source definition of particulates is used, because it is designated as
"Equivalent PM", referring to being equivalent to CE-CERT's definition.
While efforts involving codes and regulations will almost certainly use the "source"
definition of particulates, it is much less clear which size range will be used to define
cooking particulate emissions. At first, when addressing ambient air quality standards,
the EPA used only total particulates, but later added PM 10 air quality standards. Even
more recently, PM 2.5 standards have been adopted for some purposes. Other regulatory
agencies such as NIOSH have also been inclined to use various size ranges for indoor air
quality standards. Therefore, the data reported here includes total, PM 10, and PM 2.5
particulates.
Table 8 shows the concentration of particulates in the total, PM 10, and PM 2.5 size
ranges for each cooking process. Again, the source definition was used, therefore, the

80
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 8. MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS AT THE SAMPLING POINT


FOR TOTAL PARTICULATES, PM 10 AND PM 2.5 (ALL INCLUDE VAPOR)
Appliance
(Product)
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range

Source Total Particulate concentration at the sampling point (includes vapor)


Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
313.932.5
248.1+34.5
291.633.8
NA
309.134.5
151.5+30.4
NA
312.2+31.6
39.237.1
NA
NA
178.3+34.8
NA
135.7+33.6
108.0+32.0
NA
NA
306.737.8
363.0+38.0
337.624.7

Average
(mg/m3)
284.5
257.6
108.8
121.8
335.8

360.2+43.1

351.7+34.0

303.332.0

NA

338.4

67.2+.17.1

NA

NA

NA

67.2

95.317.2

NA

NA

NA

953

87.4+23.4
NA
101.320.6
NA
NA
340.923.1
286.325.1
NA
248.1+36.2
NA
134.4+23.6
289.4+30.2
NA
124.110.4
147.926.8
124.127.8
Source PM 10 concentration at the sampling point (includes vapor)
NA
110.226.0
115.326.8
155.725.0
NA
173.2+24.4
143.7+24.0
262.327.2
NA
NA
93.8+27.2
11.2+29.5
NA
NA
83.3+25.1
84.2+27.5
NA
195.519.0
233.129.4
146.9+30.7

94.3
313.6
224.0
132.0
127.1
193.1
52.5
83.7
191.9

230.2+33.5

172.4+26.1

181.2+24.8

NA

194.6

55.813.4

NA

NA

NA

55.8

78.313.5

NA

NA

NA

78.3

NA
78.219.2
NA
97.917.3
334.319.1
NA
NA
286.1+21.3
NA
208.9+28.4
251.7+24.3
104.318.5
104.521.8
114.321.0
85.58.1
NA
Source PM 25 concentration at the sampling point (includes vapor)
139.6+25.0
NA
95.526.0
101.626.7
254.827.1
166.5+24.4
NA
139.423.9
NA
9.429.5
93.327.2
NA
NA
NA
83.1+27.5
82.425.1
130.4+30.7
220.729.3
NA
178.818.9

88.0
310.2
188.3
101.4

212.2+33.3

154.826.0

158.0+24.7

NA

175.0

54.513.4

NA

NA

NA

54.5

74.913.5

NA

NA

NA

74.9

78.019.2
334.1+19.1
NA
79.98.1

97.817.3
285.921.3
100.518.5
109.5+21.0

NA
NA
248.624.3
99.321.8

NA
NA
205.9+28.4
NA

87.9
310.0
185.0
96.2

112.2
186.9
51.4
82.7
176.6

81
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

grease vapor is included in all concentration calculations. Figure 8 shows the


concentration for each individual test as measured from the sampling point. The
uncertainty is associated with the measurement of the particulate and vapor mass, as well
as the sampling flow rate. Most of the uncertainty is a result of the uncertainty associated
with the measurement of the grease vapor. For most of the processes, the data show good
repeatability. For some processes, such as the gas fryer, there is a considerable amount
of disparity between tests. For the present report, the average values have been calculated
and used for further analysis. The data for each test is provided for those who may wish
to determine representative concentrations in an alternative manner.
While the data from table 8 show the measured concentrations from the sampling point,
the position of the sampling point relative to the thermal plume varies from process to
process. To determine a useful concentration quantity, the data need to be adjusted. The
dilution ratio from the sampling point to the exhaust duct has been estimated for each
process using sub-micron sized particulates as tracers. Therefore, the concentration of
particulates one would expect to find in the exhaust duct at the tested exhaust rate can be
estimated by dividing the average concentrations found at the sampling point by the
dilution ratio. This is the concentration one would expect if the quantity and phase of
particles and vapors remained unchanged from the sampling point to the exhaust duct.
Columns 2 through 4 in table 9 show the average concentration as measured from the
sampling point, the dilution ratio, and the estimated average concentration mat would be
found in the exhaust duct at the tested exhaust rate assuming no changes to the effluent
stream. While this last quantity may at first appear to be adequate for comparison, it is
dependent on the exhaust volumetric flow rate. By multiplying the estimated
concentration at the tested exhaust flow rate by the tested exhaust flow rate, one can
determine the mass flow rate of particles. The nominal tested exhaust volumetric flow
rate is shown in column 5, while the mass flow rate of particulates is shown in column 6.
At this point, we can now develop a method by which to compare emission
concentrations. The particulate mass flow rate shown in table 9 is still a function of the
exhaust flow rate at which the sample was taken, but it can be used to find the expected
particle concentration associated with any exhaust volumetric flow rate. Here, it is
proposed that the standard volumetric flow rate required by the ASTM Standard test
methods for appliance performance be used. This required flow rate varies from
appliance to appliance, and depends of the linear foot of the ventilation hood. For the
griddles, fryers, ovens, and ranges, the ASTM test methods require 300 cfm per linear
foot of hood. For the broilers, the requirement is 400 cfm per linear foot of hood.
Therefore, for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood, one would use 2400 cfm for the griddles, fryers,
ovens, and ranges, and 3200 cfm for the broilers. For a 4 ft. by 4ft. hood, the volumetric
flow rate would be one half of that for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood for the given appliances.
Columns 7 and 8 in table 9 show the particulate concentration emissions at the standard
ASTM required flow rate for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood, and a 4 ft. by 4ft. hood, respectively.

82
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 9. ESTIMATED TOTAL PARTICULATE, PM 10, AND PM 2.5 SOURCE


CONCENTRATION EMISSIONS NORMALIZED TO STANDARD HOOD
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATES (INCLUDES VAPOR)
Estimated Average Source Total Particulate concentrations and mass flow rates (includes vapor)
Concentration
Average
Dilution
Estimated
Nominal
Particulate
Concentration
cone, at
concentration
test flow
for 4 ft. x 4 ft.
Ratio
mass flow
for 8 ft. x 4 ft.
sampling
hood at std.
using test
rate
rate as
hood at std.
point
exhaust flow
(frVmin)
flow rate
tested
flow rate
(mg/m5)
rate (mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
(mg/min)
(mg/m3)
107.4
284.5
53.7
2400
5.3
3648
53.7
Gas Griddle
257.6
5.0
513
2400
103.0
Electric Griddle
3501
51.5
108.8
5.0
21.8
2400
43.5
21.8
Gas Fryer
1478
24.4
24.4
121.8
5.0
2400
48.7
Electric Fryer
1656
2700
335.8
2.5
134.3
10269
113.3
226.6
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
338.4
4.2
80.6
2700
6160
68.0
136.0
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
67.2
26.9
2700
45.4
2.5
2056
22.7
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
95.3
4.6
20.7
2700
1584
35.0
Electric Broiler
173
(Chicken Breast)
94.3
7.5
12.6
2400
12.6
25.2
Gas Oven
855
313.6
11.0
2400
57.0
Electric Oven
28.5
1938
28.5
81.4
224.0
5.5
40.7
2400
Gas Range
2767
40.7
132.0
24.0
2400
48.0
Electric Range
5.5
1631
24.0
Estimated Average Source PM 10 concentrations and mass flow rates (includes vapor)
48.0
24.0
1630
2400
24.0
5.3
127.1
Gas Griddle
2624
2400
38.6
5.0
Electric Griddle
77.2
38.6
193.1
2400
10.5
5.0
52.5
21.0
103
713
Gas Fryer
2400
16.7
5.0
83.7
Electric Fryer
33.5
16.7
1138
2700
76.7
191.9
129.5
64.8
5867
2.5
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
3542
2700
46.3
4.2
194.6
Electric Broiler
78.2
39.1
(Hamburger)
2700
55.8
18.8
1706
223
2.5
Gas Broiler
37.7
(Chicken Breast)
2700
17.0
783
Electric Broiler
14.4
1302
4.6
28.7
(Chicken Breast)
2400
11.7
88.0
233
798
7.5
Gas Oven
11.7
310.2
Electric Oven
56.4
2400
28.2
11.0
28.2
1917
2400
34.2
53
188.3
Gas Range
68.5
34.2
2327
101.4
2400
18.4
Electric Range
18.4
1253
5.5
36.9
Estimated Average Source PM 2.5 concentrations and mass flow rates (includes vapor)
Gas Griddle
11X2
5.3
21.2
2400
21.2
1439
42.3
Electric Griddle
37.4
2400
37.4
186.9
5.0
2540
74.8
2400
51.4
5.0
10.3
698
Gas Fryer
103
203
Electric Fryer
82.7
5.0
16.5
2400
1124
163
33.1
2700
Gas Broiler
176.6
23
70.7
5402
59.6
119.2
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
175.0
2700
4.2
41.7
3186
35.2
703
(Hamburger)
2700
Gas Broiler
543
2.5
21.8
1668
18.4
36.8
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
74.9
16.3
2700
4.6
1245
13.7
27.5
(Chicken Breast)
87.9
Gas Oven
7.5
2400
797
23.4
11.7
11.7
Electric Oven
310.0
11.0
28.2
2400
1915
28.2
56.4
Gas Range
185.0
5.5
33.6
2400
2286
33.6
67.3
Electric Range
2400
96.2
5.5
173
1189
173
35.0
Appliance
(Product)

83
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Note, the concentrations for the 8 ft. by 4ft. hood are exactly the same as the estimated
concentrations using the test exhaust flow rate found in column 4, for all process except
those involving the broiler. This is because for all appliances except the broiler, testing
was done with an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood at the ASTM required flow rate. For those involving
the broiler, the hood was modified to 6.75 ft. by 4 ft., enabling us to reach the required
flow rate of 400 cfm per linear foot of hood. Therefore, the concentration one would
expect to find in the exhaust duct of an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood operating at 400 cfm per linear
foot of hood would be slightly less than those from a 6.75 ft. by 4 ft. hood.
The estimated concentrations in the exhaust from a 4 ft. by 4ft. hood are twice that from
a 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood. This shows it is possible to present the data normalized per square
foot of hood entrance area. This would be done simply by multiplying the concentrations
estimated for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood by 32 ft2. Table 10 shows the results. Therefore, it is
possible to determine an emission concentration level at which a cooking process is
required to use a specific type of hood or grease removal device.
For instance, a proposed code may specify that if PM 10 emission concentrations exceeds
160 (mg/m3) -ft2 of hood entrance, a Type 1 grease hood is required. If one test facility
consists of an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood, and the recommended exhaust flow rate for the
particular type of appliance is 300 cfm per linear ft. of hood, the exhaust flow rate should
be set at 2400 cfm. After eliminating all grease removal devices, the PM 10
concentration could be measured in the exhaust duct. If it exceeds 160 (mg/m3) -ft2, then
a hood is required. Because the entrance is 32 ft2, the critical concentration level is 5
mg/m3. If the same process is tested under a 4 ft. by 4 ft. hood, the exhaust flow rate
should be set at 1200 cfm, and the critical concentration level is 10 mg/m3. With this
method, it is possible to use a system with any sized hood where the required exhaust
ventilation rate can be reached.
One note of caution is that if a method similar to the one proposed is used, and total
particulates are chosen as the criteria, it is likely the numbers from this investigation will
exceed those measured by others, if the concentration measurements are taken in the
exhaust duct. This is because when making the calculations shown in tables 8,9, and 10,
the current investigation assumed all the particulates measured at the sampling point
would also be present in the exhaust duct. Because the total particulates collected at the
sampling point include many large particles, it is likely even without any grease removal
devices, some of the particles would not enter the exhaust duct, or would quickly fall to
the exhaust duct floor. For PM 10 and PM 2.5 particulates, one would expect this effect
to be negligible.

84
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE 10. ESTIMATED TOTAL PARTICULATE, PM 10, AND PM 2.5 SOURCE


CONCENTRATION EMISSIONS NORMALIZED TO SQUARE FOOT OF HOOD
ENTRANCE (INCLUDES VAPOR)
Estimated Average Source Total Particulate concentrations normalized to ft 2 of hood entrance (includes vapor)
Appliance
Concentration at recommended volumetric exhaust flow rate
(Product)
[(mg/m3)-(ft2 of hood entrance)]
Gas Griddle
1717.8
Electric Griddle
1648.6
Gas Fryer
696.0
Electric Fryer
779.8
Gas Broiler
3626.3
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
2175.5
(Hamburger)
726.0
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
559.4
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
402.6
Gas Oven
912.4
Electric Oven
1303.0
Gas Range
768.1
Electric Range
Estimated Average Source PM 10 concentrations normalized to ft2 of hood entrance (includes vapor)
Gas Griddle
767.3
Electric Griddle
1235.7
Gas Fryer
335.7
Electric Fryer
535.8
Gas Broiler
2072.0
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
1251.0
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
602.5
(Chicken Breast)
459.8
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
375.5
Electric Oven
902.4
Gas Range
1095.7
Electric Range
590.2
Estimated Average Source PM 2.5 concentrations normalized to ft 2 of hood entrance (includes vapor)
Gas Griddle
677.5
Electric Griddle
1196.1
Gas Fryer
328.8
Electric Fryer
529.5
Gas Broiler
1907.6
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
1125.0
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
589.1
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
439.8
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
375.0
Electric Oven
901.8
Gas Range
1076.4
Electric Range
559.9

85
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

E. Individual Cooking Processes

To eliminate bias from appliance to appliance, one gas and one electric version of each
appliance (from a single manufacturer when possible) was tested.
1. Gas Griddle
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a 3-foot griddle with an atmospheric natural gas burner. The
rated input was 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). The cooking surface was chromium with
dimensions of 24 x 33 in. (61 x 83.2 cm) for a total area of 5.5 ft2 (0.51 m2).
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 75 kBTU/h (21.98 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). Using procedures from the
same test method, we calibrated the thermostat control to provide a surface temperature
of375F(191C).
c. Cooking Procedure
Appendix E gives the details of the cooking procedure, adopted from ASTM Standard
Test Method F 1275-95. The food product cooked was frozen quarter pound, 20 % fat,
62 % moisture, finished grind hamburger patties. A laboratory specializing in food
product evaluation tested several patties for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows
the results from these tests, and other information regarding the food product. The
following is a brief summary of the cooking procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the patties to an
average of 35 % weight loss. After establishing the proper cooking time, patties are
weighted and arranged on aluminum sheet pans. The product temperature is measured
before cooking begins. The patties are placed on the griddle sequentially, four for each
square foot of cooking surface. At the proper times established earlier, the patties are
turned, and finally removed and placed on a grease drip tray. When applicable, a second
batch begins cooking when the appliance surface temperature reaches 375 F (191 C).
After dripping for one minute on each side, the weight of the cooked patties are
determined. Two patties from each batch are tested for moisture content.
For the gas griddle, previous data exist regarding energy efficiency for a similar appliance
using an identical food product. Therefore, it is interesting to compare the results,
indicating if the ASTM cooking procedures were implemented in a similar manner. The
data is from an atmospheric gas griddle, published in a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)

86
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

report (PG&E 1989). The parameters compared are taken directly from the ASTM
Standard Test Method. Figure 39 shows the rated energy input, measured energy input,
and average energy input for the two gas griddles. For the U-M gas griddle, data from
one test (#5) is used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Griddle
80
70
60
^ 50
H 40

B U-M Gas Griddle 5


a PG&E Gas Griddle ATM

10
0
kBTU/h
Rated input

kBTU/h
Measured
Input

kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate

Figure 39. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas griddle energy input rates
The rated and measured inputs differ because the griddle used in the U-M testingis rated
at 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW) while the PG&E griddle is rated at 60 kBTU/h (17.58 kW).
The average input rate refers to the energy used during the cooking process. Therefore, if
both griddles cook the same amount of food, with a similar efficiency, they should use
about the same amount of energy. Figure 39 shows the average input rate from PG&E
testing is identical to testing from the U-M project. Figure 40 shows a comparison
between the amount of energy directed to the food and the griddle, per mass of food
cooked.

87
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

PG&E vs. U-M Gas Griddle


1800
1600
1400
1200

1000

B U-M Gas Griddle 5


PG&E Gas Griddle ATM

800
600
400
200
0

BTU/lb
Efood

BTU/lb
E griddle

Figure 40. Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas griddle energy to the food and griddle, per
mass of food cooked.
The energy to the food considers all the energy absorbed by the food to bring it from its
original temperature to its final temperature. This includes the energy needed to thaw the
patties, evaporate some of the moisture, and elevate the total temperature to its final
value. The energy to the griddle is the total amount of energy contained in the natural gas
delivered to the griddle. The energy is normalized to the total food product cooked.
Again, the results from the PG&E test are similar to that of the U-M test. Figure 41
compares the energy efficiency and total product capacity of the two griddles.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Griddle
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

a U-M Gas Griddle


m PG&E Gas Griddle ATM

%
eff cook

Ib/h
Product
Capacity

Figure 41. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas griddle cooking efficiencies
and product capacities
The cooking efficiency is the percentage of energy used by the griddle that is directed to
the food product. The product capacity is the maximum amount of product that can be

88
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

cooked in a given time period. The energy efficiency and product capacity from the two
research projects compare well.
Figures 39 through 41 show that the performance of the two griddles is similar, in terms
of the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95. This suggests
the cooking procedure used in the present investigation sufficiently follows the standard
test method.
d. Sampling Position
Figure 42 shows the probe sampling position for the gas and electric griddles with respect
to the test kitchen. The maximum height instrumentation could be placed above the
cooking surface was chosen for the sampling height. After watching the cooking process
several times, the observable center of the plume at the sampling height appeared to be
centered horizontally above the appliance, about 12 in. from the back wall. Figure 42
shows the sampling position to lie along a straight path from the cooking surface center to
the exhaust duct center.
e. Velocity Distribution
Due to problems associated with grease particulates fouling the anemometer during actual
cooking, the velocity distribution for the gas griddle was taken while trays of water were
boiling on the griddle surface. Figure 43 shows the temperature and velocity control
volumes used for the gas and electric griddles. The volumes within the bolded areas are
the velocity control volumes, where the velocity was taken in the geometric center, at the
height of the hood opening. The velocities vary over time during the process, therefore,
an average velocity is used to estimate the velocity within each control volume.
Figure 44 shows the velocity distribution at the hood opening for the gas griddle. An
outline of the appliance surface and the exhaust duct opening is shown. At the point of
the hood opening, the majority of the air rises vertically, with little horizontal velocity
component. Therefore, the measured velocity, which is really the vertical velocity
component, is probably close to the total velocity vector at the measurement point. The
air velocity increases as the air moves closer to the exhaust duct opening. The maximum
velocity of about 150 fpm (0.76 m/s) is found centered directly beneath the exhaust duct
opening. The contour plot ends 6 in. from the outer edges of the hood. For the griddles,
velocities were not taken and the edge of the hood, therefore, the velocities in this area
are undetermined.
Figure 44 shows a gradual increase in air velocity from the front of the hood to the back.
As the thermal plume rises, it entrains room air, gaining velocity. The entire plume tends
to move towards the area inside the hood with the lowest pressure, which corresponds to
the grease baffle opening closest to the exhaust duct collar. Therefore, as expected, the
lowest velocities are seen furthest way from the exhaust opening.

89
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1.0 In.
-*ll<-

12 In.
16 in.

26 In.
41.25 In.

9 In.

-&^
10.75 In.

20 In,
12 In.
s
s-

^~5

=>

96 In.

108.S la

32 In.

81 In.

9 In.

30 In.

7h.

11.5
In.

122 In.

50.5 In.

125.5 In.

LEFT SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW

24 In.

LEGEND

Gas And Electric Griddle


Dimensions (Left Side)

33 in.

Gas And Electric Griddle


Dimensions (Top View)

Figure 42. Position of the gas and electric griddles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Sample Point

iTi
32 '

12

'ir
9

12

\o

r
12

10

P:d
41

6 I

i 14

15 ,

22 ' 231 '

24

L 1J

32 ' 33 I '

34

-ML42 l 4 3 | I 44

16 '

I
25 1 26 '

7 I '8 I
,
I

17 ' ,18 '

I
9 I 10

19 ' 2 0 ,

-"^ - M
I I

27 ' 8 '

15

16

23

24

I'

31

32

12

12

29 ' 30 1

3 1
1
_354I -36 n' 37
- i' -f138 j' . 391 4 'i.40 41

J T - L. ^X 45 I 46 I 47 I 148 I

Li

49 I 50 I

_ _L _l L 20_ _ i _ L _ l i _ L _ l i
19

-h- + - - h - H - - H
-

27

26

-~^-

1! _L 4

t"
72

-M -- -T-

'

25

12 ' 13. '

18

17

'

-- 4 -

1112

12

--<-

12

-^~^-

28

29

12

12

Velocity control volume boundaries

- Temperature control volume boundaries


1 1/2 inch inner flange within ventilation hood

30

12

Distances in italics (inches)

Velocity points in bold


Temperature points in plain

Figure 43. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the gas and electric griddles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Vel (ft/min):

50

100

150

200

to

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)
Figure 44. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the gas griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

/. Temperature Distribution
The temperature control volumes are shown in figure 43. A 50 point thermocouple grid
was positioned at three heights, during three separate cooking tests, corresponding to 12,
24 and 36 in. (30.5, 61, and 91.4 cm) above the cooking surface. Temperatures were
taken every minute during the entire cooking process. To cycle through the thermocouple
grid, the data acquisition channel switcher must change channels 50 times, which takes
about 37 seconds. Therefore, the temperature distribution for the entire grid is not known
simultaneously for any one time.
Figure 45 shows a two dimensional view of the temperature distribution at 36 in. (91.4
cm) above the gas griddle surface. The hood opening, exhaust duct opening, and
appliance surface outlines are shown on the graph. The temperatures shown are the
averages at each point over the entire cooking period. The rectangular area on the rear of
the appliance surface is the gas griddle flue. It is interesting to note the temperature at the
flue gas exit is about 500 T (260 C), while the maximum temperature 36 in. (91.4
cm)above the cooking surface is about 115 F (46.1 C). This shows a considerable
amount of dilution has occurred in a relatively short distance.
Figure 45 shows the highest temperatures are near the back of the appliance centered
under the exhaust duct opening. The contours show the temperature cools in an almost
rectangular fashion. This reflects the shape of the gas griddle flue, which produces the
largest heat flux contribution.
Figure 46 shows the three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution
above the gas griddle. The plume is extremely hot over the flue area. As the plume rises,
the plume broadens and cools. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the griddle surface, the plume
has shifted towards the back of the kitchen, drawn there by the exhaust opening. The
hottest part of the plume begins to take a shape that is almost circular at this height. For
the griddles, the first row of thermocouples was set about 8 in. (20.3 cm) in front of the
kitchen back wall, so part of the plume, between the wall and the 8 in.(20.c cm) mark, is
not included in figure 46. Notice that at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height, the air temperature
cools substantially in front of the flue opening. The most likely reason for this is the hot
plume from the flue produces a strong upward convective force, which in turn entrains
room air. This room air must travel across the area immediately above the griddle
surface. Therefore, the temperature of the plume above the griddle surface at the lower
height is almost the same as the dilution room air. It is possible this phenomena affects
grease vapor emissions, allowing the vapor to condense to the particulate phase.
Figure 47 shows the maximum measured plume temperature at the three heights over the
entire cooking period. As expected, the greatest temperature variation is seen 12 in. (30.5
cm) above the cooking surface. The temperature slowly climbs from 125 F (52 C) to
over 250 F (121 C) while the hamburger cooks on the first side. At four minutes,
immediately before the burgers are turned the temperature decreases. Within two minutes
after the burgers are turned, the temperature is back above 250 F (121 C). At nine

93
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Temp (F): 65

75

85

95

105

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)
Figure 45. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above
the gas griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

115

>

Figure 46. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches above
the gas griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

300
Patties turned

Patties placed
on griddle

225

6.
P 200

-1

10

Time (Min)
12 inch

24 inch

36 inch

Figure 47. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

11

minutes, the burgers are taken off, which takes between 30 seconds and one minute. The
griddle surface is then scraped clean. This process seems to reduce the temperature.
Once the surface is clean, the temperature falls further.
The same general pattern can be seen for the maximum temperature at 24 in. (61 cm)
above the cooking surface. The difference in temperatures between the 24 and 12 in. (61
and 30.5 cm) levels show a great deal of room air mixes with the thermal plume. This
tends to dampen the temperature fluctuations seen closer to the griddle surface. At the 36
in. (91.4 cm) height there is not much fluctuation of temperature. Again, the room air has
diluted the thermal plume, decreasing the maximum temperature.
g. Particle Size Distribution
The grease particle size distribution at the sampling point was determined by the use of an
inertial impactor. Figure 48 shows the resulting distribution from three tests. The form
of the ordinate may be unfamiliar to some readers. Because of the large differences in
particulate sizes (spanning 4 orders of magnitude), it is common to plot particulate
distributions on a log-normal graph. Therefore, normalizing the mass found in a
particular size range requires dividing the mass by the difference in the logs of the size
range boundaries. This allows the area within each histogram to accurately portray the
proportion of the mass found in that size range, compared to the other size ranges.
For the gas griddle, it is clear the results are repeatable. The majority of the grease
particulates, on a mass basis, are larger than 15 \im. It is likely most particulates in this
size range originate from splattering during the cooking process. This can occur as gas is
released during cooking, causing a tiny "explosion" near the surface of the meat,
propelling grease particulates into the thermal plume. A large portion of these
particulates probably originate during the turning process, when moisture and grease
drippings land on the hot griddle surface. From a grease extraction aspect, these large
particulates should be easy to remove by simple mechanical means such as a grease
baffle.
Figure 49 zooms in on the smaller particulate size ranges. It shows a rather smooth
progression towards larger particle sizes. In nature it is common to see this type of
particle size progression. Figure 49 shows that particulate sizes of great interest, those
below 10 \im and 2.5 Jim are not present in great mass for the gas griddle cooking
process. These particulate sizes are not only problematic from a grease removal
perspective, but are more likely to have impacts on human health.
Figure 50 shows the grease emissions normalized to 1000 lb. (454 kg) of food product.
The data shows the total particulates (TP), particulates smaller than 10 jim (PM 10),
particulates smaller than 2.5 (im (PM 2.5), grease in the vapor form (vapor), and the total

97
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

tiov -

200 -

i
i
i
1

w
<

D)

150
E

00

^-^
Q.
Q

O)

f,

o
P 100 -

I;

T>

1i:
i:
I.--

50 JUTS

J:

0-

0.01

0.10

H - I T H T ~L H
1.00

l!
i:

i:

1
1

s-r

k1
10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 48. Gas griddle particle distribution (3 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 49. Gas griddle particle distribution (3 tests)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

30

25

"I 20
O

8 15
"35
c
o
".CO

8
E 10
LLI

TP

PM10

mmm i1 \mrnff%tfffF

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size Range or Phase


STestl

CD Test 2

I Test 3

& Average

Figure 50. Gas griddle normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

111

CD

1*

CO

r
w
*-

o a
3 ere
CD

t*1

o -

s- a g.

co

ere
ere
2

g.
ions

' 3

to O

9. 8 <B
M
L3

8?

2 CD

ff g

S-g.

gas

die.

T3

a.
o
3

3
8
CD t r -

ct < 2
a* CD 3

&

CD

3
"
Ui

* co O

CO
CO

fl

" 2.

r* 3- 3

the

y.

CD
CD

3 a o

CO

CO

co
** 3c
s
co
CO

&5

ssi nsF

8.511.9
5.6
5.8

207
2.00.6

0 53" 'v. W

O
K

eou

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

00

265160
174

0.60.2
0.060.02

CD g

CD

CD

5-

3*

$
Ci
(^
O

CO

o ^ a.

P?

co

& e

SS a

3"
O

CD co W
3
CD

ions

5*

8 p

gase

a p Ci
o g M

cT

Gas

g ff tn
O P .

z n
o
p

I 3 <q

co ere o

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions

S-S

a,g 3
CD < "

S 3 3"

&

co CD

S. 2 o

RT 3 3 co "J

3.

S o
3
3

0.
Q.

i-> CD
3 " CD

CD

CD

S> * 3
s? - t , co
~L O co

0 n

CO'

CL
CD
3*
CD

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

ere g
o. a

a.

3 "

IW^WIu

TP

PM10

umMMMH

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


ETesM

ED Test 2

I Test 3

Figure 5 1 . Gas griddle collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

CO2 is a natural combustion product expected to be emitted from a gas appliance. The
emissions can be accounted for entirely by the combustion process, suggesting the food
product does not produce additional C0 2 . The CO and NOx levels are quite low. They
are generally a sign of imperfect combustion. It appears as though the tested gas griddle
operates efficiently, with only a minimal amount of incomplete combustion.
Table 1 in section D.6 shows which hydrocarbons were tested. We found no evidence of
hydrocarbon emissions above the minimum tested detection limit.
1. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Figure 52 shows the particle number concentration during the cooking process. The data
were taken with a sample probe placed in the sampling position shown in figure 42. A
sample line directed particulates from the probe to the ELPI. The ELPI is capable of
collecting number concentration data for extremely small particulates. The particle
diameters included in figure 52 range from 0.09 to 0.38 u.m.
Figure 52 shows the concentration of emitted particulates is quite sensitive to the cooking
process. The beginning of the cooking process sees the number concentration begin to
rise dramatically. After the first minute of cooking, the concentration begins to level off.
At 5 minutes into the cooking process, which corresponds to 6 minutes in figure 50, the
patties are turned. The number concentration rises for all three particle size ranges
shown. The magnitude of this rise, while difficult to see on a log plot, is about four fold.
When the patties are turned, all of the grease and moisture which has pooled on the top
side of the patty while the bottom side was cooking, now gets dumped onto the hot
griddle. This is the cause of the "sizzling" that you hear when meat is turned from one
side to another. The grease and moisture hitting the hot griddle surface causes the
generation of particulates.
When the patties are removed, the concentration falls by a factor of two. However, it
does stay well above the level it was before cooking began. There is still a lot of liquid
grease on the griddle, which is scraped off to prepare for the second batch. This cleaning
process must help generate some particulates.
When the second batch is placed of the griddle, there is a slight particle concentration
increase, bringing the concentration to about the same level it was during the cooking of
the first side of the first batch. Again, when the patties are turned, the concentration
increases to the same level it was for the first batch. When the patties from the second
batch are removed, the concentration falls back to the same level it did after the removal
of the first batch. Overall, the information in figure 52 shows that the generation of
particles during the gas griddle process is dependent on the actual cooking process.

103
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1.0E+06 gr

First batch s t a r t o f s e c o n ( J
removed b a t c h

Patties turned
Start of first
batch

Patties turned

Second batch
removed

I 1.0E+05
c
o
?

1 1.0E+04
u
c
o
u

I 1.0E+03

1.0E+02
10

15

20

25

Time (min)
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15pm

Stage 4-0.15-0.26um

'Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38(jm

Figure 52. Gas griddle real time particle number concentrations


Taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

2. Electric Griddle
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a 3-foot griddle with an electric burner. The rated input was 36.5
kBTU/h (10.7 kW) at 240 V. The cooking surface was chromium with dimensions of 24
x 33 in. (61 x 83.2 cm) for a total area of 5.5 ft2 (0.51 m2).
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 25.6 kBTU/h (7.50 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 26.1 kBTU/h (7.65 kW), adjusted for actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we calibrated the thermostat
control to provide a surface temperature of 375 F (191 C).
c. Cooking Procedure
The cooking procedure for the electric griddle is identical to the procedure for the gas
griddle.
Previous data exist regarding energy efficiency for a similar appliance using an identical
food product. The data is from an electric griddle, published in a Pacific Gas aid Electric
(PG&E) report (PG&E 1989). The parameters compared are taken directly from the
ASTM Standard Test Method. Figure 53 shows the rated energy input, measured energy
input, and average energy input for the two electric griddles. For the U-M electric
griddle, data from one test (#1) is used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Griddle
1

30.0 T

kBTU/h
Rated input

kBTU/h
Measured
Input

kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate

Figure 53. Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy input rates

105
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

The rated input from the PG&E electric griddle is slightly higher than the U-M electric
griddle. This is due to a slight difference in applied voltage. The U-M testing produced a
slightly higher, but similar input rate. Overall, the comparison is favorable. Figure 54
compares the amount of energy directed to the food and the griddle, per mass of food
cooked.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Griddle

U-M Electric Griddle


i PG&E Electric Griddle

BTU/lb
Efood

BTU/lb
E griddle

Figure 54. Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy to the food and griddle,
per mass of food cooked
Results from the U-M testing are almost identical to those from the PG&E testing. Figure
54 shows the energy to the food is almost equal to the energy to the griddles. This means
the cooking efficiency is high. Figure 55compares the energy efficiency and total product
capacity of the two griddles.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Griddle
70

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

jgjl

a U-M Electric Griddle


n PG&E Electric Griddle

:=B
%
eff cook

I
p

Ji
Ib/h
Product
Capacity

Figure 55. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric griddle cooking efficiencies
and product capacities

106
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

The results from the PG&E testing are similar to the results from the U-M testing. The
much higher cooking efficiencies from the electric griddles, compared to the gas griddles,
are a consequence of where the energy conversion from the raw energy source occurs.
With the gas griddle, the energy applied to the food is compared to the total energy
content of the raw natural gas. Therefore, thermal inefficiencies associated with
converting the natural gas into heat show in the cooking efficiency. For the electric
griddle, the energy applied to the food is compared to the amount of electricity supplied
to the appliance. The thermal inefficiencies associated with converting the energy source
to electricity occur at the utility plant, and does not appear in the cooking efficiency.
Figures 53 through 55 show that the performance of the two griddles is similar, in terms
of the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95. Therefore, it is
likely the cooking procedure used for the electric griddle sufficiently follows the standard
test method.
d. Sampling Position
The sampling position is identical to that of the gas griddle, shown in figure 42.
e. Velocity Distribution
The velocity distribution for the electric griddle was determined in a manner identical to
the velocity distribution for the gas griddle. Water pans placed on the cooking surface
helped approximate the effect of a thermal plume from the appliance. Figure 43 shows
the control volumes used for the velocity measurements, with actual measurements made
at the center of each.
Figure 56 shows the velocity distribution contour at the hood opening. An outline for the
appliance, hood, and exhaust duct positions is shown. The positions are identical to those
for the gas griddle. Like the gas griddle, the area near the borders of the hood are not
included because velocity measurements were not made past the contour area shown.
The area of the hood entrance closest to the exhaust duct opening shows the highest
velocities. The velocities are not quite as high as those seen from the gas griddle,
probably do to the absence of the effects caused by the combustion gases exiting the gas
griddle flue. However, comparing the two velocity profiles shows the velocity
distributions for the different griddles are much more similar than one may expect. This
suggests that by the time the plume reaches the hood entrance, dilution air from the room
has mixed thoroughly with the appliance emissions.
The gradual increase in velocity towards the exhaust duct entrance shows the plume is
moving towards the back of the ventilation hood, where the grease baffles are positioned.
It is interesting to note the rectangular shape of the highest velocity area. Some of this
effect is from the position of the appliance situated below that area. However, velocity
measurements at the grease baffles even when the appliance is not present show higher

107
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Vel (ft/min):

50

100

250

WBHW""^!WII!r"

8&<i$i

40--

c
o
2 30o

200

00

150

Q.

E 20o

0)

2 lO0

H-H-

20

H I *

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 56. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the electric griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

velocities near the exhaust duct opening. This suggests that while the area behind the
grease baffles is designed to operate as a plenum, supposedly providing equal velocity
flow to the entire grease baffle rack, in reality, flow rates through the grease baffles
furthest from the exhaust duct opening are lower than the flow rates near the center of the
ventilation hood.
/

Temperature Distribution

The temperature control volumes for the electric griddle are identical to those for the gas
griddle, shown in figure 43. Figure 57 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in.
(91.4 cm) above the electric griddle surface. There does not appear to be much of a
temperature gradient at this point of the plume. However, the outline of the plume is
visible, appearing directly under the exhaust duct opening, in an almost rectangular shape.
There are small areas representing the hottest average temperatures, but these areas are
not significantly hotter than the surrounding areas. Comparison of the electric and gas
griddle temperature distributions at 36 in. (91.4 cm) shows the gas griddle combustion
flue greatly increases the plume temperature.
Figure 58 shows a three-dimensional representation of the average temperature
distribution above the electric griddle. The data are from 12, 24 , and 36 in. (30.5, 61,
and 91.4 cm) above the cooking surface during the actual cooking process. It is clear that
a great deal of plume dilution occurs between 12 and 36 in. (30.5 and 91.4 cm). This is
evident in the decreased plume temperatures. The affect of the room air dilution is not
only to reduce the plume temperature, but also to increase the plume velocity. Also
noticeable in figure 58 is the direction of the plume movement as it rises. The plume
moves towards the back of the hood, where the grease baffles are located. This is where
all the air must exit, so it is natural that the plume would migrate in this direction. The
biggest difference between the three dimensional temperature distribution from the
electric griddle, compared to the gas griddle, is the absence of the effect of the
combustion flue. The plume at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the surface is symmetric, and is
centered over the griddle surface. There is noticeable temperature increase even near the
front of the griddle surface. For the gas griddle, the exiting flue gas is extremely hot, and
dominates the plume characteristics. The exiting flue gas entrains room air and pulls it
across the front of the griddle, lowering the temperature near the griddle surface. As
stated earlier, this may influence the proportion of grease in the particulate and vapor
phases.
Figure 59 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36 in. (30.5,
61, and 91.4 cm) above the electric griddle. The data show the temperature of the air is
consistently reduced as the plume rises. At the 24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) levels,
there appears to be a slight increase in maximum plume temperature as the cooking
process progresses. However, events such as the turning of the patties do not seam to
have a great influence at these heights. At the lower height of 12 in. (30.5 cm) the
maximum plume temperature varies more during the cooking process. There is actually a
drop in temperature when the patties are placed on the griddle, which is probably due to

109
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

m&

WSfS
UJ&tfO^

Temp (F): 65

75

85

95

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

105

80

Figure 57. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above


the electric griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

115

Front

Position (in,)

Figure 58. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36


inches above the electric griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

110
Patties removed
from griddle
Patties placed
of griddle

Patties turned

to

80

-1

10

Time (Min)

12 inch

24 inch

'36 inch

Figure 59. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the electric griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

the temperature of the frozen patties (about 0 F, or -17.8 C). When the patties are
turned, there is a discernible increase in temperature. When the patties are removed, there
appears to be a temperature increase, which may be related to the scraping of the griddle
surface, necessary for cleaning. After a short period, the temperature begins to fall again.
Notice, the maximum plume temperatures for the electric griddle are much lower than
those seen from the gas griddle. In fact, by the time the plume is 24 in. (61 cm) from the
griddle surface, the temperature is only about 10 F (5.6 C) above room temperature.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 60 shows the mass size distribution of the grease particulates from the electric
griddle. The data shown are from three separate tests. The data show the tests were not
nearly as repeatable as those for the gas griddle, especially at the larger particulate sizes.
One possible reason for this is the fact the effluent plume position varies much more for
the electric griddle. The gas griddle has a flue constantly emitting hot combustion gases.
These gases entrain room air as they rise towards the ventilation hood. Much of the
dilution air travels above the surface of the griddle to mix with the combustion gases.
During the cooking process, the gas griddle burners are on almost constantly, creating a
constant flow of dilution air. This probably stabilizes the position of the thermal plume.
For the electric griddle, there is no flue emitting hot gases. Therefore, the thermal plume
comes directly from the cooking surface, entraining dilution air as it rises. The cooking
process is highly variable, emitting effluents at various rates throughout. While the
cooking process is also variable for the gas griddle, the combustion process is not, thus a
more stabile plume. In addition to being highly variable, the plume from the electric
griddle is smaller in volume, due to the absence of combustion gases. A smaller plume is
more easily affected by varying flow conditions caused by perturbations such as the
movement of the cooks.
In fact, observations show the center of the electric griddle thermal plume moves as much
as one foot (30.5 cm) from the center of the appliance in either direction. While this may
seem minimal, the sampling point is very small (less than one square cm). The largest
particles are generated from mechanical processes originating from the release of gases
within the food product or when grease drippings are released during the turning process.
It is likely the majority of the large particles are emitted during these specific time
periods. If the center of the thermal plume has moved away from the sampling point
during this time period, the large particulates will not be captured.
Figure 61 shows the particle distribution at a lower concentration range, focusing on the
smaller particle sizes. The variation in the three runs is not nearly as pronounced as it is
for the larger particles, but it is still present. The general shape of the size distribution is
identical to the gas griddle distribution. The total mass of the small particulates is very
small. In fact, there is hardly any grease mass associated with particles smaller than 1
Hm.

113
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

200

150
Q.
Q
O)

P 100

50

0
0.01

MH

0.10

SS==ZEHE3I i

i in

1.00

10.00

i-f r T'I'-FT

Dp (urn)
Figure 60. Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

'I

I I

100.00

100 90
80 -

o-

f1E 6-

o. 50 -

Q
D)
O

=5

40 30 20 "

10 -

^-J

0-

0.01

0.10

1.00

1
1

J
10.00

Dp (|jm)

Figure 61. Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests)


Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

25

20
3

2
Q.
j g 15

o
o
o

TP

^ ^1
PM10

BSSOSBII

= t =

1_

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


I Test 1

CUTest2

I Test 3

H Average

Figure 62. Electric griddle normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

Figure 62 shows grease emissions for the various particle size ranges and vapor. Even
considering measurement errors, the three tests do not agree well with respect to the total
particulate mass emissions. However, there is good agreement with the smaller particle
sizes and the grease vapor. The proportion of the grease mass collected as vapor is much
higher for the electric griddle, compared to the gas griddle. This is true even if we
consider the test with the highest total particulate emissions to be the most representative.
The explanation for this may be related to the same phenomena which makes it difficult
to get repeatable large particle measurements. The exiting flue gas from the gas griddle
entrains dilution room air which travels across the area above the griddle surface, cooling
emissions from the food product. This cooling may be enough to condense the grease
vapor onto existing particles, lowering the mass of grease in the vapor phase while adding
to grease particulate mass. Without the influence of the hot flue gas emissions, the grease
vapor from the electric griddle cooking product remains in the vapor phase, at least until
it gets past the sampling point. There is some evidence which supports this. Figures 46
and 58 show the three dimensional temperature distributions from the gas and electric
griddles, respectively. The electric griddle distribution at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the
cooking surface shows higher temperatures extending across the griddle surface,
especially near the center of the griddle. For the gas griddle, the temperature distribution
at 12 in. (30.5 cm) shows room air temperatures over the griddle surface. The
temperature rises dramatically closer to the flue exit. While the magnitudes of these
temperature differences is not much, perhaps 10 F (5.6 C), that may be enough to affect
the grease vapor. In addition, the temperature differences may be even greater closer to
the griddle surface. While this argument is certainly not indisputable proof, it does offer
a possible explanation for the differences in grease vapor proportion between the gas and
electric griddles.
Figure 63 shows the actual amount of grease collected for each particle size range. It
shows the same discrepancies in total particulates for the three runs as the normalized
emissions. It is worth noting for test 3, the total particulate mass collected is within the
measurement noise, while for test 1, it is near the noise range. Therefore, testing from
this investigation shows the true emission mass from the largest particulates to be
inconclusive. Future investigators wishing to address this issue will need to consider the
problems associated with the effluent plume movement during sampling.

117
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

T~
4_

CM

h- 1 -

CO CO ^^
co
CO CD CD

mmS

CD
CO
CO
CD

O
o
I-

CO

ted rease em issi

u
CD

O
CD
N

o
u

>

CD

in
CM

Z>
Q.

03

art

CD
O

u_

O
T

D.

D)

CD
o
o

3. Elect

apo

has

CO
CD

^
rn

a.

(6LU) SUOJSSJUJ:]

papenoQ

118
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 12 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric griddle.
TABLE 12. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Griddle
Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx

4412
1.2
0.060.2
0.0010.004

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNO x
1.40.4
<0.1
26
0.030.14

From table 12, it is clear that the electric griddle emits essentially no detectable levels of
CO2, CO, or NOx. The levels of measured emissions all fall below the measurement
noise level. The CO2 level seen in the first row is entirely explained by the presence of
CO2 in room air. These data suggest the actual cooking of the food product for the
griddle process does not emit any of these particular gases. In light of this, it is likely the
emissions seen from the gas griddle are from the natural gas combustion process.
The emission of hydrocarbons from the electric griddle were undetectable. Table 2 in
section D.6 shows the particular hydrocarbons tested, and the minimum detection levels
measurable by the method.
3. Gas Fryer
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a single open vat fryer with two infrared natural gas burners. The
rated input was 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). The frying medium capacity was 50 lb. (22.7
kg), with a 14 x 15 in. (35.6 x 38.1 cm) surface for a total area of 1.46 ft2 (0.135 m2). The
frying medium was partially hydrogenated soybean oil. The appliance had a solid state
electronic thermostat control with electronic ignition.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1361-95, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 75 kBTU/h (21.98 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). Using procedures from the
same test method, we calibrated the thermostat control to provide a cooking oil
temperature of 350 F (177 C).

119
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c. Cooking Procedure
Appendix E gives the details of the cooking procedure, adopted from ASTM Standard
Test Method F 1361-95. The food product cooked was quarter inch, 2.2 % fat, 70 %
moisture, par-cooked shoestring potatoes. A laboratory specializing in food product
evaluation tested the potatoes for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows the results
from these tests, and other information regarding the food product. The following is a
brief summary of the cooking procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the potatoes to
an average of 30 % weight loss. After establishing the proper cookhg time, the potatoes
are weighed and arranged in air tight plastic bags. The product temperature is measured
before cooking begins. In addition, the cold zone is stirred for three minutes. The
potatoes are placed in fry baskets and lowered into the fryer, two baskets for each batch.
At the proper times established earlier, the potatoes are removed and placed on a grease
drip tray. When applicable, additional batches begin when the cooking oil temperature
reaches 340 F (171 C). After dripping for two minutes, the weight of the potatoes are
determined. Potatoes from each batch are tested for moisture content.
Similar to the griddles, previous data existregarding energy efficiency for a similar
appliance using a similar 6od product. The data are from an IR gas fryer, published in a
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) report (PG&E 1991). The parameters compared are
taken directly from the ASTM Standard Test Method. Figure 64 shows the rated energy
input, measured energy input, and average energy input for the two gas fryers. For the
U-M gas fryer, data from one test (#1) is used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Fryer

kBTU/h
Rated input

kBTU/h
Measured
Input

kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate

Figure 64. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas fryer energy input rates
The rated inputs are identical, and the measured input and average input rate are similar.
For both appliances, it is clear the appliance is close to its full energy input capacity

120
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

throughout the cooking process. Figure 65 compares the amount of energy directed to
the food and the fryer, per mass'of food cooked.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Fryer

I U - M Gas Fryer IR
m PG&E Gas Fryer IR

BTU/lb
Efood

BTU/lb
E fryer

Figure 65. Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas fryer energy to the food and fryer, per
mass of food cooked
The results from the PG&E test are almost identical to the results from the U-M test.
Figure 66 compares the energy efficiency and total product capacity of the two fryers.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Fryer
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

%
eff cook

I U-M Gas Fryer IR


i PG&E Gas Fryer IR

Ib/h
Product
Capacity

Figure 66. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas fryer cooking efficiencies
and product capacities
Figures 64 through 66 show that the performance of the two fryers is similar, in terms of
the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1361-95. Therefore, the
cooking procedure used in the present investigation closely follows the standard test
method.
121
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

d. Sampling Position
Figure 67 shows the appliance and sampling position for the gas and electric fryers,
relative to the test kitchen. The gas fryer was positioned with the front of the appliance 6
in. (15.2 cm) inside the front face of the ventilation hood, centered left to right.
Observations during the temperature distribution testing showed the center of the effluent
plume to be about 13 in. (33 cm) from the back wall at a height of 22.25 in. (56.5 cm)
above the cooking surface. The sampling position is towards the back of the appliance
due to the influence of the hot, high velocity exiting flue gas. The flue position is
elevated 10.25 in. (26 cm) above the cooking surface.
e. Velocity Distribution
Figure 68 shows the velocity and temperature control volumes and measurement
positions for the gas and electric fryers. Compared to the griddles, additional sampling
points were included, mainly near the back of the hood, and around the hood boundary, to
improve the distribution resolution. The areas within the bolded line represent the
velocity control volumes, with the measurement points being in the geometric center.
Figure 69 shows the velocity distribution for the gas fryer. Due to the high amount of
moisture in the thermal plume during cooking, velocity measurements were made while
the appliance was idling. The velocities used were the average velocity measured while
the appliance was cycling on. The area of highest velocity at the hood entrance is directly
below the exhaust duct entrance. It is also centered left to right above the fryer flue, but
is set back several inches. This shows the entire thermal plume gradually moves towards
the back of the ventilation hood.
Like the griddle velocity profiles, the velocity at the hood entrance for the gas fryer
increases towards the back of the hood. This is where the grease baffles are located. The
rectangular shape of the third highest velocity profile basically outlines the position of the
grease baffles. At the center of the hood, the higher velocities extend over the appliance
position, showing the thermal plume from the cooking surface.
The left side of the hood shows a definite decrease in velocity close to the left side hood
boundary. The same effect can be seen for the front and back of the hood. The right side
of the hood does not show this effect. This may be due to the proximity of the test
kitchen in the laboratory. The windows and the room air diffusers are positioned towards
the right side of the room, which may have an effect air entering the hood. During flow
visualization testing this effect was not evident. However, it is possible this effect is
extremely sensitive to other factors such as the position of the particulate instrumentation
and any people present in the room. Velocity distributions from most other appliances do
not show this effect, while a few others do, but to a much lesser extent.

122
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

.&-

t r^r

lish.
'-^~Jks

'Sam^'A

35 In.

11.5
in.
e & 'i

LEFT SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW

M0.25ln.
4.5 In. j l
$6in.
|

15 h.

" 16.5 In.

I 13.75 In.

13.75 in.

t4.5 In.
<
31.6 In.

Gas Fryei

31.5 In.
Electric Fryer

S"

15.75 in.

Note: Dimensions of the exhaust are


4"x1* and fl Is located 1" away from
the edge of the griddle

"-

r^
Electric Fryet
LEGEND

G a s Fryer

Figure 67. Position of the gas and electric fryers

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Sample Point

2_
' I

~9

T4_ 3_|L ssli


JLj_^_4 ia_86
I13MO l4 11 ' h 5 1 2 ' 1613
"M 1417I 1 5 ' i s ' ^
1

1 20

12

21

22

23 |

25

31

32

(24
26

"

51

70

52

r 43

41

n~ I ]

'61 .
6

62

12

l -

12

" fl

44

55

1-4
.

65

46

'i

45
4

66

- l -

-^~^-

10

Velocity control volume boundaries


Temperature control volume boundaries
1 1/2 inch inner flange within ventilation hood

1 38

* J

28

31,

32

'

39'

47'

'

40

48

9_

tl7 r t T 38 _l
I

56
.

30

37
a

X*_L"

I 42 I 43
i l l
.1 _
54
64

36

123^ 24

27|

29

I44

+6 3

26

"5 j " 3 6

-U'-L [_
I

11 25
27 I ,
28

33

:
42

J 2

"| r 3? j

I"

' I 22 '

J]

19

29

39

20

30

40

' 1

' I

J l 'I -!
U
46
I 471
I 48
I I
L _ _. 1
^ _._ 4 _

49

50
I

-I

57

58

<-67-I10

1
6 8
-I-

12

59

60

69

70

12

Distances in italics (inches)

Velocity points in bold


Temperature points in plain

Figure 68. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the gas and electric fryers

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

r =
Vel (ft/min):

50

100

150

200

40j*!r

c
o
S

0*2*5*

30

(0

o
" 20o
X

2 lO0-

40

60

Front Hood Position (in.)


Figure 69. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the gas fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

Temperature Distribution

The temperature control volumes for the gas fryer are shown in figure 68. The positions
of the thermocouples are different from those used during the griddle tests. There is a
higher concentration of thermocouples near the back side of the grid, and the first row of
thermocouples is actually located at the back wall surface. This allows greater
temperature resolution at the areas where the temperature gradients are the highest.
Figure 70 shows the average temperature distribution at 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the gas
fryer. The area of maximum plume temperature is located above the flue area, offset
slightly to the left. The offset is probably due to slight irregularities in air flow through
the grease baffles located near the exhaust duct entrance. Figure 70 shows that around the
peak plume temperatures, the temperature gradient falls symmetrically, almost forming
perfect concentric circles when plotted on a contour graph. It does not appear as though
the surface oil temperature has a great influence on the thermal plume.
Figure 71 shows a three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution above
the gas fryer. For most appliances, the plume broadens as it rises, but this is not evident
for the gas fryer. It appears as though the temperature distribution remains relatively
constant at the three measured heights. The gas fryer is unique in that its combustion flue
is extremely small, only about four square inches in cross-sectional area. All of the hot
combustion gas must exit this flue. In addition, the flue is 10 in. (25.4 cm) above the
cooking surface, thus only 2, 14, and 26 in. (5.1, 35.6, and 66 cm) from the three
thermocouple grid locations. This must not be enough distance to see the dilution affect
the room air has on the plume. However, duct temperature measurements show the
exhaust air is substantially cooler than the peak plume temperatures, therefore, the
majority of the dilution must occur somewhere above the 36 in. height and the exhaust
duct opening. If grease emissions from the gas fryer were high, this would have a large
affect on designing a system to remove the grease. Because the grease emissions from
the gas fryer are so low, it probably does not present a problem.
Figure 72 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at various heights above the
gas fryer. It may appear strange that sometimes the maximum plume temperature at 24 or
36 in. (61 or 91.4 cm) above the fryer surface exceeds the maximum plume temperature
at distances closer to the heat source. There are a couple of reason for this. First, the data
at each height were collected during separate tests. Therefore, the actual cooking process
may have varied somewhat at any particular time a maximum temperature was calculated.
This can easily account for some small temperature discrepancies, especially between the
24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) heights. For the cases when the maximum plume
temperature at 12 in. (30.5 cm) falls below the maximum plume temperatures at higher
levels, another explanation is needed.
The gas fryer flue has a cross-section of 1 by 4 in. (2.5 by 10.2 cm), located 10 in. (25.4
cm) above the cooking surface. Therefore, when the thermocouple grid is placed 12 in.
(30.5 cm) above the cooking surface, there are actually no thermocouples directly above

126
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

r^ M q P Q P ^ ^ M f f p - .

iMtwTiaamrnniH wn* riff

Temp (F): 65

75

85

95

105

40-

to

c
o
S 30'
o
Q.

E 20o

X
0

2 10
00

I J,

20

Mi

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

H-+
80

Figure 70. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above


the gas fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

115

Temp (F)
115
40
X

(Q

3"

to
00

;* 30>
&
<
(D

oo

O 203
(O

(0

c3.

0)

8 io**
MM

40
^

20

&

^Pos/o 0n>)

Figure 71. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches above
the gas fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

160
First batch
removec

First batch
placed in fryer

Second batch
placed in fryer

Second batch
removed

to

90
80
-1
Time (Min)
12 inch

24 inch

'36 inch

Figure 72. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

the flue opening. This results in the true maximum flue temperature at 12 in. (30.5 cm) to
be missed by the thermocouple grid. The opening is surrounded by thermocouples, but it
is unlikely any experiences temperatures as high as those directly over the flue. By the
time the plume reaches 24 in. (61 cm) above the cooking surface, the exiting flue gases
have spread out enough for the maximum plume temperature to be captured by the
thermocouple grid when placed at that height. The same is true at 36 in. (91.4 cm) above
the cooking surface.
The temperature increase seen when the first batch of potatoes is placed in the fryers is
shown at time 0. The actual time of these measurements corresponds to several seconds
after the cooking begins, due to the finite time it takes the data acquisition system to cycle
through the thermocouple grid. The temperature at the 24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm)
positions stays relatively constant until the first batch is removed, and the second is
placed in the fryer. At this point, the maximum plume temperature at 36 in. (91.4 cm)
rises, while the maximum plume temperature at 24 in. (61 cm) falls slightly. These
differences may actually be due to variations in the cooking process from test to test. It
appears that at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the plume, the temperature varies significantly
during the entire process. Some of this variation is due to the thermocouple positions, as
explained earlier, while some effects are likely due to the fryer burner cycling on and off.
This burner cycling would have less affect as the plume height increases.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 73 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution from the gas fryer. The
figure shows the results from two tests. Emissions from the gas fryer includes a large
proportion of water vapor. Even though the probe was allowed to heat up over the
appliance, water condensation was prevalent throughout the impactor. To minimize this,
the impactor was heated in a oven before sampling. The amount of water in the impactor
was substantially reduced, but there was still a fair amount found on the substrate
surfaces. This moisture was most likely in the particulate form when it collected,
therefore it can not be avoided if we wish to collect all particulates at the sampling point.
After desiccation of the substrates, little mass change was seen. In fact, the particle
concentrations shown below 15 Jim in figure 73 are all within the measurement noise
range. Therefore, we conclude that the gas fryer emits an undetectable amount of small
grease particulates.
The concentration of large particulates was relatively low. The concentration of large
particles found for the two runs differed by about a factor of two. It is likely the large
particles come from grease splattering that occurs when the food product is placed in the
cooking oil. Considering the number of variables affecting the probability of these
particles reaching the sampling point, our two tests show relatively good agreement.
Most of these particles will be removed by the grease baffles before they enter the exhaust
duct. Therefore, it seems unlikely grease particulates pose a major problem from gas
fryers.

130
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100
90
80 -70
E
O)

60

E
CL
Q
D)

50

40
30

20
10 +

0 +0.01

< I

' E H M H

0.10

> I I I I |

ca=

Til- T - r -

1.00 .

10.00

Dp (um)
Figure 73. Gas fryer particle distribution (2 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

I I I I I I

100.00

Figure 74 shows the normalized grease emissions from the gas fryer. The grease is
divided into different size ranges and the vapor phase. Emission of the smallest particles
is barely measurable. The total particulate emissions are low also, but are measurable. In
addition, the data from the two tests agree well considering measurement uncertainties.
The grease vapor emissions are also very low. For the first test, the emissions are below
the noise level, while they are just above the measurement noise for the second test.
Regardless, the total amount of grease emitted from the gas fryer appears to be very low
compared to emissions from other appliances.
Figure 75 shows the actual mass of grease collected in each particle size range. It should
be noted that a total of 24 lb. (10.9 kg) of food product was cooked to produce enough
emissions to be collected for each test. This translates into eight 3 lb. (1.4 kg) batches of
fries cooked back to back. This amount of food was still barely enough to produce
measurable grease emissions.
It is possible under different conditions that a fryer could produce considerably more
grease emissions. For instance, fryers are often used to cook food with a much higher fat
content than potatoes, such as skin-on chicken. This may increase grease emissions. In
addition, the grease vapor emissions may be sensitive to the cooking oil composition and
temperature. If an oil with a low smoke temperature, such as olive oil, were used, and the
cooking temperature was increased to a level close to the smoke point, much more grease
vapor would probably be emitted. However, it is doubtful that such conditions commonly
exist in commercial operations.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 13 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas fryer.
TABLE 13. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Fryer

Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx

13366
45
118

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNOx
8.74.5
2.9
7.7

0.00.1
0.040.02

05
2.31.2

The CO2 levels in table 13 show there is CO2 emitted during the cooking process that is
not accounted for by the CO2 from the room air. This level is less than the expected CO2
production from the natural gas combustion process. The CO2 level from combustion
132
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


STest 1

El Test 2

0 Average

Figure 74. Gas fryer normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

TP

PM10

PM2.5
Particle Size or Phase
STest 1

Vapor

El Test 2

Figure 75. Gas fryer collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

was estimated assuming perfect combustion conditions, which represents the maximum
possible contribution from combustion. Overall, the CO2 emissions after subtracting
room air contributions only comprises about one third of the total CO2 at the sampling
point, the rest is simply due to room air concentrations which would be present without
the gas fryer.
The level of CO emissions was undetectable, suggesting an efficient combustion process
for the gas fryer burners. The NOx emissions per 1000 hours of full load operation are
slightly higher, but not remarkably so, for the gas fryer compared to other gas appliances
except the oven. However, all gas appliances, except the oven, seem to emit NOx at a
rate of about 2 lb. per 1000 hour of operation. The magnitude of NOx emissions does not
appear to be high enough to be of great concern.
Table 2 in section D.6 lists the tested hydrocarbons and shows their minimum detection
limits. The results show the emissions of all the hydrocarbons tested were below the
detection limit.
/. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Figure 76 shows the time dependent nature of the particle number concentrations from the
gas fryer. When the fries are first added to the oil, the concentration increases
dramatically. After about 30 seconds, the concentration begins to level off, although
there is still a noticeable increase. After the first batch is removed, the concentration falls
by about an order of magnitude, only to begin climbing again after the next batch is
begun. This pattern repeats itself for each batch. It appears as though the concentration
levels reached when the cooking process stabilizes, are all about the same for each batch.
If anything, the generation of particulates stabilizes ais subsequent batches are added.
4. Electric Fryer
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a single open vat fryer with two low watt density heating
elements. The rated input was 47.8 kBTU/h (14 kW) at 208 V. The frying medium
capacity was 50 lb. (22.7 kg), with a 14 x 15.5 in. (35.6 x 39.4 cm) surface for a total area
of 1.51 ft (0.14 m ). The frying medium was partially hydrogenated soybean oil. The
appliance had a solid state electronic thermostat control.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1361-95, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 44 kBTU/h (12.9 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 45.5 kBTU/h (13.3 kW), adjusted for the actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we calibrated the thermostat
control to provide a cooking oil temperature of 350 F (177 C).

135
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1.0E+06 r
First batch
removed

^ 1.0E+05
o

Start of
second batch

Second batch
removed

Start of
third batch

Third batch
removed

Start of
first batch

c
o

'I
u>

I 1.0E+04
o
c
o
o
a>
E
Z 1.0E+03

1.0E+02
4

Time (min)
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15um

Stage 4 - 0.15-0.26|Jm *Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38Mm

Figure 76. Gas fryer real time particle number concentrations


Taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

10

c. Cooking Procedure
The cooking procedure is identical to the procedure described for the gas fryer.
Previous data exist regarding energy efficiency for a similar appliance using a similar food
product. The data are from an electric fryer, published in a Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) report (PG&E 1991). The parameters compared are taken directly from the
ASTM Standard Test Method. Figure 77 shows the rated energy input, measured energy
input, and average energy input for the two electric fryers. For the U-M electric fryer,
data from one test (#1) are used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Fryer
50.0 T

kBTU/h
Rated input

kBTU/h
Measured
input

kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate

Figure 77. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM electric fryer energy input rates
The rated input for the U-M electric fryer is slightly less than the PG&E fryer due to a
slight difference in input voltage. The U-M test shows a slightly lower average input rate.
However, the average input rate is appliance specific, and different models will require
different rates to cook the same product. Figure 78 compares the amount of energy
directed to the food and the fryer, per mass of food cooked.

137
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

PG&E vs. U-M Electric Fryer


700
600
500
400
3 300
m 200
100
0

I U-M Electric Fryer


I PG&E Electric Fryer

BTU/lb
Efood

BTU/lb
E fryer

Figure 78. Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric fryer energy to the food and fryer, per
mass of food cooked
The results from the PG&E test are almost identical to those from the U-M test. The fact
mat the energy to the appliance is almost equal to the energy to the food shows the
appliance operates at high efficiency. Figure 79compares the energy efficiency and total
product capacity of the two fryers.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Fryer

I U-M Electric Fryer


i PG&E Electric Fryer

eff cook

Ib/h
Product
Capacity

Figure 79. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric fryer cooking efficiencies
and product capacities
As stated earlier, the electric appliances have higher energy efficiencies compared to gas
appliances, as defined by the ASTM Standard Test Method. Inefficiencies from
converting the natural gas into heat are counted for the gas appliances, while the
conversion of raw energy product to electricity is ignored for the electrical appliances.

138
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figures 77 through 79 show that the performance of the two fryers is similar, in terms of
the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1361-95. Therefore, the
cooking procedure used in the present investigation likely adheres to the standard test
method.
d. Sampling Position
The positions of the appliance and sampling point for the electric fryer are identical to the
positions for the gas fryer, shown in figure 67.
e. Velocity Distribution
The velocity control volumes for the electric fryer are identical to those for the gas fryer
shown in figure 68. The electric fryer velocity measurements were taken under the same
conditions as the gas fryer, that is, with the appliance idling and cycling on.
Figure 80 shows the velocity distribution for the electric fryer. It is almost identical in
shape and magnitude to the distribution for the gas fryer. One might expect there to be
higher velocities from the gas version due to the combustion flue gases. The effect can be
seen slightly in the fact the area of highest velocity is larger for the gas fryer, but not
remarkably so. As with the griddles, this shows the dilution room air has had a chance to
thoroughly mix with the plume before the hood entrance.
Again, the velocities increase toward the back of the hood. The same rectangular shape
outlining the grease baffle position present in the gas fryer velocity profile is present for
the electric fryer. In addition, there is an increase in velocity over the appliance,
corresponding to the distance of the thermal plume from the cooking surface.
There appears to be a slight difference in the way the velocity decreases towards the left
side hood boundary compared to the right side. The left side velocities decrease close to
the hood boundary more noticeably than the right side velocities. This decrease is not
nearly as noticeable as it was for the gas fryer. However, it does support the idea that
perhaps under the conditions tested, more air may have entered the test kitchen from the
laboratory on the right side than the left.
/

Temperature Distribution

The temperature control volumes for the electric fryer are the same as those for the gas
fryer, shown in figure 68. Figure 81 shows the average temperature distribution at 36 in.
(91.4 cm) above the electric fryer. Like the gas fryer, the distribution is symmetric, and
located above the flue area. However, the electric fryer flue area is actually closed,
therefore, what we see is the plume moving from above the cooking surface towards the
back of the hood. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the cooking surface, it happens to have
moved a distance equivalent to the position of the covered flue. The magnitude of the

139
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

r
Vel (ft/min):

^*mmm>mmm,m]fmi^f:
*t&**i.

50

100

.-

... <HV ..

150
iijaj mwiwa

200
m

Mm

40-

c o

Sfesr:'

S 3(H
4*.
O

(0

o
" 20o
o
2 lOco

250

20

I 'I | M l l l l | l ^ a M p M p M ^ M M M l M p M |

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

Figure 80. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the electric fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Temp (F): 65

75

85

95

105

115

40-c
o
S 30CO
o
Q.

" 20o

H M W i

0)

S 100

|H

20

I.

H-

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 81. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above


the electric fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

plume temperature is much less than that seen for the gas fryer, due to the absence of the
natural gas combustion products exiting a small flue area.
Figure 82 shows the three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution
above the electric fryer. It is clear from this figure that the center of the plume is moving
from front to back as the plume rises. This is a result of the position of the grease baffles,
located at the back of the hood, through which the thermal plume must exit. It is also
easy to see the effect dilution air has on cooling the thermal plume as it rises. As the
plume rises, room air joins the plume, lowering the temperature, while increasing the
plume velocity and volume.
Figure 83 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at various heights above the
electric fryer. For the electric fryer, it is easy to see when the potatoes are added and
removed from the cooking oil. The temperature greatly increases after the addition of the
food product, it peaks about a minute or so after cooking begins, and then begins to drop.
The plume temperature is at a minimum when the food is removed. This pattern is
evident for all three batches. The reason the 24 or 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) plume
maximum may exceed the 12 in. (30.5 cm) plume maximum is most likely due to some
variation in the cooking process. Each data set was taken during a separate test, therefore,
some variation is to be expected. In addition, some data at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height
was lost. This is shown as a discontinuous line segment.
It is interesting to note the temperature of the plume follows the opposite pattern of the oil
temperature. When the food product is first added the oil temperature decreases
dramatically while it attempts to raise the food temperature. This is the process that
releases heat to the thermal plume. As the food cooks, the oil temperature increases,
while the plume temperature decreases. Less energy is transferred to the thermal plume.
At the end of the cooking process, the cooking oil is back to its original temperature.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 84 shows the mass size distribution for grease particulates from the electric fryer.
The results are similar to those seen for the gas fryer. Concentrations from particulates
below the 15 u.m size are within the measurement noise level. The larger particulate
concentrations are also quite low. The concentrations from the two tests are within a
factor of two. This shows relatively good repeatability considering most large particles
probably originate from the splattering that occurs when the food product is introduced to
the cooking oil.
Figures 85 and 86 show the grease emissions for each particle size range and grease in the
vapor phase. Data in figure 85 are normalized to the mass of food product cooked, while
data in figure 86 are the actual mass of grease collected. The emission levels are almost
identical to those seen for the gas fryer. However, the two tests for the electric fryer agree
better with one another than the two tests for the gas fryer. The vapor emissions for the
two tests are almost identical. The magnitude of the grease vapor emissions for both

142
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Temp (F)
115
105
95
H'K?'

85
75
65

Fror

Position (in.)

Figure 82. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36


inches above the electric fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

130

7060 -I
-

1
1

1
0

1
1

1
3

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1
8

Time (Min)
12 inch

2 4 inch

mmmm

36 inch

Figure 83. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the electric fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100
90
80 70 -

60

a 50
D
O)

40
30 -20 10

0
0.01

^==P=*^^=?=^=?=^

0.10

~i<

I I I i> E i

l T

1.00

10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 84. Electric fryer particle distribution (2 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

4*>
ON

.imiiiiiiitawiiw

TP

PM10

+PM2.5
Particle Size or Phase
I Test 2

Vapor

^Average

Figure 85. Electric fryer normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

^Test 1
M Test 2

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 86. Electric fryer collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

electric fryer tests is close to the magnitude of the grease vapor emission from test 2 of
the gas fryer. This suggests that the grease vapor collected from test 1 of the gas fryer,
which is below the measurement noise level, may not be representative.
For all particle size ranges and the vapor phase, emissions from the electric fryer are
about a factor of two above the measurement noise level. Improving on this would
require a much longer test using many pounds of fries. Data from this investigation
suggest the grease emissions from fryers are very low, and additional testing in this area
is probably unnecessary.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 14 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric fryer
TABLE 14. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Fryer
Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


C0 2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx

168
<1

o.oo.i
0.000+0.003

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNO x
1.00.5
<0.1
05
0.00.2

The gas emission results in table 14 show the electric fryer process does not emit any of
the tested gases at detectable levels. The CO2 that was detected at the sampling point can
be explained by the level found in the dilution room air.
Table 2 in section D.6 lists the tested hydrocarbons and the associated minimum detection
limits. Results show if any of the tested hydrocarbons were emitted they probably have
concentration levels below the detection limit.
5. Under-fired Gas Broiler
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a gas broiler with seven 2 ft (0.61 m) atmospheric burners with
radiants. The rated input was 105 kBTU/h (30.76 kW). The cooking surface was 22.75 x
30 in. (57.79 x 76.2 cm) for a total area of 4.74 ft2 (0.44 m2). The surface was tilted to
provide an avenue for grease run-off. The appliance had a standing pilot light.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1695-96, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 104.7 kBTU/h (30.68 kW), which
148
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

compares well with a rated energy input of 105 kBTU/h (30.76 kW). Using procedures
from the same test method, we measured the average grill surface temperature at 525 F
(273.9 C) at maximum output. The maximum average temperature difference between
the steel disks used for temperature calibration was 136 F (75 C).
c. Cooking Procedure
Appendix E gives the details of the cooking procedure, adopted from ASTM Standard
Test Method F 1695-96. The food product cooked was one third pound, 20 % fat, 62 %
moisture, hamburger patties. An additional product, skinless boneless chicken breast, had
a fat content of 2.7 % and a moisture content of 74.3 %. A laboratory specializing in food
product evaluation tested the patties and chicken for fat and moisture content. Appendix
B shows the results from these tests, and other information regarding the food product.
The cooking procedure for the hamburger patties is identical to the procedure used for the
griddles. The cooking procedure used for the skinless boneless chicken breast was similar
to that of the hamburger, except a longer cooking time was required to reach 35 % weight
loss.
d. Sampling Position
Figure 87 shows the positions of the appliance and sampling point for the gas broiler,
relative to the test kitchen. The appliance was positioned with its front surface 6 in. (15.2
cm) inside the front of the ventilation hood, centered left to right. From observing the
effluent plume during temperature distribution testing, we found the center of the plume
to be approximately 21 in. (53.3 cm) from the back wall of the kitchen, at a height of 32
in. (81.3 cm) above the cooking surface. This position is further from the back wall
compared to the fryers and griddles, mainly due to the absence of a flue. Instead, the
combustion gases mix immediately with the cooking product emissions along the entire
cooking surface. Because the grill is tilted during cooking to allow for grease drainage,
the top of the cooking surface was defined as the top of the grill when it was placed flat
on the grill supports. The required ventilation rate for the gas broiler is 400 cfm per
square foot of hood area (2 m3/s per m2). To achieve this rate, 7.5 in. (19.1 cm) on each
side of the hood was partitioned with plywood, and stainless steel sheet metal covered the
partitioned area. In addition, the sheet metal extended 1.5 in. (3.8 cm) from the partition
to duplicate the 1.5 in. (3.8 cm) flange lip on the unmodified hood.
e. Velocity Distribution
Figure 88 shows the temperature and velocity control volumes associated with the gas
broiler. The areas within the bolded lines represent the velocity control volumes, with the
measurement point geometrically centered. The shaded hood area represents the area
partitioned to achieve the proper ventilation flow rate.

149
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

itF

1.01a

-an re!

161a
C

4 & la

/I

0
4
4

>4

261a

1'

"1 i

Asia

'fe'ggV

20 in,

V l 1.75 In

> <T>i
7.5 In.

aTio

** t i
32 la

81la

'-__

",

..L
* * 1
8 In.

11.75 fn.
35 la

I 41a

*~

L.

30 In.

11.6
la '

-_^__

LEFT SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW

nsa
LEGEND

30.75la

Figure 87. Position of the gas broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Sample Point

L j . 1 |2_

i ,

12

1-29

17

25

1
15

12

126
126 1

10

33 I

,16

12 4I

27

17

28

36

29 I |

37

22

30

I 6

16 '

,_23|

, 24 , |

31 I
I1 31

32
I 1 32

12"T T , T 13
|

38

| 39

40

44

I,
45 I

19,
46

,20

47 I
I . I

14

r 7T
18,

43

15'

r r i ir -r 1 1

J .| _ 1 t_ _ L 1
r
T
|

Jb42

13 I 5 14 I

I _21JI|

35 '

34

,
41

!I A 1 _5 I ' _ 6_ l_ 7_l 1 _8 _l I

-fl
J.

r-T

3_

3 11 I

12

'10

21

48
I

- _ i-= nr^ rjrr. TTTL T [ - _ I _ r - | 22

12

23

-
7.5

10.5

-~^-

24

1
12

25

1
12

Velocity control
volume boundaries
Temperature control
volume boundaries
1 1/2 inch inner flange within
ventilation hood

26

27

zd

'
12

28

12

12

10.5

Distances in italics (inches)


Hood area partitioned with
stainless steel covered
wood inserts.

Velocity points in bold


Temperature points in plain

Figure 88. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the gas broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

7.5

Figure 89 shows the gas broiler velocity profile at the hood entrance. Measurements were
made while the appliance was idling. The area near the hood boundaries not included in
the contour plot, but inside the hood entrance represent areas where no velocity
measurements were made. The velocity profile clearly shows steadily increasing
velocities close to the exhaust hood entrance. However, the highest velocities are still
several inches from the center of the exhaust duct entrance. This is probably due to the
large volume of air from the appliance surface. The gas broiler has no flue, therefore, all
the combustion gases mix with the dilution air and move toward the hood entrance. This
large volume of gas begins to rise at a point directly below the center of the hood, and
must move towards the back of the hood where the grease baffles are located. At the
hood entrance, the plume has not yet had enough time to move completely to the back of
the hood. The shape of the highest velocities suggests that the plume is moving towards
the exhaust duct entrance.
The shape of the velocity distribution is remarkably symmetric. Velocities increase
towards the back of the hood, as well as in the area directly over the appliance. As one
moves towards the left and right sides of the hood, the velocities decrease. The effect
seen in the fryers, where velocities are higher on the right side of the hood, is not present.
The velocities for the gas broiler are much higher than those for other appliances. This is
a result of the higher volume of air generated and entrained into the thermal plume. It
certainly justifies the notion that a broiler like this requires a higher ventilation rate than
the other appliances tested in this study.
/

Temperature Distribution

Figure 88 shows the temperature control volumes used for the gas broiler. The positions
of the thermocouples are geometrically centered within each control volume. The
temperature control volumes are positioned identically to the ones used for all other
appliances except the griddles.
Figure 90 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger. The shape of the plume is almost circular, with the
maximum temperatures located towards the back of the broiler, offset slightly to the left.
This is the same offset seen in the griddles and fryer, and is likely due to the air flow
through the grease baffles. Because the gas broiler does not have a flue, the position of
the plume shown in figure 90 shows the plume is migrating towards the back of the
ventilation hood, where the grease baffles are located. The plume must begin at the
broiler surface, shown by the innermost rectangle. As the plume rises, it moves towards
the area where the air must exit the ventilation hood, through the grease baffles located
near the back.
Figure 91 shows the average temperature profile at three heights above the gas broiler
cooking surface while cooking hamburger. The figure shows the plume does move from
front to back as it rises. In addition, it is easy to see the effects of the dilution room air,

152
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

,1 :.

Vel (ft/min):

50

150

100

200

250

40-c
o

E 30w
o

"g 20o

0)

2 10
CO

i" ii

20

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

i'*

80

Figure 89. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the modified hood opening
for the gas broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

95

Temp (F): 65

125

185

155

215

40c
o
S 304s>

CO

o
Q.

E 20o
X

2 100

'i

20

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 90. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the


gas broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

'""Position^

Figure 91. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12.24, and 36 inches above
the gas broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

which lowers the temperature of the plume as it moves away from the broiler cooking
surface. Regardless, the average plume temperature at 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the cooking
surface is still extremely high.
Figure 92 shows the maximum plume temperature at various heights above the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger. At the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height, the maximum plume
temperature is affected by the cooking process. There is a temperature increase when the
patties are placed on the grill and when they are turned. Between these actions the
temperature is relatively stable. For the other heights, the temperature varies more
randomly, but there is an overall trend of the temperature rising during the cooking
process.
The fact that the maximum plume temperature at 36 in. (91.4 cm) is higher than the
maximum temperature at 24 in. (61 cm) for much of the cooking process is not easily
explained. There is no mechanism for the plume to heat between these heights. In
addition, the affect of a small flue area, which explains some similar discrepancies seen
from the gas fryer, is not applicable here. The most likely explanation is variability in the
cooking process. The temperature distributions are taken during three separate cooking
tests, with the data acquisition program cycling through the thermocouples one at a time.
The maximum temperature is determined by the highest temperature recorded during one
cycling period. Therefore, the maximum plume temperatures plotted in figure 90 are
single temperatures taken at a discrete time. If a major flare-up occurs during one time
period when the thermocouples are at 36 in. (91.4 cm) it is unlikely a flare-up will occur
at the same time period when the thermocouples are set at 24 in. (61 cm). Therefore, it is
possible to see a higher temperature at the 36 in.(91.4 cm) height.
The average temperature of the plume at the three heights for any time period always
shows the highest temperature located at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height, the next highest at
the 24 in. (61 cm) height and the lowest temperature at the 36 in. (91.4 cm) height.
Maximum plume temperatures from higher plume heights is also seen in the gas broiler
data when cooking chicken breast, but does not occur in other appliances (with the
exception of the gas fryer, which is explained by the position of the flue). In general, this
suggests the gas broiler cooking process is more variable than other processes. This
variability is likely due to the grease fire flare-ups that occur on the grease drip tray
beneath the grill.
Figure 93 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the gas
broiler surface while cooking chicken breast. Figure 94 shows the three-dimensional
contour plot of the average temperature distribution taken at three heights. Comparing
these to the temperature profiles from the gas broiler while cooking hamburger shows the
cooking product does not affect the average thermal plume temperature distribution. The
plume moves from front to back as it rises, and room air dilution cools it. The shape of
the plume is almost identical to the plume while cooking hamburger.

156
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

200-

175 -I
-1

1
0

1
1

1
2

1
3

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1
8

1
9

1
10

1
11

1
12

1
13

14

Time (Min.)
12 inch

2 4 inch

~ ~ 3 6 inch

Figure 92. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36 inches above the gas broiler while cooking hamburger
(modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Temp (F): 65

95

125

155

185

215

40-

00

c
o
2 30
o
" 2 0 *
o
X

-.

S 100)

ii

20

40

60

Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 93. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the


gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure 94. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches above
the gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure 95 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperatures at the three heights
for the gas broiler cooking chicken breast. The data show the same discrepancies as the
maximum plume temperatures for the gas broiler cooking hamburger. Throughout the
entire cooking process the highest temperature was found at the 24 in. (61 cm) height.
Again, there is no mechanism for the plume to heat between 12 and 24 in. (30.5 and 61
cm). The average temperatures at these heights over time show the plume to be the
hottest at 12 in. (30.5 cm), the next hottest at 24 in (61 cm), and the coolest at 36 in. (91.4
cm). Therefore, the maximum plume temperatures are likely affected by variability in the
cooking process.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 96 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution for the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. The data are from three separate tests, and show the size distribution was
repeatable. A large proportion of the particulate mass is from particles larger than about
15 |im. These particulates are most likely from the cooking product surface, originating
from the release of gases within the cooking product. When the food product heats,
moisture in the liquid form expands as it vaporizes. As it expands it builds pressure
which is eventually released. This energy can propel liquid grease into the effluent
stream as large particulates. Particulates of this size are easy to remove by mechanical
means such as grease baffles.
Figure 97 shows the same concentration distribution on a smaller scale to concentrate on
the smaller particle sizes. The mass concentration of particles between 15 ujn and about
0.5 |im slowly decreases. Below 0.5 p.m the mass contribution suddenly increases. From
the information available from the impactor, not much is known about the size
distribution between 0.5 \im and 0.01 |j.m. This is the grease mass collected on the afterfilter. From observation we know the material looks yellow with many areas of dark
black, unlike the larger particles collected on die substrates, which are a light yellow
liquid. The substrates with the smallest size range begin to show some collection of
black particulates. Therefore, it is likely the larger particles are mostly liquid grease,
while the smallest particles may include fine burnt carbon particulates.
For the gas broiler cooking hamburger we collected particles using the Electrical Low
Pressure Impactor (ELPI). The ELPI requires a long sample line, making it undesirable
for large particle collection. In addition, its principle of operation, measuring the current
associated with charged particles impacting on its impaction stages, makes it difficult to
simultaneously measure large concentrations of large and small particulates. This is due
to the large disparity in charge to mass ratios associated with particle diameters spanning
several orders of magnitude. However, after eliminating data for particles larger than 1
\im, the ELPI shows the mass concentration reaches a minimum between 0.4 and 0.9 pirn.
It then peaks at about 0.2 fim only to fall off considerably after 0.09 \im. Figure 98 shows
the mass distribution from the ELPI between 0.01 and 1.0 \im.

160
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

325

- 1 0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Time (Min)
12 inch

- ^ 2 4 inch

"" 36 inch

Figure 95. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas broiler while cooking chicken
(modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

200 -

-I 150
ON

to

a.

Q
a>

JD

P 100

50 --

, ' nr- i 4 T

0.01

4H

-H-

0.10

4H

4-4

g$E:
1.00

ii-

10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 96. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i i i i

100.00

100
90
80
70
E
O)

60

E
Q- 50
Q
o>
o
=5 40
30
-

-..-.:A

20
10
0 4
0.01

I
i

0.10

Tin
1.00

4-JL 'I

I 'I

M-44
10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 97. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

U-H

I I I

100.00

50 T

45 \\

40 : ;
35 ;
30 ;
25 : ;
20 : ;
15::

I"

10::
5 ::
o T
0.01

'i

i~~i i

J i

'

11

0.1
Dp (|jm)

Figure 98. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01 and 1.0 |im
Data taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

il

i'
1

The magnitude of the concentration seen in the ELPI data is about the same as shown in
figure 97 for the same particle size range. This shows good agreement between the ELPI
and Marple impactors. Figure 98 suggests the majority of the mass in the smallest size
range shown in figure 97 is mostly concentrated between 0.1 and 0.5 \im. Therefore, the
mass based particle size distribution for grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger is bi-modal.
A bi-modal distribution implies two separate particle generation mechanisms. The
mechanism for the generation of large particles has already been discussed. Particles in
the size range of the second mode are often the result of homogenous nucleation. It is
possible the yellow we see on the filter is grease vapor which has condensed on itself,
forming fine particulates. It seems the most likely source of the black areas seen on the
filter is the production of fine burnt carbon, possibly from grease dripping on the hot
surfaces beneath the grill. Another possibility is that fine burnt carbon particles may form
a surface onto which the grease vapor can condense. From the information available it is
not possible to determine which if any of these possibilities actually occurs. However,
the implications of this large mass of fine particulates emitting from the cooking process
are great.
Figures 99 and 100 show grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger for
different particle size ranges and the vapor phase. The data in figure 99 are normalized to
the food product mass, while the data in figure 100 show the actual mass of collected
grease. When grouped into the respective size ranges, the tests show great repeatability.
While the total particulate emissions are high, the emissions in the smaller size ranges are
of greater concern. The PM 10 emissions are above 10 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product.
This exceeds the total grease emissions for many of the cooking processes. The
emissions of PM 2.5 particulates is just below 10 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product. This
shows the majority of particulate mass below 10 \im is actually smaller than 2.5 |im.
These particles are hard to eliminate from the effluent stream. Simple mechanical
mechanisms like a grease baffle probably allow these small particles to easily pass
through. Water mists or electrostatic precipitators might be more effective, but this needs
to be investigated.
The level of grease vapor emission is also high. The data were not as repeatable
compared to the particulates, nevertheless there was general agreement on the emission
levels. Taken as a whole, the average grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger is about 55 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product.
Figures 101 and 102 show the grease particulate mass size distribution from the gas
broiler cooking boneless skinless chicken breast. The concentration scale for figure 99 is
shown for easy comparison to the size distribution for the gas broiler cooking hamburger
in figure 97.

165
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TP

PM10

Vapor

PM2.5

Particle Size or Phase


STesM

HI Test 2

W Test 3

g Average

Figure 99. Gas broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

25

20
D)

c 15
o
'w
(0

"E
HI
T3

10
o
o
O

4-

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


ETesM

ED Test 2

I Test 3

Figure 100. Gas broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

IUU

9080 -

ON

00

70 -

60 -

50-

CD

o
5

40 30 20 10i

0 -I
0.01

0.10

1.00

1
10.00

Dp (pm)
Figure 101. Gas broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

<0

20

W
Q.
Q
O)
O

10

"

5-

0-

0.01

0.10

LH'iJ
1.00

10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 102. Gas broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

The scale used in figure 102 allows the distribution features to be seen more easily. The
shape of the distribution is almost identical to that seen for the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. This implies the particle generating mechanisms are identical. That is, the
mechanism responsible for the particulates below 0.5 p.m for hamburger must also be
present for the chicken. Therefore, while the amount of grease that falls onto the hot
surface beneath the grill from the chicken is much less than the amount that falls from the
hamburger, it is enough to generate a significant amount of small particulates.
Figures 103 and 104 show the grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking chicken
breast for the different size ranges and the vapor phase. Only one set of data was taken.
However, data from the broiler cooking hamburger show the methodology gives
repeatable results. Data in figure 103 are normalized to the product mass, while figure
104 shows the actual mass of grease collected in each size range.
The mass of total particulate emissions is relatively low. However, the amount of small
particulates is still high compared to other cooking processes. In addition, there is a large
amount of grease emitted in the vapor form. Therefore, almost 12 of the 14 lb. of grease
emissions per 1000 lb. of cooking product are either particles below 10 (im, or grease
vapor. This suggests regardless of cooking product, it will be difficult to remove a
significant amount of grease from the effluent stream produced by the gas broiler.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 15 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger.
TABLE 15. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Hamburger

Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx

1328301
752
402

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNOx
35.48.0
20
10.7

9.22.0
0.0710.02

24453
1.80.5

CO2 emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger are.very high, even when the
room air contributions are subtracted. Like the other gas cooking processes, combustion
of the natural gas produces CO2 emissions. Unlike the other processes, this only accounts
for about one half of the emissions after subtracting CO2 from the room air. This
suggests CO2 must be emitted from other parts of the cooking process. Most likely, the
additional CO2 comes from the combustion of the grease drippings. Grease falls onto the

170
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

20
18

16
o

Q_

12

o
o
10
*3>
c
(0

UJ

f?

-+

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


IIDTest 1

Figure 103. Gas broiler (Chicken breast) normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

8
7
6

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


EH Test 1

Figure 104. Gas broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

hot radiants, which have a temperature measured at 1200 F (649 C). This temperature is
hot enough to combust the liquid grease. In addition, much of the grease falls past the
radiants and onto the grease drip tray beneath the burners. The drip tray occasionally
catches on fire, sending thick black smoke into the effluent plume. Undoubtedly this
process generates CO2. In addition, the same process probably accounts for the high
emission of CO.
The CO emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger are much higher than any
other process. The actual level measured in the plume, about 50 ppm, is definitely in a
range that affects human health. This fact increases the importance of operating the gas
broiler with proper ventilation.
The level of NOx emission is about the same for the gas broiler as it is with other gas
appliances except the oven. It appears that the occurrence of grease combustion in the
drip tray greatly does not increase NOx emissions. Instead, it is likely they are the result
of natural gas combustion.
Table 3 in section D.6. lists the tested hydrocarbons and their associated minimum
detection limits. The results show no emissions within the detection limit for all
hydrocarbons tested.
Table 16 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas broiler cooking chicken breast.
TABLE 16. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx

8391267
474
433

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNO x
21.316.8
12
11

1.410.7
0.0810.03

35117
2.010.7

The emission of CO2 from the gas broiler cooking chicken breast is considerably lower
than emissions from cooking hamburger. In fact, after subtracting room air contributions,
the CO2 emissions can almost be accounted for by contributions from the natural gas
combustion process. It is likely there is some contribution from grease drippings falling
on the hot surfaces beneath the grill surface, but it is minimal. There are essentially no
grease fire flare-ups while cooking the chicken breast. However, some grease does
collect there, and grease drippings also fall on the hot radiants, which probably adds some
CO2 to the effluent plume.

173
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

The CO emissions are much lower than those from the gas broiler cooking hamburger,
but are considerably higher than those from other appliances except for the electric broiler
cooking hamburger. The most probable explanation for this is the grease which does drip
on the radiants, combusts, emitting a fair amount of CO. While the emission level is not
as high as it is while cooking hamburger, it does show the importance of proper
ventilation.
The level of NOx emissions is about the same as it is for the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. This supports the notion that the grease drippings have little affect on the
generation of NOx.
Hydrocarbon emissions were not tested for the gas broiler cooking chicken breast.
/. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Figure 105 shows the real time particle number concentrations from the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger. The data shown includes three of the smallest particle size ranges.
There appears to be a sinusoidal fluctuation in concentration levels that all three size
ranges follow. However, this sinusoidal fluctuation seems to be superimposed on an
average value that is mostly constant for all three size ranges during the cooking of the
first side. After the patties are turned, there is a noticeable increase-in the number
concentration for the two larger particle size ranges, while the smallest size range
concentration remains constant. After the patties are turned, the two larger size range
concentrations decease to a level approximately equal to where they were during the
cooking of the first side of the patties. However, for all three size ranges, the
concentration does fluctuate more after the patties are turned, compared to before the
turning occurs. This implies effluent generation is more varied after the turning process.
At this time period, grease constantly drips from the patties. Even when the patties are
removed, the concentration levels of these small particles does not decrease. It is likely
the grease remaining on the surface of the grill, as well as grease in the drip tray, is still
generating substantial amounts of fine particulates.
6. Under-fired Electric Broiler
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used an electric broiler with two 2 ft (0.61 m) electric heating
elements. The rated input was 36.9 kBTU/h (10.8 kW) at 208 V. The cooking surface
was 20 x 33.25 in. (50.8 x 84.46 cm) for a total area of 4.62 ft2 (0.43 m2). The surface
was flat with heating elements placed 0.5 in. (1.27 cm) below the cooking grate. A large
water pan was beneath each heating element. The heating element control was solid state
electronic.

174
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1.0E+07
Patties turned

Patties placed
on broiler grill

Patties removed
from broiler grill

E 1.0E+06
c
g

's
I 1.0E+05
o
c
o
o

-J

<D

E
i 1.0E+04

1.0E+03

'

'

L.

-1

L.

12

10

Time [s]
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15um

Stage 4-0.15-0.26|jm

'Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38um

Figure 105. Gas broiler (hamburger) real time particle number concentrations
Taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

14

b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration


Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1695-96, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 31.2 kBTU/h (9.15 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 31.3 kBTU/h (9.18 kW), adjusted for the actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we measured the average grill
surface temperature at 539 F (281.7 C) at maximum output. The maximum average
temperature difference between the steel disks used for temperature calibration was 51.1
F (28.3 C).
c. Cooking Procedure
The cooking procedure for the electric broiler is identical to the procedure used for the
gas broiler.
d. Sampling Position
Figure 106 shows the appliance and sampling point positions for the electric broiler,
relative to the test kitchen. The front surface of the appliance was positioned 6 in. ((15.2
cm) inside the front of the ventilation hood. The design of the electric broiler was
considerably different from the gas broiler. The grill was flat, and water pans were
positioned beneath the heating elements. However, like the gas broiler, the electric
broiler does not have a flue and the gases heated by the electric elements mixes with the
effluent from the cooking product at the grill surface. Therefore, the center of the
cooking plume at 32 in. (81.3 cm) above the cooking surface was observed to be 21 in.
(53.3 cm) from the back wall, identical to the position for the gas broiler. Like the gas
broiler, the electric broiler requires 400 cfm of ventilation per square foot of hood area (2
m3/s per m2). Therefore, the modifications done to the hood for the gas broiler were
repeated for the electric broiler.
e. Velocity Distribution
Figure 107 shows the temperature and velocity control volumes and measurement points
for the electric broiler. The control volumes are represented by the area within the bolded
lines, at the center of which are the velocity measurement points. Like the gas broiler, the
sides of the ventilation hood were closed off to achieve the proper ventilation rate.
Figure 108 shows the velocity distribution for the electric broiler. The measurements
were made while the appliance was idling. Compared to the gas broiler, the velocities are
lower. The electric broiler does not have the added volume of gas combustion to increase
plume velocities. The shape of the highest velocity area is elongated. It appears to be a
shape that is somewhere between the rectangular shape seen in the griddles and fryers,
and the almost circular shape seen from the gas broiler. This suggests that the air volume
generated from the cooking process has combined considerably with the dilution air by
the time the plume reaches the hood entrance, but not as much as with the fryers and

176
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1!f
1.01a
!

161a

4.51a

1/
0

11 In.
26 In.

0
0

12.5 h.

\<

* Bin.

'111.75 In

!g g.

20171,

J:^-c

21 la

32 In.
81 In.

'1
12.5 in.

6 In.

30 la

36 In.

-J
11.5
84 In.

30in.

^_^

^mm^

" L
i

122 In.
125.6 In.

LEFT SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW

20 In.
LEGEND

16la

<

&

H5ln.

295 In.

Figure 106. Position of the electric broiler


ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Sample Point

I 1 | 2 L J. J. 42_'3.TT

6l

r
17

18,
I

1
25 1

25

26

33 I

20
27

tn-2 7 :J r

_l

34 I

35

r 1" "r_TJ^|_ilr
33

. 34 r
I J

41 |

10

41 | 42 <

1'

7.5

I 49

"

8.25

i35
|42 | 43 |

' I '

50

0 T

21 ' \

22 '

23|

'

24

16

I L_

28

28
36

36

22 |

J_29 J _ 30

^.31

37

|'

'

38

| 39

38

23

24

31

32

32

f 7 ~

~29pr 30'
37

.|

40

39

1 ~r

44
45

jl

46

| 47 I

40

| 48

47

:
4
.
L 4 ~:
h-"H 4-"-+- +
1
__L
H
1

JB

: j~_ Z7LTT._J.~J

119
26 1

L 4J. 5^-5 ' |_ _ 6 L 7|. J. _8 _ 7


T
T
12 1 2 " W i 3 3 M 4 M
i?~l"j6,_
15

48

44

51

56

52

14.25

10

Velocity control
volume boundaries
Temperature control
volume boundaries
11/2 inch inner flange within
ventilation hood '

8
53

'

10
5"

cc
14.25

8.25

Distances in italics (inches)


Hood area partitioned with
stainless steel covered
wood inserts.

.
Velocity points in bold
Temperature points in plain

Figure 107. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the electric broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

7.5

Vel(ft/min):

50

100

150

200

250

Figure 108. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the modified hood opening
for the electric broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

griddles. As with the gas broiler, this justifies the higher flow rates recommended for
broilers. However, it is clear the velocities are not as high as seen for the gas broiler,
suggesting that the same ventilation rate may not be required for both the gas and electric
broilers. Like the gas broiler, the velocity profile for the electric broiler is quite
symmetric. Velocities increase towards the back of the hood, and decrease towards the
sides. In addition, the velocities over the appliance are higher than the velocities to either
side.
/

Temperature Distribution

Figure 107 shows the temperature control volumes for the electric broiler. The
thermocouples are located in the geometric center of each control volume. Figure 109
shows the average temperature distribution of the cooking plume at 36 in. (91.4 cm)
above the electric broiler while cooking hamburger. The grill areas are shown by the two
inner rectangles in the appliance outline. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) it is clear the plume has
moved from front to back, towards the grease baffles and exhaust duct exit. The shape of
the plume is basically circular, with some higher temperatures against the back wall.
Overall, the temperatures are much less than those seen from the gas broiler.
Figure 110 shows the three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution
above the electric broiler cooking hamburger. There is a great deal of dilution that occurs
between the 12 and 36 in. (30.5 and 91.4 cm) heights. At 12 in. (30.5 cm) a large area is
above 115 F (46 C), located directly above the broiler grill. By the time the plume
reaches 36 in., the highest temperature is about 105 F (41 C) and occurs in a very small
area. In addition, the plume has moved from the front towards the back. While the total
area of the plume does not increase much, the fact it is lower in temperature shows
dilution room air must mix with the plume. Therefore, the velocity of the plume must
increase as the plume rises.
Figure 111 shows the maximum plume temperatures at various heights above the electric
broiler while cooking hamburger. The temperatures at all three heights are basically
constant during the entire cooking process. Unlike the gas broiler, the actual
temperatures are well behaved, with the highest temperatures occurring lower in the
plume. It does not appear as though the cooking process significantly affects the plume
temperatures. The biggest difference between the gas and electric broilers is that there are
no grease fires occurring under the electric broiler. This explains the consistency of the
electric broiler plume temperatures.
The temperature profile for the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast was only
taken at 24 in. (61 cm) above the appliance surface. Figure 112 shows a two-dimensional
view of the average temperature distribution while figure 113 shows a three-dimensional
view. The temperature distribution is almost identical in shape to that seen from the
electric broiler while cooking hamburger at 24 in. (61 cm) above the cooking surface.
This suggests the thermal plume is not highly dependent on cooking product. There is a
difference in total plume area above 115 F (46 C). This shows the average plume

180
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Temp (F):

65

75

85

95

105

115

40--

00

c
o
S 30o
" 20o
X

0)

2 10
0

20

' '

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

iIi

80

Figure 109. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the


electric broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

00

to

Figure 110. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches above
the electric broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

200
Patties turned

Patties placed
on grill

Patties
removed

75

50
0

10

11

12

13

Elapsed Time (min)


12 inch

'24 inch

'36 inch

Figure 111. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36 inches above the electric broiler while cooking
hamburger (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

14

- , ^

Temp (F):

75

65

85

95

105

40--

00

c
o
S 30o
o.

"g 20o
0)

2 10CO

20

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

fc-+*
80

Figure 112. Average temperature contour plot at 24 inches above the


electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

115

X
(D

<5"

>

00

Io
8
S
3

(Q

0)
C

Fr

ontPosmonOn.)

Figure 113. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 24 inches above


the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

temperature from the electric broiler cooking hamburger is slightly hotter than the
temperature while cooking chicken breast. The hamburger undergoes a larger loss of
mass, mostly as moisture content, than the chicken breast. This moisture must be mostly
in the form of steam, and adds additional energy in the form of sensible and latent heat to
the thermal plume.
Figure 114 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperature from 24 in. (61 cm)
above the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast. At first, it appears to vary much
more than the maximum plume temperature at the same height while cooking hamburger.
However, the data from the hamburger, shown in figure 111, are plotted on a different
scale. The temperature while cooking hamburger varies from about 125 F (52 C) to
almost 150 F (66 C). Figure 114 shows the maximum plume temperature while cooking
chicken breast varies from about 110 F (43 C) to about 135 F (57 C). Therefore, the
apparent increase in variation is really just a difference in temperature scale. The higher
temperature of the plume while cooking hamburger, previously discussed, is evident in
the maximum plume temperatures at 24 in. (61 cm) above the cooking surface. On
average, the plume while cooking chicken breast is about 15 F (8.3 C) lower than the
plume while cooking hamburger. However, it should be noted, the room temperature
during the hamburger tests was about 5 to 7 F (2.8 to 3.9 C) higher than the room
temperature during the chicken breast test. This must account for some of the plume
temperature differences.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 115 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution for the electric broiler
cooking hamburger. The results from three tests show good repeatability. The mass
concentration of particulates larger than 15 (im is about equal to the concentration from
the gas broiler cooking hamburger. It is likely the large particles are generated by the
release of pressure built up within the cooking product from the heating of the food. The
moisture heats and vaporizes, expanding and building pressure. Eventually the pressure
releases, throwing liquid grease into the effluent plume as particulates.
Figure 116 shows the same distribution on a finer scale to accentuate the smaller
particulate sizes. It appears the concentrations quickly level off at about 10 Jim,
remaining relatively constant until the 1 \im size range is reached. Then, the
concentration increases and falls again after 0.5 ]J,m. The smallest particle size range
comprises diameters from 0.01 (Xm to 0.5 \im, representing the mass collected on the
after-filter. This is a large size range and it is doubtful the mass distribution is constant
across its entirety. However, there is no more information available from the impactor
used to generate the data in figure 116. In nature it is unusual to see such an abrupt
transition in size distributions. It is likely the majority of the mass in the last size range is
from particles closer to 0.5 p,m in diameter. This would result in a bi-modal distribution
similar to that seen for the gas broiler. In fact, this would explain the slight dip in
concentration we see at the 2.0 ^.m point, allowing this size range to represent the
division between the two modes.
186
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

105 -I

- 1 0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Time (Min.)

24 inch

Figure 114. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 24 inches above the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

200

-i 150
D)
00
00

Q.

Q
O)

P 100

50 "-T.T.1

040.01

I I I

-H-

0.10

1.00

I "I I I I

10.00

Dp (\im)
Figure 115. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

100

H
i:
i:
i:
l;
i\>

80

90

i:
i:
l;

70

60 +

\i!

i:

Q- 50

Q
o>
o
55 40

""~i
i-

i;

it

30
20
10

H-H+i
0.01

0.10

1.00

u+410.00

Dp (pm)
Figure 116. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

Data from the ELPI, shown in figure 117, supports the theory that there is a second
particle mode. All of the limitations of taking particle size distribution from above the
appliance with the ELPI, explained in section E.5.g, also apply here. Regardless, the
qualitative nature of the distribution shown in figure 117 should be valid. Between 0.6
and 1.0 u,m there is a dip in the particle concentration. The distribution then peaks
between 0.4 and 0.6 [Lm. Below 0.4 fim the mass distribution tails off. It is almost nonexistent below 0.09 u,m. Therefore, there appears to be a bi-modal distribution, with the
large mode centered well above 15 p.m in diameter, and the small mode centered at about
0.5 p.m.
The gas broiler small particle mode is centered at about 0.2 (im, while the electric broiler
mode is centered at 0.5 iim. This suggests the process must be somewhat different.
However, the same type of particulate deposits, consisting of yellow with areas of dark
black, are evident on the filters for both broilers. One explanation is the extra volume
produced by the combustion process from the gas broiler generates higher plume
velocities. Evidence from the velocity distributions supports this. The higher velocities
would allow less time for the particles to grow by grease condensation before reaching
the sampling point. For the electric broiler, the lower velocities would allow the particles
to reach the larger size through grease vapor condensation.
Figures 118 and 119 show the grease emissions for the various size ranges and vapor
phase from the electric broiler cooking hamburger. Figure 118 is normalized to the mass
of food product while figure 119 shows the actual mass of grease collected. The small
particle emissions are very high. They are slightly lower than the emissions from the gas
broiler, but much higher than the other processes. These small particulates are
troublesome to remove from the effluent stream and may pose human health concerns.
The vapor emissions and large particulate emissions are lower than those seen from the
gas broiler. The lower value from these two size ranges accounts for the majority of the
difference between the overall grease emissions from the gas and electric broilers. The
major difference between the appliances is the area beneath the grill surface. The gas
version has a hot grease drip pan, which collects grease drippings. The pan occasionally
flares up, sending a thick black smoke plume through the grill and into the effluent
plume. The electric version has water pans beneath the grill. Therefore, grease drippings
harmlessly fall into the water and are removed from the system. The grease fires from the
gas broiler may account for the difference seen in the total particulate and vapor
emissions. When the grease combusts, some of the liquid will volatilize to the vapor
phase, thus increasing vapor emissions. At the same time, the plume of smoke
accelerates the air flow from the grill. The higher plume velocity allows more large
particles to reach the sampling point.
Figure 120 shows the grease particulate mass distribution for the electric broiler cooking
boneless skinless chicken breast. Figure 121 shows the same information on a finer scale,
allowing the distribution features to be easily viewed. Figure 120 is provided to allow for
easy comparison with the distribution from the electric broiler cooking hamburger (figure
116).
190
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

<U\J -

180 160 140 -

i 120 Q- 100 -

Q
o

80 -

T3

60 40 20 0-

0.01

iI

0.1
Dp (pm)
Figure 117. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01 and 1.0 \im
Taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

to

TP

PM10

PM2.5
Particle Size or Phase

^Testl

IE Test 2

m Test 3

Vapor

l Average

Figure 118. Electric broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 119. Electric broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

100
90
80
70

I
-i 60

JE
o! 50

Q
D)
.O

40
30
20
10 +

0
0.01

i i i ii i I

0.10

1.00

i 11 i i

I'I

10.00

Dp (Mm)

Figure 120. Electric broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i i ii i

100.00

25

20

Q.

O)
O

5 10

+-+

0.01

0.10

'i

i i

1.00

10.00

Dp (pm)
Figure 121. Electric broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i i i i

100.00

The shape of the distribution from the electric broiler cooking chicken breast is identical
to the electric broiler cooking hamburger. This implies the same particle generation
mechanisms are present. The only difference is the concentrations are about one fifth that
of the hamburger concentrations. It is significant that for both the gas and electric
broilers, the size distributions have identical shapes regardless of the food product. It
implies the design of the appliance determines the particle emission size distribution,
while the fat content determines the magnitude of the emissions.
Figures 122 and 123 show the grease emissions for the various particle size ranges and
the vapor phase from the electric broiler cooking chicken breast. Figure 122 shows the
emissions normalized to the mass of food product while figure 123 shows the actual mass
of grease collected. Because of the repeatability shown for the electric broiler cooking
hamburger, only one test was conducted.
The total grease emissions are much lower when the chicken breast product is used.
However, there is still a large amount of grease emissions. The most significant aspect of
the grease emissions from the chicken breast is that 8 of the 12 lb. Per 1000 lb. of food
product comes from either grease vapor or particulates below 10 u,m. In fact, most of the
particulates below 10 |im are also below 2.5 u,m. Again, grease in these size ranges cause
the most problems in respect to grease removal and environmental health concerns.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 17 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric oven cooking hamburger.
TABLE 17. Gaseous Emissions From die Electric Broiler Cooking Hamburger

Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx

6515
5.7
2.10.5
0.000.01

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000 h for CO and NOx
1.80.4
0.2
5815
0.00.3

The CO2 emissions from the electric broiler cooking hamburger are quite low. After
subtracting the room air contributions, there is still some CO2 generation. The most
likely source for this is the combustion of grease dripping on the heating elements. The
same phenomena probably explains the high level of CO emissions. The heating
elements were measured at about 1200 F (549 C), about the same temperature as the gas
broiler radiants. The temperature of the heating elements is certainly high enough to
combust grease drippings. It appears that much of the combustion is incomplete, giving
rise to high CO generation.

196
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

VO

TP

PM10

PM2.5
Particle Size or Phase

Vapor

El Test 1

Figure 122. Electric broiler (chicken breast) normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 123. Electric broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

The CO emissions from the electric broiler are about one fifth the emissions from the gas
broiler, when the food product is hamburger. While the absence of natural gas
combustion could partially explain this difference, there are probably additional factors.
The total area of the hot radiants beneath the gas broiler is about twice the area of the
heating elements beneath the electric broiler grill. Therefore, the grease drippings are
twice as likely to fall on the hot surface. More importantly, grease drippings that fall
through the grill and do not land on the radiants (for the gas version) or heating elements
(for the electric version) have very different fates, depending on the appliance. The water
pan beneath the electric broiler removes the possibility of grease combustion beneath the
heating elements. Conversely, the drip tray beneath the gas broiler pools the liquid
grease, which often combusts, adding CO and CO2 to the effluent plume.
Like other electric appliances, the emission of NO* is essentially non-existent. This
brings further support to the hypothesis that grease combustion does not generate
appreciable amounts of NOx.
Table 3 in section D.6. shows the minimum detection limits of the tested hydrocarbons
for the electric broiler cooking hamburger. Results show the absence of these gases
above the minimum concentration detection level.
Table 18 shows the gaseous emissions from the. electric broiler cooking chicken breast.
TABLE 18. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx

8928
<1
0.20.4
0.000.01

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000 h for CO and NOx
1.90.6
<0.1
58
0.00.24

The results show CO2, CO, and NOx emissions from the electric broiler cooking chicken
breast were below the detection limits, after subtracting the room air CQ> contributions.
The amount of grease that comes from the chicken breast is much less than that which
comes from the hamburger. Therefore, there is much less chance of grease dripping on
the heating elements. While there certainly must have been some grease falling on the
elements, it was not enough to raise gaseous emission levels.
Hydrocarbon emissions were not tested for the electric broiler cooking chicken breast.

199
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution


Figure 124 shows the real time number concentration from the electric broiler cooking
hamburger for three small particle size ranges. The data were collected from the same
sampling point as the Marple impactor and gaseous emission data were taken.
For all three size ranges, the concentration levels increase dramatically once the patties
are placed on the grill surface. The smallest particles are present in the highest numbers,
the next smallest have slightly lower concentrations, and the larger particles have even
lower number concentrations. After about 1 minute of cooking, the concentrations level
off, and remain basically constant throughout the cooking process. This includes when
the patties are turned. When the patties are removed, the concentration level falls
dramatically for all three size ranges.
The generation of particles in these size ranges appears to be different from the gas
broiler. First, at the beginning and end of the cooking process, the number concentration
of the small particles for the electric broiler is much smaller than it is during the cooking
process. For the gas broiler the concentration does not change. Before sampling above
the appliance with the ELPI, a cooking test was done sampling with the ELPI in the
exhaust duct. After this test was completed, the grill surface was scraped clean to prepare
for the next test. This occurred for both the gas and electric broilers. Apparently,
scraping the grill does not affect the small particle generation from the gas broiler much.
This is apparent from the concentration levels before cooking begins and after it ends.
For the electric broiler, this scraping must effectively remove much of the grease
responsible for small particulate generation. This is seen in the lower number
concentrations before and after the cooking process. The most probable reason for this is
the different design of the grills. For the gas broiler, the grill grates are cylindrical in
shape, and grease collects on the under side of the cylinder. The grate is placed on an
incline, and grease is supposed to follow the underside of the grate to a grease collection
area. However, much of the grease burns on the underside of the gate, remaining there
until the grate is hand cleaned in the sink. This means that when a cooking test has
already been performed, as is the case before the ELPI particle testing above the
appliance, there is a substantial amount of burnt grease on the underside of the grill which
is exposed to the heat from the burners.
For the electric broiler, the electric heating elements lie between rectangular shaped
grates. The grates extend below the heating elements. Therefore, any grease which has
collected on the underside of the electric broiler grates during the previous cooking test, is
not exposed to much heat from the heating elements.
Another difference between the broilers is the particle concentration does not change after
the patties are turned for the electric broiler. Again, the design of the grill is probably
responsible for this. When the patties are turned, grease that was pooled on the patties
top side spills between the grates. For the gas broiler, this means it either hits the hot
radiants or the grease drip tray below, which is also very hot. For the electric broiler,

200
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1.0E+07 r

10

12

14

Time (min)

Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15pm

Stage 4-0.15-0.26um

Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38um

Figure 124. Electric broiler (hamburger) real time particle number concentrations
Taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

16

some grease drippings will land on the heating elements, but most will fall through the
grate and into the water pan beneath the grill. Therefore, small grease particulates are
generated at a higher rate after turning the patties on the gas broiler, while the generation
rate remains relatively constant for the electric broiler.
7. Gas Convection Oven
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a full size gas convection oven with a dual flow, directfired/recirculating, 4 burner heating system. The rated input was 55 kBTU/h (16.1 kW).
Convection was provided by a two speed fan. Temperature control was provided by a
solid-state digital electronic thermostat with electronic ignition.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1496-93, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 55.9 kBTU/h (16.4 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 55 kBTU/h (16.1 kW). Using procedures from the
same test method, we calibrated the oven temperature to 350 F (177 C).
c. Cooking Procedure
Appendix E gives the details of the cooking procedure, adopted from ASTM Standard
Test Method F 1496-93. It should be noted that the cooking procedure was altered for a
different food product. The food products called for in the test method are baked potatoes
and cakes, which would not produce much effluent. The food product cooked was 5.02
oz per slice, food service sausage pizza, with a fat content of 8.2 % and a moisture
content of 53.5 %. A laboratory specializing in food product evaluation tested the pizza
for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows the results from these tests, and other
information regarding the food product. The following is a brief summary of the cooking
procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the pizza. The
manufacturer's recommended time of 15 minutes was tested and appeared to cook the
pizza to a sufficient level. The recommended cooking temperature is 375 F (191 C).
While the original temperature calibration was performed at 350 F (177 C), an
additional calibration at 375 F (191 C) was performed. After establishing the proper
cooking time, the pizza is weighted and arranged on aluminum sheet pans. The product
temperature is measured before cooking begins. The pizza is placed in the oven. At the
proper times established earlier, the pizza is removed. When applicable, a second batch
begins cooking when the appliance has reached 375 T (191 C). The weight of the
cooked pizza is determined. Two slices from each batch are tested for moisture content.

202
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

d. Sampling Position
Figure 125 shows the appliance and sampling point positions for the gas and electric
ovens. The top surface of the full sized convection oven was 61 5/8 in. (156.5 cm) above
the kitchen floor, therefore, there was only about 16 in. (40.6 cm) from the flue exit to the
hood opening. All of the effluent from the oven exits at the oven flue, which is only 1.5
in. (3.8 cm) wide and 15.5 in. (39.4 cm) long. The front surface of the oven was
positioned 6 in. (15.2 cm) from the front of the ventilation hood. For the ovens, the flue
is not centered on the appliance, rather it lies closer to the left side. This is due to the
electronic control panel on the right side of the oven. Therefore, instead of centering the
appliance, the actual flue was centered left to right. This results in the right side of the
appliance being closer to the wall than the left side. The sampling point was positioned
as close to the hood entrance as possible, centered directly above the flue.
e. Velocity Distribution
Figure 126 shows the velocity and temperature control volumes for the gas and electric
ovens and ranges. For these appliances, the velocity measurements were taken at all the
temperature measurement points, allowing the control volumes to be the same.
Additional measurements for the velocities were necessary because the temperature grid
does not extend throughout the entire hood entrance.
Figure 127 shows the velocity distribution for the gas oven. Measurements were taken
while the appliance was idling. Because the oven protrudes almost to the hood entrance,
the vertical velocity component directly above the oven, especially near the front, is much
lower than the horizontal velocity component. Measurements show that the horizontal
component is about five times the vertical component about 6 in. (15.2 cm) behind the
oven front, and about two times the vertical component 1 foot (30.5 cm) behind the oven
front. This shows the air flow around the oven begins to move horizontally towards the
back of the hood, once it clears the front of the oven. The same effect is not seen at the
sides or back of the oven. The reason it is probably seen at the front of the oven is the
fact the area between the top front of the oven and the front hood entrance is small. Air
that enters here is drawn towards the back of the hood, and must travel horizontally
across the top of the oven to reach the grease baffles. The velocities shown in figure 127
represent only the vertical component.
The velocities above the flue are not as high as one might expect. It appears as though
the highest velocities are not centered directly above the flue, but are shifted to the left.
In addition, there are high velocities seen at the sides of the hood, below the grease
baffles. Most likely, this is due to the effect of the large oven on the overall flow pattern
under the hood. Unlike other appliances, the oven blocks a major volume under the hood,
which greatly affects the air flow patterns beneath the entire hood. To properly
characterize the air flow patterns, a two or three component velocity probe is probably
necessary.

203
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

116.5 In.

1
7.5 m.

.iflfc-

_!

51.5 In.

5.375 In.
f
51.5 In.

U,

J
1

4.5 In.

48 In.

38.5 In.

42 m.

lam.
am. t

10.75 m.

8m.

11.7Sln.

112.6 In.

30 m.

to

122 In.
125.5 In.

LEFT SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW

LEGEND

Note: The exhaust Is located 2.125'


tram the back of the Oran. and It is
1.75" wide

Note: The eidiausl Is located 2.125"


from the back of the Oven, and B Is
1.75- wide and 0.7F tell

Figure 125. Position of the gas and electric ovens

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Sample Point

ro

-I J. _ _ 2. _ L 3 _ U L42 J. 5. 3_l.fi _ L7_5 J.8_6_l^ _ U ( L _ 1


fr - ^

13
"1 p1 25

115

#.

1
|

17
27

r 18 T
| 28 |

'
1

25
39

1 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 1
1 40 1 41 1 42 1 43 1 44 1 45 1

32
46

1
1

33

34

35 ,

36

37

38

39

40

51

52

53 |

54

55

56 |

57

58

,_

_ _

_ _ _

_j

7~H

1 37

'
1

49

J
1_

61

to

-I
73


11_ J. _J2-,

14

'
,

26

38

50

|
1

62

'

74

J_

'
|
|
'

116 10 I 17 11 I 18 12 I 19 13120 14 12115 I 22 16 I

42

44

45

47

63

'

64 | 65 | 66
1
1

'
|
|

'
'
67 | 68 | 69
1.
1

'
|
|

'

76

' 78

' 79

'

JL

_Jl

77

46

80

' 81

J_

24
34

- _

'
|
|

'

43

_ _

22 1 23 T
32 ( 33 |

41

75

19 1 20 T 21 7
29 | 30 | 31 |

'

l~
,

23

47

11/2 inch inner flange within


ventilation hood

'
1
[

5 9

48 1
1
6 0

71

70

'
|
1

1
|

'

83

' 84

'

'
|
|

_J_

36 |

48

82

_L

Velocity points in bold


Temperature points in plain

Figure 126. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for
the electric and gas ovens and ranges

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Jb

Distances in italics (inches)

Velocity and temperature control


volume boundaries

24 1

79

10

11

tr ^
^^mmmtmmmmwmmm

Vel (ft/min):

t rjftfw mi M i a i

50

100

ir ,

200

150

250

"wmmmmmm

40--

to

ON

c
o
S 30

(0

o
QL

" 200)

5 lO0

20

+-H-

40
6"0
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 127. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the gas oven

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

/. Temperature Distribution
Figure 126 shows the temperature control volumes for the gas oven. The thermocouples
were located in the geometric center of each control volume. Figure 128 shows the
average temperature distribution at 15 in.(38 cm) above the gas oven. This height
corresponds to the ventilation hood entrance. All of the effluent from the oven must exit
the flue, whose outline is shown in figure 128. The appliance was positioned so that the
flue, not the appliance itself, was centered under the hood. The temperature distribution
shows the center of the plume has moved towards the back of the hood from the flue
opening. The plume is simply moving towards the grease baffles where the air exits.
While the shape of the flue is rectangular with a high aspect ratio, the plume has become
circular only 15 in. (38 cm) above the flue. This shows there must be a considerable
amount of mixing with the dilution room air. In addition, the hottest part of the plume is
offset to the left, as is seen from many of the appliances. Again, this shows slightly more
air is pulled through the left center baffles than the right center baffles.
From figure 128 it is also evident that the top surface of the oven is hot, and heats up the
air directly over it. Much of this air is traveling horizontally across the oven top to reach
the grease baffles. This is a result of the oven height and the high volume the oven
occupies beneath the ventilation hood. What is not seen in the temperature profile is the
effect of the opening the oven doors. When this occurs, a great deal of heat leaves the
front of the oven. For the data shown in figure 128, the effects of this are averaged into
the overall temperature distribution, and thus dampened out. In addition, our
thermocouple grid was not big enough to accommodate the entire area above the oven.
Figure 129 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperature 15 in. (38 cm) above
the gas oven. The variability seen is likely due to the cycling of the oven burners. On
average, it appears the maximum plume temperature rises slightly during the entire
cooking process. When the pizza is removed from the oven, the temperature increases.
This temperature increase occurs near the front of the oven and is from heat escaping the
oven doors. It took about one minute to remove the five trays of pizza, therefore, the
maximum temperature remained high during that period.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 130 shows the grease particulate mass distribution from the gas oven. All grease
particulate measurements are below the measurement noise level. Therefore, figure 130
shows there are essentially no grease particulates emitted from the gas oven under the
tested conditions. All effluent emitted from the oven during the cooking process must
exit the flue. The gases leaving the flue are about 500 F (260 C). At that temperature,
most grease is probably in the vapor phase. In addition, the food product cooked, sausage
pizza, has a fat content of 8 %, which is relatively low.
Figure 131 shows the grease emissions for the various particle size ranges from the gas
oven, normalized to the food product mass. Figure 132 shows the mass of grease

207
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

ir

Temp (F): 65

75

85

95

115

105

40--

S3

o
00

c
o
30CO

o
Q.

"g 20o
2 lO0

4H

+--*

20

HH

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

- i i I >

80

Figure 128. Average temperature contour plot at 15 inches above


the gas oven

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

4H

125

100 -I

- 1 0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Time (Min)
15 inch

Figure 129. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 15 inches above the gas oven

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100 -i
90 80 -

70 -60 -50 40 30 20 10 -

0 +0.01

I I I I I

0.10

w+

I I I II

1.00

10.00

Dp (um)
Figure 130. Gas oven particle distribution (2 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

M U M

100.00

to

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


El Test 2

^ Average

Figure 131. Gas oven normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

10
9
8
^^
O)

w
c
o
0)
w

7
fi

E 5
O

(D

Col

to
to

LJJ
"O
0)

TP

PM10

Vapor

PM2.5

Particle Size or Phase


!Test1

U Test 2

Figure 132. Gas oven collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

luiai uica&e

actually collected for each test. It is clear the mass of particulates collected is
insignificant.
While there were not grease particulates emitted, there was some grease vapor. The level
of grease vapor emissions is still quite low. The grease vapor is probably a result of some
of the food product fat content, presumably from the cheese or the sausage, volatilizing
during the cooking process. One reason the level is low is the fat content of the food
product is low. Another reason may be the actual cooking process within the oven.
Unlike the other processes, food cooked in an oven is exposed to a constant source of
relatively low heat. There are not areas where the food touches extremely hot surfaces.
Therefore, the food is cooked slower. This probably minimizes the generation of grease
vapor.
We tested just one food product in the oven, but commercial uses for convection ovens
are highly diverse. It is possible that a high fat content food, such as some meat roasts,
may generate considerably more grease emissions. It is likely most of this grease would
be in the vapor form. It is difficult to speculate on particulate emissions from such food
products. It seems that even if large particulates were generated, they would find it
almost impossible to follow the flue gas out the flue without impacting somewhere in the
oven. While smaller particulates could follow the air steam, the temperature of the flue
gas may volatilize them to the vapor phase.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 19 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas oven.
TABLE 19. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Oven

Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx

10252
37
63

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNOx
9.64.9
4
6

0.010.04
0.080.04

1.34
7.83.9

The CO2 emissions from the gas oven are relatively low, and it is likely they come
exclusively from the combustion process. Additionally, the level of CO emissions was
well within the measurement noise range.
The NOx emissions from the gas broiler were higher than any other appliance. Because
NOx generation is most likely only associated with the combustion of natural gas, the
213
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

most important emission statistic is the mass emitted per 1000 hours of operation. For
the gas oven, this number is four times greater than the emissions from the other gas
appliances. One reason for this may be the recirculation of combustion gases that occurs
within the gas oven. While this feature improves the heat transfer efficiency of the oven,
it reintroduces hot gases into the combustion flame. The temperature of gasses near the
flame is probably hotter than for other appliances. NO* generation occurs under high
temperature conditions, and the design of the gas oven probably facilitates a larger area,
compared to other appliances, where these conditions exist.
The emission levels of tested hydrocarbons were all below the minimum detection limit.
Table 4 in section D.6. lists the hydrocarbons and the minimum limits.
8. Electric Convection Oven
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a full size electric convection oven with 3 direct-fired, tubular
electric heating elements. The rated input was 37.5 kBTU/h (11 kW) at 208 V.
Convection was provided by a two speed fan. Temperature control was provided by a
solid-state digital electronic thermostat.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1496-93, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 34.8 kBTU/h (10.2 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 36.9 kBTU/h (10.8 kW), adjusted for the actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we calibrated the oven
temperature to 350 F (177 C).
c. Cooking Procedure
The cooking procedure for the electric oven is identical to the gas oven cooking
procedure.
d. Sampling Position
The appliance and sampling point positions for the electric oven are identical to the gas
oven, shown in figure 125.

214
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

e. Velocity Distribution
The velocity control volumes for the electric oven are identical to the control volumes for
the gas oven, shown in figure 126.
Figure 133 shows the velocity distribution for the electric oven at the ventilation hood
entrance. Like the gas oven, the horizontal velocity component near the front of the oven
is much higher than the vertical component. This is due to the overall height of the oven
and the necessary path air must take to go over the oven and into the grease baffles. The
velocities shown in figure 133 are the vertical components of the air flow at the hood
entrance.
The highest velocities are above the flue exit and at the sides of the hood entrance. The
velocities above the flue are not shifted as much to the left as seen in the gas oven, but
there is a slight effect. Like the gas oven, the high velocities seen near the sides of the
hood entrance are probably associated with the large volume of space the oven fills,
changing the overall air flow patterns into the hood.
/

Temperature Distribution

The position of the thermocouples for the electric oven is identical to their positions for
the gas oven, shown in figure 126. Figure 134 shows the average temperature
distribution at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the electric oven. Like the gas oven, the
thermocouples were located at the ventilation hood entrance. The reason the
thermocouples are positioned 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the electric oven, while positioned
15 in. (38 cm) above the gas oven is due to electric oven being 3 in. (7.6 cm) taller.
Like the gas oven, the plume above the electric oven is circular in shape and slightly
offset to the left. The flue has been centered beneath the ventilation hood, not the
appliance itself. The shape of the flue for the electric oven is identical to the gas oven.
The top surface of the oven is hot, and affects the temperature of the air above it. The
fact the shape of the plume is circular 12 in.(30.5 cm) above the flue, which is highly
rectangular, shows dilution room air has already mixed with the exiting flue gases by the
time the plume reaches the hood entrance.
Figure 135 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperatures above the electric
oven. There are definitely fluctuations, but they are small in magnitude. They probably
represent the cycling of the oven heating elements. The data shown in figure 135
represent two batches of pizza cooked. After each batch is removed, there is a slight
increase in maximum plume temperature. While the temperature increase is not large, it
likely occurs when the oven doors are opened. Overall, the maximum plume temperature
above the electric oven remains relatively steady during the entire cooking process.

215
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c
Vel (ft/min):

50

100

150

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

200

80

Figure 133. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the electric oven

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

B U j ^ ^ n / i 4'-^ 4

Temp (F): 65

75

85

95

"""t

105

115

40-c
o

S 30o
CL

" 20-

2 10
o-

20

l
I
I
l
T+
40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 134. Average temperature contour plot at 12 inches above


the electric oven

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

'

120
First batch
removed

First batch
placed in oven

110

100

Second batch
removed

(2
90 -

80
-1

11

14

417

+
20

23

26

29

32

Time (Min)
12 inch

Figure 135. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12 inches above the electric oven

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

35

38

g. Particle Size Distribution


Figure 136 shows the grease particulate mass distribution from the electric oven. Like the
gas oven, the electric oven emits practically no particulates.
Figure 137 shows the grease emissions for the various particle size ranges from the
electric oven, normalized to the food product mass. Figure 138 shows the mass of grease
actually collected for each test. These figures show the particulate mass collected is well
below the measurement noise.
The electric oven does emit grease vapor. In fact, the actual mass of grease vapor
collected from the electric oven is substantially higher than for any other process.
However, when the emissions are normalized to food product mass, it is still relatively
low. Comparing the grease vapor emissions from the electric oven to the gas oven shows
the electric oven appears to emit about twice as much. Part of this may be explained in
the uncertainly found in determining the dilution ratio. However, from our observations,
it appeared the pizza cooked in the electric oven was more "done" than the pizza cooked
in the gas oven.
The two ovens were set to the same temperature, and the cooking times were identical.
Even the total food product mass loss during the cooking process was basically the same.
Regardless, the color of the cheese from the finished pizza in the gas oven was mostly
white, with some edges turning golden brown. The color of the cheese from the pizza in
the electric oven was golden brown over the entire top surface. This apparent difference
in doneness was noticed by those who ate pizza from both ovens. Theoretically, the
difference in how thoroughly the food was cooked should have been evident from the
food product mass loss during cooking. It was not.
Perhaps the final part of the pizza cooking process, the browning of the top layer of
cheese, releases a fair amount of grease vapor. It is possible this part of the cooking
process happens very quickly, maybe in only a minute or two. It does not result in the
loss-of much additional mass, because most of the mass loss is from the loss of moisture,
the majority of which has already occurred. However, enough grease is released to effect
the overall grease vapor emissions.
Regardless of whether or not the browning of the cheese affects the grease emissions, the
pizza from the two ovens certainly had different appearances despite the same cooking
temperature, cooking time, and total overall mass lost. This suggests that for products
similar to this, an additional quantitative method needs to be developed to determine the
"doneness" of the food product.

219
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100
90 +
80
70

f
-I 60
D)
to

E,
Q. 50

Q
O)

JO

40
30
20 10 0 -4
0.01

ii

H-\

0.10

*-*-*^H"
1.00

*!

I " ! i !

10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 136. Electric oven particle distribution (2 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

4.5
4.0
3.5

u
3

-a 3.0
o
o
o
o

to
to

2.5

"3s 2.0
c
o
"(0
to

E 1.5
UJ

1.0

0.5

0.0
TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


HDTest2

i l Average

Figure 137. Electric oven normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

25

20

E,
^ 15
o
'(/)
w
to

I Test 1
I Test 2

'E

in

1 10
"o
O

1
TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 138. Electric oven collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 20 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric oven.
TABLE 20. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Oven
Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx

73
<1
0.00.1
0.00+0.01

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000 h for CO and NOx
0.610.3
<0.1
05
0.00.1

After subtracting room air C0 2 contributions, the emission of CO2, CO, and NOx, were
all below the detection limits for the electric oven. The fact there were not NOx
emissions from the electric oven supports the notion that the high NOx levels seen from
the gas oven were entirely associated with the natural gas combustion process.
Table 4 in section D.6. lists the tested hydrocarbons and their minimum detection limits.
Results show the electric oven does not emit any of the tested hydrocarbons in
concentrations exceeding the minimum detection limits.
9. Gas Range
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a six burner gas range with oven. The total rated input without
the oven was 120 kBTU/h (35.2 kW). Each burner had a rated input of 20 kBTU/h (5.9
kW). The six star burners were 9 in. (22.9 cm) in diameter, with cast iron grates and
standing pilot lights.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1521-96, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 115.8 kBTU/h (33.9 kW), which compares
well to a rated energy input of 120 kBTU/h (35.2 kW). Using procedures from the same
test method, we determined the heating characteristics of one burner set at maximum and
then minimum output. Each test was 60 minutes. Set to the maximum output, the burner
reached 800 F (427 C) in 20 minutes, remaining at that temperature for the remainder of
the test. Set to the minimum output, the burner reached 425 F (218 C) in 39 minutes,
remaining at that temperature for the remainder of the test.

223
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

c. Cooking Procedure
Appendix E gives the details of the cooking procedure, adopted from ASTM Standard
Test Method F 1521-96. It should be noted that the cooking procedure was altered for a
different food product. The food product called for in the test method is simply boiling
water. The food product cooked was spaghetti, spaghetti sauce, and pork sausage. All
three back burners boiled water in large pots, while spaghetti noodles were added to two
of the pots during the final ten minutes of cooking. The two side front burners simmered
spaghetti sauce during the entire cooking period. The middle front burner was used to fry
the pork sausage. The pork sausages were quarter pound linked style with a fat content
of 30.7 % and a moisture content of 57.3 %. A laboratory specializing in food product
evaluation tested the sausage for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows the results
from these tests, and other information regarding the food product. The following is a
brief summary of the cooking procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the pork sausage
to an average of 35 % weight loss. After establishing the proper cooking time, the
sausage is weighted and placed in containers. Three lb. (1.4 kg) of sausage are used for
each test. The spaghetti is divided into two 2.5 lb. (1.1 kg) piles for each test and placed
on wax paper. One 107 oz. (3.04 kg) can of sauce is poured into each of the two sauce
pots. The water is heated to a steady boil. The level of water found in the middle pot,
which is not used to cook spaghetti, is measured before cooking begins. The sausage
temperature is measured. The sausage and sauce are placed on the burners at the same
time. Spaghetti noodles are added to two pots of boiling water 10 minutes before the
sausage is done. The sausage and noodles are removed first, while the sauce is removed
one minute later, along with the grease in the sausage pan. A substantial time between
tests is necessary due to the need to cool the sauce and boil new water. The volume of
water in the middle pot and the volume of sauce are measured to estimate the total
amount of liquid boiled off. The weight of the cooked sausage is determined. Two
sausage are tested for moisture content.
d. Sampling Position
The positions of the appliance and sampling point for the gas range are shown in figure
139. The front surface of the appliance was positioned 6 in. (15.2 cm) from the front of
the ventilation hood. The gas range also has an oven, which was not used during testing.
However, the flue to the oven includes a tall channel which acts as a back wall to the
appliance. This back wall extend 22 5/8 in.(57.5 cm) above the cooking surface and
greatly affects the behavior of the thermal plume from the range top. Like the broilers,
the gas range does not have a flue for the range top burners, leaving the combustion gases
to mix with the food product effluent at the cooking surface. The result of the oven flue
doubling as a back wall on the appliance was that the thermal plume near the oven flue
was much hotter than at other areas. For most appliances, the hottest area of the thermal
plume is at or near the greatest concentration of effluent emissions. This is not true for
the gas range. The cooking procedure for the gas range, described previously, results in

224
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1,
24 In.

59.2S In.

i/ i

I
12 In.

o<on

ooo

48 In.

v_y

26 In.

41.25 In.

l|6ln.

41.26 In.

ll '

_
96 In.

10.75 In.

11.75 In.

I ,i
30 In.

1
1

122 In.

50.5 In.

125.S In.

TOP VIEW

LEFT SIDE VIEW

OOO

ooo

12 In.

12 In.

<
=~e
s
12 In.
12 In.
12 In.
37.5 In.
Note: Each burner Is 9.5 In In
diameter

Figure 139. Position of the gas range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

LEGEND
Sample Point

the majority of the grease particulates coming from the front center burner, where the
sausage is cooked. Therefore, the observed center of the effluent plume at 32 in. (81.3
cm) above the cooking surface was 24 in. (61 cm) from the back wall of the kitchen. This
sampling position is about 1 foot (30.5 cm) from the point of maximum temperature for
the thermal plume at the same height above the cooking surface.
e. Velocity Distribution
The velocity control volumes and measurement points for the gas range are the same as
that for the gas oven, shown in figure 126.
Figure 140 shows the velocity distribution for the gas range. Measurements were taken
while the appliance was boiling water on the burners to simulate cooking conditions.
There are two areas of very high velocities, both directly under the exhaust duct entrance.
While the areas are close together, there appears to be a region where the velocities
decrease between them. One explanation is that the gas range has an oven flue extending
almost two feet above the cooking surface. The heat from the burners is concentrated
along the center of this "back wall." The temperatures are very hot at this point, in fact,
about 100 F (55.6 C) hotter than temperatures seen for the gas broilers at the same point.
Hotter temperatures usually mean greater natural convection, thus higher velocities.
Perhaps when the gas clears the oven flue, there is a turbulence induced separation of air
flow. Highly turbulent conditions could explain two areas of peak velocity.
The velocities generally increase towards the back of the hood entrance. This shows the
air moving towards the grease baffles at the back of the ventilation hood. Also, the
velocities are higher above the appliance, showing the thermal plume from the appliance
surface. There are higher velocities near the back of the hood entrance close to each side.
These are basically rectangular in shape, corresponding to the area where the grease
baffles are located. The areas of lower velocity on each side near the back of the hood,
between the peak velocities in the center, and the high velocities towards the left and right
boundaries, correspond to the positions of the grease baffle spacers. These are solid
pieces of metal placed between the two baffles in the center, and the outer two baffles.
No air can flow through these, which explains the lower velocities. These spacers were
present for all tests, except the broilers, where modification of the effective hood area
required their removal. The effects of the spacer are present in most of the velocity
distributions, but are shown most prominently in the gas range distribution
/

Temperature Distribution

The thermocouple positions for the gas range tests are identical to those for the gas oven,
shown in figure 126. Figure 141 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in. (91.4
cm) above the gas range. Unlike most other appliances, the plume above the gas range
has not moved much towards the back of the hood. The gas range has an oven flue which
extends about two feet above the range surface. While the oven is not used during
testing,

226
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

fc#J

Vel (ft/min):

50

100

150

200

to
to

-J

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 140. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the gas range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

250

95

Temp (F): 65

125

40-

to
00

155

185

215

!f-'- '

c
o
2 30o
Q.

" 20o
0)

5 10
0

20

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 141. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above


the gas range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

the flue acts as a back wall, preventing the plume from migrating towards the grease
baffles until it clears the flue. Therefore, the hottest point is located directly above the
flue surface. However, at 36 in. (91.4 cm), the plume has become circular in shape,
showing that it is starting to mix with dilution room air.
Figure 142 shows the three-dimensional temperature profile above the gas range. Notice
the temperature grid at 12 in. (30.5 cm) is positioned 14 in. (35.6 cm) in front of the back
wall. This represents the position of the oven flue. The shape of the temperature profile
is flat along this acting back wall, and the temperature magnitude is very high, sometimes
exceeding 600 F (316 C). At 24 in. (61 cm) above the appliance, the temperature grid
can be positioned along the back wall of the kitchen, because it is higher than the oven
flue. However, it is only about 2 in. (5.1 cm) above the flue, thus the profile is still flat
near the back area. At 24 in. (61 cm) the size of the area representing the maximum
temperatures was decreased, showing the effects of dilution room air mixing with the
thermal plume. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) the plume finally becomes somewhat circular and has
cooled considerably.
It should be noted the affects of the oven flue acting as a back wall makes the gas range
different from most other appliances. The sampling point for most appliances is near the
36 in. (91.4 cm) temperature distribution height. At this height, the center of the
temperature plume and the center of the particulate plume is about equal. In other words,
the plume has mixed enough so that the particulates are distributed approximately the
same as the temperatures. For the gas range, the particulates are mainly generated from
the frying of the sausage, which occurs at the front center burner. At the height of the
sampling point, the center of the particle distribution appears to be about 24 in. (61 cm)
from the kitchen back wall. The temperature distribution at approximately the same
height shows the maximum plume temperatures are about 12 in. (30.5 cm) from the
kitchen back wall. Thus, at the sampling position, the center of the particulate plume
does not correspond to the center of the temperature plume. The particle and temperature
plume mixing for the other appliances is described below.
For appliances such as the gas griddle and gas fryer, which have high temperatures
exiting flues positioned away from areas of particle generation, the center of the
particulate plume is definitely positioned differently from the center of the temperature
plume, at locations close to the appliance surface. However, by the time the overall
effluent plume reaches the sampling point, mixing has combined the two plumes. For the
electric griddle and fryer, as well as both broilers and the electric range, there are no flues,
so the temperature and particulate plumes occur together. All the effluent must exit the
flues from the ovens, so again the two plume are distributed identically.
The different nature of the gas range means that one cannot assume the highest particle
concentrations occur near the center of the thermal plume at the sampling height. For the
other appliances, this assumption is probably valid.

229
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

to

Front

Pom

'i On.)
Figure 142. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36
inches above the gas range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figure 143 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperatures for the gas range at
12,24 and 36 in. (30.5, 61, and 91.4 cm) above the appliance surface. The temperature is
extremely high at all three heights. In general, the temperatures remain relatively
constant until the food product is removed. At first, the two boiling pots of water
cooking the noodles are removed, along with the sausage from the frying pan. The frying
pan does remain on the stove. Removing the boiling water and the sausage greatly
reduces the maximum plume temperature. After one minute, the sauce and frying pan are
removed, reducing the maximum temperatures even more. When the pots are removed,
the burners are turned off, which must account for much of the cooling. At 36 in. (91.4
cm) above the surface, there is a noticeable temperature rise once the sausage and sauce is
placed on the burners. A smaller increase is seen at 24 in. (61 cm). These products are
added to the front burners, and thus affect the overall plume greatly. The maximum
temperature at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height is not affected by this because it always occurs
along the oven flue, which is behind the back burners. Any action at the front burners
will not greatly affect temperatures in this area.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 144 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution for the gas range. Figure
145 has a finer scale allowing the features of the smallest size ranges to be seen. A total
of four tests were conducted, and the data show good repeatability.
The concentration of particulate mass is highest at the large particles sizes. It is
interesting to note the shape of the distribution is almost identical to that found for the gas
griddle. For the gas range, the majority of the grease particulates must come from the
frying of the sausage. This is done on a large flat frying pan. The process of cooking
meat on a frying pan is very similar to the process of cooking meat on a griddle surface.
This probably explains the similarity in distribution shapes.
There is not much particulate mass in the small size ranges. This suggests the main
mechanism of particle generation is the release of gas pressure inside the food product,
propelling larger particulates into the effluent steam. In addition, moisture from the food
product landing on the hot liquid grease in the pan can cause grease "explosions" which
may generate additional large particulates.
Figure 146 shows the grease emissions from the gas range for the various particle size
ranges, normalized to the food product mass. Note, there is no test 1 for the vapor or total
grease. For test 1, the cooking process was repeated three times, once for each of the
heights necessary to obtain the temperature profile. During these tests, particulates were
collected, but vapor was not. Collecting particulates during three cooking procedures
results in improved resolution. The smaller uncertainty in the total particulates, PM 10
and PM 2.5 size ranges reflects the better resolution. Because grease vapor was not
collected, the total grease emissions for test 1 are unknown.

231
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

700

600-

Sausage and sauce placed


on range (water for noodles
is already boiling)

Nooldes and
sausage removed

500
&

2 400

to
to

I 300
200-

100
10

14

18

22

Time (Min)
12 inch

24 inch

'36 inch

Figure 143. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

26

100
90 +
80
70

E 60
D)

E
to

Q.
Q
O)

50 -

40

JO

30 -20 -10 -0 -*

0.01

iTflTTrTfrtpirp^

0.10

1.00

10.00

Dp (Mm)
Figure 144. Gas range particle distribution (4 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

to
u>
4.

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

Dp (pm)
Figure 145. Gas range particle distribution (4 tests)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

1 8
Q.

o
o
^8
co
0)
T""

N>
U>
U

111

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Total Grease

Particle Size or Phase


HTest 1

I Test 2

IIDTest3

! Test 4

Figure 146. Gas range normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

3 Average

Figure 146 shows the majority of the grease emissions from the gas range come from
grease in the vapor form. The reason for the high percentage of grease in the vapor form
may be related to the frying pan temperature. The burners were set to maximum output
during the cooking process. At maximum output, the gas range burners raised the
temperature of a lA in. (0.6 cm) steel disk to about 800 F (427 C). The temperature of
the frying pan cooking surface was not measured, but it is reasonable to expect the
temperature to be high. Liquid grease from the sausage collects in the frying pan. If
heated to a high temperature, it is likely to vaporize, joining the effluent plume as grease
vapor. It is important to note that the normalization to food product mass includes the
sausage, spaghetti noodles, and spaghetti sauce, in proportion to what approximates a
complete spaghetti with sausage and tomato sauce meal. Most of the grease comes from
the sausage, therefore, the normalized emission values depend on the proportion of the
other constituents present. This certainly affects the normalized grease emission
estimates. For instance, it is easy to conceive a range top which is only used to cook
soup, noodles, sauce, or other similar items. If these food products contain little or no
grease generating ingredients, such as oil, lard, or meat, the grease emissions would be
essentially zero. On the other hand, if each of the six burners were used to cook three
pounds of sausage similar to the sausage cooked for this project, the normalized grease
emissions would be on the order of seven times greater than those shown in figure 146.
We believe the normalized emissions shown represent a typical application, but it is
important to realize this can vary a great deal depending on the specific application.
Figure 147 shows the actual collected grease mass for each particle size range. Again,
data from test 1 is not present for the grease vapor or total grease collected. The
uncertainty in the total particulate mass collected during test 1 clearly shows the
resolution improvement from collecting particles during three consecutive runs.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 21 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas range.
TABLE 21. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Range

Gas

Emissions
IbVlOOO lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx

958305
411
1192

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNOx
7.22.3
3.1
8.9

0.70.7
0.21+0.07

55
1.60.5

236
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

18
16

Test 1 consists of the integration of 3 particulate samplings, therefore,


the data presented here for test 1 is normalized to the sampling times
for tests 2, 3, and 4. the smaller uncertainties in testl reflects the
increased accuracy associated with longer sampling.

14
O)
CO

c
o
55 10
'(/)
w
to

E
LU
TJ
0

a
ts

CD

_rssssssMMh

PM10

TP

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


I Testl

CD Test 2

I Test 3

B Test 4

Figure 147. Gas range collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

The emissions normalized to food product mass were normalized to the mass of sausage,
spaghetti noodles, and sauce cooked. The proportion of each was such that it
approximated a typical spaghetti with sausage and tomato sauce meal. The spaghetti
noodles in boiling water, and spaghetti sauce, were not thought to produce much in terms
of particulate and gaseous emissions, although they do contribute greatly to the thermal
plume characteristics. Only three pounds (1.4 kg) of sausage were cooked per test, while
the total mass of the sauce and noodles was over eighteen pounds (8.4 kg). This certainly
affects the normalized emissions reported. As an estimate for a worse case scenario, the
normalized emissions would be increase seven fold, which would correspond to all six
burners cooking three pounds of sausage at the same time.
The CO2 emissions after subtracting room air contributions are easily explained by the
combustion contributions. In fact, measured CO2 levels including room air are lower
than the contribution expected from combustion under stoichiometric conditions. This is
not true for any other process. One explanation is that the combustion contribution
estimate is a maximum value, and imperfect combustion will emit less CO2.
The CO emissions are within the measurement error. Therefore, it appears the gas range
does not emit substantial amounts of CO.
The NOx emissions are about equal to emissions from other gas appliances except the
oven. Again NOx generation is probably from the natural gas combustion process.
Table 5 in section D.6. lists the tested hydrocarbons and their minimum detection limits.
Results show the emissions levels are below the detection limit.
10. Electric Range
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a six burner electric range with oven. The total rated input
without the oven was 41 kBTU/h (12 kW) at 208 V. Each burner had a rated input of 6.8
kBTU/h (2 kW). There were two open speed coil burners and four French plate burners,
each 9 in. (22.9 cm) in diameter. Heating was controlled with solid state electronics.
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1521-96, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 38.7 kBTU/h (11.3 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 39.4 kBTU/h (11.5 kW), adjusted for actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we determined the heating
characteristics for one of each type of burner set at maximum and then minimum output.
Each test was 60 minutes. Set to the maximum output, the open speed coil burner
reached 775 F (413 C) in 27 minutes, remaining at that temperature for the remainder of
the test. Set to the minimum output, the open speed coil burner reached 275 F (135 C)

238
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

in 55 minutes, remaining at that temperature for the remainder of the test. Set to the
maximum output, the French plate burner reached 580 F (304 C) in 18 minutes,
remaining at that temperature for the remainder of the test. Set to the minimum output,
the French plate burner reached 300 F (149 C) in 60 minutes. It had not yet stabilized at
the end of the test.
c. Cooking Procedure
The cooking procedure for the electric range is identical to the gas range cooking
procedure.
d. Sampling Position
Figure 148 shows the appliance and sampling point positions for the electric range,
relative to the test kitchen. The front surface of the appliance was positioned 6 in. (15.2
cm) from the front of the ventilation hood. Like the gas range and the broilers, gases
heated by the electric burners mix with the effluent from the food product at the cooking
surface (or immediately above the cooking pot or pan). Unlike the gas range, the electric
range does not have an oven flue extending almost two feet above the cooking surface.
Instead, the oven flue only extends 5.5 in. (14 cm) above the cooking surface, and does
not affect the thermal plume while the oven is off (testing did not include using the
oven). The center of the effluent plume was determined to be approximately 24 in. (61
cm) from the back wall of the kitchen, at a height of 32 in.(81.3 cm) above the cooking
surface. This position is identical to the sampling position for the gas range. The reason
the gas range thermal plume is different from the electric range, while the center of the
effluent plumes carrying the grease particulates are basically identical, is a result of both
appliances generating particulates at the front center burner. The particulates must take
the same path from the pan on the front center burner to the ventilation hood, regardless
of the effect the oven flue has (or does not have) on the thermal plume.
e. Velocity Distribution
The velocity control volumes and measurement points for the electric range are identical
to those for the gas oven, shown in figure 126.
Figure 149 shows the velocity profile for the electric range. Measurements were taken
while pots of water were boiling on the range burners to simulate the cooking thermal
plume. The velocity profile shows magnitudes much less than the gas range. One reason
is the combustion gases are not present. Another major factor is the electric range does
not have an oven flue protruding two feet above the cooking surface. Therefore, the
dilution air mixes with the cooking effluent much quicker.
The highest velocities are near the exhaust duct entrance, but shifted to the left. The
burners on the left side of the electric range are speed coils, while the other four are
French plates. The speed coils reach a temperature about 200 F (111 C) higher than the

239
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

118.5 In.

.=

>.

5 In.

oQ
o
ooo

24 In.
59.25 In.

'

*
48 In.

*
J'

5la

c *k~

'

10.75 la

96 In.

11.75 In.

108.5 In.

30 In.

'.
1221a

50.5 In.

125.5 In.

TOP VIEW

LEFT SIDE VIEW

ooo
ooo
*

12 In.

S"=

12 In.

JTV
4 In. J
12 In.

V
h
12 la

12 in.

Note: Each burner Is 9.5 la In


diameter

Figure 148. Position of the electric range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

LEGEND

Sample Point

( 1

Vel (ft/min):

50

100

200

150

250

W M P H

~ " ^

40--

' ^ '

c
o
S 30-

?CT

CO

o
Q.

" 20o
0)

CS)

IO-

i l l

20

,L

i JL

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 149. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the electric range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

French plates, when both are at maximum output. This explains the higher velocities
seen on the left side.
The velocities increase towards the back of the hood entrance, where the grease baffles
are located. Similar to the gas range, there are areas along the back of the hood which
have lower velocities. These correspond to the position of the baffle spacers, which block
air flow. The velocities also increase above the appliance surface, showing the affect of
the volume produced from the heated burners.
/

Temperature Distribution

The positions of the thermocouples for the electric range temperature distribution are
identical to those used for the gas oven, shown in figure 126. Figure 150 shows the
average temperature distribution at 36 in.(91.4 cm) above the electric range. The
rectangular area directly behind the burners is a drip collection area, while the rectangular
area behind it is the oven flue. Unlike the gas range, the electric range oven flue only
extends 5.5 in. (14 cm) above the range surface, thus it does not affect the thermal plume.
The temperature plume is circular in shape at 36 in. (91.4 cm), and positioned offset
slightly to the left. The plume has begun to move toward the back of the ventilation hood
where the grease baffles are located.
Figure 151 shows a three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution above
the electric range. It clearly shows the plume dilutes as it rises. In addition, the plume
center moves from the front towards the back. At 12 in. (30.5 cm) the plume is basically
centered over the appliance burners. There is a hot spot at the back right, corresponding
to the back right burner. This effect is seen slightly at the higher plume heights also. The
electric range has two types of burners, speed coils and French plates. The two speed
coils are located on the left hand side. The temperature of one speed coil and one French
plate were calibrated at maximum output, and the speed coil was found to be about 200
F (111 C) hotter. It was assumed the other burners of similar type had equivalent
temperature outputs. It is possible the back right French plate was hotter. Another
possibility is that the pot on that burner was offset slightly from the burner, allowing the
hot burner surface to heat the air directly above it. Because the high temperature is
definitely seen at approximately the same position 24 in.(61 cm) above the surface, and
appears to be present at 36 in. (91.4 cm), this had to occur during all three cooking tests
from which the data were collected. While this seams unlikely, the pots and pans did take
up most of the available area on the cooking surface, making the space cramped. The
sausages were constantly attended, thus the pots and pans were placed in positions to
allow easy access to turn the meat. It is possible the pot on the right back burner was
consistently placed slightly off the burner to provide room for the frying pan. Beside the
hot spot, the temperature plume from the electric range follows the same patterns as other
cooking processes.
Figure 152 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at various heights above
the electric range. Before the cooking process begins, all the burners are on, which

242
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TC=7T*-?ZmL

==****

Temp (F): 65

75

85

^~&a

5TT

,-

105

95

115

40-c
o

S 30(0

o
Q.

E 2oi
o
X

2 100
CO
0

t*

H-H

20

'

H _

40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)

80

Figure 150. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above


the electric range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Temp (F)
115
105
95
pnPHJ

85
75
65

*******
on.)
Figure 151. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36
inches above the electric range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

170
160
150-1-

Sausage and sauce placed


on range, (water for noodles
is already boiling)

Sausage and
noodles removed

140
(i>

feb
i)
130

a
(U

ratu

Ui

120

u
CL,

1 110

100-

90-

Sauce
removed

80
10

14

18

22

Time (Min)
12 inch

24 inch

'36 inch

Figure 152. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the electric range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

26

explains the high temperatures. At 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the cooking surface, there is a
definite pattern of temperature variation. All the burners were at maximum output, so
cycling should not occur. Perhaps it shows variation in the cooking process. The
sausages were turned every few minutes at the beginning of the process, and turned more
frequently near the end. The temperature peaks at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height may
correspond to the turning of the meat. At the 24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) heights, the
temperature remains constant throughout the cooking process. Unlike the gas range, the
burners were not turned off when the food was removed. The main reason for this was
their are no flames to get in the way of removing the food like there are for the gas range,
therefore, the burners were left on during the process. There is a definite rise in plume
temperature as the food is removed. The burners were directly exposed to the air above
them, heating it faster and hotter than when the pots and pans were present.
g. Particle Size Distribution
Figure 153 shows the grease particulate mass distribution for the electric range. The
same information is shown in figure 154 on a finer scale to easily view the smaller
particle size ranges. Three tests were performed, and the data show good repeatability.
The shape of the distribution is identical to the distribution from the gas range. In
addition, this is the same general shape seen from the griddles. Most of the grease
particulate mass is found in the larger particle size range. This implies the same
mechanism of large particle generation, explained earlier, is probably responsible for the
grease particulate emissions.
Figure 155 shows the grease emissions for the various particle sizes from the electric
range, normalized to the food product mass. The particulate emissions are almost
identical to those from the gas range. However, the amount of grease vapor emitted is
only one half that of the gas range. One possible explanation is the fact the temperature
of the burner used to cook the sausages, a French plate in the front center of the range, is
about 200 F (111 C) cooler than the burner used to cook the sausages on the gas range,
when both burners are at maximum output. It seems as though a lower cooking surface
temperature should increase the time required to cook the meat to the same amount of
weight loss. However, we did not find this to be true. Perhaps the difference in cooking
surface temperature was not enough to significantly affect the cooking time, but may be
enough to affect the generation of grease vapor.
If the temperature at the frying pan surface of the gas range was considerably higher than
the point of vaporization for the sausage drippings, while the temperature for the electric
range was below this point, we would expect to see significantly different levels of grease
vapor emissions.
Figure 156 shows the collected grease emissions from the electric range for the various
size ranges. Test one is a composite of three cooking procedures performed for the
temperature distribution data collection. Therefore, the cooking time was three times

246
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100
90
80

70 +

W
<g
to

Q- 50 +

Q
O)
jo

40 30 -
_1

,.

20 10
0
0.01

jrsrrJ

r-iri"rrnnr'
0.10

M i i i HT

"J

M M

1.00

10.00

Dp (urn)
Figure 153. Electric range particle distribution (3 tests)

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i i i

100.00

25

20 -

I
Q.

Q
o
o

=5 10

0.01

1 I I I I I

0.10

+H- * H 1

i M i i \i

1.00

10.00

Dp {\im)
Figure 154. Electric range particle distribution (3 tests)
Zoom on small particles

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

i i

i|

100.00

3
X>

4
3
o

o
"<3

CO
CO

*
LU

KWJBWIHHBRl

0
TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


ETest 1

CD Test 2

I Test 3

g Average

Figure 155. Electric range normalized grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

10
Test 1 consists of the integration of 3 samplings, therefore, the
data presented here for test 1 is normalized to the sampling times
for tests 2 and 3. The smaller uncertainties in testl reflects the
increased accuracy associated with longer sampling.

<-.

E
ITest 1
El Test 2
I Test 3

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 156. Electric range collected grease emissions

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

longer than the other runs, resulting in improved resolution. Data from figure 156 shows
the process to be repeatable.
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 22 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric range.
TABLE 22. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Range
Gas

Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product

CO2 (including room air)


CO2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx

212109
2.1
0.00.1
0.0000.002

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNO x
1.60.8
<0.1
05
0.00.2

After subtracting the room air contributions, the electric range does not emit CQ2, CO, or
NOx in measurable concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that emissions from the
gas range are entirely explained by the combustion of natural gas.
Table 5 in section D.6. lists the tested hydrocarbons and their minimum detection limits.
Like all other appliances, the electric range does not emit these gases at concentrations
above the detection level.

251
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

F. Field Test From Middlebrook Hall Using A Briquette Style Gas Broiler

Grease particle and vapor emissions, as well as CO and CO2 gaseous emissions were
tested from a briquette style gas broiler in the Middlebrook Hall cafeteria kitchen on the
University of Minnesota campus. Quarter pound, 25 % fat hamburgers were char-broiled
on one of two 85,000 BTU/h (24.9 kW) broilers located in the kitchen. The broilers were
located under a single island canopy style hood. The hood opening was 112.5 x 51.5 in.
(286 x 131 cm), for a total of 41 ft2 (3.8 m2). The flow rate into the hood was
approximated using an anemometer, and found to be about 3000 cfm (1.42 m /s). There
were a total of four openings into the exhaust duct, two on each side of the hood, placed
back to back. The exhaust duct openings were each 10 x 20 in.(25.4 x 50.8 cm) and fitted
with metal wire mesh filters. Between the hood entrance and the exhaust duct entrance,
there were stainless steel plate baffles, 31 in. (78.7 cm) wide, spaced about 5 in. (12.7 cm)
from the side of the hood and approximately evenly spaced between each other. The
front half of the hood (the half facing the cooks) had 2 plate baffles, while the back half
had three baffles. These baffles and their position had a great influence on the air flow
into the hood.
CO and CO2 levels taken at the sampling point and the exhaust duct opening were used to
estimate the amount of room air dilution between those points. Testing included two
batches of 20 patties, taken about 30 minutes apart. The patties for each batch were
placed on the grill sequentially, but the broiler did not heat evenly, therefore, the patties
were removed from the grill when they appeared done, which depended on the patty
position. The first batch cooked in 9 minutes 31 seconds, while the second batch cooked
in 9 minutes 40 seconds.
Figure 157 shows the grease particle mass distribution by particle diameter. The
distribution shows a majority of the mass is either from very large or very small particles.
Between 1 and 10 u,m, the mass concentration slowly increases. It appears to be a steady
increase in concentration up to the highest size range, between 15 and 100 ^im. It is likely
the majority of the particles in this size range originate from mechanical means such as
the splattering of liquid grease from the turning process. In addition, it is unlikely these
large particles penetrate the exhaust duct grease filter.
The concentration level reaches a minimum at about 1.0 ^im in diameter. As the particle
size decreases below 1.0 Jim, the mass concentration increases. In fact, there is a huge
concentration of particulates below 0.4 \im in diameter. The size range of particles
within this block is estimated from 0.01 to 0.4 urn, which is quite a large spread. The
mass of particulates in the smallest size range comprises the particles collected on the
Marple impactor's after-filter. The actual distribution within the size range is unknown.
It is significant that such a large proportion of the particle mass is concentrated in
particles below 0.4 \im in diameter. Particles of this size are highly aerodynamic, and
thus follow the fluid motion of the thermal plume closely. Because of their small mass,
thus a small inertia, they are not prone to inertial impaction, which is a common particle
252
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

IUU

90 80 70
!>
Q!

60

"

50 -

O)

o
g

40 30 2010 00.01

0.10

1.00

-H10.00

Dp (pm)
Figure 157. Gas broiler field test particle distribution
25% fat hamurger, briquette style broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

100.00

removal mechanism. Instead, it is likely these particles will pass through the wire mesh
filters provided at the exhaust duct opening. In addition, particles in this size range are
respirable, that is, they are likely to be inhaled by humans into the deep alveolar region of
the lungs. There could be serious health consequences associated with particles in this
size range, depending on their chemical composition and morphology.
Figure 158 shows the grease emission levels for the various size ranges and grease
vapor, normalized to the mass of food product cooked. The size ranges are divided into
total particulates, which includes particles of all sizes, PM 10, which includes all
particles less than 10 jj.m in diameter, and PM 2.5, which includes all particles less than
2.5 Jim in diameter. In addition, the mass of grease vapor emitted is also shown. Finally,
the total grease emissions, including all the vapor and particulates, is shown. From figure
158, it is clear the gas broiler used in the field test emits the majority of its grease mass as
either vapor, or particulates less than 2.5 jtim in diameter. In fact, 80 to 85 % of the
grease mass emitted, is in this size range. As previously mentioned, grease in this size
range is difficult to remove from the effluent stream, and poses human health concerns. It
should be noted that in order to determine the total emissions, the level of dilution air
needed to be estimated. CO and CO2 concentrations at the sampling point and the
exhaust duct entrance were used to determine an estimated dilution ratio.
Figure 159 shows the actual grease mass collected for the various size ranges and grease
vapor. The mass collected for all size ranges are well above the measurement noise level,
which suggests the testing time period was long enough to produce reliable data. In fact,
for the PM 10 and PM 2.5 particulates, the mass collected was on the order of milligrams,
while the scale resolution was on the order of micrograms. Therefore, the error
associated with the collected mass was very low. However, uncertainties shown in figure
156 show that the uncertainty in grease emissions normalized to food product mass in
these particle size ranges is about equal to that of the other size ranges. This is because
the uncertainty in the dilution ratio dominates the uncertainty in grease emissions
normalized to the product mass, for all size ranges.
Table 23 shows the CO and CO2 emissions from the gas broiler field test. In addition, the
dilution ratio given by each of the emissions is estimated.
TABLE 23. Gas Broiler Field Test Gaseous Emissions

Gas
CO2 (including room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO

Emissions
lb./1000 lb.
food product
2070638
453

Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCO
4113
9

Estimated
Dilution Ratio

4515

893288

2.31

2.51
NA

254
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

40

35

o 30
p
DL

25

o
o
o 20

"55
c
o

'8 15

LU
JQ 10

TP

PM10

PM2.5

Vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 158. Gas broiler field test normalized grease emissions
25% fat hamburger, briquette style broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

14

12

10

.2 8

o
O

TP

PM10

PM2 5

vapor

Particle Size or Phase


Figure 159. Gas broiler field test collected grease emissions
25% fat hamburger, briquette style broiler

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Total Grease

Table 23 shows a very large amount of CO and CQ2 emissions. For the CO2 emissions,
only some of it can be accounted for by the natural gas combustion process. Some of it
can also be accounted for by CQ2 contributions from the room air, which is included in
the emissions shown in table 23. We did not have enough information about the cooking
plume (i.e. temperature and velocity profile data) to make an estimate of the room air
dilution C0 2 contribution. However, it is unlikely to account for much of the difference
between the total CO2 emissions and the natural gas combustion contributions.
Therefore, it is likely, a large amount of CQ2 is generated by the actual cooking process.
Data supporting this argument is seen in the CO emissions. CO emissions are not
affected by the room air, and therefore must be generated by either incomplete natural gas
combustion or combustion associated with the cooking process. The magnitude of CO
emissions is extremely high, corresponding to concentrations as the sampling point of
about 200 ppm, and concentrations entering the exhaust duct of about 85 ppm. If air in
the exhaust duct is not further diluted by other air streams, which is most likely the case,
the exhaust air from the hood over the gas broiler in Middlebrook Hall has dangerously
high concentrations of CO. While most of this air is quickly diluted once it reaches the
rooftop, there might be some concern over the emission of such high amounts of CO,
considering the close proximity of hundreds of student dormitory windows.
The most likely source of CO and CO2 generation, which is probably also responsible for
the large amount of grease in the vapor and fine particulate mode, is the combustion of
grease drippings on the hot briquettes. The natural gas is combusted below a layer of
ceramic briquettes. The briquettes cover the entire surface below the grill, making it most
certain that any grease that drips from the food product will land on a hot briquette. The
purpose of the briquettes is to provide an even distribution of heat to the grill surface.
The temperature of these briquettes is unknown, but they must be hot enough to ignite
grease, as is evident by the grease flare-ups that occur during the cooking process. Grease
dripping on the hot briquettes is probably responsible for most of the CO, CO2, grease
vapor, and fine grease particulate emissions.
The dilution ratios seen in table 23 represent an estimate to how much room air dilutes
the effluent plume between the sampling point and the exhaust duct entrance. The
associated dilution ratio makes it possible to estimate the total amount of emissions. The
dilution ratio using CO is simply the concentration at the sampling point divided by the
concentration at the exhaust duct opening. Because the background level was zero(there
was no CO in the room air), no other adjustments need to be made. The dilution ratio
using this method was found to be 2.31. For the CO2, there is a substantial background
level found in the room air. This room air concentration was subtracted from the CQ2
concentration found at the sampling point and at the exhaust duct opening. The adjusted
concentrations were used to find the dilution ratio of 2.51. Using two different gases, we
found the estimated dilution ratio to be quite consistent.
Overall, the field test shows that the methods used for this investigation are applicable in
the field. The actual apparatus is quite bulky, and not easily portable. However, with a

257
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

half day of preparation, and another full day consisting of set-up and testing, it is possible
to use the procedures developed in the laboratory for testing in the field.

258
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

G. Exhaust Duct Fine Particle Measurements


1. Introduction
Particle size information from the effluent exiting through the exhaust duct was
determined with two instruments, the ELPI (electrical low pressure impactor) and the
MOUDI (micro-orifice uniform deposit impactor). Both instruments require sample
lines, therefore, the size distribution information obtained is not complete for large
particulates. The main purpose of the measurements was to determine the mass
concentration of the smallest particulates in the exhaust duct, and compare it to the mass
concentration of identically sized particulates captured at the sampling point. The ratio of
these concentrations gives the effective dilution ratio between the sampling point and the
exhaust duct. While the primary purpose of these measurements was to find the dilution
ratio, the measurements do provide some insight to fine particulate emissions exiting the
exhaust duct.
The ELPI can measure particle size distributions in real time, examples of which were
previously shown. While the ELPI can be used as a traditional impactor, it must operate
as an electrical impactor to take real time data. As an electrical impactor, the ELPI has a
limitation in that its mechanism of operation limits its ability to simultaneously measure
high concentrations of very small particulates and larger particles. The ELPI operates by
measuring the current from charged particles which collide with its impaction stages.
The particles are charged to their saturation charge limit at the instrument opening using
corona discharge. The saturation charge limit is a function of the particle surface area,
and therefore is related to the particle diameter. Thus, when the ELPI is run using the
electrical mode, it essentially counts the number of particles that impact on a given
impaction surface. The total number and average diameter of particles which impact on a
surface give the approximate mass collected on the surface. Besides the fact that the
ELPI can measure particle size distributions during real time, its strength lies in its ability
to accurately count extremely small particles, while determining their size. For this
reason, the ELPI was the preferred choice for determining the dilution ratio for each
cooking process. Unfortunately, the ELPI was not available for the entire test series, and
the MOUDI was used as an alternative.
The MOUDI is a traditional inertial impactor, and the net mass collected on the impaction
surface is measured directly. It is a well established instrument, with many documented
uses in the literature. For this reason, it is appropriate to compare the size distribution
results from the ELPI to the results from the MOUDI.

259
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

2. Comparison of ELPI Results With MOUDI Results

Figure 160 shows the fine particle size distribution from the ELPI and MOUDI impactors.
The measurements were taken from a single sample probe placed in the exhaust duct
while the gas griddle was used. Therefore, there should be a minimal amount of bias due
to differences in sample population. The total sampling rate was 39.61pm (1.4 cfm), with
301pm (1.06 cfm) connected to the MOUDI, while 9.61pm (0.34 cfm) connected to the
ELPI. The results show a fair agreement between the particle size distributions obtained
from the two instruments. Qualitatively, the peak mass concentration occurs at
approximately the same diameter of 0.15 |im. The actual mass concentration measured
with the ELPI at each size range differs somewhat with that of the MOUDI, but usually
comes within a factor of two. The largest end of the size distribution shown in figure
160, particles near 1.0 u.m in diameter, shows the biggest discrepancy between the two
instruments. It is at this size range where the ELPI begins to be affected by the high
concentrations of small sized particulates.
Figures 161 and 162 show two more comparisons between the MOUDI and the ELPI,
while sampling during the gas broiler cooking process when using hamburger. Both data
were taken by splitting the flow from a single sample line. The concentration levels were
too high for the ELPI when sampling above the appliance, therefore, a dilution line was
added. On the other hand, the high concentration levels were advantageous for the
operation of the MOUDI impactor. Again, the data show fair agreement between the
ELPI and MOUDI instruments. The peak concentrations appear in the same positions,
and for most of the size ranges shown, the actual concentrations agree fairly well. Unlike
data from the gas griddle, the smallest MOUDI size range, which represents the mass
collected on the after filter, contains much more particulate mass than does the ELPI for
this size range. It may be possible that most of this mass is in particles smaller than 0.03
u,m, which is the minimal detection size for the ELPI when no after filter is used. It
should be stressed that the main purpose of these measurements was to determine a
dilution ratio between the sampling point and the exhaust duct. We used the third, fourth,
and fifth smallest size ranges from the ELPI, and the second, third, and fourth smallest
size ranges from the MOUDI to determine the dilution ratio. When this is done, the
dilution ratio obtained from the ELPI is within 10 % of the dilution ratio from the
MOUDI. When the ELPI was no longer available, which included testing of the broilers
with chicken breast, the ovens, and the ranges, the MOUDI was used to determine the
dilution ratio.

260
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

2
1.8

1.6 --

E
Q.

Q
to
ON

1 -

O)

=5 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

1 1

0.1

0.01

Dp (urn)
ELPIData

MOUDIData

Figure 160. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas griddle

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

50
45
40 +
5T35

1,30
o. 25

Q
O)
ON

20

to

Figure 161. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

50

45 -40 -CO

35 -

<

30
.1
E

a. ?5 -

1/dlo

Q
O)

20 -

15 -10 5 -0 -\

'I

I ' I

1M

0.01

0.1

L+

1 h*-

Dp ftim)
ELPI Data

MOUDI Data

Figure 162. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size distributions from the sampling point above the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

3. Gas Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements


Figure 163 shows the fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas
griddle, with the data taken by the ELPI. The concentration in the exhaust duct was
determined during three different tests. For one of the tests, on April 18, the ventilation
rate was lowered to 1800 cfm (0.85 m3/s), which represents the lowest level where full
capture and containment is present. The data from April 18 are also the same data seen in
figure 160 from the ELPI. Figure 161 shows a great amount of consistency in the ELPI
measurements. As expected, when the ventilation rate is lower, the mass concentration is
higher due to less dilution air. This is evident in that the mass concentration is higher for
the smallest particles from April 18. For the data on March 26 and 27, taken under
identical ventilation rates, the particle size distribution is essentially identical. There
appears to be significantly more mass of particulates above 0.4 [im when the ventilation
rate is higher. Perhaps at the higher ventilation rate more particles collide, resulting in
larger coagulated particulates.
4. Electric Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 164 shows the fine particle size distribution as determined by the ELPI for the
electric griddle in the exhaust duct. The results from two tests show again the ELPI gives
very consistent concentration data in the shown size range. The shape of the size
distribution is very similar to that from the gas griddle exhaust duct. There appears to be
a peak at about 0.2 Jim, and then a slight decrease, followed by an increase in
concentration as the particle size nears 1 \ua. Overall, the magnitude of the concentration
is similar to that seen from the gas griddle at the higher standard ventilation rate. Both
tests for the electric griddle were taken at the same standard ventilation rate.
5. Gas Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 165 shows the fine particle size distribution for the gas fryer from the exhaust duct
as determined by the ELPI. The concentration level is extremely low, peaking at only
about 0.1 mg/m3. Not much grease was collected from the sampling point during the gas
fryer cooking process, so it is reasonable to expect low levels of particulates in the
exhaust duct. Unlike the Marple impactor data taken at the sampling point, moisture is
not removed before particulates are counted in the ELPI. Therefore, if there are actually
fine water particulates present in the exhaust duct air stream, which is likely for the
fryers, they may be counted by the ELPI.
6. Electric Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 166 shows the fine particle size distribution for the electric fryer is similar to that
from the gas fryer. Again the mass concentration for particles less than 0.2 fim is almost
zero. There does appear to be a steeper increase in concentration at the 0.4 to 1.0 \im size
range for the electric fryer. Perhaps the extra heat added by the gas combustion for the

264
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1.8 1.6 *-, 1.4 -

The ventilation rate was set to 1800 cfm, the minimum rate for
full capture and containment of the effuent plume, during the
April 18 test. For the tests on March 26 and 27, the ventilation
rate was 2400 cfm, the rate specified in ASTM Standard Test
Method F1275-95.

E
*
to
ON

t-m1

O)

= 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 +
H

0.1

0.01

Dp fam)
18-Apr

26-Mar

27-Mar

Figure 163. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhuast duct for the gas griddle during three different tests

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
E 1.2
E
to
ON

a-

O)

o
=o 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-iih

0.1

0.01

Dp (jim)
18-Jun

14-Jul

Figure 164. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for the electric griddle during two different tests

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

0.01

0.1

Dp (|jm)

Figure 165. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

0.6

0.5

5*0.4
E
D)

a 0.3 +

^> 0.2

0.1 -

0
0.01

-ii-

0.1
Dp (pm)

Figure 166. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric fryer

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

gas fryer process reduces some of the particles in this size range by negating some
additional condensation.
7. Gas Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figures 161 and 167 show the fine particle distribution in the exhaust duct for the gas
broiler. Data from figure 161 were taken with the MOUDI and the ELPI while cooking
hamburger, while data from figure 167 was taken with the MOUDI while cooking
chicken breast. Notice the ordinate scale for the chicken breast is one tenth that used for
the hamburger. It is clear the fine particle concentration was much higher while cooking
hamburger. However, the gas broiler chicken breast exhaust duct fine particle mass
concentration still far exceeds the concentrations from the griddles and fryers. The shape
of the concentrations are generally the same. However, the peak concentration for the
hamburger occurs at about 0.2 Jim, while it occurs at 0.1 p.m for the chicken breast.
Perhaps the higher concentrations from the hamburger emissions allow more particle
collisions, allowing the mass distribution to move slightly to the larger sizes. It should be
noted that from most perspectives, including those related to particle removal and
environmental health, a 0.1 Jim particle behaves much the same as a 0.2 \im particle.
8. Electric Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figures 168 and 169 show the fine particle distribution in the exhaust duct for the electric
broiler. The data in figure 166 is from the ELPI while cooking hamburger, while the data
in figure 169 is from the MOUDI while cooking chicken breast. The ordinate scale for
the chicken breast is about one tenth that for the hamburger. The shapes of the two
distributions are identical. There appears to be a peak concentration at about 0.5 u,m.
This compares to a peak of 0.1 to 0.2 u,m for the gas broiler. It is interesting to note that
figures 98 and 117 show the fine particle distributions for the gas and electric broilers
taken from the sampling point. Figure 98 shows at the sampling point the peak particle
concentration from the gas broiler cooking hamburger occurs at about 0.2 \im. Figure
117 shows for the electric broiler this peak occurs at 0.5 |im. Therefore, between the
sampling point and the exhaust duct access point, the fine particle size distribution has
not changed appreciably. The concentration has been diluted by room air, but the shape
of the distribution, at least between 0.01 and 1.0 ^im, is identical. This is strong evidence
that the grease baffles do little to affect the fine particulates.
The magnitude of the concentrations from the electric broiler for each food product is
very similar to the those from their gas broiler counterparts. This is evident when you
compare figure 168 with figure 161, and figure 169 with figure 167. Figure 17 shows the
gas and electric broiler PM 2.5 emissions to be essentially identical, when using the same
food product. Therefore, the data from the Marple impactor, used to collect grease
particulates from the sampling point (data shown in figure 17), is entirely consistent with
data from the MOUDI and ELPI regarding small particulates from the broilers. The
entirety of data is strong evidence of the proficiency with which broilers generate fine
particles, and the inability of grease baffles to remove them from the air stream.
269
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

o -

4.5 4-

[mg/rr

fevi

CO

3.5 -

Q. 2.5 -

Q
O)

1.5 10.5 0-

0.01

|lI

H_ , :

,.

0.10

y_ - H

1.00

Dp (urn)

Figure 167. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas broiler while cooking chicken breast

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

50 x
45 ::
40 ::
35 ::

M 30 --

*a. 25::
Q

I20 ::
a

15 ::
10 '-}_

5 ::
i

0.01

' i

i-

- t i i -

0.1
Dp (Mm)

Figure 168. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric broiler while cooking hamburger

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

o -

4.5 -

43.5 -

?
E
to

-J
to

Q!

Q
o

5
Z

2.5 -

2-

1.5 1 -

0.5 -

0-

0.01

1_ i

1ih H

1.

1 _ H

1 1

0.1
Dp (urn)

Figure 169. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

9. Gas and Electric Oven Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements


For the gas and electric ovens, the MOUDI impactor was used to collect particulates at
both the sampling point and in the exhaust duct. In addition, the Marple impactor
collected particulates at the sampling points. Data from both impactors, at the sampling
point and the exhaust duct, show fine particulate concentrations are below detection
limits from the oven under the tested conditions. Therefore, there are no data shown from
the gas and electric oven exhaust duct measurements.
10. Gas Range Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 170 shows the fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct from the gas
range. The peak concentration occurs at about 0.1 ^im, the same as for the gas broiler
while cooking hamburger. There is a significant portion of mass present on the after
filter, shown as particles between 0.01 and 0.05 ^im. Perhaps these ultra-fine particles are
a result of the high exhaust duct temperature. The only other appliance with the same
high exhaust duct temperature as the gas range is the gas broiler. Perhaps these fine
particles remain present in the exhaust duct because conditions do not exist which allow
condensation or coagulation, two processes which will increase particle sizes.
11. Electric Range Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
It is interesting to compare the data from the gas range to that from the electric range
shown in figure 171. The data are within the noise level for measurement from the
MOUDI impactor, suggesting an insignificant population of fine particulates. Therefore,
using the same cooking procedure and products as the gas range, an entirely different
population of particles exists in the exhaust duct from the electric range process. The
biggest difference in the process is the extremely hot temperatures seen above the gas
range. The end result is a hot exhaust duct air stream. Figure 9 shows the average grease
composition at the sampling point for the electric range to consist of more large
particulates, as well as slightly more PM 10 and PM 2.5 particulates, compared to the gas
range. The gas range produced more grease in the vapor form. This is consistent with a
hot thermal plume. It is possible that the conditions in the gas range exhaust promote the
production of some fine particulates, while the same conditions do not exist in the electric
range exhaust duct. While there is some difference in fine particle concentration in the
exhaust duct between the gas and electric ranges, it is important to remember the
concentration levels are still very small compared to the concentrations seen from other
appliances, especially the broilers.

273
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

0.6

0.5

^)

E
0.3
O)

.o
c 0.2

0.1 --

0.01

f-

0.1
Dp (u.m)

Figure 170. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

1 1H

o
-J

0.01

0.1
Dp (urn)
Figure 171. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric range

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

12. Comparison With Exhaust Duct Data From CE-CERTs "Further Development of
Emission Test Methods and Development of Emission Factors For Various Cooking
Operations" Final Report to the SCAOMD
In a final report to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the
University of California, Riverside College of Engineering - Center for Environmental
Research and Technology (CE-CERT) reports emission data from several processes
similar to those tested in this investigation. While the purpose and goals of the CE-CERT
study differs from this investigation, it is worthwhile to compare some of the relevant
data. Because of the different scientific objectives, direct comparisons are not available
for most data sets. However, there are a few which apply, and these will be compared to
the greatest extent allowed by the available data.
The CE-CERT study includes three similar processes used in this investigation. First, an
under-fired gas broiler was used to cook 25 % fat hamburger. The cooking process is
almost identical to the one this investigation used for the gas broiler - hamburger testing.
Significant differences include the use of a 25 % fat beef and a 2/3 loading condition in
the CE-CERT investigation. This investigation used 20 % fat beef and full loading
conditions. The second comparable process is the open-vat deep fat gas fryer cooking
shoestring potatoes. The food product, appliance, and procedures are virtually identical
for both studies. The third process is the electric griddle. The CE-CERT investigation
used an almost identical griddle with a similar food product and similar cooking process.
Again, like the gas broiler, the main difference is that the CE-CERT study used 25 % fat
beef and 2/3 full loading conditions. Other processes used by the CE-CERT study are not
compatible for comparison with data from this investigation. This includes whole
chickens on a gas broiler. While one process from this investigation includes boneless
skinless chicken breast cooked on a gas broiler, the differences between skin-on and skinoff chicken are too great to invite a realistic comparison. The CE-CERT study also
includes boneless skinless chicken breast, but it was cooked on a flat griddle. The griddle
and under-fired broilers processes are much too different to justify a comparison of the
CE-CERT electric griddle chicken breast emissions with either of the under-fired broiler
chicken breast emissions from this investigation.
Figure 172 shows the fine particle distribution from the gas broiler cooking hamburger
for the present investigation. The data were taken with the MOUDI impactor in the
exhaust duct. Figure 161 shows the data taken with the ELPI are very similar to the
MOUDI data, therefore, only the MOUDI data are presented here. Because the main
objective of the exhaust duct measurement was to find the small particle concentrations to
use for the dilution ratio, particles larger than 1 \im were not measured. Notice that figure
172 gives the particle sizes in terms of mass percentage as opposed to concentration.
This allows for easy comparison with the data from CE-CERT.
Figure 173 shows the particle size distribution from the CE-CERT study (Welch and
Norbeck 1997). Because the present study does not include data for particles larger than
1 H-m, that part of the graph can not be compared. Fortunately it appears from figure 173

276
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

a
o
'o
D)
ro

0.01

1.00

0.10

10.00

Dpftim)

Figure 172. Fine particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking hamburger
Data taken in the exhaust duct with the MOUDI impactor

Figure 173. Particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking hamburger
(From Welch and Norbeck, 1997)

277
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

that only a small tail of particulates remain that are larger than 1 (im. Comparing figures
172 and 173 shows the two studies sampled an almost identical size distribution from the
under-fired gas broiler while cooking hamburger. Both figures show a peak mass
concentration occurring at about 0.2 fim. In addition, on the large particle side of the
peak, the two figures show a similar decline in particulate concentration. The biggest
difference is on the small particle side of the peak, where the data from the present study
shows a larger particle concentration between 0.01 and 0.1 u.m. However, if one
considers the steepness of the curve in figure 173, it is possible a slight error in cut-size,
from either study, could account for the difference in particulate mass concentration seen
in this size range. Overall, the comparison of the two studies shows excellent agreement.
To compare the overall emissions from the two studies, data from the exhaust duct and
from the sampling point in this investigation, can be used. Table 24 shows the emission
data from the two studies. For the CE-CERT study, only total particulate emissions are
given. The manner in which PM is determined in the CE-CERT study includes the mass
of grease collected in the cold box condensation train. Therefore, to properly compare the
two data sets, the grease vapor from the present study needs to be added to the particulate
emissions. Because the grease vapor was never collected in the exhaust duct, the data
from the sampling point above the appliance must be used. In addition, it is probably best
to remove the largest particulate mass emissions from the plume in this study. This is
because most of these particles will not pass through the grease baffles, and thus should
not be compared with the CE-CERT exhaust duct emission measurements. Therefore, an
equivalent PM emission value can be estimated for the data from this investigation to
compare to the data obtained in the CE-CERT study. This equivalent PM is defined as
the PM 10 particulates plus the grease vapor emissions. The relationship between particle
size and passage through the grease baffles is unknown, but the best guess is to use 10|j.m
as the cut-off.
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF EMISSION DATA FROM THE GAS BROILER
WHILE COOKING HAMBURGER
From Welch
and Norbeck, 1997
Category Emissions
(lb./1000lb.)
32.7
PM

Present Study
Category

Emissions
(lb./1000lb.)
31.554
11.98

Equivalent PM
Exhaust Duct (Only includes
particles less than 1 urn)
As taken at the sample point above the
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

appliance
33.701
10.428
7.964
21.126

278
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

From table 24 it is clear the equivalent PM is equal to the vapor plus the PM 10
emissions. The value obtained is consistent with the data from the CE-CERT
investigation. Both studies show the average result from three tests, and they are very
close in magnitude. Because the CE-CERT study used a higher fat beef product, one
would expect to see higher emissions. The emissions from the CE-CERT study are
slightly higher, but not remarkably so.
Another method of comparison, with emissions as measured in the exhaust duct, show the
CE-CERT study found considerably more grease emissions. However, the present study
only includes the smallest particles. If particles greater than 1 (im comprise 25 % of the
mass found in the exhaust duct air steam, as it appears in figure 173, the emission data
from this study would be about one half that of the CE-CERT data. If grease vapor
emissions are added to this, using the measured amount at the sampling point above the
appliance, the total grease emissions in the exhaust duct would be about 37 lb./1000 lb.
Again this is very close to the number obtained in the CE-CERT study. It is probable that
some of the grease vapor collected above the appliance condenses into small particulates
before the exhaust duct measurement, thus part of the grease is counted twice using the
above mention method. Taking this into account allows for even closer agreement
between the investigations.
The second process which is comparable between the two studies is that of the open-vat
deep fat gas fryer while cooking shoestring potatoes. Both studies found the grease
emissions below detectable limits. While the present study did show some very large
particulates in the plume above the appliance, the concentrations were low and it is
unlikely they would ever make it to the exhaust duct. Due to the low concentrations, the
particle size distributions are not compared.
The third comparable process is the flat electric griddle cooking hamburger. While data
from this study are available for the fine particulates in the exhaust duct from the electric
griddle, the entire size distribution is not. However, data from the gas griddle, taken in
the exhaust duct with the MOUDI impactor are available. While we found some
differences between the gas and electric griddle emissions, we believe they are mainly
due to the presence of the gas appliance's flue, and are unlikely to affect the exhaust duct
measurements. In other words, we do not expect some of the differences present in
emissions between the gas and electric griddles as measured above the appliance, to affect
the exhaust duct particulate concentration. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
compare CE-CERT's electric griddle exhaust duct particle size distribution with our gas
griddle exhaust duct particle size distribution.
Figure 174 shows the particle size distribution from the gas griddle taken by the MOUDI
impactor in the exhaust duct for this study. Note the distribution is given in percentage
terms for easy comparison with the CE-CERT particle size distribution shown in figure
175.

279
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

<*fl-

35 -

30-

25o
CD
)
IS

20

15

a.

10-

5-

0.01

r-l1 !

'' '

J1 I

Ml|

' 0. I

0.1

J I

i-lI

i i i t

10

i n

, , > _ ,

, . i

100

Dp(nm)

Figure 174. Fine particle size distribution from the gas griddle cooking hamburger
Data taken in the exhaust duct with the MOUDI impactor

0.01

0.1

log (Diameter, fan)

Figure 175. Particle size distribution from the electric griddle cooking hamburger
(From Welch and Norbeck, 1997)

280
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Figures 174 and 175 show excellent agreement over the entire particle size range. There
is a small peak which occurs at about 0.2 (im, and a larger peak which occurs at about 2
Lim. Both peaks are present in each investigation. In addition, the relative value of the
peaks as a percentage of overall particulates in the exhaust duct are almost identical. The
small peak comprises about 5 percent of the mass distribution, while the large peak
contains about 30 to 35 percent. This appears to confirm the assertions made in the CECERT study, which claim previous studies, where particles sizes above 1 {im were
neglected, missed the entire second peak.
Table 25 compares the emission data from the electric griddle while cooking hamburger
for each study. Note, the exhaust duct emissions shown for the present study is from the
ELPI, and is not related to figure 174. All data from the present study shown in table 25
are from the electric griddle, except for one of the equivalent PM values, obtained by
adding the grease vapor and PM 10 average emissions from the gas griddle sampling
point measurements.
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF EMISSION DATA FROM THE ELECTRIC
GRIDDLE WHILE COOKING HAMBURGER
From Welch and Norbeck, 1997
Category
PM

Emissions
(lb./1000 lb.)
5.0

Present Study
Category

Emissions
(lb./1000lb.)
11.192

Equivalent PM
(Electric)
Equivalent PM
7.179
(Gas)
Exhaust Duct
0.16
(Only includes
particles less than
1 urn)
As taken at the saniple point above the
appliance
TP
4.302
PM10
0.581
0.222
PM2.5
10.611
Vapor
Total Grease
14.913

The equivalent PM from the present study for the electric griddle is about twice the PM
from the CE-CERT study. However, most of the equivalent PM is from the grease vapor
(about 95%), and there is a relatively high uncertainty associated with this number. The
equivalent PM for the gas griddle in this investigation is about 7.2 lb./1000 lb., which is
more in line with the CE-CERT estimate.
281
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

An alternative method to estimate the exhaust duct measurement from the present
investigation is to estimate the total exhaust duct particulates from the information we
have regarding the fine exhaust duct particulates, and to add on an estimate for the
condensables. From figure 175, it appears as though about 65 percent of the mass is
above one p.m, therefore, the exhaust duct mass emission measurement must be adjusted
accordingly. In addition, the mass of grease vapor emissions should be summed with the
particulates to compare with the CE-CERT PM data. The result is an estimated emission
of about 11 lb./ 1000 lb. Again, this number is highly dependent on the grease vapor
emissions, which has a fair amount of uncertainty associated with it.
Overall, the particle size distribution for the griddles found in both studies agree
remarkably well. The total emissions show a larger discrepancy, but are easily considered
to be in the same range. Taking all three processes into account, the results from the CECERT investigation compare well with the results obtained by the present study.

282
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

H. Recommendations

Recommendations made from information gained through this report mainly pertain to
further research in the area of commercial cooking ventilation. We will not include
recommendations for specific ventilation rate requirements per cooking process, or any
other specifications which may someday become guidelines for kitchen designers.
Instead, information from this investigation can be used as fundamental data from which
further investigations can build.
An important aspect of our testing was determining the grease vapor emissions from
various cooking processes. Results show that process emissions, as measured in the
cooking plume, contain from 30 percent to over 90 percent of the grease in the vapor
phase. Therefore, any grease removal efficiency tests and grease removal strategies need
to reflect this reality. However, it should be noted that the grease vapor concentrations,
and thus emissions, were determined by a single method which has not been thoroughly
scrutinized. One recommendation is to investigate exactly what this test method
measures, along with the method's accuracy.
Other investigators have used the same method, or slight variations, to determine grease
vapor concentrations in an air stream. In the method, a sample of air from the cooking
plume (or exhaust duct for other investigations) is pulled through an impinger train
submersed in an ice bath. We use four impingers, including one Greenburg-Smith style
impinger, and three straight tube bubblers. The first impinger is empty, the second and
third contain DI water, while the fourth contains silica gel. The second impinger is the
Greenburg-Smith type. Other investigations have used four or five impingers, with the
last one always containing silica gel. However, the contents of the other impingers and
the position of the Greenburg-Smith type vary. That is, some investigations may use DI
water in the first two impingers and place the Greenburg-Smith type first, while the third
is empty, while others use impingers which all contain DI water (except the last one),
with the Greenburg-Smith type place right before the last impinger. At this time, it is
unclear what affect these variations have on the condensation of grease vapor.
The current method then requires the surfaces of the impingers as well as the rest of the
surfaces the sampling air contacts to be rinsed with acetone. The water in the impingers
is also collected. The acetone and collected water evaporates in a pre-weighed glass
beaker, and the beaker net mass gain constitutes the collected mass of grease vapor.
Results from this investigation find the method to be quite repeatable, and it appears to
give reasonable results. However, the method is not easily implemented and is sensitive
to phenomena such as static electricity. In the past, researchers have complained grease
vapor measurements using this or similar methods, were not repeatable, and often found
negative net mass gains in the beakers. We also experienced this problem, but found that
static electricity on the glass beaker surface was the main source of error. Once a method
for removing the static build-up was developed, consistent results were obtained. We

283
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

believe static charges explain many of the problems encountered in the past. Regardless,
other aspects of the method remain untested as to their actual effectiveness.
One question to answer is the effectiveness with which the acetone removes the
condensed grease vapor from the condensation train surfaces. The method was developed
to measure condensables from utility boiler stack emissions. In order to become an
official EPA test method, it was thoroughly tested. However, the total sampling time and
condensable concentrations are much higher for that particular application, therefore, it is
probable that condensable removal efficiency by the acetone was not as important as it
may be for cooking applications. For this investigation, the total mass of collected grease
was typically in the 1 to 10 mg range. The method sensitivity, based on the scale
precision used in this investigation, was about 0.5 mg. Therefore, if the acetone does not
dissolve all the condensed grease, emission estimates will be affected. It should be noted
that observations did not suggest significant levels of condensed grease remained after the
acetone wash. Regardless, this aspect of the grease vapor concentration method needs to
be investigated. One factor which may play a role is the technique used to rinse the
glassware. In this investigation, the same procedure, using equal amounts of acetone,
were used for each test. These techniques are not specified in the test method, therefore,
others may repeat the test method, but rinse the glassware in a different manner. While it
is probable this has little or no effect, it is an uncontrolled variable whose ramifications
are unknown.
Another question involving the acetone rinse is that of chemical reactions. It is possible
the acetone dissolves the condensed grease, then reacts with some of it to form a new
compound. If this new compound is volatile, it will evaporate with the acetone, and some
material which collects as grease vapor will now be lost to the atmosphere. Conversely,
the some acetone could combine with the grease to form non-volatile compounds, adding
mass when the remaining volatiles evaporate. Again there is no direct evidence from our
tests that show this to be the case. However, it remains a possibility that this affects the
grease vapor measurements.
It is important to ask how efficiently the condensation train condenses grease vapor. For
instance, if a volume of air containing 10 mg of grease vapor is sampled, but only 7 mg
condenses on the condensation train surface, the grease vapor concentration is
underestimated. As the method is used now, it is assumed 100 percent of grease in the
vapor phase condenses. Therefore, condensable grease concentrations reported, are, by
definition, material which condenses in the condensation train at the condensation train
temperature. Some factors which likely affect the condensation process include the
condensation train temperature and the sampling rate. The method specifies the
maximum temperature of the sampling gas exiting the condensation train must remain
below 68 F (20 C), however, it is often lower than this. For this investigation, the
sampling rate was 21pm (.071 cfm), dictated by the particle impactor operational flow
rate. However, depending on the application, much higher flow rates can be used.
Higher flow rates result in less time within the condensation train, but higher turbulence
within the impingers. It is unclear the temperature and flow rate affect grease vapor

284
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

condensation. Therefore, an important aspect towards understanding the grease vapor


concentration measurements includes testing various parameters and how they affect the
condensation process.
One possibility for investigating the method would be to sample grease vapor from an air
stream with a known quantity of grease vapor. The best results would probably involve
total sampling from a closed system as opposed to proportional sampling from an open
system. This eliminates errors from concentration gradients. Grease vapor would need to
be generated at a relatively constant rate, and a mass balance would determine the total
grease vapor concentration in the air stream. Parameters such as condensation train
temperature and sampling rates could be varied, as well as acetone rinsing techniques. To
test the acetone grease removal efficiencies, a know quantity of grease could be applied
directly to glass surfaces. Acetone would be used to rinse the surfaces, collected in a
beaker and evaporated. The net mass gain in the beaker could be compared to the mass
applied to the glass surfaces.
A better understanding of grease vapor measurements should assist in developing a
standard test method to determine grease removal efficiency. While specific studies have
addressed the problem, there is currently no universally accepted solution. There are
numerous well established air filter efficiency tests. However, their applicability to
grease removal efficiency is questionable. There are several reasons for this. First, as
shown in this investigation, cooking emissions include much of the grease in the vapor
form, which is not included in standard filter tests. Second, in cooking ventilation, the
entire hood is considered part of the grease removal system. Therefore, it would be
unsatisfactory to some to pull out a section of the system, such as the grease baffles, and
perform tests only on that section. Using an entire hood in a traditional filter efficiency
test becomes problematic for particle generation and homogeneous particle
concentrations. Third, certain grease removal strategies that are relatively unique to
kitchen ventilation, such as water mists or washes, are difficult to incorporate in a testing
procedure.
In the past, the solution has been to incorporate all the aspects unique to kitchen
ventilation into one test without much regard to how they fit together. Most in the
industry agree the results have not been satisfactory. Most often, grease vapor removal
has been ignored, but again, grease vapor measurements are not well developed. Perhaps
a two step approach is necessary. Once a grease vapor concentration measurement
method has been well established, it can be used to determine grease vapor removal
efficiencies. Procedures similar to those used for air filter efficiency could be used to
determine grease particulate removal.
One aspect of grease removal efficiency which has not been mentioned is the source of
the grease particles and vapor. Some attempts have been made to generate effluent
artificially, with differing degrees of success. From this investigation it is clear using real
food products does produce repeatable concentrations of effluents, but the generation
process is highly time dependent and relatively difficult to control. The obvious answer

285
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

is to develop an artificial effluent generator. Information from this investigation gives


insight as to what the particle size distribution from an effluent generator should be, and
what proportion of the effluent should be in vapor form. One obvious point is that
effluent generation is dependent on the cooking process, therefore, several different
populations of effluents need to be generated to test removal efficiencies. From this
investigation, it appears one process in particular, cooking done on under-fired broilers,
produces large amounts of fine particulates, which is not seen in other processes.
Another recommendation is to explore under-fired broilers in more detail. Emissions
from under-fired broilers were, not unexpectedly, the highest among the processes. A
large proportion of the grease particulates were very fine, and thus worrisome from
several perspectives including, human health, ambient environment, and grease removal.
In addition, when cooking hamburger, the boilers emitted relatively high concentrations
of carbon monoxide. While both broilers produced fine particulates at similar rates,
there were noticeable differences. Some of the differences, especially carbon dioxide
emissions, were due to one broiler being fueled by natural gas while the other was
electrical. However, it is likely many differences were not exclusively due to energy
source, but based more on broiler design.
The gas broiler has a grease drip tray directly under the burners. The broiler is designed
so that the grill is placed on an incline and some drippings are supposed to collect on the
grill underside and gravitate to the front drip tray. The front drip tray is similar to those
seen on griddles, and is not exposed to the burners. However, much of the grease falls
through the grill. Some grease lands on the hot radiants, while the rest lands on the drip
tray beneath the burners. Often, the grease drip tray flares, sending thick black smoke
into the effluent plume. By contrast, the electric broiler has a flat grill with electric
heating elements placed between the grill slots. Grease drippings can fall on the heating
elements, but most either drips through the grill or collects on the bottom side of the grill,
which is not directly exposed to the heating elements. The drippings which fall through
land in a water tray, which essentially prevents the grease from ever reaching the effluent
plume.
These two broilers, while differing in energy source, more importantly differ greatly in
design. The same company that manufactures the gas broiler tested, also manufactures a
similar gas model with a water pan beneath the burners. Likewise, it is probable that
many electric broilers do not possess a water tray. Briquette style broilers, one of which
was used in the field test, present another style of under-fired broiler, which may have
different effluent generating characteristics. Data suggests briquette style broilers may
produce more fine particulates than those with a hot grease drip tray beneath the burners.
Other types of broilers also exist, and it is unclear what type of emission characteristics
they possess.
It appears as though it is possible to characterize under-fired broilers based on their
design. This investigation only tested two broilers, so it is unclear how others would
compare. However, it seems worthwhile to investigate this matter further. It is possible

286
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

that not all broilers require the same ventilation requirements. Furthermore, grease
removal strategies may depend on the particular broiler design. Information from such an
investigation would not only be useful to those involved with kitchen ventilation, but also
broiler manufacturers. We believe the most important aspect of broiler design affecting
effluent generation is the fate of the grease drippings. The greater the chance of grease
drippings landing on a hot surface, or a surface subjected to grease flare-ups, the higher
the emissions. Further testing would allow broilers to be categorized based on their
effluent generation characteristics.
A final recommendation is to test for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) adsorbed
into fine grease particulates. A recent investigation suggests that PAH's may be present
in fine cooking particulates (Siegmann and Sattler pub. Pending). It appears as though
the compounds are not present in the gaseous form, but are dissolved within the
particulates. The study does not use an actual cooking process but collects particles from
heated cooking oils. Several analytic methods including liquid chromatography confirm
the presence of PAH's. PAH's are known human carcinogens. In addition, if they are
present in the fine respirable particulates, they could easily penetrate into the lungs of
workers or others. This presents a serious health threat and underscores the importance of
proper ventilation. It must be noted that this information comes from only one study
which did not use real life cooking procedures. However it is important enough to invite
additional research.
Previous hydrocarbon testing has involved gas sampling. It appears as though the PAH's
are found in fine particulates, therefore, testing requires the capture of the particulates. It
is probably not necessary to test every cooking process for PAH's, but there are some
which are of particular concern. The original study was initiated from the high lung
cancer rates seen in Chinese women. In similar regions, the women had higher rates than
men, and smoking was not a factor. The hypothesis was that PAH's were present in fine
particulates from Chinese cooking. Chinese cooking is often done in poorly ventilated
areas with very high cooking temperatures. Therefore, it appears as though Chinese wok
cooking would be an appropriate cooking process to test. Broilers emit large quantities of
fine particulates. While it is possible the mechanism for generating these PAH laden
particulates does not exist at all in the broiler cooking process, the fact they do produce so
many small particles suggests it would be appropriate to test them.

287
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

I. Bibliography

ASHRAE (1989) ASHRAE HANDBOOK- FUNDAMENTALS. Atlanta, GA.


ASHRAE (1993) ASHRAE HANDBOOK-FUNDAMENTALS. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE (1995) ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Applications. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE (1997) Work Statementfor "Effects ofAir Flow Velocity on Grease Deposition
in Exhaust Ductwork". ASHRAE TC 5.10.
ASTM (1993) Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Convection Ovens, Report
ASTM F 1496-93.
ASTM (1995a) Standard Test Method for the Performance of Griddles, Report ASTM F
1275-95.
ASTM (1995b) Standard Test Method for the Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers,
Report ASTM F 1361-95.
ASTM (1996a) Standard Test Method for the Performance of Range Tops, Report ASTM
F1521-96.
ASTM (1996b) Standard Test Method for the Performance ofUnderfired Broilers,
Report ASTM F 1695-96.
Federal Register (1995) 40 CFR Ch. 1.
Fisher, D. (1997) Optimizing the Design and Operation of Commercial Kitchen
Ventilation Systems. Fisher Consultants.
Graseby Andersen Universal Stack Sampler Operation Manual
Gerstler, W. D., Kuehn, T. H., Pui, D. Y. H., Ramsey, J. W. and Doerr, M. P. (1996)
Identification and Characterization of effluents from various cooking appliances and
processes as related to optimum design of kitchen ventilation systems, ASHRAE 745-RP
Phase I Report. University of Minnesota.
Gordon, E. B., Kam, V. and Parvin, F. (1994) Emissions from commercial cooking
operations and methods for their determination. American Gas Association Laboratories.
Hildemann, L. M., Markowski, G. R. and Cass, G. R. (1991) Chemical composition of
emissions from urban sources of fine organic aerosol. Environmental Science and
Technology 25,744-759.

288
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Hinds, W. C. (1982) AEROSOL TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES, BEHAVIOR, AND


MEASUREMENT OF AIRBOURNE PARTICLES, pp. 409. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Incropera, F.P., and DeWitt, D.P. (1996) INTRODUCTION TO HEAT TRANSFER 3rd
Ed. pp. 679. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Marple, V.A., Rubow, K.L., and Behm, S.M. (1991) A microorifice uniform deposit
impactor (MOUDI): Description, calibration, and use. Aerosol Science and Technology
14,434-446.
McQuiston, F. C. and Parker, J. D. (1994) HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR
CONDITIONING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN pp. 742. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Monitor Labs, (1985a) Instruction Manual Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer Model 8840.
Monitor Labs, Inc.
Monitor Labs, (1985b) Operation and Maintenance Manual For Calibrator Model 8550.
Monitor Labs, Inc.
Patel, R. F., Teagan, P. and Dieckmann, J. T. (1993) Characterization of commercial
building appliances, Report DE-AC01-90-CE23821. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
PG&E (1989) Development and application of a uniform testing method for griddles,
Report 008.1-89.2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
PG&E (1991) Development and application of a uniform testing procedure for open,
deep-fatfryers, Report 008.1-90.22. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Rubow, K. L., Marple, V. A., Olin, J. and McCawley, M. A. (1987) A personal cascade
impactor: Design, evaluation and calibration. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal 48,532-538.
SCAQMD (1997) Determination of particulate and volatile organic compound emissions
from restaurant operations. Rule 1138. South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Adopted November 14,1997
Siegmann, K. and Sattler, K. (1998) Potentially dangerous polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in cooking oil fumes. Publication Pending
Sparrow, E.M. (1996) Convection Heat Transfer Class Notes. ME 5342 University of
Minnesota, pp. 54.

289
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Talbert, S. G., Flanigan, L. J. and Eibling, J. A. (1973) An experimental study of


ventilation requirements of commercial electric kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions 79, 3447.
Tsai, C.-J. and Pui, D. Y. H. (1990) Numerical Study of Particle Deposition in Bends of a
Circular Cross-Section-Laminar Flow Regime. Aerosol Science and Technology 12, 813831.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (1990) UL 710 Standardfor Exhaust Hoods for
Commercial Cooking Equipment, Report ISBN 1-55989-123-8. Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.
Welch, W. A., and Norbeck, J. M. (1997) Further Development of Emission Test
Methods and Development of Emission Factors for Various Commercial Cooking
Operations, Final Report for South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)
Contract #96027, University of California, Riverside College of Engineering - Center for
Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT).

290
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

APPENDIX A
APPLIANCE LIST AND DESCRD7TION

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

APPLIANCE LIST AND DESCRIPTION


TABLE A-l. LIST AND DESCIPTION OF GRIDDLES, FRYERS, AND
UNDERFIRED BROILERS
TYPE
Gas Griddle

DESCRIPTION

3-foot atmospheric burner


Rated input: 80 kBtu/h (23.44 kW)
Cooking surface: 24 x 33 x 1 in. (60.96 x 83.82 x 2.54 cm)
Surface material: chromium
Thermostat control
3-foot electric burner
Electric
Rated input: 10.7 kW (36.5 kBtu/h) @ 240 V
Griddle
Cooking surface: 24 x 33 x 1 in. (60.96 x 83.82 x 2.54 cm)
Surface material: chromium
Thermostat control
Single open vat with integral cold zone
Gas Fryer
Two infrared burners
Rated input: 80 kBtu/h (23.44 kW)
Frying medium capacity: 50 lb. (22.7kg)
Frying area: 14 x 15 in. (35.56 x 38.1 cm)
Solid-state electronic thermostat control
Electronic ignition
Single open vat with integral cold zone
Electric Fryer
Two low watt density heating elements
Rated input: 14 kW (47.8 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Frying medium capacity: 50 lb. (22.7 kg)
Frying area: 14 x 15.5 in. (35.56 x 39.37 cm)
Solid-state electronic thermostat control
Gas Broiler
Seven 2-foot atmospheric burners with radiant heat shields
Rated input: 105 kBtu/h (30.76 kW)
Cooking surface: 22.75 x 30 in. (57.79 x 76.2 cm)
Tilted grate surface
Standing pilot light
Electric Broiler Two 2-foot electric heating elements
Rated input: 10.8 kW (36.9 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Cooking surface: 20 x 33.25 in. (50.8 x 84.46 cm)
Flat grate surface, with heating elements 0.5 in (1.27 cm) below grate
Water pan below each heating element
Solid-state electronic heating control

A-2
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE A-2. LIST AND DESCIPTION OF OVENS AND RANGES


TYPE
Gas Oven

Electric Oven

Gas Range

Electric Range

DESCRIPTION
Full sized convection oven
Rated input: 55 kBtu/h (16.1 kW)
Dual flow, direct-fired/recirculating, 4 burner heating system
Two speed fan
Solid-state digital electronic thermostat control
Electronic ignition
Full sized convection oven
Rated input: 11 kW (37.5 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Direct-fired, tubular electric heating elements (3)
Two speed fan
Solid-state digital electronic thermostat control
Six burner range with oven
Total rated input (without oven): 120 kBtu/h (35.2 kW)
Rated input each burner: 20 kBtu/h (5.9 kW)
*
Six star burners, with cast iron grates
Standing pilot light
Six burner range with oven
Total rated input (without oven): 12 kW (41 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Rated input each burner: 2 kW (6.8 kBtu/h)
Two open speed coils/ four French plates
Solid-state electronic heating control

A-3
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

APPENDIX B
FOOD PRODUCT LIST AND DESCRD7TION

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

FOOD PRODUCT LIST AND DESCRIPTION


TABLE B-l. DESCRIPTION OF FOOD PRODUCTS FOR GRIDDLES, FRYERS,
UNDERFIRED BROILERS, AND OVENS
DESCRIPTION
Pure beef, finished grind, frozen
Weight: 0.25 lb. (0.11kg)
Thickness: 0.375 in. (0.95 cm)
Diameter: 5 in. (12.7 cm)
Fat content: 20 2 % (measured 19.2 %)
Moisture content: 60 2 % (measured 61.2 %)
Adheres to ASTM 1275-95 Standard Test
Method for Performance of Griddles
French fried potatoes Blue ribbon product, par-cooked, frozen
Gas Fryer
shoestring potatoes
Electric Fryer
Thickness: 0.25 in. (0.64 cm)
Fat content: measured 2.2 %
(ASTM 1361-95: 6 1 %)
Moisture content: measured 70 %
(ASTM 1361-95: 66 2%)
Pure beef, finished grind, fresh
Beef hamburgers
Gas Broiler
Weight: 0.33 lb. (0.15 kg)
Electric Broiler
Thickness: 0.625 in. (1.59 cm)
Diameter: 5 in. (12.7 cm)
Fat content: 20 2 % (measured 20.9 %)
Moisture content: 60 2 % (measured 59.8 %)
Adheres to ASTM 1695-96 Standard Test
Method for Performance of Underfeed Broilers
Chicken breast
Gas Broiler
Boneless, skinless, chicken breast, frozen
Electric Broiler
Weight: 0.25 lb. (0.11kg)
Thickness: 0.5 in. (1.27 cm)
Fat content: measured 2.7 %
Moisture content: measured 74.3 %
Sausage pizza:
Gas Oven
Scored-sheet
sausage,
Electric Oven
Slice dimensions: 4 x 6 in. (10.16 x 15.24 cm)
textured vegetable
Slice weight: 0.314 lb. (0.14 kg)
protein,
Fat content: measured 8.2 %
mozzarella cheese, Moisture content: measured 53.5 %
cheese substitute
Ash content: measured 2.6 %
Protein content: measured 0.6 %
APPLIANCE
Gas Griddle
Electric
Griddle

FOOD PRODUCT
Beef hamburgers

B-2
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

TABLE B-2. DESCRIPTION OF FOOD PRODUCTS FOR RANGES AND THE


FIELD TEST
APPLIANCE
Gas Range
Electric Range

Gas Broiler
(Field Test)

FOOD PRODUCT
Spaghetti

DESCRIPTION
Spaghetti information:
100 % #1 hard amber durum wheat
Length: 10 in. (25.4 cm)
Diameter: 0.0625 in. (0.159 cm)

Spaghetti sauce

Sauce information:
Tomato base
Thin, traditional
Fat content: 2.4%

Bratwurst sausage

Sausage information:
All Pork Sausage
Length: 5 in. (12.7 cm)
Diameter: 1 in (2.54 cm)
Fat content: measured 30.7 %
Moisture content: measured 51.2%
Pure beef, finished grind, frozen
Weight: 0.25 lb. (0.11 kg)
Thickness: 0.375 in. (0.95 cm)
Diameter: 5 in. (12.7 cm)
Fat content: measured 25.8 %
Moisture content: measured 57.3 %

Beef hamburgers

B-3
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

APPENDIX C
SAMPLING AND INSTRUMENTATION EQUD7MENT

ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

SAMPLING AND INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT

1. Particulates
A. Personal inertial impactor (Shown in figures C-l and C-2).
1. Marple model 298 with model 290IA in-line adapter.
2. 90 sampling probe. Copper tubing, machine tapered inlet, 63 mm (2.48 in.)
bend radius, 4.65 mm (0.1831 in.) inside diameter.
3. 34 mm (1.34 in.) mylar substrates. Model C-290-MY.
4. 34 mm (1.34 in.) PVC membrane after-filters. 5 urn pore size. Model F-290P5.
5. 34 mm (1.34 in.) glass fiber after-filters. Spectro grade, type A, Gelman
filtration media, lot 202280-8208.
B. Micro-orifice uniform deposit impactor (MOUDI) (Shown in figures C-4 and C-5).
1. MOUDI impactor
2. 37 mm (1.46 in.) aluminum substrates. 1 mm (0.039 in.) thick.
3. 37 mm (1.46 in.) glass fiber after-filters. Spectro grade, type A, Gelman
filtration media, lot 202280-8208.
C. Electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI).
1. ELPI impactor
2. 3/4 hp (560 W) vacuum pump. 26 in. Hg. (8.8 x 104 Pa) rating.
2. Grease Vapor
A. EPA Method 5 sampling train. Graseby Andersen Universal Stack Sampler
(Schematic shown in figure C-3).
3. Temperature
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

Type T thermocouple grid. 24 gauge wire, Teflon PFA insulation (500 F, 260 C).
5 in. (12.7 cm) diameter carbon steel disks. 1/4 in. (0.64 cm) thick.
12 in. (30.48 cm) diameter carbon steel disk. 1/4 in. (0.64 cm) thick.
Type K thermocouple array. 20 gauge wire, glass braid insulation (900 F, 482 C).
IBM 486 PC with IEEE-488 data interface.
IEEE digital multi-meter. Fluke 45 dual display.
IEEE switch controller. Fluke 2205A.
General digital multi-meter with Type K thermocouple capability. Keithley 132F
TRMS Multi-meter.

C-2
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

4. Velocity
A. Portable hot-wire anemometer. TSI model 8330 VelociCheck.
B. Pitottube.
C. Manometer. Dwyer, 0 - 0.25 in. H 2 0 (0 - 62.3 Pa), 0.005 in. H 2 0 (1.25 Pa)
resolution.
5. Gases
A. Portable CO/C02/humidity/temperature sensor with calibration collars. TSI model
8551 Q-Trak IAQ Monitor.
B. Portable humidity/temperature sensor. Vaisala model HMI31 indicator unit, HMP-35
probe.
C. Charcoal, coconut sorbent tubes.
D. 11 (.035 ft3 and 101 (0.35 ft3) Tedlar bags.
E. Personal sampling pump. SKC universal PCXR4 sampler.
F. Sample line particulate filter. Mine Safety Appliances type H HEPA cartridge. No.
95302
G. Soap bubble digital flow meter. Gilian model PN D-800268
6. Flow Visualization
A. Clean room fog generator.
B. Video camera.
C. 2-D turbulent CFD computer modeling program (SHEBANG).
7. Energy Measurement
A.
B.
C.
D.

Electrical power data logger. Synergistic model C 180.


Natural gas flow meter with 1/8 ft3 digital resolution.
Natural gas line thermometer, 0 to 100 C (32 to 212 F), 0.5 C (0.9 F) resolution.
Natural gas line pressure gauge, 0 to 15 in. H 2 0 (3737 Pa), 0.2 in. H 2 0 (50 Pa)
resolution.

8. Analytic
A.
B.
C.
D.

Analytic micro-balance. CahnC-31, 0-250mg, 0.1 ug resolution.


Fine analytic balance. Sartorius B-120 S, 0 -110 g, 0.1 mg resolution.
Course analytic balance. Sartorius L-610,0 - 610 g, 0.01 g resolution.
Kitchen scale. Pelouze model Y32R, 0 - 32 oz. (0 - 0.908 kg), 0.25 oz. (,007kg)
resolution.
E. High sensitivity NDIR NO* analyzer. Monitor Labs Inc. model 8840 analyzer with
model 8550 calibrator.

C-3
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

9. Schematic Drawings and Pictures of the Marple and MOUDI Impactors,


and the EPA Sampler
Figure C-l shows the components of the Marple impactor.

Figure C-l. Components of the model 298 Marple Impactor


(From Rubow et al. 1987)
Part A, the in-line adapter was used for testing, instead of part B, the standard visor. The
mounting bracket in part D was not used, but the impactor base, also shown in part D, is
needed to hole the filter and attach to the EPA Method 5 sampler. Part C shows the 8
impaction stages with the collection substrates and after-filter. Mylar substrates were
used, and for most tests the after-filter was a PVC membrane. For the broilers, a glass
fiber after-filter was used to collect the large amount of small particulates from the plume.
Figure C-l shows a tubing connector attached to the in-line adapter. For this
investigation, a piece of copper tubing bent to a 90 angle, with a tapered opening, was
attached to the in-line adapter in lieu of the tubing connector. Figure C-2 is a schematic
drawing of the impactor, in-line adapter, and 90 sampling probe.

C-4
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

Impactor stages
with substrates
and filter

In-line
adapter

_J^>\
90 sample
probe

N
\
*

Figure C-2. Schematic of the impactor, in-line adapter, and 90 sample probe.
Figure C-3 shows a schematic of the EPA Method 5 sample train.
THERMOCOUPLE
AND/OR
THERMOMETER

HOT BOX

THERMOCOUPLE
OR
THERMOMETER

PROBE 8 SAMPLE
NOZZLE

CHECK
VALVE
QUICK
CONNECT

UMBILICAL
CORD
QUICK
CONNECT

Figure C-3. Schematic of the EPA Method 5 sample train


(From Graseby Anderson)

C-5
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

For this investigation, the impactor set-up shown in figure C-2 is attached to the sampling
probe instead of the nozzle shown in figure C-3. In addition, the cyclone set was not used
and there was no filter placed in the filter holder.
The MOUDI is shown in figure C-4.

Figure C-4. The MOUDI impactor


(From Marple et al. 1991)

C-6
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.