Environmental Management

Estimating Air
Emission Rates

Marc Karell, P.E. Stack testing, material balances, emission factors,

Climate Change &
Environmental Services, LLC and engineering equations are the most common
methods that can be used to estimate air emissions.

A
ir pollution is an important public health issue in the
U.S. and worldwide. The World Health Organiza-
tion (WHO) estimated that in 2012, 7 million people
died (about one-eighth of all mortalities) from illnesses
related to exposure to air pollutants (1). In addition to the
human costs, there are also financial costs, including higher
public health care costs associated with increased hospital-
izations, as well as lost productivity. The high frequency
of respiratory ailments, as well as the necessity of wearing
an anti-pollution mask to reduce inhalation of pollutants in
certain countries, is well documented in the news media.
In the U.S., concern over air pollution is significant. A
2015 Gallup poll showed that 38% of Americans were con-
cerned about air pollution “a great deal” (2). A 2013 study
by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) estimated that about 200,000 Americans die pre-
maturely each year because of air pollution, although this
toll is brought on by all sources of air pollution — includ-
ing nonindustrial ones — such as indoor combustion (e.g.,
cooking, home boilers) and mobile sources (e.g., auto­
mobiles, trucks, etc.) (3).
The cost of medical treatment, hospitalizations, and
missed work time due to air-related health issues is stagger-
ing, and borne mainly by the public through government
programs, not by those that cause the exposure. Therefore,
laws over the past decades have been promulgated to reduce
emissions from potential sources to reduce the risk of expo-
sure and adverse health risk. However, there are limits to the
stringency of such rules, because overly stringent rules may
cause costs to rise and encourage facilities to move to loca-
tions with less stringent requirements.
It is critical for a facility to make realistic estimates of
the emissions it produces, which will help in determining
compliance, predicting potential public exposure and health
impacts, and designing effective air pollution control equip-
ment or strategies.
Processes and their emissions are dynamic and emission
rates may continuously vary slightly; hence, we use the term
“estimation” of emissions. The hope is that the estimated
rate either will be reasonably close to the actual emissions
or is conservative enough that it likely will not be exceeded
in practice.

Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  July 2017  www.aiche.org/cep  59
Environmental Management
Many different techniques to estimate emissions are
available. Each has advantages and disadvantages, or is best
suited for a specific process. The user must determine the
best method to estimate the emission rate of the air contami-
nant in question.
Factors to consider when choosing an estimation tech-
nique include:
• appropriateness for the contaminant of interest
• accuracy required
• variability of the process
• cost.
You may need to select a technique that sacrifices some
accuracy for the sake of practicality and cost-effectiveness.
Different techniques may be needed for different operations.
What is most important is to develop a program to regularly
estimate emissions with needed accuracy from different
processes that change over time.
The four major techniques for estimating emission
rates are:
• direct measurement
• material balance
• emission factors
• engineering equations.
Direct measurement of air emission rates
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
other regulatory authorities and industry groups have pub-
lished standards for the direct measurement of regulated air
pollutants from many processes. Commonly known as stack
testing, this is the direct measurement of the contaminant in
question in the exhaust while the operation is taking place.
Regulators often require a facility to perform such a test to
demonstrate compliance with an emission limit in an operat-
ing permit or regulatory standard.
Performing a stack test that meets a published standard is
technically complex. If your company is required to perform
one, I strongly urge you to hire a testing firm experienced
in the specific methods required. This article gives general
background information about direct measurement of air
pollutants; this information by itself should not be used to
perform tests, but should help you work effectively with a
testing contractor.
Direct measurement involves collecting a represen-
tative sample of gas from the exhaust or stack during
process operation, pretreating the gas sample to remove
any components that may interfere with the testing, and
performing a chemical analysis to measure the concentra-
tion of the compound of interest. Simultaneously measuring
the exhaust flowrate enables conversion of concentration
into an emission rate (typically in pounds per hour). Quality
assurance (QA) and/or quality control (QC) procedures
accompany each step.
60  www.aiche.org/cep  July 2017  CEP
The basic direct testing methodology
The basis of direct measurement is the group of proce-
dures published by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
(4). Appendix A contains several dozen methods. Virtually
all U.S. regulatory agencies recognize these methods. These
methods contain precise standards for performing the
procedure, with QA/QC steps, and specify which data
to record. Not following the procedure to the letter seri-
ously risks the integrity of the results and jeopardizes their
approval.
The general procedure for collecting a sample from
an exhaust stack for analysis is found in Methods 1–5, as
are guidelines on setting up a testing train. Figure 1 is a
schematic of a typical train (this particular setup is used to
measure particulate matter emissions) (5).
Every stack testing method involves inserting a testing
probe into a hole in the exhaust or stack. The end of the
probe must have an opening to allow the collection of some
exhaust flow. This flow moves through the inside of the
probe, typically through an area that pretreats the exhaust
sample before it is tested for the contaminant of concern.
The sample must be maintained at 248 ± 25°F (measured by
a thermocouple) to prevent condensation.
Trains contain an S-type pitot tube to measure stack gas
velocity by detecting a pressure difference proportional to
velocity. Given the velocity and the stack diameter, flowrate
is estimated and combined with contaminant concentration
to determine a mass emission rate.
In most trains, the sample then flows through a heated
filter box to remove particulate matter. This is necessary for
measuring particulate emissions or removing particulates
that may interfere with analysis of the desired compound.
The sample typically then flows through impinger tubes
containing chemicals that remove and measure specific
compounds. In most cases, the tubes are chilled by ice to
condense out water. The gas sample leaving the impingers
can then be directed to the appropriate analyzer to measure
the concentration of the subject compound. A pump trans-
ports the sample at a uniform rate throughout the system. A
centralized control box allows monitoring and adjustment of
flow, temperature, etc.
Method 1 contains guidance for the selection of sam-
pling ports and traverse points for acceptable sampling of a
representative aliquot of exhaust. A key concern is col-
lecting a uniform sample over time. The placement of the
probe within the exhaust is less important when measuring a
gaseous compound than particulate matter, because the gas
concentration is generally uniform across the pipe’s diame-
ter. However, the samples should not be taken from a section
of exhaust exhibiting cyclonic or swirling flow. (Method 1
contains procedures for determining whether cyclonic or
swirling flow exists.)
Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Tube location is critical for measuring particulate mat-
ter because particulates are not equally mixed within the
exhaust. Particle flow is slowest along and near stack walls
and fastest (and held up less) in the center of the stack.
Therefore, to collect a true representative sample of par-
ticles, the probe must be moved in stages during the test
— from just inside the wall to the center of the exhaust —
based on an equation presented in Method 1.
Disturbances in flow, such as pipe bends, contractions,
or expansions, will also affect particulate concentration.
Ideally, a probe should be placed at least eight pipe diam-
eters downstream and two diameters upstream of any such
disturbance. The probe must be adjusted during the sample
collection period to collect exhaust throughout the interior
of the duct. The locations where the probe should be placed
are called traverse points. The EPA methodology contains
separate tables for particulate collection and non-particulate
collection, from circular and rectangular stacks.
Method 2 contains the procedure for measuring exhaust
velocity and volumetric flowrate.
Method 5 contains guidance for measuring particulate
matter (PM) from two sources: filterable PM and condens-
able PM (the latter is found condensed in impingers down-
stream of the filter). Typically, the PM measured in both
locations must be combined. Other Method 5 procedures
exist for specific circumstances from specific source types
(i.e., wood heaters, asphalt industry, etc.). Methods 201 and
202 are tests that should be considered for ultrafine PM.
The integrity of any test depends on ensuring the
sampling train is a closed system with minimal outside
(clean) air leakage, which would dilute the concentration of
the contaminant in the exhaust sample. It is critical that all
connections in the sampling train are fully fitted and sealed,
normally with silicone grease. Method 5 requires — and
other methods recommend — that a leak check be per-
formed before and after the sampling event to determine the
degree of leakage. If leakage exceeds the allowable amount
specified in the method, the test run is invalid.
Most of the remaining Appendix A methods pertain to
the measurement of gaseous contaminants (Table 1). There
are also methods for measuring other contaminants, such
as specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals.
For these methods, the sample is typically collected through
a heated probe and is pretreated to remove compounds that

Temperature Sensor
Optional Impinger Train, May Be Replaced
by an Equivalent Condenser
Probe

Type S Pitot Temperature

Tube Sensor Temperature
Sensor
Temperature
Sensor Heat-Traced Impingers
Gooseneck Glass-Lined
Nozzle Probe
Check
Valve

Glass Filter
Holder Ice
Water
Type S Pitot Bath
Tube Heated Area Vacuum
Stack Line
Wall Manometer Water
Temperature Empty Silica
Sensors Gel
Vacuum
Gage
Orifice

Bypass Main Valve

Valve
Dry Gas Meter

Airtight
Pump

p Figure 1. A typical process train to measure particulate matter emissions has a heated filter box and impinger tubes to measure the presence of specific
compounds. Source: Adapted from (5).

Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  July 2017  www.aiche.org/cep  61
Environmental Management
may interfere with the analysis. Then the sample enters a
monitor, which measures the content of the contaminant
in question.
Tips on performing a stack test
Performing a stack test is very complicated. Many
things could go wrong or introduce error into the results.
For that reason, virtually all agencies require that emissions
be reported as an average of at least three successful runs,
each of which consists of sufficient sample collection and
a successful leak test. Each run generally spans one hour.
However, for contaminants found at dilute concentrations
(for example, trace metals), a longer sampling time is neces-
sary to collect a sufficient sample to measure.
Because of the complexity of the test methods, most reg-
ulatory agencies require a formal written protocol that must
be approved before the test begins. Normally prepared by
the testing firm, these protocols should list the test methods,
describe the method and sampling equipment thoroughly,
and provide necessary calculations, such as the number and
locations of traverse points.
Once the protocol is approved, the facility and testing
firm should set a mutually agreeable date with the regulatory
agency. It is critical to coordinate testing with plant opera-
tions to ensure that the equipment in question is operating
as intended during the stack test, and any deviations from
standard operating conditions are recorded.
After the field work is complete, a stack test report that
summarizes the methodology, presents the results, and
includes raw data must be submitted to the regulatory agency.
Results are often provided as a concentration or mass
emission rate based on the measured volumetric flow
through the exhaust. A lower limit is often defined below
which the contaminant cannot be measured.
Table 1. The basis of direct measurement of air emissions is
the group of procedures published by the EPA in
40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. These methods contain the
standards for measuring specific contaminants.
Method Contaminant
6 Sulfur Dioxide
7 Nitrogen Oxides
8 Sulfuric Acid and Sulfur Dioxide
10 Carbon Monoxide
11, 15, 16 Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfides
12 Lead
13 Fluoride
18, 24, 25 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
201, 202 PM-10*
*Particulate matter that is 10 µm or less in diameter
62  www.aiche.org/cep  July 2017  CEP
Continuous emission monitoring
An alternative to performing one-time direct measure-
ment is to perform continuous measurement of the con-
taminant using a continuous emissions monitor (CEM,
sometimes referred to as continuous emissions monitor-
ing system). A CEM has many of the same attributes as a
stack test. A probe is inserted in the stack and the sample is
conditioned appropriately before it enters an analyzer for
determination of concentration. A data acquisition system
(DAS) calculates, stores, and organizes data. Typically, the
CEM takes samples at regular intervals and results can be
averaged as needed.
The EPA specifies QA/QC procedures for ensuring a
CEM’s accuracy for compliance purposes. Calibration and
evaluation of drift from zero must be performed daily. Regu-
lar audit testing must be performed at intervals designated
by regulatory requirements, such as running a sample with a
known concentration of the compound being measured and
running a “relative accuracy” test of the subject CEM versus
another, recently calibrated CEM (relative accuracy) at the
same time.
Purchasing (or leasing) and maintaining a CEM is
expensive. It can, however, provide a reliable, consistent
means to evaluate emissions over a short period or a long
period of time and provide information about emissions
through various points in your production cycle.
Direct measurement of air contaminant emission rates
has the major advantage of measuring real-time emissions
during process operation. Disadvantages include its com-
plexity and cost, as well as significant potential cumulative
error associated with the many steps involved in sampling
and analysis.
Particularly given their costs, stack testing and CEM
operation cannot practically be used to measure emissions
from all pieces of equipment in a facility in all process
situations.
Material balance
Whatever quantity of a chemical enters a process or piece
of equipment must either leave that process or piece of equip-
ment, stay within it, or be converted by a chemical reaction
(Figure 2). When you perform a material balance to deter-
mine the quantity of emitted chemical, you can eliminate the
middle option. Therefore, the total quantity of raw material
entering the process must equal the sum of the quantities that
leave it. The material entering the process may be converted
in a chemical reaction, or it can exit the process as:
• product
• liquid or solid waste
• air emissions.
As an alternative to direct measurement of emissions,
you can estimate air emissions by estimating the other
Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
parameters — including the quantity of compound incorpo-
rated into product, chemically converted, contained in solid
waste, and contained in liquid waste.
Typically, the quantity of a compound entering the
process or equipment can be estimated, as can the quantity
leaving as product and in the solid and liquid waste, leaving
the air emissions as the difference. The advantages of this
technique are that it is simple and it avoids the need for
probes and other complex determinations.
The major disadvantage of estimating air emissions via
material balance is its potentially poor accuracy. Often, air
emissions represent the smallest component of the material
balance. Measuring the other components has small, but
discernable, errors in technique, and those errors are com-
pounded in the estimation of the air portion. For example,
if 100 lb of Compound A enters a reactor during a batch
process and 80 lb of that is chemically converted, 12 lb are
found in the solid waste, and 7 lb are found in the waste­
water, a material balance would conclude that the emission
rate is 1 lb of A per 100 lb used. But what if there is a slight
error in those estimates? If 79 lb are incorporated into the
final product instead of 80 (an error of only 1.25%), 11.5 lb
of A was solid waste (an error of 4.1%), and there was a 3%
error in measuring the content of A in the wastewater, then
the balance — the total estimated to be emitted into the air
— would not be 1 lb, but 2.7 lb (an error of 270%).
It is possible to end up with an unreasonably high or
low air emissions estimate because of estimation errors.
The potential error margin is often greater than the quantity
of air emissions.
Therefore, a material balance should only be used for
simple systems in which there are few pathways for the
chemical, the product and waste streams are easy to mea-
sure, and the air emissions component is considerable. For
example, a material balance is acceptable for painting (coat-
ing) processes. All of the solvent VOCs contained in a paint
Air
Raw Material Product
Waste
p Figure 2. The basis for a material balance states that any material
that enters the process must leave the process as product, waste, or air
emissions.
Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
A high emission factor can cause calculated
total facility emissions to be higher than
expected, which can subject the facility to
more stringent regulations.
applied to a substrate will evaporate into the air, leaving
behind the solid. So VOC emissions would equal the entire
solvent portion of the paint used. Solids stay on the sub-
strate, so PM emissions can be estimated by determining the
overspray, i.e., the quantity of paint that misses the substrate
and is potentially captured in the exhaust of the paint spray
booth (taking into consideration any filter control).
Published emission factors
Emission factors are available in the literature for many
process situations and types of equipment. These are often
calculated and published by equipment vendors, trade
associations, the EPA, and other agencies. Many of these
emission factors are published in normalized terms, such as
lb of contaminant per 1,000 gal of a certain fuel combusted,
lb per kW of electricity produced, etc. Manufacturers often
provide an emission factor as a guarantee, which enables the
user to estimate emissions from the equipment and obtain a
permit for the unit.
The EPA has published a compilation of emission factors
for different types of equipment and operations referred to as
AP-42 (the Government Printing Office’s publication num-
ber for the document) (6). Emission factors are also used in
calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The World
Resources Institute (WRI) has published the GHG Protocol
(7), which provides GHG emission factors for different types
of direct and indirect sources. Published emission factors
are revised periodically based on new testing or control
technologies.
Like material balances, the main advantage of emission
factors is their simplicity. To estimate emissions, simply
multiply the emission factor by the rate of usage (e.g., gal-
lons of fuel combusted per year or kW of energy produced).
However, their disadvantage is that they may not be
applicable to specific equipment. For example, AP-42
emission factors are based on dozens of emissions measure-
ments from related equipment. Some of that equipment in
use today is not state-of-the-art and may have been designed
when environmental regulations were less stringent. Equip-
ment vendors often provide emission factors as performance
guarantees; they may wish to set these emission factors high
to better ensure their equipment will meet their guarantee.
Emission factors tend to be conservative (i.e., they
overestimate emissions). Conservative emissions may be a
detriment if a high degree of accuracy is necessary, such as
when a regulatory agency calculates potential exposure and
CEP  July 2017  www.aiche.org/cep  63
Environmental Management
adverse health impacts. A higher emission factor can also
cause calculated total facility emissions to be higher than
expected, which can subject the facility to more stringent
regulations.
Engineering equations
Equations to estimate emissions are typically based on
the process operation, the components’ likely chemical and
physical properties, and the degree of volatilization of con-
taminants during the process step.
Engineering equations are most useful in the chemical
and pharmaceutical industries, because they can determine
the emissions from the myriad steps comprising a process.
The engineering equations for many chemical and phar-
maceutical manufacturing operations can be found in the
Pharmaceutical Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(Pharma MACT) rule, found in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
GGG (8).
Certain process steps in a chemical or pharmaceutical
plant that generate emissions are better suited for estimating
emissions by engineering equations (Figure 3).
Filling (or charging). Filling, or charging, is a common
chemical-emitting step. As a reactor or a tank is filled with
solvent, the volume of solvent being added displaces an
equal volume of vapor from the headspace to the atmo-
sphere. The displaced vapor is laden with the solvent (sol-
vent already in the tank and solvent being added). Therefore,
the emission rate is based on the material filling rate. Charg-
ing solid material into a vessel also displaces headspace,
and will likewise generate emissions. Note that storage
tanks have “breathing” losses, as well. Breathing losses are
the emission of vapor from a tank through expansion and
contraction due to changes in temperature and barometric
pressure, which must be accounted for.
Gas sweep. Equipment may be purged with an inert
gas, such as nitrogen, to remove residual solvent in prepa-
Filling
(Charging) Heating
Gas Sweep Evaporation
Vessel
p Figure 3. Common industrial process operations such as charging,
heating, and sweeping often lead to volatilization.
64  www.aiche.org/cep  July 2017  CEP
ration for the equipment’s reuse. A gas sweep is also used
as a safety measure to prevent buildup of solvent in the
headspace (in cases where the solvent concentration may
approach its lower explosive limit). The sweep gas carries
solvent vapor out of the headspace, and those emissions
are based on the gas sweep rate and vapor pressure of the
components.
Evaporation. Evaporation, or the transfer of a volatile
substance from the liquid phase to the gaseous phase within
the headspace of the tank or reactor, is a common chemical-
emitting step.
Evacuation. Some process steps must be performed
under vacuum. Therefore, the headspace must be evacuated,
removing some or all components.
Heating. Heating components in a reactor causes a
thermal expansion of the liquid, displacing vapor from the
headspace. At a higher temperature, this displaced vapor
contains more solvent than at room temperature.
Drying. Wet chemical or pharmaceutical product is
placed in large ovens (sometimes under vacuum) for final
drying — often for many hours. Most of the solvent is emit-
ted in the initial hours. The emission rate profile is usually an
exponential decay curve.
Gas evolution. In some cases, chemical reactions
form new compounds that escape into the exhaust and
atmosphere.
Most of the equations used to estimate emissions are
derived from the ideal gas law and Raoult’s law. The volume
of gas displaced from the vessel and partial pressure of the
compound must be determined by other equations based on
the chemical’s unique properties and data pertaining to the
process step.
Chemical or pharmaceutical production may involve
hundreds of steps with the potential to emit, as well as
multiple chemicals. Commercial software will allow you
to conveniently input chemical and physical data, perform
the large number of calculations for these many steps and
compounds, and calculate total emission rates. Software can
reduce errors in managing the sheer volume of input data
and recordkeeping. Features to look for in emission estima-
tion software include:
• a comprehensive chemical database, including
Antoine’s constants for calculating vapor pressure at a vari-
ety of temperatures
• an equipment database that allows the user to enter
names and capacities of all process equipment and the effec-
tiveness of air pollution control equipment
• a database of process steps for the operation in ques-
tion that can be edited (this is particularly important, because
process characteristics may change over time)
• an emission model database where the calculations are
recorded for each run.
Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 A major advantage of engineering equations is that,
using the proper software, they can quickly and consistently
determine emission rate data for a large number of steps and
compounds. They are also good for performing “what-if”
analyses (e.g., how would emissions change if a certain step
or compound had to be changed?). The disadvantage is that,
even with software, hundreds of potential emissions steps
necessitate gathering an enormous amount of process data,
which can be difficult and time-consuming.
Tips to improve your emission estimation effort
Identify all steps and phases. It is beneficial to perform a
total review of your processes, including a detailed walk-
through of your plant and review of “recipes” to ensure that
you have accounted for all of the equipment and ancillary
activities related to your processes. I have performed several
emission inventories where operations were done differently
than documented in the operating procedures and equip-
ment was operating that was not present on drawings. Know
where all major exhausts are traveling and understand the
steps that contribute to the development of air emissions.
In terms of estimating total plant emissions, it may
be that your plant manufactures so many products or in
unpredictable quantities (e.g., production based on short-
term customer demand) that it is too challenging to use the
techniques described in this article for every product (e.g., it
Literature Cited
1. World Health Organization, “7 Million Premature Deaths
Annually Linked to Air Pollution,” WHO Media Centre,
www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en
(Mar. 25, 2014).
2. Jones, J. M., “In U.S., Concern About Environmental Threats
Eases,” Gallup, www.gallup.com/poll/182105/concern-environ-
mental-threats-eases.aspx (Mar. 25, 2015).
3. Chu, J., “Air Pollution Causes 200,000 Early Deaths Each Year
in the U.S.,” MIT Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment,
http://lae.mit.edu/air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-
year-in-the-u-s/ (Aug. 29, 2013).
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Method 5 —
Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary
Sources,” U.S. Government Publishing Office.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “AP-42: Compilation
of Air Emission Factors,” AP-42 EPA, Air Emissions Factors and
Quantification (Jan. 1995).
7. World Resources Institute, and World Business Council
for Sustainable Development, “Greenhouse Gas Protocol,”
www.ghgprotocol.org.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission
Standards for Pharmaceuticals Production,” 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart GGG.
Copyright © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
may be too expensive to stack test them all, or there is insuf-
ficient data for engineering equation estimates). You may
need to select only the most commonly manufactured prod-
ucts or the ones that likely result in the greatest emissions to
estimate total plant emissions. Understanding your products
and the steps involved in their production will enable you to
select true representative products to evaluate.
Validate supporting data. Virtually all of the emission
estimation techniques presented in this article depend on
quality data about the process and/or equipment. For direct
measurement, it is important to know all compounds that
might be present in the exhaust and how they might affect
the use of a testing methodology; it is also important to know
about any disturbances in your exhaust piping. When con-
ducting a material balance, accurate measurement of the vari-
ous inputs to and outputs from the process or equipment is
critical. To use emission factors, it is important to ensure that
the factor is correct as applied to your process or equipment
and that there are no extenuating circumstances to invali-
date it. For engineering equations, input data (e.g., chemical
composition, temperature, pressure, etc.) at every stage in the
process are integral to estimating the emission rate.
Your facility may depend on emission results for critical
reporting to a regulatory agency or for meeting emission
reduction goals. Therefore, it is important to do a little extra
homework to ensure that all data used to estimate emissions
is current, transparent, and accurate. It is often helpful to
work with the operators at the plant who have experience
with the process. It might also be helpful to seek outside,
independent review and verification of input data.
Check your emission estimates
After the emission estimates are complete, spend some
time checking them. Perform an initial check to determine
whether or not they make sense. As mentioned earlier, a
material balance that provides an emission rate of zero or
negative should be of immediate concern. With any tech-
nique, human involvement will result in errors, which can
affect results. Review input data where feasible to ensure
that no mis-estimations were made. Revisit estimates
periodically. CEP
MARC KARELL, P.E., CEM, is the founder and principal of the environmental
consulting firm Climate Change & Environmental Services, LLC, located
in Mamaroneck, NY (Email: karell@CCESworld.com; Phone: (914) 584-
6720). He is a licensed Professional Engineer and a Certified Energy
Manager. He has over 25 years of experience in the environmental,
energy, and sustainability fields, working for the U.S. EPA and as an
environmental consultant for industry. His main areas of expertise are
air quality, climate change, carbon footprinting, energy, and sustain-
ability. He earned a BS in biochemistry from New York Univ., an MS
in biochemistry from the Univ. of Wisconsin, and an MS in chemical
engineering from Columbia Univ. He is a member of AIChE and serves
on CEP’s Editorial Advisory Board.
CEP  July 2017  www.aiche.org/cep  65