3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM

3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM2.
5
Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins
Part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter
Emissions Project
Final Report: OSU12-04 Ver. 2.0

December 2012 (Revised June 2013)
Submitted to:
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Study Agency
Cotton Incorporated
Cotton Foundation
National Cotton Ginners Association
Southern Cotton Ginners Association
Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers and Ginners Association
Texas Cotton Ginners Association
Submitted by:
Dr. Michael Buser Mr. J. Clif Boykin
Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Cotton Ginning Research Unit
Engineering USDA Agricultural Research Service
214 Agricultural Hall 111 Experiment Station Road
Stillwater, OK 74078 Stoneville, MS 38776
Dr. Derek Whitelock Dr. Greg Holt

Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Cotton Production and Processing Research
Laboratory Unit
USDA Agricultural Research Service USDA Agricultural Research Service
300 E College Dr. 1604 East FM 1294
Mesilla Park, NM 88047 Lubbock, TX 79403
Ph.D.
ultural Engineering
rsity
ne
Acknowledgments:
Funding Sources:
California Cotton Growers and Ginners Association
Cotton Foundation
Cotton Incorporated
Oklahoma State University
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Study Agency
Texas State Support Group
USDA Agricultural Research Service
Air Quality Advisory Group:

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

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
Cotton Incorporated
National Cotton Council
National Cotton Ginners Association
Texas A&M University Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
ABSTRACT
This report is part of a project to characterize cotton gin emissions from the standpoint of
stack sampling. In 2006, EPA finalized and published a more stringent standard for particulate
matter with nominal diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm (PM2.5). This created an urgent need to
collect additional cotton gin emissions data to address current regulatory issues, because current
EPA AP-42 cotton gin PM2.5 emission factors did not exist. The objective of this study was the
development of PM2.5 emission factors for cotton gin 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems
based on the EPA-approved stack sampling methodology, Method 201A. The project plan
included sampling seven cotton gins across the cotton belt. Key factors for selecting specific
cotton gins included: 1) facility location (geographically diverse), 2) industry representative
production capacity, 3) typical processing systems and 4) equipped with properly designed and
maintained 1D3D cyclones. Two of the seven gins were equipped with 3rd stage seed-cotton
cleaning systems. In terms of capacity, the two gins were typical of the industry, averaging 22.8
bales/h during testing. Some test runs were excluded from the test averages because they failed
to meet EPA Method 201A Test criteria. Also, other test runs, included in the analyses, had
cotton lint fibers that collected in the ≤ 10 µm and/or ≤ 2.5 µm samples. This larger lint material
can impact the reported emissions data, but EPA Method 201A does not suggest methods to
account for these anomalies. Average measured 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5
emission factor based on the two tests (6 total test runs) was 0.0040 kg/227-kg bale (0.0088
lb/500-lb bale). The 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system average emission factors for PM10 and
total particulate were 0.022 kg/bale (0.049 lb/bale) and 0.029 kg/bale (0.063 lb/bale),
respectively. The 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 emission rate from test averages
ranged from 0.073 to 0.11 kg/h (0.16-0.23 lb/h). System average PM10 emission factors were
higher and system average total particulate emission factors were lower than those currently
published in EPA AP-42. The ratios of 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 to total
particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, and PM10 to total particulate were 13.8, 18.0, and 76.5%,
respectively.
INTRODUCTION
In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a more stringent
standard for particulate matter with a particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5-µm
Page 1 of 54
(PM2.5) aerodynamic equivalent diameter (CFR, 2006). The cotton industry’s primary concern
with this standard was that there were no published cotton gin PM2.5 emissions data. Cotton
ginners’ associations across the cotton belt, including the National, Texas, Southern,
Southeastern, and California associations, agreed that there was an urgent need to collect PM2.5
cotton gin emissions data to address the implementation of the PM2.5 standards. Working with
cotton ginning associations across the country and state and federal regulatory agencies,
Oklahoma State University and USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) researchers
developed a proposal and sampling plan that was initiated in 2008 to address this need for
additional data. This report is part of a series that detail cotton gin particulate emissions
measured by stack sampling. Each manuscript in the series addresses a specific cotton ginning
system. The systems covered in the series include: unloading, 1st stage seed-cotton cleaning, 2nd
stage seed-cotton cleaning, 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning, overflow, 1st stage lint cleaning, 2nd
stage lint cleaning, combined lint cleaning, cyclone robber, 1st stage mote, 2nd stage mote,
combined mote, mote cyclone robber, mote cleaner, mote trash, battery condenser and master
trash. This report focuses on PM2.5 emissions from 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems.
There are published PM10 (particulate matter with a particle diameter less than or equal to
a nominal 10-µm aerodynamic equivalent diameter) and total particulate emission factors for
cotton gins in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42 (EPA, 1996a,
1996b); however, there are no PM2.5,emission factors. The AP-42 average PM10 emission factor
for the No. 3 dryer and cleaner was 0.015 kg (0.033 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale with
a range of 0.014 to 0.016 kg (0.030-0.035 lb) per bale. The AP-42 average total particulate
emission factor for the No. 3 dryer and cleaner was 0.043 kg (0.095 lb) per bale with a range of
0.041 to 0.045 kg (0.091-0.099 lb) per bale. These PM10 and total factors were based on two tests
and were assigned EPA emission factor quality ratings of D; the second lowest possible rating
(EPA, 1996a).
Seed cotton is a perishable commodity that has no real value until the fiber and seed are
separated (Wakelyn et al., 2005). Cotton must be processed or ginned at the cotton gin to
separate the fiber and seed, producing 227-kg (500-lb) bales of marketable cotton fiber. Cotton
ginning is considered an agricultural process and an extension of the harvest by several federal
and state agencies (Wakelyn et al., 2005). Although the main function of the cotton gin is to
remove the lint fiber from the seed, many other processes also occur during ginning, such as
Page 2 of 54
cleaning, drying, and packaging the lint. Pneumatic conveying systems are the primary method
of material handling in the cotton gin. As material reaches a processing point, the conveying air
is separated and emitted outside the gin through a pollution control device. The amount of dust
emitted by a system varies with the process and the condition of the material in the process.
Cotton ginning is a seasonal industry with the ginning season lasting from 75 to 120 days,
depending on the size and condition of the crop. Although the trend for U.S. cotton production
remained generally flat at about 17 million bales per year during the last 20 years, production
from one year to the next often varied greatly for various reasons, including climate and market
pressure (Fig. 1). The number of active gins in the U.S. has not remained constant, steadily
declining to less than 700 in 2011. Consequently, the average volume of cotton handled by each
gin has risen and gin capacity has increased to an average of about 25 bales per hour across the
U.S. cotton belt (Valco et al., 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012).
Figure 1. Annual U.S. cotton production, active U.S. gins, and average ginning volume (bales per gin)
(NASS, 1993-2012).
Typical cotton gin processing systems include: unloading system, dryers, seed-cotton
Page 3 of 54
cleaners, gin stands, overflow collector, lint cleaners, battery condenser, bale packaging system,
and trash handling systems (Fig. 2); however, the number and type of machines and processes
can vary. Each of these systems serves a unique function with the ultimate goal of ginning the
cotton to produce a marketable product. Raw seed cotton harvested from the field is compacted
into large units called “modules” for delivery to the gin. The unloading system removes seed
cotton either mechanically or pneumatically from the module feed system and conveys the seed
cotton to the seed-cotton cleaning systems. Seed-cotton cleaning systems dry the seed cotton and
remove foreign matter prior to ginning. Ginning systems also remove foreign matter and separate
the cotton fiber from the seed. Lint cleaning systems further clean the cotton lint after ginning.
The battery condenser and packaging systems combine lint from the lint cleaning systems and
compress the lint into dense bales for efficient transport. Gin systems produce some type of by-
products or trash, such as rocks, soil, sticks, hulls, leaf material, and short or tangled immature
fiber (motes), as a result of processing the seed cotton or lint. These streams of by-products must
be removed from the machinery and handled by trash collection systems. These trash systems
typically further process the by-products (e.g., mote cleaners) and/or consolidate the trash from
the gin systems into a hopper or pile for subsequent removal.
The seed cotton is cleaned and dried in the seed-cotton cleaning systems. In the typical
3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system (Fig. 3), seed cotton drops from the 2nd stage seed-cotton
cleaning system machinery into the hot air pneumatic conveying system of the 3rd stage seed-
cotton cleaning system via a rotary airlock and blowbox. The seed cotton is pulled directly into
the seed-cotton cleaning machinery and separated from the conveying airstream by the cleaning
mechanism (called a “hot-air” cleaner) or separated from the conveying air via a screened
separator and dropped into the cleaning machinery. Seed-cotton cleaning machinery includes
cleaners or extractors. This system removes foreign matter that includes rocks, soil, sticks, hulls,
and leaf material. The airstream from the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system continues through
a centrifugal fan to an abatement system; generally one or more cyclones. This cleaning system
may use air heated up to 117ºC (350ºF) at the seed cotton and air mixing point to accomplish
drying during transport (ASABE, 2007). Based on system configuration, the airstream
temperature at the abatement device could range from ambient to about 50% of the mixing-point
temperature. The material handled by the abatement system is typically the same as that removed
by the seed-cotton cleaning machinery (rocks, soil, sticks, hulls, and leaf material) and lint
Page 4 of 54
extracted with the trash (Fig. 4).
Figure 2. Typical modern cotton gin layout (Courtesy Lummus Corp., Savannah, GA).
Figure 3. Typical cotton gin 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning Figure 4. Photograph of typical
system layout (Courtesy Lummus Corp., Savannah, GA). trash captured by the 3rd stage
seed-cotton cleaning system
cyclones.
Cyclones are the most common particulate matter abatement devices used at cotton gins.
Page 5 of 54
Standard cyclone designs used at cotton ginning facilities are the 2D2D and 1D3D (Whitelock et
al., 2009). The first D in the designation indicates the length of the cyclone barrel relative to the
cyclone barrel diameter and the second D indicates the length of the cyclone cone relative to the
cyclone barrel diameter. A standard 2D2D cyclone (Fig. 5) has an inlet height of D/2 and width
of D/4 and design inlet velocity of 15.2 ± 2 m/s (3000 ± 400 fpm). The standard 1D3D cyclone
(Fig. 5) has the same inlet dimensions as the 2D2D or may have the original 1D3D inlet with
height of D and width D/8. Also, it has a design inlet velocity of 16.3 ± 2 m/s (3200 ± 400 fpm).
Figure 5. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics.
The objective of this study was the development of PM2.5 emission factors for cotton gin
3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems with cyclones for emissions control based on EPA-
approved stack sampling methodologies.
METHODS
Page 6 of 54
Two advisory groups were established for this project. The industry group consisted of
cotton ginning industry leaders and university and government researchers. The air quality group
included members from state and federal regulatory agencies and university and government
researchers. Both groups were formed to aid in project planning, gin selection, data analyses, and
reporting. The project plan was described in detail by Buser et al. (2012).
Seven cotton gins were sampled across the cotton belt. Key factors for selecting specific
cotton gins included: 1) facility location (geographically diverse), 2) industry representative
production capacity, 3) typical processing systems, and 4) equipped with properly designed and
maintained 1D3D cyclones. Operating permits, site plans, and aerial photographs were reviewed
to evaluate potential sites. On-site visits were conducted on all candidate gins to evaluate the
process systems and gather information including system condition, layout, capacities, and
standard operation. Using this information, several gins from each selected geographical region
were selected and prioritized based on industry advisory group discussions. Final gin selection
from the prioritized list was influenced by crop limitations and adverse weather events in the
region.
Based on air quality advisory group consensus, EPA Other Test Method 27 (OTM27)
was used to sample the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system at each gin. When testing for this
project began in 2008, OTM27 was the EPA method for determination of PM10 and PM2.5 from
stationary sources. In December 2010, OTM27 was replaced with a revised and finalized Method
201A (CFR, 2010). The revised Method 201A was a successor to OTM27. The two methods
were similar to the point that EPA stated in an answer to a frequently asked question for Method
201A (EPA, 2010) that “If the source was using OTM 27 (and 28) for measuring either PM10 or
PM2.5 then using the revised reference methods Method 201A (and 202) should not be a concern
and should give equivalent results.” Accordingly, OTM27 is no longer an EPA method that can
be cited, and the revised Method 201A will be cited in this manuscript. Using Method 201A to
sample PM2.5, the particulate-laden stack gas was withdrawn isokinetically (the velocity of the
gas entering the sampler was equal to the velocity of the gas in the stack) through a PM10 sizing
cyclone and a PM2.5 sizing cyclone, and then collected on an in-stack filter (Fig. 6). The methods
for retrieving the filter and conducting acetone washes of the sizing cyclones are described in
detail in Method 201A (CFR, 2010). The mass of each size fraction was determined by
gravimetric analysis and included: > 10 µm (PM10 sizing cyclone catch acetone wash); 10 to 2.5
Page 7 of 54
µm (PM10 sizing cyclone exit acetone wash and PM2.5 sizing cyclone catch acetone wash); and ≤
2.5 µm (PM2.5 sizing cyclone exit acetone wash and filter). The PM2.5 mass was determined by
adding the mass of particulates captured on the filter and the ≤ 2.5 µm wash. The PM10 mass was
determined by adding the PM2.5 mass and the mass of the 10 to 2.5 µm wash. Total particulate
was determined by adding the PM10 mass and the mass of the > 10 µm wash.
Figure 7 shows the performance curves for the PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones. To
measure both PM10 and PM2.5, Method 201A requires selecting a gas sampling rate in the middle
of the overlap zone of the performance curves for both sizing cyclones. For this study, the
method was specifically used to collect filterable PM2.5 emissions (solid particles emitted by a
source at the stack and captured in the ≤ 2.5 µm wash and on the filter [CFR, 2010]). The PM10
sizing cyclone was used to scrub larger particles from the airstream to minimize their impact on
the PM2.5 sizing cyclone. Thus, the gas sampling rate was targeted to optimize the PM2.5 cyclone
performance.
Only one stack from each 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system was tested. For systems
with multiple stacks, it was assumed that emissions from each stack of the system were
equivalent and the total emissions were calculated by multiplying the measured emission rates by
the total number of cyclones used to control the process tested (EPA, 1996a). To obtain reliable
results, the same technician from the same certified stack sampling company (Reliable Emissions
Measurements, Auberry, CA), trained and experienced in stack sampling cotton gins, conducted
the tests at all seven cotton gins.
Page 8 of 54
Figure 7. Acceptable sampling rate for combined cyclone heads (CFR, 2010). Cyclone I = PM10
sizing cyclone and Cyclone IV = PM2.5 sizing cyclone (Gas temperatures for the 3rd stage seed-cotton
cleaning systems tested ranged from 26 to 50oC [79-123oF]).
All stack sampling equipment, including the sizing cyclones, was purchased from Apex
Instruments (Fuquay-Varina, NC) and met specifications of Method 201A. The sampling media
were 47 mm Zefluor filters (Pall Corporation, Port Washington, NY) and the sample recovery
and analytical reagent was American Chemical Society certified acetone (A18-4, Fisher
Chemical, Pittsburgh, PA – assay ≥ 99.5%)). Filters and wash tubs and lids were pre-labeled and
pre-weighed and stored in sealed containers at the USDA-ARS Air Quality Lab (AQL) in
Lubbock, TX, and then transported to each test site. Prior to testing, the certified stack testing
technician conducted calibrations and checks on all of the stack sampling equipment according
to EPA Method 201A.
Each cyclone tested was fitted with a cyclone stack extension that incorporated two
sampling ports (90° apart) and airflow straightening vanes to eliminate the cyclonic flow of the
air exiting the cyclone (Fig. 8). The extensions were designed to meet EPA criteria (EPA, 1989)
with an overall length of 3 m (10 ft) and sampling ports 1.2-m (48-in) downstream from the
straightening vanes and 0.9-m (36-in) upstream from the extension exit.
Page 9 of 54
Figure 8. Schematic and photographs of stack extensions with sampling ports and staightening vanes
(rail attached to extension above sampling port, at right, supports sampling probe during testing
traverse).
The tests were conducted by the certified stack sampling technician in an enclosed
sampling trailer at the base of the cyclone bank (Fig. 9). Sample retrieval, including filters and
sampler head acetone washes, was conducted according to Method 201A. After retrieval, filters
were sealed in individual Petri dishes and acetone washes were dried on-site in a conduction
oven at 49°C (120°F) and then sealed with pre-weighed lids and placed in individual plastic bags
for transport to the AQL in Lubbock, TX for gravimetric analyses. During testing, bale data (ID
number, weight, and date/time of bale pressing) were either manually recorded by the bale press
operator or captured electronically by the gin’s computer system for use in calculating emission
factors in terms of kg/227-kg bale (lb/500-lb bale). Emission factors and rates were calculated in
accordance with Method 201A and ASAE Standard S582 (ASABE, 2005).
All laboratory analyses were conducted at the AQL. All filters were conditioned in an
environmental chamber (21 ± 2oC [70 ± 3.6oF]; 35 ± 5% RH) for 48 h prior to gravimetric
analyses. Filters were weighed in the environmental chamber on a Mettler MX-5 microbalance
(Mettler-Toledo Inc., Columbus, OH – 1 µg readability and 0.9 µg repeatability) after being
Page 10 of 54
passed through an anti-static device. The MX-5 microbalance was leveled on a marble table and
housed inside an acrylic box to minimize the effects of air currents and vibrations. To reduce
recording errors, weights were digitally transferred from the microbalance directly to a
spreadsheet. Technicians wore latex gloves and a particulate respirator mask to avoid
contamination. AQL procedures required that each sample be weighed three times. If the
standard deviation of the weights for a given sample exceeded 10 μg, the sample was reweighed.
Gravimetric procedures for the acetone wash tubs were the same as those used for filters.
Figure 9. Clockwise from top right: cotton gin stack sampling with air quality lab trailer and
technicians on lifts; certified stack sampling technician in the trailer control room conducting tests;
sample recovery in trailer clean room; technician operating the probe at stack level.
In addition to gravimetric analyses, each sample was visually inspected for unusual
characteristics, such as cotton lint content or extraneous material. Digital pictures were taken of
all filters and washes for documentation purposes prior to further analyses. After the laboratory
analyses were completed all stack sampling, cotton gin production, and laboratory data were
merged.
Page 11 of 54
RESULTS
Two of the seven gins were equipped with 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems. The 3rd
stage seed-cotton cleaning systems sampled at gins A and C were typical for the industry. The 3rd
stage seed-cotton cleaning systems at gin A utilized two, separate and parallel, systems (Fig. 10).
In each of these parallel systems, the seed-cotton material was pneumatically conveyed from the
2nd stage seed-cotton cleaning system with heated air through a dryer to a seed-cotton cleaner.
The material was separated from the airstream by the cleaner. The air from each of the parallel
3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems then passed through separate fans and exhausted through
separate cyclones. Gin C also utilized two, parallel 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems with
single cleaners, except there were no dryers before the cleaners (Fig. 11).
Both 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems sampled utilized 1D3D cyclones to control
emissions (Fig. 5), but there were some cyclone design variations among the gins (Table 1 and
Fig. 12). Gin C split the system exhaust flow between two cyclones in a dual configuration (side-
by-side as opposed to one-behind-another). The system airstream for gin A was exhausted
through a single cyclone. Inlets on the gin A and C 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning cyclones were
inverted 1D3D and 2D2D inlets, respectively. Expansion chambers were present on 3rd stage
seed-cotton cleaning cyclones at both gins. All of the cyclone variations outlined above, if
properly designed and maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin emissions
(Whitelock et al., 2009).
Table 2 shows the test parameters for each Method 201A test run for the 3rd stage seed-
cotton cleaning systems sampled at the two gins. The system average ginning rate was 22.8
bales/h and the test average ginning rate at each gin ranged from 21.7 to 23.8 bales/h (based on
227-kg [500-lb] equivalent bales). The capacity of gins sampled was representative of the
industry average, approximately 25 bales/h. The 1D3D cyclones were all operated with inlet
velocities within design criteria, 16.3 ± 2 m/s (3200 ± 400 fpm), except the second run at gin A
that was outside the design range due to limitations in available system adjustments.
Page 12 of 54
Figure 10. Schematic of split stream, single cleaner 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system with dryer
(gin A).
Figure 11. Schematic of split stream, single cleaner 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system without
dryer (gin C).
Table 1. Abatement device configuration for 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems tested.
Cyclone Inlet Systems Cyclones Trash
z y
Gin Type Design per Gin per Gin Configuration Cone Design exits to
expansion
A 1D3D inverted 1D3D 2 2 single hopper
chamber
expansion
C 1D3D 2D2D 2 4 dual hopper
chamber
z
Inverted 1D3D inlet has duct in line with the bottom of the inlet
y
Systems to remove material from cyclone trash exits: hopper = large storage container directly under
cyclone trash exit
Page 13 of 54
Figure 12. Cyclone design variations for the tested systems (left to right): dual configuration that
splits flow between identical 1D3D cyclones with 2D2D inlets; 1D3D cyclone with an inverted 1D3D
inlet; and 1D3D cyclone with 2D2D inlet and expansion chamber on the cone.
Table 2. Cotton gin production data and stack sampling performance metrics for the 3rd stage
seed-cotton cleaning systems.
Cyclone
Ginning Inlet Isokinetic Aerodynamic Cut Sampling Stack
Test Rate, Velocity, Sampling, Size D50, Ratey Temperture
PM10,
Gin Run bales/hz m/s fpm % PM2.5, µm µm slpm scfm °C °F
A 1 24.7 17.9 3528 101 2.54 11.1x 11.4 0.403 26 79
2 23.5 18.3 3611 98 2.57 11.2x 11.3 0.399 26 79
3 23.2 18.0 3536 110 2.29 10.5 12.4 0.438 27 80
Test Average 23.8 18.1 3558
C 1 21.9 16.6 3260 101 2.37 10.8 12.3 0.436 50 123

2 19.4 16.8 3302 99 2.39 10.9 12.2 0.431 49 121
3 23.9 16.4 3230 105 2.30 10.6 12.6 0.446 50 122
Test Average 21.7 16.6 3264
System
Average 22.8 17.3 3411
z
227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales
y
slpm = standard l/m, scfm = standard ft3/m
x
Did not meet PM10 (10.0 ± 1.0 µm) aerodynamic cut size criteria
There are criteria specified in EPA Method 201A for test runs to be valid for PM2.5,
PM10, or total particulate measurements (CFR, 2010). Isokinetic sampling must fall within EPA
defined ranges (100 ± 20%) for valid PM2.5 and PM10 test runs. All tests met the isokinetic
criteria (Table 2). To use Method 201A to also obtain total filterable particulate, sampling must
be within 90 to 110% of isokinetic flow. This criterion was met for all test runs. The PM2.5
Page 14 of 54
aerodynamic cut size must fall within EPA defined ranges (2.50 ± 0.25 µm) for valid PM2.5 test
runs. All test runs met the PM2.5 aerodynamic cut size criteria. The PM10 aerodynamic cut size
must fall within EPA defined ranges (10.0 ± 1.0 µm) for valid PM10 test runs. PM10 cut size
criteria were not met in test run one and two for gin A, thus the data associated with these runs
were omitted from the PM10 test averages.
Sampling rates ranged from 11.3 to 12.6 standard l/min (0.40-0.45 standard ft3/min)
(Table 2). The stack gas temperatures ranged from 26 to 50oC (79-123oF). The sampling method
documentation (CFR, 2010) warns that the acceptable gas sampling rate range is limited at the
stack gas temperatures encountered during this project’s testing, as indicated by the narrow
difference between the solid lines in Figure 7 for the temperatures listed above. These stack gas
characteristics justified targeting the PM2.5 cut size criteria and treating the PM10 cut size criteria
as secondary.
PM2.5 emissions data (ginning and emission rates and corresponding emission factors) for
the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems are shown in Table 3. The system average PM2.5
emission factor was 0.0040 kg/bale (0.0088 lb/bale). The test average emission factors at each
gin ranged from 0.0031 to 0.0049 kg (0.0068-0.011 lb) per bale and PM2.5 emission rates ranged
from 0.073 to 0.11 kg/h (0.16-0.23 lb/h). PM10 emissions data (ginning and emission rates and
corresponding emission factors) for the 3rd seed-cotton cleaning systems are shown in Table 4.
The system average PM10 emission factor was 0.022 kg/bale (0.049 lb/bale). The test average
emission factors ranged from 0.0090 to 0.035 kg (0.020-0.077 lb) per bale and emission rates
ranged from 0.21 to 0.76 kg/h (0.46-1.67 lb/h). Total particulate emissions data (ginning and
emission rates and corresponding emission factors) for the 3rd seed-cotton cleaning systems are
shown in Table 5. The system average total particulate emission factor was 0.029 kg/bale (0.063
lb/bale). The test average emission factors ranged from 0.013 to 0.044 kg (0.029-0.098 lb) per
bale. Test average total particulate emission rates ranged from 0.32 to 0.96 kg/h (0.70-2.12 lb/h).
The ratios of PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, and PM10 to total particulate were 13.8,
18.0, and 76.5%, respectively (ratios calculated using tables 3, 4, and 5 may vary slightly from
those listed due to rounding).
Page 15 of 54
Table 3. PM2.5 emissions data for the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems.
Emission Rate, Emission Factor,
Gin Test Run kg/h lb/h kg/balez lb/balez
A 1 0.07 0.16 0.0029 0.0064
2 0.10 0.23 0.0044 0.010
3 0.05 0.10 0.0019 0.0043
Test Average (n=3) 0.07 0.16 0.0031 0.0068
C 1 0.10 0.21 0.0044 0.010

2 0.10 0.21 0.0049 0.011
3 0.12 0.27 0.0052 0.012
Test Average (n=3) 0.11 0.23 0.0049 0.011
System Average (n=2) 0.0040 0.0088

z
Table 4. PM10 emissions data for the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems.
A 1y 0.22 0.47 0.0087 0.019
2y 0.29 0.64 0.012 0.027
3 0.21 0.46 0.0090 0.020
Test Average (n=1) 0.21 0.46 0.0090 0.020
C 1 0.66 1.45 0.030 0.066

2 0.75 1.66 0.039 0.086
3 0.86 1.90 0.036 0.080
Test Average (n=3) 0.76 1.67 0.035 0.077

z
y
Test run omitted from test averages because the aerodynamic cut size (10.0 ± 1.0 µm) was not met
The 3rd seed-cotton cleaning system total particulate emission factor average for this project was
about 66.8% of the EPA AP-42 published value for the No. 3 dryer and cleaner (EPA, 1996a,
1996b), which is an equivalent system to the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system. The range of
test average total particulate emission factors determined for this project and the range of AP-42
emission factor data overlapped. The 3rd seed-cotton cleaning system PM10 emission factor
average for this project was 1.47 times the EPA AP-42 published value for the No. 3 dryer and
cleaner. The test average PM10 emission factor range encompassed the AP-42 emission factor
data range.
Page 16 of 54
Table 5. Total particulate emissions data for the 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems.
A 1 0.28 0.62 0.011 0.025
2 0.37 0.82 0.016 0.035
3 0.30 0.65 0.013 0.028
Test Average (n=3) 0.32 0.70 0.013 0.029
C 1 0.87 1.91 0.040 0.087

2 0.90 1.98 0.046 0.102
3 1.12 2.48 0.047 0.104
Test Average (n=3) 0.96 2.12 0.044 0.098

z
Figure 13 shows an example of samples recovered from a typical 3rd stage seed-cotton
cleaning system test run. Often, there were cotton lint fibers, which have cross-sectional
diameters much greater than 2.5 µm, in the cotton gin cyclone exhausts. Therefore, it was not
unusual to find lint fiber in the > 10 µm wash from Method 201A. However, in the test run
shown, lint fibers passed through the PM10 cyclone and collected in the 10 to 2.5 µm wash. This
type of material carryover can bias the gravimetric measurements and impact reported PM10
emissions data. EPA Method 201A does not suggest methods to account for these anomalies.
Thus, no effort was made to adjust the data reported in this manuscript to account for these
issues.
Figure 13. EPA Method 201A filter and sampler head acetone washes from the 3rd stage
seed-cotton cleaning system with lint in the 10 to 2.5 µm wash. Clockwise from top left:
> 10 µm wash, 10 to 2.5 µm wash, ≤ 2.5 µm wash, and filter.
Page 17 of 54
SUMMARY
Seven cotton gins across the U.S. cotton belt were stack sampled using EPA Method
201A to fill the data gap that exists for PM2.5 cotton gin emissions data. Two of the seven gins
were equipped with 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems. The tested systems were similar in
design and typical of the ginning industry. All the systems were equipped with 1D3D cyclones
for emissions control with some slight variations in inlet and cone design. In terms of capacity,
the two gins were typical of the industry; averaging 22.8 bales/h during testing. Some test runs
were excluded from the test averages because they failed to meet EPA Method 201A Test
criteria. Also, other test runs, included in the analyses, had cotton lint fibers that collected in the
≤ 10 µm and/or ≤ 2.5 µm samples. This larger lint material can impact the reported emissions
data, but EPA Method 201A does not suggest methods to account for these anomalies. Average
measured 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 emission factor based on the two gins
tested (6 total test runs) was 0.0040 kg/227-kg bale (0.0088 lb/500-lb bale). The 3rd stage seed-
cotton cleaning system emission factors for PM10 and total particulate were 0.022 kg/bale (0.049
lb/bale) and 0.029 kg/bale (0.063 lb/bale), respectively. The gin test average PM2.5, PM10 and
total particulate emission rates ranged from 0.073 to 0.11 kg/h (0.16-0.23 lb/h), 0.21 to 0.76 kg/h
(0.46-1.67 lb/h) and 0.32 to 0.96 kg/h (0.70-2.12 lb/h), respectively. System average PM10
emission factors were higher and system average total particulate emission factors were lower
than those currently published in EPA AP-42. The ratios of 3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning system
PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, and PM10 to total particulate were 13.8, 18.0, and
76.5%, respectively. These data are the first published data to document PM2.5 emissions from
3rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems at cotton gins.
Page 18 of 54
REFERENCES
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). 2005. Cotton Gins—
Method of Utilizing Emission Factors in Determining Emission Parameters. ASAE S582,
March 2005. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). 2007. Temperature
Sensor Locations for Seed-Cotton Drying Systems. ASAE S530.1, August 2007.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Buser, M.D., D.P. Whitelock, J.C. Boykin, and G.A. Holt. 2012. Characterization of cotton gin
particulate matter emissions—Project plan. J. Cotton Sci. 16:105–116.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2006. National ambient air quality standards for particulate
matter; final rule. 40 CFR, Part 50. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2010. Method 201A—Determination of PM10and
PM2.5emissions from stationary sources (Constant sampling rate procedure). 40 CFR 51,
Appendix M. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-201a.pdf (verified 19
Aug. 2013).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Particulate sampling in cyclonic flow. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-008.pdf (verified 19 Aug. 2013).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. Emission factor documentation for AP-42,
Section 9.7, Cotton Ginning (EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159; MRI Project No. 4603-01,
Apr. 1996). Publ. AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996b. Food and agricultural industries: Cotton gins.
In Compilation of air pollution emission factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources. Publ. AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Frequently asked questions (FAQS) for Method
201A [Online]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method201a.html
(verified 19 Aug. 2013).
Page 19 of 54
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).1993-2012. Cotton Ginnings Annual Summary
[Online]. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Available at
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1042
(verified 19 Aug. 2013).
Valco, T.D., H. Ashley, J.K. Green, D.S. Findley, T.L. Price, J.M. Fannin, and R.A. Isom. 2012.
The cost of ginning cotton—2010 survey results. p. 616–619 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton
Conf., Orlando, FL. 3-6 Jan. 2012. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
Valco, T.D., B. Collins, D.S. Findley, J.K. Green, L. Todd, R.A. Isom, and M.H. Wilcutt. 2003.
The cost of ginning cotton—2001 survey results. p. 662–670 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton
Conf., Nashville, TN. 6-10 Jan. 2003. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
Valco, T.D., J.K. Green, R.A. Isom, D.S. Findley, T.L. Price, and H. Ashley. 2009. The cost of
ginning cotton – 2007 survey results. p. 540–545 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San
Antonio, TX. 5-8 Jan. 2009. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
Valco, T.D., J.K. Green, T.L. Price, R.A. Isom, and D.S. Findley. 2006. Cost of ginning cotton –
2004 survey results. p. 618–626 In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, TX. 3-6
Jan. 2006. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
Wakelyn, P.J., D.W. Thompson, B.M. Norman, C.B. Nevius, and D.S. Findley. 2005. Why
cotton ginning is considered agriculture. Cotton Gin and Oil Mill Press 106(8):5–9.
Whitelock, D.P., C.B. Armijo, M.D. Buser, and S.E. Hughs. 2009 Using cyclones effectively at
cotton gins. Appl. Eng. Ag. 25:563–576.
Page 20 of 54
Field and Laboratory Data
Page 21 of 54
Gin A Field and Laboratory Data
Page 22 of 54
Gin: A
Exhaust: #400-2 3 Drying 1D3D
Date: 2008
Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

Based on EPA Method OTM27 Based on EPA Method OTM27
Total PM Total PM
Run 1 0.0252 Run 1 0.6220
Run 2 0.0347 Run 2 0.8155
Run 3 0.0281 Run 3 0.6506
Average 0.0293 Average 0.6960
PM10 PM10
X Run 1 0.0192 Run 1 0.4741
X Run 2 0.0273 Run 2 0.6415
Run 3 0.0199 Run 3 0.4620
PM2.5 PM2.5
Run 1 0.0064 Run 1 0.1583
Run 2 0.0097 Run 2 0.2282
Run 3 0.0043 Run 3 0.0996
PM10-2.5 PM10-2.5
Run 1 0.0128 Run 1 0.3158
Run 2 0.0176 Run 2 0.4133
Run 3 0.0156 Run 3 0.3624
PM2.5/PM10
Run 1 33.4%
Run 2 35.6%
Run 3 21.6%
Average 34.2%
PM2.5/TSP
Run 1 25.4%
Run 2 28.0%
Run 3 15.3%
Average 23.2%
PM10/TSP
Run 1 76.2%
Run 2 78.7%
Run 3 71.0%
Average 67.9%
X: Run omitted from all dependent averages -

PM 10 ISO or D50 not met
Run 2 - Cyclone Inlet Velocity High
Page 23 of 54
A
OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARY
#400-2 3 Drying 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3
ø - Start of Run, time 12:16 13:37 14:36
ø - End of Run, time 12:57 14:22 15:13
Vlc - Volume of water collected, ml 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vm - Gas volume, meter cond., dcf 14.735 14.425 13.900
Y - Meter calibration factor 1.013 1.013 1.013
Pbar - Barometric pressure, in. Hg 26.05 26.05 26.05
Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O -0.18 -0.18 -0.18
ˆH - Avg. meter press. diff., in. H2O 0.495 0.524 0.515
Tm - Absolute meter temperature, °R 528.0 528.7 529.0
Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 13.0140 12.7242 12.2541
Bws - Water vapor part in gas stream 0.007 0.007 0.007
CO2 - Dry concentration, volume % 0.00 0.00 0.00
O2 - Dry concentration, volume % 0.0 0.0 0.0
Md - Mole wt. stack gas, dry, g/mole 28.838 28.838 28.838
Ms - Mole wt. stack gas, wet, g/gmole 28.762 28.762 28.762
Cp - Pitot tube coef., dimensionless 0.840 0.840 0.840
ˆp - Avg. of sq. roots of eachˆp 0.614 0.629 0.615
Ts - Absolute stack Temp. °R 539.0 538.7 539.8
A - Area of stack, square feet 2.64 2.64 2.64
Vs - Stack Gas Flow, ft/sec 37.44 38.31 37.51
Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 5,019 5,140 5,022
An - Area of nozzle, square feet 1.767E-04 1.767E-04 1.767E-04
ø - Sampling time, minutes 38.18 37.67 33.07
DP50 - Cut size, microns 11.13 11.20 10.49
I - Isokinetic variation, percent 101.4 98.2 110.2
Sts - Stacks per system 2 2 2

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 24 of 54
A
#400-2 3 Drying 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE
Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 5,019 5,140 5,022 5,060
Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 13.0140 12.7242 12.2541 12.6641
DP50 - Cut size, microns 10µ 11.13 11.20 10.49 10.94
DP50 - Cut size, microns 2.5µ 2.54 2.57 2.29 2.47
Bale/hr - Total 500 lb Bales per hr 24.7 23.5 23.2 23.8
>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0015 0.0016 0.0017 0.0016
>10 µ - Total PM gr/dscfm 0.0017 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020
>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.074 0.087 0.094 0.0851
>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0030 0.0037 0.0041 0.0036
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0031 0.0039 0.0033 0.0034
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0037 0.0047 0.0042 0.0042
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 0.158 0.207 0.181 0.182
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0064 0.0088 0.0078 0.0077
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0016 0.0021 0.0009 0.0015
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0018 0.0026 0.0012 0.00186
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.079 0.114 0.050 0.081
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0032 0.0049 0.0021 0.0034
TPM - Total PM g 0.0061 0.0076 0.0060 0.0066
TPM - Total PM gr/dscf 0.0072 0.0093 0.0076 0.0080
TPM - Total PM lb/hr 0.311 0.408 0.325 0.35
TPM - Total PM lb/bale 0.0126 0.0174 0.0140 0.0147
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 25 of 54
A
#400-2 3 Drying 1D3D
OTM METHOD 27 RESULTS
Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Average

Total Particulate Per Cyclone
Total gr/dscf 0.0072 0.0093 0.0076 0.0080
Total lb/hr 0.31 0.41 0.33 0.35
Total lb/bale 0.0126 0.0174 0.0140 0.0147
Total Particulate Per System

Total lb/hr 0.62 0.82 0.65 0.70
Total lb/bale 0.025 0.035 0.028 0.029
< 10 µ Results per Cyclone

- 10 µ gr/dscf 0.0055 0.0073 0.0054 0.0061
- 10 µ (lb/hr) 0.24 0.32 0.23 0.26
- 10 µ (lb/Bale) 0.0096 0.0137 0.0100 0.0111
< 10 µ Results per System

- 10 µ (lb/hr) 0.47 0.64 0.46 0.53
- 10 µ (lb/Bale) 0.019 0.027 0.020 0.022
< 2.5 µ Results per Cyclone

- 2.5 µ gr/dscf 0.0018 0.0026 0.0012 0.0019
- 2.5 µ (lb/hr) 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.08
- 2.5 µ (lb/Bale) 0.0032 0.0049 0.0021 0.0034
< 2.5 µ Results per System

- 2.5 µ (lb/hr) 0.16 0.23 0.10 0.16
- 2.5 µ (lb/Bale) 0.006 0.010 0.004 0.007
Average Bales/hr 24.66 23.47 23.17 23.77
Cyclone Flow-Rates
Vs 37.44 38.31 37.51 37.75
Acfm 5,929 6,069 5,942 5,980
Dscfm 5,019 5,140 5,022 5,060
Cyclone Inlet Velocity

Vsfm 3528 3611 3536 3558
System Flow-Rates
Acfm - - - 11,960
Dscfm - - - 10,121
Number of Cyclones in System 2

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 26 of 54
PRE - TEST DATA & CALCULATIONS
Plant: A Unit: #400-2 3 Drying 1D3D Date: 12/15/2008 Lab#: 608-099
Location: Cyclones in System: 2 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F
Cyclone Dia (in.): 44.00 Bales/hr: 24.66 Std Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Pbar: 26.05 in Hg Static Sp: -0.18 in water dcO2: 20.90 %
Run-Time, Ø: 36 min Pitot Factor: 0.84 Cp dcCO2: 0.01 %
Meter Factor: 1.013 Y % H2O: 0.020 Bws* 2.0% dcN2: 79.09 %
Meter Factor: 1.921 ¯H@ Meter Temp: 68.0 °F Stack Dia: 22.00 Sd in
Pre-test Leak Check: 0.000 cfm Pitot Leak Check: OK Post-test Leak Check: 0.018 cfm**
EPA 201A - 10u & 2.5u: PRE - TEST CALCULATIONS
Delta P1 - Run: 0.470 pµs: 183.32 Ideal Nd: 0.183 Point 1 Ø: 3.55
pMd: 28.84 pQs: 0.43381 Input Nd: 0.180 Vn ft/sec: 40.92
pMs: 28.62 ¯H + 50 °F: 0.415 Closest Nd: 0.180 Delta H: 0.495
Ps in Hg: 26.04 ¯p min + 50°F: 0.186 V ft/sec min: 27.76 Ø: 36.0
pVs, ft/sec: 39.66 ¯p max + 50°F: 0.658 V ft/sec max: 52.20 Dwell Time Const. 5.18
Stack Area pSa: 2.64 ¯H - 50 °F: 0.599 ¯p min: 0.203 Meter Volume: 14.7
Acfm: 6282 ¯p min - 50°F: 0.223 ¯p max: 0.718 dscfm 0.408
pTs Stack: 88.8 ¯p max - 50 °F: 0.790 Vn/Vs x 100: 103.16
EPA 201A: TEST DATA & CALCULATIONS
Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, grams
Point Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final Initial
No. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet
1 82 0.580 0.00 78.0 68 68 0.470 0.495 Initial Reading 1
2 80 0.510 3.55 79.0 68 68 0.360 0.495 179.739 2
3 82 0.320 6.66 79.0 68 68 0.320 0.495 Run Start Time 3
4 83 0.350 9.59 79.0 68 68 0.330 0.495 12:16 4 Total: 0.0
5 84 0.380 12.56 79.0 68 68 0.340 0.495 Test Avg Sqrt PM - Weights - Blank Corrected
6 85 0.350 15.58 80.0 68 68 0.340 0.495 0.614 >10µ Wt: 0.0015 gms.
1 87 0.590 18.60 78.0 68 68 0.540 0.495 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0031 gms.
2 92 0.490 22.41 79.0 68 68 0.490 0.495 12:57 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0016 gms.
3 94 0.420 26.03 79.0 68 68 0.390 0.495 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0017 gr/dscf
4 95 0.320 29.26 80.0 68 68 0.310 0.495 194.474 >10µ: 0.0740 lb/hr
5 99 0.360 32.15 79.0 68 68 0.320 0.495 <10-2.5µ: 0.0037 gr/dscf
6 103 0.360 35.08 79.0 68 68 0.360 0.495 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.1579 lb/hr
88.8 0.419 38.18 79.0 68.0 0.381 0.495 14.735 <2.5µ: 0.0018 gr/dscf
<2.5µ: 0.0791 lb/hr
EPA 201A: POST - TEST DATA & CALCULATIONS
Vlc: 0.0 grams Points Outside Dpmin or Dpmax: 0 Number of Points
MF - Moisture Fraction: 0.9930 fraction Reynolds No. for Run: 2657.14 dimentionless
Dry Gas Meter Volume: 13.014 Vms, ft3 Nozzel Area: 1.77E-04 (AsNd) sqft
Corrected Water Volume: - Vws Nozzle Velocity: 37.98 (Nu) ft/sec
Bws, Moisture Content: 0.0070 fraction Cyclone Inlet Velocity: 3528 (Vs) ft/min
Stack Gas Dry Molecular Weight: 28.838 Md PM-10 Sampler Flow Rate: 0.403 (scfm) PMQs
Stack Gas Wet Molecular Wt: 28.762 Mw Stack Flow Rate: 5,019.2 (Qs) Dscfm
Stack Gas Viscosity: 181.90 µs PM-10-Ds50: 11.13 microns
Sample Flow Rate: 0.341 QsSt PM-2.5 Ds50 2.54 microns
Run - Cunn. Slip Corr. 1.07 dimensionless Iso Sampling Rate: 101.44 percent
Total - PM - Cs: 0.0072 gr/dscf PM < 10-2.5µ: 0.0064 lbs/bale
Total - PM - ER: 0.3110 lbs/hr PM < 2.5µ: 0.0032 lbs/bale
Stack Gas Velocity: 37.44 (Vs) ft/sec Total - PM: 0.0126 lbs/bale
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 27 of 54
1 78.0 0.470 0.00 71.0 69 69 0.450 0.524 Initial Reading 1
2 79.0 0.360 3.35 80.0 68 68 0.360 0.524 199.793 2
3 79.0 0.320 6.34 80.0 68 68 0.310 0.524 Run Start Time 3
4 79.0 0.330 9.12 79.0 68 68 0.380 0.524 13:37 : Total: 0.0
5 79.0 0.340 12.19 79.0 69 69 0.400 0.524 Test Avg Sqrt PM - Weights - Blank Corrected
6 80.0 0.340 15.35 79.0 69 69 0.390 0.524 0.629 >10µ Wt: 0.0016 gms.
7 78.0 0.540 18.47 78.0 69 69 0.570 0.524 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0039 gms.
8 79.0 0.490 22.23 79.0 69 69 0.450 0.524 14:22 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0021 gms.
9 79.0 0.390 25.58 79.0 69 69 0.390 0.524 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0020 gr/dscf
10 80.0 0.310 28.70 79.0 68 69 0.310 0.524 214.218 >10µ: 0.0870 lb/hr
11 79.0 0.320 31.47 80.0 69 69 0.380 0.524 <10-2.5µ: 0.0047 gr/dscf
12 79.0 0.360 34.55 81.0 69 69 0.390 0.524 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.2066 lb/hr
79.0 0.381 37.67 78.7 68.7 0.398 0.524 14.425 <2.5µ: 0.0026 gr/dscf
<2.5µ: 0.1141 lb/hr
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 28 of 54
1 71.0 0.450 0.00 76.0 69 69 0.510 0.515 Initial Reading 1
2 80.0 0.360 3.20 80.0 69 69 0.370 0.515 215.710 2
3 80.0 0.310 5.92 80.0 69 69 0.290 0.515 Run Start Time 3
4 79.0 0.380 8.34 80.0 69 69 0.330 0.515 14:36 4 Total: 0.0
6 79.0 0.390 13.63 80.0 69 69 0.350 0.515 0.615 >10µ Wt: 0.0017 gms.
2 79.0 0.450 19.58 80.0 69 69 0.490 0.515 15:13 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0009 gms.
4 79.0 0.310 25.40 80.0 69 69 0.290 0.515 229.610 >10µ: 0.0943 lb/hr
5 80.0 0.380 27.81 80.0 69 69 0.340 0.515 <10-2.5µ: 0.0042 gr/dscf
78.7 0.398 33.07 79.8 69.0 0.383 0.515 13.900 <2.5µ: 0.0012 gr/dscf
<2.5µ: 0.0498 lb/hr
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 29 of 54
Cotton Gin Test Data
Plant: A Date: 12/15/2008

Location: Start Time: 12:16
Unit: #400-2 3 Drying 1D3D End Time: 12:57
Run: 1
Elapsed Time: 41 Test Time: 38.18

Bale Time: 43.00 StdDev Std BPH: 4.74
Ave min/bale: 0:02:23 Ave Std BPH: 24.7
Std 500 lb Chauvenet's

Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/bale BPH Criterion
1545682 12:15:00 --- --- ---
1545683 504 12:18:00 0:03:00 20.2
1545684 496 12:20:00 0:02:00 29.8
1545685 481 12:22:00 0:02:00 28.9
1545686 492 12:25:00 0:03:00 19.7
1545687 512 12:27:00 0:02:00 30.7
1545688 473 12:29:00 0:02:00 28.4
1545689 489 12:32:00 0:03:00 19.6
1545690 471 12:34:00 0:02:00 28.3
1545691 512 12:37:00 0:03:00 20.5
1545692 502 12:39:00 0:02:00 30.1
1545693 484 12:41:00 0:02:00 29.0
1545694 489 12:44:00 0:03:00 19.6
1545695 469 12:46:00 0:02:00 28.1
1545696 476 12:48:00 0:02:00 28.6
1545697 480 12:51:00 0:03:00 19.2
1545698 492 12:53:00 0:02:00 29.5
1545699 514 12:56:00 0:03:00 20.6
1545700 502 12:58:00 0:02:00 30.1
REM - 2003
Page 30 of 54

Run: 2


1545709 13:37:00 --- --- ---
1545710 489 13:40:00 0:03:00 19.6
1545711 485 13:42:00 0:02:00 29.1
1545712 487 13:44:00 0:02:00 29.2
1545713 483 13:46:00 0:02:00 29.0
1545714 495 13:49:00 0:03:00 19.8
1545715 471 13:51:00 0:02:00 28.3
1545716 491 13:53:00 0:02:00 29.5
1545717 526 13:57:00 0:04:00 15.8
1545718 515 14:01:00 0:04:00 15.5
1545719 493 14:03:00 0:02:00 29.6
1545720 456 14:05:00 0:02:00 27.4
1545721 492 14:08:00 0:03:00 19.7
1545722 492 14:10:00 0:02:00 29.5
1545723 491 14:12:00 0:02:00 29.5
1545724 485 14:15:00 0:03:00 19.4
1545725 508 14:17:00 0:02:00 30.5
1545726 463 14:19:00 0:02:00 27.8
1545727 480 14:22:00 0:03:00 19.2
REM - 2003
Page 31 of 54

Run: 3


1545733 14:36:00 --- --- ---
1545734 468 14:38:00 0:02:00 28.1
1545735 484 14:40:00 0:02:00 29.0
1545736 480 14:43:00 0:03:00 19.2
1545737 460 14:46:00 0:03:00 18.4
1545738 456 14:48:00 0:02:00 27.4
1545739 466 14:50:00 0:02:00 28.0
1545740 455 14:54:00 0:04:00 13.7
1545741 471 14:55:00 0:01:00 56.5 *
1545742 487 14:58:00 0:03:00 19.5
1545743 486 15:00:00 0:02:00 29.2
1545744 467 15:03:00 0:03:00 18.7
1545745 494 15:06:00 0:03:00 19.8
1545746 488 15:08:00 0:02:00 29.3
1545747 494 15:10:00 0:02:00 29.6
1545748 487 15:13:00 0:03:00 19.5
REM - 2003
Page 32 of 54
PARTICULATE WEIGHTS : DATA & CALCULATIONS RUN #1
Client : A Date : 12/15/08 >10 Catch ID: TS-0137

Site : Lab#: 608-099 <10 Catch ID: TS-0138
Unit : #400-2 3 Drying 1D3D Filter ID: 6L-0069 <2.5 Catch ID: TS-0139
SOLUTION BLANKS
Acetone: TS-0124 100 g

Gross: 741.425 mg Tare: 741.126 mg Residue: 0.2983 mg
WEIGHTS & VOLUMES
>10 µ Rinse: TS-0137

Acetone: 22.1 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.06593 mg
Gross: 623.611 mg Tare: 622.095 mg 1.5160 mg
>10 µ Total Weight = 1.4501 mg
< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0138

Acetone: 16.1 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.04803 mg
< 10 µ Total Weight = 3.0950 mg
< 2.5 µ Filter: 6L-0069

Gross: 268.851 mg Tare: 267.999 mg < 2.5 filter Net: 0.8523 mg
< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0139

Acetone: 5.0 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.01492 mg
< 2.5 µ Rinse Total Weight = 0.6991 mg
> 10 µ Total Weight = 0.0015 g

< 10 µ Total Weight = 0.0046 g
< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0031 g
< 2.5 µ Total Weight = 0.0016 g
Total Weight = 0.0061 g
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 33 of 54

SOLUTION BLANKS

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

Acetone: 23.1 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.06891 mg
< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0143

Acetone: 18.8 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.05621 mg
< 2.5 µ Filter: 6L-0070

< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0144

Acetone: 4.8 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.01420 mg

< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0039 g
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 34 of 54

SOLUTION BLANKS

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

Acetone: 25.2 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.07518 mg
< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0146

Acetone: 24.0 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.07151 mg
< 2.5 µ Filter: 6L-0071

< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0147

Acetone: 7.2 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.02151 mg

< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0033 g
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 35 of 54
Acetone Rinse
Client : A Date : 12/15/2008

Location: Job # : 608-099
Unit : #400-2 3 Drying 1D3D
PM-2.5 Date: 12/15/08

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Filter ID#: 6L-0069 Filter ID#: 6L-0070 Filter ID#: 6L-0071
>10 Start Vol: 209.6 g >10 Start Vol: 382.2 g >10 Start Vol: 331.3 g
End Vol: 187.5 g End Vol: 359.1 g End Vol: 306.1 g
Total: 22.1 g Total: 23.1 g Total: 25.2 g
Tub #: TS-0137 Tub #: TS-0142 Tub #: TS-0145
<10 Start Vol: 187.5 g <10 Start Vol: 359.1 g <10 Start Vol: 306.1 g
<2.5 Start Vol: 171.4 g <2.5 Start Vol: 340.3 g <2.5 Start Vol: 282.1 g
Page 36 of 54
Filter/Tub Weights
Client : A Date : 12/15/2008

Unit : #400-2 3 Drying 1D3D
Pre- Post- Net-
Filter/Tub Weight Weight Weight
No. (mg) (mg) (mg)
Acetone Blank 100 g TS-0124 741.126 741.425 0.298
DI Water Blank 250 g TL-0019 644.790 646.241 1.451
Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021
Pre- Post- Net-
Sample Filter/Tub Weight Weight Weight
No. Cyclone Name Method Run No. Location No. (mg) (mg) (mg)
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 1 < 10 TS-0138 637.062 640.205 3.143
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 1 < 2.5 TS-0139 670.965 671.679 0.714
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 1 > 10 TS-0137 622.095 623.611 1.516
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 1 Filter < 2.5 6L-0069 267.999 268.851 0.852
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 2 < 10 TS-0143 639.405 643.328 3.923
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 2 < 2.5 TS-0144 689.259 690.110 0.851
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 2 > 10 TS-0142 655.075 656.772 1.697
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 3 < 10 TS-0146 650.773 654.187 3.414
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 3 < 2.5 TS-0147 682.786 683.302 0.516
400-2 2nd #2 Drying 27 3 > 10 TS-0145 674.386 676.201 1.815
Page 37 of 54
Gin C Field and Laboratory Data
Page 38 of 54
Gin: C
Exhaust: #7 3A Pull 1D3D
Date: 2009
Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

Based on EPA Method OTM27 Based on EPA Method OTM27
Total PM Total PM
Run 1 0.0871 Run 1 1.9110
Run 2 0.1019 Run 2 1.9783
Run 3 0.1038 Run 3 2.4789
PM10 PM10
Run 1 0.0663 Run 1 1.4546
Run 2 0.0857 Run 2 1.6638
Run 3 0.0797 Run 3 1.9016
PM2.5 PM2.5
Run 1 0.0098 Run 1 0.2139
Run 2 0.0109 Run 2 0.2113
Run 3 0.0115 Run 3 0.2748
PM10-2.5 PM10-2.5
Run 1 0.0566 Run 1 1.2407
Run 2 0.0749 Run 2 1.4525
Run 3 0.0682 Run 3 1.6268
PM2.5/PM10
Run 1 14.7%
Run 2 12.7%
Run 3 14.5%
Average 13.9%
PM2.5/TSP
Run 1 11.2%
Run 2 10.7%
Run 3 11.1%
Average 11.0%
PM10/TSP
Run 1 76.1%
Run 2 84.1%
Run 3 76.7%
Average 79.1%
Page 39 of 54
C
#7 3A Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3
ø - Start of Run, time 14:23 15:07 15:44
ø - End of Run, time 14:56 15:38 16:15
Vlc - Volume of water collected, ml 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vm - Gas volume, meter cond., dcf 12.080 11.268 11.797
Y - Meter calibration factor 1.024 1.024 1.024
Pbar - Barometric pressure, in. Hg 29.90 29.90 29.90
Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O -0.06 -0.06 -0.06
ˆH - Avg. meter press. diff., in. H2O 0.500 0.501 0.499
Tm - Absolute meter temperature, °R 532.5 533.7 532.3
Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 12.2708 11.4201 11.9880
Bws - Water vapor part in gas stream 0.015 0.015 0.015
CO2 - Dry concentration, volume % 0.01 0.01 0.01
O2 - Dry concentration, volume % 20.9 20.9 20.9
Md - Mole wt. stack gas, dry, g/mole 28.838 28.838 28.838
Ms - Mole wt. stack gas, wet, g/gmole 28.675 28.675 28.675
Cp - Pitot tube coef., dimensionless 0.840 0.840 0.840
ˆp - Avg. of sq. roots of eachˆp 0.584 0.593 0.579
Ts - Absolute stack Temp. °R 582.7 581.1 582.2
A - Area of stack, square feet 1.97 1.97 1.97
Vs - Stack Gas Flow, ft/sec 34.58 35.04 34.27
Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 3,644 3,701 3,614
An - Area of nozzle, square feet 2.074E-04 2.074E-04 2.074E-04
ø - Sampling time, minutes 31.57 29.62 30.12
DP50 - Cut size, microns 10.80 10.86 10.62
I - Isokinetic variation, percent 101.3 98.9 104.6
Sts - Stacks per system 4 4 4

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 40 of 54
C
#7 3A Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE
Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 3,644 3,701 3,614 3,653
Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 12.2708 11.4201 11.9880 11.8930
DP50 - Cut size, microns 10µ 10.80 10.86 10.62 10.76
DP50 - Cut size, microns 2.5µ 2.37 2.39 2.30 2.35
Bale/hr - Total 500 lb Bales per hr 21.9 19.4 23.9 21.7
>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0029 0.0018 0.0036 0.0028
>10 µ - Total PM gr/dscfm 0.0037 0.0025 0.0047 0.0036
>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.114 0.079 0.144 0.1123
>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0052 0.0041 0.0060 0.0051
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0079 0.0085 0.0102 0.0089
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0099 0.0114 0.0131 0.0115
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 0.310 0.363 0.407 0.360
10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0141 0.0187 0.0170 0.0166
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0014 0.0012 0.0017 0.0014
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0017 0.0017 0.0022 0.00186
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.053 0.053 0.069 0.058
< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0024 0.0027 0.0029 0.0027
TPM - Total PM g 0.0122 0.0115 0.0155 0.0131
TPM - Total PM gr/dscf 0.0153 0.0156 0.0200 0.0170
TPM - Total PM lb/hr 0.478 0.495 0.620 0.53
TPM - Total PM lb/bale 0.0218 0.0255 0.0260 0.0244
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 41 of 54
C
#7 3A Pull 1D3D
OTM METHOD 27 RESULTS
Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Average

Total Particulate Per Cyclone
Total gr/dscf 0.0153 0.0156 0.0200 0.0170
Total lb/hr 0.48 0.49 0.62 0.53
Total lb/bale 0.0218 0.0255 0.0260 0.0244
Total Particulate Per System

Total lb/hr 1.91 1.98 2.48 2.12
Total lb/bale 0.087 0.102 0.104 0.098
< 10 µ Results per Cyclone

- 10 µ gr/dscf 0.0116 0.0131 0.0153 0.0134
- 10 µ (lb/hr) 0.36 0.42 0.48 0.42
- 10 µ (lb/Bale) 0.0166 0.0214 0.0199 0.0193
< 10 µ Results per System

- 10 µ (lb/hr) 1.45 1.66 1.90 1.67
- 10 µ (lb/Bale) 0.066 0.086 0.080 0.077
< 2.5 µ Results per Cyclone

- 2.5 µ gr/dscf 0.0017 0.0017 0.0022 0.0019
- 2.5 µ (lb/hr) 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06
- 2.5 µ (lb/Bale) 0.0024 0.0027 0.0029 0.0027
< 2.5 µ Results per System

- 2.5 µ (lb/hr) 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.23
- 2.5 µ (lb/Bale) 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.011
Average Bales/hr 21.94 19.40 23.87 21.74
Cyclone Flow-Rates
Vs 34.58 35.04 34.27 34.63
Acfm 4,086 4,139 4,048 4,091
Dscfm 3,644 3,701 3,614 3,653
Cyclone Inlet Velocity

Vsfm 3260 3302 3230 3264
System Flow-Rates
Acfm - - - 16,364
Dscfm - - - 14,612
Number of Cyclones in System 4

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 42 of 54
Plant: C Unit: #7 3A Pull 1D3D Date: 10/23/2009 Lab#: 709-124
1 121 0.390 0.00 120.0 73 73 0.360 0.500 Initial Reading 1
2 121 0.380 2.70 122.0 72 72 0.380 0.500 0.000 2
3 120 0.310 5.48 122.0 73 73 0.330 0.500 Run Start Time 3
4 120 0.270 8.07 122.0 72 72 0.280 0.500 14:23 4 Total: 0.0
5 121 0.350 10.45 123.0 73 73 0.480 0.500 Test Avg Sqrt PM - Weights - Blank Corrected
6 121 0.370 13.57 123.0 73 73 0.360 0.500 0.584 >10µ Wt: 0.0029 gms.
1 121 0.300 16.27 122.0 72 72 0.320 0.500 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0079 gms.
2 121 0.320 18.82 122.0 72 72 0.310 0.500 14:56 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0014 gms.
3 121 0.310 21.33 124.0 73 73 0.270 0.500 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0037 gr/dscf
4 121 0.280 23.67 124.0 72 72 0.290 0.500 12.080 >10µ: 0.1141 lb/hr
5 121 0.360 26.09 124.0 72 73 0.360 0.500 <10-2.5µ: 0.0099 gr/dscf
6 121 0.380 28.80 124.0 72 72 0.380 0.500 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.3102 lb/hr
120.8 0.335 31.57 122.7 72.5 0.343 0.500 12.080 <2.5µ: 0.0017 gr/dscf
<2.5µ: 0.0535 lb/hr
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 43 of 54
1 120.0 0.360 0.00 117.0 92 92 0.380 0.501 Initial Reading 1
2 122.0 0.380 2.57 116.0 72 72 0.380 0.501 0.000 2
3 122.0 0.330 5.14 117.0 72 72 0.320 0.501 Run Start Time 3
4 122.0 0.280 7.49 123.0 72 72 0.270 0.501 15:07 : Total: 0.0
6 123.0 0.360 11.98 124.0 72 72 0.360 0.501 0.593 >10µ Wt: 0.0018 gms.
8 122.0 0.310 17.14 122.0 72 72 0.400 0.501 15:38 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0012 gms.
10 124.0 0.290 22.31 121.0 72 72 0.290 0.501 11.268 >10µ: 0.0786 lb/hr
11 124.0 0.360 24.55 123.0 72 72 0.360 0.501 <10-2.5µ: 0.0114 gr/dscf
122.7 0.343 29.62 121.1 73.7 0.353 0.501 11.268 <2.5µ: 0.0017 gr/dscf
<2.5µ: 0.0528 lb/hr
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 44 of 54
1 117.0 0.380 0.00 120.0 72 72 0.360 0.499 Initial Reading 1
2 116.0 0.380 2.60 120.0 73 73 0.360 0.499 0.000 2
3 117.0 0.320 5.20 121.0 72 72 0.340 0.499 Run Start Time 3
4 123.0 0.270 7.73 124.0 72 72 0.280 0.499 15:44 4 Total: 0.0
6 124.0 0.360 12.51 123.0 72 72 0.380 0.499 0.579 >10µ Wt: 0.0036 gms.
2 122.0 0.400 17.56 120.0 72 72 0.320 0.499 16:15 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0017 gms.
4 121.0 0.290 22.34 124.0 73 73 0.280 0.499 11.797 >10µ: 0.1443 lb/hr
5 123.0 0.360 24.64 124.0 72 72 0.390 0.499 <10-2.5µ: 0.0131 gr/dscf
121.1 0.353 30.12 122.2 72.3 0.337 0.499 11.797 <2.5µ: 0.0022 gr/dscf
<2.5µ: 0.0687 lb/hr
Bws, Moisture Content: 0.0150 fraction
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008
Page 45 of 54
Plant: C Date: 10/23/2009

Unit: #7 3A Pull 1D3D End Time: 14:56
Run: 1


5331931 14:21:48 --- --- ---
5331932 495 14:25:18 0:03:30 17.0
5331933 493 14:27:40 0:02:22 25.0
5331934 484 14:28:39 0:00:59 59.1
5331935 477 14:29:40 0:01:01 56.3
5331936 475 14:35:02 0:05:22 10.6
5331937 500 14:36:41 0:01:39 36.4
5331938 496 14:44:21 0:07:40 7.8
5331939 501 14:44:58 0:00:37 97.5 *
5331940 485 14:48:48 0:03:50 15.2
5331941 474 14:50:30 0:01:42 33.5
5331942 484 14:51:45 0:01:15 46.5
5331943 485 14:55:16 0:03:31 16.5
5331944 494 14:56:30 0:01:14 48.1
REM - 2003
Page 46 of 54

Run: 2


5331947 15:03:43 --- --- ---
5331948 501 15:08:59 0:05:16 11.4
5331949 496 15:11:05 0:02:06 28.3
5331950 483 15:13:34 0:02:29 23.3
5331951 478 15:16:04 0:02:30 22.9
5331952 474 15:18:49 0:02:45 20.7
5331953 480 15:20:27 0:01:38 35.3 *
5331954 468 15:23:09 0:02:42 20.8
5331955 491 15:25:45 0:02:36 22.7
5331956 486 15:30:04 0:04:19 13.5
5331957 488 15:34:21 0:04:17 13.7
5331958 472 15:37:11 0:02:50 20.0
5331959 491 15:39:38 0:02:27 24.0
REM - 2003
Page 47 of 54

Run: 3


5331960 15:42:09 --- --- ---
5331961 497 15:44:44 0:02:35 23.1
5331962 475 15:47:09 0:02:25 23.6
5331963 500 15:49:54 0:02:45 21.8
5331964 501 15:52:18 0:02:24 25.0
5331965 509 15:54:29 0:02:11 28.0
5331966 498 15:56:46 0:02:17 26.2
5331967 500 16:00:05 0:03:19 18.1
5331968 486 16:02:08 0:02:03 28.4
5331969 490 16:04:29 0:02:21 25.0
5331970 487 16:07:25 0:02:56 19.9
5331971 494 16:09:24 0:01:59 29.9
5331972 493 16:12:04 0:02:40 22.2
5331973 500 16:14:29 0:02:25 24.8
5331974 486 16:16:55 0:02:26 24.0
REM - 2003
Page 48 of 54
Client : C Date : 10/23/09 >10 Catch ID: TS-0570

Unit : #7 3A Pull 1D3D Filter ID: 8L-1409 <2.5 Catch ID: TS-0572
SOLUTION BLANKS

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

Acetone: 22.9 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.06829 mg
< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0571

Acetone: 30.3 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.09025 mg
< 2.5 µ Filter: 8L-1409

< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0572

Acetone: 7.5 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.02235 mg

< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0079 g
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 49 of 54

SOLUTION BLANKS

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

Acetone: 17.7 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.05292 mg
< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0576

Acetone: 29.5 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.08810 mg
< 2.5 µ Filter: 8L-1410

< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0577

Acetone: 0.0 g * 0.00298 mg/g 0.00000 mg

< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0085 g
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 50 of 54

SOLUTION BLANKS

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

Acetone: 20.0 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.05976 mg
< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0581

Acetone: 29.7 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.08860 mg
< 2.5 µ Filter: 8L-1411

< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0582

Acetone: 7.1 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.02112 mg

< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0102 g
REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001
Page 51 of 54
Acetone Rinse
Client : C Date : 10/23/2009

Unit : #7 3A Pull 1D3D
PM-2.5
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Filter ID#: 8L-1409 Filter ID#: 8L-1410 Filter ID#: 8L-1411
>10 Start Vol: 345.8 g >10 Start Vol: 233.1 g >10 Start Vol: 400.3 g
<10 Start Vol: 323.0 g <10 Start Vol: 215.3 g <10 Start Vol: 380.2 g
<2.5 Start Vol: 292.7 g <2.5 Start Vol: 185.8 g <2.5 Start Vol: 350.5 g
End Vol: 285.2 g End Vol: >174.47 g End Vol: 343.5 g
Page 52 of 54
Filter/Tub Weights
Client : C Date : 10/23/2009

Unit : #7 3A Pull 1D3D
Pre- Post- Net-
Filter/Tub Weight Weight Weight
No. (mg) (mg) (mg)
Acetone Blank 100 g TS-0124 741.126 741.425 0.298
DI Water Blank 250 g TL-0019 644.790 646.241 1.451
Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021
Pre- Post- Net-
Sample Filter/Tub Weight Weight Weight
No. Cyclone Name Method Run No. Location No. (mg) (mg) (mg)
7 #3A Pull 27 1 < 10 TS-0571 721.401 729.388 7.987
7 #3A Pull 27 1 < 2.5 TS-0572 665.905 666.191 0.286
7 #3A Pull 27 1 > 10 TS-0570 678.452 681.425 2.973
7 #3A Pull 27 1 Filter < 2.5 8L-1409 299.434 300.532 1.098
7 #3A Pull 27 2 < 10 TS-0576 635.721 644.279 8.558
7 #3A Pull 27 2 < 2.5 TS-0577 689.287 689.601 0.314
7 #3A Pull 27 2 > 10 TS-0575 677.815 679.702 1.887
7 #3A Pull 27 2 Filter < 2.5 8L-1410 312.085 313.003 0.918
7 #3A Pull 27 3 < 10 TS-0581 674.923 685.212 10.288
7 #3A Pull 27 3 < 2.5 TS-0582 711.643 712.017 0.374
7 #3A Pull 27 3 > 10 TS-0580 626.068 629.747 3.679
7 #3A Pull 27 3 Filter < 2.5 8L-1411 309.258 310.628 1.370
Page 53 of 54
Acknowledgement: The authors appreciate the cooperating gin managers and personnel who
generously allowed and endured sampling at their gins. In addition, we thank California Cotton
Ginners’ and Growers’ Association, Cotton Incorporated, San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution
Study Agency, Southeastern Cotton Ginners’ Association, Southern Cotton Ginners’
Association, Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association, Texas State Support Committee, and The
Cotton Foundation for funding this project. This project was support in-part by the USDA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project OKL02882. The authors also thank the
Cotton Gin Advisory Group and Air Quality Advisory Group for their involvement and
participation in planning, execution, and data analysis for this project that is essential to
developing quality data that will be used by industry, regulatory agencies, and the scientific
community. The advisory groups included: the funding agencies listed above, California Air
Resources Board, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, National Cotton Council, National
Cotton Ginners’ Association, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Texas A&M University, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, USDA-NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric
Change, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (national, Region 4 and 9).
Disclaimer: Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the
purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement
by the Oklahoma State University or U.S. Department of Agriculture. Oklahoma State
University and USDA are equal opportunity providers and employers.
The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the USDA-ARS and Oklahoma State
University and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board, the San Joaquin
Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency, or its Policy Committee, their employees or their
members. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with
material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.
Page 54 of 54

3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM2.

Final Report: OSU12-04 Ver. 2.0

Dr. Derek Whitelock Dr. Greg Holt

Air Quality Advisory Group:

Cotton Gin Advisory Group:

Figure 5. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics.

C 1 21.9 16.6 3260 101 2.37 10.8 12.3 0.436 50 123

C 1 0.10 0.21 0.0044 0.010

System Average (n=2) 0.0040 0.0088

C 1 0.66 1.45 0.030 0.066

System Average (n=2) 0.022 0.049

C 1 0.87 1.91 0.040 0.087

System Average (n=2) 0.029 0.063

Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

X: Run omitted from all dependent averages -

#400-2 3 Drying 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3

ø - Start of Run, time 12:16 13:37 14:36

ø - End of Run, time 12:57 14:22 15:13

Vlc - Volume of water collected, ml 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vm - Gas volume, meter cond., dcf 14.735 14.425 13.900

Y - Meter calibration factor 1.013 1.013 1.013

Pbar - Barometric pressure, in. Hg 26.05 26.05 26.05

Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O -0.18 -0.18 -0.18

ˆH - Avg. meter press. diff., in. H2O 0.495 0.524 0.515

Tm - Absolute meter temperature, °R 528.0 528.7 529.0

Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 13.0140 12.7242 12.2541

Bws - Water vapor part in gas stream 0.007 0.007 0.007

CO2 - Dry concentration, volume % 0.00 0.00 0.00

O2 - Dry concentration, volume % 0.0 0.0 0.0

Md - Mole wt. stack gas, dry, g/mole 28.838 28.838 28.838

Ms - Mole wt. stack gas, wet, g/gmole 28.762 28.762 28.762

Cp - Pitot tube coef., dimensionless 0.840 0.840 0.840

ˆp - Avg. of sq. roots of eachˆp 0.614 0.629 0.615

Ts - Absolute stack Temp. °R 539.0 538.7 539.8

A - Area of stack, square feet 2.64 2.64 2.64

Vs - Stack Gas Flow, ft/sec 37.44 38.31 37.51

Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 5,019 5,140 5,022

An - Area of nozzle, square feet 1.767E-04 1.767E-04 1.767E-04

ø - Sampling time, minutes 38.18 37.67 33.07

DP50 - Cut size, microns 11.13 11.20 10.49

I - Isokinetic variation, percent 101.4 98.2 110.2

Sts - Stacks per system 2 2 2

#400-2 3 Drying 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE

Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 5,019 5,140 5,022 5,060

DP50 - Cut size, microns 10µ 11.13 11.20 10.49 10.94

DP50 - Cut size, microns 2.5µ 2.54 2.57 2.29 2.47

Bale/hr - Total 500 lb Bales per hr 24.7 23.5 23.2 23.8

>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0015 0.0016 0.0017 0.0016

>10 µ - Total PM gr/dscfm 0.0017 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020

>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.074 0.087 0.094 0.0851

>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0030 0.0037 0.0041 0.0036

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0031 0.0039 0.0033 0.0034

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0037 0.0047 0.0042 0.0042

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 0.158 0.207 0.181 0.182

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0064 0.0088 0.0078 0.0077

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0016 0.0021 0.0009 0.0015

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0018 0.0026 0.0012 0.00186

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.079 0.114 0.050 0.081

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0032 0.0049 0.0021 0.0034

TPM - Total PM g 0.0061 0.0076 0.0060 0.0066

TPM - Total PM gr/dscf 0.0072 0.0093 0.0076 0.0080

TPM - Total PM lb/hr 0.311 0.408 0.325 0.35

TPM - Total PM lb/bale 0.0126 0.0174 0.0140 0.0147

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008