3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System Total Particulate Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins

Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System Total

Particulate Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton

Part of the National Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter

Emissions Project

Final Report: OSU12-32 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

Department of Biosystems and Agricultural

Engineering

214 Agricultural Hall

Stillwater, OK 74078

Dr. Derek Whitelock

Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research

Laboratory

USDA Agricultural Research Service

300 E College Dr.

Mesilla Park, NM 88047

Mr. J. Clif Boykin

Cotton Ginning Research Unit

111 Experiment Station Road

Stoneville, MS 38776

Dr. Greg Holt

Cotton Production and Processing Research

1604 East FM 1294

Lubbock, TX 79403

Michael Buser, Ph.D. Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University 214 Agricultural Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-5288 – Phone (405) 744-6059 – Fax buser@okstate.edu

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

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. The impetus behind this project was the urgent need to collect additional cotton

gin emissions data to address current regulatory issues. A key component of this study was

focused on EPA total particulate emission factors. EPA AP-42 emission factors are generally

assigned a rating, from A (Excellent) to E (Poor), to assess the quality of the data being

referenced. Current EPA total particulate emission factor ratings for cotton gins are extremely

low. Cotton gin data received these low ratings because the data was collected almost

exclusively from a single geographical region. The objective of this study was to collect

additional total particulate emission factor data for 3rd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems from

cotton gins located in regions across the cotton belt based on the EPA-approved stack sampling

methodology. The project plan included sampling seven cotton gins across the cotton belt. Key

factors for selecting specific cotton gins included: 1) facility location, 2) production capacity, 3)

processing systems and 4) abatement technologies. 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 21.0 bales/h during testing. The average 3rd

stage seed-cotton cleaning

system total particulate emission factor based on two tests (6 total test runs) was 0.023 kg/227-kg

bale (0.052 lb/500-lb bale). The 3rd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system test average emission rates

ranged from 0.27 to 0.75 kg/h (0.59-1.66 lb/h). The system average total particulate emission

factor was less than that currently published in EPA AP-42.

INTRODUCTION

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission factors published in EPA’s

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42 (EPA, 1996b) are assigned a rating that is

used to assess the quality of the data being referenced. The ratings can range from A (Excellent)

to E (Poor). Current EPA emission factor quality ratings for total particulate matter (PM) from

cotton gins are extremely low. Cotton gin data received these low ratings because they were

collected almost exclusively from a single geographical region (EPA, 1996a). Cotton ginners’

associations across the cotton belt, including the National, Texas, Southern, Southeastern, and

California associations, agreed that there was an urgent need to collect additional cotton gin

emissions data to address current regulatory issues. Working with the 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 details cotton gin 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, 2

nd stage seed-cotton cleaning, 3

rd stage seed-cotton

cleaning, overflow, 1st stage lint cleaning, 2

nd stage lint cleaning, combined lint cleaning, cyclone

robber, 1st stage mote, 2

nd stage mote, combined mote, mote cyclone robber, mote cleaner, mote

trash, battery condenser and master trash. This report focuses on total particulate emissions from

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems.

The 1996 EPA AP-42 average emission factor for the No. 3 dryer and cleaner was 0.043

kg (0.095 lb) per 217-kg [480-lb] equivalent bale with a range of 0.041 to 0.045 kg (0.091-0.099

lb) per bale (EPA, 1996a, 1996b). This average and range was based on two tests conducted in

one geographical location. The EPA emission factor quality rating was D, which is 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 first 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

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 fewer 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).

Typical cotton gin layout includes: unloading system, dryers, seed-cotton 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 easy transport. Gin systems produce some type of by-

product 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

Figure 1. Annual U.S. cotton production, active U.S. gins, and average ginning volume (bales per gin)

(NASS, 1993-2012).

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

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

Figure 2. Typical modern cotton gin layout (Courtesy Lummus Corp., Savannah, GA).

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

extracted with the trash (Fig. 4).

Cyclones are the most common PM abatement devices used at cotton gins. Standard

cyclone designs used at cotton ginning facilities are the 2D2D and 1D3D (Whitelock, et al.,

2009). The first D in the designation indicates the length of the cyclone barrel relative to the

cyclone barrel diameter and the second D indicates the length of the cyclone cone relative to the

cyclone barrel diameter. A standard 2D2D cyclone (Fig. 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).

The objective of this study was to collect additional total particulate emission factor data

for 3rd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems with cyclones for emissions control at cotton gins

located in region across the cotton belt based on EPA-approved stack sampling methodologies.

METHODS

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

Figure 3. Typical cotton gin 3

rd stage seed-cotton cleaning

system layout (Courtesy Lummus Corp., Savannah, GA).

Figure 4. Photograph of typical

trash captured by the 3rd

stage seed-

cotton cleaning system cyclones.

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, 2) production capacity, 3) processing systems and 4)

abatement technologies. 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 Method 17 (CFR, 1978) was used to

sample the 3rd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system at each gin. Method 17 was selected over

Figure 5. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics.

Method 5 (CFR, 1987) because of the relatively low stack temperatures found at cotton gins.

One of the key benefits of using Method 17 over Method 5 is the option to eliminate the glass

probe and heating systems, and to sample at stack temperature with an in-stack filter. For the

total particulate sampling methodology, 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 button-hook nozzle and then collected on an in-stack filter (Fig. 6). The

methods for retrieving the filter and conducting acetone washes of the sampling nozzle are

described in Method 17 (CFR, 1978). The mass of particulate on the filter and in the nozzle wash

was determined by gravimetric analyses. The total particulate mass was determined by summing

the mass of particulates on the filter and the front half wash. Stack gas temperature and moisture

content were also measured using EPA Method 17.

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 particulate emissions for the system 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 all the tests at all the cotton gins.

All stack sampling equipment was purchased from Apex Instruments (Fuquay-Varina,

NC) and met specifications of Method 17. 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

Figure 6. EPA Method 17 total particulate button-hook nozzle and in-stack filter holder photograph.

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 calibrated all sampling

equipment according to EPA Method 17.

Each cyclone selected for testing 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. 7). 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.

The tests were conducted by the certified stack sampling technician in an enclosed

sampling trailer at the base of the cyclone bank (Fig. 8). Sample retrieval, including filters and

nozzle acetone washes, was conducted according to Method 17. 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

Figure 7. Schematic and photographs of stack extensions with sampling port and staightening

vanes (rail attached to extension above sampling port, at right, supports sampling probe during

testing traverse).

factors in terms of kg/227-kg bale (lb/500-lb bale). Emission factors and rates were calculated in

accordance with Method 17 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 ± 3.6

oF]; 35 ± 5% RH) for 48 h prior to gravimetric

analyses. Filters were weighed in the environmental chamber on a Mettler MX-5 microbalance

(Mettler-Toledo Inc., Columbus, OH – 1 µg readability and 0.9 µg repeatability) after being

passed through an anti-static device. The MX-5 microbalance was leveled on a marble table and

housed inside an acrylic box to minimize the effects of air currents and vibrations. To reduce

recording errors, weights were electronically 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 each. 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.

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

Figure 8. 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.

analyses were completed all stack sampling, cotton gin production, and laboratory data were

merged.

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. 9).

In each of these parallel systems, the seed-cotton material was pneumatically conveyed from the

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

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. 10).

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. 11). 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

seed-cotton cleaning cyclones at both gins. All of the cyclone variations outlined above, if

Figure 9. Schematic of split stream, single cleaner

stage seed-cotton cleaning system with dryer (gin

Figure 10. Schematic of split stream, single cleaner

stage seed-cotton cleaning system without dryer

(gin C).

properly designed and maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin emissions

(Whitelock et al., 2009).

Table 1. Abatement device configurationz for 3

rd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems tested.

Cyclone

Designy

Systems

per Gin

Cyclones

per Gin Configuration Cone Design

A 1D3D inverted 1D3D 2 2 single expansion

chamber

hopper

C 1D3D 2D2D 2 4 dual expansion

chamber

hopper

z Figures 5 and 11

y Inverted 1D3D inlet has duct in line with the bottom of the inlet

x Systems to remove material from cyclone trash exits: hopper = large storage container directly under

cyclone trash exit

Table 2 shows the test parameters for each Method 17 test run for the 3rd

stage seed-

cotton cleaning systems sampled at the two gins. The system average ginning rate was 21.0

bales/h and the test average ginning rate at each gin ranged from 19.2 to 22.8 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 run two for gin A was

outside the design range due to limitations in available system adjustments.

Figure 11. 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

seed-cotton cleaning systems. Stack Gas

Test Ginning Rate

Cyclone Inlet

Velocity

Isokinetic

Sampling

Moisture

Content Temperature

Gin Run bales/hz

m/s fpm %

% °C °F

A 1 19.7 17.4 3427 101 0.7 13 55

2 17.9 19.1 3759 104 0.3 36 97

3 20.1 18.0 3535 103 1.2 30 86

Test Average 19.2 18.2 3574

C 1 22.9 17.0 3339 96 0.8 43 110

2 22.2 17.0 3341 98 1.8 45 114

23.2 17.9 3533 93 1.9 48 119

Test Average 22.8 17.3 3404

System Average 21.0 17.7 3489 z 227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales

There are criteria specified in EPA Method 17 for test runs to be valid for total particulate

measurements (CFR, 1978). Isokinetic sampling must fall within EPA defined range of 100 ±

10%. All tests met the isokinetic criteria (Table 2). The stack gas temperatures ranged from 13 to

48oC (55-119

oF) and moisture content ranged from 0.3 to 1.9%

Total particulate emissions data (ginning and emission rates and corresponding emission

factors) for the 3rd

seed-cotton cleaning systems are shown in Table 3. The system average

emission factor was 0.023 kg/bale (0.052 lb/bale). The test average emission factors ranged from

0.014 to 0.033 kg (0.031-0.073 lb) per bale. The average 3rd

seed-cotton cleaning system total

particulate emission factor for this project was about 54% of the EPA AP-42 published value for

the No. 3 dryer and cleaner, which is an equivalent system to the 3rd

system. The range of test average total particulate emission factors determined for this project

was lower than the AP-42 emission factor data range. The test average emission rates ranged

from 0.27 to 0.75 kg/h (0.59-1.66 lb/h).

Figure 12 shows an example of samples recovered from a typical 3rd

stage seed-cotton

cleaning system test run. Often, there were cotton lint fibers in the cotton gin cyclone exhausts.

Therefore, it was not unusual to find lint fiber on the Method 17 filter or in the front half wash

(Figure 13).

Table 3. Total particulate 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 0.44 0.97 0.022 0.049

2 0.18 0.40 0.010 0.023

3 0.18 0.40 0.0089 0.020

Test Average (n=3) 0.27 0.59 0.014 0.031

C 1 0.71 1.57 0.031 0.069

2 0.78 1.72 0.035 0.078

0.76 1.67 0.033 0.072

Test Average (n=3) 0.75 1.66 0.033 0.073

System Average (n=2) 0.023 0.052 z 227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales

Figure 12. Typical EPA Method 17 filter and sampler head acetone wash from the 3

rd stage seed-

cotton cleaning system. From left to right: front half wash and filter.

Figure 13. EPA Method 17 filter and sampler head acetone wash from the 3

rd stage seed-cotton

cleaning system with lint (indicated by arrows) on the filter. From left to right: front half wash

and filter.

SUMMARY

Seven cotton gins across the U.S. cotton belt were sampled using EPA Method 17 to

collect additional data to improve the EPA AP-42 total particulate emission factor quality ratings

for cotton gins. Two of the seven gins were equipped with 3rd

systems. The tested systems were similar in design and typical of the ginning industry. The

systems were equipped with 1D3D cyclones for emissions control with some variations in inlet

and cone design. In terms of capacity, the two gins were typical of the industry, averaging 21.0

bales/h during testing. The average 3rd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system total particulate

emission factor based on two tests (6 total test runs) was 0.023 kg/227-kg bale (0.052 lb/500-lb

bale) and was less than that currently published in EPA AP-42. The gin test average emission

rates ranged from 0.27 to 0.75 kg/h (0.59-1.66 lb/h).

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). 1978. Method 17—Determination of particulate emissions

from stationary sources (in-stack filtration method). 40 CFR 60 Appendix A-6. Available

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-17.pdf (verified 19 Aug. 2013).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1987. Method 5—Determination of particulate matter

emissions from stationary sources. 40 CFR 60 Appendix A-3. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-05.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.

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.

Field and Laboratory Data

Gin A Field and Laboratory Data

A#400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3D2008

Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr)Based on EPA Method 17 Based on EPA Method 17

Total PM Total PMRun 1 0.0493 Run 1 0.9714Run 2 0.0226 Run 2 0.4041Run 3 0.0197 Run 3 0.3954

Average 0.0305 Average 0.5903Condensables Condensables

Run 1 0.0017 Run 1 0.0338Run 2 0.0032 Run 2 0.0576Run 3 0.0001 Run 3 0.0022

Average 0.0017 Average 0.0312

Run 2: Cyclone Inlet Velocity High

Gin:Exhaust:

Raw Test DataRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Barometer 26.00 26.00 26.00 Pbar 26.00Meter Calibration Fac. 1.01 1.01 1.01 Y 1.01Pitot Calibration Fac. 0.84 0.84 0.84 Cp 0.84Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) -0.23 -0.23 -0.23 Pg -0.23Dry % Oxygen 20.90 20.90 20.90 %O2 20.90Dry % Carbon Monoxide 0.01 0.01 0.01 %CO2 0.01Area Standard Temperature (deg F) 68.0 68.0 68.0 tsd 68.0Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) 55.5 96.8 85.9 ts 79.4Temperature of Meter (deg.F) 70.3 67.0 62.6 tm 66.7∆ P Average (in H2O) 0.38 0.42 0.38 ∆ P 0.39Average √ ∆ P 0.61 0.64 0.61 √∆P 0.62∆ H Average (in H2O) 1.31 1.46 1.32 ∆ H 1.37Total Condensable water (g) 5.20 2.40 9.20 Vlc 5.60Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) 41.16 42.75 39.99 Vm 41.30Stack Diameter (in.) 22.00 22.00 22.00 Ds 22.00Area of the Nozzle 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 An 0.000309Sample duration (min) 60 60 60 Time 60

Intermediate CalculationsRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) 25.98 25.98 25.98 Ps 25.98Standard Temperature (deg R) 528.0 528.0 528.0 Tstd 528.0Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) 515.5 556.8 545.9 Ts 539.4Temperature of Meter (deg.R) 530.3 527.0 522.6 Tm 526.7Water vapor standard (scf) 0.24 0.11 0.43 Vwstd 0.26Sample gas volume (dscf) 36.21 37.86 35.69 Vmstd 36.59Moisture Content Stack Gas 0.007 0.003 0.012 Bws 0.007Dry % Nitrogen 79.09 79.09 79.09 dcN2 79.09Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) 28.84 28.84 28.84 Md 28.84Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) 28.76 28.81 28.71 Ms 28.76Area of Stack (Ft^2) 2.64 2.64 2.64 As 2.64

ResultsRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 36.4 39.9 37.5 Vs 37.9Stack Gas Flowrate (Acfm) 5,759 6,318 5,941 Qa 6,006Stack Gas Flowrate (Dscfm) 5,088 5,188 4,931 Qstd 5,069Cyclone Inlet Velocity (ft/min) 3427 3759 3535 Invs 3,574Isokinetic Variation (%) 101.33 103.93 103.09 I 102.78

Calculated Emission ResultsRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Particulate Weight (g) 0.026 0.011 0.011 Ws 0.016Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) 0.011 0.005 0.005 Cs 0.007Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr) 0.49 0.20 0.20 CFs 0.30Standard 500 lb Hour (bale/hr) 19.71 17.91 20.05 Sbl/hr 19.22Particulate lb/bale 0.025 0.011 0.010 Cfbale 0.015Cyclones in sysytem 2 2 2 #Cy 2Total System Particulate lb/bale 0.049 0.023 0.020 Tsys 0.03

REM - 2003

12/13/08

Method 5 Data Average Sheet

#400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3D

Weather:

ө: min.Y: Cp:

Cyclone Dia: % Dia# in System: 2 K Fac:

PitotA: B: Hg 22

Notes:

g 1 gg 2 gg 3 gg 4 gg g

Averages: 55.46

5257.560

545453

47.550

32.535

37.540

42.545

717155

0.320.30.36

46.097 0.632

Gross TotalTare

603808.1

AvgVacuum

Sample Run

Nozzle #:

Meter∆ H

VeloctiyMeter Temp

Pre Leak Check:Post Leak Check:

00.016

0.470.46

∆ PMeter Volume∆ P

1.641.611.681.401.261.12

0.6780.6930.632

4.937Start Time

Points ө °F

% H2O:

Stack Dia:

Port Dia:3

Traverse Sample Stack

Unit:Job #:

p Stack:% O2:

Pbar: % CO2:Pitot #:

Ambient Temp:

Δ H @:LBK1 1.92160

1.01300

61Tstd:

1517.520 58

57.510

111212

56555757

27.530

22.525

585654

Method 5 Data Sheet

Client:Location:

Run #:Cold Box #

Meter #:

1.081.12

0.7210.7140.686

1.191.811.811.781.64

1.471.290.910.73

1.051.26

70707070

707070

0.420.370.26

0.60871717171

Acetone DI Water

0.5660.52

0.360.32

0.510.4580.566

0.5660.574

End Time17:19

End Volume

0.330.32

0.520.520.51

End Vol

#400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3608-099Clear-0.23

End VolStart Vol

6.00 0.6170.33

20.90.01

1 CamDate: 12/13/08

Operator:

0.5660.583

1 0.84M-3

602.3797.1

Total:

REM - 2003

Start Vol

Filter #:1

Total:

-15.9729.6717.1707.7

Client : A Date : 12/13/2008Location: Job # : 608-099

Unit : #400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3D Pstd: 29.92Run # : 1 Tstd: 68

Barometer 26.00 PbarMeter Calibration Fac. 1.0130 YPitot Calibration Fac. 0.84 CpStack Static Pressure (in. H2O) -0.23 PgDry Concentration Oxygen 20.90 %O2Dry Concentration Carbon Monoxide 0.01 %CO2Area Standard Temperature (deg F) 68.0 tsdTemperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) 55.5 tsTemperature of Meter (deg.F) 70.3 tm∆ P Average (in H2O) 0.377 ∆ PAverage √ ∆ P 0.610 √∆P∆ H Average (in H2O) 1.31 ∆ HTotal Condensable water (g) 5.2 VlcDry gas Volume Measured (dcf) 41.160 VmStack Diameter (in.) 22.0 DsArea of the Nozzle 0.00031 AnSample duration (min) 60 Time

Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) 25.98 Ps Ps =Pbar+Pg/13.6

Area Standard Temperature (deg R) 528 Tstd Tstd =tsd+460

Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) 515 Ts Ts =ts+460

Temperature of Meter (deg.R) 530 Tm Tm =tm+460

Volume of water vapor standard (scf) 0.24 Vwstd Vwstd =(0.04707/(528/(tsd+460)))*Vlc

Sample gas volume (dscf) 36.21 Vmstd Vmstd =Vm*Y*(Tstd/Tm)*((Pbar+Dh/13.6)/29.92)

Moisture Content Stack Gas 0.007 Bws Bws =Vwstd/(Vwstd+Vmstd)

Dry Concentration Nitrogen 79.09 dcN2 dcN2=100-((dcO2)+(dcCO2))

Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) 28.84 Md Md =(dcCO2*0.44)+(dcO2*0.32)+(dcN2*0.28)

Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) 28.76 Ms Ms =(Md*(1-Bws))+18*Bws

Area of Stack (Ft^2) 2.64 As As =3.141592654*(Ds/12)^2/4

Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 36.36 Vs Vs =85.49*Cp*sqrtDp*(SQRT(Ts/(Ps*Ms)))

Stack Gas Flowrate (Acfm) 5,759 Qa Vs =Vs*60*As

Stack Gas Flowrate (Dscfm) 5,088 Qstd Qstd =60*(1-Bws)*Vs*As*(Tstd/Ts)*(Ps/29.92)

Isokinetic Variation (%) 101.33 I I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60

*(1-Bws))*100

Particulate Weight (g) 0.0261 WsParticulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) 0.0111 Cs Cs = 15.43*Ws/Vmstd

Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr) 0.49 CFs CFs = Cs*60*Qstd/7000

REM - 2003

Calculated Emission Results

Results

Intermediate Calculaions

Raw Test Data

Method 5 Calculation Sheet

Weather:

ө: min.Y: Cp:

PitotA: B: Hg 20

Notes:

End Volume 0.574 1.151.120.566

18:51End Time 0.529 0.98

1.120.566

0.728 1.851.71

1.850.775 2.090.728

0.574 1.15

0.678 1.610.608 1.29

0.663 1.540.671 1.57

in.Hg ∆ P ∆ HVacuum Meter Volume

0.583 1.19

1.570.624 1.36

17:42 0.671

REM - 2003

2.4End Vol 824

Total: Total:832.7 8.7

Start Vol 610.1 0.6

Start Vol 773.4

0.3266

End Vol

47.435

96 0.326694 0.34

0.3366

0.5568Start Time

Gross764.9 -8.5725.7 1.6

Acetone DI Water Tare

90.185

1.920.735 1.88

√ Meter

0.592 1.220.648 1.47

0.608 1.291.15

67.04 0.42 8.00

Averages: 96.75

12 57.560

0.583 1.19

1.4642.75 0.644

8 47.5 98

10 52.5 9755

500.2866

7 45 98 0.3366

5 40 99 0.49666 42.5 99 0.3766

3 35 99 0.54674 37.5 99 0.5367

1 30 97 0.53672 32.5 99 0.667

11 25 92 0.466712 27.5 93 0.3767

9 20 95 0.446710 22.5 95 0.4568

7 15 95 0.35688 17.5 96 0.4268

5 10 95 0.34686 12.5 96 0.3368

3 5 98 0.45684 7.5 96 0.3968

2 2.5 99 0.5468

Meter Temp

1 0 99AvgPoints ө °F

Traverse Sample Stack∆ P

Veloctiy

1 0.841.01300 Δ H @: 1.921 Pitot #:

Port Dia: 7

M-3 0.238Meter #: LBK1

OK1 Pre Leak Check: 0.007

Post Leak Check: 0.004

26 60 % CO2: 0.01

Stack Dia: 22 Sample Run

% H2O: 0.02 Nozzle #:

% O2: 20.9Pbar:

Ambient Temp: 58p Stack:Filter #:Cold Box # 3

Tstd: 68

Method 5 Data Sheet

Client: A Unit: #400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3

ClearLocation: Date:

Run #: 2 Operator: Cam12/13/08 Job #: 608-099

*(1-Bws))*100

Calculated Emission ResultsParticulate Weight (g) 0.0111 WsParticulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) 0.0045 Cs Cs = 15.43*Ws/Vmstd

REM - 2003

Raw Test Data

Results

Weather:

ө: min.Y: Cp:

PitotA: B: Hg 22

Notes:

0.38 8.00 39.985 0.611 1.32

0.29 131.38 0.5390.32 0.566 1.120.32 End Volume 0.5660.33 20:30 0.574 1.150.31 End Time 0.557

0.26 0.51 0.910.31 0.557 1.08

0.33 0.574 1.150.33 0.574 1.15

0.48 0.693 1.680.5 0.707 1.75

0.36 0.6 1.260.42 0.648 1.47

0.34 0.583 1.190.34 0.583 1.19

0.31 0.557 1.080.32 0.566 1.12

0.28 0.529 0.980.37 0.608

1.570.43 0.656 1.50

91.395 0.735 1.882.131.81

0.61 8 Start Time 0.7810.520.45 0.671

0.54 8

19:23 0.721

Total: Total:

REM - 2003

End Vol

-2.2718.3

2.6603.1 0817

Start Vol 603.1End Vol 715.7

Gross Total728.6

DI Water

Start VolTareAcetone

Averages: 85.88

11 55 8412 57.5 79

6210 52.5 84 62

8 47.5 85 629 50 85 62

6 42.5 85 627 45 85 62

4 37.5 86 625 40 86 62

2 32.5 85 623 35 86 62

12 27.5 85 631 30 83 62

10 22.5 87 6311 25 86 63

8 17.5 88 639 20 87 63

6 12.5 88 637 15 88 63

4 7.5 88 635 10 88 63

2 2.5 88 643 5 88 64

Points ө °F Avg1 0 87 64

Meter∆ P

Traverse Sample Stack Meter Temp Veloctiy Vacuum Meter Volume √in.Hg ∆ P

OKPort Dia: 7 Post Leak Check: 0.005 OK

3 1 Pre Leak Check: 0.001

M-3 0.238

% H2O: 0.02 2 Nozzle #:3.49

3 Filter #:Tstd: 68 Ambient Temp:

0.01Meter #: LBK1 1.01300 Δ H @: 1.921 Pitot #: 1 0.84

Pbar: 26 60 % CO2:

Client: A Unit: #400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3608-099

Method 5 Data Sheet

Cam12/13/08 Job #:

Date:Part Cloud

Location:Run #: 3 Operator:

p Stack:% O2: 20.9

Cold Box #

*(1-Bws))*100

Raw Test Data

Results

REM - 2003

Plant: A Date: 12/13/2008Location: Job #: 608-099

Unit: #400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3D Start Time: 15:05Run: 1 End Time: 17:19

Elapsed Time: 134 Test Time: 60Bale Time: 83.00 StdDev Std BPH: 6.91

Ave min/bale: 0:04:47 Ave Std BPH: 19.7

Bale No. Bale Wt. Time time/baleStd 500 lb

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1545163 14:48:00 --- --- ---1545164 473 15:06:00 0:18:00 3.2 *1545165 433 15:08:00 0:02:00 26.01545166 447 15:10:00 0:02:00 26.81545167 457 15:12:00 0:02:00 27.41545168 472 15:15:00 0:03:00 18.91545169 453 15:17:00 0:02:00 27.21545170 461 15:20:00 0:03:00 18.41545171 458 15:23:00 0:03:00 18.31545172 486 15:25:00 0:02:00 29.21545173 494 15:27:00 0:02:00 29.61545174 508 15:30:00 0:03:00 20.31545175 485 15:32:00 0:02:00 29.11545176 488 15:34:00 0:02:00 29.31545177 493 15:36:00 0:02:00 29.61545178 504 15:39:00 0:03:00 20.21545179 493 15:41:00 0:02:00 29.61545180 505 15:43:00 0:02:00 30.31545181 493 15:45:00 0:02:00 29.61545182 514 15:48:00 0:03:00 20.61545183 500 15:50:00 0:02:00 30.01545184 498 15:52:00 0:02:00 29.91545185 495 15:54:00 0:02:00 29.71545186 510 15:57:00 0:03:00 20.41545187 481 15:59:00 0:02:00 28.91545188 525 16:01:00 0:02:00 31.51545189 16:08:00 0:07:00 *1545190 16:21:00 0:13:00 *1545191 16:23:00 0:02:00 *1545192 17:11:00 0:48:00 *1545193 511 17:13:00 0:02:00 30.71545194 507 17:15:00 0:02:00 30.41545195 491 17:21:00 0:06:00 9.8

REM - 2003

NOTE: Removed Bale Data = Lapse in Sampling Operation

Cotton Gin Bale Test Data

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1545204 17:41:00 --- --- ---1545205 495 17:44:00 0:03:00 19.81545206 499 17:48:00 0:04:00 15.01545207 518 17:51:00 0:03:00 20.71545208 500 17:53:00 0:02:00 30.01545209 522 17:55:00 0:02:00 31.31545210 533 18:13:00 0:18:00 3.61545211 487 18:16:00 0:03:00 19.51545212 484 18:18:00 0:02:00 29.01545213 493 18:21:00 0:03:00 19.71545214 490 18:24:00 0:03:00 19.61545215 483 18:27:00 0:03:00 19.31545216 488 18:29:00 0:02:00 29.31545217 488 18:31:00 0:02:00 29.31545218 485 18:34:00 0:03:00 19.41545219 484 18:37:00 0:03:00 19.41545220 474 18:39:00 0:02:00 28.41545221 470 18:41:00 0:02:00 28.21545222 451 18:43:00 0:02:00 27.11545223 447 18:45:00 0:02:00 26.81545224 486 18:48:00 0:03:00 19.41545225 489 18:50:00 0:02:00 29.31545226 479 18:53:00 0:03:00 19.2

REM - 2003

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1545238 19:23:00 --- --- ---1545239 474 19:26:00 0:03:00 19.01545240 509 19:29:00 0:03:00 20.41545241 488 19:32:00 0:03:00 19.51545242 520 19:35:00 0:03:00 20.81545243 479 19:37:00 0:02:00 28.71545244 519 19:41:00 0:04:00 15.61545245 476 19:48:00 0:07:00 8.21545246 503 19:52:00 0:04:00 15.11545247 413 19:54:00 0:02:00 24.81545248 425 19:58:00 0:04:00 12.81545249 478 20:00:00 0:02:00 28.71545250 490 20:02:00 0:02:00 29.41545251 485 20:05:00 0:03:00 19.41545252 460 20:07:00 0:02:00 27.61545253 462 20:11:00 0:04:00 13.91545254 506 20:13:00 0:02:00 30.41545255 490 20:15:00 0:02:00 29.41545256 499 20:17:00 0:02:00 29.91545257 505 20:21:00 0:04:00 15.21545258 515 20:23:00 0:02:00 30.91545259 506 20:25:00 0:02:00 30.41545260 498 20:27:00 0:02:00 29.91545261 495 20:30:00 0:03:00 19.8

REM - 2003

Client : Date :Location: Job # : 608-099

Unit : #400-2 No. 3 Drying 1D3D

Solution Blanks DI Water AcetoneWeigh Dish #: TL-0019 Weigh Dish #: TS-0124

Gross: 646.241 mg Gross: 741.425 mgTare: 644.790 mg Tare: 741.126 mg

Total Residue 1.451 mg Total Residue 0.298 mgVolume: 250 g Volume: 100 g

Residue: 0.006 mg/g Residue: 0.003 mg/g

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3DI WaterBack 1/2 Vol/Rinse: 264.5 g Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: 296 g Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: 265.9 g

Total Water: 264.5 g Total Water: 296 g Total Water: 265.9 g

AcetoneFront 1/2 Rinse: 19 g Front 1/2 Rinse: 16.4 g Front 1/2 Rinse: 13.5 gBack 1/2 Rinse: 54.8 g Back 1/2 Rinse: 54.3 g Back 1/2 Rinse: 56.8 g

Front 1/2Weigh Dish #: TS-0129 Weigh Dish #: TS-0131 Weigh Dish #: TS-0133

Gross: 643.380 mg Gross: 688.166 mg Gross: 618.251 mgTare: 638.573 mg Tare: 684.523 mg Tare: 615.834 mg

Acetone wt: -0.057 mg Acetone wt: -0.049 mg Acetone wt: -0.040 mgFront 1/2 Weight: 4.750 mg Front 1/2 Weight: 3.593 mg Front 1/2 Weight: 2.377 mg

FilterFilter # 6L-0063 Filter # 6L-0064 Filter # 6L-0065Gross: 258.714 mg Gross: 247.843 mg Gross: 253.296 mg

Tare: 237.335 mg Tare: 240.287 mg Tare: 244.853 mgFilter Weight: 21.380 mg Filter Weight: 7.556 mg Filter Weight: 8.444 mg

Back 1/2Weigh Dish #: TL-0020 Weigh Dish #: TL-0021 Weigh Dish #: TL-0022

Total Residue: 2.641 mg Total Residue: 3.733 mg Total Residue: 1.774 mgDI Water wt: -1.535 mg DI Water wt: -1.718 mg DI Water wt: -1.543 mgAcetone wt: -0.163 mg Acetone wt: -0.162 mg Acetone wt: -0.169 mg

Back 1/2 Weight: 0.942 mg Back 1/2 Weight: 1.853 mg Back 1/2 Weight: 0.062 mg

Results Run 1 Run 2 Run 3Front 1/2 Wt: 0.0048 g Front 1/2 Wt: 0.0036 g Front 1/2 Wt: 0.0024 g

Filter Wt: 0.0214 g Filter Wt: 0.0076 g Filter Wt: 0.0084 gBack 1/2 Wt: 0.0009 g Back 1/2 Wt: 0.0019 g Back 1/2 Wt: 0.0001 g

Filterable PM Wt: 0.0261 g Filterable PM Wt: 0.0111 g Filterable PM Wt: 0.0108 gTotal PM Weight: 0.0271 g Total PM Weight: 0.0130 g Total PM Weight: 0.0109 g

Method 5.1 Weight, Data & Calculations

REM Method 5.1 - 2007

12/13/2008

Acetone Rinse

Total PM Date:Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

Filter ID#: 6L-0063 Filter ID#: 6L-0064 Filter ID#: 6L-0065

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 345.5 g Front 1/2 Start Vol: 310.5 g Front 1/2 Start Vol: 266.8 gEnd Vol: 326.5 g End Vol: 294.1 g End Vol: 253.3 g

Total: 19.0 g Total: 16.4 g Total: 13.5 gTub #: TS-0129 Tub #: TS-0131 Tub #: TS-0133

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 54.8 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 54.3 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 56.8 gProbe End Vol: 0.0 g Probe End Vol: 0.0 g Probe End Vol: 0.0 g

Total: 54.8 g Total: 54.3 g Total: 56.8 gTub #: TL-0020 Tub #: TL-0021 Tub #: TL-0022

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 54.8 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 54.3 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 56.8 gDI H2O End Vol: 319.3 g DI H2O End Vol: 350.3 g DI H2O End Vol: 322.7 g

12/13-14/08

A 12/13/2008

Filter/Tub Weights

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

Post-Weight

Net-Weight

(mg)Acetone Blank 100 g TS-0124 741.126 741.425 0.298DI Water Blank 250 g TL-0019 644.790 646.241 1.451

Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021

No. Cyclone Name Method Run No.Sample

LocationFilter/Tub

Pre-Weight

Post-Weight

Net-Weight

(mg)400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 1 Back 1/2 TL-0020 676.928 679.568 2.641400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 1 Filter 6L-0063 237.335 258.714 21.380400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 1 Front 1/2 TS-0129 638.573 643.380 4.807400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 2 Back 1/2 TL-0021 691.650 695.383 3.733400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 2 Filter 6L-0064 240.287 247.843 7.556400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 2 Front 1/2 TS-0131 684.523 688.166 3.642400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 3 Back 1/2 TL-0022 665.582 667.356 1.774400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 3 Filter 6L-0065 244.853 253.296 8.444400-2 2nd #2 Drying 17 3 Front 1/2 TS-0133 615.834 618.251 2.417

A 12/13/2008

Gin C Field and Laboratory Data

C#7 3A Pull 1D3D2009

Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr)Based on EPA Method 17 Based on EPA Method 17

Total PM Total PMRun 1 0.0685 Run 1 1.5695Run 2 0.0777 Run 2 1.7243Run 3 0.0720 Run 3 1.6718

Average 0.0727 Average 1.6552Condensables Condensables

Run 1 0.0064 Run 1 0.1475Run 2 0.0000 Run 2 0.0000Run 3 0.0000 Run 3 0.0000

Average 0.0021 Average 0.0492

Gin:Exhaust:

Raw Test DataRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Barometer 29.90 29.90 26.20 Pbar 28.67Meter Calibration Fac. 1.02 1.02 1.02 Y 1.02Pitot Calibration Fac. 0.84 0.84 0.84 Cp 0.84Stack Static Pressure (in. H2O) -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 Pg -0.17Dry % Oxygen 20.90 20.90 20.90 %O2 20.90Dry % Carbon Monoxide 0.05 0.05 0.05 %CO2 0.05Area Standard Temperature (deg F) 68.0 68.0 68.0 tsd 68.0Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.F) 110.3 113.7 119.3 ts 114.4Temperature of Meter (deg.F) 60.8 64.3 68.9 tm 64.7∆ P Average (in H2O) 0.37 0.37 0.35 ∆ P 0.36Average √ ∆ P 0.61 0.60 0.59 √∆P 0.60∆ H Average (in H2O) 0.33 0.32 0.31 ∆ H 0.32Total Condensable water (g) 3.30 7.20 6.70 Vlc 5.73Dry gas Volume Measured (dcf) 18.06 18.23 18.30 Vm 18.20Stack Diameter (in.) 19.00 19.00 19.00 Ds 19.00Area of the Nozzle 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017 An 0.000167Sample duration (min) 60 60 60 Time 60

Intermediate CalculationsRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Absolute Stack Pressure (in.Hg) 29.89 29.89 26.19 Ps 28.65Standard Temperature (deg R) 528.0 528.0 528.0 Tstd 528.0Temperature of Stack Gas (deg.R) 570.3 573.7 579.3 Ts 574.4Temperature of Meter (deg.R) 520.8 524.3 528.9 Tm 524.7Water vapor standard (scf) 0.16 0.34 0.32 Vwstd 0.27Sample gas volume (dscf) 18.75 18.79 16.39 Vmstd 17.98Moisture Content Stack Gas 0.008 0.018 0.019 Bws 0.015Dry % Nitrogen 79.05 79.05 79.05 dcN2 79.05Molecular Weight Stack Gas (dry) 28.84 28.84 28.84 Md 28.84Molecular Weight Stack Gas (wet) 28.75 28.65 28.64 Ms 28.68Area of Stack (Ft^2) 1.97 1.97 1.97 As 1.97

ResultsRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 35.4 35.4 37.5 Vs 36.1Stack Gas Flowrate (Acfm) 4,185 4,188 4,428 Qa 4,267Stack Gas Flowrate (Dscfm) 3,839 3,782 3,466 Qstd 3,695Cyclone Inlet Velocity (ft/min) 3339 3341 3533 Invs 3,404Isokinetic Variation (%) 95.96 97.63 92.92 I 95.51

Calculated Emission ResultsRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Particulate Weight (g) 0.014 0.016 0.015 Ws 0.015Particulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) 0.012 0.013 0.014 Cs 0.013Particulate Flow Rate (lb/hr) 0.39 0.43 0.42 CFs 0.41Standard 500 lb Hour (bale/hr) 22.90 22.19 23.23 Sbl/hr 22.78Particulate lb/bale 0.017 0.019 0.018 Cfbale 0.018Cyclones in sysytem 4 4 4 #Cy 4Total System Particulate lb/bale 0.069 0.078 0.072 Tsys 0.07

REM - 2003

10/24/09

Method 5 Data Average Sheet

#7 3A Pull 1D3D

Weather:

ө: min.Y: Cp:

PitotA: B: Hg 22

Notes:

Acetone DI Water

626262

Start Vol

596060

Start Vol

111111 60

606062

End Vol

0.320.6240.6

End Volume

0.370.37

Averages: 110.29

11057.560

620.3262

0.3761

End Time8:28

0.310.34

REM - 2003

End VolTotal:

0.6112

112111

0.340.38

AvgVacuum

Sample Run

Nozzle #:

Meter∆ H

6:495959

0.330.330.35

p Stack:% O2:% CO2:Pitot #:

Ambient Temp:

Δ H @:

Meter Temp Meter Volume

0.8859

0.0070.005

Pre Leak Check:Port Dia:

Filter #:

Traverse Sample Stack Veloctiy

Points ө °F

% H2O:

Stack Dia:

109109

1517.5

345678

910111212

30 109108109111111

22.525

32.535

37.540

42.545

47.550

112111

57.510

Meter #:

0.40.380.430.340.350.38

0.40.42

110110

110111111

Date: 10/24/09#7 3A Pull 1D3D

Run #:Cold Box #

Operator:

0.380.30

0.390.29

0.5830.616

20.90.05

Method 5 Data Sheet

Client:Location:

Unit:Job #:

0.280.280.33

0.5830.5920.6160.592

0.350.280.260.350.300.34

709-124pc-0.17

0.37 8.75

0.390.39

MS5 0.84MS2

0.6480.6320.4

Post Leak Check:

1.02380

0.360.36

0.5660.5390.624

0Start Time

-1.13.6

729.8734.8607.2

1 CD26829.9 60

Total:

731.9608.3882

1.89140.03

0.6320.616

Client : C Date : 10/24/2009Location: Job # : 709-124

Unit : #7 3A Pull 1D3D Pstd: 29.92Run # : 1 Tstd: 68

*(1-Bws))*100

REM - 2003

Results

Raw Test Data

Weather:

ө: min.Y: Cp:

PitotA: B: Hg 20

Notes:

Averages: 113.71

57.5 116 660.43

0.280.25

End Volume

Acetone DI Water

0.3264.33 0.37

0.616 0.34

AvgVeloctiy

Tare Gross

End Time

18.226 0.603

Vacuum √

3.1605.8 -1.1

0.656 0.38

9:43 0.5660.529

0.583 0.300.29

18.226

0.548 0.27

0.574 0.290.557 0.27

Start Time 0.671

8:42 0.656

0.300.35

0.539 0.26

0.6 0.32

Total:

REM - 2003

737.3 -0.2736.4733.3

End Vol 853.6Total:859 5.4

Start VolEnd VolStart Vol

Δ H @: 1.8914 Pitot #: LBK60 % CO2:

LBK 0.1750.84

Meter Volume

0.380.64 0.36

1211 55 116 0.4866

117 0.326510 52.5 117 0.38669 508 47.5 117 0.28657 45 117 0.3656 42.5 117 0.3655 40 116 0.33654 37.5 115 0.34653 35 115 0.35652 32.5 113 0.31641 30 113 0.336612 27.5 114 0.416411 25 113 0.426410 22.5 112 0.43649 20 109 0.4648 17.5 110 0.34647 15 113 0.29636 12.5 113 0.31635 10 114 0.37634 7.5 113 0.4163

0.43633 5 110

% H2O: 0.03 3 Nozzle #:38Meter #:

2 2.5 1091 0 110

Points ө °F

4∆ P0.360.45

Meter Temp

4 Filter #:pc

p Stack: -0.17CD

Traverse Sample Stack

OKPort Dia: 7 Post Leak Check: 0

LBK1 1.02380

3 1 Pre Leak Check: 0.002Stack Dia: 19 Sample Run

Method 5 Data Sheet

Client: C Unit: #7 3A Pull 1D3DJob #: 709-124

Pbar:Tstd: 68 Ambient Temp: 72 % O2: 20.9

Location: Date:Run #: 2 Operator:

10/24/09

Cold Box #

*(1-Bws))*100

Calculated Emission ResultsParticulate Weight (g) 0.0162 WsParticulate Emissions (grain/Dscf) 0.0133 Cs Cs = 15.43*Ws/Vmstd

REM - 2003

Results

Raw Test Data

Weather:

ө: min.Y: Cp:

PitotA: B: Hg 22

Notes:

0.35 8.50 18.301 0.594 0.31

0.38 18.301 0.616

0.360.42 0.648 0.370.41 End Volume 0.64

0.300.35 13 10:53 0.592 0.310.34 End Time 0.5830.28 0.529 0.250.3 0.548 0.27

0.35 0.592 0.310.32 0.566 0.280.33 0.574 0.290.35 0.592 0.310.35 0.592 0.310.43 0.656 0.380.39 0.624 0.350.35 0.592 0.310.34 0.583 0.300.34 0.583 0.300.29 0.539 0.260.32 0.566 0.28

0.350.39 4 Start Time 0.6240.39 9:52 0.624

in.Hg ∆ P ∆ H0.35 0 0.592 0.31

6.7891

Acetone DI Water

0.35 0.592 0.310.37 0.608 0.33

Total: Total:

REM - 2003

5.5Start Vol 607.1End Vol

-2.9750.2 3.4607.8 0.7

End Vol

Gross Total742.2745.1

Averages: 119.29 68.92

Start Vol

12 57.5 121 7111 55 121 7110 52.5 121 719 50 124 718 47.5 121 707 45 121 706 42.5 121 705 40 120 704 37.5 119 703 35 120 702 32.5 118 691 30 115 6912 27.5 119 6911 25 120 6910 22.5 120 689 20 119 688 17.5 119 687 15 120 68

2 2.5 116 671 0

6 12.5 120 685 10 118 67

115 66

4 7.5 118 673 5 117 67

3 1 Pre Leak Check: 0.016

Meter∆ P

Traverse Sample Stack Meter Temp Veloctiy Vacuum Meter Volume √

OKPort Dia: 7 Post Leak Check: 0.004 OK

Points ө °F Avg

% H2O:0.89

0.05Meter #: LBK1 1.02380 Δ H @: 1.8914 Pitot #: MS5 0.84

Pbar: 26.2 60 % CO2:68 Ambient Temp:

p Stack:CD

0.03 3 Nozzle #: MS2

Client: C Unit: #7 3A Pull 1D3D

Method 5 Data Sheet

10/24/09 Job #:

20.9-0.17

73 % O2:

Part CloudLocation:

Run #: 3 Operator:709-124 Date:

Cold Box # 3 Filter #:Tstd:

Isokinetic Variation (%) 92.92 I I =Pstd*VMstd*(ts+460)/(As*Time*Vs*Ps(tstd+460)*60*(1-Bws))*100

REM - 2003

Raw Test Data

Results

Plant: C Date: 10/24/2009Location: Job #: 709-124

Unit: #7 3A Pull 1D3D Start Time: 6:49Run: 1 End Time: 8:28

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion5332266 6:49:00 --- --- ---5332267 477 6:51:20 0:02:20 24.55332268 469 6:53:34 0:02:14 25.25332269 478 6:56:11 0:02:37 21.95332270 472 6:58:21 0:02:10 26.15332271 482 7:01:15 0:02:54 19.95332272 463 7:03:38 0:02:23 23.35332273 496 7:05:36 0:01:58 30.3 *5332274 485 7:08:06 0:02:30 23.35332275 489 7:10:57 0:02:51 20.65332276 490 7:13:04 0:02:07 27.85332277 507 7:15:37 0:02:33 23.95332278 482 7:18:11 0:02:34 22.55332279 489 7:20:54 0:02:43 21.65332280 473 7:23:09 0:02:15 25.25332281 491 7:25:40 0:02:31 23.45332282 494 7:28:15 0:02:35 22.95332283 489 7:31:02 0:02:47 21.15332284 483 7:34:23 0:03:21 17.35332285 479 7:37:19 0:02:56 19.65332286 467 7:39:44 0:02:25 23.25332287 481 7:42:28 0:02:44 21.15332288 480 7:44:42 0:02:14 25.85332289 482 7:47:19 0:02:37 22.15332290 481 7:50:25 0:03:06 18.65332291 491 7:52:45 0:02:20 25.35332292 475 7:54:59 0:02:14 25.55332293 509 7:57:28 0:02:29 24.65332294 494 8:00:01 0:02:33 23.25332295 497 8:02:32 0:02:31 23.75332296 497 8:05:03 0:02:31 23.75332297 497 8:08:01 0:02:58 20.15332298 489 8:10:28 0:02:27 24.05332299 500 8:12:43 0:02:15 26.75332300 479 8:15:07 0:02:24 24.05332301 488 8:17:39 0:02:32 23.15332302 476 8:19:52 0:02:13 25.85332303 504 8:22:33 0:02:41 22.55332304 486 8:24:55 0:02:22 24.65332305 495 8:27:26 0:02:31 23.65332306 492 8:30:54 0:03:28 17.0

REM - 2003

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion5332310 8:40:45 --- --- ---5332311 501 8:43:15 0:02:30 24.05332312 493 8:45:40 0:02:25 24.55332313 493 8:48:26 0:02:46 21.45332314 478 8:50:24 0:01:58 29.25332315 482 8:52:51 0:02:27 23.65332316 487 8:55:06 0:02:15 26.05332317 500 8:57:37 0:02:31 23.85332318 484 9:00:17 0:02:40 21.85332319 484 9:02:51 0:02:34 22.65332320 492 9:10:19 0:07:28 7.9 *5332321 483 9:12:54 0:02:35 22.45332322 470 9:15:20 0:02:26 23.25332323 487 9:17:38 0:02:18 25.45332324 485 9:19:50 0:02:12 26.55332325 500 9:22:21 0:02:31 23.85332326 475 9:24:46 0:02:25 23.65332327 487 9:27:07 0:02:21 24.95332328 489 9:29:31 0:02:24 24.55332329 479 9:32:00 0:02:29 23.15332330 483 9:34:08 0:02:08 27.25332331 500 9:36:36 0:02:28 24.35332332 473 9:39:00 0:02:24 23.65332333 477 9:41:20 0:02:20 24.55332334 480 9:43:49 0:02:29 23.2

REM - 2003

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion5332337 9:51:59 --- --- ---5332338 477 9:54:45 0:02:46 20.75332339 474 9:57:01 0:02:16 25.15332340 469 9:59:30 0:02:29 22.75332341 486 10:01:35 0:02:05 28.05332342 470 10:03:59 0:02:24 23.55332343 495 10:06:22 0:02:23 24.95332344 482 10:08:51 0:02:29 23.35332345 498 10:11:16 0:02:25 24.75332346 483 10:13:46 0:02:30 23.25332347 482 10:16:11 0:02:25 23.95332348 497 10:18:48 0:02:37 22.85332349 491 10:21:18 0:02:30 23.65332350 480 10:23:37 0:02:19 24.95332351 472 10:26:18 0:02:41 21.15332352 471 10:28:41 0:02:23 23.75332353 480 10:31:56 0:03:15 17.7 *5332354 471 10:34:26 0:02:30 22.65332355 492 10:36:57 0:02:31 23.55332356 492 10:39:38 0:02:41 22.05332357 486 10:42:18 0:02:40 21.95332358 467 10:44:50 0:02:32 22.15332359 489 10:46:46 0:01:56 30.4 *5332360 480 10:49:16 0:02:30 23.05332361 487 10:51:41 0:02:25 24.25332362 469 10:54:10 0:02:29 22.7

REM - 2003

Unit : #7 3A Pull 1D3D

Solution Blanks DI Water AcetoneWeigh Dish #: TL-0019 Weigh Dish #: TS-0124

Gross: 646.241 mg Gross: 741.425 mgTare: 644.790 mg Tare: 741.126 mg

Total Residue 1.451 mg Total Residue 0.298 mgVolume: 250 g Volume: 100 g

Residue: 0.006 mg/g Residue: 0.003 mg/g

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3DI WaterBack 1/2 Vol/Rinse: 263.2 g Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: 297.6 g Back 1/2 Vol/Rinse: 292.8 g

Total Water: 263.2 g Total Water: 297.6 g Total Water: 292.8 g

AcetoneFront 1/2 Rinse: 11.35 g Front 1/2 Rinse: 10.35 g Front 1/2 Rinse: 12.94 gBack 1/2 Rinse: 50 g Back 1/2 Rinse: 50 g Back 1/2 Rinse: 50 g

Front 1/2Weigh Dish #: TS-0602 Weigh Dish #: TS-0601 Weigh Dish #: TS-0604

Acetone wt: -0.034 mg Acetone wt: -0.031 mg Acetone wt: -0.039 mgFront 1/2 Weight: 2.060 mg Front 1/2 Weight: 0.756 mg Front 1/2 Weight: 1.976 mg

FilterFilter # 8L-1415 Filter # 8L-1416 Filter # 8L-1417Gross: 308.043 mg Gross: 304.169 mg Gross: 306.829 mg

Tare: 295.612 mg Tare: 288.729 mg Tare: 293.859 mgFilter Weight: 12.431 mg Filter Weight: 15.441 mg Filter Weight: 12.970 mg

Back 1/2Weigh Dish #: TL-0080 Weigh Dish #: TL-0081 Weigh Dish #: TL-0082

Total Residue: 3.180 mg Total Residue: 1.763 mg Total Residue: 1.129 mgDI Water wt: -1.528 mg DI Water wt: -1.727 mg DI Water wt: -1.699 mgAcetone wt: -0.149 mg Acetone wt: -0.149 mg Acetone wt: -0.149 mg

Back 1/2 Weight: 1.503 mg Back 1/2 Weight: -0.113 mg Back 1/2 Weight: -0.719 mg

Results Run 1 Run 2 Run 3Front 1/2 Wt: 0.0021 g Front 1/2 Wt: 0.0008 g Front 1/2 Wt: 0.0020 g

Filter Wt: 0.0124 g Filter Wt: 0.0154 g Filter Wt: 0.0130 gBack 1/2 Wt: 0.0015 g Back 1/2 Wt: 0.0000 g Back 1/2 Wt: 0.0000 g

Filterable PM Wt: 0.0145 g Filterable PM Wt: 0.0162 g Filterable PM Wt: 0.0149 gTotal PM Weight: 0.0160 g Total PM Weight: 0.0162 g Total PM Weight: 0.0149 g

Method 5.1 Weight, Data & Calculations

REM Method 5.1 - 2007

10/24/2009

Acetone Rinse

Total PMRun 1 Run 2 Run 3

Filter ID#: 8L-1415 Filter ID#: 8L-1416 Filter ID#: 8L-1417

Front 1/2 Start Vol: 340.0 g Front 1/2 Start Vol: 319.5 g Front 1/2 Start Vol: 283.9 gEnd Vol: 328.7 g End Vol: 309.1 g End Vol: 271.0 g

Total: 11.4 g Total: 10.4 g Total: 12.9 gTub #: TS-0602 Tub #: TS-0601 Tub #: TS-0604

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 50.0 gProbe End Vol: g Probe End Vol: g Probe End Vol: g

Back 1/2 Start Vol: 263.2 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 297.6 g Back 1/2 Start Vol: 292.8 gDI H2O End Vol: g DI H2O End Vol: g DI H2O End Vol: g

C 10/24/2009

Filter/Tub Weights

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

Post-Weight

Net-Weight

(mg)Acetone Blank 100 g TS-0124 741.126 741.425 0.298DI Water Blank 250 g TL-0019 644.790 646.241 1.451

Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021

No. Cyclone Name Method Run No.Sample

LocationFilter/Tub

Pre-Weight

Post-Weight

Net-Weight

(mg)7 #3A Pull 17 1 Back 1/2 TL-0080 674.288 677.468 3.1807 #3A Pull 17 1 Filter 8L-1415 295.612 308.043 12.4317 #3A Pull 17 1 Front 1/2 TS-0602 709.655 711.749 2.0947 #3A Pull 17 2 Back 1/2 TL-0081 685.702 687.465 1.7637 #3A Pull 17 2 Filter 8L-1416 288.729 304.169 15.4417 #3A Pull 17 2 Front 1/2 TS-0601 712.960 713.747 0.7877 #3A Pull 17 3 Back 1/2 TL-0082 676.198 677.328 1.1297 #3A Pull 17 3 Filter 8L-1417 293.859 306.829 12.9707 #3A Pull 17 3 Front 1/2 TS-0604 665.491 667.506 2.015

C 10/24/2009

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.

3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System Total Particulate Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins

Documents

PHYSICOCHEMICAL ASPECTS OF CLEANING

Unloading System Total Particulate Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins: Method 17

Delivery of Cleaning Services

Cotton Biotechnology

2nd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM2.5 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins

1st Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System PM2.5 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-02 Ver. 2.0

Multiple Lint-Cotton Cleaning: Its Effect on Bale Value, Fiber

CLEANING PROMO! - Monotaro

First stage mote system total particulate emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 17

Battery Condenser System PM10 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-22 Ver. 2.0

Study Self-cleaning of Congo Red from Cotton Fabric Loaded by Zno-Ag

An innovative cleaning tool for underwater soft cleaning operations

SELF CLEANING SUCTION FILTER

Mote Trash System PM10 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-61 Ver. 2.0

Combined Lint Cleaning System PM10 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-21 Ver. 2.0

Unloading System PM2.5 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-01 Ver. 2.0

First Stage Lint Cleaning System PM2.5 Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins: Method 201A Combination PM10 and PM2.5 Sizing Cyclones

3rd Stage Seed-Cotton Cleaning System Total Particulate Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-32 Ver. 2.0

Master Trash System Total Particulate Emission Factors and Rates for Cotton Gins - OSU12-42 Ver. 2.0

First stage lint cleaning system PM10 emission factors and rates from cotton gins: Method 201a PM10 sizing cyclones