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

2nd

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: OSU12-03 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

Unit


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 [email protected]

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. 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 2nd

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. Five of the seven gins were equipped with 2nd

stage seed-cotton

cleaning systems. In terms of capacity, the five gins were typical of the industry, averaging 33.8

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 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5

emission factor based on the five tests (12 total test runs) was 0.0037 kg/227-kg bale (0.0080

lb/500-lb bale). The 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system average emission factors for PM10 and

total particulate were 0.038 kg/bale (0.084 lb/bale) and 0.063 kg/bale (0.138 lb/bale),

respectively. The 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 emission rate from test averages

ranged from 0.089 to 0.16 kg/h (0.20-0.36 lb/h). System average PM10 and total particulate

emission factors were lower than those currently published in EPA AP-42. The ratios of 2nd

stage

seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, and PM10 to total

particulate were 5.8, 9.5, and 61.1%, respectively.

INTRODUCTION

In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a more stringent

standard for particulate matter with particle diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5-m

(PM2.5) aerodynamic equivalent diameter (CFR, 2006). The cotton industry’s primary concern

Page 1 of 105

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, 2

nd

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, 2

nd stage mote,

combined mote, mote cyclone robber, mote cleaner, mote trash, battery condenser, and master

trash. This report focuses on PM2.5 emissions from 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems.

There are published PM10 (particulate matter with a particle diameter less than or equal to

a nominal 10-m 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. 2 dryer and cleaner, which is an equivalent system to the 2nd

stage seed-cotton

cleaning system, was 0.043 kg (0.093 lb) per 217-kg (480-lb) equivalent bale with a range of

0.018 to 0.11 kg (0.040 to 0.23 lb) per bale. The AP-42 average total particulate emission factor

was 0.11 kg (0.24 lb) per bale with a range of 0.047 to 0.36 kg (0.10 to 0.79 lb) per bale. These

PM10 and total factors are based on five and seven tests, respectively, 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

cleaning, drying, and packaging the lint. Pneumatic conveying systems are the primary method

Page 2 of 105

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).

Page 3 of 105

Typical cotton gin processing systems include: 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 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

2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system (Fig. 3), seed cotton drops from the 1st stage seed-cotton

cleaning system machinery into the hot air pneumatic conveying system of the 2nd

stage seed-

cotton cleaning system via a rotary airlock and blow box. The seed cotton is pulled directly into

the 2nd

stage 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. Each stage often employs two cleaners in series. This system

removes foreign matter that includes rocks, soil, sticks, hulls, and leaf material. The airstream

from the 2nd

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

Page 4 of 105

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).

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

Figure 3. Typical cotton gin 2

nd stage seed-cotton cleaning

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

Figure 4. Photograph of typical

trash captured by the 2nd

stage

seed-cotton cleaning system

cyclones.

Page 5 of 105

Cyclones are the most common particulate matter 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 ± 2m/s (3200 ± 400fpm).

The objective of this study was the development of PM2.5 emission factors for cotton gin

2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems with cyclones for emissions control based on EPA-

approved stack sampling methodologies.

Figure 5. 2D2D and 1D3D cyclone schematics.

Page 6 of 105

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

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 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 2nd

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 105

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 m wash.

Figure 7 shows the performance curves for the PM10 and PM2.5 sizing cyclones. To

measure both PM10 and PM2.5 the 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 2nd

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 105

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 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.

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 protocols. After

retrieval, filters were sealed in individual Petri dishes and acetone washes were dried on-site in a

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 2nd

stage seed-

cotton cleaning systems tested ranged from 17 to 64oC [63-147

oF]).

Page 9 of 105

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/bale (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 ± 3.6

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 digitally transferred from the microbalance directly to a

spreadsheet. Technicians wore latex gloves and a particulate respirator mask to avoid

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).

Page 10 of 105

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.

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.

RESULTS

Five of the seven gins were equipped with 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems. The

2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems sampled were typical for the industry, but varied among

the gins. The 2nd

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

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.

Page 11 of 105

conveyed from the 1st stage seed-cotton cleaning system with heated air through a dryer to a

seed-cotton cleaner in the 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system. The material was separated

from the airstream by the cleaner. The air from each of the parallel 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning

systems then passed through separate fans and exhausted through separate cyclones. The 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems at gin D also utilized two, parallel streams like those at gin A,

except the seed-cotton material dropped from the first set of cleaners into a second set (Fig. 11).

The 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system at gin E was also similar to the systems at gin A,

except gin E utilized only a single processing stream with dryer, seed-cotton cleaner, fan, and

cyclone, instead of two, parallel streams (Fig. 12). Gin F utilized two, parallel 2nd

stage seed-

cotton cleaning systems with two sets of cleaners, similar to gin D, except there were no dryers

before the first set of cleaners (Fig. 13). Gin G had the simplest 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning

system. At gin G, the seed-cotton material was pneumatically conveyed in a single stream from

the 1st stage seed-cotton cleaning system to a seed-cotton cleaner in the 2

nd stage seed-cotton

cleaning system. The material was separated from the airstream by the cleaner and the air then

passed through a fan and exhausted through one or more cyclones (Fig. 14).

All the 2nd

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. 15). All the gins, except gins A and E, split the system exhaust flow between two cyclones

in a dual configuration (side-by-side as opposed to one-behind-another). The system airstreams

for gins A and E were exhausted through a single cyclone. Inlets on all the 2nd

stage seed-cotton

Figure 10. Schematic of split stream, single

cleaner 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system

with dryer (gin A).

Figure 11. Schematic of split stream, double cleaner

2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system with dryer (gin

D).

Page 12 of 105

cleaning cyclones were 2D2D type, except gin A that had inverted 1D3D inlets. Expansion

chambers were present on 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning cyclones at all gins, except gins E and F

that had standard cones. All of the cyclone variations outlined above, if properly designed and

maintained, are recommended for controlling cotton gin emissions (Whitelock et al., 2009). The

cyclones at gin F had angle-iron welded inside, down the length of the cone (Figure 16). This is

occasionally done by cyclone manufacturers for systems with high particulate loading, especially

sand, to encourage material to exit the cyclone more quickly and reduce cone wear; this is not a

recommended practice.

Table 1. Abatement device configurationz for 2

nd stage seed-cotton cleaning systems tested.

Gin

Cyclone

Type

Inlet

Designy

Systems

per Gin

Cyclones

per Gin Configuration

Cone

Design

Trash

Exits tox

A 1D3D inverted

1D3D 2 2 Single

expansion

chamber hopper

D 1D3D 2D2D 2 4 Dual expansion

chamber hopper

E 1D3D 2D2D 1 1 Single standard auger

F 1D3D 2D2D 2 4 Dual standard auger

G 1D3D 2D2D 1 2 Dual expansion

chamber auger

z Figures 5 and 15

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; auger = enclosed, screw-type conveyor

Figure 12. Schematic of single stream, single

cleaner 2nd


with dryer (gin E).

Figure 13. Schematic of split stream, double

cleaner 2nd


without dryer (gin F).

Page 13 of 105

Table 2 shows the test parameters for

each Method 201A test run for the 2nd

stage

seed-cotton cleaning systems sampled at the

five gins. The system average ginning rate was

33.8 bales/h and the test average ginning rates

at each gin ranged from 23.9 to 41.3 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 test runs at gin D that were outside the design range due to limitations in available

system adjustments.

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), except run three for gin D and run one for gin F; these runs were removed

from the emissions test averages in Tables 3 and 4. To use the method to also obtain total

Figure 15. 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;

1D3D cyclone with 2D2D inlet and expansion chamber on the cone; 1D3D cyclone with 2D2D inlet

and standard cone.

Figure 14. Schematic of single stream, single

cleaner 2nd


without dryer (gin G).

Page 14 of 105

filterable particulate, sampling must be within 90 to 110% of

isokinetic flow. This criterion was not met in the third test

run for gin A, the second test run for E, or in all the test runs

for gins D and F; thus the data associated with these runs

were omitted from the total particulate test averages. The

PM2.5 aerodynamic cut size must fall within EPA defined

ranges (2.50 ± 0.25 m) for valid PM2.5 test runs. PM2.5 cut

size criteria were not met in the first test run for gin A, thus

the data associated with this run were omitted from the

PM2.5 test averages. The PM10 aerodynamic cut size must

fall within EPA defined ranges (10.0 ± 1.0 m) for valid

PM10 test runs. PM10 cut size criteria were not met in test

runs one and two for gins A and D, thus the data associated

with these runs were omitted from the PM10 test averages.

Sampling rates ranged from 10.3 to 13.4 standard l/min (0.36 to 0.47 standard ft3/min)

(Table 2). The stack gas temperatures ranged from 17 to 64oC (63-147

oF). 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 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems are shown in Table 3. The system average PM2.5

emission factor was 0.0037 kg/bale (0.0080 lb/bale). The test average emission factors at each

gin ranged from 0.0027 to 0.0044 kg (0.0061-0.0098 lb) per bale and PM2.5 emission rates

ranged from 0.089 to 0.16 kg/h (0.20-0.36 lb/h). PM10 emissions data (ginning and emission

rates and corresponding emission factors) for the 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems are

shown in Table 4. The system average PM10 emission factor was 0.038 kg/bale (0.084 lb/bale).

The test average emission factors ranged from 0.017 to 0.053 kg (0.038-0.116 lb) per bale and

emission rates ranged from 0.40 to 1.96 kg/h (0.87-4.33 lb/h). Total particulate emissions data

(ginning and emission rates and corresponding emission factors) for the 2nd

stage seed-cotton

Figure 16. Angle-iron welded

to the inside surface of cyclone

cone at gin F.

Page 15 of 105

cleaning systems are shown in Table 5. The system average total particulate emission factor was

0.063 kg/bale (0.138 lb/bale). The test average emission factors ranged from 0.033 to 0.080 kg

(0.074-0.177 lb) per bale. Test average total particulate emission rates ranged from 0.81 to 2.72

kg/h (1.79-5.99 lb/h). The ratios of PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5 to PM10, and PM10 to total

particulate were 5.8, 9.5, and 61.1%, respectively (ratios calculated using tables 3, 4, and 5 may

vary slightly from those listed due to rounding).

The 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system total particulate emission factor average for

this project was about 57.5% of the EPA AP-42 published value for the No. 2 dryer and cleaner

(EPA, 1996a, 1996b), which is an equivalent system to the 2nd

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 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM10

emission factor average for this project was 90.7% of the EPA AP-42 published value for the No.

2 dryer and cleaner. The test average PM10 emission factor range also overlapped with the AP-42

emission factor data range.

Figure 17 shows an example of samples recovered from a typical 2nd

stage seed-cotton

cleaning system test run. Often there were cotton lint fibers, which have cross-sectional

diameters much greater than 2.5 m, 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 atypical

sample shown in Figure 18, lint fibers passed through the PM10 and PM2.5 cyclones and were

collected on the filter. This type of material carryover can bias the gravimetric measurements and

impact reported PM2.5 emission 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.

Page 16 of 105

Table 2. Cotton gin production data and stack sampling performance metrics for the 2nd

stage

seed-cotton cleaning systems.

Test

Ginning

Rate,

Cyclone

Inlet

Velocity,

Isokinetic

Sampling,

Aerodynamic Cut

Size D50,

Sampling

Ratey

Stack

Temperature

Gin Run bales/hz

m/s fpm %

PM2.5, µm PM10, µm slpm scfm °C °F

A 1 24.2 17.2 3388 95 2.79v 11.8

v 10.3 0.362 19 67

2 24.3 17.2 3380 104 2.49 11.1v 11.2 0.395 18 64

3 23.2 17.0 3347 111w 2.32 10.6 11.8 0.418 17 63

Test

Average 23.9 17.1 3372

D 1 31.1 10.6 2091 111w 2.43 11.1

v 11.1 0.391 30 85

2 34.4 10.7 2113 114w 2.52 11.2

v 11.5 0.405 46 115

3

31.3 11.1 2185 122wx

2.26 10.5 12.7 0.448 49 120

Test

Average 32.3 10.8 2130

E 1 34.1 15.1 2979 110 2.33 10.7 12.2 0.431 44 112

2 39.0 14.9 2936 113w 2.31 10.7 12.4 0.437 46 115

3

39.6 14.4 2837 96 2.31 10.7 12.4 0.437 46 116

Test

Average 37.6 14.8 2918

F 1 47.4 14.3 2807 121wx

2.39 10.6 13.4 0.472 64 147

2 45.2 14.7 2889 112w 2.53 11.0 12.7 0.449 63 145

3 31.1 15.1 2969 114w 2.38 10.6 13.3 0.469 62 143

Test

Average 41.3 14.7 2888

G 1 33.9 15.5 3047 102 2.37 10.9 11.6 0.410 37 99

2 33.2 15.3 3003 103 2.37 10.9 11.6 0.409 37 99

3 34.6 15.4 3030 102 2.40 11.0 11.5 0.407 38 100

Test

Average 33.9 15.4 3026

System

Average 33.8 14.6 2867

z227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales

y slpm = standard l/m, scfm = standard ft

3/m

x Did not meet PM2.5 or PM10 isokinetic sampling rate criteria (100 ± 20%)

w Did not meet total particulate isokinetic sampling rate criteria (100 ± 10%)

v Did not meet PM2.5 (2.50 ± 0.25 µm) or PM10 (10.0 ± 1.0 µm) aerodynamic cut size criteria

Page 17 of 105

Table 3. PM2.5 emissions data for the 2nd


Emission Rate, Emission Factor,

Gin Test Run kg/h lb/h kg/balez

lb/balez

A 1y 0.10 0.22 0.0041 0.0091

2 0.11 0.25 0.0047 0.0103

3 0.079 0.18 0.0034 0.0075

Test Average (n=2) 0.10 0.21 0.0041 0.0089

D 1 0.10 0.21 0.0031 0.0068

2 0.082 0.18 0.0024 0.0053

3y

0.094 0.21 0.0030 0.0066

Test Average (n=2) 0.089 0.20 0.0027 0.0061

E 1 0.20 0.45 0.0059 0.0131

2 0.14 0.31 0.0036 0.0080

3

0.15 0.33 0.0037 0.0082

Test Average (n=3) 0.16 0.36 0.0044 0.0098

F 1y 0.14 0.31 0.0030 0.0066

2 0.15 0.33 0.0033 0.0074

3 0.12 0.26 0.0038 0.0083

Test Average (n=2) 0.13 0.30 0.0036 0.0078

G 1 0.13 0.30 0.0039 0.0087

2 0.13 0.28 0.0038 0.0084

3 0.091 0.20 0.0026 0.0058

Test Average (n=3) 0.12 0.26 0.0035 0.0076

System Average (n=5)

0.0037 0.0080 z227 kg (500 lb) equivalent bales

y Test run omitted from test averages because the isokinetic sampling rate (100 ± 20%) and/or

aerodynamic cut size (2.50 ± 0.25 µm) were not met

Page 18 of 105

Table 4. PM10 emissions data for the 2nd




lb/balez

A 1y 0.48 1.07 0.020 0.044

2y 0.60 1.32 0.024 0.054

3 0.40 0.87 0.017 0.038

Test Average (n=1) 0.40 0.87 0.017 0.038

D 1y 0.19 0.41 0.006 0.013

2y 1.14 2.51 0.033 0.073

3y

1.03 2.26 0.033 0.072

Test Average (n=0)

E 1 2.03 4.49 0.060 0.131

2 1.89 4.17 0.049 0.107

3

1.96 4.32 0.050 0.109

Test Average (n=3) 1.96 4.33 0.053 0.116

F 1y 1.30 2.87 0.027 0.061

2 1.31 2.89 0.029 0.064

3 0.99 2.19 0.032 0.070

Test Average (n=2) 1.15 2.54 0.030 0.067

G 1 2.14 4.72 0.063 0.139

2 1.95 4.30 0.059 0.129

3 1.29 2.84 0.037 0.082

Test Average (n=3) 1.79 3.95 0.053 0.117



y Test run omitted from test averages because the isokinetic sampling rate (100 ± 20%) and/or

aerodynamic cut size (10.0 ± 1.0 µm) were not met

Page 19 of 105

Table 5. Total particulate emissions data for the 2nd




lb/balez

A 1 0.73 1.61 0.030 0.066

2 0.90 1.98 0.037 0.081

3y 0.60 1.31 0.026 0.056

Test Average (n=2) 0.81 1.79 0.033 0.074

D 1y 0.25 0.55 0.008 0.018

2y 1.56 3.44 0.045 0.100

3y

1.45 3.20 0.046 0.102

Test Average (n=0)

E 1 2.78 6.13 0.081 0.180

2y 2.71 5.96 0.069 0.153

3

2.65 5.84 0.067 0.148

Test Average (n=2) 2.72 5.99 0.074 0.164

F 1y 1.89 4.16 0.040 0.088

2y 2.22 4.90 0.049 0.108

3y

1.64 3.61 0.053 0.116

Test Average (n=0)

G 1 2.90 6.40 0.086 0.189

2 3.01 6.63 0.090 0.199

3 2.23 4.91 0.064 0.142

Test Average (n=3) 2.71 5.98 0.080 0.177



y Test run omitted from test averages because the isokinetic sampling rate (100 ± 10%) was not met

Figure 17. Typical EPA Method 201A filter and

sampler head acetone washes from the 2nd

stage

seed-cotton cleaning system. Clockwise from top

left:> 10 µm wash, 10 to 2.5 µm wash, ≤ 2.5 µm

wash, and filter.

Figure 18. EPA Method 201A filter and sampler

head acetone washes from the 2nd

stage seed-

cotton cleaning system with lint on the filter.

Clockwise from top left:> 10 µm wash, 10 to 2.5

µm wash, ≤ 2.5 µm wash, and filter.

Page 20 of 105

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. Five of the seven gins

were equipped with 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems. 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 five gins were typical of the industry, averaging 33.8 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 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 emission factor based

on the five gins tested (12 total test runs) was 0.0037 kg/227-kg bale (0.0080 lb/500-lb bale). The

2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system emission factors for PM10 and total particulate were 0.038

kg/bale (0.084 lb/bale) and 0.063 kg/bale (0.138 lb/bale), respectively. The gin test average

PM2.5, PM10 and total particulate emission rates ranged from 0.089 to 0.16 kg/h (0.20-0.36 lb/h),

0.40 to 1.96 kg/h (0.87-4.33 lb/h) and 0.81 to 2.72 kg/h (1.79-5.99 lb/h), respectively. System

average PM10 and total particulate emission factors were lower than those currently published in

EPA AP-42. The ratios of 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning system PM2.5 to total particulate, PM2.5

to PM10, and PM10 to total particulate were 5.8, 9.5, and 61.1%, respectively. These data are the

first published data to document PM2.5 emissions from 2nd

stage seed-cotton cleaning systems at

cotton gins.

Page 21 of 105

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 22 of 105

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-201a.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-008.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method201a.html

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 23 of 105

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1042

Field and Laboratory Data

Page 24 of 105

Gin A Field and Laboratory Data

Page 25 of 105

A#400 2 Drying 1D3D2008

Emission Factor (lbs/bale) Emission Rate (lbs/hr)Based on EPA Method OTM27 Based on EPA Method OTM27

Total PM Total PMRun 1 0.0664 Run 1 1.6078Run 2 0.0811 Run 2 1.9755

X Run 3 0.0564 Run 3 1.3104Average 0.0738 Average 1.7916

PM10 PM10

Y Run 1 0.0441 Run 1 1.0678Y Run 2 0.0540 Run 2 1.3148

Run 3 0.0375 Run 3 0.8718Average 0.0375 Average 0.8718

PM2.5 PM2.5

Z Run 1 0.0091 Run 1 0.2197Run 2 0.0103 Run 2 0.2520Run 3 0.0075 Run 3 0.1747

Average 0.0089 Average 0.2133PM10-2.5 PM10-2.5

Run 1 0.0350 Run 1 0.8481Run 2 0.0437 Run 2 1.0628Run 3 0.0300 Run 3 0.6971

Average 0.0300 Average 0.6971PM2.5/PM10

Run 1 20.6%Run 2 19.2%Run 3 20.0%

Average 23.8%PM2.5/TSP

Run 1 13.7%Run 2 12.8%Run 3 13.3%

Average 12.1%PM10/TSP

Run 1 66.4%Run 2 66.6%Run 3 66.5%

Average 50.9%

Y: Run omitted from all dependent averages - PM 10 ISO or D50 not metZ: Run omitted from all dependent averages - PM 2.5 ISO or D50 not met

Gin:Exhaust:

Date:

X: Run omitted from all dependent averages - Total PM ISO not met

Page 26 of 105

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

ø - Start of Run, time 14:04 16:19 18:25

ø - End of Run, time 15:30 17:26 19:31

Vlc - Volume of water collected, ml 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vm - Gas volume, meter cond., dcf 29.251 18.139 25.734

Y - Meter calibration factor 1.003 1.003 1.003

Pbar - Barometric pressure, in. Hg 26.05 26.05 26.05

Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O -0.17 -0.17 -0.17

ˆH - Avg. meter press. diff., in. H2O 0.477 0.503 0.501

Tm - Absolute meter temperature, °R 520.0 518.3 519.1

Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 25.9719 16.1585 22.8910

Bws - Water vapor part in gas stream 0.006 0.006 0.006

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 28.844 28.844 28.844

Ms - Mole wt. stack gas, wet, g/gmole 28.779 28.779 28.779

Cp - Pitot tube coef., dimensionless 0.840 0.840 0.840

ˆp - Avg. of sq. roots of eachˆp 0.597 0.597 0.592

Ts - Absolute stack Temp. °R 526.5 524.3 523.0

A - Area of stack, square feet 2.64 2.64 2.64

Vs - Stack Gas Flow, ft/sec 35.95 35.86 35.52

Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 4,939 4,948 4,912

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

ø - Sampling time, minutes 82.68 46.94 62.78

DP50 - Cut size, microns 11.80 11.06 10.62

I - Isokinetic variation, percent 95.0 103.9 110.9

Sts - Stacks per system 2 2 2

OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYA

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 27 of 105

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

Qstd - Volumetric flow rate, dscfm 4,939 4,948 4,912 4,933

Vm(std) - Standard sample gas vol., dscf 25.9719 16.1585 22.8910 21.6738

DP50 - Cut size, microns 10µ 11.80 11.06 10.62 11.16

DP50 - Cut size, microns 2.5µ 2.79 2.49 2.32 2.53

Bale/hr - Total 500 lb Bales per hr 24.2 24.3 23.2 23.9

>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0107 0.0082 0.0077 0.0089

>10 µ - Total PM gr/dscfm 0.0064 0.0078 0.0052 0.0065

>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.270 0.330 0.219 0.2732

>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0112 0.0136 0.0094 0.0114

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0169 0.0131 0.0123 0.0141

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0100 0.0125 0.0083 0.0103

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 0.424 0.531 0.349 0.435

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0175 0.0218 0.0150 0.0181

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0044 0.0031 0.0031 0.0035

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0026 0.0030 0.0021 0.00255

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.110 0.126 0.087 0.108

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0045 0.0052 0.0038 0.0045

TPM - Total PM g 0.0320 0.0244 0.0231 0.0265

TPM - Total PM gr/dscf 0.0190 0.0233 0.0156 0.0193

TPM - Total PM lb/hr 0.804 0.988 0.655 0.82

TPM - Total PM lb/bale 0.0332 0.0406 0.0282 0.0340

OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYA

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 28 of 105

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AverageTotal Particulate Per Cyclone

Total gr/dscf 0.0190 0.0233 0.0156 0.0193Total lb/hr 0.80 0.99 0.66 0.82Total lb/bale 0.0332 0.0406 0.0282 0.0340

Total Particulate Per SystemTotal lb/hr 1.61 1.98 1.31 1.63Total lb/bale 0.066 0.081 0.056 0.068

< 10 µ Results per Cyclone- 10 µ gr/dscf 0.0126 0.0155 0.0104 0.0128- 10 µ (lb/hr) 0.53 0.66 0.44 0.54- 10 µ (lb/Bale) 0.0221 0.0270 0.0188 0.0226

< 10 µ Results per System- 10 µ (lb/hr) 1.07 1.31 0.87 1.08- 10 µ (lb/Bale) 0.044 0.054 0.038 0.045

< 2.5 µ Results per Cyclone- 2.5 µ gr/dscf 0.0026 0.0030 0.0021 0.0025- 2.5 µ (lb/hr) 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.11- 2.5 µ (lb/Bale) 0.0045 0.0052 0.0038 0.0045

< 2.5 µ Results per System- 2.5 µ (lb/hr) 0.22 0.25 0.17 0.22- 2.5 µ (lb/Bale) 0.009 0.010 0.008 0.009

Average Bales/hr 24.20 24.35 23.22 23.92

Cyclone Flow-RatesVs 35.95 35.86 35.52 35.78Acfm 5,694 5,680 5,625 5,666Dscfm 4,939 4,948 4,912 4,933

Cyclone Inlet VelocityVsfm 3388 3380 3347 3372

System Flow-RatesAcfm - - - 11,333Dscfm - - - 9,866

Number of Cyclones in System 2REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

A#400 2 Drying 1D3D

OTM METHOD 27 RESULTS

Page 29 of 105

Plant: A Unit: #400 2 Drying 1D3D Date: 12/9/2008 Lab#: 608-099Location: Cyclones in System: 2 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F

Cyclone Dia (in.): 44.00 Bales/hr: 24.20 Std Pressure: 29.92 in HgPbar: 26.05 in Hg Static Sp: -0.17 in water dcO2: 20.90 %

Run-Time, Ø: 60 min Pitot Factor: 0.84 Cp dcCO2: 0.05 %Meter Factor: 1.003 Y % H2O: 0.020 Bws* 2.0% dcN2: 79.05 %Meter Factor: 1.895 ¯H@ Meter Temp: 60.0 °F Stack Dia: 22.00 Sd in

Pre-test Leak Check: 0.000 cfm Pitot Leak Check: OK Post-test Leak Check: 0.000 cfm**EPA 201A - 10u & 2.5u: PRE - TEST CALCULATIONS

Delta P1 - Run: 0.300 pµs: 179.93 Ideal Nd: 0.187 Point 1 Ø: 6.32pMd: 28.84 pQs: 0.42123 Input Nd: 0.180 Vn ft/sec: 39.73pMs: 28.63 ¯H + 50 °F: 0.399 Closest Nd: 0.180 Delta H: 0.477

Ps in Hg: 26.04 ¯p min + 50°F: 0.179 V ft/sec min: 26.89 Ø: 60.0pVs, ft/sec: 36.65 ¯p max + 50°F: 0.636 V ft/sec max: 50.72 Dwell Time Const. 11.54

Stack Area pSa: 2.64 ¯H - 50 °F: 0.581 ¯p min: 0.195 Meter Volume: 24.0Acfm: 5805 ¯p min - 50°F: 0.216 ¯p max: 0.695 dscfm 0.401

pTs Stack: 74.8 ¯p max - 50 °F: 0.767 Vn/Vs x 100: 108.40 EPA 201A: TEST DATA & CALCULATIONS

Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet1 70 0.580 0.00 61.0 58 58 0.300 0.477 Initial Reading 12 72 0.390 6.32 67.0 58 58 0.380 0.477 0.000 23 72 0.240 13.43 66.0 59 59 0.260 0.477 Run Start Time 34 72 0.280 19.32 69.0 59 59 0.310 0.477 4 Total: 0.05 76 0.330 25.74 69.0 59 59 0.320 0.477 Test Avg Sqrt PM - Weights - Blank Corrected6 78 0.270 32.27 67.0 60 60 0.300 0.477 0.597 >10µ Wt: 0.0107 gms.1 77 0.550 38.59 64.0 60 60 0.580 0.477 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0169 gms.2 77 0.490 47.37 65.0 61 61 0.440 0.477 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0044 gms.3 76 0.350 55.03 66.0 61 61 0.380 0.477 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0064 gr/dscf4 77 0.240 62.14 67.0 61 61 0.300 0.477 29.251 >10µ: 0.2700 lb/hr5 76 0.360 68.46 69.0 62 62 0.370 0.477 <10-2.5µ: 0.0100 gr/dscf6 75 0.370 75.48 68.0 62 62 0.390 0.477 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.4241 lb/hr

74.8 0.371 82.68 66.5 60.0 0.361 0.477 29.251 <2.5µ: 0.0026 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.1098 lb/hr

EPA 201A: POST - TEST DATA & CALCULATIONSVlc: 0.0 grams Points Outside Dpmin or Dpmax: 0 Number of Points

MF - Moisture Fraction: 0.9940 fraction Reynolds No. for Run: 2488.11 dimentionlessDry Gas Meter Volume: 25.972 Vms, ft3 Nozzel Area: 1.77E-04 (AsNd) sqft

Corrected Water Volume: - Vws Nozzle Velocity: 34.15 (Nu) ft/secBws, Moisture Content: 0.0060 fraction Cyclone Inlet Velocity: 3388 (Vs) ft/min

Stack Gas Dry Molecular Weight: 28.844 Md PM-10 Sampler Flow Rate: 0.362 (scfm) PMQsStack Gas Wet Molecular Wt: 28.779 Mw Stack Flow Rate: 4,939.0 (Qs) Dscfm

Stack Gas Viscosity: 178.96 µs PM-10-Ds50: 11.80 micronsSample Flow Rate: 0.314 QsSt PM-2.5 Ds50 2.79 microns

Run - Cunn. Slip Corr. 1.06 dimensionless Iso Sampling Rate: 95.01 percentTotal - PM - Cs: 0.0190 gr/dscf PM < 10-2.5µ: 0.0175 lbs/baleTotal - PM - ER: 0.8039 lbs/hr PM < 2.5µ: 0.0045 lbs/bale

Stack Gas Velocity: 35.95 (Vs) ft/sec Total - PM: 0.0332 lbs/bale

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

PRE - TEST DATA & CALCULATIONS

14:04

15:30

Page 30 of 105









Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet1 61.0 0.300 0.00 68.0 58 58 0.490 0.503 Initial Reading 12 67.0 0.380 4.59 67.0 58 58 0.340 0.503 0.000 23 66.0 0.260 8.41 68.0 58 58 0.220 0.503 Run Start Time 34 69.0 0.310 11.48 67.0 57 57 0.320 0.503 : Total: 0.05 69.0 0.320 15.18 66.0 57 57 0.310 0.503 Test Avg Sqrt PM - Weights - Blank Corrected6 67.0 0.300 18.83 65.0 57 57 0.320 0.503 0.597 >10µ Wt: 0.0082 gms.7 64.0 0.580 22.54 61.0 59 59 0.580 0.503 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0131 gms.8 65.0 0.440 27.53 62.0 59 59 0.400 0.503 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0031 gms.9 66.0 0.380 31.67 62.0 59 59 0.310 0.503 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0078 gr/dscf10 67.0 0.300 35.32 62.0 59 59 0.310 0.503 18.139 >10µ: 0.3304 lb/hr11 69.0 0.370 38.97 62.0 59 59 0.360 0.503 <10-2.5µ: 0.0125 gr/dscf12 68.0 0.390 42.90 62.0 60 60 0.380 0.503 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.5314 lb/hr

66.5 0.361 46.94 64.3 58.3 0.362 0.503 18.139 <2.5µ: 0.0030 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.1260 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

17:26

16:19


Page 31 of 105









Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet1 68.0 0.490 0.00 65.0 60 60 0.440 0.501 Initial Reading 12 67.0 0.340 5.86 66.0 60 60 0.330 0.501 0.000 23 68.0 0.220 10.94 65.0 59 59 0.230 0.501 Run Start Time 34 67.0 0.320 15.18 64.0 59 59 0.310 0.501 4 Total: 0.05 66.0 0.310 20.10 63.0 59 59 0.310 0.501 Test Avg Sqrt PM - Weights - Blank Corrected6 65.0 0.320 25.02 61.0 59 59 0.310 0.501 0.592 >10µ Wt: 0.0077 gms.7 61.0 0.580 29.94 61.0 59 59 0.520 0.501 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0123 gms.8 62.0 0.400 36.31 62.0 59 59 0.420 0.501 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0031 gms.9 62.0 0.310 42.04 63.0 59 59 0.320 0.501 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0052 gr/dscf10 62.0 0.310 47.04 62.0 58 58 0.310 0.501 25.734 >10µ: 0.2193 lb/hr11 62.0 0.360 51.96 62.0 59 59 0.390 0.501 <10-2.5µ: 0.0083 gr/dscf12 62.0 0.380 57.48 62.0 59 59 0.360 0.501 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.3485 lb/hr

64.3 0.362 62.78 63.0 59.1 0.354 0.501 25.734 <2.5µ: 0.0021 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0873 lb/hr









18:25

19:31

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 32 of 105

Cotton Gin Test Data

Plant: A Date: 12/9/2008Location: Start Time: 14:04

Unit: #400 2 Drying 1D3D End Time: 15:30Run: 1

Elapsed Time: 86 Test Time: 82.68Bale Time: 87.00 StdDev Std BPH: 4.74

Ave min/bale: 0:02:21 Ave Std BPH: 24.2

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

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1543300 14:04:00 --- --- ---1543301 493 14:06:00 0:02:00 29.61543302 458 14:09:00 0:03:00 18.31543303 470 14:11:00 0:02:00 28.21543304 475 14:13:00 0:02:00 28.51543305 493 14:16:00 0:03:00 19.71543306 460 14:18:00 0:02:00 27.61543307 452 14:20:00 0:02:00 27.11543308 465 14:23:00 0:03:00 18.61543309 470 14:25:00 0:02:00 28.21543310 467 14:27:00 0:02:00 28.01543311 463 14:30:00 0:03:00 18.51543312 461 14:32:00 0:02:00 27.71543313 491 14:35:00 0:03:00 19.61543314 468 14:37:00 0:02:00 28.11543315 472 14:39:00 0:02:00 28.31543316 465 14:41:00 0:02:00 27.91543317 473 14:43:00 0:02:00 28.41543318 462 14:46:00 0:03:00 18.51543319 487 14:48:00 0:02:00 29.21543320 481 14:51:00 0:03:00 19.21543321 465 14:53:00 0:02:00 27.91543322 468 14:55:00 0:02:00 28.11543323 480 14:57:00 0:02:00 28.81543324 477 14:59:00 0:02:00 28.61543325 490 15:01:00 0:02:00 29.41543326 467 15:04:00 0:03:00 18.71543327 492 15:06:00 0:02:00 29.51543328 504 15:10:00 0:04:00 15.11543329 466 15:13:00 0:03:00 18.61543330 478 15:15:00 0:02:00 28.71543331 464 15:17:00 0:02:00 27.81543332 462 15:19:00 0:02:00 27.71543333 467 15:21:00 0:02:00 28.01543334 481 15:24:00 0:03:00 19.21543335 507 15:26:00 0:02:00 30.41543336 479 15:29:00 0:03:00 19.21543337 475 15:31:00 0:02:00 28.5

REM - 2003

Page 33 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1543357 16:19:00 --- --- ---1543358 493 16:21:00 0:02:00 29.61543359 482 16:23:00 0:02:00 28.91543360 474 16:25:00 0:02:00 28.41543361 471 16:28:00 0:03:00 18.81543362 468 16:30:00 0:02:00 28.11543363 493 16:32:00 0:02:00 29.61543364 465 16:34:00 0:02:00 27.91543365 451 16:36:00 0:02:00 27.11543366 484 16:38:00 0:02:00 29.01543367 485 16:40:00 0:02:00 29.11543368 470 16:42:00 0:02:00 28.21543369 498 16:44:00 0:02:00 29.91543370 490 16:47:00 0:03:00 19.61543371 17:02:00 0:15:00 *1543372 17:03:00 0:01:00 *1543373 478 17:06:00 0:03:00 19.11543374 466 17:08:00 0:02:00 28.01543375 481 17:10:00 0:02:00 28.91543376 497 17:12:00 0:02:00 29.81543377 481 17:15:00 0:03:00 19.21543378 468 17:17:00 0:02:00 28.11543379 486 17:20:00 0:03:00 19.41543380 483 17:22:00 0:02:00 29.01543381 486 17:27:00 0:05:00 11.7 *

REM - 2003

NOTE: Removed Bale Data = Lapse in Gin Operation

Page 34 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1543399 18:24:00 --- --- ---1543400 501 18:27:00 0:03:00 20.01543401 499 18:29:00 0:02:00 29.91543402 503 18:31:00 0:02:00 30.21543403 506 18:34:00 0:03:00 20.21543404 476 18:36:00 0:02:00 28.61543405 448 18:38:00 0:02:00 26.91543406 477 18:41:00 0:03:00 19.11543407 492 18:44:00 0:03:00 19.71543408 511 18:46:00 0:02:00 30.71543409 470 18:48:00 0:02:00 28.21543410 513 18:50:00 0:02:00 30.81543411 513 18:53:00 0:03:00 20.51543412 493 18:55:00 0:02:00 29.61543413 483 18:57:00 0:02:00 29.01543414 510 18:59:00 0:02:00 30.61543415 489 19:02:00 0:03:00 19.61543416 472 19:04:00 0:02:00 28.31543417 459 19:06:00 0:02:00 27.51543418 455 19:08:00 0:02:00 27.31543419 490 19:10:00 0:02:00 29.41543420 461 19:12:00 0:02:00 27.71543421 502 19:15:00 0:03:00 20.11543422 490 19:17:00 0:02:00 29.41543423 522 19:20:00 0:03:00 20.91543424 490 19:22:00 0:02:00 29.41543425 481 19:30:00 0:08:00 7.2 *1543426 450 19:32:00 0:02:00 27.0

REM - 2003

Page 35 of 105

PARTICULATE WEIGHTS : DATA & CALCULATIONS RUN #1

Client : A Date : 12/9/08 >10 Catch ID:Site : Lab#: 608-099 <10 Catch ID:Unit : #400 2 Drying 1D3D Filter ID: 6L-0017 <2.5 Catch ID:

Acetone: TS-0124 100 gGross: 741.425 mg Tare: 741.126 mg Residue: 0.2983 mg

>10 µ Rinse: TS-0027Acetone: 29.2 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.08711 mg

Gross: 680.763 mg Tare: 669.943 mg 10.8200 mg >10 µ Total Weight = 10.7329 mg

< 10 µ Rinse: TS-0028Acetone: 32.7 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.09755 mg

Gross: 700.841 mg Tare: 683.886 mg 16.9557 mg< 10 µ Total Weight = 16.8581 mg

< 2.5 µ Filter: 6L-0017Gross: 287.682 mg Tare: 284.311 mg < 2.5 filter Net: 3.3707 mg

< 2.5 µ Rinse: TS-0029Acetone: 7.8 g * 0.00298 mg/g -0.02327 mg

Gross: 668.933 mg Tare: 667.915 mg 1.0187 mg< 2.5 µ Rinse Total Weight = 0.9954 mg

> 10 µ Total Weight = 0.0107 g< 10 µ Total Weight = 0.0212 g

< 10-2.5 µTotal Weight = 0.0169 g< 2.5 µ Total Weight = 0.0044 g

Total Weight = 0.0320 g

WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-0027TS-0028TS-0029

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 36 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-0030TS-0031TS-0032

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 37 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-0038TS-0039TS-0040

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 38 of 105

Acetone Rinse

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

Unit : #400 2 Drying 1D3D

PM-2.5 Date:Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

Filter ID#: 6L-0017 Filter ID#: 6L-0018 Filter ID#: 6L-0019

>10 Start Vol: 247.9 g >10 Start Vol: 379.0 g >10 Start Vol: 201.7 gEnd Vol: 218.7 g End Vol: 351.4 g End Vol: 177.0 g

Total: 29.2 g Total: 27.6 g Total: 24.7 gTub #: TS-0027 Tub #: TS-0030 Tub #: TS-0038

<10 Start Vol: 218.7 g <10 Start Vol: 351.4 g <10 Start Vol: 177.0 gEnd Vol: 186.0 g End Vol: 327.7 g End Vol: 151.5 g


<2.5 Start Vol: 186.0 g <2.5 Start Vol: 327.7 g <2.5 Start Vol: 151.5 gEnd Vol: 178.2 g End Vol: 318.4 g End Vol: 141.8 g


A 12/9/2008

12/8-10/08

Page 39 of 105

Filter/Tub Weights


Unit : #400 2 Drying 1D3D

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

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 1.451Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021

No. Cyclone Name Method Run No.Sample

LocationFilter/Tub

No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)400 #3 Drying 27 1 < 10 TS-0028 683.886 700.841 16.956400 #3 Drying 27 1 < 2.5 TS-0029 667.915 668.933 1.019400 #3 Drying 27 1 > 10 TS-0027 669.943 680.763 10.820400 #3 Drying 27 1 Filter < 2.5 6L-0017 284.311 287.682 3.371400 #3 Drying 27 2 < 10 TS-0031 685.089 698.279 13.190400 #3 Drying 27 2 < 2.5 TS-0032 668.888 670.103 1.214400 #3 Drying 27 2 > 10 TS-0030 716.660 724.899 8.239400 #3 Drying 27 2 Filter < 2.5 6L-0018 282.886 284.810 1.924400 #3 Drying 27 3 < 10 TS-0039 699.865 712.219 12.354400 #3 Drying 27 3 < 2.5 TS-0040 669.926 670.869 0.943400 #3 Drying 27 3 > 10 TS-0038 677.279 685.079 7.800400 #3 Drying 27 3 Filter < 2.5 6L-0019 300.187 302.350 2.163

A 12/9/2008

Page 40 of 105

Gin D Field and Laboratory Data

Page 41 of 105

D#5 2A Pull 1D3D2009


Total PM Total PMX Run 1 0.0177 Run 1 0.5487X Run 2 0.0998 Run 2 3.4371X Run 3 0.1022 Run 3 3.2009

Average AveragePM10 PM10

Y Run 1 0.0132 Run 1 0.4100Y Run 2 0.0729 Run 2 2.5091Y Run 3 0.0722 Run 3 2.2603Average Average

PM2.5 PM2.5

Run 1 0.0068 Run 1 0.2126Run 2 0.0053 Run 2 0.1818

Z Run 3 0.0066 Run 3 0.2079Average 0.0061 Average 0.1972

PM10-2.5 PM10-2.5


Average AveragePM2.5/PM10

Run 1 51.9%Run 2 7.2%Run 3 9.2%

AveragePM2.5/TSP

Run 1 38.7%Run 2 5.3%Run 3 6.5%

AveragePM10/TSP

Run 1 74.7%Run 2 73.0%Run 3 70.6%

Average

Gin:Exhaust:

Date:

X: Run omitted from all dependent averages - Total PM ISO not metY: Run omitted from all dependent averages - PM 10 ISO or D50 not metZ: Run omitted from all dependent averages - PM 2.5 ISO or D50 not met

All Runs - Cyclone Inlet Velocity Low

Page 42 of 105

#5 2A Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3


ø - End of Run, time 8:22 9:17 10:10





Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O 0.02 0.02 0.02




















OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYD

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 43 of 105

#5 2A Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE






>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0009 0.0070 0.0078 0.0052


>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.035 0.232 0.235 0.1673

>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0011 0.0067 0.0075 0.0051

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0013 0.0175 0.0170 0.0119

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0019 0.0232 0.0199 0.0150

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 0.049 0.582 0.513 0.381

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0016 0.0169 0.0164 0.0116

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0014 0.0014 0.0017 0.0015

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0020 0.0018 0.0020 0.00195

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.053 0.045 0.052 0.050

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0017 0.0013 0.0017 0.0016

TPM - Total PM g 0.0036 0.0259 0.0264 0.0186


TPM - Total PM lb/hr 0.137 0.859 0.800 0.60


OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYD

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 44 of 105

#5 2A Pull 1D3D








Average Bales/hr 31.07 34.43 31.31 32.27





D


Page 45 of 105

Plant: D Unit: #5 2A Pull 1D3D Date: 11/2/2009 Lab#: 709-124Location: Cyclones in System: 4 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F

Cyclone Dia (in.): 42.00 Bales/hr: 42.00 Std Pressure: 29.92 in HgPbar: 30.05 in Hg Static Sp: 0.02 in water dcO2: 20.90 %








80.0 0.190 28.58 85.4 67.2 0.153 0.493 10.653 <2.5µ: 0.0020 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0531 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008


7:52

8:22

Page 46 of 105










85.4 0.153 31.77 114.8 68.8 0.147 0.497 11.675 <2.5µ: 0.0018 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0454 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

9:17

8:44


Page 47 of 105










114.8 0.147 32.66 119.7 69.3 0.157 0.510 13.161 <2.5µ: 0.0020 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0520 lb/hr



Corrected Water Volume: - Vws Nozzle Velocity: 28.28 (Nu) ft/secBws, Moisture Content: 0.0180 fraction






9:24

10:10

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 48 of 105


Plant: D Date: 11/2/2009Location: Start Time: 7:52

Unit: #5 2A Pull 1D3D End Time: 8:22Run: 1




BPHChauvenet's

Criterion5509070 7:50:40 --- --- ---5509071 498 7:55:05 0:04:25 13.55509072 504 7:56:47 0:01:42 35.65509073 502 7:58:39 0:01:52 32.35509074 498 8:00:32 0:01:53 31.75509075 514 8:03:04 0:02:32 24.35509076 480 8:04:03 0:00:59 58.6 *5509077 503 8:05:50 0:01:47 33.85509078 505 8:07:51 0:02:01 30.05509079 501 8:09:49 0:01:58 30.65509080 495 8:11:30 0:01:41 35.35509081 503 8:13:32 0:02:02 29.75509082 516 8:15:10 0:01:38 37.95509083 526 8:17:07 0:01:57 32.45509084 549 8:18:58 0:01:51 35.65509085 529 8:20:21 0:01:23 45.95509086 515 8:22:06 0:01:45 35.3

REM - 2003

Page 49 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion5509099 8:44:36 --- --- ---5509100 480 8:46:12 0:01:36 36.05509101 495 8:47:50 0:01:38 36.45509102 490 8:49:30 0:01:40 35.35509103 494 8:51:16 0:01:46 33.65509104 486 8:52:54 0:01:38 35.75509105 509 8:54:37 0:01:43 35.65509106 484 8:56:11 0:01:34 37.15509107 508 8:57:53 0:01:42 35.95509108 483 8:59:35 0:01:42 34.15509109 498 9:01:25 0:01:50 32.65509110 486 9:03:09 0:01:44 33.65509111 506 9:04:47 0:01:38 37.25509112 500 9:07:07 0:02:20 25.75509113 479 9:08:30 0:01:23 41.65509114 480 9:10:42 0:02:12 26.25509115 497 9:12:39 0:01:57 30.65509116 475 9:14:02 0:01:23 41.25509117 485 9:15:32 0:01:30 38.85509118 503 9:17:09 0:01:37 37.3

REM - 2003

Page 50 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion5509122 9:23:46 --- --- ---5509123 485 9:25:27 0:01:41 34.65509124 483 9:27:16 0:01:49 31.95509125 488 9:28:53 0:01:37 36.25509126 492 9:30:39 0:01:46 33.45509127 497 9:32:21 0:01:42 35.15509128 483 9:34:07 0:01:46 32.85509129 496 9:36:01 0:01:54 31.35509130 477 9:37:49 0:01:48 31.85509131 482 9:39:17 0:01:28 39.45509132 479 9:40:44 0:01:27 39.65509133 492 9:42:22 0:01:38 36.15509134 489 9:43:54 0:01:32 38.35509135 495 9:45:31 0:01:37 36.75509136 9:56:13 0:10:42 *5509137 9:58:34 0:02:21 *5509138 478 10:00:22 0:01:48 31.95509139 489 10:02:10 0:01:48 32.65509140 489 10:06:33 0:04:23 13.4 *5509141 488 10:08:43 0:02:10 27.05509142 490 10:10:26 0:01:43 34.3

REM - 2003


Page 51 of 105


Client : D Date : 11/2/09 >10 Catch ID:Site : Lab#: 709-124 <10 Catch ID:Unit : #5 2A Pull 1D3D Filter ID: 8L-1512 <2.5 Catch ID:












WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-0832TS-0833TS-0834

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 52 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-0838TS-0839TS-0840

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 53 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-0843TS-0844TS-0846

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 54 of 105

Acetone Rinse


Unit : #5 2A Pull 1D3D

PM-2.5Run 1 Run 2 Run 3








D 11/2/2009

Page 55 of 105

Filter/Tub Weights


Unit : #5 2A Pull 1D3D

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

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 1.451Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021


LocationFilter/Tub

No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)5 #2A Pull 27 1 < 10 TS-0833 685.977 687.340 1.3635 #2A Pull 27 1 < 2.5 TS-0834 734.860 735.779 0.9195 #2A Pull 27 1 > 10 TS-0832 646.126 647.094 0.9675 #2A Pull 27 1 Filter < 2.5 8L-1512 306.670 307.174 0.5045 #2A Pull 27 2 < 10 TS-0839 711.670 729.259 17.5895 #2A Pull 27 2 < 2.5 TS-0840 717.541 717.995 0.4545 #2A Pull 27 2 > 10 TS-0838 634.161 641.236 7.0755 #2A Pull 27 2 Filter < 2.5 8L-1513 320.571 321.505 0.9345 #2A Pull 27 3 < 10 TS-0844 693.813 710.857 17.0445 #2A Pull 27 3 < 2.5 TS-0846 644.907 645.468 0.5615 #2A Pull 27 3 > 10 TS-0843 588.365 596.237 7.8725 #2A Pull 27 3 Filter < 2.5 8L-1514 314.528 315.704 1.176

D 11/2/2009

Page 56 of 105

Gin E Field and Laboratory Data

Page 57 of 105

E#9 2 Pull 1D3D2010


Total PM Total PMRun 1 0.1797 Run 1 6.1296

X Run 2 0.1530 Run 2 5.9631Run 3 0.1476 Run 3 5.8440

Average 0.1636 Average 5.9868PM10 PM10


Average 0.1159 Average 4.3256PM2.5 PM2.5





Run 1 10.0%Run 2 7.5%Run 3 7.5%


Run 1 7.3%Run 2 5.2%Run 3 5.6%


Run 1 73.2%Run 2 69.9%Run 3 73.9%

Average 70.8%

X: Run omitted from all dependent averages - Total PM ISO not met

Gin:Exhaust:

Date:

Page 58 of 105

#9 2 Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3


ø - End of Run, time 10:07 10:47 11:29





Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O -0.23 0.00 -0.23




















OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYE

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 59 of 105

#9 2 Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE






>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0094 0.0106 0.0090 0.0097


>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 1.645 1.793 1.523 1.6533

>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0482 0.0460 0.0385 0.0442

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0232 0.0228 0.0235 0.0232

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0302 0.0294 0.0315 0.0304

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 4.038 3.859 3.996 3.964

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.1184 0.0990 0.1009 0.1061

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0026 0.0018 0.0019 0.0021

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0033 0.0024 0.0026 0.00276

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.447 0.311 0.326 0.361

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0131 0.0080 0.0082 0.0098

TPM - Total PM g 0.0352 0.0352 0.0344 0.0350


TPM - Total PM lb/hr 6.130 5.963 5.844 5.98


REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYE

Page 60 of 105








Average Bales/hr 34.12 38.98 39.59 37.56





E#9 2 Pull 1D3D


Page 61 of 105

Plant: E Unit: #9 2 Pull 1D3D Date: 9/20/2010 Lab#: 810-087Location: Cyclones in System: 1 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F


Run-Time, Ø: 30 min Pitot Factor: 0.84 Cp dcCO2: 0.01 %Meter Factor: 1 Y % H2O: 0.022 Bws* 2.2% dcN2: 79.09 %Meter Factor: 1.817 ¯H@ Meter Temp: 73.0 °F Stack Dia: 41.00 Sd in






Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet6 127 0.370 0.00 112.0 71 71 0.270 0.490 Initial Reading 15 125 0.410 2.47 112.0 70 70 0.220 0.490 0.000 24 126 0.310 4.70 112.0 71 71 0.170 0.490 Run Start Time 33 129 0.400 6.66 112.0 70 70 0.310 0.490 4 Total: 0.02 129 0.520 9.31 111.0 70 70 0.280 0.490 PM - Weights - Blank Corrected1 129 0.480 11.83 112.0 71 71 0.430 0.490 >10µ Wt: 0.0094 gms.6 127 0.350 14.94 110.0 71 71 0.240 0.490 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0232 gms.5 123 0.220 17.27 115.0 71 71 0.220 0.490 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0026 gms.4 123 0.190 19.51 113.0 71 71 0.180 0.490 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0123 gr/dscf3 118 0.370 21.52 113.0 71 71 0.300 0.490 11.921 >10µ: 1.6446 lb/hr2 118 0.510 24.13 112.0 71 71 0.440 0.490 <10-2.5µ: 0.0302 gr/dscf1 116 0.510 27.28 111.0 71 71 0.510 0.490 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 4.0381 lb/hr

124.2 0.387 30.68 112.1 70.8 0.298 0.490 11.921 <2.5µ: 0.0033 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.4469 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008


9:35

10:07

Page 62 of 105


Cyclone Dia (in.): 82.00 Bales/hr: 38.98 Std Pressure: 29.92 in HgPbar: 29.90 in Hg Static Sp: in water dcO2: 20.90 %








112.1 0.298 30.66 114.8 72.3 0.288 0.489 12.071 <2.5µ: 0.0024 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.3110 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

10:47

10:14


Page 63 of 105









Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet6 117.0 0.250 0.00 114.0 74 74 0.240 0.492 Initial Reading 15 115.0 0.220 2.36 117.0 74 74 0.210 0.492 0.000 24 115.0 0.160 4.58 116.0 73 73 0.170 0.492 Run Start Time 33 115.0 0.320 6.57 116.0 74 74 0.220 0.492 4 Total: 0.02 115.0 0.360 8.83 116.0 74 74 0.330 0.492 PM - Weights - Blank Corrected1 116.0 0.410 11.60 116.0 74 74 0.380 0.492 >10µ Wt: 0.0090 gms.6 112.0 0.260 14.58 113.0 74 74 0.250 0.492 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0235 gms.5 115.0 0.180 16.99 115.0 74 74 0.180 0.492 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0019 gms.4 114.0 0.170 19.04 117.0 74 74 0.120 0.492 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0120 gr/dscf3 115.0 0.240 20.71 116.0 75 75 0.250 0.492 11.641 >10µ: 1.5225 lb/hr2 115.0 0.420 23.12 116.0 75 75 0.430 0.492 <10-2.5µ: 0.0315 gr/dscf1 113.0 0.470 26.28 116.0 75 75 0.460 0.492 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 3.9959 lb/hr

114.8 0.288 29.56 115.7 74.2 0.270 0.492 11.641 <2.5µ: 0.0026 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.3255 lb/hr









10:56

11:29

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 64 of 105


Plant: E Date: 9/20/2010Location: Start Time: 9:35

Unit: #9 2 Pull 1D3D End Time: 10:07Run: 1




BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1797204 9:34:14 --- --- ---1797205 504 9:35:41 0:01:27 41.71797206 477 9:37:10 0:01:29 38.61797207 508 9:38:48 0:01:38 37.31797208 508 9:40:28 0:01:40 36.61797209 511 9:42:06 0:01:38 37.51797210 506 9:43:45 0:01:39 36.81797211 508 9:47:18 0:03:33 17.2 *1797212 510 9:49:23 0:02:05 29.41797213 503 9:51:05 0:01:42 35.51797214 479 9:52:43 0:01:38 35.21797215 518 9:54:29 0:01:46 35.21797216 483 9:56:06 0:01:37 35.91797217 519 9:58:04 0:01:58 31.71797218 480 9:59:31 0:01:27 39.71797219 521 10:01:16 0:01:45 35.71797220 507 10:02:52 0:01:36 38.01797221 516 10:04:32 0:01:40 37.21797222 473 10:06:00 0:01:28 38.71797223 517 10:07:49 0:01:49 34.2

REM - 2003

Page 65 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1797226 10:13:36 --- --- ---1797227 489 10:15:05 0:01:29 39.61797228 500 10:16:37 0:01:32 39.11797229 498 10:18:08 0:01:31 39.41797230 515 10:20:00 0:01:52 33.1 *1797231 484 10:21:30 0:01:30 38.71797232 531 10:23:08 0:01:38 39.01797233 536 10:24:48 0:01:40 38.61797234 504 10:26:14 0:01:26 42.21797235 481 10:27:43 0:01:29 38.91797236 494 10:29:16 0:01:33 38.21797237 539 10:30:53 0:01:37 40.01797238 495 10:32:23 0:01:30 39.61797239 500 10:33:53 0:01:30 40.01797240 539 10:35:32 0:01:39 39.21797241 497 10:37:02 0:01:30 39.81797242 499 10:38:31 0:01:29 40.41797243 536 10:40:23 0:01:52 34.51797244 543 10:41:57 0:01:34 41.61797245 533 10:43:22 0:01:25 45.1 *1797246 521 10:44:58 0:01:36 39.11797247 525 10:46:35 0:01:37 39.01797248 534 10:48:22 0:01:47 35.9

REM - 2003

Page 66 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion1797253 10:55:56 --- --- ---1797254 500 10:57:53 0:01:57 30.81797255 516 10:59:11 0:01:18 47.61797256 512 11:00:53 0:01:42 36.11797257 527 11:02:32 0:01:39 38.31797258 510 11:04:49 0:02:17 26.81797259 497 11:05:40 0:00:51 70.2 *1797260 523 11:07:19 0:01:39 38.01797261 531 11:08:54 0:01:35 40.21797262 541 11:10:32 0:01:38 39.71797263 535 11:12:06 0:01:34 41.01797264 495 11:13:40 0:01:34 37.91797265 504 11:15:05 0:01:25 42.71797266 509 11:16:37 0:01:32 39.81797267 465 11:17:56 0:01:19 42.41797268 504 11:19:28 0:01:32 39.41797269 505 11:20:59 0:01:31 40.01797270 515 11:22:29 0:01:30 41.21797271 503 11:23:56 0:01:27 41.61797272 495 11:25:26 0:01:30 39.61797273 510 11:26:57 0:01:31 40.41797274 507 11:28:26 0:01:29 41.01797275 502 11:29:54 0:01:28 41.1

REM - 2003

Page 67 of 105


Client : E Date : 9/20/10 >10 Catch ID:Site : Lab#: 810-087 <10 Catch ID:Unit : #9 2 Pull 1D3D Filter ID: 8L-3450 <2.5 Catch ID:

Acetone: TL-0156 75 gGross: 681.180 mg Tare: 681.037 mg Residue: 0.1427 mg











WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1055TS-1056TS-1057

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 68 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1060TS-1061TS-1062

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 69 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1064TS-1065TS-1066

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 70 of 105

Acetone Rinse


Unit : #9 2 Pull 1D3D









E 9/20/2010

9/20/10

Page 71 of 105

Filter/Tub Weights


Unit : #9 2 Pull 1D3D

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)Acetone Acetone Blank (9/16/10) 75 g TL-0156 681.037 681.180 0.143DI DI Water Blank (9/20/10) 100 g TL-0163 707.924 708.138 0.214Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021


LocationFilter/Tub

No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)9 #2 Pull 27 1 Filter < 2.5 8L-3450 285.875 287.610 1.7359 #2 Pull 27 1 > 10 TS-1055 716.989 726.487 9.4989 #2 Pull 27 1 < 10 TS-1056 664.939 688.190 23.2519 #2 Pull 27 1 < 2.5 TS-1057 665.474 666.322 0.8489 #2 Pull 27 2 Filter < 2.5 8L-3451 279.303 280.710 1.4079 #2 Pull 27 2 < 2.5 TS-1062 722.465 722.908 0.4439 #2 Pull 27 2 < 10 TS-1061 761.984 784.843 22.8599 #2 Pull 27 2 > 10 TS-1060 698.036 708.686 10.6509 #2 Pull 27 3 Filter < 2.5 8L-3452 295.009 296.501 1.4929 #2 Pull 27 3 > 10 TS-1064 656.443 665.465 9.0229 #2 Pull 27 3 < 10 TS-1065 710.380 733.971 23.5919 #2 Pull 27 3 < 2.5 TS-1066 736.829 737.272 0.443

E 9/20/2010

Page 72 of 105

Gin F Field and Laboratory Data

Page 73 of 105

F#2 2B Pull 1D3D2010


Total PM Total PMX Run 1 0.0876 Run 1 4.1555X Run 2 0.1084 Run 2 4.8984X Run 3 0.1161 Run 3 3.6133Average Average

PM10 PM10

Y Run 1 0.0605 Run 1 2.8719Run 2 0.0639 Run 2 2.8883Run 3 0.0702 Run 3 2.1846


Z Run 1 0.0066 Run 1 0.3125Run 2 0.0074 Run 2 0.3324Run 3 0.0083 Run 3 0.2594




Run 1 10.9%Run 2 11.5%Run 3 11.9%


Run 1 7.5%Run 2 6.8%Run 3 7.2%

AveragePM10/TSP

Run 1 69.1%Run 2 59.0%Run 3 60.5%

Average

X: Run omitted from all dependent averages - Total PM ISO not metY: Run omitted from all dependent averages - PM 10 ISO or D50 not metZ: Run omitted from all dependent averages - PM 2.5 ISO or D50 not met

Gin:Exhaust:

Date:

Page 74 of 105

#2 2B Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3


ø - End of Run, time 13:30 14:49 15:45





Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O 0.12 0.12 0.12




















OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYF

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 75 of 105

#2 2B Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE






>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0027 0.0041 0.0031 0.0033


>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.321 0.503 0.357 0.3935

>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0068 0.0111 0.0115 0.0098

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0055 0.0052 0.0041 0.0049

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0115 0.0112 0.0081 0.0103

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 0.640 0.639 0.481 0.587

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0135 0.0141 0.0155 0.0144

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0014 0.0015 0.0011 0.00132

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.078 0.083 0.065 0.075

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0016 0.0018 0.0021 0.0019

TPM - Total PM g 0.0089 0.0100 0.0078 0.0089


TPM - Total PM lb/hr 1.039 1.225 0.903 1.06


OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYF

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 76 of 105








Average Bales/hr 47.45 45.20 31.12 41.26





F#2 2B Pull 1D3D


Page 77 of 105

Plant: F Unit: #2 2B Pull 1D3D Date: 10/19/2010 Lab#: 810-097

Location: Cyclones in System: 4 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °FCyclone Dia (in.): 58.00 Bales/hr: 47.45 Std Pressure: 29.92 in Hg

Pbar: 27.96 in Hg Static Sp: 0.12 in water dcO2: 20.90 %Run-Time, Ø: 20 min Pitot Factor: 0.84 Cp dcCO2: 0.01 %Meter Factor: 1.004 Y % H2O: 0.020 Bws* 2.0% dcN2: 79.09 %Meter Factor: 1.724 ¯H@ Meter Temp: 72.0 °F Stack Dia: 29.00 Sd in






Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet6 140 0.250 0.00 145.0 75 75 0.250 0.467 Initial Reading 15 146 0.240 1.72 149.0 74 74 0.230 0.467 0.000 24 147 0.210 3.37 151.0 74 74 0.290 0.467 Run Start Time 33 147 0.220 5.22 150.0 74 74 0.190 0.467 4 Total: 0.02 146 0.240 6.72 149.0 74 74 0.220 0.467 PM - Weights - Blank Corrected1 143 0.200 8.33 148.0 74 74 0.240 0.467 >10µ Wt: 0.0027 gms.6 143 0.280 10.01 147.0 75 75 0.210 0.467 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0055 gms.5 141 0.270 11.59 147.0 75 75 0.200 0.467 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0007 gms.4 146 0.230 13.12 147.0 74 74 0.210 0.467 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0058 gr/dscf3 146 0.250 14.70 146.0 75 75 0.240 0.467 7.881 >10µ: 0.3209 lb/hr2 145 0.240 16.38 146.0 75 75 0.230 0.467 <10-2.5µ: 0.0115 gr/dscf1 147 0.200 18.03 143.0 75 75 0.210 0.467 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.6398 lb/hr

144.8 0.236 19.60 147.3 74.5 0.227 0.467 7.881 <2.5µ: 0.0014 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0781 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008


13:05

13:30

Page 78 of 105

Plant: F Unit: #2 2B Pull 1D3D Date: 10/19/2010 Lab#: 810-097Location: Cyclones in System: 4 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F








Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet6 145.0 0.250 0.00 143.0 76 76 0.260 0.469 Initial Reading 15 149.0 0.230 1.75 146.0 76 76 0.230 0.469 0.000 24 151.0 0.290 3.40 145.0 76 76 0.280 0.469 Run Start Time 33 150.0 0.190 5.22 145.0 76 76 0.220 0.469 Total: 0.02 149.0 0.220 6.83 146.0 76 76 0.250 0.469 14:28 TO END PM - Weights - Blank Corrected1 148.0 0.240 8.55 144.0 76 76 0.290 0.469 Strip Cotton >10µ Wt: 0.0041 gms.6 147.0 0.210 10.40 144.0 77 77 0.230 0.469 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0052 gms.5 147.0 0.200 12.05 147.0 77 77 0.200 0.469 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0007 gms.4 147.0 0.210 13.59 147.0 76 76 0.220 0.469 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0088 gr/dscf3 146.0 0.240 15.20 147.0 76 76 0.240 0.469 7.771 >10µ: 0.5025 lb/hr2 146.0 0.230 16.89 146.0 77 77 0.250 0.469 <10-2.5µ: 0.0112 gr/dscf1 143.0 0.210 18.61 145.0 77 77 0.220 0.469 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.6390 lb/hr

147.3 0.227 20.22 145.4 76.3 0.241 0.469 7.771 <2.5µ: 0.0015 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0831 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

14:49

13:43


Page 79 of 105

Plant: F Unit: #2 2B Pull 1D3D Date: 10/19/2010 Lab#: 810-097Location: Cyclones in System: 4 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F








Pre-Test Data Test Run Data Impinger Weights, gramsPoint Stack Temp ¯P Elapsed Ts Tm °F Tm °F ¯P Delta H Meter Volume Final InitialNo. °F "H2O Time °F Inlet Outlet "H2O "H2O Cubic Feet6 143.0 0.260 0.00 132.0 77 77 0.250 0.475 Initial Reading 15 146.0 0.230 1.73 149.0 77 78 0.230 0.475 0.000 24 145.0 0.280 3.40 148.0 77 77 0.280 0.475 Run Start Time 33 145.0 0.220 5.23 149.0 78 77 0.220 0.475 4 Total: 0.02 146.0 0.250 6.86 148.0 77 77 0.260 0.475 PM - Weights - Blank Corrected1 144.0 0.290 8.63 147.0 77 77 0.280 0.475 >10µ Wt: 0.0031 gms.6 144.0 0.230 10.46 136.0 77 77 0.210 0.475 Run End Time <10µ-2.5µ Wt: 0.0041 gms.5 147.0 0.200 12.05 139.0 77 77 0.210 0.475 <2.5µ Wt: 0.0006 gms.4 147.0 0.220 13.64 140.0 77 77 0.250 0.475 Final Reading >10µ: 0.0060 gr/dscf3 147.0 0.240 15.38 142.0 77 77 0.280 0.475 8.487 >10µ: 0.3572 lb/hr2 146.0 0.250 17.21 146.0 77 77 0.320 0.475 <10-2.5µ: 0.0081 gr/dscf1 145.0 0.220 19.17 139.0 77 77 0.280 0.475 Total Volume <10-2.5µ: 0.4813 lb/hr

145.4 0.241 21.01 142.9 77.1 0.256 0.475 8.487 <2.5µ: 0.0011 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.0648 lb/hr









15:09

15:45

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 80 of 105


Plant: F Date: 10/19/2010Location: Start Time: 13:05

Unit: #2 2B Pull 1D3D End Time: 13:30Run: 1




BPHChauvenet's

Criterion2487978 13:04:35 --- --- ---2487979 506 13:05:42 0:01:07 54.42487980 491 13:06:49 0:01:07 52.82487981 486 13:08:02 0:01:13 47.92487982 499 13:09:09 0:01:07 53.62487983 485 13:10:56 0:01:47 32.62487984 501 13:12:25 0:01:29 40.52487985 486 13:13:34 0:01:09 50.72487986 489 13:14:42 0:01:08 51.82487987 486 13:15:49 0:01:07 52.22487988 505 13:16:57 0:01:08 53.52487989 492 13:18:05 0:01:08 52.12487990 489 13:19:13 0:01:08 51.82487991 493 13:20:19 0:01:06 53.82487992 481 13:21:27 0:01:08 50.92487993 512 13:22:39 0:01:12 51.22487994 497 13:24:01 0:01:22 43.62487995 503 13:25:13 0:01:12 50.32487996 517 13:26:25 0:01:12 51.72487997 492 13:28:09 0:01:44 34.12487998 499 13:29:44 0:01:35 37.82487999 523 13:30:58 0:01:14 50.9

REM - 2003

Page 81 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion2488002 13:36:22 --- --- ---2488003 13:48:03 0:11:41 *2488004 13:51:14 0:03:11 *2488005 13:53:52 0:02:38 *2488006 13:56:25 0:02:33 *2488007 13:57:40 0:01:15 *2488008 14:13:14 0:15:34 *2488009 14:14:27 0:01:13 *2488010 14:15:37 0:01:10 *2488011 14:16:49 0:01:12 *2488012 14:19:05 0:02:16 *2488013 14:20:49 0:01:44 *2488014 14:22:51 0:02:02 *2488015 14:24:57 0:02:06 *2488016 14:26:09 0:01:12 *2488017 14:27:18 0:01:09 *2488018 485 14:28:32 0:01:14 47.22488019 508 14:29:36 0:01:04 57.12488020 505 14:30:46 0:01:10 51.92488021 491 14:31:51 0:01:05 54.42488022 496 14:32:53 0:01:02 57.62488023 486 14:34:02 0:01:09 50.72488024 493 14:35:25 0:01:23 42.82488025 501 14:36:41 0:01:16 47.52488026 491 14:37:54 0:01:13 48.42488027 491 14:39:21 0:01:27 40.62488028 498 14:41:13 0:01:52 32.02488029 482 14:43:11 0:01:58 29.42488030 477 14:44:39 0:01:28 39.02488031 493 14:45:50 0:01:11 50.02488032 491 14:47:02 0:01:12 49.12488033 496 14:48:33 0:01:31 39.22488034 503 14:49:34 0:01:01 59.4

REM - 2003


Page 82 of 105







BPHChauvenet's

Criterion2488048 15:08:02 --- --- ---2488049 513 15:09:13 0:01:11 52.02488050 488 15:10:20 0:01:07 52.42488051 491 15:11:42 0:01:22 43.12488052 496 15:13:03 0:01:21 44.12488053 481 15:14:20 0:01:17 45.02488054 481 15:15:37 0:01:17 45.02488055 514 15:17:10 0:01:33 39.82488056 490 15:18:27 0:01:17 45.82488057 524 15:19:45 0:01:18 48.42488058 485 15:21:45 0:02:00 29.12488059 508 15:23:48 0:02:03 29.72488060 15:28:50 0:05:02 *2488061 15:37:05 0:08:15 *2488062 472 15:38:57 0:01:52 30.32488063 500 15:40:02 0:01:05 55.42488064 452 15:47:54 0:07:52 6.9

REM - 2003


Page 83 of 105


Client : F Date : 10/19/10 >10 Catch ID:Site : Lab#: 810-097 <10 Catch ID:Unit : #2 2B Pull 1D3D Filter ID: 8L-5725 <2.5 Catch ID:












WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1192TS-1193TS-1194

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 84 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1195TS-1196TS-1197

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 85 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1198TS-1199TS-1200

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 86 of 105

Acetone Rinse


Unit : #2 2B Pull 1D3D

PM-2.5Run 1 Run 2 Run 3








F 10/19/2010

Page 87 of 105

Filter/Tub Weights


Unit : #2 2B Pull 1D3D

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)Acetone Acetone Blank (9/16/10) 75 g TL-0156 681.037 681.180 0.143DI Blank 10/18/2010 150 g TL-0170 639.871 640.359 0.488Filter Blank 6L-0119 249.026 249.047 0.021


LocationFilter/Tub

No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)2 2B Pull 27 1 Filter < 2.58L-5725 327.916 328.329 0.4142 2B Pull 27 1 < 10 TS-1193 693.788 699.299 5.5102 2B Pull 27 1 < 2.5 TS-1194 730.262 730.528 0.2662 2B Pull 27 1 > 10 TS-1192 601.046 603.838 2.7932 2B Pull 27 2 Filter < 2.58L-5726 347.179 347.559 0.3802 2B Pull 27 2 < 10 TS-1196 686.587 691.832 5.2462 2B Pull 27 2 < 2.5 TS-1197 658.423 658.736 0.3122 2B Pull 27 2 > 10 TS-1195 654.892 659.032 4.1402 2B Pull 27 3 Filter < 2.58L-5727 326.832 327.186 0.3542 2B Pull 27 3 < 10 TS-1199 646.295 650.487 4.1922 2B Pull 27 3 < 2.5 TS-1200 688.261 688.482 0.2212 2B Pull 27 3 > 10 TS-1198 681.779 684.900 3.120

F 10/19/2010

Page 88 of 105

Gin G Field and Laboratory Data

Page 89 of 105

G#5 No.2 Pull 1D3D2011


Total PM Total PMRun 1 0.1886 Run 1 6.4028Run 2 0.1994 Run 2 6.6278Run 3 0.1417 Run 3 4.9069

Average 0.1766 Average 5.9792PM10 PM10







Run 1 6.2%Run 2 6.5%Run 3 7.0%


Run 1 4.6%Run 2 4.2%Run 3 4.1%


Run 1 73.8%Run 2 64.9%Run 3 57.9%

Average 66.2%

Gin:Exhaust:

Date:

Page 90 of 105

#5 No.2 Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3


ø - End of Run, time 8:40 9:09 9:34





Pg - Stack static pressure, in. H2O -0.14 -0.14 -0.14




















OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYG

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 91 of 105

#5 No.2 Pull 1D3D Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 AVERAGE






>10 µ - Total PM g 0.0062 0.0090 0.0073 0.0075


>10 µ - Total PM lb/hr 0.839 1.164 1.034 1.0123

>10 µ - Total PM lb/bale 0.0247 0.0350 0.0299 0.0299

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 - 2.5 g 0.0163 0.0155 0.0093 0.0137

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 gr/dscf 0.0357 0.0328 0.0214 0.0300

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/hr 2.215 2.010 1.319 1.848

10 µ -2.5 µ - PM-10 lb/bale 0.0652 0.0605 0.0381 0.0546

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 g 0.0011 0.0011 0.0007 0.0010

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 gr/dscf 0.0024 0.0023 0.0016 0.00210

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/hr 0.147 0.140 0.100 0.129

< 2.5 µ - PM-2.5 lb/bale 0.0043 0.0042 0.0029 0.0038

TPM - Total PM g 0.0236 0.0256 0.0172 0.0222


TPM - Total PM lb/hr 3.201 3.314 2.453 2.99


OTM METHOD 27 FIELD DATA SUMMARYG

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 92 of 105








Average Bales/hr 33.95 33.23 34.64 33.94





G

OTM METHOD 27 RESULTS#5 No.2 Pull 1D3D

Page 93 of 105

Plant: G Unit: #5 No.2 Pull 1D3D Date: 10/8/2011 Lab#: 110-090Location: Cyclones in System: 2 Std Temp (Tstd): 68 °F









100.0 0.343 18.37 99.3 50.4 0.317 0.513 6.695 <2.5µ: 0.0024 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.1475 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008


8:20

8:40

Page 94 of 105










99.3 0.317 18.97 98.8 52.1 0.308 0.510 6.937 <2.5µ: 0.0023 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.1402 lb/hr








REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

9:09

8:46


Page 95 of 105




Pre-test Leak Check: 0.004 cfm Pitot Leak Check: ok Post-test Leak Check: 0.001 cfm**EPA 201A - 10u & 2.5u: PRE - TEST CALCULATIONS






98.8 0.308 17.52 100.3 53.9 0.313 0.510 6.372 <2.5µ: 0.0016 gr/dscf<2.5µ: 0.1000 lb/hr









9:15

9:34

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2008

Page 96 of 105


Plant: G Date: 10/8/2011Location: Start Time: 8:20

Unit: #5 No.2 Pull 1D3D End Time: 8:40Run: 1




BPHChauvenet's

Criterion330132 8:19:01 --- --- ---330133 489 8:20:43 0:01:42 34.5330134 493 8:22:29 0:01:46 33.5330135 492 8:24:20 0:01:51 31.9330136 511 8:26:11 0:01:51 33.1330137 486 8:28:00 0:01:49 32.1330138 488 8:29:47 0:01:47 32.8330139 490 8:31:22 0:01:35 37.1330140 508 8:33:09 0:01:47 34.2330141 508 8:34:40 0:01:31 40.2 *330142 498 8:36:25 0:01:45 34.1330143 505 8:38:19 0:01:54 31.9330144 506 8:40:08 0:01:49 33.4

REM - 2003

Page 97 of 105






Bale No Bale Wt. Time time/baleStd 500 lb

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion330147 8:45:31 --- --- ---330148 509 8:47:31 0:02:00 30.5330149 483 8:49:14 0:01:43 33.8330150 509 8:52:27 0:03:13 19.0330151 507 8:53:21 0:00:54 67.6 *330152 502 8:55:12 0:01:51 32.6330153 510 8:57:08 0:01:56 31.7330154 529 8:58:59 0:01:51 34.3330155 501 9:00:30 0:01:31 39.6330156 505 9:02:14 0:01:44 35.0330157 519 9:03:59 0:01:45 35.6330158 507 9:05:48 0:01:49 33.5330159 517 9:07:33 0:01:45 35.5330160 507 9:09:22 0:01:49 33.5

REM - 2003

Page 98 of 105






Bale No Bale Wt. Time time/baleStd 500 lb

BPHChauvenet's

Criterion330163 9:14:53 --- --- ---330164 480 9:16:29 0:01:36 36.0330165 517 9:18:21 0:01:52 33.2330166 485 9:20:02 0:01:41 34.6330167 488 9:21:50 0:01:48 32.5330168 511 9:23:27 0:01:37 37.9330169 508 9:25:08 0:01:41 36.2330170 520 9:26:57 0:01:49 34.3330171 496 9:28:34 0:01:37 36.8330172 521 9:30:21 0:01:47 35.1330173 487 9:32:01 0:01:40 35.1330174 499 9:33:56 0:01:55 31.2330175 497 9:35:42 0:01:46 33.8

REM - 2003

Page 99 of 105


Client : G Date : 10/8/11 >10 Catch ID:Site : Lab#: 110-090 <10 Catch ID:Unit : #5 No.2 Pull 1D3D Filter ID: 8L-6905 <2.5 Catch ID:












WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1477TS-1478TS-1479

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 100 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1480TS-1481TS-1482

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 101 of 105














WEIGHTS & VOLUMES

REM PM-10, 2.5 - 2001

TS-1483TS-1484TS-1485

SOLUTION BLANKS

Page 102 of 105

Acetone Rinse


Unit : #5 No.2 Pull 1D3D









G 10/8/2011

10/8/11

Page 103 of 105

Filter/Tub Weights


Unit : #5 No.2 Pull 1D3D

Filter/Tub No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)Acetone Blank 60 g TS-1529 637.224 637.303 0.079DI Blank 304.1 g TL-0022 671.908 672.059 0.151Filter Blank 8L-6914 296.945 296.944 -0.001

No. Cyclone Name Method Run No. Sample LocationFilter/Tub

No.

Pre-Weight

(mg)

Post-Weight

(mg)

Net-Weight

(mg)5 No.2 Pull 27 1 Filter < 2.5 8L-6905 354.262 355.132 0.8705 No.2 Pull 27 1 > 10 TS-1477 663.743 669.961 6.2185 No.2 Pull 27 1 < 10 TS-1478 642.841 659.218 16.3775 No.2 Pull 27 1 < 2.5 TS-1479 719.849 720.080 0.2305 No.2 Pull 27 2 Filter < 2.5 8L-6906 366.753 367.617 0.8645 No.2 Pull 27 2 > 10 TS-1480 632.022 641.040 9.0185 No.2 Pull 27 2 < 10 TS-1481 716.014 731.585 15.5725 No.2 Pull 27 2 < 2.5 TS-1482 680.348 680.585 0.2375 No.2 Pull 27 3 Filter < 2.5 8L-6907 340.950 341.419 0.4695 No.2 Pull 27 3 > 10 TS-1483 652.494 659.787 7.2935 No.2 Pull 27 3 < 10 TS-1484 701.240 710.561 9.3215 No.2 Pull 27 3 < 2.5 TS-1485 630.973 631.225 0.252

G 10/8/2011

Page 104 of 105

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 105 of 105

Documents

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