TnNBSIR 85-3255

I Validation of Models for

^ Predicting Formaldehyde

Concentrations in Residences

Due to Pressed Wood Products

Phase I

Richard A. Grot

Samuel Silberstein

Kunimichi Ishiguro

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Building Physics Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

September 1985

for;

100 Ington, DC

• U56

85-3255

1985

]imer Product Safety Commission

NBSIR 85-3255

VALIDATION OF MODELS FOR

PREDICTING FORMALDEHYDE

CONCENTRATIONS IN RESIDENCES

DUE TO PRESSED WOOD PRODUCTS

PHASE I

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY

Richard A. Grot

Samuel Silberstein

Kunimichi Ishiguro

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Building Physics Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

September 1985

Prepared for: Consunner Product Safety Commission

Washington, DC

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

Validation of Models for Predicting Formaldehyde

Concentrations in Residences due to

Pressed-Wood Products

Phase I

Richard A. Grot

Samuel Silberstein

Kunimichi Ishiguro

Guest Worker

Taisei Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

This interim report describes procedures and presents results of the first

phase of a laboratory project undertaken at the National Bureau of Standards

for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The purpose of the ongoing

project is to assess the accuracy of emission and indoor air quality models to

be used by CPSC in predicting formaldehyde (ECHO) concentrations in residences

due to pressed-wood products made with urea-formaldehyde bonding resins, namely

particleboard under layment , hardwood-plywood paneling and medium-density

fiberboard (MDF). In phase I, these products were characterized in "mediumsize” dynamic measuring chambers by measuring their ECHO surface emission rates

over a range of ECEO concentrations, at 23®C and 50% RE. They were then

installed in a two-room prototype house and the equilibrium ECEO concentrations

were monitored as a function of air exchange rate. Excellent agreement was

obtained between measured ECEO concentrations and those predicted by a massbalance indoor air quality model. In the next phase, the study will be

repeated at various different temperatures and relative humidities so that

models predicting ECEO surface emission rate as a function of temperature and

humidity can be tested.

Key words; Formaldehyde; indoor air quality; modeling; paneling;

particleboard; plywood; tracer gas; under layment.

1
Disclaimer

"Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this

paper in order to adequately specify the experimental procedure. Such

identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National

Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment

identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose."

ii
Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Medium-Size Dynamic Measuring Chambers for Determining

Formaldehyde Emission Rates of Individual Product Specimens .... 2

3. Two-Room Prototype House 3

4. Description of the Instrumentation System 3

3. Calibration and Use of Equipment 4

6. Formaldehyde Emission Rates of the Pressed-Wood Products 5

7. Comparison of Results to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model . 9

8. Formaldehyde Concentrations in the Two-Room Prototype House .... 11

9. Results for the Prototype House at 23°C, 50% RH 13

10. Summary 13

References 15

Appendix A. Plan for Testing Models for HCHO Emission from

Pressed Wood Products 73

Appendix B. Instrumentation System for Medium-Size Chamber .... 77

Appendix C. Instrumentation System for Two-Room Prototype House 80

Appendix D. Experimental Protocols 83

Appendix E. Program Listing for Medium-Size Chamber 89

Appendix F. Program Listing for Two-Room Prototype House 108

Appendix G. Program for Predicting Formaldehyde

Concentrations in a Two-Room House 127

iii
NOMENCLATURE

AI

AI

and B are coefficients, given in tables 23-25, for the linear regression

equation

ER = A -

= air exchange rate, h

n

* AI + 2 AREA^ ’B^/g'V

i=l

AREA = area of board,

C = C(t) = ECHO concentration in chamber or prototype house

lim

'eq C(t)

^ext “ chamber-background ECHO concentration, ppb

Cq = initial ECBO concentration, ppb

Cg = ECEO concentration in the span gas

e = emission rate of ECEO from permeation tube, ng/rain

F = air flow rate through gas standards generator, L/min

g = the density of ECEO, mg/cm^ (= ^nCEO^^e^

MWeceo “ molecular weight of ECEO, 30.03

R = ECEO concentration monitor reading for chamber or prototype house

Rq = ECEO concentration monitor reading for zero air

Rg = ECEO concentration monitor reading for span gas

SER* = ECEO surface emission rate, mg/m^*h

SERioo ~ ECEO surface emission rate for C = 100 ppb, mg/m^'h

V = volume of enclosure, m^

Vg = volume occupied by 1 kg-mole of ECEO at 25°C, 24.45 m^

Subscript "i" indicates "for the ith emitter."

IV
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Schematic of Medium-Size Chamber for Measuring

HCEO Emission Rates .* * * *

Figure 2. Schematic of Two-Room Prototype House ("Large-Size

Chamber") 48

Figure 3. Schematic of Instrumentation for Monitoring Medium-Size

Chambers 49

Figure 4, Schematic of Instrumentation for Monitoring Prototype

House 30

Figure 5. Weight Loss Calibration for Permeation Tubes used for

Calibrating HCHO Monitor 51

Figure 6. Calibration Curve of the HCHO Concentration Monitor .... 51

Figure 7. Calibration Curve for S-Cubed Electron-Capture Gas

Chromotograph (Prototype-House Unit) 52

Figure 8. Calibration Curve for ITT Electron-Capture Gas

Chromatograph (Medium-Size Chambers) 52

Figure 9. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #2 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first and second tests) 53

Figure 10. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #2 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 53

Figure 11. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #5 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first test) 53

Figure 12. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #5 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (second test) 53

Figure 13. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #5 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 54

Figure 14. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #8 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first and second tests) 54

Figure 15. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #8 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 54

Figure 16. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #9 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first and second tests) 54

Figure 17. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #9 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 55

V
Figure 18. HCHO Emission Rate for Under layment #10 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first and second tests) 55

Figure 19. HCHO Emission Rate for Under layment #10 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 55

Figure 20. HCHO Emission Rate for Under layment #12 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first test) 55

Figure 21. HCHO Emission Rate for Under layment #12 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (second test) 56

Figure 22. HCHO Emission Rate for Under layment #12 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 56

Figure 23. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #18 as a Function

of HCHO Concontration (first test) 56

Figure 24. HCHO Emission Rate for Underlayment #18 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (second test) 56

Figure 25. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #6 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration (first test) 57

Figure 26. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #6 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration (second test) 57

Figure 27. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #8 as a Function of

HCHO Conentration (first test) 57

Figure 28. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #8 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration (second test) 57

Figure 29. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #9 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration (first test) 58

Figure 30. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #9 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration (second test) 58

Figure 31. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #10 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration 58

Figure 32. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #14 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration 58

Figure 33. HCHO Emission Rate for Paneling #17 as a Function of

HCHO Concentration 59

Figure 34. HCHO Emission Rate for MDF Table Top #2 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (first and second tests) ......... 59

Figure 35. HCHO Emission Rate for MDF Table Top #2 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration (third test) 59

vi

L
Figure 36. HCHO Emission Rate for MDF Table Top #9 as a Function

of HCHO Concentration 39

Figure 37. HCHO Emission Rate for MDF Table Tope #12 as a Function

of HCHO Conentration (first and second tests) 60

Figure 38. HCHO Emission Rate for MDF Table Top #12 a Function of

HCHO Concentration (third test) 60

Figure 39. HCHO Emission Rate for MDF Table Top #2A as a Function

of HCHO Concentration 60

Figure 40. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Under layment #2 (first and second tests combined)

to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 60

Figure 41. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #2 (third test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 61

Figure 42. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #5 (first test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 61

Figure 43. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #5 (second test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 61

Figure 44. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #5 (third test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 61

Figure 45. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #8 (first and second tests combined)

to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 62

Figure 46. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #8 (third test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 62

Figure 47. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #9 (first and second tests combined)

to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 62

Figure 48. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #9 (third test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 62

Figure 49. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #10 (first and second test combined)

to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 63

Figure 50. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #10 (third test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 63

vii
F igure 51. Comparison of Normalized ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #12 (first test) to those Predicted by

ORNT^ Emi 5? s inn Mndp 1

F igure 52. Comparison of Normalized ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #12 (second test) to those Predicted by

ORNTj Emission Modpi

F igure 53. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #12 (third test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model

F igure 54. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #18 (first test) to those Predicted by

ORNL Em i s s i nn Model

F igure 55. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #18 (second test) to those Predicted by

OR NT, Fth 1 r s 1 on Model

F igure 56. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for Paneling

#6 (first test) to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 57. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for Paneling

#8 (first test) to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 58. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for Paneling

#9 (first test) to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 59. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Paneling #9 (second test) to those Predicted by

OR NT. Etti 1 s a i nn Mnd el

F igure 60. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Paneling #10 to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 61. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Paneling #14 to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 62. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for

Paneling #17 to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 63. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for MDF

Table Top #2 (first and second tests combined) to

those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

F igure 64. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for MDF

Table Top #2 (third test) to those Predicted by ORNL

Etti i s r i nn Mnrlnl .........................................

F igure 65. Comparison of Normalized ECEO Emission Rates for MDF

Table Top #9 to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

63

63

64

64

64

64

65

65

65

65

66

66

66

66

67

viii

L
Figure 66. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for MDF

Table Top #12 (first and second tests combined) to

those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 67

Figure 67. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for MDF

Table Top #12 (third test) to those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model 67

Figure 68. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for MDF

Table Top #24 to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model . 67

Figure 69. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

Uncut Underlayment (before and during prototype house

study) to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 68

Figure 70. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

Uncut Underlayment (after prototype house study) to those

Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 68

Figure 71. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

Uncut Underlyament to those Predicted by ORNL Emission

Model 68

Figure 72. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

Cut Underlayment (during prototype house study) to those

Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 68

Figure 73. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

Cut Underlyament (after prototype house study) to those

Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 69

Figure 74. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined Cut Underlayment to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model 69

Figure 75. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

Paneling from manufacturer #2 (before prototype house

study) to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 69

Figure 76. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined Paneling from manufacturer #2 to those

Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 69

Figure 77. Comparison of Noinnalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined MDF Table Tops (before and during prototype

house study) to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model . 70

Figure 78. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined MDF Table Tops (after prototype house study)

to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 70

Figure 79. Comparison of Normalized HCHO Emission Rates for Combined

MDF Table Tops to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model 70

IX
Figure 80. Comparison of Measurements (points) and Predictions of

Equation 8 (curve) for Prototype-House Loading of

Underlayment 71

Figure 81. Comparison of Measurements (points) and Predictions of

Equation 8 (curve) for Prototype-House Loading of

Underlayment and Paneling 71

Figure 82. Comparison of Measurements (points) and Predictions of

Equation 8 (curve) for Prototype-House Loading of

Underlayment, Paneling and MDF 72

X
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Under layment

#2 first and second tests 16

Table 2, Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#2 — third test 16

Table 3. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#5 first test (uncut) 17

Table 4. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#5 second test (cut) 17

Table 5. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#5 third test (cut) 18

Table 6. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#8 — first test 19

Table 7. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#8 — second test 19

Table 8. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#8 — third test 20

Table 9. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#9 — first test 20

Table 10. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#9 — second test 21

Table 11. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#9 — third test 21

Table 12. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#10 first and second tests 22

Table 13. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#10 — third test 22

Table 14. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#12 first test (uncut) 23

Table 15. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#12 second test (cut) 23

Table 16. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#12 third test (cut) 24

Table 17. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment

#18 — first test 25

XI
Table 18. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Under layment

#18 — second test 26

Table 19. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling

#6 — first test 27

Table 20. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling

#6 — second test 27

Table 21. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling

#8 — first test 28

Table 22. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling

#8 — second test 28

Table 23. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling

#9 — first test 29

Table 24. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling

#9 — second test 30

Table 25. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #10 .... 31

Table 26. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #14 .... 32

Table 27. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #17 .... 33

Table 28. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top

#2 — first test 33

Table 29. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top

#2 — second test 34

Table 30. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top

#2 — third test 34

Table 31. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #9 . 35

Table 32. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top

#12 — first test 36

Table 33. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top

#12 — second test 36

Table 34. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top

#12 — third test 37

Table 35. Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #24 38

Table 36. Characterization of Underlayment from Medium-Size

Chamber ECHO Emission Rate Data 39

Table 37. Characterization of Paneling from Medium-Size ECHO

Emission Rate Data 41

xii

i
Table 38. Characterization of Medium-Density Fiberboard from

Medium-Size Chamber ECHO Emission Rate Data 42

Table 39. ECHO Emission Rates Measured by FSEM mg/m^‘h 43

Table 40. Comparison of FSEM Measurements versus SERj^qq ........... 44

Table 41. Coefficients for ORNL Model 45

Table 42. Results of Prototype-Eouse Tests of Loading of

Underlayment 46

Table 43. Results of Prototype-Eouse Tests of Loading of

Underlayment and Paneling 46

Table 44. Results of Prototype-Eouse Tests of Loading of

Underlayment, Paneling and Medium-Density Fiberboard .... 47

xiii
, /

ii* N •

t

ii. 'K ,f, 44' ’’ S'* U*-. 'imHSi t-ffSf C5||f^^' ;,||* *£»«!>*

|i?c sj#T

:vt'5^' >si'4'«’|..

,,tV'J*^;.V.-' 4''^^ 'Xobt

‘Vj.

• # ) . « '• '•=*

> 4*»

,,n

»«

"

't(iI

.ill li'.l'.iu >..;'»>ii-^

il'fW/r'i 'X<>. ?si*ifsT:

* '• - • ‘ * » '• < - : ^ m .1

. "- '

. "^•’- vV;,,’(',jj..'.,' , '' -

• f'"' '}

'

-

' 7

' i^ll

'Vi r-ii«:

^

''''

• ”

;(/;

fi % \i,i*;' l!5«»

.^' - n

'

. .(".‘',V?t',>I-'-’'

,

^ ^

*>

. V ^ f .»

i>"f H ^

¥«if', <!# .4^5

w

i
1. Introduction

Formaldehyde (ECHO) has been implicated as an indoor air pollutant causing both

irritation and damage to health [1, 2], A principal source in residences, at

present, is pressed-wood products made of urea-formaldehyde bonding resins,

such as particleboard, plyvood and medium-density fiberboard (MDF) [1].

One would like to be able to predict a house's ECHO concentration from a characterization of the pressed-wood products inside it. Characterizing

pressed-wood products is a complicated task, however, as the ECEO surface

emission rate depends on temperature, relative humidity (RE), ambient HCBO

concentration, as well as the history of the product [3-5]. Fick's diffusion

law, which states that the rate of diffusion between two spaces is inversely

related to the concentration gradient between them, implies that ECEO surface

emission rate is linear in concentration, with negative slope. Oak Ridge

National Laboratory (ORNL) confirmed this model for pressed wood products

(except possibly for paneling). ORNL then derived an empirical ECEO emissionrate model that generalized Fick's Law model, predicting surface emission rates

of pressed wood products at nearby combinations of ambient temperature, RE and

ECEO concentration from knowledge of the surface emission rate under standard

conditions, that is 23°C, 50% RE, and ECEO concentration of 100 ppb [3-5]. To

obtain the surface emission rate under standard conditions, a series of surface

emission rate measurements is made at standard temperature and RE and varying

ECEO concentrations straddling 100 ppb. The surface emission rate is

interpolated to 100 ppb. If boards can be adequately characterized by one or both emission models, the next step is to test whether an air quality model

based on mass balance can be used to predict ECEO concentration in a residence,

and to modify both emission and air quality models to improve their predictive

performance if they are inadequate.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requested that the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) validate the emission model based on Fick's diffusion

law, the ORNL generalization of this model, and test a simple mass-balance

indoor air quality model. ORNL previously tested the emission models in

"small-size” chambers having a volume of 7 ft^ (0.2 m^) that required that the

pressed-wood products, which are usually installed as intact 4' x 8' (1.2-m x 2.4-m) boards, be cut into much smaller pieces. CPSC built "medium-size"

dynamic measuring chambers, whose internal dimensions are 4' x 8' x 2' (1.2 m

X 2.4 m X 0.6 m) , for a volume of 64 ft^ (1.8 m^), which are large enough to

accommodate intact boards for board characterization. NBS built a a two-room

prototype house (or "large-size" dynamic measuring chamber) whose internal

dimensions are 10' x 20' x 8' (3 m x 6 m x 2,4 m) , for a volume of 1600 ft^ (45

m^), to validate the models' ability to predict ECEO concentrations in res idences

Twelve medium-size dynamic measuring chambers were installed, and the prototype

house was built, in an environmental chamber at NBS, in which temperature and

RE can be carefully controlled. The general procedure used in this

experimental project was to 1) condition the pressed-wood products; 2)

characterize their surface emission rates in the medium-size dynamic measuring

chambers by varying the air exchange rate to obtain different ECEO

concentrations; and 3) install them in realistic combinations in the prototype

house, vary the air exchange rate over a range encountered in normal houses

(about 0,1 to 1 h ^) and compare the resulting HCBO concentrations with those

predicted from the medium-size dynamic measuring chamber results using a mass1
balance indoor air quality model. The surface emission rates are determined by

automated equipment that measures air exchange rates by the decay of sulfur

hexaf louor ide (SF^) tracer gas concentration, and measures ECHO concentrations.

The experiments reported here are the first phase of the study. See appendix A

for the experimental plan. In phase I, ECHO surface emission rates of pressed

wood products were measured at "standard” temperature and RE, to characterize

their emission properties. The mass-balance model was then able to predict

successfully prototype house ECEO concentrations from those measured in the

medium-size dynamic measuring chambers. In the future, these experiments will

be repeated at different combinations of temperature and RE in order to test

the ability of the OREL emission model to predict surface emission rates under

nonstandard conditions from those under standard conditions.

In phase I, the surface emission rates obtained in the medium-size dynamic

measuring chambers were also compared to those measured by ECEO surface

emission monitors (FSEM) developed by ORNL, It was found that the surface

emission rates measured by FSEMs agreed only qualitatively, at best, with those

measured in the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers.

2. Medium-Size Dynamic Measuring Chambers for Detennining the Emission Rates

of Individual Product Specimens

The medium-size dynamic measuring chambers for determining the ECEO surface

emission rates of individual pressed-wood products are shown schematically in

figure 1. The chambers are 8'6" (2.6 m) long by 4"6" (1.4 m) wide by 2' (0.6

m) high. Interior dimensions and volume are given above. The chambers were

constructed of 3/4" 20-mm exterior grade plywood. All inner exposed surfaces

were lined with teflon sheets to minimize ECEO sorption. The outer surfaces

were painted with a fireproof paint. The tubing used for this system was 1 1/2" (38-mm) PVC drain pipe. Two small DC fans with a rated capacity of 15

ft^/min were (7 L/s) installed at both ends of the chambers to supply and

exhaust the air. Three valves in the system controlled the amount of air

brought in, exhausted and recirculated. The DC fans permitted the air velocity

to be controlled by varying the voltage to the fans but this was not done. The

fans were run at constant speed and the air exchange rate was controlled by the

three valves in order to try to maintain a constant air velocity over the

sample. The outlet valve was usually adjusted to slightly pressurize the

chamber, thus assuring that the air entered only through the inlet.

An air-flow meter was attached to the inlet. This flow rate was used only for

adjustment, but not the determination, of the air exchange rate, which was done

using a tracer-gas decay method. Sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas was injected

into the inlet of the chamber and sampled at the outlet. The sampling and

injection lines were 1/8" (3-mm) O.D. nylon tubing. The ECEO concentration was sampled at the outlet using 3/16" (5-mm) O.D. FEP-teflon tubing. Air was

supplied and exhausted by manifolds, which were made of two 40" (1-m) lengths

of 1 1/2 (38-mm) PVC tubing teed together and capped at the ends. Eight 1/8"

(3-mm) holes were drilled around the circumference of the tubing at 6" (15-cm)

intervals. Thus air entered and left the chamber in a circular pattern along a 1-m long tube, and not at single points.

Good air mixing within the chambers was demonstrated as follows. The first

chamber constructed had one side made of plexiglass to permit smoke

visualization of the air-flow pattern. The smoke density quickly became

2
uniform in the chamber and there were no dead spots.

3. The Two-Room Prototype House

The two-room prototype house constructed in the environmental chamber is shown

schematically in figure 2. The interior dimensions and volume are given in the

introduction. The two equal-sized rooms are connected by a doorway which was left open during the testing. The side walls of the prototype house were

constructed of 1 1/2" x 4" (4-cm x 10-cm) framing 16" (40 cm) on center. The

floor and ceiling were constructed of 2" x 5" (5-cm x 25-cm) framing 12" (60

cm) on center. The floor was made of 1 1/2" (2-cm) exterior plywood. The

floor, ceiling and sidewalls were covered with a 4-mil (0.1-mm) polyethelyne

vapor barrier overlapped at the edges. Over this was applied 1/2" (13-mm)

gypsum board on 1/2" (13-ram) firring strips. Six of the sheets of gypsum board

were screwed in place to facilitate removal later if necessary. The prototype

house had two supply registers and two return registers, one near the ceiling

and one near the floor of each room. Two duct-booster fans were used to supply

and exhaust air. A recirculation loop was included in the air-handling system

and the system was balanced by three dampers, one in the inlet, one in the

outlet, and one in the recirculating loop. Thermistors and 3/16" (5-mm) FEP

teflon air-sampling tubes were installed in the center of each room at heights

of 1

' (0.6 m), 4' (1.2 m), and 3' (1.8 m), and in the inlet and exhaust air.

The temperature and RH were also monitored in each room using chart recorders.

In general HCHO was sampled by the computer-based instrumentation system at the

inlet, outlet and one height in each room at a time. Two air-flow meters

installed in the inlet and outlet airstreams were used only for adjustment of

the air exchange rate. The actual room air exchange rate was determined using

the tracer decay method. Sulfur hexafluoride was injected into the inlet air

and sampled in the outlet air using 1/8" (3-mm) nylon tubing. Additional 1/8"

(3-mm) nylon tubing was installed in each room at the same locations as the

air-sampling tubing above to allow checking of stratification, but have not

been used to date.

4. Description of the Instrumentation System

A HCHO surface emission-rate measurement system was constructed by linking an airborne HCHO concentration monitor (a TGM-555 air monitor fitted with with a HCHO analytical module) to a computer-based NBS automated tracer-gas decay

system used to measure air exchange rate, and writing programs to automate

collection and storage of HCHO concentration data as well. One HCHO surface

emission-rate measurement system each was used for the prototype house and for

the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers. Figures 3 and 4 give schematic

descriptions of the two systems.

Details of the instrumentation are given in appendices B and C. Experimental

protocols for calibrating and using the equipment are given in appendix D.

Listings of the programs, and their subroutines are given in appendices E and

F. The basic algorithms of these two monitoring programs (one for the mediumsize dynamic measuring chambers, the other for the prototype house) are the

same. Formaldehyde concentrations of the zero air, span gas, and environmental

chamber background are monitored by each HCHO concentration monitor by

automatically opening appropriate sampling ports. ("Zero air" and "span gas"

are explained in section 5 below and in appendix D.) One monitor then measures

3
HCHO concentration of three medium- size dynamic measuring chambers, while the

other monitor measures those of the outlet and one location in the center of

each room of the prototype house. Each site is monitored for 15 minutes

because of the duration of the delay time of the HCHO concentration monitor.

Sulfur hexafluoride concentration is monitored every 5 minutes in the prototype

house, the large environmetal chamber and 3 medium-size dynamic measuring

chambers. During this 90-minute sequence, analogue data (temperature and airflow rates) are monitored approximately each second and a 90-minute average is

calculated. Similarly, one-minute average HCHO concentration readings are

calculated. The one-minute averages are averaged over the interval specified

by the delay and averaging times. The HCHO concentration is determined from:

where

R-R,

C = C

" Rs-Ro

( 1 )

C

sR

R

R

o

s

HCHO concentration

HCHO concentration

HCHO concentration

house

HCHO concentration

HCHO concentration

in chamber or prototype house

in the span gas

monitor reading for chamber or prototype

monitor reading

monitor reading

for zero air

for span gas

At the start of each 90-minute measurement cycle, the systems determine SF^

concentration and inject the required amount of tracer gas to bring it up to

300 ppb in the prototype house, and 60 ppb in the medium-size dynamic measuring

chambers (approximate saturation concentrations of each gas chromatograph).

Air exchange rates are calculated by linear regression analysis of log (SF^

concentration) against time. The data collected in each 90-minute sequence are displayed on the computer video display as they are collected, and recorded on

a data disk.

5. Calibration and Use of Equipment

The HCHO concentration monitor measures HCHO concentration by a modified of

pararos an i 1 ine procedure [2, 6-8]. The preparation and use of reagents, and

the calibration of the monitor are described in appendix D. Formaldehyde concentrations were measured automatically using the HCHO

concentration monitor. An air sample stream is continuously pumped into the

monitor at a fixed air flow rate between about 0.5 and 1.0 L/min and scrubbed

with pararosani 1 ine-HC 1 solution. Sodium sulfite solution and water are then

added, resulting in a pararosani 1 ine concentration of 0.013% in 67 mN HCl, and

a Na 2

S 03 concentration of 0.17 g/ 1 (1.3 mM). The mixture reacts for about

eight to ten minutes as it is pumped through a coil to a photometer, where its

absorbance at a wave length of 570 nm relative to a pararosani 1 ine-HC 1 blank is

measured

In order to calibrate the HCHO concentration monitor, HCHO-free "zero air" and

"span gas" contaning a known concentration of HCHO must be supplied. Span gas was prepared by heating a permeation tube containing po lyoxymethy lene, a HCHO

polymer, at 80°C in the oven of a gas standards generator and passing a HCHOfree airstream over it. Po 1 yoxymethy 1 ene decomposes into HCHO when heated.

4
The polymer is sealed in teflon, which is slightly permeable to ECHO [9]. (The

teflon lining the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers did not absorb

formaldehyde during the tests; data not shown.) The detailed preparation of

zero air and span gas is described in appendix D. The span gas concentration

was calculated by the following equation:

Cs = (Vg/KWHCHO)'®/'' ^2)

where

MWecho “ molecular weight of ECHO, 30.03

Vg = volume occupied by 1 kg-mole of ECEO at 25°C, 24.45 m"^ e®= emission rate of ECEO from permeation tube, ng/min

F = air flow rate through gas standards generator, L/min

The air flow rate, F, was determined by both a wet test meter and a gas flow

meter to be 2.37 L/s (data not shown). Weighing the permeation tubes

approximately monthly for 4 months gave an emission rate, e, of 192 ng/min (see

figure 5), with r^ = 0.998. Equation 2 thus gives a concentration of 66 ppb

for the two permeation tubes used simultaneously. It is estimated from the

value of r^ and the agreement between two flowmeters that the errors in e and

Cg are of the order of 1%. It can be seen from figure 5 that the emission rate

is stable during the measuring interval.

Prior to the experiment shown in figure 5, a stable emission rate from the two

permeation tubes used was shown as follows. A series of permeation tubes

having a wide range of ECEO emission rates was kept at room temperature, except

for the two tubes used in the gas standards generator. In order to ensure that

the emission rate of these two tubes had not changed appreciably after about

three months of continuous use, the emission rate of the two tubes was compared

with those of the other tubes that were presumably still emitting ECEO at their

initial rates. As shown in figure 6, a linear relationship, determined by

linear regression analysis, still held between measured ECEO concentrations and

the nominal emission rates supplied by the manufacturer. This was consistent

with the manufacturer's claim that these tubes emit stably for more than two

years at 80®C. Because this procedure only showed consistency among tubes, but

did not yield absolute emission rates, it was supplanted by weighing the tubes

periodically, as described above.

The two electron-capture detectors were calibrated as described in appendix D. The calibration curves for each instrument are shown in figures 7 and 8.

6. Formaldehyde Surface Emission Rates of the Pressed-Wood Products

The pressed-wood products used in the study were supplied by various

manufacturers and trade asssociations as 4' x 8'(1.2-m x 2.4-m) boards (area 32

ft"^ (3.0 m'^)). The underlayment came from one manufacturing plant, the MDF

from another. The hardwood-plywood overlays of the paneling came from a single

plant, but each paneling board was fabricated from blanks from one of two

different plants. The MDF was cut into four 2' x 4' (0.6-m x 1.2-m) pieces at

NBS, which were made into "table tops" by cover in g all edges and one side of

each with formica.

The pressed-wood products were conditioned at 23 °C and 50% RE for about one

5
month. Their HCHO surface emission rates were then measured (’’first test”) in

the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers as a function of HCHO concentration.

Most of the specimens were then placed into the prototype house as described

below and in appendix D. About a month later, the boards were removed from the

prototype house, measured again in the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers

("second test”), and replaced into the house. They were then measured again

after completion of the measurements in the prototype house (’’third test”).

Between the first and second tests, under 1 ayment s 5 and 12 were cut into

several pieces in order to cover the floor of the prototype house completely

with under layment. Underlayment 18 was not placed into the prototype house but was measured twice; its ’’first test” was measured at about the same time as the

second tests of the remaining underlayment, its ’’second test” at the same time

as the third tests of the remaining underlayment. Paneling was measured only

before (’’first test”) and after (’’second test”) being placed into the prototype

house

During each test, HCHO concentration was controlled only by varying the air

exchange rate. The HCHO concentrations ranged from less than 100 ppb to over

400 ppb. A sufficient number of 90-minute cycles was run for each air exchange

rate to ensure that the HCHO concentrations were stable. (The experimental

protocols (appendix D) describe what is meant by ’’stable.”) Once HCHO

concentrations stabilized, they were averaged together. Air exchange rates

were also averaged together after stabilization. According to the expermental

protocols, air exchange rate measurements were discarded if the SF^

concentration in the environmental chamber exceeded 10% of the SF^

concentrations in the prototype house or any medium-size dynamic measuring

chamber. In practice, the concentration in the environmental chamber rarely

exceeded 0 ppb. Formaldehyde surface emission rates were then calculated

according to the following equation:

SER = MW^^gQ-lO"^/ Vg-C*(V/AREA)*AI (3)

where

SER = HCHO surface emission rate, mg/

V = volume of enclosure, m^

AREA = area of board, m^

AI = air exchange rate, h”"^

m

2 . h

(Note: Although the actual temperature may have been several degrees higher or lower than 25®C, V was not corrected because it would have changed by less

than 2% for a 5°C ^cursion in either direction.)

For each board, HCHO surface emission rate was assumed to be linear in

concentration, in accordance with Fick's diffusion law. The straight line was derived by calculating slope and intercept by linear regression analysis. The

HCHO surface emission rate at a concentration of 100 ppb, SERj^qq, and the

cutoff concentration, that is the concentration at which SER = 0 mg/m^*h, were

then calculated. The results of these tests are given in tables 1 to 38 and

figures 9 through 39.

Formaldehyde surface emission rates were also measured by FSEMs, whose use is

described elsewhere [10]. The results of the FSEM measurements are given in

table 39. Comparison of the FSEM measurements and the medium-size dynamic

measuring chamber measurements is given in table 40. Although there is

6
considerable variation in the data for each product, the surface emission rates

clearly decay from 8/28/84, during the conditioning period, until 10/2/84, when

the first series of medium-size dynamic measuring chamber tests was begun, as expected. The HCHO surface emission rates measured by FSEM reached their

minimum value on 10/25/85, after the first series of tests was completed and

just after the boards were placed into the prototype house, and then increased

several fold for the two under layments measured, 2 and 10. This is in contrast

to the surface emission rates for under layments 2 and 10 measured in the

medium-size dynamic measuring chambers which remained nearly constant (see

figures 9 and 18). Note that even the lowest average surface emission rate for

all spots, 0.17 mg/m^*h, was more than 40% greater than 0.12 mg/m'^'h, the

average surface emission rate for all uncut boards for all medium-size dynamic

measuring chamber data. Thus the FSEM measurements behaved as expected in a qualitative manner as long as they were done in a location nearly free of

ambient HCHO. It is unknown why the surface emission rates apparently

increased when they were measured by FSEM in the house; the high background

concentration may be responsible.

The results for the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers are summarized in

tables 36-38. It was found that HCHO surface emission rates decreased as HCHO

concentration rose for all specimens tested. The relationship could be

described well by a straight line for under layment and table tops, as predicted

by Fick's diffusion law.

The results for particleboard underlayment are presented in tables 1-18 and

figures 9-24. They are summarized in table 36. Because HCHO surface emission

rates were measured over an insufficient range of concentrations during the

first tests of underlayment 2 and 10, and the few measurements were entirely

consistent with those of the second test (see figures 9 and 18), the data were

combined in tables 1 and 12, respectively. Among uncut underlayment, SERj^qq

may have increased between the first and second tests only for under layments 8

and 9, but the increase for underlayment 8 does not appear convincing because

of the overlap of the data for the two tests (figure 14). The increase for

underlayment 9 is more convincing (see figure 16), but is difficult to explain.

Underlayment 9, and perhaps underlayment 8 as well, may have absorbed HCHO in

the relatively high background concentration of the prototype house (70 to 200

ppb), but one would then have expected this to occur for underlayment 2 and 10 as well. It is true that the first test was incomplete for boards 2 and 10.

However, HCHO surface emission rates were measured at low concentrations for

these two boards in the first test, and they agreed with those measured in the

second test (see figures 9 and 18). It is at low concentrations that the

surface emission rate for board 9 increased the most. A possible explanation

of the anomalous results for underlayment 9 is that the first test was

performed before there was much experience with the automated system, and thus

might have been flawed. Thus, except for underlayment 9, the relationship

between surface emission rate and concentration appeared to be be stable

between the first and second tests. Specifically, no further decay in surface

emission rates took place in the prototype house. Between the second and third

tests, SERj^qq and the cutoff concentration increased to some extent for all

uncut underlayment (see figures 9-10, 14-19). While the increases were hardly

dramatic, one would have expected them to increase or decrease randomly if the

explanation were data scatter. The increases may be due to absorption of

formaldehyde in the prototype house. For underlayment 18, which was not placed

into the prototype house, SER^qq and the cutoff concentration did not increase

(and may even have decreased, but only slightly) between the first and second

7
tests (figures 23-24). For all three tests, the cutoff concentration was about

260 ppb for uncut boards and SERj^qq was about 0.12 mg/m^’h.

For cut under laymen ts 5 and 12, the cutoff concentrations decreased between the

first and second tests, while the SERj^qq's nearly doubled (see figures 11-12

and 20-21). The SERj^qq's then decreased about 25% by the third test, while the

cutoff concentrations rose slightly (see figures 13 and 22). It appears that

cutting underlayment markedly stimulated ECHO emission from the edges of the

boards. As this release continued, it depleted the ECHO reservoir so that the

surface emission rate declined between the second and third tests, more than

compensating for any increase in surface emission rate that might have been

caused by absorbtion of ECEO in the prototype house.

The results for paneling are presented in tables 19-27 and figures 25-33. They

are summarized in table 37. A striking feature of paneling, even from the same manufacturer was the nonuniform behavior of paneling boards even from the same manufacturer. This can be seen clearly by the wide range of cutoff

concentrations in table 37. Before being placed into the house, paneling 6 and

8, both from manufacturer #1 behaved similarly (see figures 25 and 27); surface

emission rate varied linearly with concentration, SERjqq was about 0.03 mg/m^*h

(about one quarter that of underlayment), and the cutoff concentration was just

over 300 ppb. For paneling 14 (see figure 32), also from manufacturer #1, the

surface emission rate fell sharply as the concentration rose, and then leveled

off, much like a hyperbola of the form SER = constant/C. Only paneling 6 and 8

were placed into the prototype house; their surface emission rates declined

when measured after removal from the prototype house (see figures 26 and 28).

Their cutoff concentrations declined to the region of 100 ppb, making it either

impossible to calculate SERj^qq (paneling 6), or ensuring that its indeterminacy

would be as great as its value, judging by the standard error (paneling 8).

The decline in surface emission rates can be attributed to further ECEO decay,

even in the high background concentrations of the prototype house. Because of

the heterogeneity of the boards, composite data are of limited usefulness.

From manufacturer #2, paneling 9 in its second test (figure 30) and paneling 17

(figure 33) had surface emission rates somewhat like those of underlayment, but

in a pattern like paneling 14 (figure 32), while paneling 10 had SER^^qq and

cutoff concentration about twice as large as those for the first two boards and

underlayment (figure 31). Only paneling 9 was placed into the prototype house.

The data were so scattered before paneling 9 was placed into the prototype

house (figure 29) that it is difficult to compare the results of the first and

second tests. The most that can be said is that surface emission rates were in

the same range for the two tests. Because of the scattered data in the first

test for paneling 9 and the heterogeneous behavior of the 3 boards, the

composite data are not of much value, as in the case of manufacturer #1.

The results for MDF table tops are presented in tables 28-35 and figures 34-39.

They are summarized in table 38. The table tops behaved in a reasonably

uniform manner, with an overall cutoff concentration of about 672 ppb. In the

first tests it seemed that the 4 table tops' behavior was quite nonuniform;

table tops 2 and 12 seemed to have slightly higher surface emission rates than

table top 9 and about twice those of table top 24 (see figures 34, 36-37, and

39). The magnitudes of the slopes of table tops 2 and 12 were also much larger

than those of the other two table tops during the first tests. During the

second tests (figures 34 and 37), however, the surface emission rates of table

tops 2 and 12 were a little lower than those of table top 24, and the

8
magnitudes of the slopes decreased so that they were between those of table

tops 9 and 24. After removal from the house, their surface emission rates

behaved in a manner nearly identical to each other. Surface emission rates of

table top 2 were intermediate to those of the first two tests; surface

emission rates of table top 12 were similar to those found during the first

test. Assuming there was no measurement error, one can postulate that further

decay in ECHO concentration took place between the first and second tests, even

in the high ECHO' background concentrations of the prototype house, and that

ECEO was absorbed between the second and third tests, just as it was for

under laymen t

7. Comparison of Results to those Predicted by ORNL Emission Model

The ORNL emission model given by:

SER(T,RE,C„)

I- = (4)

SERioo

-c(i - 1

) [l+B(T-296)] • U+E(RE-50)] * [e T 296 * (RE/50)^ • " Cy]

- 0-1

where

T = absolute temperature, K

RE = relative humidity, %

Cy = ECEO concentration, ppm

A, B, C, E, Cg are model coefficients

Note that A and B should not be confused with the A and B defined in the

nomenclature section. Note also that the concentrations, Cy> are given in ppm,

rather than in ppb, as in the rest of this paper. To use this model with

and Cy in ppb, the ”0.1" in the denominator must be replaced by ”100.”

Equation 4 contains five coefficients: A, B, C, E, and The best values

of these that fit measured data were determined by ORNL by computer

optimatization, not by any physical measurements, and the model is consequently

not a physical one. In particular, ORNL attributes physical meaning to Cgg^-d

(calling it the "bulk-phase ECEO concentration”), but it is treated here only

as a model parameter because the validity of ORNL's interpretation has yet to

be demonstrated. Table 41 gives values of the five coefficients for paneling,

under layment , and medium-density fiberboard.

For standard temperature and RE, equation 4 becomes:

SER(Cy)

SERioo

®std C

^^std

0.1

(5)

where concentrations are expressed in ppm. To express concentrations in ppb,

the ”0.1” in the denominator must be replaced by ”100.”

9
Substituting appropriate values of from table 41 into equation 5, one

obtains the following equations for under layment , paneling and MDF , with

concentrations in ppb:

SER/SER^qq = 1.38 - 0.0038*C for underlayment

SER/SERj^qq = 1.32 - 0.0032*C for paneling

SER/SER^qq = 1.12 - 0.00125-C for MDF

( 6 ) (7)

( 8 )

Note that at standard temperature and RE for any board, the line predicted by

ORNL is determined by two points; 1) C = 100 ppb, SER/SERj^qq = 1; and 2) C = cutoff concentration, SER/SERj^qq = 0. The cutoff concentration is invariant

under normalization by SERj^qq, and as mentioned above, the data cannot even be

formally normalized if the cutoff concentration is not greater than 100 ppb.

In practice, the line is not well determined unless the cutoff concentration is

substantially greater than 100 ppb. Since the standard deviation of ECHO

concentration is usually of the order of about 10% (see tables 1-35), one would

want the cutoff concentration to be at least 150 ppb, and would be even more

comfortable with a cutoff concentration of 200 ppb.

The SER's for each specimen of underlayment, paneling (where meaningful), and

table tops were normalized by division by the SERj^qq of that specimen. The

SER/SER^qq's were plotted against ECEO concentration for each board, and also

for all boards of a given type, for all tests before the end of the prototype

house experiment, after the experiment, and both together. The SER/ SER j, qq's

were calculated in this way even when composite data were plotted together,

that is, the composite SERj^qq's shown in tables 36-38 were not used. In

practice, this should not be much different from dividing all SER's by

composite SERj^qq if all the specimens in the combined set have similar cutoff

concentrations. This was, in fact, found to be the case (data not shown; they

will be presented in phase II). Because of the way the data were normalized,

if SER^qq cannot be calculated for even one specimen in a set, the data for the

entire set cannot be compared to the ORNL model. Normalization was impossible

for the data of the second test of paneling 6 (cutoff concentration 81 ppb; see figure 25) and the only test of paneling 14 (cutoff concentration 93 ppb; see figure 32), and meaningless for the data of the second test of paneling 8 (see

figure 28; cutoff concentration 128 ppb). Eence, normalization was also

impossible for combined data for paneling from manufacturer 1 without biasing

the data by discarding data for boards, for which SERj^qq was meaningless.

Normalized results are shown in figures 40-68 for individual boards. Figures

69-71 show normalized results for uncut underlayment before removal from the

prototype house [including the first test of underlayment 18], after removal

[including the second test of underlayment 18], and both before and after

removal combined. Similar combinations of cut underlayment are shown in

figures 72-74. As mentioned above, surface emission rates of combinations of

paneling from manufacturer #1 could not be normalized. Figure 75 shows

normalized results for paneling from manufacturer #2 before installation into

the prototype house. The only paneling from manufacturer #2 measured after

removal from the prototype house was paneling 9; this result is shown in figure

59. Figure 76 shows the combined results for paneling from manufacturer #2

before and after the prototype house experiment. Combinations of MDF table

tops similar to those of underlayment are shown in figures 77-79.

At standard temperature and RE, SER/SER^qq will automatically agree with the

model in the neighborhood of 100 ppb; that this was found to be true here is no

10
particular accomplishment of the model. What is noteworthy is that in nearly

every case, the ORNL model consistently underpredicts the magnitude of the

slope of the line fitting ECHO surface emission rate to concentration.

(Equivalently, the ORNL model overpredicts the cutoff concentration, and

underpredicts the ECHO surface emission rate at low concentrations.) The only

specimens for which the magnitude of the slope was overpredicted are: paneling

9 before being placed in the house (figure 58), paneling 10 (figure 60), and

table top 24 (figure 68). The data for paneling 9 before being installed in

the prototype house are so scattered, as described above, that any comparison

to any model other than possibly a random-walk model would be meaningless. For

table top 24, ECEO surface emission rates were not measured for concentrations

above 300 ppb; it is not valid to extrapolate the regression line much beyond

300 ppb. Thus there remains only one specimen for which the ORNL model

unequivocally overpredicted the magnitude of the slope. The ORNL model

predicted 0.0032, vs. 0.0023 obtained for paneling 10, an overprediction of

about 40%. The data for paneling 9 and 10 contributed to a slope of magnitude

0.0024 for all paneling from manufacturer #2 both before and after (figure 76)

being in the prototype house; the ORNL model overpredicted this by about 30%.

For paneling 6 and 8 before being placed into the house (figures 56-57), the

magnitude of slopes, 0.0043 and 0.0048, respectively, were both underpredicted

by about 30%, The magnitudes of the slopes, 0.0064 and 0.0063 for uncut

(figure 71) and cut (figure 74) under layment , respectively, both before and

after being placed in the prototype house were underpredict ed by about 40%

each. The best agreement between the ORNL model and measured results were

obtained for table tops, where the magnitude of the slope for all table tops

both before and after being placed in the house, was underpredicted by about

20% (see figure 79).

Of course, an implicit prediction of the ORNL model is that ECHO surface

emission rate is linear with concentration, which may not be true for paneling

9 (after house), 14, and 17.

8. Formaldehyde Concentrations in the Two-Room Prototype Bouse

After their HCBO surface emission rates were determined, the pressed-wood

products were installed in the prototype house and the ECEO concentrations were

measured at four air exchange rates. This sequence was carried out for three

different loadings, that is combinations of ECEO emitters. The loadings were

(1) particle-board under 1 ayment , (2) loading 1 plus three hardwood-plywood

paneling boards, and (3) loading 2 plus two table tops. The paneling was

installed in one room of the prototype house on two opposite walls and the

medium-density fiberboard in the other room. This was intended to simulate a living room-kitchen arrangement in a house. Two samples of panelling from

manufacturer #1 were installed on one wall and one sample from manufacturer #2 was installed on the opposite wall. Six under layment boards were used to cover

the floor in both rooms (two of the boards had to be cut). The surface

emission rates of the cut boards were determined both before and after

cutting. After the prototype-house studies, ECEO surface emission rates of all

pressed-wood products were again measured in the medium-size dynamic measuring

chambers

Formaldehyde concentrations in the two rooms of the prototype house were found

to be so close together (see tables 42-44 and figures 80-82) that it was

unnecessary to use a two-room model to predict ECHO concentration from the

11
surface emission rates of the pr es s ed-wood products it contained. Instead a model relating ECHO concentration to n ECHO emitters was derived from a massbalance equation, assuming a single well-mixed chamber;

dC n -g-VAI-(C-Cg^j.) + E AREA^’SER^

i=l

(9)

where

g

= the density of ECEO, mg/cm^ (=

C = chamber-background ECEO concentration, ppb

AREA^ = area of the i^^ emitter, m^

SERj^ = ECEO surface emission rate of the i^“ emitter, mg/m'^'h

The SER^ are given by:

SER^ = A^ - B^*C if C < B^/A^ (10)

= 0 otherwise

where

A^ and are the regression coefficients A and given in tables 23 to 25

Equation 9 can be solved to give:

C(t) =

n

j AREA. -A./(g*V) + Al-Cg^j.

i=l

AI

( 11 )

where

n

AI = AI + E AREA^*B£/(g*V) (12)

i=l

Cq = initial ECEO concentration, ppb

As t^ “ for Cgj^j. = 0, C(t) Cgq, given by:

n

C^^ = Z AREA. *A./(g*VAl) (13)

1=1

The computer program listed in appendix G solves equations 10-12, given the

characteristics of the emitters in the prototype house, the volume of the

prototype house, and air exchange rates between 0.1 to 1.0 h .

12
9. Results for the Prototype House at 23°C, 50% RH

The results for the two-room prototype house for the three loadings of (1)

under layment, (2) underlayment and paneling, and (3) under layment, paneling and

medium-density fiberboard are given in tables 42-44 and figures 80-82. The

two-room prototype house was measured at four air exchange rates of 1.2, 0.47,

0.14 and 0.78 h“^. After changing the air exchange rate, a period of at least

four days was required before the ECHO concentration in the prototype house

stablized. This lag in response to change in air exchange rate is believed to

be caused by absorption of ECHO by the bare gypsum wall and ceiling boards in

the prototype house; a study confirming this will be included in phase II of

this study. The data in table 42 show the ECHO concentrations due to the

installation of the underlayment varied from 48 ppb at 1.28 h“^ to 136 ppb at

0.14 h“^. Figure 80 shows the comparison of the measured ECHO concentrations

in the prototype house and the predicted concentrations from the model

developed in section 8 for the loading of particleboard underlayment. The

theory seems to predict the measured values well. The maxium deviation

occurred at the lowest air exchange rate, where the ECHO concentration was less

than 20% below that predicted.

The data for the loading of underlayment and paneling are given in table 43.

Five days after installing the paneling, the loading of underlayment and

paneling produced a concentration of 70 ppb of ECHO in the prototype house with

an air exhange rate of 0.86 h“^. This increased to 80 ppb at 0.54 h~^ and to

182 ppb at 0.26 h""^. When the air exchange rate was increased to 0.75 h”'*', the

ECHO concentration decreased to 73 ppb. A comparison of the predicted and

measured values for this loading is shown in figure 81. The agreement is good

except at the lowest air exchange rate, where the addition of the paneling

results in a ECHO concentration about 25% lower than predicted by the theory.

The results for the loading of underlayment, paneling and two table tops made

of medium-density fiberboard are given in table 44. The addition of the two

table tops produced ECHO concentrations of 116 ppb, 120 ppb, 200 ppb and 123

ppb at air exchange rates of 0.80, 0.58, 0.27 and 0.75 h“^, respectively. The

comparison of these measured concentrations with the concentrations predicted

by the theory of section 7 is shown in figure 82. The agreement is good at

all air exchange rates. The greatest deviation between predicted and actual

ECHO concentrations was about 15% at 0.58 h“^.

It should be noted that the ECHO concentration usually increased from the

outlet to room 1 to room 2, but that the difference between concentrations at

the lowest and highest sites was always less than 30 ppb, and the difference

between rooms 1 and 2 was always less than 12 ppb. As mentioned earlier, this

made the use of a two-chamber model unnecessary.

10. Summary

Measurements were made of the ECHO surface emission rates of underlayment,

paneling and medium density fiberboard in medium-size dynamic measuring

chambers to characterize the surface emission rate of ECHO at 23°C, 50% RH.

These measurements showed that the relationship between surface emission rate

and concentration is basically linear with negative slope (except possibly for

paneling). Emission rate decreases to 0 ppb as the ECHO concentration

approaches a cutoff concentration. If this dependence of the surface emission

13
rate on HCHO concentration is used in a mass-balance equation for a well-mixed

chamber, the resulting theory seems to predict satisfactorily the measured HCHO

concentrations in the two-room prototype house. The ORNL emission model

consistently underpredicts the magnitude of the slope of the straight line that

fits surface emission rate vs. concentration by 20% for table tops and 40% for

under layment. It may not always be possible to apply the ORNL model to

paneling because of the low cutoff concentration; even when possible, however,

no consistent relationship was found between the magnitude of the slope

predicted by the ORNL model and that obtained by experiment.

14
References

[1] R. B. Gammage and K. C. Gupta, "Formaldehyde,” pp. 109-142 in P. J.

Walsh, C. S. Dudney and E. D. Copenhaver, "Indoor Air Quality," CRC

Press, 1984, Boca Raton, FL.

[2] National Research Council, "Formaldehyde and Other Aldehydes," National

Academy Press, 1981, Washington.

[3] T. G. Mathews, A. R, Hawthorn, M. D. Carey, C. D. Daffum and R. B.

Gammage, '*Forma Idehyde Release from Plywood, Particleboard, Fiberboard

and Paneling," Report No. 7 to CPSC, 1982.

[4] T. G. Mathews, T. J. Reed, B. R. Tromberg and A. R. Hawthorn, "Modeling

and Testing of Formaldehyde Emission Characteristics of Pressed-Wood

Products," Report No. 14 to CPSC, 1983.

[5] T. G. Mathews, "Environmental Dependence of Formaldehyde Emissions from

Pressed-Wood Products; Experimental Studies and Modeling". Proceedings

18th International Washington State University Partic leboard/Compressed

Materials Symposium, 1984, Pulliaan, WA.

[6]

, CEA Instruments, Inc., "Low Level Formaldehyde in Air (Mecury-Free

Procedures)," Emerson, NJ, 1984.

[7] R. R. Miksch et al., "Modified Pararosan i 1 ine Method for the

Determination of Formaldehyde in Air," Anal. Chem. 53, 2118-2123, 1981.

[8] G. R. Lyles, F. B. Dowling and V. J. Blanchard, "Quantitative

Determination of Formaldehyde in Parts Per Hundred Million Concentration

Level," J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 15, 106-108, 1965.

[9] F. P. Scaringelli, D. E. O'Keefe, E. Rosenberg and J. P. Bell,

"Properties of Known Concentration of Gases and Vapor with Permeation

Devices Calibration Gravimetrical ly," Anal. Chem. 42, 871-876, 1970.

[10]

T. G. Mathews, A. R. Hawthorne, C. R. Daffron, M. D. Corey, T. J. Reed,

and J. M. Schrimsher, "Formaldehyde Surface Emission Monitor," Anal.

Chem. 54, 448-454, 1984.

15
Table 1

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Under layment #2

first* and second** tests

1 1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

I S.D.

I ppb

Average

h”^

S.D. 1 h-1 I Average

mg/m^’h

S.D.

mg/m^ *h

1

1

1 1 I10/1-2I

1 1 69

1

1 8

1 2.98 0.42 1 0.154 0.039

1

I

1 111/13 1

1 1 130

1

I 5

1 0.84 0.39 I 0.082 0.041

1

I

1 111/14 I

1 1 83

1

1 9

1 1.85 0.27 1 0.115 0.029

1

1

1 111/14 1

1 1 41 1 11

1 5.52 0.06 1 0.167 0.049

1

i

1 ln/14-1 153 1 19 0.20 0.18 1 0.023 0.024

1

1

1 15 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 111/15-1 193 I 11 0.22 0.13 I 0.032 0.021

1

1

1 16 1 J L

1 J

1

1 * 10 / 1-2 ** 11/13-16

Table 2

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #2 — third test

1 1. ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate! Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Averageppb

1 S.D.

I ppb

1 Average

1 h"^

S.D. 1 h-1 1 Average

mg /m^ * h

S.D.

mg/m^*h

1

1

1 1 I2/9-10I 28

1

I 2

1

1 11.79 0.80 1 0.248 0.031

1

1

1 10/851

1 1

1 1

1

1

1 12/10- I 66 1 2

1

1 3.12 0.12 i 0.153 0.011

1

i

1 11/851

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 12/11 1

1 1 117

1

1 7

1

1 1.08

1 0.29 1 0.095 0.031

1

1

1 12/11- 1 155

1

1 8

1

I 0.66 0.16 I 0.076 0.023

1

1

1 12/851

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 12/12- 1 197

1

1 4

1

1 0.25 0.13 1 0.037 0.020

1

I

1 13/851

1 1

I

1

1

1

1

1 12/13- 1 261

1

1 5

1

1 0.02 0.01 1 0.004 0.003

1

1

1 14/851

J L

1

1

1

1

1

1

16
Table 3

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #5

first test (uncut)

Date I HCHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate I Surface Emission RateAverage

ppb

1 S.D.

I ppb

Average

h"^

1 S.D. 1

1 h"^ 1 Averageme/m'^ *h

1 S.D.

1 mg/m^'h

9/28 I 65

1

1 5

1 2.66

1 1

1 1 0.130

1

1 9/28 I 102

1

1 4

1 1.07

1 1

1 1 0.082

1

1 9/29 1 98

1

1 4

1 1.29

1 1

1 1 0.094

[

1 9/29 1 74

1

1 4

1 1.86

I 1

1 1 0.103

1

1 9/28 I 161 1 11

1

1

0.63

1 1

1 1 J L

0.076

1

1

1

Table 4

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #5

second test (cut)

1 1. HCHO Concentration lAir Exchange Ratel Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

1

1

S.D.

ppb

1 Average I S.D. 1 h"^ 1 Average 1 mg/m^*h 1 S.D.

mg/m^ *h

1

1

I 1 Ill/lO-l

1 11 1

1

96

I

1

1

1

7

1 1

1 2.76 1

1 1

1 1

1 0.13 I

1

1

0.199 1 0.23

1

1

1

I Ill/ll-I

1 12 1

1 1

44

1

I

1

1

2

1 1

1 8.42 1

1 I

1 1

1

1 0.282 1 -

1

1

1

1 I11/12-I

1 13 1

1 1

248

1

I

1 _L

30

1 1

I 0.14 1

1 1 J L

1 0.09 1

1

1

0.023 1 0.18

1

1

1

1

17
Table 5

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Under layment #5

third test (cut)

1 1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Ratel Surface Emission Rate _L

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

Average

h~^

• •1

CO Average

me/m^ *h

S.D.

me/m^*h

i

!

1 1 12/20/ 1 177

1

1 16 0.38

1 0.13 1 0.050 0.0221

1

1 85 1

1 1

1

I

1

1

1

I

1 1 12/20- 1 1021

1 3 1.11

1 0.04 1 0.085 0.006

1

1 121/85 1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1 12/21- 1 52

1

1 2 5.12 0.57 1 0.198 0.029

1

I

1 22/851

1 1

1

I

I

I

1

1 12/22/ 1 138 1 10 0.96

1 0.18 1 0.099 0.026

1

1

1 85 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 12/22- 1

« 135

1

1 3 1.01

1 0.19 1 0.102 0.022

1

1 123/85 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

i

1

1 1 12/23 1 1841

1 6 0.50 0.17 1 0.069 0.026

1

I

1 /85 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

i

1 12/24- 1 265 1 21 0.05

1 0.06 1 0.010 0.013

1

1

1 25/851

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 12/25 1 159 1 12 0.97

1 0.13 1 0.116 0.024

1

!

1 /85 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 12/26 1 150

1

1 3 0.93

1 0.12 1 0.105 0.015

1

1

1 /85 1 J L

1 J

1

1

1 J.

18
Table 6

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #8 — first test

1

I Date

1

ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average I S

1 h”^ 1 h”

D. 1 Average

1 me/m^*h

S.D. 1 me/m^*h I

119/28

1 37

1

1 3

1

1 1

1 2.96 I

1 1

1

I 0.082

1

1 0.007 1

I 19/28

1 108

1

1 5

1

1 1

1 0.70 1

1 1

1

I 0.057

1

1 0.002 I

1 19/29

1 144

1

1 4

1

1 1

I 0.34 1

1 1

1

1 0.037

1

1 0.001 1

1

119/29

1 83

1

1 5

1

1 1.41 1

1 1

1

1 0.088

1

1 0.005 1

1

119/30

1 156

1

1 4

I

1 1

1 0.39 1

1 1

1

1 0.046

1

1 0.001 I

1

Table 7

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #8 — second test

1 1

1 Date I

1 1

ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Aver|ge S.D. 1 h-1 I Average

mg/m^ *h

1 S.D.

1 mg/m^*h

1

1

1 I 111/13 1

1 I 61

1

1 3

1

1

1 2.96

1

1 0.135 1 0.006

1

1

1 111/14 I

1 1 89

1

1 7

1

1

1 1.75

1 0.27 1 0.117 I 0.027

1

1

1 111/14 1

1 1 38

1

1 5

1

1

1 3.98

1

1 0.112 1

1

I

1 111/15 1

1 1 146 1 18

1

1

1 0.34

1 0.14 1 0.037 I 0.020

1

1

1 111/15-1 176

1

1 22

1

1 0.27 0.15 I 0.035 1 0.023

1

1

1 16 1 J L

1

1

1

1

1

1

19
Table 8

Results of Medium--Size Chamber Tests of Under layment #8 — third test

1 1 HCHO Concentration iAir Exchange Rate I Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1 Average I S.D. ! Average ! S.D. 1 Average 1 S.D. 1

1 L PPb 1 ppb 1 h"^ 1 h"^ 1 mg / m^h 1 mg/m^*h I

1 1 13/1-2 1 29

1

1 2

1 i

I 9.49 I 1.07

1

1 0.210

1 1

1 0.035 1

1 /85 1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 i I

t

t 13/2/851

1

1 68

1

1

1 2

1 1

1 3.21 I

1 1

I

1

1 0.163

1 1

I 0.004 1

1 1 13/2-351 120

I

1 8

I 1

I 1.48 1 0.32

1

1 0.133

1 i

1 0.037 1

1 /85 1

1 1

1

I

1 1

1 1

1

I

1 I

t 1

1 1 I3/3/85I

1 1 171

1

1

1 11

1 1

1 0.63 1 0.12

1 I

1

1

I 0.080

1 1

I 0.021 1

1 1 13/3-4 1 217

1

1 7

I 1

1 0.25 1 0.16

1

1 0.041

1 1

1 0.027 I

1 /85 1

1 1

I

1

1 I

1 1

1

1

I 1

1 1 13/4/851

1 1 259

1

1

1 15 I 0.04 ’l 0.01

1

1

1 0.007

1 1

1 0.002 1

1 1 13/4-5 1 102

1

1 7

1 1

1 2.15 I 0.29

1

1 0.165

1 1

I 0.033 I

I /85 1

1 1 1 1

1

1

1

1 I

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

Table 9

Results of Medium-•Size Chamber Tests of Under layment #9 — first test

1 1 HCHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

I Date I Average 1 S.D. 1 Average 1 S.D. 1 Average 1 S.D. 1

1 1 ppb 1 ppb 1 h"^ 1 h-1 1 mg /m^ * h 1 mg/m^*h 1

1 1

1 9/28 1

1 1 45

1

i

1

1

1 1

1 2.96 1

1 1

1

1

1 0.100

1

1

1 1

1 9/28 1

1 1 119

1

1

1 6 1 0.88 I1 1

1

1

1 0.078

1 1

1 1

1 9/29 1

1 1 165

1

1

1 8

1 1

I 0.34 1

1 1

1

1

1 0.042

I 1

1 1

1 9/29 1

1 1 86

1

1

1 4

1 1

1 1.37 1

1 1

1

1

1 0.088

1 1

1 1

I 9/30 1 J L175

1

1 9 1 0.46 I

1 1

1

1 L

0.060

1 1 _J L

20
Table 10

Results of Medium-Size Chamber ' Tests of Underlayment #9 — second test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

I

1

S.D.

ppb

1 Average

1 h"l

S.D. i h"^ 1 Average

me /m^ * h

S.D. 1 o me/m'^’h I

1 1 111/13 I

1 1 172

1

I

1 6

1

I 0.88

1

1

1 0.113 I

111/14 1

1 1 102

1

1

1 10

1

1 2.95

1

1 0.18 1

1 0.226 0.037 i

111/14 I

1 1 53

1

1

1 3

1

i 4.64

1

1

1 0.184 I

111/15 1

J L

43

1

1 6 I 7.42

1

1 0.51 1

1 0.241 0.051 1

Table 11

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #9 — third test

1 1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Ratel Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 L

Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

Average

h-1

S.D. 1 h"l i Average

mg/m^*h

S.D.

mg/m"^ *h

1

1

1 1 13/1-2 I 35

1

I 2 6.22

1 0.41 I 0.161 0.020

1

I

1 /85 I

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 13/2/851

1 1 79

1

I 2

I 2.77

1

1 0.163 0.003

1

1

1 13/2-3 1 128

1

1 6 1.19

1 0.03 1 0.114 0.008

1

1

1 /85 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 13/3/851

1 1 180 1 13

1 0.44

1 0.20 I

I 0.059 0.031

1

1

1 13/3-4 1 230

1

1 8 0.19

1 0.14 I 0.032 0.025

1

1

1 /85 1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1 13/4/851

1 1 256 1 10

1 0.03

1 0.01 1 0.005 0.002

1

1

1 13/4-5 1 145

1

1 9 1.37

1 0.11 1 0.149 0.0211

1

1 /85 1 J L

I J

1L1 1

21
Table 12

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #10

first* and second** tests

1 1 HCHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate! Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 i Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h-i

s.p. 1 h"^ 1 Average

ms /m^ •

h

S.D.

ms/m'^ *h

1

1

1 1 110/1-21

I 1 74

1

1 1

1

1

1 1.39

1

1

1 0.077 -

1

1

1 110/2 1

1 1 62

1

1 9

I

1

1 3.23

I

1 0.02 I

1 0.150 0.022

1

1

1 111/10 1

1 1 55

1

1 6

1

1

1 3.21

1

1

1 0.113 -

1

1

1 111/10-1

1 11 1

1 1

58

1

1 7

1

1

1

1 2.72

1

1

1

1

1

0.118 -

1

1

1

1 111/11-1

1 12 1

1

127

1

1 8

1

I

1

1 0.99

1

1

1 0.26 I

1

1

0.094 0.028

1

1

1

1 111/12 1 1 1 202 1 50

J

1

1 0.22

J

1 0.09 1

1 0.033 0.018

1

1

1 10/1-2

** 11 / 10-12

Table 13

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #10 — third test

1

1

1

1 HCHO Concentration lAir Exchanee Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1 Date 1

1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h‘l

S.D. 1 h’l 1 Average

me / m^ * h

S.D.r\ me/m'^ *h

1 _L

1

1

1 2/15-1 31

1

1 1 1 7.27

1 0.93 1 0.171 0.0281

1

1

1 16 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 2/16-1 63

1

1 2

1

i 2.57

1 0.04 1 0.121 0.006

1

1

1

1 17 1

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 2/17-1 96

1

1 3

1

1 1.32

1 0.06 1 0.095 0.0071

1

1

1 18 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 I

1 2/18-1 143

1

1 5

1

1 0.71

1 0.16 1 0.076 0.020

1

1

1

1 19 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 2/19-1 221

1

1 5

1

1 0.29

I 0.11 1 0.049 0.019

1

1

1

1

20 IL

1

1

1 J

1

L

1

1

22
Table 14

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #12

first test (uncut)

1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

I Date I Average I S.D. I Average I S.D. 1 Average 1 S.D. 1

1 DPb I ppb I h-1 1 h-1 1 mg/m^'h 1 mg/m^*h 1

1

1

1 9/28 1 41

1

1

1 4

1

1 3.38

1

1 1

1 1 0.103

1 1

1 1

1

1

1 9/28 1 98

I

I

I 4

1

1 1.02

I

1 1

1 1 0.075

1 1

1 1

1

1

1 9/29 I 119

1

I

1 5

I

I 0.69

1 1

1 1 0.061

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

9/29 1 60

1

1

1

4 1 2.62

1

1 1

J L

0.177

1 I

1 1

Table 15

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #12

second test (cut)

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1 Average 1 S.D. 1 Average 1

1 h”l 1 S.D. 1 h-1 1 Average 1 S.D. 1I 1 ppb 1 ppb mg/m^*h 1 mg/m‘^*h 1

1 I Ill/lO-l 100

1

1 8

1 1

1 2.07 1 0.47 1 0.158

1

1 0.047

1

1

1 11 1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 111/11-1 30

1

1 3

1 1

1 9.80 1 . I 0.223

1

1 —

1

1

1 12 1

1 1

1

1

1 1

I 1

1

1

1

1 111/12 1

1- 1 200

1

1 _L

33

1 1

1 0.15 1 J L

0.06 1 0.023

1

1 0.012

1

1

1

23
Table 16

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #12

third test (cut)

Date 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate I Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

I Average

1 h'l

S.D. 1 h"^ 1 Average

ma/m^ *h

1 S.D.

i me / m"^ * h

1

1

2/15- I 28

1

! 1

1

1 9.33

1 1.87 I 0.197 I 0.049

1

1 16/851 I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 2/16- 1 72

1

1 2 1 2.61

1 0.03 1 0.141 1 0.005

1

I 17/851 1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1 2/17- 1 128

1

I 3

1

1 1.12

1 0.40 1 0.108 1 0.041

1

1 18/851 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 2/18- 1 190

1

1 6 I 0.43

1 0.17 1 0.061 1 0.026

1

1 19/851

• 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

1 2/19- 1 221

1

1 5

1

I 0.21

1 0.12 1 0.034 1 0.021

1

I 20/85

24
Table 17

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #18 — first test

1. HCHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1 Date 1

1 Average

ppb

S.D.

ppb

Average

h-i

I

1

S.D. 1 h-i I Average

me/m^*h

S.D.rs ms/m"^ *h

1

1

1 11/16 I

1 228 9 0.26

1

1

1

1 0.15 1

1 0.044 0.026

1

1

1 12/21-1 29 4 12.68

1

1

1 2.18 I 0.272 0.083

1

1 28 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1/14- 1 30 3 8.08

1

I

1 0.80 I 0.181 0.035

1

1 16 I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1/16- I 65 2 3.55

1

I

1 0.22 1 0.173 0.016

1

1 19 1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1/19- 1 136 2 1.19

1

1

1 0.19 1 0.120 0.021

1

I 22 1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1 1/22 I 111 12 1.25

1

1

1 0.14 1 0.105 0.023

1

1 /85 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1/23- 1 142 7 1.19

1

I

1 0.13 I 0.126 0.020

1

1 25/851 1

1

1

1

1

1 1/28- 1 132 2 1.33

1

1

1 0.20 1 0.131 0.022

1

1 29/851

1

1

1

1 1

1/31- 1 146 4 1.16

1

1

1 0.15 1 0.126 0.0201

1 2/2/851

1

1

1

1 1

2/4-6 1 67 5 3.95

1

I

1 0.17 1 0.197 0.023

1

1 /85 1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1 1 2/6-8 1 63 3 3.72

1

1

1 0.14 I 0.175 0.015

1

1 /85

25
Table 18

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Underlayment #18 — second test

1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchanee Ratel Surface Emission Rate 1 Date I

1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

I ppb

I Average

I h-1

S.D. 1 h-1 1 Average

me / m^ * h

S.D.

me /m^ * h

1

1

1 3/28 1 31

1

1 3

1

1 11.52 0.08 I 0.264 0.031

1

1 /85 1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1 3/30- 1 27

1

1 3 I 8.46 0.22 I 0.170 0.023

1

1 31/851

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 3/31 1 39

1

1 2 1 5.89 0.36 I 0.170 0.020

1

I /85 I

1

1

1

I

1

1

1 3/31- 1 108

1

I 5

1

I 1.77 0.66 1 0.143 0.060

1

1 4/1/851

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 4/1-2 1 237 1 14 1 0.10 0.06 1 0.017 0.011

1

1 /85 1

1

!

1

1

1

i

1 4/2/851 139

1

1 6

1

1 1.19 0.18 I 0.124 0.025

1

1

26
Table 19

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #6 — first test

1 1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchanse Rate I Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Averageppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

Average

h"^

S.D. I h-1 1 Average

mg/m^*h

S.D. ms / m'^ • h

i _L

I 1 110/12 !

1 1 24

1

I 2 3.13

1

1 0.059 -

1

1

1 110/16-1

1 17 1

1 1

234

1

I 8

1

1

0.07

1 0.03 1

1

1

0.012 0.006

1

!

1

1

1 1 110/22 1

t 1 253 1 16

1 0.06

1 0.02 1

1 0.012 0.006

1

1

1

1 1 110/23 1

1 1 78

1

1 0.67

1

1 0.041 -

1

1

1 110/15 I

1 1 68

1

I 4

1 0.78

I 0.08 1

1 0.041 0.006

1

1

1 inn- I

I 2 1

1 1

22

1

1 2

1

1

2.16

I

1

1

0.035 -

1

1

1

1

1 11/2 1

1 I 45

1

I 1

1 1.14

1

1 0.041 -

1

1

1

1 11/2 I J L

95 1 8

J

0.58

1 0.09 1

1 0.041 0.011

1

1 J.

Table 20

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #6 — second test

I 1

1 Date 1

1 1

ECHO Concentration lAir Exchanee Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate _L

Average

ppb

S.D.

ppb

1 Average 1

1 h“^ 1 S.D. 1 h"l 1 Average

me/m^ *h

1 S.D.o

1 me /m"^ * h

1

1

I 1 12/26- 1 16 3

1 1

1 1.50 1

1 0.37 I 0.018 I 0.008I

1

I 27/851

1 1

1 1

1 I

1

1

1

I 12/27- 1 65 4

1 1

1 0.10 I

1 0.08 I 0.005 1 0.004

1

1

1 28/851

1 1

I 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1 12/29- 1 56 4

1 1

1 0.16 I

1 0.14 1 0.007 I 0.0061

1 13/1/851

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1L

1

1

1

27
Table 21

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling fS — first test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

I Date I

1 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

I Average

1 h-1

S.D. 1 h-i 1 Average

mg/m^ *h

S.D.

mg /m'^ • h

1

1

1 1 110/16-1 223

1

1 10

1

I 0.06 0.02 1 0.011 0.006

1

!

1 17 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 110/22 1

1 1 239 1 19

1

1

I 0.05

1 0.02 1 0.011 0.006

1

1

1

1 1 110/22 1

1 1 89

1

1

I

1 0.54

1

1 0.035 -

1

1

1 110/14-1 75

1

1 4

‘

1

1 0.58 0.06 I 0.035 0.006

1

1

1 15 1

1 1

1

I

1

1

1

1 ln/1-21

1 1

27

1

1 3

1

1

1 1.87

1

1 0.035 -

1

1

1

Table 22

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #8 — second test

I 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate! Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h"^

S.D. i h-1 I Average

mg/m^*h

S.D.

mg/m'^ *h

1

1

1 1 12/26/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

8

1

1 1

1

1

1

I 9.61

1

1

1 0.02 I

1

t

0.059 0.005

1

1

1

1 12/26- 1

1 27/851

1 1

16

1

I 2

I

1

1

I 3.23

1

1

1 0.39 1

1

1

0.038 0.010

1

1

I

1 12/27- 1

1 28/851

1 1

88

1

1 5

1

1

1

1 0.15

1

1

0.11 I

I

1

0.010 0.008

1

1

1

1 12/28- 1 13/1/851

1 1

125

1

1 4

1

1

1

1 0.05

1

I

1 0.06 1

1

i

0.004 0.005

1

I

1

1 111/1-21

J L

35

1

1 2

J

1 2.24

J L

0.058 0.004 1

1

28
Table 23

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #9 — first test

1 1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date I l._ 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

Average

h"^

S.D. 1 h-1 1 Average

mg /m^ •

S.D.

mg / m^ •

1

1

1 1 110/11 I

1 1 101

1

1 2

1 1.71 1 0.129 -

1

i

1 110/17-1

1 18 I

1 1

298 1 25

1

I

0.07 0.02 1 0.015 0.006

1

I

I

1 110/19 1

1 1 336 1 17

1 0.24 0.03 1 0.061 0.012

1

1

1 111/2 I

1 1 51

1

1 2

1 0.85 1 0.033 -

1

I

1 111/3-51

1 1 147

1

1 8

1 0.39 0.01 1 0.043 0.003

1

1

1 111/5-61

J L

81

1

1 6

i 0.35 0.22 I 0.021 0.015

1

1

1

29
Table 24

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #9 — second test

1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1 Date I

1 Average

ppb

S.D.

ppb

Average

h"^

S.D. 1 h“l 1 Average

me / m^ * h

S.D.

me / m^ * h

1

1

1 3/5-6 1 28 5 10.13

1 0.85 1 0.213 0.055

1

1 /85 1

1

1

1

1

1 3/6-7 1 50 3 2.96

1 0.06 1 0.111 0.009

1

1 /85 I

1

1

1

i

1 3/7/851

1 77 5 1.50 0.24 1

1 0.086 0.019

1

1

1 3/7-8 1 99 5 1.25

1 0.05 1 0.093 0.009

1

1 /85 1

1

1

]

1

1 3/9/851

1 no 8 1.06 0.08 1

1 0.087 0.013

1

I

1 3/10/ 1 41 3 6.51

1 0.61 I 0.201 0.0341

1 /85 1

1

1

1

1

1 3/10 1 29 1 8.12

1 1.10 I 0.178 0.033

1

i /85 1

1

1

1

1

1 3/10- I 26 3 8.01 1.61 I 0.155 0.046

1

1 11/851

1

1

1

1

1 3/11 1 52 1 2.74

1 0.02 I 0.106 0.003

1

I /85 1

1

1

1

1

1 3/11 I 244 17 0.09

1 0.05 1 0.016 0.010 1 12/851

1

I

1

1

1 3/12 1 276 8 0.10

1 0.04 ! 0.020 0.009 1 13/851

L_

1

1

1 1

30
Table 25

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #10

1 l_ HCHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 PPb

Average

h"^

S.D. 1 h-1 1 Average

mg/m^’h

S.D.r\ mg/m'^ *h

1

I

I 1 IlO/ll [

I 1 173 1 4 1.60

1

1 0.208 -

1

I

1 I10/17-I

1 18 1

1

309 I 31 0.65

1 0.10 1

1

1

0.151 0.038

1

1

1

1 110/19 1

1 1 339 1 22 0.07

1 0.03 1

1 0.017 0.000

1

1

1 111/2 1

1 1 202 1 13 1.52

1

1 0.230 -

1

I

1 111/2 I

1 1 253 1 1.01

1

1 0.191 -

1

I

1 111/3-41

1 j 370 I 13 0.51

1

1 0.141 -

1

i

1 111/15 1

1 1 45 1 4 6.80

1

1 0.227 -

1

1

112/6 I

1 1

50 ! 0 7.97

1

1 0.299 -

1

1

1 112/7 1

1 1 108 1 4 2.99

1 0.06 I

1 0.241 0.013

1

1

1 112/8 1

1 1 370 1 16 0.32

1 0.16 1

1 0.090 0.048

1

1

1 112/11-1

1 12 1 J L

245 1 13 0.76

1 0.22 !

1

1

0.141 0.048

1

1

1

1

31
Table 26

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #14

1 1 ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1 1 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

Average

h-1

S.D. ! h”^ 1 Average

me /m^ * h

S.D. 1 ms /m^ * h 1

1 1 111/16 I

1 1 14

I

I 2

1 8.52

1

I 0.088

1

1 I11/17-I

1 19 1

1 1

27

1

1 6

1

1

1.34

1 0.76 I

1

1

0.029

1 0.023 i

I

1

1 1 111/20 1

1 1 54

1

I 6

1 0.43

1 0.22 1

1 0.018

1 0.012 1

1 111/20-1

1 21 1

1 1

98

1

1 7

1

1

0.13

1 0.12 1

I

1

0.012

1 0.012 1

1

1 111/21-1

1 23 I

1

16

1

I 4

I

1

6.81

I 0.68 1

1

1

0.082

1 0.029 i

1

1 111/23-1

1 24 1

1 1

38

1

1 6

1

I

1.30

1 0.52 I

1

1

0.035

1 0.018 1

1

I I11/24-I

1 25 I

1 1

23

1

1 2

1

3.28

1 0.99 1

I

1

0.059

1 0.023 1

1

1 111/25 I 1 1

15

1

1 2

1 5.41

1 0.61 1

1 0.059

1 0.012 1

1

32
Table 27

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of Paneling #17

1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate! Surface Emission Rat

Date I

1 Averagenob

I S.D.

I nob

1 Average 1 s.p. 1

1 h-1 1 Averagemg / m^ * h

S.D.

mg/m"^ *h

I 11/17-1

18 1

1

46

1

I 2

1

1

1

1 3.02

i

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

0.104 0.006

1 11/18-!

19 1

1

84

1

I 6

1

1

1 2.90

1

1

I 0.10 I

1 1

1 [

0.057 0.011

11/19-1

20 1

1

137

1

1 9

1

I

I 0.54

1

I

1 0.21 1

1 1

1 1

0.056 0.026

11/20-1

21 I

I

224 1 10

1

1

I 0.13

1

1

I 0.14 1

1 1

1 1

0.022 0.024

11/21-1

25 1L

20

1

1 4

I J

1

I 12.07

1

1

1 1

1 1.88 1

1 I J L

0.180 0.067

Table 28

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #2 — first test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

I Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

I

1

S.D.

ppb

1 Average

1 h-i

1 S.p. 1

1 h-^ 1 Average

mg / m^’

S.D. 1 mg/m^*h 1

1 1 112/14-1

I 15 1

1

138

1

1

1

1

9

1

1 4.38

1

1

1 1

1 0.18 1

i 1

1 1

1.81

1 0.20 I

1

1 112/15-1

1 16 1

1 1

69

1

1

1

1

5

1

1 12.31

1

1

1 1

1 0.39 i

1 1

1 1

2.55

1 0.25 1

1

1 112/16-1

1 17 1 1 1

76

1

1

1

1

8

1

1 11.09

1 J

1 1

1 1.63 1

1 1 J L

2.54

1 0.62 1

1

1

33
Table 29

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #2 — second test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1 Average 1 S.D. I Average S.D. 1 Average S.D. 1

1 1 ppb 1 ppb 1 h"^ h”^ 1 me/m^h ms / m^ •

h

!

1 1 11/28- ! 153

1

! 11

1

1 1.38 0.38 [ 0.63 0.22

1

1

1 29 1

1 1

1

I I

1

1

1 1 12/1-2 I

1 1 174

1

I

1 5 1 1.441 0.27 1 0.75 0.16

1

1

1 12/4-6 I J 1

107

1

1

1

6

1

1 2.52

1 0.11 1 0.82 0.08

1

1 J.

Table 30

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #2 — third test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Ratel Surface Emission Rate

1 Date 1

1 1 Averageppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h"^

1 S.D. 1

1 h"^ 1 Average I ms/m^’h 1 S.D.

ms/m^'h

1 I 13/9/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

144

1

I 6

1

1

1 3.29

1 1

1 0.32 .1

I I

1 1

1.419 I 0.196

13/10/ 1

I 85 1

1 1

52

1

I 2

1

1

1 12.08

1 1

I 1.05 I

1 1

1.876 I 0.237

13/10/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

97

1

1 9

1

1

I 4.48

1 1

1 0.42 1

1 1

1 1

1.304 I 0.244

13/10- 1

1 11/851

1 1

193

1

1 5

1

1

1 1.63

1 1

1 0.22 1

1 I

1 1

0.944 1 0.147

13/11/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

109

1

I 1

I

1

I 3.49

1 1

1 0.17 1

1 1

1 1

1.141 I 0.068

13/11- I

1 12/851

1 1

138

1

I 6

1

1

1 2.45

1 1

1 0.45 1

1 1

1 1

1.009 1 0.229

13/12- I

1 13/851

J L

241 1 11

1

1

1 1.23 1 0.13 I

1 1 J 1

0.891 I 0.131

34
Table 31

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #9

1 1

1 Date 1

1 1

ECHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate I Surface Emission Rate 1 Average

ppb

I S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h-i

S.D. 1 h-1 1 Average

me / m^ * h

S.D.o me /m'^ * h

1

1

1 1 112 / 20-1 88

1

1 6 1 7.90 1.05 1 2.08 0.41

1

1

I 26 1

1 1

I

1

1

1 1 112/26-1 497

1

1 30 1 0.63 0.16 1 0.95 0.29

1

!

1 1/2 1

1 1

1

1

1

I

11 / 11 - 1 71

1

I 2 1 9.86 1.41 1 2.09 0.37

1

1

1 14 1

1

1

1

1 • 1

1 11/14- 1 66

1

1 3 1 12.00 1.45 1 2.38 0.30

1

1

1 16 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 11/16- I 158

1

1 6 1 3.78 0.29 I 1.78 0.20

j

I

1 19 1

1 1

1

t

1

r 11/19- 1 338

1

1 4 I 1.35 0.24 1 1.37 0.25

1

1 20 1 J L

1

1

35
Table 32

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #12 — first test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchanee Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h"l

S.D.

h-1

1 Average

I me/m^*h

S.D. me /m^ * h

1

1

1 1 112/12 I

1 1 78 I 6

1

I 5.84

1 1.06

i

I 1.36

1 0.35

1

!

I 112/14-1

1 15 1

1 1

151 1 4

1

1 3.05

1

1

0.12

1

I 1.39

1

1

0.08 1

1

112/16-1

1 17 1

I 1

84 I 4

1

1 7.76

1

1

2.60

1

1 1.95

1

1

0.74

1

1

!

1

Table 33

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #12 -- second test

1 1 ECHO Concentration lAir Exchanee Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1

1 Date 1

1 1 Averageppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average S.D.

h-1

1 Average

1 me/m^*h

1 S.D.

1 me/m^'h

1

1

1 1 11/28- I

1 29 1

I 1

166

1

1 14

1

1

1

! 0.86

1

1

0.06

1

1 0.43

1

1

1 0.06

1

1

i

1 12 / 1-2 1

1 1 207

1

I 8

I

1

I 0.77

1 0.20

1

1 0.48

1

1 0.14

1

1

1

1 2/2 1

1 1 406

1

I 9

1

1

1 0.28

1 0.16

1

I 0.33

1

1 0.20

1

1

1 11/19- 1 J

338

1

1 4

J

1

1 1.35

1 0.24

1

I 1.37

i

I 0.25

i

1

1

36
Table 34

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #12 — third test

1 1 HCHO Concentration lAir Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rat

1 Date !

1 1 AverageDob

1 S.D.

1 ppb

1 Average

1 h-^

1

1

S.D. 1 h“^ 1 Average I me/m^’h 1 S.D. me / m"^ • h

1 1 13/9/851

1 1 308

1

! 18

t

1

1 1.04

1

1

I

I

1 0.10 I

1

1 0.964 I

1 0.150

13/10/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

102

1

1 6

1

1

1 4.74

I

1

1

1

1

I

1 0.22 1

1

1

1 1.448 1

1

1

0.158

13/10/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

48

1

1 5

1

1

1

1 10.99

1

1

1

1

I

1

1 1.55 1

1

1

1 1.576 1

1

1

0.391

13/10- I

1 11/851

1 1

158

1

I 4

1

1

I 2.98

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 0.09 1

1

1

1 1.409 1

1

1

0.080

13/11/ 1

1 85 1

1 1

93

1

I 3

1

1

1

1 5.17

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.19 1

I

1

1 1.439 1

1

1

0.097

13/11- 1

1 12/851

1 1

353 1 13

1

1

1

I 0.93

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 0.09 1

1

1

1 0.986 I

1

1

0.128

13/12- 1

1 13/851

161

1

1 5

1

1

1

I 2.28

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.44 1

1

L

1 1.102 1

1L

0.250

37
Table 35

Results of Medium-Size Chamber Tests of MDF Table Top #24

1 1

1 Date 1

1 1

ECHO Concentration Air Exchange Rate 1 Surface Emission Rate 1 Average

ppb

1 S.D.

1 ppb

Average

h"^

S.D. 1 h"l 1 Average

me/m^'h

S.D. me / m^ * h

1

1

1 I 112/21-1 38

1

I 2 6.39

1 0.70 I 0.72 0.12

1

1

1 26 1

1 1

1

1

1

I

1

1 11/11- I 112

1

1 4 3.04

1 0.40 1 1.02 0.161

1

1 14 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 11/14- 1 53

1

1 5 7.13

1 0.82 1 1.14 0.24

1

1

1 16 1

1 1

1

I

1

1

1

1 11/16- 1 119

1

1 9 3.12

1 0.29 1 1.11 0.18

1

1

1 19 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 11/19- 1 307

1

1 6 0.87 0.14 1 0.80 0.15

1

1

1 22 1

1 1

1 J

1

1

1

1

38
Table 36

Characterization of Under layment from

Medium-Size Chamber HCHO Emission Rate Data

Specimen Date SER^OO A B

Cutoff

Cone

Std

Error R^

mg/m'^ *h mg / m^ * h

o mg/ ppb 'm*^ *h ppb mg/m *h

U-2 11/13/84 0,107 0.209 1.020 X 10"^ 205 0.020 0.91

U-2 2/9/85 0.138 0.236 0.981 xl0~^ 241 0.029 0.91

U-5 9/28/84 0.097 0.144 0.472 X 10"3 305 0.014 0.68

U-5** 11/10/84 0.205 0.328 1.224 X 10“3 268 0.014 0.99

D-5** 2/20/85 0.133 0.211 0.779 X 10"3 270 0.025 0.79

U-8 9/28/84 0.064 0.104 0.402 X 10"2 259 0.013 0.76

D-8 11/13/84 0.089 0.163 0.747 X 10”^ 219 0.023 0.82

U-8 combined

first and second

0.077 0.138 0.615 X 10"3 225 0.023 0.68

U-8 3/1/85 0.148 0.237 0.893 X 10"^ 266 0.011 0.98

U-9 9/28/84 0.081 0.120 0.395 X 10"^ 305 0.010 0.86

U-9 11/13/84 0.185 0.262 0.771 X 10"3 340 0.043 0.63

U-9 combined

first and second

0.131 0.213 0.817 X 10“2 261 0.062 0.37

U-9 3/1/85 0.136 0.213 0.770 X 10"3 277 0.026 0.87

U-10 11/10/84 0.099 0.161 0.618 X 10”^ 260 0.025 0.72

U-10 2/15/85 0.109 0.168 0.594 X 10"^ 283 0.018 0.88

U-12 9/28/84 0.076 0.140 0.646 X 10“3 217 0.014 0.81

U-12** 11/10/84 0.146 0.266 1.202 X 10“^ 222 0.012 0.99

U-12** 2/15/85 0.130 0.211 0.805 X 10"3 262 0.009 0.99

U-18 11/10/84 0.154 0.242 0.886 X 10"3 274 0.027 0.81

U-18 3/20/85 0.145 0.232 0.872 X 10"^ 266 0.039 0.81

39
Table 36 (continued)

Specimen Date SERj^OO A* B*

Cutoff

Cone

Std

Error R^

*y rs mg/ m^ *h mg/ ppb ’m"^ *h ppb

o mg /m'^’h

Combined uncut

first

0.110 0.186 0.761 X

10"^ 245 0.041 0.47

Combined uncut

second

0.135 0.214 0.786 X 10"^ 272 0.035 0.76

Combined uncut

first and second

0.119 0.194 0.744 X

10"3 260 0.040 0.58

Combined 5 & 12

first

0.089 0.138 0.492 X 10"3 280 0.014 0.64

Combined 5 & 12

second**

0.175 0.295 1.197 X 10"3 246 0.027 0.95

Combined 5 & 12

third**

0.131 0.208 0.65 X

10"^ 271 0.023 0.83

Combined 5 & 12 0.147 0.239 0.18 X 10”3 260 0.039 0.74

second and third**

A and B are coefficients for the linear regression equasion:

SER = A - B-C

40
Table 37

Characterization of Paneling from

Medium-Size Chamber ECHO Emission Rate Data

Specimen Date SERioo

ic A

ic B

Cutoff

Cone

Std

Error R^

mg/m^ *h mg / m'^ • h mg/ ppb ‘m"^ ‘h ppb mg/m^ *h

10/12/84 0.035 0.050 0.151 X 10"2 330 0.007 0,83

P_6(l) 2/26/85 - 0.022 0.273 X 10"2 81 0.0004 0.998

P-gCl) 10/16/84 0.030 0-044 0.145 X 10"3 305 0.003 0.96

P-gCl) 2/26/85 0.013 0.059 0.459 X 10"^ 128 0.013 0.81

p_14(l) 11/16/84 - 0.077 0.831 X 10‘2 93 0.003 0.65

P-2K1) 12/14/84 0.006 0.034 0.274 X 10^ 123 0.006 0.18

P-9(2) 10/11/84 0.054 0.058 0.047 X 10"^ 1246 0.046 0.02

P_9(2) 3/5/85 0.111 0.176 0.651 X 10"2 271 0.035 0.74

P-10^^^ 10/11/84 0.245 0.300 0.555 X 10"3 541 0.045 0.71

P«17(2) 11/17/84 0.085 0.150 0.648 X

10"^ 231 0.037 0.73

Combined(l) first 0.065 0.046 0. 1 33x 10"2 347 0.019 0.24

Comb inc;d(l) second 0,037 0.047 0.432 X 10"^ 108 0.017 0.57

Combined(l) first

and second

0.029 0.044 0.152 X 10-^ 288 0.020 0.24

Combined (2) first 0.148 0.182 0,341 X 10"^ 535 0.078 0.22

Combined(2) second 0.121 0.135 0.146 X 10"3 925 0.063 0.13

Combined(2) first 0.137 0.172 0.351 X 10"3 491 0.069 0.26

and second

(1) Manufacturer #1

^

2 ) Manufacturer #2

A and B are coefficients for the linear regression equation:

SER = A - B’C

41
Table 38

Characterization of Medium-Density Fiberboard

from Medium-Size Chamber HCHO Emission Rate Data

Specimen Date ser^qo A* B*

Cutoff

Cone

Std

Error R^

mg/m'^ *h mg/m'^ *h mg/ppb* m^ *h ppb mg/m'^ *h

TT-2 12/14/84 2.24 3.36 11.23 X, 10"^ 299 0.04 0.99

TT-2 1/28/85 0.80 0.94 1.44 X

10"^ 654 0.11 0.28

TT-2 first and

second combined

1.67 3.30 16.06 X 10”3 206 1.70 0.51

TT-2 3/9/85 1.40 1.84 4.47 X 10"^ 413 0.22 0.66

TT-9 12/21/85 2.08 2.37 2.94 X 10"3 807 0.12 0.96

TT-12 12/12/84 1.58 1.91 3.29 X 10"^ 580 0.43 0.16

TT-12 1/28/85 0.42 0.43 0.14 X 10"3 3085 0.07 0.11

TT-12 first and

second combined

0.92 1.08 1.69 X 10"^ 641 0.65 0.10

TT-12 3/9/85 1.43 1.63 2.02 X

10"3 808 0.11 0.84

TT-24 12/21/84 0.97 1.02 0.48 X 10"3 2134 0.21 0.07

Combined first

and second

1.34 1.58 2.35 X

10"^ 671 0.67 0.15

Combined third 1.39 1.64 2.48 X

10"^ 662 0.19 0.59

Combined first

,

1.36 1.60 2.38 X 10"^ 672 0.54 0.18

second, and third

A and B are coefficients for the linear regression equation:

SER = A - B-C

42
Table 39

HCHO Emission Rates Measured

mg/m"^ *h

by FSEM

1 Specimen Soot 8/28 1 8/31 1 9/4 1 9/5 1 9/10 1 9/11 1 9/14 1 10/2 1

1 1.46

1 1 1

1 0.82

1

1 0.55

1

1 0.80

1

1 0.52

1 1

1 U-2 2 1.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 3 1.18 I 1 1 0.70 1 0.56 1 0.75 1 0.59 1 - I avg 1.25 1 1 1 0.76 1 0.55 1 0.77 1 0.55 1 - 1 std dev (0.18)

1

1 1(0.08)1 1(0.00)1 1(0.04)1 1(0.05)1 1 1

1

1

I 1.53

1

I 0.50

1

1 0.48

1

1 0.53

1

1 0.62

1

1 0.57

1 1

1 0.35 1

1 U-5 2 1 1.16 I 0.82 1 1 1 1 1 0.43 1 3 1 1.55 1 0.73 1 1.06 1 0.41 1 0.65 1 0.53 1 0.43 1 avg 1 1.41 1 0.68 1 0.77 1 0.47 1 0,64 1 0.55 1 0.40 1 std dev 1(0.22)

1 1(0.16)1 1(0.41)1 1(0.09)1 1(0.02)

1 1(0.03)

1 1(0.04)1 1

1

1

1 1.31

1

1 0.72

1

1 0.91

1

1 0.45

1

1 0.71

1

1 0.61 1 0.44 1

1 U-8 2 1 1.48 1 0.61 1 1 0.35 1 0.53 1 0.56 1 0.32 1 3 1 1.63 1 0.88 1 0.90 1 1 0.56 1 0.52 1 0.44 1 avg I 1.47 I 0.74 1 0.91 1 0.40 1 0.60 1 0.56 1 0.40 1 std dev 1(0.16)

1 1(0.14)

1 1(0.01)1 1(0.07)1 1(0.09)

1 1(0.05)1 1(0.07)1 1

1

1

I 1.44

1

1 0.55

1

1 0.57

1

1 0.49

1 1

1 0.23

1 1

1 0.40 1

1 U-9 2 1 1.68 1 0.95 1 1 1 1 1 0.54 1 3 I 1.73 I 0.67 1 0.80 1 0.42 1 0.80 1 0.54 1 0.55 I avg 1 1.62 I 0.72 1 0.69 1 0.45 1 0.80 1 0.38 1 0.50 1 std dev 1(0.16)

1 1(0.21)1 1(0.16)1

1 (0.05)

1 1 1(0.21)1

1 (0.08) 1

1 1

1

1

1 1.24

1

1 0.47

1

1 0.65

1

1 0.54

1

1 0.49

1

1 0.59

1 1

1 U-10 2 1 1.55 1 0.44 1 I 1 0.51 1 0.62 1 - 1

- 3 1 1.63 1 0.50 1 1.16 1 0.54 1 0.87 1 0.14 1 - 1 avg 1 1.47 1 0.47 1 0.91 1 0.54 1 0.62 1 0.45 1 - 1 std dev 1(0.20)

1 1(0.03)

.1. 1(0.36)

1 1(0.00)

1 1(0.22)

1 1(0.27)

1 1 1

1

1

1 1.09

1

1 0.63

1

1 0.65

1

1 0.52

1

1 0.55

1

1 0.50

1 1

1 0.45 1

1 U-12 2 1 1.24 1 0.23 1 1 0.50 1 0.72 1 0,54 1 0.42 1 3 1 1.46 1 0.45 1 0.64 1 0.53 1 0.64 1 0.49 1 0.32 1 avg 1 1.26 1 0.44 1 0.65 1 0.52 1 0.64 1 0.51 1 0.40 1 std dev 1(0.18)

1 1(0.20)1 1(0.00)

1 1(0.01)

1 1(0.08)1 1(0.02)1 1(0.07)1 1

1 All mean

1

1 1.45

1

1 0.61

1

1 0.78

1

1 0.49

1

1 0.66

1

1 0.50

1 1

1 0.42 1

1 Spots std 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 dev 1(0.20)

J 1(0.19)

J 1(0.20)

J

1(0.07)

I 1(0.12)

1 1(0.14)1 1(0.07)

J L

43
Table 39 (continued)

1 Spec imen Spot 1 10/2 1 10/25 1 10/29 1 11/6 11/7 11/27 1 11/30 12/4

1

1 1 1 0.38

1

1

1

1 0.24 1 0.21 0.32 0.75

1

1 1.01 0.58

1 U-2 2 I 0.43 1 1 0.17 1 0.20 0.33 0.57 1 0.98 0.64

1 3 1 0.48 I 1 0.24 1 0.24 0.39 0.55 1 1.13 0.70

1 avg I 0.43 I 1 0.22 I 0.21 0.35 0.62 1 1.04 0.64

1 atd

1 dev I 0.05 1

1 1(0.04)

1 1(0.02) (0.04) (0.11) 1(0.08) (0.06)

1

I D-10 1 1 0.49

1

1 0.22

I

1 0.27 1 0.34 0.41 0.67

1

1 1.03 0.47

1 2 1 0.51 1 1 0.22 I 0.19 0.37 0.21 1 0.92 0.61

1 3 1 0.34 1 0.12 1 0.26 1 0.49 0.48 0.18 1 1.09 0.64

1 avg 1 0.45 1 1 1

1 std

1 dev 1 0.09 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 .

1 I

1

1

1

1 U-12 2 1 1 1 1

1 3 1 - 1 - 1 1

I avg 1 I 0.17 I 0.25 I 0.34 0.42 0.35 1 1.01 0.58

1 std

1 dev 1 — 1(0.07)1 1(0.02)1 1(0.15) (0.05) (0.28) 1(0.09)

1 (0.09)

1

1 All mean I 0.44

1

1 0.17 1 0.23 1 0.28 0.39 0.49

1

1 1.03 10.61

1 Spots std 1 1 1

1

1 dev 1(0.07) 1(0.07)

I 1(0.03)

I 1(0.06) (0.06) (0.24) 1(0.08)

1 (0.08)

Table 40

Comparison of FSEM Measurements versus SERj^qq

Emission Rate

Predicted by

Specimen SERj^OO FSEM Method

fy mg/m"^ *h mg/m"^ ‘h

U-2 0.16 (0.02) 0 .43 (0.05)

U-5 (cut) 0.26 (0.01) 0 .40 (0.04)

U-8 0.12 (0.02) 0 .40 (0.07)

U-9 0.22 (0.04) 0 .50 (0.08)

D-10 0.14 (0.03) 0 .45 (0.09)

U-12 (cut) 0.19 (0.01) 0 .40 (0.07)

44
Table 41

Coefficients for ORNL Model

Pressed-wood

Product C A

C

®std B E

Particleboard 9400 0.37 0.36 0.025 0.016

Under laymen

Paneling 6500 0.66 0.41 0.053 0.029

MDF 5000 1.90 0.90 0.090 0.000

45
Table 42

Results of Prototype-House Tests of Loading of Underlayment

# Date

*

n

Air

Exchange

Rate Outlet

HCHO Concentration

Room 1 Room 2 Inlet

h-1 ppb ppb ppb ppb

10/10/84 14 1.2

(0.1)

50.3

(2.1)

- - 5.1

(2.1)

10/15/84 3 0.47

(0.01)

106.8

(9.9)

- - 5.0

10/17/84

10/19/84

14 0.14

(0.02)

135.6

(13.2)

147.3

(18.1)

153.0

(18.9)

0.8

(5.8)

11/7/84

11/9/84

23 0.78

(0.07)

60.3

(5.9)

67.5

(4.7)

72.3

(5.9)

1.8

(4.0)

10/5/84 8 1.28

(0.1)

48.3

(3.0)

— — 8.9

(0.7)

Quantities in parentheses are standard deviations,

n = number of complete measurement cycles

Table 43

Results of Prototype-House Tests of

Loading of Underlayment and Paneling

Air HCHO Concentration

Exchange

# Date

* n Rate Outlet Room 1 Room 2 Inlet

h-1 ppb ppb ppb ppb

1 11/19/84 34 0.86 70.5 68.3 80.7 1.6

11/21/84 (0.04) (3.9) (6.3) (4.9) (3.1)

2 11/24/84 14 0.59 138.3 83.9 93.1 2.6

(0.02) (5.8) (6.8) (6.6) (4.7)

3 11/29/84 36 0.26 107.0 115.9 122.5 -1.9

12/1/84 (0.02) (3.9) (5.3) (6.4) (2.7)

4 12/12/84 34 0.75 73.1 72.2 82.8 1.4

12/14/84 (0.04) (3.5) (3.4) (3.9) (3.1)

Quantities in parentheses are standard deviations.

'*icn = number of complete measurement cycles

46
Table 44

Results of Prototype-House Tests of Loading of

Under layment , Paneling and Medium-Density Fiberboard

Air ECHO 1Concentration

* Exchange

Date

ic n Rate Outlet Room 1 Room 2 Inlet

h-i ppb ppb ppb ppb

1 12/20/84 16 0.80 116.1 132.4 142.8 -2.9

12/21/84 (0.02) (14.6) (21.7) (19.0) (9.0)

2 1/7/85 47 0.58 120.3 121.7 122.2 1.6

1/10/85 (0.07) (5.5) (4.8) (3.3) (2.3)

3 1/14/85 40 0.27 200.5 222.9 212.2 -1.7

1/16/85 (0.02) (4.8) (7.8) (7.4) (2.1)

4 1/18/85 11 0.75 123.3 126.1 130.1 -0.9

1/19/85 (0.01) (1.9) (7.3) (8.3) (1.1)

uantities in parentheses are standard deviations,

n = number of complete measurement cycles

47
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION RATE MONITORS

Figure 1. Schematic of Medium-Size Chamber

for Measuring ECHO Emission Rates

SCHEMATIC OF 10'X20' CHAMBER

2 CELLS

Figure 2. Schematic of Two-Room Prototype House

("Large-Size Chamber").

48
SCHEMATIC FOR INSTRUMENTATION FOR FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION CHAMBERS

I

I

Figure 3. Schematic of Instrumentation for

Monitoring Medium-Size Chambers.

49
SCHEMATIC OF INSTRUMENTATION FOR TWO ROOM HOUSE

I 1

Figure 4. Schematic of Instrumentation for

Monitoring Prototype House.

50
weight.

Permeation Tubes 6893 and 6897

Figure 5. Weight Loss Calibration for Permeation Tubes used for Calibrating

HCHO Monitor.

Figure 6. Calibration Curve of the HCHO Concentration Monitor. (The numbers

alongside the line are identifying numbers for permeation tubes.)

51
Figure 7. Calibration Curve for S-Cubed Electron-Capture

Gas Chromotograph (Prototype-House Unit).

Figure 8. Calibration Curve for ITT Electron-Capture

Gas Chromatograph (Medium-Size Chambers).

52
HCHO

ser

Img/ma

h)

ItCHQ

ser

tmg/in2

nl

Unaer layment 2 (tiefore Dousel

23 C. SOX HH

Figure 9. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #2 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

and second tests).

Unaerlayment 2 (after nousel

23 C. SOX RH

Figure 10. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #2 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (third

test.)

Under laywefit 5 (uncut) 23 C. SOX RH

HCHO concentration (opo)

Under laynent 5 (cut: before housel

Figure 11. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #5 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

test) .*

Figure 12. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #5 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (second

test) .*

Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

53
unoarlaywnt S (cut: attar housal

23 C. 50* HH

HCHO concentration (ppbl

Figure 13. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #5 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (third

test)

.

Under layaent a (before house)

23 IX 50* RH

Figure 14. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #8 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (fir|t

and second tests.)

Figure 15. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #8 as a Function of HCHO

Concentration (third

test) .*

Figure 16. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #9 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

and second tests).

^Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

54
MCHO

aer

h)

HCIIO

stir

(ing/i«2

hi

'JnaaPlaysient 10 (tiBfore house!

23 C. SOX RH

Figure 17. ECHO Emission Rate

for Under layment #9 as

a Function of. ECHO

Concentration (third

test).*

Figure 18. ECEO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #10 as

a Function of ECEO

Concentration (firjt

and second tests.)"

3.M

Unaeplayment 10 (after housel

23 C. SOX RH

R I I I I r—

]—I—I—I—:—I—

Unaerlaynent 12 (uncutl 23 C, SOX RH

“I I I

I

I I I T—

I

[—I—I—^—

R

SOO

Figure 19. ECEO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #10 as

a Function of ECEO

Concentration (third

teat) .*

Figure 20. ECHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #12 as

a Function of ECHO

Concentration (first

test) .*

Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each aide; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

5 5
Undarlayaant 12 [bafors nouial Under layasnt 12 lafter bousel

23 C. SOX BH 23 C. SOX BH

Figure 21. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #12 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (second

\ * test)

.

Figure 22. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #12 as a Function of HCHO

Concentration (third

test .

)

Underlaveent 18 (after bouse) 23 C. SOX RH

Figure 23. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #18 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

test)

.*

Figure 24. HCHO Emission Rate

for Underlayment #18 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (second

test).

*Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

56
HCHO

ser

Img/mS

hi

PsnaUng 6 (before house) a C. 50* BH

Figure 25. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #6 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

test)

.*

Figure 26. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #6 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (second

test .

Paneling 8 (after house)

23 C. SOX BH

Figure 27. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #8 as a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

teat) .*

Figure 28. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #8 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (second

test . )*

Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

57
HCHO

sar

[aa/m2

hi

Figure 29. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #9 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first

V * test)

.

Figure 30. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #9 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (second

test .

)

Figure 31. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #10 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration

.

Paneling 14 33 C, 50X RH

Figure 32. HCHO Emission EUte

for Paneling #14 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration.

*Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

58
Figure 33. HCHO Emission Rate

for Paneling #17 as

a Function of HCHO

Concentration

Figure 34. HCHO Emission Rate

for MDF Table Top #2- as a Function of HCHO

Concentration ^first and

second tests.)

TaUle top 3 (after house)

33 C. SOX FIH Table too 9 33 C. SOX 9H

Figure 35. HCHO Emission Rate

for MDF Table Top #2

as a Function of HCHO

Concentration (third

test.

Figure 36. HCHO Emission Rate

for MDF Table Top #9

as a Function of HCHO

Concentration.

*Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

59
HCHO

sen

(mg/m2

h)

Tidl* toa 12 (bafors housel

23 C, SOX HH

HCHO concantratlon (ppbl

Figure 37. HCHO Emission Rate

for MDF Table Top #12

as a Function of HCHO

Concentration (first and

second tests.)

Table top 12 (alter house)

23 C. SOX AH

HCHO concentration (pool

Figure 38. HCHO Emission Rate

for MDF Table Top #12

a Function of HCHO

Concentration (third

test . )*

Table too 24

23 C. SOX HH Un(derlayment 2 (before house)

23 C. PH

HCHO concentrotion (pDb)

Figure 39. HCHO Emission

for MDF Table

as a Function

Concentration

Rate Figure 40.

Top #24

of HCHO

*

Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Under layment #2 (first and

second tests combined) to

those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Horizontal bars through data points represent one standard error unit to each

side; vertical bars represent one standard deviation unit to each side.

60
HCMO

s«r/5«rl00.23,50

HCMO

»«r/serl00,23,50

Underlayment 2 (after house) Underlayment 5 (uncut)

23 C. 5055 RH 23 C. 50« RH

Figure 41. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #2 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 42. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #5 (first

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Underlaynnent 5 (cut;before house)

23 C. 5095 RH

HCHO concentration (ppb)

Underlayment 5 (cut;after house)

23 C. 50% RH

HCHO concentrotton (ppb)

Figure 43. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #5 (second

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 44. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #5 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

61
mCMO

/

%et

\00.2

Underlayment 8 (before house)

2 3 C. 50* RH Underlayment 8 (after house)

Figure 45. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #8 (first and

second tests combined) to

those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Figure 46. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #8 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Underlayment 9 (before house)

23 C. 50* RH Underlayment 9 (after house)

23 C. 50^ RH

Figure 47. Comparison of Normalized

BCEO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #9 (first and

second tests combined) to

those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Figure 48. Comparison of Normalized

BCEO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #9 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

62
HCMO

ser/ser

100.23.50

Underlayment 10 (before house)

23 C. SOX RH

Figure 49. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #10 (first a: second tests combined) to

those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Underlayment 1 2 (uncut)

23 C. 50X PH

HCHO concentration (ppb)

Figure 51. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #12 (first

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Underlayment 1 0 (after house)

23 C, sox RH

Figure 50. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #10 (third

test) .to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Underlayment 12 (cut;before house)

23 C. sox RH

HCHO conc«ntrotion (ppb)

Figure 52. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #12 (second

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

63
MCHO

i«r/>«rl00,2J.50

mCmO

100.2

J.t)0

Underlayment 1 2 (cut;after house) Underlayment 18 (before house)

22 C. 50S RH

Figure 53. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #12 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 54. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #18 (first

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Underlayment 18 (after house)

23 C. 50X RH

HCHO concentration (pQb)

Paneling 6 (before house)

23 C. 50% RH

HCHO concentration (ppO)

Figure 55. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Underlayment #18 (second

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 56. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling #6 (first test)

to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model.

64
mCmO

jor/sorlOO.23.50

hChO

ser/serlOO.23.50

Paneling 8 (before house)

23 C, SOS RH

Figure 57. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling #8 (first test)

to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model.

Paneling 9 (after house)

23 C. 50^ RH

HCHO conc«ntrotJon (ppb)

Figure 59. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling #9 (second test)

to those Predicted by

by ORNL Emission Model.

Paneling 9 (before house)

23 C. 50S RH

Figure 58. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling ir9 (first test)

to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model.

Paneling 1 0

23 C. 50r. RH

HCHO conc0ntrot>on (ppb)

Figure 60. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling #10 to those

Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

65
HCHO

ser/serl00.2J,50

MCHO

i»t/i.r

1

00.23.50

Paneling 1 4

HCHO concontfotion (poo)

Figure 61. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling #14 to those

Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Paneling 17

Figure 62. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Paneling #17 to those

Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Table top 2 (before house)

23 C. 50!? RH

HCHO concentrotioo (ppb)

Table top 2 (after house)

HCHO concentration (ppo)

Figure 63. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

MDF Table Top #2 (first

and second tests combined)

to those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Figure 64. Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

MDF Table Top #2 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

66
HCmO

ser/jerl00.23,5Q

MCHO

5or/ser100.23.50

Table top 9 (before house) Table top 12 (before house)

r 23 C. 50r. RH

Figure 65. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

MDF Table Top #9 to

those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 66. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

MDF Table Top #12 (first

and second tests combined)

to those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Table top 1 2 (after house) Table top 24 (before house)

22 C. 50r^ PH

HCHO concentrotion (pob)

Figure 67. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

MDF Table Top #12 (third

test) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 68. Comparison of Normalized

ECEO Emission Rates for

MDF Table Top #24 to

those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model.

67
MCHO

>ef/»erl00.23.50

MCnO

»c»

/

»•>

loO

2

J

:>0

Underloyrnent (uncut; before house)

23 C. S055 RH Underloyrnent (uncut; after house)

23 C. 50% RH

Figure 69. Comparison of Normalized Figure 70.

HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined Uncut Underlayment

(before and during

prototype house study) to

those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined Uncut Underlayment

(after prototype house

study) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Underloyrnent (uncut)

23 C. 50% RH

MCHO concentrotlon (ppb)

•. bofore; o. after

Underloyrnent (cut; before house)

23 C. 50% RH

Figure 71. Comparison of Normalized Figure 72.

HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined Uncut Underlayment

to those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Comparison of Normalized

HCHO Emission Rates for

Combined Cut Underlayment

(during prototype house

study) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

68
Underlayment (cut; after house)

2J C, 50?! RH Underlayment (cut)

Figure 73. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Combined Cut Underlayment

(after prototype house

study) to those Predicted

by ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 74. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Combined Cut Underlayment

to those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Paneling (manufacturer ^2; bef. house) Paneling (manufacturer # 2 ) 23 C. 50?: PH

HCHO concentrotjon (ppb)

•, before; o. ofter

Figure 75. Comparison of Normalized

ECBO Emission Rates for

Combined Paneling from

manufacturer #2 (before

prototype house study)

to those Predicted by

ORNL Emission Model.

Figure 76. Comparison of Normalized

ECBO Emission Rates for

Combined Paneling from

manufacturer #2 to those

Predicted by ORNL Emission

Model.

69
HCmO

s«r/s«r

100.2

J.bO

Table tops (before house) Table tops (after house)

23 C. 50^ PH 23 C. 50% PH

Figure 77. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Combined MDF Table Tops

(before and during

prototype house study) to

those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

Figure 78. Comparison of Normalized

ECHO Emission Rates for

Combined MDF Table Tops

(after prototype house

study) to those Predicted

by OilNL Emission Model.

Table tops

23 C. 50% RH

HCHO conc«ntrot»on (ppb)

•. before; o. after

Figure 79. Comparison of Normalized

BCEO Emission Rates for

Combined MDF Table Tops

to those Predicted by ORNL

Emission Model.

70
Figure 80. Comparison of Measurements (points) and Predictions

of Equation 8 (curve) for Prototype-House Loading

of Underlayment

LARGE CHAMBER THEORY VS. MEASUREMENT UNDERLAYMENT « PANEL»NG

Figure 81. Comparison of Measurements (points) and Predictions

of Equation 8 (curve) for Prototype-House Loading

of Underlayment and Paneling.

Horizontal and vertical bars through data points represent one standard error

unit to each side.

71
Figure 82. Comparison of Measurements (points) and Predictions

of Equation 8 (curve) for Prototype-House Loading

of Under layment , Paneling and MDF.

•jf Horizontal and vertical bars through data points represent one standard error

unit to each side.

72
Appendix A

Plan for Testing Model for ECHO Emissions

from Pressed Wood Products

The test for evaluating the ECHO emission model from pressed wood products

will be carried out in a two cell 10' x 20' x 8' room. Measurements will

be made of 1.) ECEO level at various heights in each cell, 2.) temperature

in each cell, 3.) humidity in each cell, and 4.) total air infiltration

rate in the chamber.

Design of the Chamber

The test chamber will be a 10' x 20' x 8' two cell room. It will be

constructed on 2"x4" framing 16" on center. The floor of the chamber will

be made 3/4" exterior plywood. The floor and the inside surface will be

covered with an air tight continuous vapor barrier sheet over lapped at the

edges. Over this will be applied sheet rock to the walls and ceiling. The

wall between the two cells will contain a doorway and two 2' x 2' removable

panels which can at a later time be used to simulate various resistances

between the two cells. For the present series of tests the doorway will be

left open. The chamber will have two supply registers, one low and one

high, at each end and two return registers, one low and one high at the

other end. The test chamber will be installed in an NBS environmental

chamber which will control the temperature and humidity.

Measurements

1.) Temperature:

cell 1 at height of 2', 4', 6' at center

cell 2 at height of 2', 4', 6' at center

Eumidity

cell 1 at height of 4' in center

cell 2 at height of 4' in center

3

) ECEO

supply air

return air

cell 1 in center at heights of 0, 2, 4 and 6 feet

cell 2 in center at heights of 0, 2, 4 and 6 feet

4.

) Air Infiltration: per ASTM E741~83 by sampling at same points as sampling ECEO using electron capture gas

chromatograph

5.

) Airflow

fresh air intake

spill air outlet

73
Calibration of ECHO Monitor

Method 1. Permeation tubes containing polyoxymethy lene

Calibration will be done at about ten concentrations in the range 0 to 500

ppb, using a po lyoxymethy 1 ene permeation tube emitting formaldehyde at

nominal rates of 66 ng/min at 80°C, and 350 ng/min at 100°C. (A permeation

rate of 750 mg/ml is required to produce a formaldehyde concentration of 1 ppm.) The permeation tube output will be diluted with ultra-zero air to

get the proper concentrations.

Method 2. Formalin

Dilute formalin is injected into a heated airstream using a syringe pump in

order to obtain the desired concentrations of formaldehyde in the range 0-

500 ppb. The relative humidity of the airs tream wi 1 1 be controlled by

bubbling a portion of it through a temperature-controlled water bubble. A

mixing chamber will be used to smooth out the formaldehyde concentration

fluctuations. This method is described by Matthews et al. in Environment

International 8, 143-151, 1982.

Method 3. Check of formaldehyde accuracy

The Center for Analytical Chemistry of NBS will prepare and calibrate the

formaldehyde emission for an unknown permeation tube procured and

calibrated by their staff. The permeation tube will be conditioned in a 25°C c t.

1.

) 23°C

a. ) b. ) c. )

2.

) 26°C

a. ) b. ) c. )

3.

) 2QOC

a. ) b. ) c. )

Testing Sequence

at 50% RH with air infiltration at 0.2, 0.5 and 1. ACH

particle board only

add paneling

add MDF

at 60% RH with air infiltration at 0.2, 0.5 and 1. ACH

particle board only

add paneling

add MDF

at 30% RH with air infiltration at 0.2, 0.5 and 1. ACH

particle board only

add paneling

add MDF

ct.

Testing Sequence

1.) 23°C at 50% RH with air infiltration at 0.2, 0.5 and 1. ACH
2 .)

a. ) particle board only

b. ) add paneling

c. ) add MDF

26®C at 60% RH with air infiltration at 0.2, 0.5 and 1. ACH

a. ) particle board only

b. ) add paneling

c

) add MDF

3.) 20°C at 30% RH with air infiltration at 0.2, 0.5 and 1. ACH

a. ) particle board only

b. ) add paneling

c

) add MDF

Surface Emission Rate Measurement

1.

) Using FESM technology per ORNL protocol.

2.

) Using 4' X 8' teflon lined chamber.

3.

) Per manufacturers specifications.

Pressed Wood Products for Loading Chamber

12 sheets k' x 8' particle board under layment , 5/8" with emission rate of

0.3 to 0.6 mg/m^ h

5 sheets k' x 8' industrial particle board, 3/4" with emission rates of

0.25 to .5 mg/m^ h

10 hardwood plywood paneling 4' x 8', 1/8" with emission rate of 0.3 to 0.5

mg/m^ h

5 MDF 4' X 8', 3/4" with emission rates 1 to 2 mg/m^ h

75
Schedule

June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234

Design of 10x20 Chamber

Construct 10x20 Chamber

Calibrate CEA

FSEM Qualification

Design 4x8 Chamber

Building 4x8 Chamber

Calibrate 4x8 Chambers

Calibrate 10x20 Chamber

Conditioning

Under layment

Paneling

MDF

Emission Rates

4x8 Chamber

Under layment

Paneling

MDF

FSEM

Underlayment

Paneling

MDF

Chamber Tests

23°C 50% RH

Underlayment

+ Paneling

+ MDF

26°C 60% RH

Underlayment

+ Paneling

+ MDF

20°C 30% RH

Underlayment

+ Paneling

+ MDF

x-x

X X

X X

X

XX

X X

X

X

x-x

x-x

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Data Reduction x- x Modeling Predictions x x

1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234

June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

76
Appendix B

Instrumentation System for Formaldehyde Emission-Rate Chambers

The major components of the instrumentation system for the formaldehyde

emission rate chambers (FERC) are:

a. ) An S-100 bus microcomputer consisting of::

Z-80 CPU Card

Cromemco 16FDC disk-controller card

6AK-static RAM memory card

16-channel programmable-gain A/D converter card (Tecmar)

Air infiltration interface card (NBS design)

3 S-lOO-bus octal A/C relay cards (NBS design)

100,000-day real-time clock (Mountain Hardware)

2 360K double-density, double-sided 5 1/4" disk drives

b. ) 2 ten-valve sample manifolds (NBS design)

c. ) ITT model 555 electron-capture gas chromatograph

d. ) CEA TGM-555 formaldehyde monitor

e. ) Tracer-gas (SFg) injection unit (NBS design)

f. ) Kintek calibration gas standard generator (shared

with two-room prototype-house system)

g.

) 4 Datametric hot-wire air-flow meters

h. ) Power unit for chamber exhaust and supply fans

The numbers on the SFg and ECHO sample tubes are the same as the mediumsize chamber numbers (1 to 12); similarly for the injection tubes, which

also carry the letter "I". The exhaust and supply fans on each chamber can be turned off or on by the corresponding numbered switch on the power

control unit. There are also 12 potentiometers for regulating the voltage

to the fans. This voltage can be displayed on the digital panel meter on the power-control unit by turning the 12-position rotary switch to the

corresponding number of the chamber. The sample port and analog

connections for the chambers are given in tables B.l to B.3.

77
Table B.l. Port Assignments for Formaldehyde EmissionRate Chambers for the Formaldehyde Manifold

Port # Description

12

3

4

56

78

9 10

zero gas

span gas

environmental chamber background

FERC #1

FERC #2

FERC #3

not used

not used

not used

not used

Table B.2. Port Assignment for Formaldehyde Emission-Rate

Chambers for the SF^ Sample Manifold

Port t Description

12

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

environmental chamber background

FERC #1

FERC #2

FERC #3

not used

not used

not used

not used

78
Table B.3. Analog Connections for Formaldehyde Emission Rate Chambers

Binding Post Description

#

1 zero

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12 air-flow meter FERC #3

13 air-flow meter FERC #2

14 air-flow meter FERC #1

15

16 CEA TGM-555 recorder output

79
Appendix C

Instrumentation System for Two-Room Prototype House

The major components of the instrumentation system for the two-room

prototype house are:

a. ) An S-100 bus microcomputer consisting of:

Z-80 CPU card

Cromemco 16FDC disk-controller card

64k static RAM memory card

16-channel programmable gain A/D card (Tecmar)

S-100 bus octal A/C relay card (NBS design)

100,000-day real-time clock (Mountain Hardware)

2 360K double-sided, double-density 5 1/4” disk

drives

b. ) Ten-value sample manifold (NBS design)

c. ) S-Cubed electron-capture gas chromatograph

d. ) CEA TGM-555 formaldehyde monitor

e. ) Tracer gas (SFg) injection unit (NBS design)

f. ) Kintek calibration gas standard generator (shared

with medium-size chambers)

g.

) 2 Datametric air-flow meters

h. ) 10 YSI thermilinear thermistors

The wiring and tubing connections are given in tables C.l to C.4.

80
Table C.l. Analog Data Channels for Two-Room Prototype House

Channel Binding Description

# #

0

12

3

4

56

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 zero voltage

2 thermistor reference voltage (1.2 volts)

3 thermistor, inlet air

4 thermistor, outlet air

5 dew-point sensor thermistor

6 thermistor, room 1, 6-foot level

7 thermistor, room 1, 2-foot level

8 not used

9 thermistor, room 1, 0-foot level

10 thermistor, room 2, 6-foot level

11 thermistor, room 2, 2-foot level

12 thermistor, room 2, 0-foot level

13 air-flow meter, inlet

14 air-flow meter, outlet

15 S-Cube elect.-capt, GC recorder output

16 CEA TGM-555 recorder output

Table C.2. Formaldehyde Sample-Line Numbers for Two-Room Prototype House

Line Description

12

3

4

56

78

.9 10

11

12

zero filter

Kintek calibration gas standard generator

inlet air

outlet air

room 1, 4-foot level

room 2, 4-foot level

room 1, 6-foot level

room 2, 6-foot level

room 1, 2-foot level

room 2, 2-foot level

room 1, 0-foot level

room 2, 0-foot level

81
Table C.3.

Port

#

12

3

4

56

78

9

10

Table C.4.

Sample-Manifold Assignment for Two-Room Prototype House

Line Description

1 zero filter

2 HCHO Reference Standard, Kintek

3 inlet air

4 outlet air

5 room 1, 4-foot level

6 room 2, 4-foot level

not used

not used

not used

not used

Two-Room Prototype House Octal A/C Relay Assignment

Bit Description

#

1 sample-manifold solenoid Port #1

2 sample-manifold solenoid Port #2

3 sample-manifold solenoid Port #3

4 sample-manifold solenoid Port #4

5 sample-manifold solenoid Port #5

6 sample-manifold solenoid Port #6

7 SFg injection-unit solenoid

8 relay for remote control of GC sample

82
Appendix D

Experimental Protocols

A. Conditioning Pressed Wood Products

1. Build a rack in a well-ventilated part of a controlled temperature and

humidity chamber to store pressed wood products, preferably near a large

exhaust fan.

2. Store upright the pressed wood products well separated from each other (by

at least 6" (15 cm).

B. Calibrating ECHO Perameation Tubes

Note: Since it takes several months to calibrate ECHO permeation tubes, obtain

certified polyoxymethylene permeation tubes so that the approximate emission

rate is known. ECEO concentrations and surface emission rates may have to be

modified after the permeation tubes are calibrated, but data may at least be

collected during calibration.

1. Ensure that the permeation tube is kept at the temperature it is used (80°C

in the experiments reported here) at all times.

2. Weigh the tubes each month at the same time of day for at least 4 months.

3. Fit weight in grams to time in days by linear regression analysis.

4. Divide the negative of the slope by 1.44 x 10“^ to get the emission rate in

ng/min

C. Running the ECEO Concentration Monitor and Gas Standards Generator

1. Change the tubing of the ECEO concentration monitor according to the

instructions of the manufacturer given in reference 6 in order to analyze ECHO

by a modification of the pararosani 1 ine procedure.

2. Obtain 0.2% stock solution of pararosani 1 ine in 1 N ECl, purified by nbutanol extraction.

3. Dilute the stock solution 5-fold in distilled water to obtain a concentration of 0.04% in 0.2 N ECl. Fill a 4-L plastic bottle with this

solution, and connect it to the appropriate ECEO concentration monitor tube.

This solution may be used indefinitely.

4. Dissolve sodium sulfite (Na2S02) in distilled water to a concentration of

0.5 g/L (4 mM). Fill a 4-L plastic bottle with the solution, and connect it to

the appropriate ECEO concentration monitor tube. This solution may be used for

three days at a temperature up to 26°C. It should be kept away from any heat

sources because Na 2

S 03 degrades with time, and heat speeds degradation. In

particular, it should be never be stored inside the ECEO concentration monitor.

5. Fill a 4-L plastic bottle with distilled water, and connect it to the

83
appropriate ECHO concentration monitor tube.

6. Set the formaldehyde concentration monitor air flow meter to pump air at a flow rate between 0.5 and 1 L/min. The exact flow rate is not critical as long

as it remains constant for all sampling ports.

7. The automated system will calibrate itself every measurement cycle. For

this it requires "span gas" and "zero air". Prepare span gas as follows:

a. Pass pressurized air through a 15-m long 5/8" (16-mm) O.D. copper

column filled with potassium permanganate pellets followed by a regulator

that supplies air at 350 kPa (50 psig) pressure difference

b. Turn off the bypass air stream in the gas standards generator. Adjust

the air flow rate through the sealed bottle containing permeation tubes in

the oven, to about 0.1 L/min.

c. The outlet of the gas standards generator should branch into a number

of tubes 1 greater than the number of ECHO concentration monitors. The

extra line is for exhaust to the atmosphere. Connect the remaining lines

to the ECBO concentration monitors.

d. Ensure that the total air flow rate out of the oven is greater than

the sum of the air flow rates to all the ECEO concentration monitors by

running them all simultaneously with their span gas ports open, submerging

the span gas exhaust tube under water, and adjusting the valve controlling

the bypass air until air is bubbling vigorously through the water.

e. Determine the air flow rate out of the gas standards generator with a wet test meter or a gas meter.

f. Calculate the span gas concentration by the following equation:

C3=(Vg/M¥jjcHo5'«/5' (“I)

where

MW|jCE0

“ molecular weight of ECEO, 30.03

Vg = volume occupied by 1 kg-mole of ECBO at 25°C, 24.45 m"^ e°= emission rate of ECEO from permeation tube, ng/min

F = air flow rate through gas standards generator, l/min

g. When not monitoring ECBO the air flow rate of the air stream bypassing

the oven may be turned off. The oven should never be turned off so that

the weight loss of the permeation tube at 80® can be determined as described in section above, and air should always be supplied to it at

about 0.1 l/min.

7. Prepare "zero air" by filtering room air through a Mine Safety Appliances

chemical cartridge against formaldehyde vapor.

84
D. Calibrating the Electron-Capture Gas Chromatograph SFg Detector

1. Inject a known quantity of either 1-ppm or 25-ppm primary standard SF^ gas

into a 10-L variable-volume cylinder.

2. Place the mixture into 10-L air sample bags.

3. Dilute the standard gas to obtain 5 to 10 known concentrations in the range

from 5 ppb to 300 ppb.

4. Measure the concentration of the gas in each bag with the electron-capture

gas chromatograph SF^ detector.

5. Fit the readings vs. SFg concentration by a curve of the form:

C = Cq*R®

where

C = SFg concentration, ppb

R = reading

Cq and B are constants to be fit

E. Running the Automated ECHO Emission Monitor

1. Run the program "SETPARMF” to establish the parameter file "HCHOCHAM.PAR"

required for the ECHO emission rate programs "CBAMBER" for the prototype house,

and "SCEAMBER" for the medium-size dynamic measuring chambers, .

2. Select of the following parameters (typical values are given in

parentheses): C^ and B, the calibration constants of the electron capture gas

chromatograph; the ECEO concentration of the span gas in ppb; the delay time in

minutes between sampling air and obtaining a ECEO concentration (about 15 min);

the length of the averaging interval in minutes for the ECEO readings (about 5 min), the SF^ injection flow rate in cm^/min (15 cm^/min for the prototype

house and 0.15 cm"^/min for the medium-size dynamic measuring chamber), the

title for the test, and the disk drive used for data storage.

3. Start the program CEAMBER or SCBAMBER, whichever is appropriate.

F. Data Collection — ECEO Concentration

1. Connect zero air, span gas, chamber background, and each chamber to its own formaldehyde monitoring port as described above.

2. Connect solenoids to each port; program the computer to switch each solenoid

on for 15 minutes in sequence, permitting air to enter a sampling manifold.

This sequence comprises a "measurement cycle," lasting 45 + 15n minutes for n chambers

3. Connect the sampling manifold to the formaldehyde concentration monitor.

Because of the time it takes for air to reach the monitor and then for the

forxaaldehyde to react in the color reaction, readings for a particular sampling

85
port begin approximately 10 minutes after the port is opened.

4. Determine a measuring period during which data will be collected. The

measuring period should be a sub interval of the time during which the readings

for a a particular port are stable. A suitable measuring period was found to

be from 16 to 20 minutes after port change.

5. Set the zero so that the formaldehyde monitor reads approximately 0 for zero

gas

.

6. Set the span so that even with upward drift, the formaldehyde reading at any

port will not exceed about 350. The formaldehyde monitor cannot give readings

above about 400. It was found that for a span gas concentration of 66 ppb and

a maximum span setting of 1000, the span reading started out at about 60-80

units above zero gas.

7. Read the ECHO monitor each second; average 60 readings each minute and

record the average.

8. A ’'ECHO concentration" is the average of all readings during a measuremnt

cycle.

G. Data Collection — SFg Concentration

1. Connect the environment and each chamber to its own SFg monitoring port.

2. Connect a solenoid to each port and all ports to a sampling manifold,

and program the computer to sample each location once every minute, thus

comprising a SF^ measurement cycle that is equal in duration to the ECEO

measurement cycle. The number of samplings per cycle is pre determined

by the ECEO measurement cycle and is equal to (45 + 15n)/(l + n) for n chambers

.

3. Connect the SF^ sampling manifold to a tracer gas decay monitor and

computer which calculates air exchange rate by fitting log (SF^ concentration)

against time by linear regression analysis. The air exchange rate in h” is

the negative of the slope divided by 60.

E. Adjusting Air Exchange Rates

1. As a minimum for each specimen, collect sufficient (as defined in step 2

below) ECEO and SFg concentrations under each of the following conditions in

sequence:

a. Open the inlet and outlet valves completely and close the recirculation

valve.

b. Leaving the inlet and outlet open, open the recirculation valve

completely.

c. For at least three flow settings before step d, adjust the inlet and

outlet so as to decrease the flow by approximately one half each time.

This can be done by using a flowmeter at the inlet, closing the inlet

86
valve until the flow is down to half of the previous flow, and then

closing the outlet valve until the flow just begins to decrease, so as to

keep the chamber pressure just above that of the environment.

An alternate method is to close the inlet and outlet in increments of 1/4

to 1/2 turns for each new setting.

d. Close completely both the inlet and outlet.

2.

Each of the above settings should be maintained approximately one day or

until at least four air exchange rates and formaldehyde concentrations have

been obtained which are constant to within 10% of their average.

I. Data Analysis — ECHO Concentrations

1. Discard an entire cycle of formaldehyde concentrations when zero and span

readings are found to be defective, as described below.

a. Zero and span were found to rise slowly. For example, the drift was

typically 3 units per 90 minute cycle for a span setting of 1000. Discard

data for an entire cycle if the zero and span deviated markedly from the

apparent pattern (say by more than 10 units from the reading expected from

the pattern).

b. The difference between zero and span slowly decrease over time.

Discard data for an entire cycle if the zero and span are not sufficiently

apart. We discarded data when the difference between zero and span was

less than 20 units for a span gas concentration of 66 ppb and a span

setting of 1000, or proportionately less for lower span settings.

c. Readings for zero gas, span gas, or environmental background are

unstable, that is their range is greater than 5% of the difference between

zero gas and span gas.

d. Environmental background concentration is above about 15 ppb.

2. Discard readings for only a chamber if readings during its measurement

period are unstable, using the same criterion as in l.c. above.

J. Data Analysis — Air Exchange Rates

1. For air exchange rates greater than about 0.05 h“^, there should be a steady decline in SF^ concentration over time.

2. At lower air exchange rates the data may be scattered to the extent of

about 5% between the maximum and minimum SF^ concentrations.

3. The background concentration of SF^ should be less than 10% of the

chamber SFg concentration at any time. If it is higher discard the air exchange

rate for that chamber.

4. The initial SF^ concentration (below saturation) should not be below 10

ppb.

87
5. For air exchange rates of 2 h~^ or less, there should be at least 8 SFg

concentrations. For rates between 2 h“^ and 5 h“^, at least 4

concentrations should be used. Three concentrations are acceptable only

for air exchange rates grater than 5 h“^.

K. Calculations

1. The following calculations should be done for each chamber for each set of

data for a particular inlet, outlet, and recirculation valve setting:

a. Average ECHO concentration and standard deviation

b. Average air exchange rate and standard deviation

c. Surface emission rate and its error

2. The following calculations should be done for individual specimens after a complete measurement sequence:

a. Best fit regression line (ser = a + b*conc)

fy b. Standard error of estimate,

L. Graphs

1. Surface emission rate vs. concentration

a. Show error and standard deviation bars respectively.

b. Draw lines determined by linear regression analysis.

2. Normalized surface emission rate vs. concentrations

a. Plot SER/SERj^qq against concentration.

b. Draw lines determined by linear regression analysis.

c. Draw lines predicted by ORNL according to equation 4 in the text.

88
Appendix E

Listing of Programs for Monitoring the Formaldehyde

Emission Rates Using the Medium-Size Chambers

C

C SCHAMBER.FOR

C

C PROGRAM FOR MONITORING ECHO EMISSION RATES FROM

C PRESSED WOOD PRODUCTS USING THE MEDIUM SIZE CHAMBERS

C

C THIS PROGRAM MONITORS THREE CHAMBERS

C

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,JD(6) ,ICTRL,JJD(6) ,IJD(6) ,NPORT, JKD(6)

*,LABEL(40) ,IBYTE,MPORT,IGAIN,JINJ(6) ,ICTRL

DIMENSION CC(6) ,CCSF6(4,18) ,CCHCHO(6 , 15) ,V(16) ,AV(12) ,AI(3)

* ,ER(3),FLOW(3),CINT(4) ,INJTIM(5) ,ICHAM(3)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

COMMON /CALIB/ CO ,B ,CSPAN ,FINJ , JDELAY , JAVER,FAVER,NDISC ,LABEL

COMMON /BOXDTA/ I CHAM

COMMON /CNTRL/ICTRL,JINJ,INJTIM

IGAIN=1

ICTRL=0

CALL OUT(Z'93',Z'00')

CALL IAD212

CALL SETGN(IGAIN)

NPORT=l

CALL PORTA(NPORT)

CALL PORT(NPORT)

DO 31 KK=1,5

31 INJTIM(KK) = 0

R0W=0

COL=0

CALL CURSOR(COL,ROW)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL CLOCK ( JINJ)

WRITE (5, 100)

100 FORMAT (//,5X, 'PROGRAM SCHAMBER.FOR')

CALL PARMF

CLEVEL=C0*1 .

CMIN = C0*0.1

KDELAY=0

IF ( JDELAY. GT. 15) KDELAY=1

IF( JDELAY. GT. 15) JDELAY=JDELAY-1

JZERO=JDELAY-l

IF(JZERO.EQ.O) JZERO=15

NFIRST=0

IF (JAVER.lt. JDELAY) KDELAY=1

WRITE(5,101)

101 FORMAT(5X,'Load data disc and type any character ')

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK(JD)

CALL SEC(ID)

1 CALL SEC(KD)

CALL PRTSEC(KD)

89
IF(KD.EQ.ID) GO TO 1 2 CALL CONSOL(IBYTE)

IF(IBYTE.NE.O) GO TO 3

CALL SEC(KD)

IF(KD.NE.ID) GO TO 2

3 CONTINUE

IF(IBYTE.NE.O) CALL RCRT(IBYTE)

R0W=0

COL=0

CALL CURSOR(COL,ROW)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

WRITE(5,4)

4 FORMATC IX, ,//,5X, 'INPUT THE NUMBERS OF TEE 3 BOXES (XX, XX,XX)

READ(5,5) (ICHAM(J) ,J=1,3)

5

FORMATC 3(12, IX) ) CALL F0PEN(NREC,JREC,KREC,NDISC)

COL=l

ROW=15

CALL CURSOR(COL,ROW)

WRITE(5,102) NREC,JREC,KREC

102 FORMAT(5X,'File HCHO.DTA has', 16, ' Records',

*/,5X,'File CONSF6.DTA has ',16,' Records ',/,5X,

* 'FILE CONHCHO.DTA HAS ',16,' RECORDS',/)

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7

ENDFILE 8

VOL=5.43E6

FINJ=FINJ/(VOL*60)

FINJ=FINJ*1.0E9

K=1

CALL FMASK(CSPAN, LABEL)

CALL ADCONV(V)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL PRTFLW(V)

FL0W(1)=V(14)

FLOW(2)=V(13)

FLOW(3)=V(12)

CALL CLOCK(JD)

CALL PRTCLK(JD)

JTOTAL=NREC+JREC+KREC

CALL PRTREC(JTOTAL)

MSF6=0

C

DO 10 L = 1, 15

MSF6 = 0

IF (L.LE.4) MSF6=1

CALL SCAN (CHCHO,CSF6,MSF6,L)

IF (L.LE.4) CINT(L) = CSF6

IF (MSF6.EQ.1) CALL PRTSF6(CSF6 ,L, 1)

CALL PRTCEA (CHCHO,K,L)

CALL CONSOL (I BYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.O) GO TO 60

CALL RCRT(IBYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.3) GO TO 99

60 CONTINUE

90
IF(L.NE.4) GO TO 10

JEC = 0

CM = CINT(l)

DO 30 KK=2,4

IF (CINT(KK) .GT.CM) CM = CINT(KK)

30 CONTINUE

TINJ = (CLEVEL-CM)/FINJ

INJTIM(l) = TINJ

IF (INJTIM(I) .GT.600) INJTIM(l) = 600

IF (INJTIM(I) .LT.O) INJTIM(1)=0

IF (INJTIM(I) .NE.O) JEC=1

CALL CLOCK (JINJ)

CALL TSTINJ

10 CONTINUE

C

C

11 CALL FMASK (CSPAN, LABEL)

C

C ZERO CCSF6 ARRAY

C

DO 133 NUM=1,4

DO 144 NUM2 =1,18

CCSF6(NUM,NUM2) =0.0

144 CONTINUE

133 CONTINUE

JTOTAL = NREC + KREC + JREC

CALL PRTREC (JTOTAL)

CALL ADCONV ( V)

CALL CONVRT (V)

CALL PRTFLW (V)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK (JD)

CALL ZERO

IF (NFIRST.EQ.O) GO TO 13

DO 32 K=l,3

CALL PRTAI (AI(K),K)

IF(KDELAY.EQ.1.AND.K.EQ.3) GO TO 32

CALL PRTER(ERCk) ,K)

32 CONTINUE

C

C

Nil =5

IF(KDELAY.EQ.O) NII=6

DO 12 K = 1, Nil

CALL PRTF (CC(K),K)

12 CONTINUE

13 CONTINUE

CALL CLOCK (JJD)

IF (NFIRST.EQ.O) CALL CLOCK(JKD)

IF (KDELAY.EQ.O) CALL CLOCK (JKD)

C

C

DO 17 K= 1, 6

NPORT=K

CALL PORT(NPORT)

91
DO 16 L = 1, 15

MSF6 = 0

LL = L - (L/5)*5

IF (LL.NE.0.AND.LL.LE.4) MSF6=1

CALL SCAN (CHCHO,CSF6,MSF6,LL)

CALL CONSOL (I BYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.O) GO TO 555

CALL RCRT (I BYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.3) GO TO 99

555 CONTINUE

CCHCHO (K,L) = CHCHO

CALL ADCONV (V)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL ACCUM(V)

CALL PRTFLW (V)

CALL PRTCEA (CHCHO ,K,L)

IF (MSF6.EQ.0) GO TO 14

KM = 3 * (K-1) + 1 + L/5

CCSF6(LL,KM) = CSF6

CALL PRTSF6 (CSF6,LL,KM)

IF(KM.NE.18) GO TO 14

CALL AIRINF(CCSF6,AI,JEC,LL)

LL1=LL-1

IF (LL.NE.l) CALL PRTAI (AI (LLl ) ,LL1

)

IF (LL.EQ.l) GO TO 14

CL=CSF6*EXP(-1.5*AI(LLD)

IF(LL.EQ.2) CIMAX=CL

IF(LL.EQ.2) CIMIN=CL

IF(LL.EQ.2) CLEV=CSF6

IF (CL.GT.CIMAX) CLEV = CSF6

IF (CL.GT.CIMAX) CIMAX = CL

IF (CL.LT.CIMIN) CIMIN=CL

IF (LL.NE.4) GO TO 14

JEC=0

IF(CIMIN.GT.CMIN) GO TO 14

TINJ=( CLEVEL-CLEV) /FINJ

INJTIM(1)=TINJ

IF(INJTIM( 1 ) .GT . 600 ) INJTIM( 1

) =600

.

IF(lNJTIMd) .LE.O) INJTIM(1)=0

JEC=1

IF(INJTIMd) .EQ.O) JEC=0

IF(JEC.EQ.O) GO TO 14

CALL CLOCK (JINJ)

CALL TSTINJ

14 CONTINUE

IF (L.EQ.JZERO) ACHCHO =0.0

IF ( ( JAVER . LT . JDELAY ) .AND . (L . GT . JDELAY . OR . L . LE . JAVER )

)

* ACHCHO = ACHCHO + CHCHO

IF (( JAVER. GT. JDELAY).AND. (L.GT. JDELAY.AND. L.LE. JAVER))

* ACHCHO = ACHCHO + CHCHO

IF (L.NE. JAVER) GO TO 15

KL = K

IF (KDELAY.EQ.l) KL = K - 1 IF (KL.EQ.O) KL = 6

IF (KDELAY.EQ.1.AND.KL.EQ.6.AND.NFIRST.EQ.0) GO TO 15

92
CC (KL) = ACHCHO/FAVER

IF (KL.LE.2) CALL PRTF(CC(KL) ,KL)

IF (KL.LE.2) GO TO 15

CC (KL) = CC(KL) - CC(1)

IF (CC(2).GT.CC(D) CC(KL) = CSPAN*(CC(KL) )/ (CC(2)-CC( 1) ) CALL PRTF(CC(KL) ,KL)

IF(KL.EQ.3) GO TO 15

KLL = KL - 3

KKL=KLL+1

IF(KDELAY.NE.l) CALL AIRINF(CCSF6 ,AI , JEC ,KKL)

IF(KDELAY.EQ.1.AND.KL.NE.6)

* CALL AIRINF(CCSF6,AI,JEC,KKL)

CALL PRTAI(AKKLL) ,KLL)

ER(KLL)=(0.7487E-3)*AI(KLL)*(CC(KL)-CC(3) ) IF(AKKLL) .LT.0.01) ER(KLL)=(0.723E-3)*FLOW(KLL)*(CC(KL)-

* CC(3))

CALL PRTER (ER(KLL) ,KLL)

IF (KL.NE.6) GO TO 15

IF(KDELAY.EQ.O) GO TO 15

DO 40 KK=1,3

JK=KK+3

ER(KK)=(0.7487E-3)*AI(KK)*(CC(JK)-CC(3))

IF(AKKK). LT.0.01) ER(KK)=(0.723E-3)*FLOW(KK)*(CC(JK)-CC(3))

40 CONTINUE

CALL FOPEN (NREC , JREC ,KREC ,NDISC)

NREC = NREC + 1 WRITE (6,200,REC = NREC) ( JKD(KK) ,KK=1 , 5) , CC,AI ,ER,FLOW

200 F0RMAT(1X,I2//',I2,'/',I2,2X,I2/:',I2,3X,6F7.1,3F7.2,

* 3F7.3.3F7.2)

WRITE (6,201, REC = 1) NREC, LABEL, I CHAM

201 FORMAT(I5,10X,40A1,10X,3(I2,2X))

JTOTAL = NREC + JREC + KREC

CALL PRTREC (JTOTAL)

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7 ENDFILE 8

15 CONTINUE

CALL CONSOL (IBYTE)

IF (IBYTE. EQ.O) GO TO 16

CALL RCRT(IBYTE)

IF (IBYTE. EQ. 3) GO TO 99

16 CONTINUE

CALL FOPEN(NREC, JREC, KREC, NDISC)

KREC = KREC + 1 IF(K.EQ.I)

WRITE (8, 204, REC = KREC) ( JJD(KK) ,KK=1 , 5) , (CCHCHOd ,LL) ,LL=1 , 15)

204 F0RMAT(1X,I2, V',I2,'/',I2,2X,I2,';',I2,3X,15F6.1)

IF(K.NE.l) WRITE (8 , 205 ,REC=KREC) K, (CCHCHO(K ,LL) ,LL=1 , 15)

205 F0RMAT(5X,I1,5X,15F6.1)

WRITE (8,201,REC=1) KREC, LABEL, I CHAM

JTOTAL = NREC + JREC + KREC

CALL PRTREC (JTOTAL)

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7 ENDFILE 8

93
17 CONTINUE

C

C

C

CALL FOPEN (NREC , JREC ,KREC .NDISC)

CALL AVER

DO 20 KX=1,3

KKK = 13-KK

FLOW(KK) = AV(KKK)

20 CONTINUE

IF(KDELAY.EQ.l) GO TO 70

DO 80 KK=1,3

JK=KK+3

ER(KK)=(0.7487E-3)*AI(KK)*(CC(JK)-CC(3))

IF(AKKK) .LT.0.01) ER(KK)=(0.723E-3)*FLOW(KK)*(CC(JK)-CC(3))

80 CONTINUE

NREC=NREC+1

WRITE(6,200,REC=NREC) (JKD(KK) ,KK=1 ,5) ,CC,AI ,ER,FL0W

WRITE(6,201,REC=1) NREC , LABEL, I CHAM

70 CONTINUE

JREC = JREC + 1 WRITE (7,203,REC=JREC) (JJD(KK) ,KK=1,5) ,(CCSF6(1 ,MM) ,MM=1 ,18)

203 F0RMAT(1X,I2,'/',I2,'/',I2,2X,I2,':',I2,3X,18F6.1)

DO 33 KK=2,4

JREC = JREC + 1 WRITE(7,206,REC=JREC) KK, (CCSF6(KK,MM) ,MM=1 , 18)

206 F0RMAT(5X,I1,5X,18F6.1)

33 CONTINUE

WRITE(7,201,REC=1) JREC .LABEL , I CHAM

JTOTAL = NREC + JREC + KREC

CALL PRTREC (JTOTAL)

C

C

DO 18 KK = 1, 6

JKD(KK) = JJD(KK)

18 CONTINUE

C

C

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7

ENDFILE 8

NFIRST=NFIRST+1

GO TO 11

99 ROW = 0

COL = 0

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

I BYTE = 1 CALL OUT (Z'83',IBYTE)

CALL PORT (I BYTE)

CALL OUT (Z'93',Z'00')

END

94
o

o

o

o

o SUBROUTINE ACCUM(V)

ACCUM2.FOR

DIMENSION V(16),AV(12)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

NV=NV+1

DO 10 K=3,14

KK=K-2

AV(KK)=AV(KK)+V(K)

10 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE ADCONV(V)

ADCONV2.FOR

C

INTEGER*! NCHAN

DIMENSION V(16)

DO 1 K=l,16

NCHAN=K-1

CALL ANALOG (NDATA, NCHAN)

V(K)=NDATA

V(K)=5.0*V(K)/2048.

1 CONTINUE

RETURN

END
o

n

SUBROUTINE AIRINFCC ,AI , JEC ,K)

C

C AIRINF2.FOR

C

C THIS SUBROUTINE CALCULATES THE AIR INFILTRATION RATE OF THE K-TH SAMPLE

C PORT USING A LEAST SQUARES METHOD

C

INTEGER*! LABEL (40)

DIMENSION C(4,18) ,AI(3)

COMMON /CALIB/CO,B,CSPAN,FINJ,JDELAY,JAVER, FAVER,NDISC, LABEL

DEFAULT VALUE OF THE AIR INFILTRATION RATE IS 0.00

C

IF(K.EQ.l) RETURN

KK=K-1

AI(KK)=0.0

CMAX=2.5*C0

• CMIN=0.1*C0

Ll=4

IF(JEC.EQ.O) Ll=l

C

C INITIALIZE AVERAGES AND MOMENTS

C

N=0

XM=0.0

YM=0 .

0

XS=0.0

YS=0.0

XY=0.0

C

C CALCULATE NUMBER OF VALID DATA POINTS, AVERAGES AND MOMENTS

C THE FIRST DATA POINTS TAKEN DURING THE TWENTY MINUTE INTERVAL

C AFTER THE PERIOD OF INJECTION IS IGNORED

C

DO 1 L=L1,18

C CHECK FOR OVERSATURATION

IF(C(K,L) .GT.CMAX) GO TO 1 C CHECK FOR INSUFFICIENT TRACER GAS

IF(C(K,L) .LT.CMIN) GO TO 1 N=N+1

C TIME OF THE L-TH SAMPLE ON THE K-TH PORT

X=5.0*(L-1)

X=X/60.0

C LOG OF THE CONCENTRATION

Y=ALOG(C(K,D)

XM=XM+X

YM=YM+Y

XY=XY+X*Y

YS=YS+Y*Y

XS=XS+X*X

1 CONTINUE

C CHECK FOR SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF VALID DATA POINTS

IF(N.LT.2) RETURN

FN=N

C THE AVERAGE AIR INFILTRATION RATE IS THE LEAST SQUARE SLOPE OF THE

96
o

o

C LOG(C) VS. TIME

AI ( KK ) =-( XY-YM*XM/FN ) / ( XS-XM*XM/FN

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE AVER

C

C AVER2.FOR

C

DIMENSION AV(12)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

IF(NV.LE.O) RETURN

FN=NV

DO 10 K=l,12

AV(K)=AV(K)/FN

10 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE CONVRT(V)

CONVRT2.FOR

DIMENSION V(16)

DATA CT203/0. 65107/, BT203/6.7966E-3/

DO 1 K=2,16

V(K)=V(K)-V(1)

1 CONTINUE

DO 2 K=ll,14

V(K)=1.5*V(K)

2 CONTINUE

DO 3 K=9,10

V(K)=5.0*V(K)

3 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

97
SUBROUTINE FMASK (CSPAN .LABEL)

C

C FMASK 2. FOR

C

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,LABEL(40) ,JD(6)

DIMENSION ICHAMO)

COMMON /BOXDTA/ ICHAM

ROW = 0

COL = 0

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

CALL CLOCK(JD)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

WRITE (5,100) LABEL

100 F0RMAT(1H+,5X, 'RECORDS ' ,15X,40A1,/)

WRITE(5,101) CSPAN

101 FORMAT (4X,'CEA Zero = ',8X,'CEA Span (',F5.1,') = ',9X,

* 'Background = ',7X, ' ppb',/)

WRITE (5,102)

102 FORMAT( IX,' Chamber ',5X, 'ECHO', 6X, 'Air Flow' ,5X, 'Air Exchange

*,5X, 'Emission Rate')

DO 10 K = 1 ,3

WRITE(5,103) ICHAM(K)

103 FORMAT( 2X , ' CHAM' , IX ,I 2 , 9X , 'ppb' , lOX , 'CFM' , lOX , ' /hr' , 14X

,

* 'mg/hr*m**2'

)

10 CONTINUE

WRITE(5,104)

104 FORMAT(/28X, 'TRACER CONCENTRATIONS')

WRITE (5, 105)

105 FORMAT(8X,'l' ,3X, '2' ,3X ,'3' ,3X, '4' ,3X,'5' ,3X, '6

' ,3X

, '7' ,3X,

*'8',3X,'9',2X,'10',2X,'11',2X,'12',2X,'13',2X,'14',2X,'15',

*2X,'16',2X,'17',2X,'18')

WRITE(5,106)

106 F0RMAT(1X,'ENVIR')

DO 40 J = 1,3

WRITE(5,107) ICHAM(J)

107 F0RMAT(1X,'CH ',12)

40 CONTINUE

WRITE (5,108)

108 F0RMAT(1X,/,28X,'CEA READINGS')

WRITE(5,115)

115 FORMAT(9X,'l' ,4X, '2' ,4X,'3' ,4X,'4',4X,'5' ,4X, '6' ,4X,'7' ,4X,

*'8',4X,'9',3X,'10',3X,'11',3X,'12',3X,'13',3X,'14',3X,'15')

WRITE(5,109)

109 FORMAT( 2X, 'ZERO', /,2X, 'SPAN', /, IX, 'ENVIR')

DO 60 J = 1 ,3

WRITE (5,110) ICHAM(J)

110 F0RMAT(1X,'CH ',12)

60 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

98
no

non

SUBROUTINE FOPENCNREC , JREC ,KREC ,NDISC

F0PEN2.F0R

CALL LOGOFF

CALL 0PEN(6,'HCH0 DTA',NDISC)

READ(6,100,REC=1,END=10) NREC

100 F0RMAT(I5)

GO TO 13

10 NREC=1

WRITE(6 ,100,REC=1) NREC

13 CALL 0PEN(7 /C0NSF6 DTA',NDISC)

READ(7,100,REC=1,END=14) JREC

GO TO 15

14 JREC=1

WRITE(7,100,REC=1) JREC

15 CALL OPEN(8,'CONHCHO DTA',NDISC)

READ(8,100,REC=1,END=16) KREC

GO TO 17

16 KREC=1

WRITE(8,100,REC=1) KREC

17 RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE ON

ACTIVATES THE ROTARY ACTUATOR ON THE G.C.

C

INTEGER*! ICTRL , JINJ(6

DIMENSION INJTIM(5)

COMMON /CNTRL/ ICTRL ,JINJ , INJTIM

ICTRL=ICTRL.OR.Z'80'

CALL OUT(Z' 93 '.ICTRL)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE OFF

C

C RELEASES THE ROTARY ACTUATOR ON THE G.C.

C

INTEGER*! ICTRL,JINJ(6)

DIMENSION INJTIM(5)

COMMON /CNTRL/ ICTRL ,JINJ , INJTIM

I CTRL=I CTRL . AND . Z

' 7 F

CALL OUT(Z' 93 '.ICTRL)

RETURN

END

99
SUBROUTINE PARMF

C

C READS THE PARAMETER FILES IF IT EXISTS

C IF THE PARAMETER FILE "HCHOCHAM .PAR" DOES NOT EXIST,

C THEN IT IS CREATED AND STORED ON THE CURRENT DISK DRIVE

C

CC

100

101

102

202

103

C

C

C

104

105

106

C

C

10

107

108

109

no

111

211

INTEGER*! LABEL (40)

COMMON /CALIB/ CO , B .CSPAN ,FINJ , JDELAY , JAVER,FAVER,NDISC ,LABEL

CALL OPEN (6,'HCHCCHAKPAR',0)

READ (6,100, END = 10) CO, B, CSPAN, FINJ,JDELAY, JAVER,FAVER,

* NDISC, LABEL

FORMAT(1X,4F10.3,2I5,F10.3,I5,2X,40A1)

WRITE (5,101) LABEL

FORMAT(5X,'TEST LABEL: ',40A1,/)

WRITE (5,102) C0,B

FORMATdOX, 'ELECTRONIC CAPTURE GC PARAMETERS' /lOX,' CO = ', * F6.1,' ppb',10X,'B = ',F5.3/)

WRITE (5,202) FINJ

FORMAT (5X, 'INJECTION FLOW RATE = ',F10.3, ' CC/MIN')

WRITE (5, 103) JDELAY, JAVER

FORMATdOX, 'CEA AVERAGING INTERVAL FROM ',13,' TO', 13,

* ' MINUTES AFTER PORT CHANGE'/)

IF (NDISC. EQ.O) WRITE (5,104)

IF (NDISC. EQ.l) WRITE (5,105)

IF (NDISC. EQ. 2) WRITE (5,106)

FORMATdOX, 'DATA DISC DRIVE IS

FORMATdOX, 'DATA DISC DRIVE IS

FORMATdOX, 'DATA DISC DRIVE IS

CURRENT DRIVE')

DRIVE "A"')

DRIVE "B"')

ENDFILE 6

RETURN

ENDFILE 6

CALL OPEN(6,'HCHOCHAMPAR' ,0)

WRITE (5,107)

FORMAT(5X, 'INPUT TEST LABEL (MAX 40 CHARACTERS): '

) READ (5,108) LABEL

FORMAT(40A1)

WRITE (5,109)

FORMAT(5X,' INPUT ELECTRON CAPTURE GC PARAMETERS ',/,5X,

* 'CO = (ppb): ')

READ (5,110) CO

FORMAT(F7.0)

WRITE(5,111)

FORMAT(5X,' B = ')

READ (5,110) B

WRITE (5,211)

FORMAT(5X, 'INPUT INJECTION FLOW RATE (cc/min): ')

READ (5,110) FINJ

100
WRITE (5,112)

112 FORMAT (5X, 'INPUT DELAY IN MINUTES FOR CEA TO READ HCHO (NN): ')

READ (5,113) JDELAY

113 F0RMAT(I2)

WRITE (5,114)

114 FORMAT(5X, 'INPUT AVERAGING TIME IN MINUTES (NN) : ')

READ (5,113) JAVER

C

FAVER = JAVER

JAVER = JAVER + JDELAY

IF ( JAVER. GT. 15) JAVER = JAVER - 15

C

WRITE(5,115)

115 FORMAT(5X,' INPUT SPAN GAS LEVEL (ppb): ')

READ (5,110) CSPAN

WRITE (5,116)

116 FORMAT(5X,' INPUT DRIVE FOR DATA (1 = A, 2 = B, 0 = CURRENT: ')

READ (5,117) NDISC

117 FORMAT (II)

WRITE (6,100) C 0,B, CSPAN, FINJ, JDELAY, JAVER, FAVER, NDISC, LABEL

ENDFILE 6

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PORT(NPORT)

C

C OPENS THE "NPORT" HCHO SAMPLE PORT

C

INTEGER*! ICTRL,NPORT,JINJ(6) ,IPORT(10) ,IBYTE

DIMENSION INJTIM(5)

COMMON /CNTRL/ICTRL,JINJ,INJTIM

DATA IPORT/1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,1,2/

K=NPORT

IF(K.GT.IO) RETURN

IF(K.LT.l) RETURN

IF(K.GT.8) GO TO 1 ICTRL=ICTRL.AND.Z'FC'

IBYTE=IPORT(K)

CALL OUT(Z'92',IBYTE)

CALL OUT(Z'93',ICTRL)

RETURN

1 ICTRL=ICTRL.AND.Z'FC'

I CTRL=I CTRL . OR . IPORT ( K

CALL OUT(Z'93',ICTRL)

CALL OUT(Z'92',Z'00')

RETURN

END

101
o

o

SUBROUTINE PORTA(NPORT)

C

C OPENS THE "NPORT" SF6 SAMPLE PORT

C

INTEGER*! NPORT, JPORT(8) ,IBYTE

DATA JPORT/1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128/

IF ( NPORT. LE.O) RETURN

IF(NPORT.GT.8) RETURN

K=NPORT

IBYTE=JPORT(K)

CALL OUT(Z'83',IBYTE)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTAI (AI,K)

C

C PRTAI 2. FOR

C

C PRINTS THE KTH AIR INFILTRATION VALUE TO THE SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! COL, ROW, IDATA(!0)

ROW = K + 5

COL = 38

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

IF (AI.GT.99.99) AI = 99.99

IF (AI.LT.-9.99) AI = -9.99

ENCODE(IDATA,!00) AI

!00 FORMAT(F5.2,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTCEA (CHCHO,K,L)

PRINTS THE LTH CEA READINGS OF THE KTH SAMPLE PORT

C

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,IDATA(!0)

ROW = !8 + K

COL = 2 + 5*L

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

NC = CHCHO

IF (NC.GT.9999) NC = 9999

IF (NC.LT.-999) NC = -999

ENCODE (IDATA, !00) NC

!00 F0RMAT(I4,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

RETURN

END

102
r>

oo SUBROUTINE PRTF ( C, K)

PRTF2.FOR

C PRINTS THE KTH ECHO VALUE TO THE SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,IROW(6) ,ICOL(6) ,IDATA(10)

DATA IROW 73,3,3,6,7,8/

DATA ICOL 715, 43, 65, 12, 12, 12/

ROW = IROW (K)

COL = ICOL (K)

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

X = C

IF (X.GT.999.9) X = 999.9

IF (X.LT.-99.9) X = -99.9

ENCODE (IDATA,100) X

100 FORMAT(F5.1,'$')

CALL PRT(IDATA)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTFLW (V)

C

C PRTFLW2.FOR

C

C PRINTS THE AIR FLOW METER READINGS TO THE SCREE

C

INTEGER*! COL,ROW,IDATA(10)

DIMENSION V(16) ,ICHAN(3)

DATA ICHAN 714,13,12/

C

COL = 25

DO 10 K=l,3

ROW = K + 5 CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

I = ICHAN(K)

FF = V(I)

IF (FF.GT.99.99) FF = 99.99

IF (FF.LT.-9.99) FF = -9.99

ENCODE (IDATA,100) FF

100 FORMAT(F5.2,'$')

CALL PRT(IDATA)

10 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

103
o

n SUBROUTINE PRTREC(NREC)

PRINTS THE NUMBER OF RECORDS USED FOR DATA STORAGE TO SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! COL,ROW,IDATA(10)

ROW=l

C0L=14

CALL CURSOR(COL,ROW)

ENCODE(IDATA,100) NREC

100 FORMAT(I5,'$')

CALL PRT(IDATA)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTSF6 (C, K, L)

C

C PRTSF62.FOR

C

C PRINTS THE LTH SF6 CONCENTRATION OF THE KTH SAMPLE PORT

C TO THE SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! ROW, COL, IDATA(!0)

ROW = !! + K

COL = 3 + 4*L

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

IF(C.GT.999.9) C=999.9

IF(C.LT.O) C=0.0

NC = C

IF (NC.GT.999) NC = 999

IF (NC.LT.O) NC = 0

ENCODE (IDATA,!00) NC

!00 FORMAT(I3,'$')

CALL PRT(IDATA)

RETURN

END

104
SUBROUTINE SCAN (CHCHO ,CSF6 ,MSF6 ,L)

C

C SCAN2

C

C CONTROLS THE SCANNING OF THE OUTPUT OF THE G.C TO DETERMINE

C THE SF6 PEAK AND THE SF6 CONCENTRATION

C READS THE CEA MONITOR AND CALCULATES A 50 SECOND AVERAGE OF

C THE READINGS

C

C IF MSF6 = 0 ; THEN NO THERE IS NO SF6 READING

C

• C

C TESTS FOR INJECTION OF SF6

C

C PERFORMS AVERAGING OF ANALOG VALUES

C

C IF SATURATION OF G.C. ; THE CSF6 = 999.9

C

INTEGER*! ID,LABEL(40) , JD(6 ) ,NCHAN ,NPORT

DIMENSION V(16)

COMMON /CALIB/ CO, B,CSPAN,FINJ,JDELAY,JAVER,FAVER,NDISC, LABEL

CSF6=999.9

NCHAN=15

CV=0.0

NN=0

1 CALL SEC (ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL TSTINJ

IF(ID.NE.O) GO TO 1 CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK(JD)

IF(MSF6.EQ.O) GO TO 2

CALL STAND (ISTAND)

IPEAK = ISTAND

IF (ISTAND.lt. 100) MSF6 = 0

IF (ISTAND.lt. 100) GO TO 5 CALL ON

6 CALL SEC (ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL TSTINJ

IF (ID.LT.3) GO TO 6

CALL OFF

5 LL = L + 1 IF (LL.GT.4) LL = 1 NPORT = LL

CALL PORTA (NPORT)

PEAK=BASE

2 CALL SEC (ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL ANALOG (NDATA.NCHAN)

W-NDATA

VV“5.0*W/2048.

CV=CV+VV

NN=NN+1

CALL ADCONV(V)

105
CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL ACCUM(V)

CALL TSTINJ

IFCID.lt. 20) GO TO 2

3 CALL SEC(ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL ANALOG (NDATA.NCHAN)

VV=NDATA

W=5.0*W/2048.

CV=CV+W

NN=NN+1

CALL ADCONV(V)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL ACCUM(V)

IFCMSF6.EQ.0) GO TO 4

CALL STAND (ICURR)

IF(ICURR.LT.IPEAK) IPEAK=ICDRR

4 CONTINUE

CALL TSTINJ

IFCID.LE.45) go to 3

FN=NN

CV=CV/FN

CHCHO=100.*CV

IFCMSF6.EQ.0) RETURN

IF ClPEAK.LE.5) CSF6 = 999.9

IF ClPEAK.LE.5) RETURN

IF CIPEAK.GT.ISTAND) IPEAK = ISTAND

RATIO = FL0ATCISTAND)/FL0ATCIPEAK)

IFCRATIO.LE.0.0) CSF6=999.9

ifCratio.le.0.0) return

RATIO = ALOGC RATIO)

CSF6 = CO* CRATIO ** B)

CMAX=C0*2.5

IFCCSF6.GT.CMAX) CSF6=999.9

IFCCSF6.lt. 0.0) CSF6=0.0

RETURN

END

106
o

o

o

o

o

oo SUBROUTINE TSTINJ

TSTINJ2.FOR

CONTROLS THE INJECTION OF TRACER GAS INTO THE CHAMBERS

INTEGER*! ICTRL, JD(6) , JINJ(6) ,INJ(5)

DIMENSION INJTIM(5)

COMMON /CNTRL/ ICTRL ,JINJ ,INJTIM

DATA INJ/Z'04',Z'08',Z'10',Z'20',Z'40"/

CALL CLOCK (JD)

NHOUR=0

IF(JD(4).NE.JINJ(4)) NHOUR=l

ITIM=JD ( 6

) -JINJ ( 6 ) +60*( JD ( 5) -JINJ ( 5 )

ITIM=ITIM+3600*NHOUR

I CTRL=I CTRL . AND . Z' 83

DO 10 K=l,5

IFdNJTIM(K).GT.O) GO TO 11

10 CONTINUE

GO TO 13

11 CONTINUE

DO 12 K=l,5

IF ( ITIM . GE . INJTIMCK ) ) INJTIMCK ) =0

IF(INJTIM(K) .EQ.O) GO TO 12

I CTRL=I CTRL . OR . INJ ( K

12 CONTINUE

13 CALL OUT(Z' 93', ICTRL)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE ZERO

ZER02.F0R

C SET TO ZERO THE ANALOG ACCUMUATED VALUES

C

DIMENSION AV(12)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

NV=0

DO 10 K=l,12

10 AV(K)=0.0

RETURN

END

107
Appendix F

Listing of Programs for Large-Chamber Monitoring and Data Analysis

C

C CHAMBER. FOR

C

C PROGRAM FOR MONITORING TWO-ROOM HOUSE

C

C LAST REVISION 11-17-84

C

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,IGAIN, JD(6) ,ICTRL,JJD(6) ,IJD(6) ,NPORT,JKD(6)

*, LABEL (40), I BYTE

DIMENSION CC(6) ,CCSF6(18) ,CCHCHO(6 , 15) ,V(16) ,AV(11)

COMMON /CNTRL/ICTRL

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

COMMON /CALIB/ CO , B ,CSPAN ,FINJ ,JDELAY ,JAVER,FAVER,NDISC .LABEL

COMMON /INJEC/ IJD.INJTIM

CALL IAD212

IGAIN=0

ICTRL=1

CALL SETGN(IGAIN)

NPORT=l

CALL PORT(NPORT)

ROW=0

COL=0

CALL CDRSOR(COL,ROW)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL CLOCK (IJD)

INJTIM=0

WRITE(5,100)

100 FORMATC// ,5X, 'PROGRAM CHAMBER. FOR')

CALL PARMF

KDELAY=0

IF(JDELAY.GT.15) KDELAY=1

IF(JDELAY.GT.15) JDELAY =JDELAY- 15

JZERO=JDELAY-l

IF(JZERO.EQ.O) JZERO=15

NFIRST=0

IF(JAVER.LT.JDELAY) KDELAY=1

WRITE(5,101)

101 FORMAT ( 5X

, 'Load data disc and type any character ')

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK(JD)

CALL SEC (ID)

1 CALL SEC(KD)

CALL PRTSEC(KD)

IF(KD.EQ.ID) GO TO 1 2 CALL CONSOL (I BYTE)

IF(IBYTE.NE.O) GO TO 3

CALL SEC(KD)

IF(KD.NE.ID) GO TO 2

3 CALL FOPEN(NREC,MREC,JREC,KREC,NDISC)

COL=l

ROW=15

108
CALL CURSOR(COL,ROW)

WRITE(5,102) NREC,MREC,JREC,KREC

102 FORMAT(5X/File HCHOLARG.DTA has',

*/,5X,'File ANALOG. DTA has', 16,'

*/,5X,'File CONSF6.DTA has', 16,'

*/,5X,'File CONHCHO.DTA has', 16,'

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7 ENDFILE 8

ENDFILE 9

MSF6=1

VOL=1600.*2.8E4

FINJ=FINJ/(VOL*60)

FINJ=FINJ*1.0E9

INJTIM=0

CALL CLOCK (IJD)

CALL SCAN(CHCHO,CSF6,MSF6)

TINJ=(300.-CSF6)/FINJ

INJTIM=TINJ

IF ( INJTIM.lt. 0) INJTIM=0

IF(INJTIM.GT.600) INJTIM=600

JEC=1

IF(INJTIM.EQ.O) JEC=0

CALL CLOCK (IJD)

CALL TSTINJ

K=1

CALL FMASKCCSPAN, LABEL)

CALL ADC0NV(V,IGAIN)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL PRTVOL(V)

CALL PRTSF6(CSF6,1)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK(JD)

JTOTAL=NREC+MREC+JREC+KREC

CALL PRTREC(JTOTAL)

MSF6=0

C

DO 10 L = 1, 15

CALL SCAN (CHCHO,CSF6,MSF6)

CALL PRTCEA (CHCHO,K,L)

CALL CONSOL (IBYTE)

IF (IBYTE. EQ.O) GO TO 10

CALL RCRT(IBYTE)

IF (IBYTE. EQ. 3) GO TO 99

10 CONTINUE

C

c11 CALL FMASK (CSPAN, LABEL)

JTOTAL = NREC + MREC + KREC + JREC

CALL PRTREC ( JTOTAL)

CALL ADCONV ( V, I GAIN)

CALL CONVRT (V)

CALL PRTVOL (V)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK (JD)

16, ' Records',

Records'

Records ' Records' ,/)

109
CALL ZERO

IF (NFIRST.EQ.O) GO TO 13

CALL PRTAI (AI)

C

C

DO 12 K = 1, 5 CALL PRTF (CC(K),K)

12 CONTINUE

13 CONTINUE

CALL CLOCK (JJD)

IF (NFIRST.EQ.O) CALL CLOCK(JKD)

IF (KDELAY.EQ.O) CALL CLOCK (JKD)

C

C

DO 17 K= 1, 6

NPORT=K

CALL PORT(NPORT)

DO 16 L = 1, 15

MSF6 = 0

IF (L.EQ.1.0R.L.EQ.6.0R.L.EQ.11) MSF6 = 1 CALL SCAN (CHCHO,CSF6,MSF6)

CALL CONSOL (I BYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.O) GO TO 555

CALL RCRT (I BYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.3) GO TO 99

555 CONTINUE

CCHCHO (K,L) = CHCHO

CALL ADCONV (V.IGAIN)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL ACCUM(V)

CALL PRTVOL (V)

CALL PRTCEA (CHCHO ,K,L)

IF (MSF6.EQ.0) GO TO 14

KM = 3 * (K-1) + 1 + L/5

CCSF6(KM) = CSF6

CALL PRTSF6 (CSF6,KM)

IF(KM.NE.18) GO TO 14

CALL AIRINF(CCSF6,AI,JEC)

CALL PRTAI (AI)

CL=CSF6*EXP( -1 . 5*AI

)

JEC=0

IF(CL.GT.50.) GO TO 14

TINJ=( 300 . -CSF6 ) /FINJ

INJTIM=TINJ

IF(INJTIM.GT.600) INJTIM=600.

IF(INJTIM.LE.O) INJTIM=0

CALL CLOCK (IJD)

JEC=1

IF(INJTIM.EQ.O) JEC=0

CALL TSTINJ

14 CONTINUE

IF (L.EQ.JZERO) ACHCHO = 0.0

IF ((JAVER.LT.JDELAY).AND.(L.GT.JDELAY.OR.L.LE.JAVER))

* ACHCHO = ACHCHO + CHCHO

IF ( (JAVER.GT. JDELAY) .AND. (L.GT. JDELAY .AND .L.LE. JAVER)

)

no
* ACHCHO = ACHCHO + CHCHO

IF (L.NE.JAVER) GO TO 15 * KL = K

IF (KDELAY.EQ.l) KL = K - 1 IF (KL.EQ.O) KL = 6

IF (KDELAY.EQ.l.AND. KL.EQ. 6. AND. NFIRST.EQ.O) GO TO 15

CC (KL) = ACHCHO /FAVER

IF (KL.LE.2) CALL PRTF(CC(KL) ,KL)

IF (KL.LE.2) GO TO 15

CC (KL) = CC(KL) - CC(1)

IF (CC(2) .GT.CC(D) CC(KL) = CSPAN*(CC(KL) ) / (CC( 2) -CC( 1 )

CALL PRTF(CC(KL),KL)

IF (KL.NE.6) GO TO 15

CALL FOPEN (NREC ,MREC , JREC ,KREC ,NDISC)

NREC = NREC + 1 WRITE (6,200,REC = NREC) ( JKD(KK) ,KK=1 , 5) , CC,AI

200 FORMAT(1X,I2,'/',I2,'/',I2,2X,I2,':',I2,3X,6F10.1,F7.2)

WRITE (6,201, REC = 1) NREC,ILABEL

201 FORMAT(I5,10X,40A1)

JTOTAL = NREC + MREC + JREC + KREC

CALL PRTREC (JTOTAL)

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7 ENDFILE 8

ENDFILE 9

15 CONTINUE

CALL CONSOL (I BYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.O) GO TO 16

CALL RCRT(IBYTE)

IF (IBYTE.EQ.3) GO TO 99

16 CONTINUE

CALL FOPEN( NREC ,MREC , JREC ,KREC , NDISC

KREC = KREC + 1 IF(K.EQ.l)

WRITE (9, 204, REC = KREC) ( JJD(KK) ,KK=1 , 5) , (CCHCHO( 1 ,LL) ,LL=1 , 15)

204 F0RMAT(1X,I2,'/',I2,'/',I2,2X,I2,':',I2,3X,15F6.1)

IF(K.NE.l) WRITE (9 ,205 ,REC=KREC) K, ( CCHCHO(K ,LL) ,LL=1 , 15)

205 F0RMAT(5X,I1,5X,15F6.1)

WRITE (9,201,REC=1) KREC, LABEL

JTOTAL=NREC +MREC+JREC +KREC

CALL PRTREC (JTOTAL)

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7 ENDFILE 8

ENDFILE 9

17 CONTINUE

C

C

C

CALL FOPEN (NREC , MREC , JREC , KREC .NDISC

MREC - MREC + 1 CALL AVER

WRITE (7,202, REC ” MREC) ( JJD(KK) ,KK-=1 , 5) , AV

202 F0RMAT(1X,I2,'/'.I2,'/',I2,2X,I2,':'.I2.3X.11F6.1)

WRITE (7,201, REC " 1) MREC, LABEL

111
JREC = JREC + 1 WRITE (8,203,REC = JREC) ( JJD(KK) ,KK=1 ,5) , CCSF6

203 F0RMAT(1X,I2,'/%I2,'/' ,12 , 2X ,12 , ': ' ,12 ,3X, 18F6 . 1)

WRITE (8,201, REC = 1) JREC, LABEL

JTOTAL=NREC+MREC+KREC+JREC

CALL PRTREC(JTOTAL)

CC

DO 18 KK = 1, 6

JKD(KK) = JJD(KK)

18 CONTINUE

C

C

ENDFILE 6

ENDFILE 7 ENDFILE 8

ENDFILE 9

NFIRST=NFIRST+1

GO TO 11

99 ROW = 0

COL = 0

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

I BYTE = 1 CALL OUT (Z'93' ,IBYTE)

END

SUBROUTINE ACCUM(V)

C

C SUBROUTINE FOR ACCUMULATING ANALOG VOLTAGES

C

DIMENSION V(16),AV(11)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

NV=NV+1

DO 10 K=3,7

- KK=K-2

AV(KK)=AV(KK)+V(K)

10 CONTINUE

DO 11 K=9,14

KK=K-3

AV(KK)=AV(KK)+V(K)

11 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

112
no

ooo

oooocioo

ooo

SUBROUTINE ADCONVC V.IGAIN)

SUBROUTINE FOR READING ALL 16 CHANNELS OF A/D CARD

INTEGER*! NCHAN,IGAIN

DIMENSION V(16) ,GAIN(4)

DATA GAIN/10.,5,,1.25,0.1/

L=IGAIN+1

DO 1 K=l,16

NCHAN=K-1

CALL ANALOG (NDATA,NCHAN)

V(K)=NDATA

V(K)=GAIN(L)*V(K)/2048.

1 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE AIRINF(C ,AI , JEC)

THIS SUBROUTINE CALCULATES THE AIR INFILTRATION RATE

USING A LEAST SQUARES METHOD

DIMENSION C(18)

DEFAULT VALUE OF THE AIR INFILTRATION RATE IS 0.00

AI=0.0

CMAX=300.

CMIN=10.

Ll=4

IF(JEC.EQ.O) Ll=l

INITIALIZE AVERAGES AND MOMENTS

N=0

XM=0,0

YM=0.0

XS=0.0

YS=0.0

XY=0.0

CALCULATE NUMBER OF VALID DATA POINTS, AVERAGES AND MOMENTS

C THE FIRST DATA POINTS TAKEN DURING THE TWENTY MINUTE INTERVAL

C AFTER THE PERIOD OF INJECTION IS IGNORED

C

DO 1 L«L1,18

C CHECK FOR OVERSATURATION

IF(C(L) .GT.CMAX) GO TO 1 C CHECK FOR INSUFFICIENT TRACER GAS

IF(C(L) .LT.CMIN) GO TO 1 N-N+1

C TIME OF THE L-TH SAMPLE ON THE K-TH PORT

X-5.0*(L-1)

113
on

non

nnoon

non

X=X/60.0

C LOG OF THE CONCENTRATION

Y=ALOG(C(L))

XM=XM+X

YM=YM+Y

XY=XY+X*Y

YS=YS+Y*Y

XS=XS+X*X

1 CONTINUE

C CHECK FOR SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF VALID DATA POINTS

IF(N.LT.2) RETURN

FN=N

C THE AVERAGE AIR INFILTRATION RATE IS THE LEAST SQUARE SLOPE OF THE

C LOG(C) VS. TIME

AI=-(XY-YM*XM/FN) / (XS-XM*XM/FN)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE AVER

C

C SUBROUTINE OF OBTAINING AVERAGE OF ANALOG READINGS

C DIMENSION AV(ll)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

IF(NV.LE.O) RETURN

FN=NV

DO 10 K=l,ll

AV(K)=AV(K)/FN

10 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE CONVRT(V)

SUBROUTINE FOR CONVERTING ANALOG VOLTAGES TO PHYSICAL UNITS

DIMENSION V(16)

DATA CT203/0. 65107/, BT203/6.7966E-3/

CHANNEL 7 (V(8)) NOT WORKING — THUS SKIPPED

SUBTRACT ZERO VOLTAGE

DO 1 K=2,16

V(K)=V(K)-V(1)

1 CONTINUE

CONVERT FLOW METER TO CFM

V(14)=15.0*V(14)

V(13)=15.0*V(13)

CHECK REFERENCE VOLTAGE FOR THERMISTORS

114
o

o

o

n

cio

C

IF(V(2).LT.1.0) GO TO 3

CONVERT THERMISTOR READINGS TO DEGREES CELCIUS

DO 2 K=3,12

V(K)=(CT203-V(K)/V(1))/BT203

2 CONTINUE

CONVERT DEW POINT

V(5)=DEWPT(V(5))

RETURN

3 CONTINUE

DO 4 K=3,12

V(K)=99.9

4 CONTINUE

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE CURREN(STCURR)

C

C SUBROUTINE CURREN.FOR FOR READING THE CURRENT OF THE S-CUBE

C ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR

C

INTEGER*! NCHAN

DATA NCHAN/ 14/

STCURR=0.0

DO 10 K=l,10

CALL ANALOG (NDATA, NCHAN)

VOLT=NDATA

VOLT=10 . 0*NDATA/2048

.

STCURR=STCURR+VOLT

10 CONTINUE

STCURR=STCURR/10.

RETURN

END

115
SUBROUTINE DEWPT(V)

C

C CONVERTS DEW POINT TEMPERATURE FROM BOBBIN TEMPERATURE

C

DIMENSION B(10)

DATA B/-26. 020030,0. 72157332, 0.5797266E-4,0.81653144E-6,

*0 . 12259521E-5 ,-0 .65969899E-8 ,-0. 14720739E-8 ,0.38216241E-10

,

*-0.36454188E-12,0.12371531E-14/

DP=B(1)

DO 1 J=l,9

JJ=J+1

DP=DP+B(JJ)*V**J

1 CONTINUE

DP=V

RETURN

END

116
SUBROUTINE FMASK (CSPAN , LABEL)

C

C SUBROUTINE FOR PRINTING SCREEN MASK FOR LARGE CHAMBER

C

C LAST REVISION 11-17-84

C

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,JD(6) ,LABEL(40)

ROW = 0

COL = 0

CALL CURSOR(COL, ROW)

CALL CLOCK (JD)

COL = 1 ROW = 1 CALL CURSORCCOL, ROW)

C

C

WRITE(5,100) LABEL

100 FORMATC 1H+.5X, 'RECORDS' ,15X,40A1,/)

WRITE(5,101)

101 F0RMAT(12X,'ZER0 = ' ,7X,' VOLTS ' ,15X,' REFERENCE = ', 7X , 'VOLTS'

)

WRITE(5,102)

102 FORMAT (7X, 'INLET TEMP = ' ,5X, 'C' ,7X, 'OUTLET TEMP =',5X,

* ' C',6X,'DEW POINT = ',5X,'C')-

WRITE(5,103)

103 FORMAT(lX,'ROOM 1 6 FT TEMP = ' ,5X, 'C' , 9X , '2 FT TEMP = ',5X,

*'C',4X,' FLOOR TEMP = ',5X, 'C')

WRITE (5,104)

104 FORMAT (IX, 'ROOM 2 6 FT TEMP = ' ,5X,'C' ,9X,'2 FT TEMP = ',5X,

*'C',4X,' FLOOR TEMP = ',5X, 'C')

WRITE (5,105)

105 FORMAT (3X,' INLET FLOW = ' ,6X, 'CFM' ,2X,' OUTLET FLOW = ',6X,'CFM',

*2X,'AIR EXCHANGE = ',6X,'/HR'/)

WRITE (5,106) CSPAN

106 FORMAT(8X,'CEA ZERO = ',29X,'CEA SPAN (',F5.1,' PPB) = '/)

WRITE(5,107)

107 FORMAT(26X, 'FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS')

WRITE (5,108)

108 FORMAT(2X, 'INLET' ,7X, 'PPB', 5X, 'OUTLET', 7X, 'PPB' ,3X, 'ROOM 1',

*7X , 'PPB ' , 4X , 'ROOM 2

' , 7X

, 'PPB' /

)

WRITE (5,109)

109 FORMAT(28X,' TRACER CONCENTRATIONS (PPB)')

WRITE(5,110)

110 FORMAT(8X,'l' ,3X,'2' ,3X,'3' ,3X, '4' ,3X

, ' 5' ,3X, '6

' ,3X

, '7' ,3X,'8',

*3X,'9',2X,'10',2X,'11',2X,'12',2X,'13',2X,'14',2X,'15',2X,'16',

*2X,'17' ,2X,'18' ,/)

WRITE(5,111)

111 FORMAT ( 3 8X,'CEA READINGS')

WRITE(5,112)

112 FORMAT(9X,'l',4X,'2',4X.'3',4X.'4',4X,'5' ,4X, '6' ,4X ,'7'

,

*4X,'8',4X,'9',3X,'10',3X,'11',3X,'12',3X,'13',3X,'14' ,3X,'15')

WRITE (5,113)

113 FORMAT( IX

, 'ZERO' , / , IX

, 'SPAN' , / , IX'INLET' , / , IX, 'OUTLET' , /

,

*1X,'RM 1',/,1X,'RM 2')

RETURN

117
END

SUBROUTINE FOPEN( NREC ,MREC , JREC ,KREC ,NDISC

)

C

C THIS SUBROUTINE OPENS THE DATA FILES ON DISK "NDISC”

C

CALL LOGOFF

CALL OPEN(6 /HCHOLARGDTA' , NDISC)

READ(6,100,REC=1,END=10) NREC

100 F0RMAT(I5)

GO TO 11

10 NREC=1

WRITE(6,100,REC=1) NREC

11 CALL OPEN( 7

, 'ANALOG DTA', NDISC)

READ(7,100,REC=1,END=12) MREC

GO TO 13

12 MREC=1

WRITE(7,100,REC=1) MREC

13 CALL OPEN(8,'CONSF6 DTA', NDISC)

READ(8,100,REC=1,END=14) JREC

GO TO 15

14 JREC=1

WRITE (8,1 00, REC=1) JREC

15 CALL OPEN(9,'CONHCHO DTA', NDISC)

READ(9,100,REC=1,END=16) KREC

GO TO 17

16 KREC=1

WRITE(9,100,REC=1) KREC

17 RETURN

END

118
SUBROUTINE ON

C

C THIS SUBROUTINE ACTUATES THE S-CUBE ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR

C REMOTE START

C

INTEGER*! ID,KD,ICTRL

COMMON /CNTRL/ICTRL

CALL SEC (ID)

1 CALL SEC(KD)

IF(ID.EQ.KD) GO TO 1 ICTRL=ICTRL.OR.Z'80'

CALL OUT(Z'93',ICTRL)

2 CALL SEC (ID)

IF(ID.EQ.KD) GO TO 2

ICTRL=ICTRL .AND . Z'7F'

CALL OUT (Z' 93', I CTRL)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PARMF

C

C THIS SUBROUTINE READS OR CREATES THE PARAMETER FILE FOR THE

C LARGE CHAMBER PROGRAM

C

INTEGER*! LABEL (40)

COMMON /CALIB/ CO, B,CSPAN,FINJ,JDELAY,JAVER,FAVER,NDISC, LABEL

C

C

CALL OPEN (6,'HCHOCEAMPAR',0)

READ (6,!00, END = !0) CO ,B ,CSPAN ,FINJ , JDELAY , JAVER,FAVER,

* NDISC, LABEL

!00 FORMAT(!X,4F!0.3,2I5,F!0.3,I5,40A!)

WRITE (5,!0!) LABEL

!0! FORMAT (5X,' TEST LABEL: ',40A!,/)

WRITE (5,!02) C0,B

!02 FORMAT(!OX, 'ELECTRONIC CAPTURE GC PARAMETERS' / !0X , 'CO = ', * F6.!,' ppb',!0X,'B = ',F5.3/)

WRITE (5,202) FINJ

202 FORMAT ( 5X, 'INJECTION FLOW RATE = ',F!0.3, ' CC/MIN')

WRITE(5,!03) JDELAY, JAVER

!03 FORMAT(!OX,'CEA AVERAGING INTERVAL FROM ',13,' TO', 13,

* ' MINUTES AFTER PORT CHANGE'/)

C

C

C

!04

!05

!06

C

C

IF (NDISC. EQ.O) WRITE (5,!04)

IF (NDISC. EQ.!) WRITE (5,!05)

IF (NDISC. EQ. 2) WRITE (5,!06)

FORMAT(!OX,'DATA DISC DRIVE IS

FORMAT(!OX,'DATA DISC DRIVE IS

FORMAT(!OX,'DATA DISC DRIVE IS

CURRENT DRIVE')

DRIVE "A"')

DRIVE "B"')

ENDFILE 6

!19
RETURN

10 ENDFILE 6

CALL OPEN(6/HCHOCHAMPAR' ,0)

WRITE (5,107)

107 FORMATC5X,' INPUT TEST LABEL (MAX 40 CHARACTERS): '

) READ (5,108) LABEL

108 FORMAT(40A1)

WRITE (5,109)

109 FORMAT (5X,' INPUT ELECTRON CAPTURE GC PARAMETERS ',/,5X,

* 'CO = (ppb): ')

READ (5,100) CO

no FORMAT(F7.0)

WRITE(5,111)

111 FORMAT(5X,' B = ')

READ (5,110) B

WRITE (5,211)

211 FORMAT(5X,' INPUT INJECTION FLOW RATE (cc/min) : ')

READ (5,110) FINJ

WRITE (5,112)

112 FORMAT (5X, 'INPUT DELAY IN MINUTES FOR -CEA TO READ HCHO (NN): ')

READ (5,113) JDELAY

113 F0RMAT(I2)

WRITE (5,114)

114 FORMAT(5X, 'INPUT AVERAGING TIME IN MINUTES (NN): ')

READ (5,113) JAVER

C

FAVER = JAVER

JAVER = JAVER + JDELAY

IF ( JAVER. GT. 15) JAVER = JAVER - 15

C

WRITE(5,115)

115 FORMATC5X,' INPUT SPAN GAS LEVEL (ppb): ')

READ (5,110) CSPAN

WRITE (5,116)

116 FORMAT (5X,' INPUT DRIVE FOR DATA (1=A, 2=B, 0= CURRENT: ')

READ (5,117)

117 FORMAT (II)

WRITE (6,100) CO, B, CSPAN, FINJ, JDELAY, JAVER, FAVER, NDISC, LABEL

ENDFILE 6

RETURN

END

120
n

n SUBROUTINE PORT(NPORT)

THIS SUBROUTINE CHANGES SAMPLE PORT

C

INTEGER*! NPORT, JPORT(8) ,IBYTE,ICTRL

COMMON /CNTRL/ I CTRL

DATA JPORT/1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128/

IF ( NPORT. LE.O) RETURN

IF(NPORT.GT.6) RETURN

K=NPORT

IBYTE=JPORT(K)

I CTRL=I CTRL . AND . Z

' C

0

I CTRL=I CTRL . OR . IBYTE

CALL OUT(Z'93',ICTRL)

RETURN

END

121
ooors

t—

ooo

SUBROUTINE PRTAI (AI)

C

C PRINTS THE AIR EXCHANGE RA.TE ON SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! COL, ROW, IDATA(IO)

ROW = 7 COL = 67

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

IF (AI.GT.99.99) AI = 99.99

IF (AI.LT.-9.99) AI = -9.99

ENCODE (IDATA, 100) AI

100 FORMAT(F5.2,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTCEA (CHCHO,K,L)

THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS TO THE SCREEN THE CEA READINGS

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,IDATA( 10)

ROW = 18 + K

COL = 2 + 5*L

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

NC = CHCHO

IF (NC.GT.9999) NC = 9999

IF (NC.LT.-999) NC = -999

ENCODE (IDATA, 100) NC

'0 F0RMAT(I4,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTF ( C, K)

THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS THE ZERO, SPAN AND HCHO VALUES TO

THE SCREEN

INTEGER*! ROW,COL,IROW(6),ICOL(6),IDATA(10)

DATA IROW 79,9,12,12, 12, 12/

DATA ICOL 719,70,8,29,48,68/

ROW = IROW (K)

COL = ICOL (K)

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

X = C

IF (X.GT.999.9) X = 999.9

IF (X.LT.-99.9) X = -99.9

ENCODE (IDATA, 100) X

100 FORMAT(F5.1,'$')

CALL PRT( IDATA)

RETURN

END

122
o

o

o

o

o SUBROUTINE PRTREC(NREC)

THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS THE RECORD COUNT TO THE SCREEN

INTEGER*! COL ,ROW,IDATA(10)

ROW=l

C0L=14

CALL CURSOR(COL,ROW)

ENCODE(IDATA,100) NREC

100 F0RMAT(I5,'$')

CALL PRT(IDATA)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE PRTSF6 (C, L)

THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS THE SF6 CONCENTRATIONS TO THE SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! ROW» COL, IDATA(!0)

ROW = !6

COL = 3 + 4*L

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

NC = C

IF (NC.GT.999) NC = 999

IF (NC.LT.O) NC = 0

ENCODE (IDATA,!00) NC

!00 F0RMAT(I3,'$')

CALL PRT(IDATA)

RETURN

END

! 23
SUBROUTINE PRTVOL (V)

C

C THIS SUBROUTINE PRINTS THE ANALOG VALUES TO THE SCREEN

C

INTEGER*! COL ,ROW,IDATA(10 ) ,ICOL(3

)

DIMENSION V(16)

DATA ICOL/20»47 ,71/

C

C LAST REVISION 11-17-84

C

ROW = 3

COL = 19

CALL CURSOR(COL.ROW)

ENCODE (IDATA,100) V(l)

100 FORMAT(F6.3,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

COL = 57

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

ENCODE (IDATA, 100) V(2)

CALL PRT (IDATA)

DO 10 K = 1 ,3

ROW = 3 + K

DO 10 L = 1, 3

COL = ICOL(L)

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

MK = 3 * (K-1) + L + 2

IF (MK.GE.8) MK = MK + 1 IF (V(MK).GT.99.9) V(MK) = 99.91

IF (V(MK) .LT.-9.9) V(MK) = -9.9

C

101

10

C

C

ENCODE (IDATA, 101) V(MK)

F0RMAT(F4.1,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

CONTINUE

ROW = 7 COL = 16

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

ENCODE (IDATA, 102) V(13)

102 FORMAT(F5.1,'$')

CALL PRT (IDATA)

COL = 41

CALL CURSOR (COL, ROW)

ENCODE (IDATA, 102) V(14)

CALL PRT (IDATA)

RETURN

END

124
SUBROUTINE SCAN (CHCHO ,CSF6 ,MSF6

)

C

C LAST REVISION 11-17-84

C

C THIS SUBROUTINE DETERMINES THE AVERAGE CEA READING FOR A PERIOD

C OF 45 SECONDS

C

C IF MSF6 =1 , THEN THE SF6 CONCENTRATION IS DETERMINED BY

C FINDING THE PEAK CURRENT OCCURRING BETWEEN 20 AND 50 SECONDS

C

INTEGER*! ID,IGAIN,LABEL(40) , JD(6) ,NCHAN

DIMENSION V(16)

COMMON /CALIB/ CO ,B ,CSPAN ,FINJ ,JDELAY ,JAVER,FAVER,NDISC .LABEL

CSF6=999.9

NCHAN=15

ISEC=45

IF(MSF6.EQ.1) ISEC=50

IGAIN=0

CV=0.0

NN=0

1 CALL SEC(ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL TSTINJ

IF(ID.GT.2) GO TO 1 CALL CLOCK (JD)

CALL PRTCLK(JD)

IF(MSF6.EQ.O) GO TO 2

CALL CURREN(BASE)

CALL ON

PEAK=BASE

2 CALL SEC (ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL TSTINJ

CALL ANALOG (NDATA.NCHAN)

W=NDATA

VV=10.0*VV/2048.

CV=CV+W

NN=NN+1

CALL ADCONV(V,IGAIN)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL ACCUM(V)

IF(ID.LT.15) GO TO 2

CALL CURREN(PCURR)

3 CALL SEC (ID)

CALL PRTSEC(ID)

CALL ANALOG (NDATA.NCHAN)

VV-NDATA

W-10.0*VV/2048.

CV-CV+W

NN-NN+1

CALL ADCONV(V.IGAIN)

CALL CONVRT(V)

CALL ACCUM(V)

CALL TSTINJ

IF(MSF6.EQ.0) GO TO 4

125
fio

rs

o

n

Cl

CALL CURREN(CURR)

IF(PCURR.GT.PEAK.Ain).PCURR.GE.CURR) PEAK=PCURR

PCURR=CURR

4 CONTINUE

IF(ID.LE.ISEC) GO TO 3

FN=NN

CV=CV/FN

CHCHO=100.*CV

IF(MSF6.EQ.O) RETURN

IF(PEAK.GT.9.9) RETURN

PEAK=PEAK-BASE

IF(PEAK.GT.O.O) CSF6=C0*(PEAK**B)

IF(PEAK.LE.O.O) CSF6=0.0

IF(CSF6.GT.999.9) CSF6=999.9

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE TSTINJ

THIS SUBROUTINE CONTROLS THE INJECTION PORT

INTEGER*! ICTRL , JD(6 ) ,IJD(6

)

COMMON /CNTRL/ ICTRL

COMMON /INJEC/ IJD,INJTIM

IF(INJTIM.LE.O) RETURN

CALL CLOCK (JD)

NHOUR=0

IF(JD(4).NE.IJD(4)) NHOUR=l

ITIM=JD(6)-IJD(6)+60*(JD(5)-IJD(5))

I TIM=ITIM+3 6 00*NHOUR

IF(ITIM.GE.INJTIM) GO TO 10

I CTRL=I CTRL . OR . Z

' 40

CALL OUT(Z'93', ICTRL)

RETURN

10 INJTIM=0 - I CTRL=( I CTRL . AND . Z

' BF '

)

CALL OUT(Z'93', ICTRL)

RETURN

END

SUBROUTINE ZERO

THIS SUBROUTINE SETS THE ANALOG ACCUMULATORS TO ZERO

DIMENSION AV(ll)

COMMON /AVERG/ AV,NV

NV=0

DO 10 K=l,ll

10 AV(K)=0.0

RETURN

END

126
no

o

Appendix G

Listing of Program for Predicting ECHO

Concentrations in Two-Room Prototype House

PROGRAM HCHOLEV.FOR

PROGRAM FOR PREDICTING ECHO LEVELS IN A HOUSE USING

C OAKRIDGE MODELS FOR ECHO EMISSION RATES AS A FUNCTION OF

C TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY

CHARACTER*! 5 FHOUSE

CHARACTER*! 5 FDATA

CHARACTER*! 5 FEMIT

INTEGER*! LABEL (40)

DIMENSION NTYPEC40) ,AREA(40) ,ERSTD(40) ,CBSTD(40) ,A(40) ,B(40)

,

!C(40) ,E(40)

DATA FHOUSE/"HOUSE.DTA"/

DATA FEMIT/ "EMI TTERS.DTA"/

DATA FDATA/ "HCHO . DTA"

/

COMMON /EMIT/ERSTD,CBSTD,A,B,C,E

WRITE(!,!00)

!00 FORMATC//,! OX, 'PROGRAM HCHOLEV',//)

IF(I0READ(6, 2,0, FHOUSE)) GO TO !2

WRITE(!,!0!)

!0! FORMAT(5X,' READING HOUSE DATA',/)

READ(6,!200) LABEL

200 FORMAT (!H!,40A!)

!200 FORMAT(40A!)

READ(6,!20!) VOL,NUM

20! FORMAT(!H!,F!0.2,I3)

!20! FORMAT(F!0.2,I3)

DO !0 K=!,NUM

READ(6,!202) NTYPE(K) ,AREA(K)

202 FORMAT(!H! ,I2,F!0.2)

!202 FORI4AT(I2,F!0.2)

!0 CONTINUE

C WRITE(!,203) LABEL

203 FORMATC// ,!H! ,5X' HOUSE DATA READ' ,// ,5X,' LABEL IS ',5X,40A!)

WRITE(!,204) VOL

204 FORMAT(!H!,/,5X,' VOLUME = ',F!0.2,' m**2',/)

WRITE(!,!204) NUM

!204 FORMATC !H!,5X,' NUMBER OF EMITTERS IS', 13,/)

DO !! K=!,NUM

WRITE(!,205) K ,NTYPE(K) ,AREA(K)

205 FORMATC !H!,!X,' EMITTER #',I2,' IS TYPE ',12,' WITH AREA OF',

!F!0.2,' m**2')

!! CONTINUE

GO TO !4

!2 IF(I0WRIT(6, 2,0, FHOUSE)) GO TO 99

WRITEC! ,206)

206 FORMATC /,5X,' INPUT HOUSE DATA' ,/, 5X

, 'LABEL “ '$

READ(!,200) LABEL

!27
WRITE (6, 200) LABEL

WRITEC 1,207)

207 FORMAT (5X,' VOLUME (M**3) = '$

READ( 1,208) VOL

208 FORMAT(FIO.O)

WRITE(1,209)

209 FORMAT(5X,' NUMBER OF EMITTERS = (NN) '$

READ(1,210) NUM

210 FORMATCI2)

WRITE(6,201) VOL, NUM

DO 13 K=1,NUM

WRITE(1,211) K

211 FORMAT(5X,' EMITTER #',I2,' IS TYPE (NN) : '$

READ(1,210) NTYPE(K)

. WRITE(1,212) K

212 FORMAT (5X,' EMITTER #',I2,' AREA (M**2) = : '$

READ( 1,208) AREA(K)

WRITE(6,202) NTYPE(K) ,AREA(K)

13 CONTINUE

IF(I0CL0S(6)) GO TO 98

14 CONTINUE

IF(IOREAD(7,2,0,FEMIT)) GO TO 16

WRITE(1,250)

250 FORMAT (1H1,//,5X, 'INPUTTING EMITTERS DATA')

READ(7,1300) NEMIT

300 F0RMAT(1H1,I3)

1300 F0RMAT(I3)

WRITE(1,251) NEMIT

251 FORMATClHl,// ,5X, 'EMITTER FILE HAS ',12,' ENTRIES')

DO 15 K=l, NEMIT

READ(7 ,1301) ERSTD(K) ,CBSTD(K ) ,A(K) ,B(K) ,C(K) ,E(K)

301 FORMATClHl ,6F 10.3)

1301 FORMAT(6FlO.O)

WRITE(1,252) K,ERSTD(K) ,CBSTD(K) ,A(K) ,B(K) ,C(K) ,E(K)

252 F0RMAT(1H1,/,5X,' ENTRY #' ,12 , / , lOX, 'ERSTD = ',F10.3,

1' mg/in**2*hr'

,

1/ ,10X,'CBSTD = ',F10.0,' ppb',/,10X,' A = ' ,F10.3,/ ,10X,

1' B = ',F10.3,/,10X,' C = ' ,F10.3,/,10X,' E = ',F10.3)

15 CONTINUE

GO TO 18

16 CONTINUE

IF(IOWRIT(7,2,0,FEMIT)) GO TO 97

WRITE(1,260)

260 FORMAT (5X,' INPUT EMITTER DATA' ,/, lOX, 'NUMBER OF EMITTERS = (NN) ' 1,':'$

READ( 1,210) NEMIT

WRITE (7, 300) NEMIT

DO 17 K=l, NEMIT

WRITE(1,261) K

261 FORMAT(5X,' EMITTER #' ,12)

WRITEC 1,262)

262 FORMATCIOX, 'ERSTD (mg/m**2*hr ) = '$

READ(1,208) ERSTD(K)

WRITEC 1,263)

263 FORMATCIOX, 'CBSTD (ppb) = '$

128
READ(1,208) CBSTD(K)

WRITEC 1,264)

264 FORMAT(10X,'A = '$

READ( 1,208) A(K)

WRITE(1,265)

265 FORMAT(10X,'B = '$

READ(1,208) B(K)

WRITEC 1,266)

266 FORMAT(10X,'C = '$

READ(1,208) C(K)

WRITEC 1,267)

267 FORMAT C 1 OX, 'E = '$)

READC1,208) ECK)

WRITEC7,301) erstdCk) ,cbstdCk) ,aCk) ,bCk) ,cCk) ,eCk)

17 CONTINUE

IFCI0CL0SC7)) go to 96

18 CONTINUE

IFCIOWRITC8,2,0,FDATA)) GO TO 95

WRITEC 1,268)

268 FORMAT C1H1,/,1 OX, 'DATA FILE OPENED',/)

269 F0RMATC1H1,5X,'TEMP. RH AI HCH0',/,6X,

1' C Z /hr ppb')

DO 20 L=l,6

T=20.0+1.0*CL-1)

DO 20 M=1,5

RH=20.0+10.0*CM-1)

SA=0.0

SB=0.0

WRITEC1,702) T,RH

702 F0RMATC1H1,5X,'TEMP. = ',F5.1,' C',5X,'RH = ',F5.1,' %',/)

WRITEC 1 ,701)

701 F0RMATC1H1,5X,' N NT ALPHA BETA')

WRITEC8,702) T,RH

WRITEC8,701)

CMAX=0.0

CMIN=99999.

DO 21 K=1,NUM

KK=NTYPECK)

CALL ERCALPHA, BETA, T,RH,KK)

CC=ALPHA/BETA

ifCcc.ge.cmax) CMAX=CC

ifCcc.lt.cmin) cmin=cc

WRITEC 1,700) K,KK,ALPHA, BETA

WRITEC 8, 700) K,KK,ALPHA, BETA

700 FORMATC5X,I2,I3,F10.4,F10.7)

SA=SA+AREACK ) *ALPHA

sb=sb+areaCk)*beta

21 CONTINUE

WRITEC1,269)

WRITEC8,269)

SA-819.*SA/VOL

SB*819.*SB/V0L

DO 22 N-1,10

AI“0.1*N

CHCHO-SA/CAI+SB)

129
IF(CHCHO.GE.CMAX) CHCHO=CMAX

IF(CHCHO.GE.CMAX) GO TO 26

IF ( CHCHO.lt. CMIN) GO TO 26

23 ICHCHO=CHCHO

SA=0.0

SB=0.0

DO 24 K=1,NUM

KK=NTYPE(K)

CALL ER(ALPHA,BETA,T,RH,KK)

FER=ALPHA-BETA*CHCHO

IF(FER.LE.O.O) GO TO 24

SA=SA+AREA( K ) *ALPHA

SB=SB+AREA(K)*BETA

24 CONTINUE

SA=819.*SA/VOL

SB=819.*SB/V0L

CHCHO=SA/ (AI+SB)

IF(CHCHO.GE.CMAX) CHCHO=CMAX

IF(CHCHO.GE.CMAX) GO TO 26

JCHCHO=CHCHO

IF(JCHCHO.NE.AX) CHCHO=CMAX

IF(CHCHO.GE.CMAX) GO TO 26

IF (CHCHO.lt. CMIN) GO TO 26

23 ICHCHO=CHCHO

SA=0.0

SB=0.0

DO 24 K=1,NUM

KK=NTYPE(K)

CALL ER(ALPHA, BETA, T,RH,KK)

FER=ALPHA-BETA*CHCHO

IF(FER.LE.O.O) GO TO 24

SA=SA+AREA(K ) *ALPHA

SB=SB+AREA(K)*BETA

24 CONTINUE

SA=819.*SA/VOL

SB=819.*SB/VOL

CHCHO=SA/ (AI+SB)

I F ( CHCHO . GE . CMAX ) CHCHO=CMAX

IF(CHCHO.GE.CMAX) GO TO 26

JCHCHO=CHCHO

IF(JCHCHO.NE.TA')

STOP

97 WRITE (1,503)

503 FORMATdOX, 'ERROR IN OPENING FILE EMITTERS .DTA'

)

STOP

98 WRITE( 1,504)

504 FORMATdOX, 'ERROR IN CLOSING FILE HOUSE.DTA')

STOP

99 WRITE( 1,505)

505 FORMATdOX, 'ERROR IN OPENING FILE HOUSE. DTA')

STOP

END

130
ooooooooo

SUBROUTINE ER(ALPHA,BETA,T»RH,N)

SUBROUTINE FOR CALCULATING THE HCHO EMISSION RATE AS A FUNCTION

OF TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY AND HCHO CONCENTRATION

THIS SUBROUTINE USE THE OAKRIDGE MODEL II

ER=ALPHA ( T , RH , N

) -BETA( T , RH , N

) *C

WHERE:

C

C

C

C

C

C IN

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

c

T IS THE TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES CELSIUS

RH IS THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY

C IS THE HCHO CONCENTRATION IN ppb

N IS THE INDEX OF THE HCHO EMITTER

THIS MODEL THE COEFFICIENTS HAVE THE MEANING

ERSTD(N)

CBSTD(N)

A(N)

B(N)

C(N)

E(N)

THE EMISSION RATE AT STANDARD CONDITION

23 DEGREES CELSIUS, 50% RH, 100 ppb

CUTOFF CONCENTRATION IN ppb AT 23 DEGREES & 50% RH

OAKRIDGE HUMDITY EXPONENT

OAKRIDGE TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT

OAKRIDGE TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT DIVIDED BY 296*273

OAK RIDGE HUMIDITY COEFFICIENT

THE EMISSION RATE IS GIVEN IN mg/m**2*hr

DIMENSION ERSTDC40) ,A(40) ,B(40) ,C(40) ,E(40) ,CBSTD(40)

COMMON /EMIT/ ERSTD ,CBSTD ,A , B ,C ,E

F=ERSTD(N)*(1.0+B(N)*(T-23.0))*(1.0+E(N)*(RH-50.0))

BETA=F/(CBSTD(N)-100.0)

ALPHA=F*EXP(-C(N)*(23.0-T)/(1.0+T/273.0))*CBSTD(N)/

KCBSTD(N)-IOO.O)

ALPHA=ALPHA*EXP ( A ( N ) *ALOG ( RH/ 50 . 0 ) ) RETURN

END

J

131
'OM NtS^ 14A (ITV.n-44) U.l. OCPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET iSee instructions)

i. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

85-3255

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE

Validation of Models for Predicting Formaldehyde Concentratioi

in Residences Due to Pressed Wood Products

Phase I

IS

Richard A. Groc, Samuel Silberstein, Kunimichi Ishiguro

S* FORMING ORGAN I ZATION 1 1 f lotnz or ocher zhan N BS, see in scruccian s>

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MO 20899

7. Concrac^^Gran: No.

8. Type of Report & Perioo Covereo

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. Cjcy. State. ZIP)

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Washington, DC 20207

10. supplementary notes

^^D^cum^en^t^^des^eri^be^^^a^^mpu ter program; SF-135, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

fOO-'^ord or less factual summary osmose significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

v ^,gni,iuuni

This interim report describes procedures and presents results of the first phase of a laboratory project undertaken at the National Bureau of Standards for the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) . The purpose of the ongoing project is to assess the

accuracy of emission and indoor air quality models to be used by CPSC in predicting

formaldehyde (HCHO) concentrations in residences due to pressed-wood products made

with urea- formaldehyde bonding resins, namely particleboard underlayment , hardwoodplywood paneling and medium-density fiberboard -(MDF) . In phase I, these products

were characterized in "medium-size” dynamic measuring chambers by measuring their KC

surface emission rates over a range of HCHO concentrations, at 23°C and 50% RH. The

were then installed in a two-room prototype house and the equilibrium HCHO concent ra tions were monitored as a function of air exchange rate. Excellent agreement was obtained between measured HCHO concentrations and those predicted by a mass-balance

indoor air quality model. In the next phase, the study will be repeated at various

different temperatures and relative humidities so that models predicting HCHO

HO ' V

surface emission rate as a function of temperature and humidity can be tested.

j

I

12. KLEY WORDS fS/x to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key

Formaldehyde; indoor air quality; modeling; paneling;

particleboard; plywood; tracer gas; underlayment.

words by semicolon s)

13. AVAILABILITY "

1 Unlimited

1

1 Por Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

CZ]

20 ^2

^'^°"’ Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

15. Price

[7j] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield. VA 22161

USCOMM-OC 15-4006
>