P. 1


# OAR Box 1392 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 134 ) ll-A- 9 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/7/2008 9:45:59 AM

Sheet 134 of 136P. 2 

# &EP A Unite d Slate s

Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 

### EPA-600/R-97-0l8;A"94-5 2 3T-A-< 7 Marc h 199 7 

# Researc h an d Developmen t

EVALUATIO N O F POLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N TECHNIQUE S T O REDUC E STYREN E EMISSION S FRO M OPE N CONTAC T MOLDIN G PROCESSE S , . Volum e I , Fina l Repor t , -" " 

# Prepare d fo r

Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s


# Prepare d b y Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t Researc h Laborator

y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1-EJL

FOREWOR D Th e U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y i s charge db y Congres s wit h pro tectin g th e Nation' s land , air , an dwate r resources . Unde r

amandat e o

f nationa l • environmenta l laws , th e Agenc y strive s t o formulat e an dimplemen t action s lead

in g t o acompatibl e balanc e betwee n huma n activitie s an dth e abilit y o f natura l system s t o suppor t

an d nurtur e life
. T o mee t thi s mandate , EPA' s researc h progra mi s providin g dat aan d technica l suppor t fo r solvin g environmenta l pro blem s toda y an d buildin g ascienc e knowledg e bas e necessar y t o manag e ou r eco logica l resource s wisely , understan dho w pollutant s affec t ou r health , an d pre ven t o r reduc e environmenta l risk s i n th e future
. Th e Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t

Researc h Laborator y i s th e Agency' s cente r fo r investigatio n of

technologica l an dmanagemen t approache s fo r

reducin g risk s fro mthreat s t o huma n healt h an dth e environment
. Th e focu s of th e Laboratory' s researc h progra mi s o n method s fo r th e preventio n an dcontro l o f pollutio n t o air
. Land , water , an d subsurfac e resources ; protectio n o f wate r qualit y i n publi c wate r systems ; remediatio n o f contaminate dsite s an dgroundwater ; an dpreventio n an d contro l o f

indoo r ai r pollution
. Th e goa l o f thi s researc h effor t

i s t o catalyz e developmen t

an d implementatio n o f innovative , cost-effectiv e environmenta l technologies ; develo p scientifi c an dengineerin g informatio n neede db y EP A t o suppor t regulator y an d polic y decisions ; an dprovid e technica l suppor t an d infor

matio n transfe r

t o ensur e effectiv e implementatio n o f environmenta l regulation s an d strategies
. Thi s publicatio n ha s bee n produce da s par t o f th e Laboratory' s strategi c long

termresearc h plan
. I t i s publishe d an dmad e availabl e b y EPA' s Offic e of Re

searc h an dDevelopmen t t o assis t

th e use r

communit y an dt o lin k researcher s wit h thei r

clients
. E
. Timoth y Oppelt , Directo r

Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t

Researc h Laborator y
EP A REVIE W NOTIC E Thi s repor

t has bee n pee ran d administrativel y reviewe d b y th e U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , an d approve d fo rpublication
. Mentio n o f trad e name s o r commercia l product s doe s no t constitut e endorsemen t o rrecommendatio n fo ruse . Thi s documen t i s availabl e t o th e publi c throug h th e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Service , Springfield , Virgini a 22161
.P. 4
EPA-600/R-97-Ol8 a Marc h 199 7 

# Evaluation o

f Pollution Prevention Techniques t

o Reduc e Styrene Emissions fro m Ope n Contac tMolding Processes Volum e I, Fina l Repor t

B y Emer y J
. Kong , Mar

k A
. Bahner , Rober

t S
. Wright , andC
. Andrew Clayton Researc h Triangl e Institute P.O
. Bo x 12194 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2770 9

EPA Cooperativ e Agreemen t CR818419-0 3

EPA Projec t

Officer : Gedde s Ramsey Ai r Pollutio n Preventio n an

dContro l Divisio n National Ris k

Managemen

t Researc h Laborator

y U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1

Prepare dfo

r U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Research an

dDevelopment Washington , D C 2046 0P. 5



### Abstrac t Pollutio n preventio n option s t o reduc e styren e emissions , such a s new material s an d applicatio n equipment , ar

e commercially availabl e t o th e operator s of

open moldin g processes . However , informatio n i s needed about th e percent

reductio n i

n emission s tha

t i s achievabl e wit

h thes e options
. T o mee t thi s need , severa

l o f thes e pollutio n preventio n option s were examined
. Option s examine d were operato r

techniques , air

flo w velocitie s i

n th e sprayin g area , gel coa

t andresin formulations , and applicatio n equipment
. Styren e emissio n factor s calculate dfro mthi s tes t resul t wer e compare d wit

h th e existin g AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo r gel coat sprayup andresi n applications
. Th e stud y found tha

t using controlle dsprayin g (i.e. , reducin g overspray) , low-styren e an d styrene-suppresse d materials , an d nonatomizin g applicatio n equipmen t ca n reduc e styren e emission s from1 1 t o 5 2 percent . Facilitie s shoul dinvestigat e the applicabilit

y andfeasibilit

y o f thes e pollutio n preventio n option s t o reduc e thei r styren e emissions
. Th e calculate demissio n factor s wer e from1. 6 t o 2. 5 time s th e mid-rang e AP-4 2 emission factor s fo r th e correspondin g gel coat an d resi n application
. Thes e result s indicate tha t facilitie s usin g existin g AP-4 2 emissio n factor s to estimate emission s i n open moldin g processe s ar e likel y t o underestimate actua l emissions
.

uP. 6



### Content s Sectio n Pag e Abstrac t i i Figure s v Table s v i Acronym s and Abbreviation s vi i Conversio n Tabl e viii Acknowledgment s i x Chapte r 1 Introductio n ; 1 1. 1 Backgroun d 1 1. 2 Objective s 2 1. 3 Approac h 2 1. 4 Repor

t Outlin e 2 Reference s 3 Chapte r 2 Experimenta

l Tes t Design 4 2. 1 : Pilo t

Experiment

. 4 2. 2 Ge l Coa t Experiment

: 5 2. 3 Resi n Experiment

6 Chapte r 3 Facilit

y and Experimenta

l Setu p 8 3. 1 Tota

l Enclosure Syste

m8 3. 2 Emissio n Samplin g Location 8 3. 3 Experimenta

l Setup 1 0 3.3. 1 FRP Mol d 1 0 3.3. 2 Air

Flo w Baffl

e 1 0 3.3. 3 Glas s Vei l and Kraf t Paper to Capture Overspra

y .. : 1 0 3.3. 4 Protectiv e Equipmen t andClothin g fo

r Operator 1 2 3. 4 Resi n Propert

y Testin g Laborator

y 1 2 Chapte r 4 Material s and Equipmen t : 1 3 4. 1 Propertie s o

f Gel Coa t andResi n Material s 1 3 4. 2 Settin g o

f Gel Coa t an d Resin Applicatio n Equipment 1 5 4. 3 Reinforcement s 1 7 Chapte r 5 Determinatio n o

f Emissio n Quantitie s 1 8 5. 1 Emissio n Measuremen t Metho d1 8 5.1. 1 Determinatio n o

f Styren e Concentration s in Exhauste dAir 1 8 5.1. 2 Exhaus t

Air Flo w Rat e Measurement

2 1 5.1. 3 Emission s Determinedb y Emissio n Measuremen t Metho d2 2 5. 2 Mas s Balanc e Calculatio n Metho dUsin g Gravimetri c Measurement s 2 3
i nP. 7

Content s (continued) Sectio n Pag e Chapter 6 Tes t

Result s and Discussio n 2 7 6. 1 Distributio n of

Total Emission s Durin g Applicatio n an dCurin g Stage s 3 2 6. 2 Pilo t

Experiment

Result s 3 6 6. 3 Ge l Coa t Experiment

Result s 3 9 6. 4 Resi

n Experiment

Result s 4 3 6. 5 Compariso n of

Tes t Result s wit

h EP A AP-4 2 Emissio n Factor s 4 9 6. 6 Compariso n of

Emissio n Measuremen

t Metho dan dMas s Balanc e Calculatio n Metho d 5 2 6.6. 1 Pur

e Styren e Evaporatio n Tes t 5 2 6.6. 2 Compariso n o

f Emission s Measuredb y Tw o Tes t Method s 5 2 Chapter 7 Dat aQualit

y Issue s '. 5 8 7. 1 Summatio n of

Projec t Q A Activitie s 5 8 7. 2 RT I Interna

l Technica l SystemAudit

(TSA ) Result s 5 8 7. 3 EP A Performanc e Evaluatio n '... 5 9 Chapter 8 Conclusion s and Recommendation s 6 0 8. 1 Conclusion s 6 0 8. 2 Recommendation s 6 1 Appendixe s (i n Volum

e 2 ) A
. A Categor

y D I Qualit y Assuranc e Projec t

Pla n fo r th e Evaluatio n o f

Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s to Reduc e Styren e Emission s fro mOpe n Contac t Moldin g Processe s B
. Reichhol d Standar

d Tes t Method s C
. Verificatio n an

d Intercompariso n o

f Compresse dGa s Calibratio n Standard s D
. Summar

y o f Calibratio n Data , Calibratio n Erro r Tests , andDrif

t Check s E.
. A Summar

y o f Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an dCalculate d Emissio n Quantitie s an d Emissio n Factor s fo r th e Tes t F
. Statistical Analyse s o f Tes t Result s G
. TH C Analyze

r Evaluation : Samplin g Lin e Los s an dPressure Effec t H
. A n RT I Technica

l SystemAudi t

Repor t I
. EPA Performanc e Evaluatio n of Tota l Hydrocarbon Analyze

r

i vP. 8



### Figure s No , Pag e 3- 1 Sid e view o

f the Reichhol d Chemical s spra y boot h andth e experimenta

l setup i n apermanent

tota l enclosur e 9 3- 2 Sketc h of

amal e mold 1 1 5- 1 Dat arecordin g shee t fo r mas s balanc e calculatio n 2 6 6- 1 Distributio n o

f emission s i

n th e pilo t an dgel coa

t experiment s 3 4 6- 2 Distributio n o

f emission s in th e resi n experiment 3 5 6- 3 Typical emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r norma l an dcontrolle dgel coa

t sprayin g . . 3 7 6- 4 Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e pilo t experiment

3 8 6- 5 Typical emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r regula r an d low-VO C gel coat s 4 0 6- 6 . Typica

l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r thre e type s o

f ge l coa t spra y gun s 4 1 6- 7 Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e gel coa

t experiment

4 2 6- 8 Emissio n concentratio n profile s observe dfo r differen t resi n applicatio n technique s an d equipment

4 5 6- 9 Typica

l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r variou s resin formulation s 4 6 6-1 0 Typical emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r low-profile , nea

t BPO , andmodifie d BP O resin s 4 7 6-1 1 Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e resi n experiment : "controlle dspraying " techniqu e baselin e 5 0 6-1 2 Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e resi n experiment : "norma l spraying " techniqu e baselin e 5 1 6-1 3 Compariso n o

f mas s balanc e wit

h EP A Metho d25 A emission s measurements , durin g pure (10 0 percent

) styren e evaporatio n test s 5 4 6-1 4 Compariso n of

emissio n measuremen

t method s 5 6P. 9



### Table s No
. Pag e 2- 1 Tes t

Run s fo r Pilo t Experiment

5 2- 2 Tes t

Run s fo r Ge l Coa t Experiment

6 2- 3 Tes t

Run s fo r Resin Experiment

. 7 4- 1 Ge l Coa

t Propertie s Measure da

t Reichhol d1 3 4- 2 Resi n Propertie s Measure d a t Reichhol d1 4 4- 3 Summar

y o f Gel Coa t Equipmen

t Settin g 1 5 4- 4 Summar

y o f Resin Applicatio n Equipmen t Settin g 1 6 6- 1 Summar

y of Emissio n Measurement s andCalculate dEmissio n Factor s 2 8 6- 2 Significanc e of

Variable s Affecting Tota

l Styren e Emission s 3 1 6- 3 Distributio n of

Emission s i

n Pilo t andGe l Coa

t Experiment s 3 2 6- 4 Distributio n o

f Emission s in Resi n Experiment 3 3 6- 5 Summar

y o f Emission s fo

r Norma l andControlle dGel Coa

t Sprayin g 3 6 6- 6 Summar

y o f Emission s for
. Regula

r andLow-VO C Ge

l Coat s 3 9 6- 7 Summar

y of Emission s fo

r Resin Applicatio n Equipmen t 4 3 6- 8 Compariso n of

Emission s amon g Variou s Resi n Applicatio n Equipment an dNorma

l Sprayin g 4 4 6- 9 Summar

y of Emission s fo

r Variou s Resi n Formulation s 4 8 6-1 0 Compariso n o

f EP A AP-4 2 Emissio n Factor s andTes t Result s 4 9 6-1 1 Compariso n o

f Mas s Balanc e Metho dandEmissio n Measurement s fo r Pur e Styren e Evaporatio n Test s ... . 5 3 6-1 2 Compariso n o

f Mas s Balanc e Metho dandEmissio n Measurement s 5 5 6-1 3 Compariso n of

Mas s Balanc e andEmissio n Measuremen t Tes t Result s 5 7

v iP.1 0

-

• AA

A ANOV A AP-4 2 APPC D AS BP O CC P DCPD EP A FID FRP/ C F S HVL P IS O MAC T MEK P MM A MnTAP ND O NRMR L N V NV S ORTH O OSH A PF A Q A QAP P TH C TRI TS A VO C V S 

### Acronym s an d Abbreviation s

air-assiste d airles s analysi s o f varianc e EPA' s Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emissions Factors Ai r Pollutio n Preventio n an

dContro l Divisio n availabl e styren e benzoyl peroxid e Coo k Composite s an

dPolymer s dicyclopentadien e Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y flam e ionizatio n detector fiberglass-reinforcedplastics/composite s ful l scal e hig h volume , lo w pressur

e isophthali c aci d maximu machievabl e contro l technolog y methyl ethyl keton e peroxide methy l methacrylat

e MinnesotaTechnica

l Assistanc e Progra

m natura l draf t openin g Nationa l Ris k Managemen

t Researc h Laborator

y nonvolatil e non-vappr-suppresse d orthophthali c Occupationa

l Safet y an dHealt h Administratio n perfluoroalkoxy qualit y assuranc e Qualit y Assuranc e Project

Pla n tota l hydrocarbo n Toxic s Releas e Inventor

y technica l systemaudit volatil e organi c compound vapor-suppresse d

vi iP.1 1



### Conversio n Tabl e Th e U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y polic y i s t o expres s all measurement s i n Agency document s i

n metri c units
. I

n thi s report , however , to confor mt o industr

y convention , Englis h unit s ar e used
. Conversio n factor s fro mEnglis h to metri c unit s ar e give n below
. Englis h Unit Multipl y by 0.02831 4 (°F-32)/1. 8 0.30 4 0.092 9 3.7 9 1.8 7 0.45 4 6.89 5 0.90 7 T o Obtai n mVmi n

° C
m m 2 L/mi n

. mmH g kg kilopascal M g ftVmi n

° F f t ft 2 gal/mi n in
. H 2 0 lb psi a to n



### v mP.1 2



### Acknowledgments Durin g th e research period , th e author s receive dvaluabl e informatio n fro mBo b Lacovara o f th e Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n an dman y representative s i

n th e fiberglass-reinforce d plastics/composite s industry
. Th e information helpe dth e author s t o desig n afocuse dtest . Th e author s would lik

e to acknowledg e th e invaluabl e suppor t andassistanc e o

f th e followin g organizations :

• Reichhol d Chemical s fo r providin g aspra

y boot h an dall resi n material s fo

r th e tes t and th e laborator

y suppor t fo r ge l coa t an dresi n propertie s determinatio n

• MagnumIndustrie s fo

r providin g equipment

anda n experience doperato r

(Charle s Stard ) t o conduc t th e actua l ge l coa t an dresi n applicatio n durin g th e entire tes t perio d

• Cook Composite s an

d Polymer s fo

r providin g all ge

l coa t material s

• PP G Industries , Inc. , fo r providin g all th e fiberglas s material s fo r th e test . Withou t thei r generou s support , th e testin g describe d i n thi s repor t woul dno t

hav e bee n possible
.

I XP.1 3

Chapte r 1 Introductio n 1. 1 Backgroun d Th e ope n contac t moldin g proces s i s one o

f th e mos t common productio n processe s use d b y th e fiberglass reinforce d plastics/composite s (FRP/C ) andFR P boa t buildin g industry
. Thi s proces s i s use d t

o manufactur

e boats , bathtubs , showe

r stalls , truc k

cabs , bod y panel s fo

r recreational vehicle s and trucks , swimming pools , etc . It i s on e o f th e FRP/ C processe s tha

t consume s th e mos t

polyester resins
. I t als o ha s the greates t

potentia l o f emittin g styrene du e t o th e sprayin g equipment

use d and th e opennes s o

f th e process . Accordin g t o th e 199 0 Toxic s Releas e Inventor

y (TRI ) database , 10,600 ton s of styren e wer

e emitte dfro

mth e FRP/

C andboa t buildin g industries
. More tha n 5 0 percen

t of the tota l styren e emission s wa s emitte dfro mth e open moldin g process . Styren e i s emitte d durin g the applicatio n stag e whe n acatalyze dgel coa

t o r resin i s applie d t o th e surfac e o

f a n open mold
. Styren e continue s t o b e emitte dfro mwet gel coa t o r resi n durin g gelatio n and curing
. The ope n contac t moldin g proces s usuall y i s conducte din a facilit y wit h ampl e ventilatio n t o maintain th e ambien t styren e concentration s under th e curren t Occupationa

l Safet y and Healt

h Administratio n (OSHA) standar do f 10 0 ppm . Therefore , styren e emission s fro

mth e ope n contac t moldin g proces s ar

e difficul t to capture andcontrol
. Th e maximumachievabl e contro l technolog y (MACT ) standard s fo r th e reinforced plastics/composite s sourc e categor y an d boa t buildin g sourc e categor

y are schedule dt o b e promulgate d b y Novembe

r 15 , 1997 , andNovembe

r 15,2000 , respectively
. Fo r som e ope n contac t moldin g processes , pollutio n preventio n technique s coul db e use dt o reduc e styren e emissions
. Thes e pollutio n preventio n technique s include changin g applicatio n equipment an d environment

and usin g differen

t ge l coa t o r resin formulations
. Existin g informatio n indicate s tha tusin g nonsprayin g equipment or low-emitting/high-transfe

r efficiency spra

y guns , such a s air-assiste d airles s (AAA ) o r high-volume , low-pressur

e (HVLP) spra

y guns , ca n reduc e emission s fro

mth e applicatio n stage . Ge l coa t an dresin manufacturer s als o hav e develope d differen t gel coa t and resi n formulation s to reduc e emissions
. Th e effects o f thes e pollutio n preventio n technique s hav e no t bee n compare dsystematically
. Limite d studie s provid e som e indication s tha

t low-styren e resins ca

n reduc e emission s when compare d t o regula

r general-purpos e resin. A demonstratio n projec t entitle dReducin g Styren e Emission s i

n Fibe r Reinforce d Plastic s Operations ' wa s conducte db y th e Minnesot a Technica l Assistanc e Progra

mi n th e early 1990s
. Th e stud y foun dtha t styren e emission s from low-styren e resin s wer

e reduce d b

y 2 5 t o 4 5 percen

t compare dt o aconventiona l orthophthali c (ORTHO)-base d general-purpos e resin
. However , th e emission s measure dfromth e simulate d productio n trial s wer

e no t atypica l ope n moldin g process , andth e emission s quantifie dma y no t directl y apply t o actua

l operation s to estimate styrene emissions
. A Finlan dresearc h group 2 reports tha

t low-styren e resin reduce d tota l styrene evaporatio n b y 3 0 t o 6 0 percen t compare d t oP.1 4

standard resin
. However , their tes t wa s conducte dfo

r han dlayu p operatio n under

alaborator

y hood , and th e result s canno t b e applie dto sprayu

p operations
. 1. 2 Objective s Thi s researc h projec t

ha s thre e objectives
. Th e firs t objectiv e i s t o quantif

y andvalidate th e effectivenes s of

severa l pollutio n preventio n techniques , specifically operato r techniques , ai

r flow velocit

y i n th e sprayin g zone , differen t gel coa t andresi n formulations , andapplicatio n equipment , o

n styren e emission s fro

mth e ope n contac t moldin g process . Th e secon dobjectiv e i s to compar e amas s balanc e calculatio n metho dwit h a n emissio n measurement

metho dto quantif

y emissions
. Th e third objectiv e i s to compar e emissio n factor s calculate dfro mthi s tes t wit h th e emissio n factor s fo

r ge l coa t sprayu p andresi n application s reporte din th e U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) AP-4 2 document3 to determin e th e accurac y o f th e AP-4 2 emissio n factors
. Th e result s o

f thi s stud y ar e to b e presente dto th e FRP/ C an dboa t buildin g industrie s s o tha t individua l facilitie s ca

n identif y th e mos t

effectiv e an dpractica

l pollutio n preventio n technique s to reduc e thei r

styrene . emissions
. 1.3 Approach Thi s tes t determine d th e styrene emissio n reductio n fro mbaselin e condition s fo

r severa l pollutio n preventio n technique s o n ope n contac t moldin g processes . Th e baselin e emission s . . wer e determine d fo

r atypica l gel coa t andagenera

l purpos e resin usin g aAAA spra y gu n under typica l environmenta

l an d operatin g conditions
. Pollutio n preventio n technique s wer e evaluate d fo r ge l coa t and resin application s under th e sam e environmenta

l conditions
. Th e effectivenes s o f thes e pollutio n preventio n technique s i s determine db y comparin g tota l styren e emission s (i n grams ) and styren e emissio n factors , expresse da s th e weigh t percen t o f availabl e styren e (% AS ) and a s mas s pe r

uni t mol d surfac e are a(g/m2 )
. Th e forme r uni t (%AS ) i s th e unit

use d in EPA ' s AP-4 2 emissio n factors
. Th e EP A Ai r Pollutio n Preventio n andContro l Divisio n (APPCD ) Categor y DI qualit

y assurance.(QA ) procedure s wer e followe dt o ensur

e tha t th e dat aqualit

y i s sufficien t t o evaluate th e effectivenes s o f thes e material s andequipment
. Th e Q A projec t pla n (QAPP ) for

thi s testin g i s include d i

n Appendi x A (Volume H)
. 1.4 ReportOutlin e Thi s repor t in divide d int o tw o volumes
. Volume I document s th e planning , execution , and finding s o

f th e pollutio n preventio n techniqu e evaluatio n test . Chapte r 2 present s th e experimenta

l design
. Chapter

3 describe s th e facilit

y andth e setu

p fo r th e testing
. Chapter

4 describe s th e testin g procedure s use d t o quantif y emission s fro

mth e operation
. Chapter

5 present s th e material s an d equipmen t use din th e testing
. Chapter s 6 and7 present th e result s of th e testin g and th e associate d dat aqualit y issues , respectively
. Chapte r 8 summarize s th e conclusion s fro

mth e researc h and present s th e recommendation s to th e industry
. Volume H contain s th e appendixe s t o mi s repor t detaile dsupportin g document s tha t ar e relate dt o dat a qualit y and emissio n measurement issues
.

%P.1 5

Reference s Minnesot aOffice o

f Wast e Management
. Reducing Styrene Emissions in Fiber Reinforced

Plastics Operations. Minnesot aTechnica l Assistanc e Progra

m(MnTAP) , Minneapolis , Minnesota , 1993
. Saamamen , A.J. , R. L Miemela , T.K
. Blomqvist , an dE.M
. Nikander
. Emissio n o f Styren e Durin g the Hand Lay-u p Moldin g o

f Reinforce dPolyester
. Applied Occupation Environmental

Hygiene, 6(9) : 790-793 , Septembe r 1991
. U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Air Qualit y Plannin g andStandards
. Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Researc h Triangl e Park , NC
. p . 4.12-1 , Septembe

r 1988
.

3



## 3P.1 6


### Chapte r 2 Experimental Tes tDesig n Thi s testin g include d apilo t experiment , age

l coa t experiment , an daresi n experiment
. Fro mth e pilo t

experiment , th e linea

r air flow velocit

y i n th e sprayin g zon e an dth e sprayin g techniqu e wer

e evaluate d an

d aset o f condition s wa s selecte dfo r th e subsequen t

gel coa t an d resi n experiments
. The ge l coa t experiment

examine dtw o gel coa

t formulation s wit

h thre e piece s o f gel coatin g equipmen

t (i.e. , spra y guns)
. Th e resin experiment examine dfive resin formulation s and thre e piece s o f resi n applicatio n equipment
. Excep t fo r astyrene-suppresse d resi n wit h additiona

l wax , th e rest

o f th e gel coa

t an dresin formulation s an dapplicatio n equipment selecte d fo

r th e testin g are commerciall y availabl e to th e FRP/ C an dboa t buildin g industries
. Each o

f th e experiment s i s describe di n th e followin g subsections
. 2. 1 Pilo tExperiment Before thes e formulation s and equipment wer e examined , th e effect s o n styren e emissio n of th e ai r flo w velocit

y in th e spra

y zon e an dth e sprayin g techniqu e o f th e operato r

wer e evaluate d i n th e pilo t

experiment
. Th e pilo t

experiment

wa s conducte db y sprayin g aregula r isophthali c aci d (ISO)-base d gel coa t usin g aAAA spra

y gun . Th e ge l coa

t wa s catalyze dwit

h methy l ethy l keton e peroxid e (MEKP)
. A lo w (4 0 t o 5 0 ft/min ) andahig h (10 0 ft/min ) air flow velocit y i n th e spra

y zon e wer

e examined
. Ai r

velocitie s wer

e measure db y ahot-wir e anemometer

at severa l location s acros s th e sprayin g zone . Thi s rang e represents th e lo w an d hig h end s o f

ai r flow velocit

y foun d i n a n ope n moldin g are ao r

in aspra y boom
. Th e sprayin g techniqu e of

th e operato r

wa s evaluate db y askin g th e operato r to spra y normall y (without
. consciousl y controllin g th e spra y fa n beyon dth e mol dsurfac e andflange) an di n acontrolle d pattern . Controlle d sprayin g wa s don e b y consciousl y minimizin g overspra y beyon dth e flang e o f th e mold
. Th e effects o

f sprayin g technique s wer

e quantifie db y transfe

r efficiency , which i s th e percentag e o

f gel coa t materia l deposite don th e mol dright afte r application
. Sprayin g techniques , shap e o

f mold (mal e o r

female) , andsiz e of

moldal l affec

t th e transfer

efficiency o f th e materia

l applied
. Th e number

o f tes t run s for air flo w velocit

y andsprayin g metho dar e summarize da s follow s an d presente d i

n Tabl e 2-1
. A
. Ai r flo w velocit

y (a s measure d b y ahot-wire anemomete r acros s th e sprayin g zone ) A1
. Lo w ai r

flow velocit

y (3 0 t o 5 0 ft/min ) A2
. Hig h ai r

flo w velocit

y (9 0 t o 120 ft/min ) B
. Sprayin g metho d M1
. Norma

l techniqu e without

consciou s contro l o

f overspra y fro mflange s M2
. Controlle d sprayin g techniqu e wit h more consciou s contro l t o reduc e overspra y



## 4 -P.1 7

Tabl e 2-1
. Tes t

Run s fo r Pilo t Experimen t Ml-Norma l techniqu e M2-Controlle

d techniqu e Al-Lo w ai r

flo w velocit y 3 3 A2-Hig

h ai r flo w velocit y 3 3 Th e result s wer

e analyzed t

o determin e whether

there ar e an y difference s i

n styren e emission s resultin g fro

mdifferen t air flo w velocitie s andsprayin g techniques
. Followin g th e pilo t experiment , th e lo w ai

r flo w velocit y an dcontrolle dsprayin g techniqu e wer e selecte dfo

r th e subsequent

gel coa t an d resin experiments
. 2. 2 Ge l Coa t

Experimen t Th e gel coa

t formulation s selecte dwer

e on e regular

ISO-base dgel coat

andalow-volatil e organi c chemica

l (VOC) , isophthali c acid/neopenty l glyco l (ISO/NPG®)-base d ge l coat . Cook Composite s and Polymer s (CCP) provide dthes e tw o gel coats . Fo r th e purpos e o

f thi s testing , bot h gel coat s containe d straigh t styrene without

an y methyl methacrylat

e (MMA)
. Typical ge

l coat s contai n only alo w percentag e o f MM A whil e th e styren e content ma y rang e from3 5 t o 5 0 percent . Thi s mino r

modification allowe dth e assumptio n tha t tota l emission s quantifie dwer e styren e emissions
. A Reichhol d Superox ® 4670 9 MEK

P catalys t wa s use dan dth e catalys t

ratio s followe d thos e suggeste d by CCP
. Th e gel coa

t sprayin g equipmen

t selecte dincluded : on e AA A spra y gun wit h external catalys t mixing , on e HVL

P spra y gu n wit h interna l catalys t mixing , an

don e HVL

P spra y gu n wit h externa l catalys t mixing
. Accordin g t o th e Composite s Fabricator s Association' s industr y survey , th e AA

A externa l mixin g spra

y gu n i s th e majo

r spra y gun use db y di e industry ; : therefore , i t

i s treate d a s th e baselin e condition
. Th e AA A spra y gu n wa s compare dwit

h th e HVL P spra y gun . Th e effect s o

f interna l andexterna

l catalys t mixin g wer

e evaluate dfo r

th e HVL P spra y guns . Magnumprovide d all thre e spra y guns . A pum

p rati o of 20: 1 wa s selecte d for th e ge l coa

t pum p systems . Th e spra

y gun s were compare da t

simila r ge l coa t thicknesse s (about 1 8 t o 2 4 mil ) spraye d o

n a n FRP mold
. Th e ge l coa

t formulation s and applicatio n equipment ar e denote da s follows : A'
. Formulation s GF1
. Regula

r ISO-basedge

l coa t (baselin e condition ) GF2
. Low-VOC , ISO/NPG®-base d gel coa t B
. Equipment GE1
. AA

A spra y gu n wit h externa l catalys t mixin g (baselin e condition ) GE2
. HVL

P spra y gun wit h interna l catalys t mixin g GE3
. HVL

P spra y gu n wit h externa l catalys t mixing
. Tabl e 2- 2 show s th e numbe r o f tes t run s fo r eac h of th e ge l coa t formulatio n an d equipment combination s i

n th e ge l coa t experiment
. 5P.1 8

Tabl e 2-2
. Tes t

Run s fo r Gel Coa t Experimen t
Formulatio n GF 1 Regula

r ge l coa t GF 2 Low-VO C ge l coa t Equipmen t typ e GEl-AAA(ext

) 3 3 GE2-HVLP(int ) 3 3 GE3-HVLP(ext ) 3 3 ext=Externa l catalys tmixing . int=Interna

l catalys tmixing . 2. 3 Resi n Experimen t Th e resin experimen

t examine d five resin formulation s wit h aAA A spra

y gu n an dthre e piece s o f applicatio n equipment

wit h aregula r low-profil e resin. Th e resin formulation s selecte dwer e on e dicyclopentadien e (DCPD)-base dlow-profil e resi n catalyze d wit

h MEKP , on e DCPD-base dlow-styrene resin , on e ORTHO-base dstyrene
suppresse d resin, on

e DCPD-base d resi n catalyze dwit h benzoy l peroxid e (BPO) , andth e same ORTHO-base d styrene-suppresse d resi n wit h a n additiona

l wa x content . Al l th e resin formulation s wer

e sprayed b y aAAA spra

y gun . Reichhol dChemicals , Inc. , provide dall resi n formulation s and catalysts
. Reichhold' s Superox ® 4670 9 MEK

P solutio n ha s 9 percent

activ e oxygen . Reichhold' s Superox® 4674 4 BP O catalys t i s a4 0 percen t

BP O dispersio n i

n nonvolatil e plasticize

r tha t ha s 2. 6 percent

activ e oxygen . Th e catalys t ratio s fo r each o f th e resin s followe d thos e suggeste d b y Reichhold
. Th e piece s of

resi n applicatio n equipmen t selecte dwere on e AAA spra y gun wit h external catalys t

mixing , aflo w coate r

wit h interna l catalys t mixing , an dapressure-fe droller wit h internal catalys t

mixing
. Th e AA

A spra y gun ha s avalv e mat

allow s m e operato r

t o us e eithe r MEK P o r BPO catalys t

solution
. Th e AA

A externa l mixin g spra

y gun i s considere ddi e baselin e conditio n o

f me industry
. Th e AA

A spra y gu n wa s compare dwit

h ome r nonsprayin g equipment (i.e. , th e flo

w coate r and th e pressure-fe droller)
. Magnu mprovide dall th e equipment fo r evaluation
. A pum

p rati o o f 11: 1 wa s selecte dfo

r th e resin pum

p systems . Th e equipmen

t wa s compare d a

t simila r resi n laminate thicknesse s (abou t 7 0 t o 10 0 mil)
. Fiberglas s rovin g wa s use d fo r th e AA A spra y gun and 1.5-oz/ft 2 choppe dstran dma

t wa s use dfor

m e flo w coate

r and •pressure-fe d roller
. Tw o layer s of me choppe dstran dma

t wer e use dfor nonsprayin g lamination ; multipl e passe s of

sprayu p wer e use d t o giv e simila

r laminat e thicknesses
. Resi n formulation s an d applicatio n equipmen t ar e denote da s follows : A
. Formulation s RF1
. DCPD-base d low-profil e resi n catalyze dwit h MEK P (baselin e condition ) RF2
. DCPD-base d low-styren e resi n catalyze dwit h MEK P .RF3
. ORTHO-base d styrene-suppresse dresin catalyze dwiti i MEK P



## tnP.1 9

RF4
. DCPD-based resi n catalyze dwit h BP O RF5
. Water-emulsifie d resi n (include di n th e tes t pla n bu t th e manufacture

r withdre w fro mth e test ) RF6
. Sam

e ORTHO-base dstyrene-suppresse dresi n (RF3 ) wit h a n additiona

l 0. 1 percen t wa x B
. Equipment R E 1
. AA A spra y gu n wit h externa l catalys t mixin g (baselin e condition ) RE2
. Flow coate

r wit h interna l catalys t mixing RE3
. Pressure-fed roller

wit h interna l catalys t ihixin g RE4
. Sam

e AA A wit h externa l BP O catalys t

mixin g for

th e resi n catalyze d wit

h BP O Tabl e 2- 3 show s the numbe r of tes t run s fo r th e resin formulatio n an dequipment examine d i

n th e resi n experiment
.

Tabl e 2-3 . Tes tRun s fo r Resin Experiment
Formulatio n RF1
. DCPD-base d low-profile resi n wit h MEK P catalys t RF2
. DCPD-base d low-styrene resi n wit h MEK P catalys t RF3
. ORTHO-base d styrene
suppresse d resi n wit

h MEK P catalys t RF4
. DCPD-base d low-profile resi n wit h BP O catalys t RF6
. ORTHO-base d styrene
suppresse d resi n + 0. 1 % o f wa x wit h MEK P catalys t REl-AAA(ext ) 6 3 3
N A 3 Equipmen ttyp e RE2-flow coater(int) 3 N A N A
N A N A RE3-pressure fe d roller(int ) 3 N A N A
N A N A RE4-AA

A (ext) fo r BPO resin N A N A

• NA
3 N A
ext=Externa

l catalys t mixing
. int=Interna

l catalys t mixing
. N A = No t include d i n th e experiment
. Note : RF 5 i s awater-emulsified resin tha t wa s no t teste d becaus e the manufacture r withdre w fro

mthe test .



## IrP.2 0


### Chapte r 3 Facilit y and Experimental Setu p Th e evaluatio n tes t

wa s conducte di

n a n isolate dspra

y boot h in Reichhol dChemicals ' physica l testin g laboratory , locate d in Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina
. Thi s typ e o f

spra y boo mi s commonl

y use d i n a

n FRP/ C facility
. Reichhol dChemicals ' physica l testin g laborator

y i s use d to perfor

mtestin g fo

r thei r resi n users . I

t i s no t aproductio n facility ; therefore , th e backgroun d VOC concentratio n ca n b e minimized
. 3. 1 Tota

l Enclosur e Syste m Th e spra y boot h i s situate d i

n a n enclose droo mwit

h adoubl e doo r

leadin g to th e physica l testin g laboratory
. Th e laborator y i s air-conditioned ; therefore , th e roo mtemperature an d humidit

y wer e ver y stabl e durin g th e entir

e perio do f

testing
. Th e stabl e condition s reduce d th e variabilit

y o f temperature effect
. Mos t

facilitie s are no t

air-conditione di

n the summer , however , the

y do hav e winter

heatin g to maintain produc t quality
. Figur e 3- 1 show s th e sid e vie w of m e spra y booth
. Th e roo mi s 1 2 fee t wide , 1 9 feet high , and 1 5 fee

t deep , whic h ca

n b e considere dapermanent tota l enclosure
. Th e doubl e doo r measure s 6 fee

t wide by 7 feet

high , which ca

n b e considere dth e natura

l draf t openin g (NDO ) t o th e enclosure
. Inwar

d linea r ai r flo w velocit

y a t th e doo r (i.e. , NDO ) durin g th e testin g wa s alway s abov e 20 0 ft/min
. Th e spra y boot h an dme enclose droo mmeet

m e criteri afo

r atota l enclosure a s prescribe d in EPA Metho d204—Criteriafor an dVerificatio n of

aPermanen

t o r Temporar y Tota l Enclosure
. Therefore , th e emission s fromth e operation s in th e spra y boot h can b e assume d 10

0 percent captured
. Th e spra y boomi s 7 fee

t high , 11. 5 fee

t wide , an d7. 5 fee

t deep fro mm e fron t edg e t o tiie filter bank
. The filter

bank i s 6 feet hig h b y 1 1 fee

t wide
. Th e distanc e between th e front edg e o f th e spra y boot h t o th e doubl e doo r

i s 4 fee t 1 0 inches
. Th e air-conditione dmakeu p air flow s throug h th e doubl e door
. Th e exhaus t air flow s throug h th e filter

ban k a t th e en do f th e spra y boot h an d i s exhauste d upward by aduc t 3 4 inche s in diameter
. Th e exhaus t flo w rat e fromth e spra y boot h averaged 8,67 0 ftVmi

n durin g th e testing
. 3. 2 Emissio n Samplin g Locatio n Emissio n measurement s an d exhaus t air flow rat e were monitore dfro mth e exhaus t

duct
. Th e samplin g locatio n i s 6 diameter s downstrea mo f th e las t ben da s shown i

n Figur e 3-1
. EP A Method s 1 an

d 2 wer e use d t o determin e th e exhaus t ga s velocit

y an dvolumetri c flow rate . EP A Metho d 25 A was use d t o determin e tota l gaseou s organi c emissions
. Th e emissio n samplin g procedure s ar

e outline d in Sectio n 5.1
.P.2 1

19 "

7 " 

## o c Emissio n an d ai rflo w rat e monitorin g locatio n 2n d floo r

6'x11'(W ) Filte r 7'6 " 7'x6 " (W ) Doubl e doo r

Floo rscal e Applicatio n equipmen t (place d outsid e th e enclosur e o n a floo rscale ) Figur e 3-1 . Sid e viewof th e Reichhol d Chemical s spray boot h an d th e experimenta l

setu p i n a permanen t tota l enclosur e (19' H x 12' W x 15'L) . 9P.2 2

3. 3 Experimenta l Setu p 3.3. 1 FRPMold Thre e identical FRP mold s wer e use dfo r thi s evaluatio n test . Figure 3- 2 show s asketc h o f the mal e FR P mold
. Th e male moldha s five expose dsmoot h surface s simila

r t o arectangula

r box
. Th e mol d measure s 2 fee t high , 2. 5 fee

t long , and2 fee

t wide
. A 2-inc h wide flang e surround s th e botto mof

th e mol d fo

r eas e o f par t removal
. Th e tota

l surfac e area , includin g flange , equal s 24. 5 ft 2 (2.2 8 m2 )
. Th e mol di s constructe dof traditiona l reinforce dplastic s materia l t o represent

actua l toolin g materia

l use db y th e industry
. Thes e empt y mold s weighe d abou t 3 4 kg
. Th e mol d wa s place d on aturntabl e mounte don acar t wit h casters . Th e turntabl e allow s th e operato r

t o spra y o n all moldsurface s b y turnin g th e mol dandwithou t movin g hi s positio n t o th e downwin d location
. Th e car t allow s eas y transfe

r o f th e mol dfro

mapreparatio n are at o th e spra

y booth
. 3.3. 2 Air Flow Baffle Th e exhaus t

flow rat e fro mth e spra y boot h coul dno t

b e adjustedbecaus e th e spra y boot h ha d aconstan t

spee d exhaus t

fan
. Therefore , abaffle wa s use dbetwee n th e doubl e doo r

an dth e spraying zon e t o diver

t m e air flo w to th e side s o

f th e spra y boot h s o tha t th e ai r flo w velocit

y i n th e sprayin g zon e coul d b e reduced
. The 6.5-foot b y 4-foot baffl e was constructe dfro

mlattic e boar d on afram

e buil t fro m2-inch b

y 4-inc h studs
. It

ha s tw o additiona

l piece s measurin g 6. 5 fee t b y 2 feet o n eithe r sid e o f th e baffle
. Thes e tw o sid e piece s ca n swing ope n lik e ascreen . Tw o layer s of

15-mil-thic k

glas s veil wer

e attache dt o th e centerpiec e of th e baffle t o reduc e th e air flo w velocit y throug h th e baffle
. I

n th e pilo t experiment , th e baffl

e wa s use dt o maintai n th e lo w air flo w velocit

y and wa s removed fo

r th e hig h air

flo w velocity
. Usin g thi s baffle , th e linea r air flo w velocit y i n th e sprayin g zone ca

n b e reduce dfro

mmor e tha n 10 0 ft/min t o 4 0 ft/min
. Th e baffl e wa s use d throughout

th e ge l coa t an dresin experiment s t o maintai n alo w ai r velocit y in di e sprayin g zone . 3.3. 3 Glass Veil

and Kraft Paper to Capture Overspray Ge l coa t and resi n sprayu

p generat e overspray . T o accoun

t fo r th e material s no t

adhere d to th e mold , glas s vei l wa s use d o n th e filter

bank an dkraf t paper wa s use do n th e groun dsurfac e and side wall s t o captur e overspray . Th e vei l i s 1 5 mil s thic k o f A-typ e glas s wit

h non-styrene
solubl e binder
. Tw o layer s o f th e vei l wer

e use do n th e filte

r bank
. Th e tes t

result s showe d ma

t almos t all airborn e droplet s wer

e trappe do n th e first

laye r o f veil
. Th e kraf

t paper use dfo r ground cover

wa s 50 #weight
. Thes e vei l an dkraf t paper s wer

e replace dever

y tes t ru n s o ma

t overspra y for eac h tes t run coul d b e accounte dfor accurately
.

1 0
IOP.2 3

2 " flang e surroundin g th e botto m o f th e mol d t o eas e par

t remova l
Figur e 3-2 . Sketc h o f a mal e mold .

1 1 

### 1 \P.2 4

3.3. 4 Protective Equipment and Clothing forOperator Th e operato r

wor e arespirato r

wit h activate dcarbon cartridge s t o protec t hi mfro m exposur e t o styren e durin g th e applicatio n stag e o f ates t run . Th e operato r

als o wor e safet y glasse s a t al l times
. I

n orde r to account

for an y material s tha

t might com e int o contac t

wit h th e operator , clea

n disposabl e gloves , coveralls , andshoecover s wer e use din eac h tes t

mn . Thi s protectiv e gea

r wa s weighed befor

e an d afte r th e tes t m n t o determin e th e amoun

t o f material s o

n them
. 3. 4 Resi n Propert

y Testin g Laboratory Reichhol d Chemical s ha s aresi n propert y testin g laborator

y locate di

n th e same buildin g a s th e spra y booth
. Th e laborator

y ha s all th e instrumen

t an dequipment

necessar y t o determin e th e styren e content s and curing characteristic s fo r th e ge l coa t andresin formulations
. Reichhol d personne l followe d thei r

standar d procedure s t o measur

e propertie s fo r

ever y gel coa t andresin formulatio n examine d i

n the test . Thes e Reichhol dStandar dTes t Procedure s ar

e No
. 18-001 , Determinatio n of

Non-Volatil e Conten t

o f Polyeste r Resins ; No
. 18-021 , Determinatio n of Brookfiel d Viscosit

y & Thixotropi c Inde x o

f Polyeste r Resins ; No
. 18-501 , Determinatio n o f Roo mTemperature Gel , Tim e t o Peak , andPea

k Exother mCharacteristic s of

Polyme r Resin ; an d No
. 18-152 , Determinatio n of Stati c Styren e Emission s fo r Complianc e wid

i SCAQM D Rul e 1162
. Copie s o f

thes e Reichhol d standardtes t procedure s ar

e provide din Appendi x B (Volum e n)
.

1 2 ) 2 -P.2 5



### Chapte r 4 Material s an d Equipmen t 4. 1 Propertie s o f

Ge l Coa tand Resi n Material s Th e propertie s o

f th e ge l coat s an dresin s wer

e analyze db

y Reichhol dpersonne l in thei r laborator y usin g Reichhol d standar

d tes t methods
. Thes e propertie s are show n i n Tabl e 4- 1 fo

r ge l coat s an d Tabl e 4- 2 fo

r resins
. A larg e sampl e (about 20 0 g ) was collecte dfo

r eac h materia

l whe n i t wa s firs t use d an d asmalle r sampl e (abou t

2 0 g ) wa s collecte dwhe

n th e material wa s las t used
. A t th e en d o f

th e testing , th e larg e sample s were analyze dfo r th e liste dpropertie s an d th e small sample s fo

r percent nonvolatil e (%NV)
. Th e final %N V measuremen

t wa s t o verif

y whethe r th e materia

l los t styren e ove

r the tes t perio do r not . The results indicate dtha t n o noticeabl e styren e wa s los t fro mth e containe

r becaus e prope

r procedure s wer

e use dt o minimiz e styrene evaporatio n loss
. Generally , m

e measure d propertie s wer

e i n agreemen

t wit h th e propertie s liste din th e manufacturers ' dat asheets
. However , majo r difference s wer

e foun dfo r m e low-VO C gel coat , th e low-styren e resin , and th e BPO resin
. A t th e same catalys t

ratio , the measure dcu p gel time fo r th e low-VO C ge l coa

t (2 7 min) i s longe

r tha n CCP' s liste dge

l time (14-1 7 min)
. Measure d ge l time fo r low-styren e resi n (3 0 min ) i s als o longer tha n atypica l ge l time (1 5 min ) liste di

n th e Reichhol d dat asheet
. Th e longe r ge l time might

hav e a n effec t o n tota l emission s becaus e di e we t surfac e had alonger

tim e to emit

styrene . Tabl e 4-1 . CC P produc tcod e (color

) Density, ib/ga

l % NV , averag

e (range ) % Styren e (by difference

) Viscosity , cp s (LV

F # 4 @ 6 0 rpm

) Thi x inde x Catalys tSuperox8 No . an

d typ e Catalys tratio , weigh

t% Cu p ge l time, mi n Tota l tim e t o peak, mi n Pea k exotherm, °F Rul e 116 2 static emissions , g/m 2 Ge l Coa tPropertie s Measured a

tReichhol d GF l Regula r gel coa t 944-W-005S P (base white

) 10.6-10. 9 61.3(61.1 : 61.4 ) 38. 7 ' 3,04 0 6. 1 4670 9 MEK

P 1. 8 1 7 3 5 353 13 3 GF 2 Low-VO C ge l coa t 962-WA-196S P (pink

) 11.3-11. 6 74. 6 (74.6-74.7 ) 25. 4 2,97 0 3. 9 4670 9 MEK

P 1. 8 2 7 5 1 25 1 8 3 1 3 

## ) 3Reichhold' s Polylite® No
.

Density , lb/ga

l % NV , averag e (range ) % Styren e (b y difference ) Viscosity , cp s (Brbokfiel d LV F # 3 @ 6/6 0 rpm) Thi x inde x Catalys t Superox® No
. and typ e Catalys t ratio , weigh

t % Cu p ge l time , min Tota l tim e t o peak , mi

n Pea k exomerm , ° F Rul e 116 2 stati c emissions , g/m 2 Tabl e 4- 2 RF 1 Low profil e 33233-0 5 9. 0 61. 7 (60.9-62.2 ) 38. 3 58 5 3. 5 4670 9 MEK P 1.5 2 0 3 1 33 3 69. 0 , . Resi n Propertie s Measure d a tReichhol c

RF 2 Low styren e 33234-1 7 9. 2 64. 7 (63.8-65.5 ) 35. 3 42 1 2. 3 4670 9 MEK P 1. 4 3 0 4 0 31 6 73. 6 RF 3

Styrene suppresse d 33099-0 8 9. 1 56. 5 (56.5-56.6 ) 43. 5 53 4 2. 6 4670 9 MEK P 1. 5 1 7 3 2 30 9 54. 0 RF 6

Styrene suppressed * 0.1 % wa x 33099-0 8 9. 1 56. 7 (56.7-56.7 ) 43. 3 39 4 2. 5 4670 9 MEKP 1.5 1 7 3 3 31 8 49. 4 1

RF 4 Nea tBP O
33146-1 7 9. 1 57. 4 (57.3-57.4 ) 42. 6 16 3 2. 2 4674 4 BP O 2. 1 (slo w gel ) 3 0 3 9 23 1 160. 9 RF 4 (modified )

BPO+0.5 % fum e silic a a s thickenin g agen t 33146-1 7 9. 1 57. 4 (57.3-57.4 ) 42. 6 38 6 3. 8 4674 4 BP O 3. 1 (fas t gel ) 1 7 2 6 27 7 96. 6

h o 0 )P.2 7

When th e nea

t (unfilled ) BP O resi n wa s firs t used , i t ha damuch longer

ge l tim e (3 0 min ) tha n th e liste d ge

l tim e (1 2 min)
. It s viscosit

y was als o low , s o th e resi n di dno t sta y o n th e mol d unti l i t cured
. Afte

r tw o tes t run s o n th e nea

t BP O resin , a0. 5 weight

percent p f fum e silic awa s adde d t o thicke n th e resin and tiie BP O catalys t rati o wa s increase dfro

m2. 1 t o 3. 1 percen

t t o shorte n th e ge

l time
. Tw o additiona

l tes t mn s wer e conductedfo

r th e modifie dBP O resin
. Th e tes t result s fo r nea t BP O resi n and modifie dBP O resin wer e analyze dseparately
. 4. 2 Settin g o f

Ge l Coatan d Resi n Applicatio n Equipment Th e applicatio n equipment wa s prepare dfo

r eac h tes t m n in aseparate spra

y booth
. A

n experience d operator

fro mMagnumIndustrie s operate dth e applicatio n equipment fo r th e entire 5-week period
. H e adjusted th e settin g o n th e equipmen t i n th e preparatio n are aunti l agoo d spray patter

n wa s acquired
. Then th e equipmen t wa s disconnecte dfromth e centra l compressed

ai r line , move d to th e spra

y boot h wher e th e tes t was conducted , an dreattached to th e centra l compressed-ai r

line
. Th e settin g o n th e equipmen t wa s recorde dafte

r th e applicatio n wa s completed
. Table s 4- 3 and 4- 4 sho w th e rang e o f th e settin g fo

r th e gel coa

t andresin applicatio n equipment , respectively
. Tabl e 4- 3 show s tha t th e low-VO C gel coat

require dmor

e air pressure an d large r spra y tip s to achiev e aspra

y patter n simila r t o the regula

r gel coat . Tabl e 4-3 . Summar y o f Ge l Coa tEquipmen tSettin g Equipmen ttyp e Magnu mmode l No
. Pum p rati o Typ e o f ge l coa t Ai r suppl y pressure , ps i Catalys t atomizin g pressure , ps i Spra y ti p No
. Catalys t rati o setting , volume % Deliver rate , g/mi n Deliver rate , gal/min GE1-AA A (externa l

catalys tmixing ) ATG-350 0 20: 1 GF l Regula r 42-4 4 2 6 41 8 2. 1 784-79 4 0.1 6 GF 2

Low-VO C 52-6 0 2 6 518/71 8 2.1-2. 4 746-83 9 0.14-0.1 6 GE2-HVL P (interna l

catalys tmixing ) > HVLPF-5500 20: 1 GF l Regula r 38-4 5 N A 41 8
. 2. 1 670-76 0 0.14-0.1 6 GF2

Low-VO C 60-6 8 N A 518/71 8 2.1-2. 4 779-93 3 0.15-0.1 8 GE3-HVL P (externa l

catalys tmixing ) HVLPF-550 0 20: 1 GF l Regula r 42-4 4 2 6 41 8 2. 1 780-80 9 0.16-0.1 7 GF2

Low-VO C 54-6 4 2 6 518/71 8 2.1-2. 4 774-92 7 0.15-0.1 8



### 1 5
1<S" ~Equipmen ttyp e

Magnu mmodel No
. Pum p rati o Typ e of resi n

Ai r supply pressure , ps i Catalys t atomizin g pressure , ps i Spra y ti p No
. Catalys t rati o setting , volume % Deliver rate , g/min Deliver rate , gal/min Tabl e 4-4 . Summar y o f Resi n Applicatio n Equipmen tSettin g

REl-AA A (external MEK P catalys t mixing ) ATC-400 0 11: 1 RF 1 low

profil e 37-3 9 18-1 9 44 3 1.5-1. 6 2332

- 255 9 0.57-0.6 3 RF 2

low

styren e 37-3 8 1 8 44 3 1. 6 2316

- 233 5 0.56-0.5 6 RF 3

styrene
suppress . 37-4 1 17-1 8 44 3 1.5-1. 6 2254

- 240 9 0.55-0.5 8 RF 6

styrene
suppress . + wa x 36-3 8 18-2 6 44 3 1. 6 2286

- 256 9 0.55-0.6 2 RE4-AA A (external

BP O catalys tmixing ) ATC-400 0 11: 1 RF4 nea t BP O
2 6 43-4 5 44 3 2.0-3. 0 2065

- 237 6 0.50-0.5 8 RF4

BP O wit h thickene r 24-2 5 41-4 3 44 3 3. 5 2205-226 9 0.53-0.5 5 RE2-Flo w

coate r (interna l catalys t mixing ) Flo-600 0 11: 1 RF 1 low-profil e
40-4 2 NA # 2 1.5-1. 6 3388-360 5 0.83-0.8 8 RE3-Pressure fe d rolle r (interna l catalys t mixing ) MR D resi n rolle r 11: 1 RF 1 low-profil e
40-4 2 N A NA 1. 6 No t measure d No t measure dP.2 9

4. 3 Reinforcement s PPG Industries , Inc. , provide d all th e reinforcement s fo r th e testing
. The HYBON

® 70 0 HTX rovin g materia

l wa s use d fo

r resin sprayu

p an daGP M choppe dstran dma

t (1. 5 oz/ft

2 ) wa s use d fo r nonspraying resi n lamination
. The choppedstran dma t wa s cu t into prope

r size s befor

e th e tes t s o tha t the operato r

coul d appl

y th e mat , piec e by piece , on th e mol dsurface
.



### 1 7 

## IT -P.3 0


### Chapte r 5 Determinatio n o f

Emissio n Quantitie s Tw o separate tes t

method s wer

e use dt o quantif

y emission s fro

mth e test . Th e first

tes t metho d wa s a

n emissio n measuremen

t metho dtha

t use s EP A Medio d 25 A t o determin e areal

time , continuou s emissio n concentratio n i n th e stac k

an dEP A Method s 1 throug h 4 t o determin e th e exhaus t

flow rate . Becaus e th e enclose droo mwit h th e spra y boot h met th e criteri afo

r atota l enclosure , th e emission s withi n th e enclose droo mcoul db e assumed10 0 percent captured
. Th e emissio n quantitie s wer

e calculate d fro

mth e produc t

o f a n averag e emissio n concentratio n an d a n averag e exhaus t

flow rate durin g ates t

run . Th e secon d tes t

metho d wa s amas s balanc e calculatio n metho dusin g gravimetri c measurements . Thi s metho d measure s th e weight s of all materials , overspray , mold , andpar t a t th e beginnin g an d en d of

each tes t run . Th e differenc e betwee n th e tota l initial weigh

t and th e tota l fina l weigh t i s considere d th e weigh

t los s du e t o emissions
. Befor e and durin g th e tes t

campaign , pur e styrene evaporatio n test s wer e use dt o compare th e emissio n quantitie s determine dby thes e tw o tes t methods
. Thi s involve dmeasurin g weigh t los s du e t o evaporatio n fro mterr y clot h towel s soakedi

n pur e styren e usin g ahigh

precisio n scale
. Th e measure d weigh t los s wa s compare dwit

h emission s determine db y th e emissio n measuremen t

method
. I

f th e result s are close , i t

implie s tha

t th e emissio n measurement metho d wa s accurate . Bot h tes t mediod s determin e tota

l emissions
. Becaus e thes e ge l coa t andresin material s containe d onl y styren e monomer , th e tota l emission s measure dcoul db e considere dstyren e emissions
. Ome r

VO C emission s wer

e exclude dfro

mth e surroundin g environment
. Th e backgroun d (i.e. , baseline ) VO C concentratio n in th e laborator y was measure dbefor

e eac h tes t ru n an d subtracte d fro mth e averag e emissio n concentratio n s o th e net increas e i n concentratio n coul d b e attribute d t o th e test . A tes t m n bega n when gel coa

t o r resin applicatio n starte d and ende d whe n curin g wa s complete an d th e monitore dconcentratio n returne dt o th e baselin e concentration
. Mos t

of th e tes t mn s laste dfro

m6 0 t o 9 0 minutes , dependin g on th e tim e require d fo r

complet e curing
. Tw o tes t rans fo r th e nea t BP O resin wer

e longer tha n 10 0 minute s becaus e o f

unusuall y lon g curin g time
. 5. 1 Emissio n Measuremen tMetho d Th e emissio n measurement metho ddetermine s styrene concentration s in th e exhaus t air and exhaus t

air flow rate , then use s thes e results t o calculat e tota l emission s durin g th e tes t

run . 5.1. 1 Determination of

Styrene Concentrations in Exhausted Air Styren e emission s i n th e exhaus t stac k o f th e total enclosur

e wer e measure daccordin g to EP A Metho d 25 A a s give n in Code of Federal Regulations, Chapte

r 40 , Par t 60
. Th e 1 8 

## If cP.3 1

measurement s were mad e usin g aRatfisc h Instrament s model RS55CA tota l hydrocarbo n (THC ) analyzer
. Thi s analyze r

ha s aflame ionizatio n detecto r (FID ) tha t respond s t o hydrocarbon s approximately i

n proportio n t o th e numbe

r o f carbo n atom s enterin g th e detector
. Th e total hydrocarbo n measurement s ca n b e attribute dt o th e styren e emission s becaus e th e onl y hydrocarbo n emissio n sourc e wa s th e ge l coa t o r resin applicatio n an

dstyrene i s th e onl y monome r use d in th e formulations
. Measurement s wer e made immediately befor

e gel coat o r resi n applicatio n starte d t o determin e th e level s o f backgroun dhydrocarbon s (e.g. , natura l methan e and othe r

trac e VOCs ) in ambien

t air
. Thes e backgroun dlevel s wer e subtracte dfro

m th e level s measure d durin g th e tes t run . Th e TH C analyze r

wa s connecte d t o th e exhaus t stac k by asamplin g lin e fabricate dfrom a12-foot lengt h o f 1/4-inc h ID perfluoroalkox

y (PFA ) Teflo n tubing
. Th e tubin g wa s cappe d insid e th e exhaus t

stack
. Eight

hole s wer e drille di n th e tubin g a

t variou s point s acros s th e 34

- inc h diamete

r of th e exhaus t

stac k t o obtain arepresentativ e sampl e o f it s contents . Sampl e wa s draw n through th e samplin g lin e int o the analyze

r a t aflow rat e o f 7 L/min
. Mos t

o f th e sampl e wa s vente d t o th e atmosphere , but asmall portio n o f

me sampl e entere dth e FID throug h a capillary
. A backpressure regulator maintaine daconstant

sampl e pressure , whic

h maintaine d a constan t sampl e flow rat e i n th e capillary
. Th e sampl e wa s oxidize dby ahydrogen/air flame an d th e ionize d carbo n atom s produce d i n th e flam e wer e detecte dby a

n electrometer
. Th e outpu t

signal ( 0 to 1 0 V dc ful

l scal e [FS] ) fro

mth e analyze

r was recorde db y a

n Omeg aEngineerin g mode l OM-17 0 microprocessor-base dportabl e dat alogge r an daHewlett

- , Packar d mode l 7132 A stri p char

t recorder
. Bot

h instrument s wer

e operate do

n thei r 0

- f o 10- V F S ranges . Th e dat alogger recorded th e voltage s a

t 2-secon d interval s throughout eac h tes t run . A t th e end o f eac h day , th e voltag e measurement s wer e transferre dt o alaptop computer containin g aspreadshee t

program . Th e stri p char

t recorder provide davisua

l indicatio n of

th e styren e emission s measurement s durin g each tes t ran an dprovide dphysica

l documentatio n fo

r each tes t ran. . Th e TH C analyzer

wa s operate d o

n Rang e 2 ( 0 t o 20 0 pp mstyrene ) fo r mos t of th e tes t rans, bu t was operate d o n Rang e 1 ( 0 to 2 0 ppmstyrene ) fo r thre e resin experimen

t rans in whic h lo w styren e concentration s wer e expected
. Thes e range s ar e als o equivalen

t to 0 t o 5 3 pp m propan e an

d 0 t o 53 3 pp mpropane . Th e THC analyze r wa s calibrate dprio r

to eac h tes t

ran usin g compresse d ga s calibratio n standards
. A calibratio n drif t check wa s don e a

t th e en do f eac h tes t ran. Styren e calibratio n standard s coul dno t b e use ddirectly fo

r routin e calibration s durin g tes t

rans becaus e o f

cylinde r pressur e limitation s associate dwit h styrene' s dewpoint
. Instead , propan e in ai r

calibratio n standard s without such pressur

e limitation s wer

e use dfo r th e routin e calibrations
. Th e calibratio n gase s wer e 16,27,45,160,267 , and45 3 pp mpropane . Thes e calibratio n gase s corresponde d to 3 0 percent , 5 0 percent , and8 5 percen t o f th e tw o full

scal e ranges , a s calle d fo r

i n EP A Metho d25A
. Calibratio n dat aobtaine d fro mmeasurement s o

f propan e calibratio n standard s coul db e use d for tiie styren e emission s determinatio n becaus e RT I develope dacorrectio n facto r fo r 1 9

^P.32
_

convertin g propan e concentration s into th e equivalent styrene concentration s prio r t o th e testing
. A styren e molecul e ha s eight carbo n atom s andapropan e molecul e ha s thre e carbo n atoms . A s a firs t approximation , on e woul d expec t di e propane-to-styren e correctio n facto r t o equal di e rati o o f th e carbo n atom s (i.e. , 8/

3 = 2.667)
. Th e measure dpropane-to-styren e correctio n factor wa s 2.68 6 fo r th e 0

- to 200-pp mstyren e rang e on th e TH C analyzer
. Thi s measure dcorrectio n factor was use d i n emissio n calculations
. Th e propan e calibratio n standard s wer e verifiedby RT I usin g propan e analytica l referenc e standards
. They were intercompare dwit h styrene calibratio n standard s t o obtai n th e propane-to-styren e correctio n factor
. Th e styren e calibratio n standard s were verifie dby RT I usin g styren e analytica

l referenc e standards
. Th e detail s o f thes e measurement s ar e presente d i n Appendi x C (Volume II)
. L i general , six propan e calibratio n standards , includin g di e high-level , mid-level , an d low-leve l calibratio n standard s fo r the selecte danalyze

r range , andzero air

wer e measure d durin g th e calibratio n fo

r th e firs t tes t ran o f each day
. Th e thre e propan e calibratio n standard s fo r di e selecte d analyzer

rang e and zero ai r

were measure ddurin g th e calibration s fo r subsequent tes t runs . Calibratio n dat afo

r on e tes t ran wer e usedfo r th e precedin g tes t

run' s drif t check , excep t for th e las t tes t ru n of di e da y whe n aseparat

e drif t check wa s conducted
. Th e analyzer' s zer o an d spa

n pot s were no t

adjuste d durin g th e entire 5-wee k testin g period
. Th e detail s o f tiiese calibration s ar e presente d i n Appendi x D (Volume D)
. Th e propan e calibratio n standard s were connecte dt o th e analyzer' s calibratio n por t vi aa h 8-foo t lengt h of 1/8-inc h ID PF A Teflo n tubing
. A

n in-lin e pressur

e regulato r

set t o 5 psi g and a needl e valv e maintaine d aconstant flo w rate in th e tubing
. Quick-connec t fitting s wer

e use d t o switc h fromon e calibratio n standard t o th e next . Th e analyze r require d1 5 minute s o r

mor e t o yiel d astabl e analyzer

respons e fo

r th e firs t standardto b e analyze ddurin g acalibration , However , di e stabilizatio n perio d fo r subsequent

calibratio n standard s wa s only afe w minutes
. Th e caus e fo r

thi s lon g initial stabilizatio n perio dwa s neve r determined , bu t

i t represente donl y a mino r impedimen t

t o th e calibrations
. Afte r di e voltag e reading s fro

mth e styren e emission s measurement s were transferre d t o th e computer-base d spreadsheet , they wer e converte dinto a

n averag e voltag e fo

r th e tes t ran. Th e voltag e associate d wit h di e backgroun dair

measuremen

t fro mth e star t of th e tes t run wa s subtracte d t o yiel d anet

averag e voltage
. A

n averag e styrene concentratio n fo r th e tes t run wa s obtaine d b y multiplyin g th e ne t averag e voltag e b y astyrene calibratio n factor
. Thi s calibratio n facto r wa s obtaine d b y dividin g th e equivalent styren e concentratio n fo

r th e high-leve l calibratio n standard b y th e differenc e betwee n th e voltage s fro mth e measurement s o f

th e high-leve l calibratio n standar d and zer o air
. RT I checke d fo

r concentratio n stratificatio n insid e di e exhaus t stack durin g apure styren e evaporatio n tes t

b y samplin g th e exhaus t

strea macros s tw o perpendicula

r traverses . Thes e measurements , were made a t 1 0 point s on eac h travers e a t distance s correspondin g t o equa l 2 0

'2^P.3 3

subdivision s o

f th e exhaus t

stack' s area . The samplin g lin e was modifieds o tha t sampl e wa s collecte d fro

masingl e poin

t i n th e exhaus t

stack
. Th e styrene concentratio n wa s no t stabl e durin g thi s pure styren e evaporatio n test , an dth e analyze

r respons e decline dfro

m2.1 7 t o 1.3 2 V
. Leas t square s regressio n wa s use d to fit thes e dat at o a

n exponentia

l deca y curv e wit

h a coefficien t o f determinatio n (i.e. , r-squared) equa l to 0.98
. Individua

l measurement s deviate d fro mth e regressio n curv e by a n averag e o

f 1. 6 percent

o f the predicte dvalue
. Th e maximum deviatio n wa s 5. 2 percent . Thi s statistica l analysi s suggest s tha

t ther e i s littl e concentratio n stratificatio n i

n th e exhaus t

stack
. 5.1. 2 Exhaust

Air Flow Rate Measurement Ai r velocit y i n th e 34-inch diamete

r circula r exhaus t stac k o f th e tota l enclosure wa s measure d accordin g t o EP

A Method s 1 an

d2 a s given i

n Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40 , Par t 60
. Th e measurement s wer e made usin g aDwye

r serie s 16 0 stainles s stee l pito t tub e (standard type ) and aDwye r serie s 200 0 Magneheli c differentia l pressur e gauge . Th e Magneheli c gaug e wa s compare d t o a n incline dmanomete

r ( aprimar y standard)
. Magneheli c readings wer

e 9 5 percent

(0.95 ) o f manomete

r readings
. Thi s 0.9 5 correctio n factor wa s use d i

n ai r flow rate calculations
. Th e velocit y was measure da

t adistanc e o

f approximately five t o si x stac k diameter s downstrea

mo f tw o right-angl e bend s i

n the exhaus t

stack
. Velocit y acros s tw o perpendicula

r traverse s wa s measuredweekly
. Thes e measurement s wer e mad e a t 1 2 point s o

n each travers e a

t distance s correspondin g t o equa l subdivision s of

th e exhaus t stack' s area . Thes e dat awer e recorded i n adat asheet

an dwer e transcribe dint o a computer-base d spreadsheet fo r datareduction
. I

n general , th e weekly velocit y measurement s indicate d tha

t di e exhaus t

air flow rate remaine drelatively constan t fo r th e entire 5-wee

k testin g period
. Th e averag e exhaus t ai r flo w rate was 8,68 5 ftVmi

n fo r th e entir e testin g perio dan d individua l weekly measurement s varie dfro m8,35 8 t o 9,03 4 ft 3 /min
. Th e Reynold s number fo r th e ai r flo w i n th e 34-inc h diameter exhaus t stac k wa s 3.97x10 s , which place s th e flow in th e turbulen t regime
. Therefore , an

y concentratio n stratification s wer e not likely t o persis t

fo r lon g distance s insid e th e exhaus t stack
. Thi s conclusio n i s consisten t wit h th e negativ e result s of

th e concentratio n stratificatio n measurements . RT I checke d fo

r off-axi s flow o n on e occasio n b y rotatin g th e pito t tub e insid e th e exhaus t stac k and recordin g th e velocit

y hea da t variou s angles
. Th e result s o f thes e measurement s indicat e tha t off-axi s flow wa s no t

aproble min th e exhaus t

stack
. Velocit y head (Ap ) measurement s a t th e centerlin e o

f th e exhaus t

stack wer e usuall y performe d a

t 15-minut e interval s durin g eac

h tes t run . Th e Magneheli c differentia l pressur e gaug e wa s use d to obtai n thes e measurements . I n general , di e centerlin e A

p remaine drelativel y constan t throughou t

eac h tes t ru n although ther

e wer e short-ter mfluctuation s o n th e Ap
. Th e 15

- minute dat awer

e recorde d i

n adat asheet

an di n alaborator

y notebook

durin g eac h tes t

ru n and were transcribe d int o acomputer-base d spreadsheet fo r dat areduction
. Th e averag e centerlin e A p fo r ates t ran wa s use d a s ascalin g facto r fo r calculatin g a

n estimate daverag e exhaus t air 2 1
2 (P.3 4

flow rat e fo

r tha t tes t run . I n general , th e averag e centerlin e A p remaine drelatively constant fo r th e entir e testin g period
. Individua l value s range dfro

m0.10 9 to 0.13 3 inch o

f wate r wit h a n overal l averag e valu e o f

0.12 0 inch o

f water . Th e exhaus t

flow rate durin g th e tes t

ru n wa s calculate daccordin g t o th e followin g formula : Q ru n = [av g (A

p run) 0 7(A p weekly) 0 5 ] x Q weekl y (5-1 ) where Q ran = exhaus t flow rate durin g ates t

ru n (acfm ) Q weekly = exhaus t

flow rat e determine db y weekl

y velocit y travers e (acfm

) av g (A p run) 0 5 = averag e square roo t o f 15-minut e Ap s recorde da

t centerlin e durin g th e tes t

ru n (A p weekly) 0 5 = squar

e roo t o f Ap s recorde ddurin g weekl y velocit y traverse . Th e relativ e humidit

y and temperatur

e o f th e ai r i n the spra y boot h wer e measure dby a slin g psychrometer

durin g eac h tes t

ran. The measurement s showedtha t th e ambien

t air temperature an d relativ e humidit y were ver y stabl e at 73± 1 ° F and58± 2 percent , respectively
. 5.1. 3 Emissions Determined by Emission Measurement Method Styren e emissio n quantit

y (Em ) fo r eac h tes t run was calculate dby th e followin g equation : Em,l b = 2.6xlO- 9 xQ.xMWxCx T (5-2 ) Em, g =1.18xlO" 6 xQxMWxCx T (5-3 ) where 2.6 x 10' 9 , 1.18

x 10" 6 = conversio n factor s t o standar dcondition s (68 ° F and29.9 2 inche s mercury ) i n Englis h an dmetri c units , respectively Q = averag e exhaus t air flo w rat e (actua l cubi c fee t pe r minute ) M W = molecula r weigh t of styren e (104 ) C = averag e styren e emissio n concentratio n durin g th e entire tes t ru n (ppmv actual ) T = duratio n of tes t ran (minutes)
. Usin g th e emissio n concentratio n profil e andth e exac t duratio n of

th e applicatio n stag e (Ta) , a n averag e emissio n concentratio n (Ca ) coul db e calculate dfo

r th e applicatio n stag e i

n eac h tes t run . Th e tota

l emission s durin g th e applicatio n stag e (Ea ) coul db e calculate dfro

mth e sam

e equation :
2 2 Q.-7 -P.3 5

Ea,l b = 2.6xlO" 9 xQxMWxCaxT a(5-4 ) Ea, g irl.lSxlO-'xQxMWxCaxT a(5-5 ) Th e differenc e between tota l emission s andemission s durin g th e applicatio n stag e i s th e emission s fro

mth e wet-out

stag e (fo r resin lamination) , stagnan

t (curing ) stage , andoverspray . 5. 2 Mas s Balanc e Calculatio n Metho dUsin g Gravimetri c Measurement s Th e mas s balanc e calculatio n medio d involve s weighin g al l materials , overspray , mold , and par t i n th e beginnin g an

d a t di e end o f ates t ran. Th e differenc e betwee n th e tota l initia l weigh t an d th e tota

l final weigh

t i s th e weigh

t los s du e t o emissions
. Weight losse s du e to styrene emission s wer e determine dusin g tw o floor-type , high

precisio n scale s (Sartoriu s Corporation , Mode l F150S)
. Th e scale s hav e a150,000- g capacit y an d 1- g readability
. Thes e tw o scale s wer e calibrate dwit

h subsequent

addition s o f

standard weight s - 1 g , 5
. g , 1 0 g , 2 0 g , 5 0 g , 10 0 g , 50 0 g , 1,00

0 g , an d2,00 0 g - daily
. Th e calibratio n procedure s wer

e performe d on a

n empt y scal e andwit

h aheavy objec t

(i.e. , a n empt y mold ) o n th e scale
. Thi s dua

l calibratio n procedur

e ensure dtha

t th e scale s ha dth e same sensitivit y in th e rang e o f weight s encountere d i

n th e tests . Thes e calibratio n procedure s showe dtha t th e scale s precisel y indicate di e standar d weight s added
. Scal e drif t wa s checke dperiodicall y b y leavin g a 1,000- g o r 2,000- g standar

d weigh t on th e scal e overnight
. Th e drif t check showe dtha

t thes e tw o scale s wer

e ver y stabl e and di e overnigh

t drift s wer e witiiin ± 2 g . Th e firs t scal e wa s use d to measur

e th e initia l an dfina l weight s o

f gel coa t o r resin materials , catalyst , fiberglass reinforcement , glas s veil , protectiv e clothing , andkraf t paper fo r groun d cover . A secon d scal e wa s specificall y use dfo r di e mol dan dcart . Th e mol dandcar t wer e lef t o n di e second scal e fo

r di e entire tes t

ran. Th e gravimetri c measuremen t procedure s fo

r di e mas s balanc e calculatio n medio dare outline d a s follows : A
. Befor

e Applicatio n 1
. Determin e th e initia

l weigh t o f groun dcove

r (e.g. , kraf t paper) an dthi n glas s vei l (use d t o capture overspra

y droplet s on filte

r bank ) - W1
. 2
. Determin e di e initia

l weigh t o f tool s an dotiie r item s (e.g. , wet-ou t

rollers , gloves , booties , coverall ) ma

t wil l come int o contac t

wid i th e material s durin g th e applicatio n - W2
. 3
. Determin e th e initia

l weight s o

f material s (i.e. , gel coat , resin, catalyst , fiberglas s roving , o r choppe d stran d mat ) t o b e use dfo r par t production
. Weig h tiie pum p
2 3 

## 2 5P.3 6

systemincludin g gel coa

t o r resin container

o n th e first

scal e t o determin e th e initial weigh t o f gel coa t or resin materia

l an dcatalys t - W3
. 4
. Determin e th e initia

l weigh t of th e empt y mol dwit

h th e car t andprotectiv e skir

t on th e secon d scal e - W4
. B
. Preparatio n fo

r Gel Coa t o r Resin Applicatio n 1
. Plac e groun d cover

on th e floor

aroun dth e secon dscal e i

n th e spra y boot h an d attac h glas s vei l on th e filter

ban k to captur e droplet s fro

moverspray . 2
. Plac e th e empt

y mold an d th e car t (wit h protectiv e skir

t attached ) o

n th e secon d scal e in th e center

o f th e spra y booth
. 3
. Apply gel coa

t o r resi n in amanne

r consistent wit h atypica l operation
. C
. Afte

r Applicatio n 1
. Determin e th e fina

l weight s o

f material s (i.e. , gel coat , resin , catalyst , fiberglas s roving , or choppe d stran d mat ) use dfo r application
. Tak

e th e reading of

tb e whol e pum p syste mfromth e firs t

scal e to determin e the fina l weigh t of gel coa t o r resin materia l an d catalys t

- W5
. 2
. Take ameasurement

readin g of

th e secon dscal e fo

r th e mol d wit

h th e we t ge l coa t o r resi n afte r applicatio n i s complete d- W6
. 3
. Fo r resi n lamination , take another measuremen

t reading of

th e secon dscal e fo

r th e mol d wit h m e part , afte r wet-out rollin g i s complete d- W7
. D
. After

Complete Curin g 1
. Determin e th e fina

l weigh t o f th e mol dwit

h cure dge l coa t o r resi n laminat

e on th e secon d scal e - W8
. 2
. Determin e di e fina

l weigh t of groun dcover

andthi n glas s vei l - W9
. 3
. Determin e th e fina

l weigh t o f tool s anditem s (e.g. , wet-ou t rollers , gloves , booties , coverall ) tha

t cam e int o contac t

wit h th e material s durin g th e application
. (Wet-ou t roller s ca n b e weighe d righ

t afte r they are use ds o tha

t resin residu e ca

n b e cleane d fromth e rollers ) -W10
.

2 4


### ZL 4 -P.3 7

E
. Transfe

r Efficiency Fro mth e weight s o

f material s use dandmaterial s applie do n th e mold , calculate th e transfe r efficiency fo

r eac h tes t ran. Transfe

r efficiency = (W6-W4)/(W3-W5)
. F
. Emission s fro

mPar t Durin g Stagnan

t (Curing ) Perio d Emission s fro

mth e gel coa

t o n th e mpl d durin g th e stagnant (curing ) perio dcan b e determine d fro

mth e weigh

t los s afte r th e sprayin g an

dcomplet e curin g = W6-W8
. Emission s fro

mth e resi n laminat

e durin g th e stagnan

t (curing ) perio dca

n b e determine d fro mth e weigh

t los s between whe

n th e wet-out

rollin g wa s complete dandcurin g wa s completed
. Durin g thi s perio d th e moldremaine don di e secon dscale
. Emission s fro m th e resin laminat

e only durin g th e stagnan

t perio d= W7-W8
. G
. Tota

l Emission s Tota l emission s (includin g emission s fro mth e applicatio n stage , th e wet-out rollin g stage , th e stagnan

t [curing ] period , an d overspray ) = Material s use d(W3-W5 ) - Material s o n th e mol d (W8-W4 ) - Material s no t on th e mol d(W9+W10-W1-W2)
. A dat arecordin g sheet

use d fo r th e testin g i s shown in Figure 5-1
. Thi s dat arecording shee t record s mor

e detaile d measurement s s o tiiat glas s rati o andcatalys t

rati o ca n als o b e calculated
.

2 5 

### 2-S "O

v Dat a Recordin g Shee t fo r Mas s Balanc e Calculatio n Date : Time : Recorde d by : Tes t run# : We t bulb : Material/containe r # :

Dr y bulb : Equipment :

RH% : Applicatio n technique : normal/controlle d Ai r velocity : low/hig h Baffle : with/withou t Initia l (g ) Fina l (g ) Chang e (g ) 1 Mas s o f rea r vei l wit h a rol l o f wid e maskin g tap e 2 . Mas s o f groun d cover/fron t veil/maskin g tape/booties/gloves/pants/stoo l 2a . Mas s o f groun d cove r an d a rol l o f narro w maskin g tap e 2b . Mas s o f fron t vei l wit h existin g maskin g tap e 2c . Mas s o f booties/gloves/pants/stoo l 3 . Mas s o f wet-ou t roller s i n containe r 4 . Mas s o f fiberglas s rovin g o r choppe d stran d ma t 5 . Mas s o f resi n o r ge l coa t materia l 6a . Volum e o f catalyst , m l (catalys t type/# : ) 6b . Mas s o f catalys t 7a . Mas s o f scal e cove r + empt y mol d + skir t + duc t tap e (fa n off ) 7b . Mas s o f scal e cove r + empt y mol d + skir t + duc t tap e (fa n o n befor e application ) 8a . Mas s o f scal e cove r + we t mol d + skir t + duc t tap e (a t th e en d o f application ) 8b . Mas s o f scal e cove r + we t mol d + skir t + duc t tap e (a t th e en d o f rolling ) 9a . Mas s o f scal e cove r + cure d mol d + skir t + duc t tap e (fa n on ) 9b . Mas s o f scal e cove r + cure d mol d + skir t + duc t tap e (fa n off ) Sp.gr . 

### 1 Weight(g ) Tim e

10 . Mas s o f materia l use d (M 4 + M 5 + M6b ) 11 . Mas s o f cure d materia l o n mol d + skir t + scal e cove r (M9b-M7a ) 12 . Mas s o f cure d material s deposite d elsewher e (M 1 +M 2 + M3 ) 13 . Tota l emission s (M10-M11-M12 ) 14 . Curin g emission s fro m mol d an d skir t (M8a-M9a ) 15 . Glas s rati o (M4/(M 4 + M5) ) 16 . Catalys t rati o (M6b/M5 ) 17 . Transfe r efficienc y l(M8a-M7b)/ M 10 1 Note : 

### Figur e 5-1 . Dat a recordin g shee t fo r mas s balanc e calculatio n (use d i n th e testin g a t Reichhold) . BLANKRES.XL S

o oP.3 9



### Chapte r 6 Tes tResults an d Discussion s A spreadsheet

containin g di e emissio n measurements , gravimetri c measurements , and calculate d emissio n quantitie s an d emissio n factor s i s provide di n Appendi x E (Volum e IT)
. Tabl e 6- 1 summarize s th e emissio n measurement s andcalculate demissio n factor s fo r thre e experiments
. Th e tes t

result s wer

e subject to analysi s o

f varianc e (ANOVA ) to determin e th e significanc e o f

variable s on styren e emissions
. Th e detaile dresult s of thi s statistica

l analysi s are include d i n Appendi x F (Volum

e II)
. Tabl e 6- 2 compare s variable s tha t affect tota l emission s a s measure d b y THC
. Infonnatio n i n Tabl e 6- 2 i s extracte dfro mTabl e 1 7 in Appendi x F
. Th e level o

f significanc e o

f th e compariso n i s presente dby th e number o f asterisk s —th e more asterisks , th e more confidenc e tha t ther e i s asignifican

t differenc e in th e comparison
. Th e majorit y o f th e comparison s ar

e significan

t a t th e 0.00 1 leve l (o r

99. 9 percent

confidenc e interval) , note d b y **?"
. Thi s mean s tha t i f th e tes t i s repeate d10

0 times , 99. 9 percent

oi " di e tes t result s will sho w adifferenc e between the tw o variable s compared
. A fe w variable s are significant at 0.0 1 o r 0.0 5 level s (9 9 o r

9 5 percent

confidenc e intervals) , note dby * * an d* , respectively. I

f th e compariso n i s not

statistically significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level , i t

i s note db y "ris. " Tabl e 6- 2 show s that , i n th e pilo t experiment , norma

l an dcontrolle dsprayin g technique s cause d adifferenc e i

n tota l emission s andth e differenc e i s significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level
. Th e high and lo w ai r

velocit y i n th e spra y boot h di dno t mak e adifferenc e i

n total emissio n andth e differenc e wa s no t

significant

a t th e 0.0 5 level
. Th e gel coa

t experiment

show s dia t th e regula r andlow-VO C gel coa

t made adifferenc e in total emission s an d th e differenc e i s significan t a t th e 6.00 1 level
. Th e total emission s from thre e gel coa

t spra y gun s ar e no t significantly differen

t a t th e 0.0 5 level
. In th e resi n experiment , th e differenc e in tota l emission s fro

mlow-profil e (genera

l purpose ) resin and low-styren e resi n i s significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. Th e difference s betwee n low-profil e resi n and styrene-suppresse dresin or styrene-suppresse dresin wit h additional wa

x are significant

a t th e 0.00 1 level
. Thi s implie s tha t emissio n reduction s achieve db y usin g low

styren e resin , styrene-suppresse d resin, an dstyrene-suppresse dresin wit h additiona

l wa x are statisticall y significant
. However , tota l emission s between styrene-suppresse dresin an dstyrene
suppresse d resi n wit

h additiona

l wa x ar e no t significantly different
. Thi s implie s tha t th e emissio n reductio n achieve d by addin g wa x to th e styrene-suppresse dresi n i s no t statisticall y significant a t th e 0.0 5 level
. Similarly , emission s generate d fro mth e flow coater

andpressure-fe droller

are significantly differen

t fro mthos e fro

mth e AA A spra y gun a t di e 0.00 1 level
. However , th e emission s generate d fro

mth e flow coater

andth e pressure-fe droller are no t significantly different
. 2 7 

## 2/* -

### Tabl e 6-1 . Summary of Emissio n Measurements an d Calculate d Emissio n Factor s

Tes tru n #lMat6Equip . | 1 containe r # Applicatio n Metho d EXPERIMENTA L RUN S i • ' RFI-EXPJRF1IRE 1 GFI-EXPIGF1IGE 1

j ; : : PILO T EXPERIMEN T P I |GF1|GE I P 2 iGFllGE l P 3 IGFllGE l P4 IGFllGE l P5 IGFllGE l P 6 ,GFIIGE 1 P 7 IGFllGE l P 8 IGFllGE l P 9 |GF1|GE 1 P1 0 ' iGFllGE l P U SGFIIGE I P1 2 jGF l i ! GE

I Averag e (1 2 runs ) ! j Normal

Norma l

Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Normal Controlle d Normal Controlle d Controlle d Norma l Normal

Ml-Norma l sprayin g ( 6 runs ) M2-Contro1led sprayin g ( 6 runs )

1 1 A2-Hig h ai r velocit y ( 6 rans) A1-Lo w ai r velocit y ( 6 runs ) 1 1 Ml/Al(3runs) | M2/A I ( 3 runs) ! MI/A2(3runs) l M2/A 2 ( 3 runs ) 1
• ; J s Ai r Vel .
Hig h Hig h

Lo w Hig h Hig h Hig h Lo w Lo w High Lo w High Lo w Hig h Lo w Tota l 1 Emission s | Tota l emission s b y THC . g

63 1 45 6

32 2 53 6 38 2 52 6 39 7 50 6

. 4 2 7 554 42 2 39 6 47 9 47 6 45 2 51 3 39 1 46 2 44 2 51 2 37 2 51 4 41 0 durin g application , g (b y THC )
32 8 22 8

13 4 31 0 13 8 253 13 4 21 9 15 7 27 1 17 6 14 5 21 4
• 20 4 19 6 24 5 14 7 20 8 18 4 23 1 13 8 259 15 7 emission s * y MB . g

88 6 478

38 0 60 7 442 41 5 41 2 50 6 46 6 49 9 389 45 7 535 44 2 463 50 1 424 47 6 449 48 2 41 6 51 9 43 2 Materia

l used. g

928 7 156 4

156 4 226 1 169 5 206 7 196 4 220 4 190 0 205 6 206 4 202 1 207 7 204 9 199 4 211 9 186 8 201 1 197 6 210 3 185 0 213 5 188 6 ' Transfe r eff. %

90. 1 75. 5

79. 8 66. 1 80. 0 74. 0 85. 1 75. 7 81. 2 73. 8 85. 0 82. 6 74. 5 77. 7 78. 0 73. 6 82. 3 76. 8 79. 1 75. 7 82. 5 71. 5 82. 1 Styren e content . %

38.3 3 38.7 5

38.7 5 38.7 5 -38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 Emissio n Factors 1 %A S Jj/m2 | g/ g b y TH C byTHClbyTH C

17. 7 75. 2

53. 1 61. 2 58. 2 65. 7 52. 2 59. 2 58. 0 69. 6 52. 7 50. 6 59. 5 60. 0 58. 3 -62. 5 54. 1 59. 2 57. 4 62. 9 52. 0 62. 1 56. 3 Note : THC=TH C emissio n measurement . MB=mas s balanc e measurement . EF=emissio n factor , %AS= % availabl e styrene . g/g= g o f emissio n pe r g o f

material used . 1 II I 1
277 200 0.06 8 0.29 1 i 1 14 1 23 6 168 23 1 17 5 22 2 0.20 6 •0.23 7 0.22 5 0.25 4 0.20 2 0.23 0 188 1 0.22 5 244 .18 5 17 4 21 0 20 9 19 9 225 . 17 2 20 3 19 4 22 5 16 3 22 6 18 0 0.27 0 0.20 4 0.19 6 0.23 1 0.23 2 0.22 6 0.24 2 0.21 0 0.22 9 0.22 3 0.24 4 0.20 1 0.24 1 0.21 8 1 

### (con. )

2 8 2J S SUMSUM.XL SP.4 1



### Tabl e 6-1 . Summar

y of Emissio n Measurements and Calculate d Emissio n Factor s
i 1 1 ' : Tes t ru n #|Mat d Equip
. | 'containe r

# Applicatio n Metho d GELCOA T EXPERIMEN T ! I d GFIIGE 3 lG 2 GFHGE 2 JG 3 GF1|GE I G 4 GF2IGE I |G 5 GFIIGE 1 IG 6 IGFllGEl
. G 7 GF2IGE 3 G 8 GF1IGE 3 G 9 ;GF1IGE 2 GI O ,GFl|GE 3 G I 1 GF2IGE 2 ;G1 2 GF2IGE 2 GI 3 GF2IGE 2 G1 4 GF2IGE 1 G1 5 GF1|GE 2 G1 6 GF2|GE I GI 7 JGF2|GE 3 GI 8 ,GF2IGE 3

I ; Averag e (1 8 runs ) 1 i Controlle d

Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d

GFl r ReguIa r

ge l coa t ( 9 runs ) GF2-Lo w VO C ge l coa t

( 9 runs ) 1 ! ! 1 GEl-AA A ex tmi x gu n ( 6 runs ) GE2-HVL P in t

mi x gu n ( 6 runs ) GE3-HVL P ex tmi x gu n ( 6 runs ) i • • GF1/GE 1 ( 3 runs ) GFI/GE 2 ( 3 runs ) GF1/GE 3 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 1 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 2 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 3 ( 3 runs ) 1 i ; • — 1 Note : THC=TH C emissio n measurem e g/g= g o f emissio n pe r

g o f materia l used Ai r

Vel
.

Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w

nt . MB= i

. Tota l i

emission s i b y THC
. g

395 1 395 1 40 9 27 3 40 3 38 7 27 1 38 2 38 6 38 4 29 4 24 9 29 1 26 7 33 9 27 4 29 8 28 2 33 2 38 7 27 8 33 6 32 6 33 5 40 0 37 3 38 7 27 2 27 8 28 4
nas s balanc e 1 Emission s

durin g application , g (b y THC )
15 4 164 15 8 9 1 15 4 14 2 8 0 14 3 15 5 13 4 9 4 9 4 11 2 9 2 16 2 9 9 10 0 9 3 12 3 15 2 9 5 12 3 | 13 0 1 11 7 1 15 1 1 16 0 1 14 3 1 9 4 1 to o 1 9 1 ! measurement . E 1 Tota l

emission s b y MB
. g

34 8 40 6 40 4 22 7 35 5 41 0 27 3 47 2 39 8 36 0 32 7 34 6 37 4 33 2 38 7 30 2 31 0 28 6 35 1 39 3 30 9 33 8 37 3 34 2 39 0 39 7 39 3 28 7 34 9 29 0 .F=emissio n 1 Materia l

used. g

172 3 180 8 175 6 192 9 176 5 181 7 187 6 189 1 178 7 172 3 194 0 194 0 224 5 193 3 177 6 212 8 227 5 196 3 190 4 178 3 202 5 188 8 191 6 190 9 177 9 179 0 177 9 199 7 204 2 203 8

r actor . %A 

### 1 Transfe r

eff. %

84. 6 81. 4 79. 0 88. 8 84. 3 82. 9 87. 3 80. 0 82. 4 84. 7 83. 3 81. 9 81. 1 81. 9 82. 0 87. 4 85. 7 85. 4 83. 6 82. 4 84. 8 84. 1

. 82. 0 84. 6 82. 1 81. 9 1 83. 1 1 86. 0 I 82. 1 j 86. 1 ! S= % ava i ! Styren e

content . %

38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 32.0 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 32.0 5 32.0 5
• 32.0 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 abl e styren e 1 i Emissio n Factor s

%A S b y TH C

59. 2 56. 4 60. 2 55. 8 58. 9 54. 9 56. 9 52. 1 55. 7 57. 6 59. 8 50. 6 51. 2 54. 6 49. 2 50. 9 51. 7 56. 6 55. 1 56. 0 54. 2 55. 9 53. 8 55. 7 58. 0 53. 8 56. 3 53. 7 53. 9 55. 1
1 g/m 2 .g/g

b y TH C b y TH C

17 4 17 4 18 0 12 0 17 7 17 0 11 9 16 8 16 9 16 9 12 9 10 9 12 8 11 7 14 9 12 0 13 1 124 14 6 17 0 12 2

• 14 7 14 3 147 17 6 16 4 17 0 11 9 12 2 124 0.22 9 0.21 8 0.23 3 0.14 1 0.22 8 0.21 3 0.14 4 0.20 2 0.21 6 0.22 3 0.15 2 0.12 8 0.13 0 0.13 8 0.19 1 0.12 9 0.13 1 0.14 4 0.17 7 0.21 7 0.13 7 0.18 0 0.17 2 0.17 9 0.22 5 0.20 8 0.21 8 0.13 6 0.13 7 0.14 0 

### 1 (con. )

29 

## 2 ^ SUMSUM.XL SP.4 2



### Tabl e 6-1 . Summar

y of Emissio n Measurement

s an d Calculate d Emissio n Factor s (con. ) Ii 1 i •• - 1 j Tes t ru n # | Mat t Equip
. ; {containe

r # RESI N EXPERIMENT R l IRF6IRE

1 R 2 iRFllRE 2 R 3 JRFHRE 3 R 4 !RFllRE 3 1R 5 IRFliRE l !R 6 JRF3JRE I R 7 IRF 1 R 8 |RF 2 R 9 RF

4 RI O |RF 1 Rl l JRF6 R1 2 IRF 6 R1 3 |RF 2 R1 4 |RF 2 RI 5 !RF 1 RI 6 |RF 1 RI 7 |RF 4 RI 8 IRF 1 R1 9 RF 3 R2 0 IRF 3 R2 1 |RF I R2 2 IRF

I R2 3 R24 R2 5 RF

4 RF 1 RE I REI RE 4 REI REI RE I REI REI RE I RE 3 RE 4 RE2 RE I REI REI REI RE 4 RE 2 RF4IRE 4 i Application

Metho d
Controlle d Controlle d Controlled Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlled Norma l Controlle d Controlled Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlled Controlle d Averag e (2 5 runs , w "Normal " run RIO ) Ai r Vel
. Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w La w Lo w Lo w Averag e (2 4 runs , w/

o "Normal " ru

n RIO ) i : I . I REI/RFl-AA A ext

mi x gu n ( 6 runs , w

/ RIO ) RE1/RF1-AA

A ex t mi x gu n ( 5 runs , w/

o RIO ) RE2-Flo w coater

( 3 runs ) | RE3-Pressure-fe d roller

( 3 runs ) Tota l emission s b y THC
. g
31 6 30 5 28 6 27 9 44 0 29 6 40 4 38 9 74 3 63 6 26 7 21 7

. 40 3 39 4 45 3 33 2 .76 2 29 3 29 1 27 2 46 8 45 9 52 4 32 2 50 0 40 2 39 2 47 7 44 5 30 6 29 9 RE4-AA A ex t mix gu n fo r BP O syste m(se e RF4 ) RF2-Low styren e Resi

n ( 3 runs ) RF3-Styrene suppresse d resin ( 3 runs ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi

n ( 4 runs ) RF4-BPO-Catalyzed Resi

n ( 2 runs , slow gel ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi

n ( 2 runs , fas

t gel ) RF5-Wate r emulsifie d resin (No

t tested ) RF6-Styrene suppresse d resin plu s wa x ( 3 runs ) 1 11 1 39 5 28 6 63 2 75 2 51 2 N A 26 6 Emission s

durin g application , g (by THC) 19 6 16 9 13 6 14 2 21 2 19 3 207 195 26 6 31 0 15 3 9 7 19 2 19 1 22 8 22 1 35 6 126 166 18 0 21 6 207 192 13 4 19 3 19 5 19 0 23 0 21 4
' 143 166 19 2 18 0 25 2 31 1 19 3 N A 14 9 Tota

l emission s b y MB , g
28 4 33 5 267 28 0 43 4 30 2 42 4 36 1 69 4 607 24 7 20 3 37 4 36 6 44 2 33 6 73 2 26 5 26 2 27 3 42 8 43 1 48 8 28 9 48 8 38 4 37 5 46 1 43 2 29 6 29 4 367 27 9 60 1 71 3 48 8 N A 24 5 Materia

l used , g
771 2 544 5 491 9 504 1 597 8 566 3 616 0 597 9 611 6 613 3 515 2 487 2 656 6 687 0 700 0 532 8 746 7 537 1 668 9 642 3 695 8 725 6 560 6 604 0 569 8 609 8 609 6 658 1 667 0 561 9 509 6 647 2 625 8 622 2 679 2 565 2 N A 591 2 Transfe

r eff
. %
92. 7 96. 2 97. 2 97. 3 90. 8 91. 7 91. 0 91 4 88. 7 80. 5 89. 9 92. 7 91. 4 93. 2 92. 6 96. 7 79. 5 97. 7 92. 9 92. 9 92. 2 93. 5 91. 7 97. 9 91. 9 92. 2 92. 7 90. 1 92. 0 97. 3 97. 1 92. 0 92. 5 88. 0 84. 1 91. 8 N A 91. 8 Styrene content , %
43.2 9 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 43.4 5 38.3 3 35.3 4 42.6 1 38.3 3 43.2 9 43.2 9 35.3 4 35.3 4 38.3 3 38.3 3 42.6 1 38.3 3 43.4 5 43.4 5 38.3 3 38.3 3 42.6 1 38.3 3 42.6 1 39.8 7 39.9 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 35.3 4 43.4 5 42.6 1 42.6 1 42.6 1 N A 43.2 9 Emission Factor s %A S by TH C
9. 5 14. 6 15. 2 14. 5 19. 2 12. 0 17. 1 18. 4 28. 5 27. 1 12. 0 10. 3 17. 4 16. 2 16. 9 16. 3 23. 9 14. 2 10. 0 9. 8 17. 5 16. 5 21. 9 13. 9 20. 6 16. 5 16. 1 19. 1 17. 5 14. 2 15. 3 17. 3 10. 6 23. 7 26. 2 21. 3 N A 10. 6 Note : THC=TH C emission measurement, MB=mas s balanc e measurement , EF=emissio n factor
. %AS= % availabl e styrene . g/g= g o f emissio n pe

r g o f materia l used
. g/m 2 b y TH C
13 8 13 4 12 5 123 19 3 13 0 ' 17 7 17 0
• 32 6 27 9 11 7 9 5 177 17 3 199 146 33 4 12 9 12 7 11 9 20 5 20 1 23 0 14 1 21 9 17 5 17 2 20 9 195 13 4 13 1 17 3 126 27 7 33 0 22 5 N A 11 7 g/

g by THC
0.04 1 0.05 6 0.05 8 0.05 5 0.07 4 0.05 2 0.06 6 0.06 5 0.12 2 0.104 0.05 2 0.04 4 0.06 1 0.05 7 0.06 5 0.06 2 0.10 2 0.05 5 0.04 3 0.04 2 0.06 7 0.06 3 0.09 4 0.05 3 0.08 8 0.06 5 0.064 0.07 3 0.06 7 0.05 5 0.05 9 0.06 1 0.04 6 0.10 1 0.11 2 0.09 1 N A 0.04 6

30 SUMSUM.XL SP.4 3

Tabl e 6-2 . Significanc e o f Variable s Affectin g Tota l Styren e Emission s Comparison Significanc e Pilo texperiment Norma l vs . Controlled spraying High vs . Low air

velocit y ** * n s Ge l coatexperimen

t Regula r vs . Low-VOC AA A (ext) vs . HVL

P (int ) AA A (ext) vs . HVL

P (ext ) HVL P (int ) vs . HVL P (ext ) ** * n s n s n s Resin experiment Low-profile vs . Low-styren e Low-profile vs . Styrene-suppressed Low-profile vs . Styrene-suppressed+wa x ' Low-styrene vs . Styrene-suppressed Low-styrene vs . Styrene-suppressed+wa x Styrene-suppresse d vs . Styrene-suppressed+wa x AA A vs . Flo w coate

r AA A vs . Pressure-fed rolle

r Flo w coater

vs . Pressure-fed roller Regula r vs . BPO-catalyzed (fast

gel ) Regula r vs . BPO-catalyzed (slo w gel ) BPO-catalyze d slow ge

l vs . fast ge l * ** * ** * ** * ** * n s ** * ** * n s * * ** * ** * n s = No t statisticall y significan t a t 0.0 5 level
. * = Statisticall

y significan t a t th e 0.0 5 level
. * * = Statisticall

y significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. ** * = Statisticall

y significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level
. Th e emission s fro

mth e BPO-catalyze dresi n (eithe r nea t resin wit h slo w ge l o r

modifie d resin wit h fas t gel ) ar e differen t fro mth e regular

resi n unde

r controlle dspraying
. Th e emission s fro mth e nea t BPO-catalyze d resin ar

e als o significantly differen t fro mthos e fromth e modifie d BPO-catalyze d resin. Th e followin g results and discussion s are base do n tota l emission s quantifie db y th e emissio n measurement

method
. The percent

reductio n i s basedon th e average s o f tota l emission s for

th e numbe

r o f tes t rans conducte dunder

th e sam e conditions
. Th e sam e
3 1


### B lP.4 4

percentag e o

f reductio n i s als o achieve dwhe n the emission s are expresse di n grams/square meter becaus e th e sam

e mol d surfac e are ai s usedi n th e denominato r

t o calculate th e emissio n factors
. 6. 1 Distributio n o f

Total Emission s Durin g Applicatio n an d Curin g Stage s Table s 6- 3 and 6- 4 sho w th e distributio n o f emission s i

n gel coa t andresin experiments
. Th e emissio n quantitie s are th e average s o f th e number

o f tes t run s conducte dfo

r tha t condition
. Tota l emission s and emission s durin g th e applicatio n stag e wer

e determine db y emissio n measuremen

t metho d usin g th e procedure s outline din Sectio n 5.1.3
. Th e differenc e betwee n tota l emission s an d emission s durin g th e applicatio n stag e i s postapplicatio n emissions
. Th e postapplicatio n emission s include d emission s fro mth e wet-ou t

rollin g (fo

r resi n lamination) , stagnant (curing ) period , and th e curin g o f overspray . Tabl e 6-3 . Distributio n o f Emission s i n Pilo tan d Ge l CoatExperiments

Ge l coatapplicatio n conditio n Pilo texperiment(ge l coa tspraying ) Norma l spraying/high ai r

velocit y ( 3 rans) Controlle d spraying/hig h air velocit y ( 3 mns ) Norma l spraying/lo w ai r

velocit y ( 3 runs ) Controlle d spraying/lo w air velocit y ( 3 runs ) Ge l coatexperiment(controlle d spraying ) Regula r gel coat/AAA-externa

l mix ( 3 rans) Regula r gel coat/HVLP-interna

l mix ( 3 runs ) Regula r ge l coat/HVLP-externa

l mix ( 3 runs ) Low-VO C ge

l coat/AAA-externa

l mix ( 3 runs ) Low-VO C ge

l coat/HVLP-interna

l mix ( 3 rans) Low-VO C ge

l coat/HVLP-externa

l mix ( 3 runs ) Rang e Averag e Total emission s g 51 4 41 0 51 2 37 2
40 0 37 3 38 7 27 2 27 8 28 4 Emission s durin g applicatio n g 25 9 15 7 23 1 13 8
15 1 160 14 3 9 4 100 9 1 % tota

l
5 0 3 8 4 5 3 7
3 8 4 3 3 7 3 5 3 6 3 2 32-5 0 3 9 Post applicatio n emission s g 25 5 25 3 28 1 23 4
24 9 21 3 24 4 17 8 17 8 19 3 % tota

l
5 0 6 2 5 5 6 3
6 2 5 7 6 3 6 5 6 4 6 8 50-6 8 6 1
3 2
&P.4 5

Tabl e 6- 3 show s tha

t 3 2 to 5 0 percen

t (averag e 3 9 percent ) o f

tota l emission s wa s emitte d durin g m

e gel coa t sprayin g stag e andth e remainde r wa s emitte ddurin g th e postapplicatio n (curing ) stage . Figur e 6- 1 show s th e amoun

t o f styren e emitte dfo

r eac h o f th e gel coa t applicatio n conditions
. I t

i s apparen

t tha t controlle dsprayin g emitte dles s styren e tha n norma l spraying , an

d the low-VO C gel coa

t emitte dles s styrene tha

n th e regula

r ge l coat . Th e pilo t experiment

als o showe d tha

t lo w an dhigh linea

r air velocitie s i

n th e spra y boot h (between 4 0 an d 10 0 ft/min) di d no t

hav e a n effec t o n emissions
. Figure 6- 1 als o show s tha t there i s n o significant differenc e i

n tota l emission s fo

r thre e differen

t spra y gun s (i.e. , AA

A spra y gu n wit h externa l catalys t mixin g and HVL

P spra y gu n wit h interna l andexternal catalys t

mixing)
. Mor

e detaile d discussio n i s presente d in Sectio n 6.3
. Tabl e 6- 4 show s tha

t 3 8 to 6 3 percen

t (averag e 5 0 percent ) o f

tota l emission s wa s emitte d durin g th e resin applicatio n stag e an dth e remainder

wa s emitte ddurin g th e postapplicatio n stage . Th e postapplicatio n stag e include dwet-ou t rollin g andstagnan

t (curing ) periods
. Figur

e 6- 2 show s th e styren e emission s quantifie dfor eac h o f th e resi n applicatio n conditions
. I

t i s apparen

t tha t th e flow coate

r andth e pressure-fe drolle r resulted i n les s emission s tha

n norma l o r controlle d resin sprayup . Low-styrene an dstyrene-suppresse dresin s als o emitte d les s styren e tha n th e low-profil e resin
. Mor e detaile ddiscussion s fo

r th e resin experiment

are presente d i

n Sectio n 6.4
. Tabl e 6-4 . Distributio n o f Emission s i n Resi n

Resi n applicatio n conditio n AAA-norma

l spraying ( 1 mn ) AAA-controlle d spraying ( 5 runs ) Flo w coater

( 3 runs ) Pressure-fe d rolle

r ( 3 runs ) Low-styren e resin ( 3 runs ) Styrene-suppresse d resin ( 3 rans) Styrene : suppresse d resin + wa x ( 3 runs ) Nea t BP O resi n - slow ge

l ( 2 runs ) BP O resin + thickene

r - fas t gel ( 2 runs ) Rang e Averag e * Tota l emission s

• g 63 6 44 5 30 6 29 9 39 5 28 6 26 6 75 2 51 2 i Experimen t Emission s durin g applicatio n

• g 31 0 21 4 14 3 16 6 19 2 18 0 149 31 1 19 3 % tota

l 4 9 4 8 4 7 5 6 4 9 6 3 5 6 4 1 3 8 38-6 3 5 0 Postapplicatio n emission s g . 32 6 23 1 16 3 13 3 20 3 10 6 11 7 44 1 31 9 % tota

l 5 1 5 2 5 3 4 4 5 1 3 7 4 4 5 9 6 2 37-6 2 5 0
3 3 

### 3 3

## \t P£ Styren e emissions , g

Normal/hig h velocity
Controlled/hig h • n o a c i ( D C O-1. O C O r* • n C T c O 3 o ^ t a 3 ( 0 C O o 3 C O 3 r-> 3 " ( D • oilo r » fi) 3 a ( Q < D o o fi) f * C D X " O

• * 3 C Dnts. O

C P o o

. o > O J • o T 3licat o 3 O o 3 Q . 0-+ O 3 velocity

Normal/lo w velocity

Controlled/lo w velocity

Regular/AAA-ext

Regular/HVLP-in t

Regular/HVLP-ext

Low-VOC/AAA-ex t

Low-VOC/HVLP-in t

Low-VOC/HVLP-ex t

9fr d

### _ ^ ?
S£ Styren e emissions , g o o M ( O

O O O O o

o U l o o 0 > - 4

O O O O 0 9

o o AAA-ex t (norma l spraying )

• n C Q c • ^ C D C O • I O • O C O s ? o * c o 3 O -* • C D 

### 3ssi o 3 C Oint 3 " C D • n C D C O 3 * C D X • o C D •-. 

### d C D 3 r * 73

C D e n 3 0 ) " O T J O fi) S2 t O 3 O O 3 Q . r-+ o 3 AAA-ex t (controlle d

spraying )

Flo wcoate r

Pressure-fe d rolle r

Lo w styren e Resi n
Styrene-suppresse d resi n
Styrene-suppresse d resi n + wa x
BPO-catalyze d resi n (slo w gel )
BPO-catalyze d resi n (fas t gel ) . ' 

# HH H

• • 

# • •

• - 

# '"H H ^^^^^^ H

.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ H ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ H ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1

• • 

# H

• • 

# H i

•

• 

# m m•PostapplicationsOApplicationstage(age .

LVdP.4 8

6. 2 Pilo tExperimentResult s Typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s recorde db y th e THC analyzer fo r variou s tes t run s ar e presente d an

d thei r resultant emissio n quantitie s are use din th e followin g discussions
. A compariso n o

f typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s provide s aclea r pictur e of wha t happene d whe

n differen t techniques , equipment , an dmaterial s wer

e used
. A tes t

ran bega n whe n sprayin g or

nonsprayin g applicatio n starte dandendedwhe n th e curin g wa s completed
. Th e en d o f th e zigzag-lik

e concentratio n profil e indicate s th e endof di e applicatio n stage . Th e averag e concentratio n an

d th e duratio n o

f applicatio n ar

e usedto calculate emission s durin g th e applicatio n stage . A s soon a s th e applicatio n i s completed , th e emissio n concentratio n graduall y return s t o di e baselin e concentratio n durin g th e wet-ou t rollin g andcurin g stages . Figur e 6- 3 show s th e typica

l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r norma l andcontrolle d sprayin g tes t

run s fo r th e regula r gel coat . Averag e styren e concentratio n durin g th e applicatio n stag e o f th e norma

l sprayin g tes t

ran P 6 (5 9 ppm

) i s higher tha n tha t of th e controlle dsprayin g tes t ran P1 0 (4 1 ppm)
. Using th e tota

l emission s datapresente di n Tabl e 6- 3 andnorma

l spraying/hig h air velocit y a s th e baselin e condition , Figure 6- 4 show s th e emissio n reduction observe di n di e pilo t experiment
. Controlle d sprayin g reduced emission s b y 2 7 percent and2 0 percen t

at lo w an d hig h air velocit y conditions , respectively. Tabl e 6- 5 show s th e summar y o f emission s fo

r th e pilo t experiment
. Transfer

efficienc y increase d and gel coa

t usag e decrease d when sprayin g techniqu e improved
. Total emission s an d emissio n factor s als o reduce d whe n sprayin g techniqu e change dfro mnormal t o controlle d spraying
. However , th e effect s of ai r velocit y unde r eac h sprayin g techniqu e are no t significant
. Tabl e 6-5 . Sprayin g technique/ai r velocit y Normal/High ( 3 runs ) Controlled

/ Hig h ( 3 runs ) Normal/Lo w ( 3 runs ) Controlled / Lo w ( 3 runs ) Summar

y Transfe r efficienc y
71. 5 82. 1 75. 7 82. 5 o f Emission s fo r Norma

l an d Controlle d Ge l CoatSprayin g Material s use d g 2,13 5 1,88 6 2,10 3 1,85 0 Reduc
. (% )

- 1 2

- 1 2 Tota

l emission s g 51 4 41 0 51 2 37 2 Reduc
. (% )

- 2 0

- 27 Emissio n facto r %A S 62. 1 56. 3 62. 9 52. 0 Reduc
. (% )

— 9

- 17 Emissio n factor
. g/ g 0.24 1 0.21 8 0.244 0.20 1 Reduc
. (% )

- 1 0

- 

### 1 8 "tote : Materia

l usag e an d emission quantitie s ar e th e average s o f th e numbe

r o f tes t run s for tha t condition
. %A S = percent

o f availabl e styrene in gel coat . g/ g = gra mo f styrene emitte d per

gra mo f ge l coat materia l used
. 

### 3 6 

### 3 dP.4 9

Norma l sprayin g o f ge l coa t (ru n P6 ) '

-->-\ I'll) . 9 0 8 0 7 0 4

»*lfrt*WttMj h Controlle d sprayin g o f geicoa t (ru n P10 )

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

Elapse d time , minute

s 5 0 6 0

Figur e 6-3 . Typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r norma l an d controlle d ge l coat spraying .

3 7


### 3 >

### 0 0 o

o c a > o w 0 ) 3 c o '• 5 T I c o o 0 c

• » 1 0 ( 0

. o E o c

. o • 3 U 3 X J 0 > w

. 2 E U J 3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0

0 4 Norma l

spraying/Lo w air . velocit y Controlle d spraying/Lo w ai r velocit y Norma l spraying/Hig h ai r velocit y (baseline ) Controlle d spraying/Hig h ai r velocit y
Conditio n



### Figur e 6-4 . Emission reduction s observe d i n th e pilotexperimen t (base d o n total emissions , o

r emissio n factor s i

n gram s pe

r squar e meter) .

inP.5 1

6. 3 Ge l Coa t ExperimentResult

s Figur e 6- 5 show s th e typica

l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r aregula r gel coat an da low-VO C ge

l coa t tes t ran. Averag e styrene concentratio n durin g th e applicatio n stag e o f th e regular ge l coa t wa s 4 5 ppm , whic

h i s highe r tha n th e 2 6 ppmfo

r th e low-VO C gel coat . Th e emissio n reductio n fro

mth e low-VO C ge

l coa t i s evident
. Figur e 6- 6 show s th e emissio n concentratio n profile s o f th e AA A spra y gu n wit h externa l catalys t mixing , th e HVL

P spra y gu n wit h interna l catalys t mixing , andth e HVL

P spra y gun wit h externa l catalys t mixing
. Thes e concentratio n profile s are simila r i n magnitud e and th e total emission s ar

e no t significantly differen

t among thes e thre e spra

y guns . Usin g th e tota

l emission s dat apresente din Tabl e 6- 3 an dth e regular

gel coat/AA A spra

y gun controlle d sprayin g a s th e baselin e condition , Figure 6- 7 show s th e emissio n reductions observe d i n th e gel coa

t experiment
. Th e low-VO C gel coa t reduce dtota

l emission s b y 2 8 t o 3 2 percent whe n compare d t o th e regula

r ge l coat . Th e change s i

n emissio n among thes e thre e spra y gun s ar e no t significant
. Becaus e th e effect

o f spra y gun s o n tota l emission s wa s no t

significant , nin e regula

r and nin e low-VO C ge

l coa t tes t run s wer e combine dt o compar

e th e effect s o f

differen t gel coa t formulations
. Tota

l emission s and emissio n factor s wer e calculate dfro

mth e average s o f

nin e tes t rans i n each gel coa

t formulation an

d presente di

n Tabl e 6-6 . Tabl e 6- 6 show s that th e low

VO C gel coa

t reduce d tota

l emission s b y 2 8 percent

whe n compare dto th e regular

ge l coat under controlle d sprayin g conditions
. Whe n th e emissio n factor s ar

e presente da s percent

availabl e styren e (%AS) , there i s alittl e or insignifican

t reductio n o

f 3 percent . Thi s i s becaus e th e styren e content s o f th e gel coat s cancele d out

th e effects o

f emissio n reduction in th e emissio n facto r calculation
. Whe

n th e emissio n factor s ar

e presente da s g o

f styren e emitte dper

g o f .ge l coa t applied , th e low-VO C ge l coa t achieve d 3 7 percent

reduction
. SCAQMD Rul e 1162 stati c emissio n measurement s fo

r thes e tw o ge

l coat s indicate tha

t ther e i s a3 7 percent

reduction
. Tabl e 6-6 . Summar

y of Emission s fo r Regula r an d Low-VO C Gel Coat s Typ e o f gel coa t Regula r ( 9 runs ) Low-VO C ( 9 runs ) Material s

used g 1,78 3 2,02 5 Tota

l emissions g 38 7 27 8 Reduc
.

(% )

— 28 Emissio n facto r %A S 56. 0 54. 2 Reduc
.

(% )

— 3 Emissio n facto r g/ g 0.21 7 0.13 7 Reduc
.

(% )

— 3 7 Rul e 116 2 stati c emission s g/m 2 13 3 83 Reduc.

(% )

— 3 7 Note : Materia

l usag e an d emission quantitie s ar

e the average s o

f th e numbe

r o f tes t run s fo r tha t material
. %A S = percen t o f availabl e styrene i

n ge l coat . g/ g = gra mo f styrene emitte d pe

r gra mo f ge l coa t materia l used
. 3 9 

## 5 ^P.5 2

Controlle d sprayin g o f regula rge l coa t (ru n G6 )

.1 0 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 & 6 0 | 5 0 ( 0 £ i 40 o o § 3 0 O 2 0 1 0 0 | 1 ^** - ^*^^W 1 »H-*wt^ »

•" " Controlled spraying.o f low-vuc , geicoa

t (ru n uio i



### i l 

# i I L

T ^KM4m^m...
_

1 1 1 1 - H -H 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

Elapse d time , minute s 5 0 6 0

Figur e 6-5 . Typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r regula r an d low-VO C ge l

coats . 4 0P.5 3

E a a c o
c a > u c o 

### o
E a a. c o
o o c o 

### o ***W *

5 4 0
1 0 1 . » - • AAA , external-mi x spra y gu n (ru n G5 )

HVLP , internal-mi x spray gu n (ru n G9 )

H J J J 

## il l 

## I H P " " HVLP , external-mi x spra y gu n (ru n G8 )

M^MW^r^^^jj^rjjjjJ ^
* liiM H M JfifnX' - 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

Elapse d time , minute s 5 0 6 0

Figur e 6-6 . Typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r thre e type s o f ge l coat spray guns . 4 1 <%\

## " ^ fe

Regula r ge l coat/AA A ext
. mi x Regula r

ge l coat / HVL P int
. mi x gu n Regula r

ge l coat / HVL P ext
. mi x gu n Lo w VO C ge l coat/AA A ext
. mi x Lo w VO C ge l coat/AA A ext
. mi x Lo w VO C ge l coat/AA A ext
. mi x Conditio n Figur e 6-7 . Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e ge l coa t experimen t (base d o n tota l emissions , o r emissio n factor s i n gram s pe r squar e meter) .

O lP.5 5

6. 4 Resi n Experimen tResults Emissio n quantitie s for

differen t resi n applicatio n equipment are summarize dan d presente d i

n Tabl e 6-7
. Nonsprayin g equipmen t (i.e. , flo w coate r

andpressure-fe droller ) reduce d tota

l emission s b y 3 1 t o 3 3 percen t whe n compare dt o controlle dresi n sprayup . A s show n i n Tabl e 6-1 , th e statistical analysi s indicate s tha t tota l emission s betwee

n th e flo w coate r and pressure-fe d rolle r

are not statisticall y significan

t a t th e 9 5 percent

confidenc e level
. Tabl e 6-7 . Summar y o f Emission s fo r Resi n Applicatio n Equipmen t
Typ e o f equipment AAA spra y gu n (controlle d spraying , 5 runs ) Flo w coate

r ( 3 runs ) Pressure-fe d rolle r ( 3 runs ) Material s

use d g 6,67 0 5,61 9 5,09 6 Tota

l emissions g 44 5
30 6 29 9 Reduc
. (% )

B L
3 1 3 3 Emissio n facto r

%A S 17. 5
14. 2 15. 3 Reduc
. (% )

B L
1 9 1 3 Emissio n facto r

g/ g 0.06 7
0.05 5 0.05 9 Reduc
. (% )

B L
1 8 1 2 Note : Materia

l usag e an d emissio n quantitie s ar e th e average s o f th e numbe r o f tes t run s fo r tha t equipment
. B L = Baselin e conditio n fo r emissio n reductio n calculation

. %A S = Percen t o f availabl e styren e i n resin
. g/ g = Gra mo f styren e emitte d pe r gra mo f resi n materia l used
. Th e tes t pla n originall y calle d fo

r six rans o f controlle dspraying
. Accidentally , on e o f th e si x tes t

run s wa s conducte d i

n norma l spraying
. Tabl e 6- 8 compare s th e emissio n quantitie s for thre e type s o f

applicatio n equipment

to th e norma

l sprayin g tes t

ran. Controlle dresin sprayup reduce d tota

l emission s b y 3 0 percen

t whe n compare dt o norma

l (uncontrolled ) resi n sprayup . Flo w coater

and pressure-fe drolle

r achieve d5 2 t o 5 3 percent

tota l emissio n reductio n when compare d t o norma

l resi n sprayup . Figure 6- 8 show s th e typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r variou s resi n applicatio n technique s and equipment
. Averag e styrene concentratio n durin g th e applicatio n stag e o f th e norma l sprayin g tes t

ran R1 0 wa s 8 8 ppm , which i s higher dia n th e 6 0 pp mo

f th e controlle d
. : sprayin g tes t

ran R15
. Th e flow coater andth e pressure-fe droller took longe r t o complete th e laminatio n but

th e magnitud e of

concentratio n profile s (les s tha n 1 0 ppm) i s muc

h lowe r tha n tha t of resin sprayup .

4 3
4A*>P.5 6

Tabl e 6-8 . Compariso n o f Emission s amon g Variou s Resi n Applicatio n Equipmen tan d Norma l Sprayin g
Typ e of equipment AA A spra y gu n (norma l spraying , 1 run ) AA A spra y gu n (controlle d spraying , 5 runs ) Flo w coater

( 3 runs ) Pressure-fe d roller ( 3 runs ) Transfe r

efficienc y % 80. 5
92. 0
97. 3 97. 1 Material s used g 6,13 3
6,67 0 5,61 9 5,09 6 Total emission s

g 63 4
44 5
30 6 29 9 Reduc
.

(% ) B L
3 0
5 2 5 3 Emissio n facto r %A S 27. 1
17. 5
14. 2 15. 3 Reduc
.

(% ) B L
3 5
4 8 4 4 Emissio n facto r g/ g 0.10 4
0.067 '
0.05 5 0.05 9 Reduc
.

(% ) B L
3 6
4 7 4 3 Note : Materia

l usag e and emissio n quantitie s ar e the average s o f

th e numbe

r o f tes trun s fo r tha tequipmen t B L = Baselin e conditio n fo r emissio n reductio n calculation . %AS = Percen to f

availabl e styren e i n resin . g/ g = Gra m o f styren e emitte d pe r gra

m o f resi n materia

l used . Figure 6- 9 show s th e typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r variou s resin formulatio n tes t runs . Th e magnitud e o

f th e emissio n profile s decrease s a s th e styren e content i n th e resin decrease s o r

th e styrene-suppressant

content increases
. Figur

e 6-1 0 compare s emissio n profile s o f th e low-profil e resin , nea

t BPO-catalyze dresin, an dmodifie dBPO-catalyze dresin
. Th e nea t an d modifie dBP O resin s had highe r andlonger

concentratio n profile s ma

n th e low-profil e resin becaus e o f

higher styren e content

o r longer gel time
. Th e BPO-catalyze dresi n wa s formulate d for fille d application , bu t

i t wa s use d i

n thi s testin g without

an y filler
. Fume silic awa s adde d t o th e BP O resi n t o kee p th e resi n materia l on th e mol dunti l it

wa s cured
. Emissio n quantitie s fo

r differen t resi n formulation s ar

e summarize dan dpresente di n Tabl e 6V9
. Low-styren e resi n reduce d tota l emission s b y 1 1 percent

whe n compare dt o controlle d resi n sprayup . Styrene-suppresse d resin wit h o r withou t additiona l wa x reduce dtota l emission s fromcontrolle d resi n sprayup b y 3 6 t o 4 0 percent . Emissio n reduction s are eve n highe r when th e compariso n i s base d o n th e norma l sprayin g tes t

ran. Statistical analysi s indicate s mat total emission s fromstyrene-suppresse d resin wit h andwithou t

additiona l wa x are no t significantl y differen t a t th e 9 5 percen t

confidenc e interval
. Th e nea t andmodifiedBPO-catalyze dresins

4 4 

### AAtP.5 7

F a. o. c o *-4 c a w *-• C o u c o o 160 14 0 1? 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 ; i 

# L M 

# I 

# i i «" 

### j 

# Hfl I 1 \IJUL
. Applicatio n end s

! 1 AA A spra y gun , norma l sprayin g techniqu e (ru n R10 ) j

: L-l | : : L_j : ^ - | n • r

E 

### a a c o e a u e o o

e o c a o c o o 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 AA A spra y gun , controlle d sprayin g techniqu e (ru n R15 ) j

1 0 .2 0 3 0 4 0 Applicatio n end s 5 0 6 0

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 Applicatio n end s 5 0 6 0 Pressure-fe d roller (ru n R3 ) j 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

Elapse d time , minute s 5 0 6 0
Figur e 6-8 . Emissio n concentratio n profile s observe d fo r differen t

resi n applicatio n technique s an d equipment . 4 5 4 S ~P.5 8ujd

a c o 4W a h . C o o c o O F a a

. c o C O c a a c o 

### o E u . o S 4f C 0Con E a c o 5 0 ) c o o E a a c o 49* C B C 0 ) u c o 

### o 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 R O 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 Lo w profil e resin , norma l sprayin g techniqu e (ru n R10 ) - 

# s :

Low-profil e resin , controlle d sprayin g techniqu e (ru n R15 ) L

Low-styren e resi n (ru n R14 )

^=5 = Styrene-suppresse d resi n (ru n R20 ) j —

Styrene-suppresse d resi n plu s wa x (ru n Rl ) j 

# iii n tr- T 1 0 2 0 3 0 Elapse d time , minute

s 4 0 5 0 6 0

Figur e 6-9 . Typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r variou s resi n formulation s

(applie d b y AAA spra y gun) . 4 6P.5 9

E 

### a a « c o *s m o o c o 

### u
E 

### a a c o c o o c o o Lo w profil e resin , controlle d sprayin g techniqu e (ru n R15 )

BP O resi n wit h thickener , fas t ge l tim e (ru n R25 )

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

Elapse d time , minute s 5 0 6 0

Figur e 6-10 . Typica l emissio n concentratio n profile s fo r low-profile , neat-BPO ,

an d modifie d BP O resin s (applie d b y AA A spray gun) .
4 7 •<A^r& o o Typ e o f

resi n (applie d b y controlle d spraying , excep ta s noted ) ' Low-profil e (norma

l spraying , 1 run ) Low-profil e ( 5 rans) Low-styren e ( 3 runs ) Styrene-suppresse d ( 3 rans) Styrene-suppresse d +wa x ( 3 runs ) Nea t BP O resi n ( 2 runs ) BP O resi n + thickener ( 2 runs ) Note : Materia

l usag e an

d emis s Tabl e 6-9 . Summary Material s use d g 7,71 0 6,67 0 6,47 2 6,25 8 5,91 2 6,79 2 5,65 2 io n quantitie s a

i Total g 63 4 44 5 39 5 28 6 26 6 75 2 51 2

e th e av c of

Emission s fo r Variou s Resi n Formulation s emission s Reductio n (% ) B L 3 0 3 8 5 5 5 8 -1 9 1 9
srages o f t — B L 1 1 3 6 4 0 -6 9 -1 5 i e number Emissio n facto r %A S 27. 1 17. 5 17. 3 10. 6 10. 6 26. 2 21. 3 Reductio n

(% ) B L 3 5 3 6 6 1 6 1 3 2 1 — B L 1 3 9 3 9 -5 0 -2 2

o f tes truns fo r tha

tequipme r Emissio n facto r

g/ g 0.10 4 0.06 7 0.06 1 0.04 6 0.04 6 0.11 2 0.09 1
n . Reductio n

(% ) B L 3 6 4 1 5 6 5 6

- 8 1 3 — B L 9 3 1 3 1 -6 7 -3 6 Rul e 116 2 stati c emissio n g/m 2 6 9 6 9 7 4 5 4 4 9 16 1 9 7 Reductio n

B L B L

- 7 2 2 2 9 -13 3 -4 1
B L = Baselin e conditio n fo r emissio n reductio n calculation . %A S = Percen to f

availabl e styren e i n resin . g/ g = Gra m o f styren e emitte d pe r gra

m o f resi n materia

l used .P.6 1

emitte d more styren e tha

n the low-profil e resin
. Thes e result s contradic t th e origina

l assumptio n tha t resi n catalyze d b

y BPO migh

t reduc e styren e emissions
. Possibl e explanatio n fo r thi s situatio n i s tha

t th e BP O resin wa s develope dfo r fille r application , no t

fo r nea t resin sprayu

p an d th e gel tim e fo

r BP O resin wa s longe

r tha n tha t o f th e low-profil e resin
. Figur e 6-1 1 show s th e overal l emissio n reduction s o r increase s observe din th e resin experiment
. Th e reduction s o r increase s are calculate dbasedo n th e tota l emissio n quantitie s presente d i

n Table s 6-6,6-7 , and 6- 8 fo r eac h o f th e conditions
. Usin g low-profil e resi n and controlle d sprayin g a s th e baseline , emissio n reductions or increase s for

variou s equipment

an d material s ar e presented
. Excep t fo r th e BPO-catalyze dresin , all other resi n formulation s resulted in emissio n reduction whe n compare d t o th e low-profil e resin
. Figure 6-1 2 show s th e emissio n reduction s o r increase s when usin g low-profil e resi n and norma l sprayin g a s th e baseline
. Highe r emissio n reduction s wer

e achieve db y flo w coater , pressure-fe d roller , low-styren e resin , andstyrene-suppresse dresin. I f th e norma

l sprayin g techniqu e represents actua l practice s in th e industry , Figur e 6-1 2 show s th e potentia

l reductio n tha t coul d b e achieve d by changin g t o flow-coate r an dpressure-fe droller

an dother low-styren e o r styrene-suppresse d resins
. 6. 5 Compariso n o f

Tes tResults wit

h EP A AP-4 2 Emissio n Factor s Emissio n factor s derive d fro mth e tes t result s ar e compare dt o relevant

EP A AP-4 2 emissio n factor s i n Tabl e 6-10
. Thes e emission s factors ar e 1. 6 t o 2. 5 time s th e respective midpoint s o

f AP-4 2 emissio n factors
. Th e implicatio n o f thi s findin g i s tha

t current EP A AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo

r gel coa t an d resi n sprayu

p an dhan dlayu p operation s ma

y underrepresent actua l emission s fo

r thes e operations
. Tabl e 6-10 . Compariso n o f EP A AP-4 2 Emissio n Factor s an d Tes tResult s (i n % AS ) Typ e o f material an d operatio n Ge l coa t sprayu p (NVS )

Resi n sprayup (NVS )
Resi n sprayup (VS ) Resi n han d layu

p (NVS ) AP-4 2 emissio n

facto r rang e 26-3 5

9-1 3
3- 9 5-1 0 AP-42 EF

midpoin t 30. 5

1 1
6 7. 5 Emissio n factors fro m tes t results 62. 5 (norma

l spraying ) 5 6 (controlle d spraying ) 54. 2 (low-VO C gel coat , controlle d spraying ) 27. 1 (norma

l spraying ) 17. 5 (controlle d spraying ) 10. 6 (styrene-suppresse d resin , controlle d spraying ) 15. 3 (pressure-fe d roller) Rati o 2. 0 1. 8 1. 8 2. 5 1. 6 1. 8 2. 0
4 9

^ - ^©

U i 5 0 -

j 4 0

c O u 0 ) ta. c o u 3 "O O J Lm C , o " 5 in 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -2 0 ? -3 0 -4 0 -5 0 -6 0 -7 0 

## + .,. .

Baselin e TBStn/AArA'BTt

t mi x Baselin e Baselin e

-resln/Flow—rostn/Pressure-- - —coate r fed-toller — Lo wVO C •7Bslnr~A"AA

mix-gun . gun/Controlle d Styrene pressed—r e reainZ-AAA-ex t mi x ou n BlpO-catalyz^ d BfO-catalyzfe d esi n (slow - in / AA A mi x gu n «x r fl all/AA A e ) t—fllalWAAA-ex l

mi x gu n -t

- "B l ' O -catalyze d Styrene resi n (fast—"suppresse d - mi x gu n resin/AA A ex t

Conditio n Figur e 6-11 . Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e resi n experiment :

"controlle d spraying " techniqu e baselin e (reduction s base d o n tota l emissions , o r emissio n factor s i n gram s pe r squar e meter) .6 0

5 0 4 0 3 0


### ft S 2 c o o e c o « 2 0 - H •o o 

### I 1 0 C O E U J
-1 0 -2 0 -F - -1 - —Basel i resin/AA A ex t Saseline — resin/Flo w —coater — Baseline resin/Pressure tod-roller— - Lo w VO C resin / AA A ex t mix-gun gun/Controlle d —Styrene» — suppresse d 'esin / mi x gu n -BPO-catalyze d Bf i

resin / AA A ex t catalyz^d-BPO.catalyze d Styreoc u resi n (fas t suppresse d + AAA-ex t mix-gu n gjell/AA A ejt —-gel)/AAA-ex t wa x mi x gu n resin/AA A ex t mi x gu n H

Conditio n Figur e 6-1 2 Emissio n reduction s observe d i n th e resi n experiment :

"norma l spraying " techniqu e baselin e (reduction s base d o n tota l emissions , o r emissio n factor s i n gram s pe r squar e meter) .P.6 4

6. 6 Compariso n o f

Emissio n Measuremen t

Metho dan d Mas s Balanc e Calculatio n Metho d 6.6. 1 Pure Styrene Evaporation Test Thre e set s of

pure styren e evaporatio n test s were conducte da t Reichhol di

n Jun e 1995
. On e se t was conducte d on Jun e 5 , th e secon dset on Jun e 7 , an

dafinal se t

o n Jun e 29
. Withi n eac h set , ther

e wer e severa l period s tha

t differen t styren e evaporatio n rate s wer e generated
. Th e result s of thes e differen

t tes t rans ar e shown i

n Tabl e 6-1 1 andFigur

e 6-13
. Th e agreement betwee n th e emissio n measurement s andth e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho ddurin g th e pure styren e evaporatio n run s wa s good
. Tabl e 6-1 1 show s tha t the averag e rati o o

f mas s balanc e calculatio n metho d t o emissio n measurement s fo r thes e 1 5 rans wa s 0.99
. Figur e 6-1 3 indicate s that th e agreement

betwee n th e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho dan demissio n measurement metho d wa s withi n ±1 0 percent for 1 2 out o f 1 5 runs . 6.6. 2 Comparison of

Emissions Measured

by Two Test

Methods Mas s balanc e measurement s wer e compare dwit

h emissio n measurement s durin g fou r experimental tes t

run s an d 5 5 officia

l tes t rans a t th e Reichhol dChemical s facility
. Thes e 5 9 tes t run s ca n b e separate d into : 4 Experimenta

l run s 1 2 Pilo t

tes t run s (involvin g ge l coa

t spraying ) 1 8 Ge l coa

t applicatio n rans 21 Resi n applicatio n run s 5 9 Tota

l rans Thes e tw o method s fo r

thes e 5 9 tes t

run s ar e compare din Tabl e 6-1 2 andFigure 6-14
. Prio r t o Jun e 22 , th e pilo t

and gel coat

applicatio n tes t

run s wer e made wit

h only th e 5-gallo n ge l coa t suppl y container

o n th e scale
. Th e amoun

t o f materia l use din eac h tes t

ran wa s calculate d fro mth e weigh

t los s fro mth e 5-gallo n container
. I t wa s foun dtha t th e pum p systemi s asingle

actio n pum

p that withdraw s materia

l fro mth e container

onl y durin g th e upstrok

e action
. Therefore , ther

e wa s apotential erro r

i n estimatin g th e exac t

amoun t o f materia l dispense d fro

m th e spra y gu n whe n th e pisto n pum

p start s andend s a

t differen t positions
. I

n thi s case , th e amoun t of materia l i n th e pum

p systemcoul dnot

b e accounte dfo

r b y weighin g th e container only
. Beginnin g in ru n G16 , th e projec t tea mmembe r made sure tha

t th e pum p stane dan d ende d a t th e same position , s o tha

t th e amount

o f materia l i n th e pum p syste mremained th e same a

t th e beginnin g an d th e en d of

ates t ran. Thi s approach improve dth e accurac y o f the mas s balanc e calculatio n method
. Tabl e 6-1 2 indicate s tha t th e rati o between th e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho d and emissio n measurement metho dcam

e clos e t o 1.

0 (indicatin g perfec t

agreement) muc h more consistentl y between tes t run s G1 6 an

dR2
.

5 2 

# 5 ^Tabl e 6-11 . Compariso n o f Mas s Balanc

e Metho d an d Emissio n Measurements fo r Pur e Styren e Evaporatio n Test s

O l u > Dat e

(m/d/y ) 6/5/9 5 6/5/9 5 6/5/9 5 6/5/9 5 6/5/9 5 6/7/9 5 6/7/9 5 6/7/9 5 6/7/9 5 6/7/9 5 6/7/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 Star t Tim e

(hnmin ) 15:4 6 16:1 8 16:4 3 16:5 6 17:0 9 10:2 5 10:4 2 11:0 6 11:1 4 11:4 3 11:5 8 16:4 2 16:5 2 17:0 0 17:3 2 En d Tim e

(hr:min ) 15:5 9 16:3 0 16:5 5 17:0 6 17:1 9 10:4 0 10:5 7 11:1 1 11:3 5 11:5 5 12:0 5 16:4 9 16:5 9 17:0 7 17:4 5 Emissio n rat e

by mas s balanc e (MB )

(g/min ) 9. 2 9. 9 17. 4 11. 8 12. 3 40. 1 15. 3 43. 8 9. 7 3. 0 34. 1 48. 7 21. 3 50. 3 29. 5 Averag e concentratio n

b y TH C (FID ) analyze r

(ppm ) 8. 4 9. 5 14. 1 10. 6 11. 8 39. 0 14. 8 39. 0 9. 4 2. 6 34. 0 49. 1 21. 5 49. 9 31. 4 Exhaus t

flowrat e (cfm ) 896 1 896 1 896 1 896 1 896 1 892 4 892 4 892 4 892 4 892 4 892 4 864 6 864 6 864 6 864 6 Emissio n rat e

b y TH C (FID ) analyze r

(g/min ) 9. 3 10. 4 15. 5 11. 6 13. 0 42. 3 15. 8 42. 4 9. 9 2. 5 36. 9 52. 1 22. 8 52. 9 33. 3 Averag e Emissio n rati o (MB/THC ) 0.9 9 0.9 5 1.1 2 1.0 2 0.9 5 0.9 5 0.9 7 1.0 3 0.9 8 1.2 0 0.9 2 0.9 3 0.9 4 0.9 5 0.8 9 0.9 9

100SSUM.XL SRati o o f measure d emission s (Mas s balance/Metho d 25A )
Tl t5 ' c 

### 3 C? ) I w O o 

### 3 aS >

C D 0 ) ^ H C O

- * C Oalan)per C D 3 

## 5? .ockt

3(hr: ^ m a 3 > 

### ® i f 

# I s 3 2 ° o a fi) N ) S* . (I I O > Z . • 

### i? 3 - s r C O C O o 3 C O 

### 3 C D tt C O c C D 

### 3 C D 3 i-+ C O 

# • c _ c D C D N J C D *

_ i ( 0 ( O O l 

## a c _ c 3 a > v l

- • A ( 0 C O O l 

# • (
_ c 3 ( 0 c n

• • ^ ( 0 ( 0 O l

99' dTabl e 6-12 . ComDariso n o f M Dat e Tim e EXPERIMENTA L RUN S 6/6/9 5 6/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 7/7/9 5 10:2 2

14:5 5 12:1 9 14:1 2 PILO T EXPERIMEN T 6/7/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 14:5 0

10:0 1 12:1 1 14:4 0 10:2 0 14:4 5 10:3 6 13:4 7 15:4 4 10:3 7 12:5 7 15:2 1 GELCOA T EXPERIMEN T 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 10:1 1

13:4 6 16:0 6 11:3 8 14:0 3 15:5 9 10:2 3 12:4 9 15:3 3 10:3 6 12:4 7 15:2 3 10:4 6 13:1 8 16:2 7 11:1 4 13:4 1 15:5 5 RESI N EXPERIMEN T 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/30/9 S 6/30/9 5 6/30/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 11:0 6

14:3 0 16:3 5 10:4 2 13:2 7 16:0 5 10:4 6 13:1 4 15:5 1 10:2 1 12:4 5 15:2 0 10:2 2 12:2 0 14:3 6 10:1 4 13:1 3 15:5 1 11:5 3 14:0 2 16:1 9 10:1 2 14:3 4 16:4 1 10:1 0 Exhaus t flo w Tes t ru n U

\ rate , cf m 1 RF1-EX P GF1-EX P EXP 1 EXP 2 P I P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 P1 1 P I 2 G I G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 ' G 7 G 8 G 9 G1 0 G1 1 G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8 R l R2 R 3 R 4 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R1 0 R1 1 R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R1 6 R1 7 R1 8 R1 9 R2 0 R2 1 R2 2 R2 3 R2 4 R2 5 912 4

905 4 851 0 868 1 890 9 898 0 895 3 868 1 881 8 870 4 886 4 879 6 868 1 903 4 898 7 890 9 876 4 868 0 '856 3 861 0 860 9 863 3 891 6 888 7 881 9 875 2 886 6 870 0 880 4
• 873 9 866 0 877 5 882 0 872 2 871 0 868 3 839 9 856 3 849 5 849 5 861 3 854 3 835 8 850 1 847 1 850 1 856 6 849 5 863 3 849 5 852 1 845 7 863 7 847 1 841 9 858 9 866 1 849 2 865 8 as s Balanc e Metho d an d Emissio n Measurement s

Avg . ne t cone , pp m 6.3 5 7.3 0 0.5 8 4.4 8 3.8 5 7.1 4 5.0 5 7.3 9 4.7 2 6.2 1 4.9 9 7.5 3 5.9 2 5.1 1 6.0 4 6.0 2 5.2 5 5.3 0 6.4 6 3.4 1 5.4 1 5.1 3 3.0 7 4.9 7 5.0 7 5.1 4 3.1 8 2.7 4 3.2 2 2.8 5 5.2 5 3.0 0 3.2 1 3.1 9 2.8 6 3.5 2 3.7 0 3.1 7 6.2 7 3.6 5 5.0 5 5.1 6 4.7 6 7.4 9 2.8 1 2.1 8 5.0 1 5.0 4 5.5 9 4.0 3 7.1 0 4.0 7 3.6 3 3.5 1 5.8 7 5.7 4 5.5 5 3.9 6 5.5 3 Test ru n duration , mi n 88. 8 56. 2 102. 2 31. 2 76. 3 68. 2 68. 8 66. 8 77. 8 76. 3 78. 7 68. 2 66. 9 70. 0 71. 9 72. 3 70. 0 70. 0 60. 3 75. 7 70. 4 71. 2 80. 7 70. 5 70. 2 69. 6 85. 1 85. 0 83. 7 87. 5 60. 7 85. 0 85. 7 82. 4 103. 1 81. 3 75. 0 83. 8 67. 3 78. 0 75. 7 71. 8 152. 4 81. 5 91. 3 95. 2 76. 5 75. 1 76. 5 79. 1 102. 6 69. 3 75. 6 74. 7 77. 2 75. 9 88. 9 78. 0 85. 1 Tota l emission s

b y THC . g 63 1 45 6 6 2 14 9 32 2 53 6 38 2 52 6 39 7 50 6 42 7 55 4 42 2 39 6 47 9 47 6 39 5 39 5 40 9 27 3 40 3 38 7 27 1 38 2 38 6 38 4 29 4 24 9 29 1 26 7 33 9 27 4 29 8 28 2 31 6 30 5 28 6 27 9 44 0 29 6 40 4 38 9 74 3 63 6 26 7 21 7 40 3 39 4 45 3 33 2 76 2 29 3 29 1 27 2 46 8 45 9 52 4 32 2 50 0 Tota l emission s

b y MB , g 88 6 47 8 6 5 15 2 38 0 60 7 44 2 41 5 41 2 50 6 46 6 49 9 38 9 45 7 53 5 44 2 34 8 40 6 40 4 22 7 35 5 41 0 27 3 47 2 39 8 36 0 32 7 34 6 37 4 33 2 38 7

. 30 2 31 0 28 6 28 4 33 5 26 7 28 0 43 4 30 2 42 4 36 1 69 4 60 7 24 7 20 3 37 4 36 6 44 2 .33 6 73 2 26 5 26 2 27 3 42 8 43 1 48 8 28 9 48 8 Average Emissio n rati o (MB/THC ) 1.4 0 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 2 1.1 8 1.1 3 1.1 6 0.7 9 1.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 9 0.9 0 0.9 2 1.1 5 1.1 2 0.9 3 0.8 8 1.0 3 0.9 9 0.8 3 0.8 8 1.0 6 1.0 1 1.2 4 1.0 3 0.9 4 1.1 1 1.3 9 1.2 8 1.2 4 1.1 4 1.1 0 1.0 4 1.0 1 0.9 0 1.1 0 0.9 3 1.0 0 0.9 9 1.0 2 1.0 5 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9 5 0.9 3 0.9 4 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9 8 1.0 1 0.9 6 0.9 0 0.9 0 1.0 0 0.9 1 0.9 4 0.9 3 0.9 0 0.9 8 1.0 2 5 5 5 5 M B THC.XL SO A

a . a . t- < M U J U J X X + + X-1-U u . u . cc o »-<NC>*in<or».eoo>0«-c> i «-cMC>*intor*.coo>0'-tNC'»^'in«or».o o ^Nn^intDMnmo^NrnfmoNomo^MoiTtu )

a.a.o.a.a.0.0.0.0 . —.-. - ooooooooo' - '-'-'-'-'-'-'-' - ococococa:oca:oco:«-.-r-r-^-r-r-^-T-r-cMCNfM«Nc>ic N

0.0.0 . OOOOOOOO O t c o c a c o c tc tc tc tc tc cc tc tc cc tc tc tc Ru n Identificatio n EX P = Experimenta l (resi n an d ge l coa t application ) D P = Pilo t (ge l coa t spraying ) M G = Ge l coa t (spraying ) R = Resi n applicatio n Figur e 6-14 . Compariso n o f emissio n measuremen t methods .P.6 9

Beginnin g i

n run R3 , resin usag e wa s measure db y placin g bot h th e 5-gallo n container and th e entire piec e o

f applicatio n equipment

on th e scale
. Thi s procedure avoide dth e nee d t o make sur e tha

t th e pum p wa s returned t o it s initia

l positio n a

t th e endof th e run . Wit

h th e pum p an d th e gun on th e scale , al l materia l exitin g th e gun wa s directl y measured
. Figure 6-1 4 show s tha t th e rati o between mas s balanc e measurement s wa s within + 5 percent an d-1 0 percent

of 1.0 fo r run s R 3 through R25
. Overall , th e mas s balanc e metho dandemissio n measuremen t metho dwer

e withi n ±1 0 percent fo r 4 3 out o f 5 9 run s (i.e. , 7 3 percent

o f th e rans) andth e tw o method s agree dt o withi n ±1 0 percen t

fo r all 2 5 resi n run s (th e las t

2 5 rans). Tabl e 6-1 2 show s tha t th e averag e rati o betwee n mas s balanc e calculatio n measurement s andemissio n measurement s wa s 1.02
. Thes e results sho w that , o

n average , the tw o method s agreedt o withi n 2 percent . Tabl e 6-1 3 als o show s tha

t th e mas s balance/emissio n measuremen t rati o fo r th e resin rans had asmaller

standard deviatio n tha

n th e previou s pilo t

andgel coa

t tes t runs . Thi s compariso n show s tha

t correc t measuremen

t o f th e amoun

t p f materia] use di

n ates t ran improve d th e accurac y o f

th e mas s balanc e calculatio n method
. Thes e tes t result s indicate that , when prope r

procedure s ar

e carefull y followed , th e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho dca n provid e calculate d emission s tha

t ar e i n goo d agreemen

t wit h emissio n measuremen

t usin g EP A Metho d 25 A and atota

l enclosure
. Tabl e 6-13 . Compariso n o f Mas s Balanc e an d Emissio n MeasurementTes tResult s (Testin g a tReichhold , June-Jul y 1995 )
Tes t designatio n Experimenta

l Pilot Ge l coa t Resin
. Tota l run s Weighte d averag e Numbe r o f

run s 4 1 2 1 8 2 5 5 9 Averag e ratio ,

(mas s balance/emissio n measurement

) 1.13 1.0 3 1.0 7 0.9 6
1.0 2 Standar d

deviatio n 0.1 6 0.1 2 0.1 4 0.0 5
0.1 0

5 7 

## S3-P.70
_ 1


### Chapte r 7 Dat a Qualit

y Issue s Overal l dat aqualit

y me t or exceede dth e objective s outline di n th e Categor

y EL T qualit y assuranc e projec t

pla n (QAPP)
. Specifi c Q A activitie s ar e presente din th e followin g sections
. Mor e detaile d analyse s o r

evaluation s ar

e provide di

n Appendixe s D , G , andH (Volume U)
. 7. 1 Summatio n o f

ProjectQ

A Activitie s A qualit y assuranc e projec t

plan , Pollution Prevention Technology Demonstration, Evaluation of

Pollution Prevention Techniques to Reduce Styrene Emissions from Open Contact Molding Processes, Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan, wa s prepare db

y th e RT I projec t tea mand submitte d to EP

A on Apri l 28 , 1995 , fo

r approva l prio r to th e star t o f th e propose d testing
. Response s to comment s fro mEP A wer e summarize di

n amemorandumfro

m Emer y Kon g t o Carlo s Nunez date d Ma y 25 , 1995 , whic

h i s considere da

n addendumt o th e QAPP
. Bot

h th e QAP

P and th e addendumare include di n Appendi x A (Volum

e IT)
. A s describe d i

n th e QAPP , th e followin g QA-activitie s wer e conducte da s par

t o f th e project
. Th e RT I projec t

Q A manager , Cynthi aSalmons , an dWillia mYeage r conducte da

n interna l technica l systemaudit

(TSA ) o f th e projec t

o n Jun e 9 , 1995
. N o forma l correctiv e actio n request s were necessar y fo r thi s project
. Minor

deviation s fro

m th e QAP P were documente d i n laborator

y notebook s an

ddat asheets , whe

n necessary . Tw o majo r deviation s wer

e (1 ) th e modificatio n o

f BP O resin afte

r i t wa s foun dt o hav e alon g gel tim e and lo w viscosit

y and (2 ) th e withdrawa

l o f awater-emulsifie dresi n fro mth e tes t b y th e manufacturer
. Other Q A an d Q

C activitie s durin g th e cours e o f thi s projec t

include ddail y calibratio n o f th e high-precisio n scal e wit

h standar d weight s rangin g fro

m1 g t o 2,00 0 g (describe di n Sectio n 5.2) , periodi c check s fo

r scal e drif t b y leavin g astandardweigh t o n th e scal e overnight , styren e evaporatio n experiment s (describe d i n Sectio n 6.6.1) , compariso n o f th e tota l hydrocarbo n analyzer' s respons e to styrene cylinder s wit h it s respons e to th e propan e calibratio n cylinder s (describe d i

n Appendi x C) , an d acompariso n of direc t injection t o th e TH C analyzer wit h deliver y throug h th e samplin g line , a s describe di n Appendix I (Volum

e H)
. 7. 2 RT I Interna l Technical Syste m Audi t(TSA ) Results Th e internal TS A foun

d tha t th e projec t

activitie s wer

e generally conducte di n accordanc e wit h th e QAP P and tha

t result s wer

e carefully documented
. Mor e extensiv e calibration s of

th e TH C analyzer

we'r e performe d tha

n wer e describe di

n th e QAP P or th e EP A method
. Th e measurement

poin t fo r th e exhaus t

flow rat e wa s approximately fiv e o r six diameter s downstrea mof abend , instea

d o f th e eight diameter s recommende dby th e EPA method , bu t there wa s n o reasonabl e wa y of correctin g this
. Th e maximu mnumber o f travers e point s 5 8 

# S<bP.7 1

suggeste d i

n EPA Metho d 1 fo

r thi s typ e o

f situatio n wa s used
. Check s fo r off-axi s flow di d no t indicate aproblem
. Th e record s fo r th e tota l enclosure tes t

indicate dtha

t ther e wa s considerabl e fluctuatio n in th e ho t

wir e anemomete

r reading s an dtha

t afe w of th e flo w velocit

y readings a

t th e natura l draf t openin g wer

e slightl y les s tha

n 20 0 ft/min , but

thi s di dno t

see mt o presen t

a problem , judgin g fro

mth e result s o f

th e styrene evaporatio n experiments
. Du e t o th e audi t schedule , severa

l aspect s of

th e projec t

wer e no t observe ddurin g th e TSA
. Thes e include d samplin g an d analysi s of

th e gel coa

t andresin , th e styren e evaporatio n experiment , th e demonstratio n tha

t th e spra y boot h meet s th e criteri afor

atota l enclosure , th e weekly travers e measurements , an d th e measuremen t o f equipmen t deliver y rate . Record s of

thes e activitie s wer

e reviewe d when possible
. A memorandumdocumentin g th e TS A activitie s i s include di n Appendi x H (Volume II)
. 7. 3 EP A Performanc e Evaluatio n EP A supplie d RT I wit

h aperformanc e evaluatio n styren e standar dga s cylinder , whic h RT I analyze d o n Jul y 7,1995
. Th e result s o f thi s EP A performanc e evaluatio n are presente di n Appendi x I (Volume JJ)
. Using th e TH C analyze r an dcalibratio n standards , RT I predicte dth e styren e concentratio n in th e EP A performanc e evaluatio n standar d t o b e 30. 4 ppm . Th e certifie d valu e of th e styren e standar

d wa s 31. 0 pp mby th e Scot t Specialt y Gases
. Ther e wa s onl y a2 percen t differenc e between th e predicte dandcertifie dvalues
. Therefore , th e dat aqualit y objectiv e fo

r emissio n concentratio n measuremen t wa s met .



### 5 9

& ASP.7 2


### Chapte r 8 Conclusion s and Recommendation s 8. 1 Conclusion s Th e result s fro

mth e pilo texperiment

indicate dthat : Ove r th e velocit

y rang e examined , 1 2 vs . 3 0 m/min (4 0 vs . 10 0 ft/min ) linea

r ai r velocit y ha d no significan

t effect on styren e emissions
. Controlle d ge l coa

t sprayin g techniqu e reduce dtota l styren e emission s b

y 24 percent compare d to norma

l sprayin g technique
. Controlle d sprayin g o

n th e mal e moldreduce dge l coa t usag e by 1 2 percent

du e to les s overspray . Unde r norma l spraying , 4 8 percent

o f tota l emission s wa s emitte ddurin g gel coa t spraying ; th e remainde

r wa s emitte ddurin g curing
. Under controlle d spraying , 3 8 percent o f tota l emission s wa s emitte ddurin g gel coa t spraying ; th e remainder

wa s emitte dduring curing
. Th e results of

th e ge l coa texperiment

indicate dthat : Th e low-VO C ge l coa

t reduce d tota

l emission s b y 2 8 percent

whe n compare dt o th e regula r gel coat . Th e low-VO C gel coa

t require d ahighe

r ai r supply pressure andlarge

r spra y ti p t o achiev e th e same spra

y fa n a s th e regula

r ge l coat . Th e AA A and HVL

P (interna l andexterna

l catalys t mixing ) gel coa

t spra y gun s mad e n o differenc e i

n term s o f tota l emissions
. Th e results o

f th e resi n experimen t

indicate dthat : Controlle d resi n sprayin g emitte d3 0 percen t les s styren e tha

n norma l sprayin g technique
. Flo w coater

and pressure-fe d roller

equipmen t resulte di n 3 1 t o 3 3 percent

les s styren e tha n controlle d resi n sprayup . Flo w coater

and pressure-fe d roller

equipmen t resulte di n 5 2 t o 5 3 percent

les s styren e tha n norma l resi n sprayup . Thirty-eight

t o 6 3 percen t

(averag e 5 0 percent) of

tota l emission s wa s emitte ddurin g th e resin applicatio n stage ; th e remainder wa s emitte ddurin g th e wet-ou t rollin g andcurin g stages . Th e low-styren e resin emitte d 1 1 percen t les s styren e tha

n th e low-profil e resin
. • Th e styrene-suppresse d resi n emitte d3 6 percen t les s styren e tha

n th e low-profil e resin
. • Th e styrene-suppresse d resi n wit h 0. 1 percen

t additiona l wa x emitte d4 0 percent

les s styren e tha

n th e low-profil e resin
. 6 0 •



## CsPP.7 3

• Th e BPO-catalyze d resi n emitte dmor e styrene tha

n th e low-profil e resi n becaus e o f highe r styrene content

and/or longe r ge l time
. • Fo r

th e BPO-catalyze d resin, ashorter gel tim e reduce dtota

l emissions
. Other observation s made fro

mthi s testin g were :

• O n a n averag e o

f 5 5 officia l tes t rans an d4 experimenta

l tes t rans, tota l emission s determine d b

y emissio n measurement s andth e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho dare i n goo d agreemen

t withi n 5 percent . • Th e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho dcoul dpotentiall y b e usedto determin e emission s fromope n moldin g processes . • Emissio n factor s derive d fro mth e tes t results ar e 1. 6 t o 2. 5 time s th e respectiv e mid

rang e EP A AP-4 2 emissio n factors ; thi s implie s tha t AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo r resi n and ge l coa t sprayu p ma y underrepresen

t actua l emission s fo

r thes e processes . 8. 2 Recommendation s Base d on th e finding s o

f thi s testing , th e following recommendation s ar e made to facilitie s usin g th e ope

n moldin g process :

• Trai n operator s t o improv e their sprayin g techniqu e t o reduc e overspray , materia l wasted , an d emissions
. • Us e nonsprayin g equipmen t whe n feasibl e t o reduc e emissions
. - . • Us e low-styren e o r styrene-suppresse dmaterial s whe n feasible
. • Reduc e gel time whe n feasibl e t o curtai l emissions
. • • Combin e th e effect s o f operato r technique , materials , andapplicatio n equipment t o achiev e th e maximumemissio n reduction
. • Th e mas s balanc e calculatio n metho dan din-hous e personne l ca n b e use dt o determin e emissio n factor s fo

r material s andequipment
.

6 1 (*(P.7 4

TECHNICA L REPOR T DAT A (Please read

Instructions on the reverse before completing) 1 . REPOR T NO . EPA-600/R-97-018 a 3 . RECIPIENT' S ACCESSIO N NO . 4 . TITL E AN O SUBTITL E Evaluatio n o f

Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s t o Reduc e Styren e Emission s fro mOpe n Contac t Moldin g Processes ; Volum e I , Fina l Repor t 5 . REPOR T OAT E Marc h 199 7 6 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N COD E
7 . AUTHOR(S ) Emer y Kong , Mar k

Bahner , Rober t

Wright , Andre w Clayto n an d 8 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N REPOR T NO .

9 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N NAM E AN D AOORES S 10 . PROGRA M ELEMEN T NO . Researc h Triangl e Institut e P.O
. Bo x 1219 4 Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a2770 9 1 1 . CONTRACT/GRAN T NO . C R818419-0 3
12 . SPONSORIN G AGENC Y NAM E AN O AOORES S EPA , Offic e o f

Researc h an d Developmen t Ai r Pollutio n Preventio n an d Contro l Divisio n Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 13 . TYP E O F REPOR T AN O PERIO 0 COVERE D Final ; 4/9 4 -9/9 5 14 . SPONSORIN G AGENC Y COD E EPA/600/1 3 is . SUPPLEMENTAR Y NOTE S APPC D pro j e c t office r i s Gedde s H
. Ramsey , Mai l Dro p 61
. 919 / 541-7963
. Volum e I I contain s appendices
. is
. ABSTRAC

T rjj^ g re p 0 r t

give s result s o f

astud y t o evaluat e severa l pollutio n preventio n technique s tha t

coul d b e use d t o reduc e styren e emission s fro mope n moldin g pro cesse s i n th e fiberglass-reinforce dplastics/composite s (FRP/C ) aii d fiberglas s boa t buildin g industries
. Styren e emission s usin g standar dindustr y techniques , mater
ials , an d equipmen t

wer e evaluate di n acontrolle denvironmen t an d compare d t o a baslin e conditio n t o determin e th e effect s o f these , pollutio n preventio n technique s o n styren e emissions
. Th e stud y foun dtha t usin g controlle dsprayin g (i
. e. , reducin g overspray) , low-styren e an d styrene-suppresse dmaterials , an d nonatomizin g appli

catio n equipmen t

ca n reduc e styren e emission s b y fro m1 1 t o 52%
. Facilitie s shoul d - investigat e th e applicabilit y an d feasibilit y o f thes e pollutio n preventio n option s t o reduc e thei r

styren e emissions
. Th e calculate demissio n factor s wer e fro m1. 6 t o 2. 5 time s th e mid-rang e AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo r th e correspondin g ge l coa t an d resi n application
. Thes e result s indicat e tha t facilitie s usin g AP-4 2 emissio n factor s t o estimat e emission s i n ope n moldin g processe s ar e likel y t o underestimat e actua l emissions
.

17 . KE Y WORD S AN D DOCUMEN T ANALYSI S DESCRIPTOR S b.lDENTIFIERS/OPE N ENDE D TERM S c . COSAT I Field/Group Pollutio n Styren e Resin s Emissio n Moldin g Technique s Fiberglass-reinforce d Plastic s Boat s Pollutio n Preventio n Stationar y Source s Boa t Buildin g 13 B 111
. U J 14G 13 H U D 1 3 J 18 . DISTRIBUTIO N STATEMEN T Releas e t o Publi c 19 . SECURIT Y CLAS S (ThisReport) Unclassifie d 2 1 . NO . O F PAGE S 7 1 20 . SECURIT Y CLAS S (Thispage) Unclassifie d 22 . PRIC E
EP A For m 2220- 1 (9-73 ) 

## ""ST "U.S
. ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

Offic e o f Researc h an d Developmen t Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t Researc h Laborator y Technolog y Transfe r an d Suppor t Divisio n Cincinnati , Ohi o 4526 8 OFFICIA L BUSINES S PENALT Y FO R PRIVAT E US E S30 0 A N EQUA L OPPORTUNIT Y EMPLOYE R

If your address

is incorrect, please

change on the above label tear off; and return to the above address. If you do not desire to continue

receiving

these technical reports, CHECK

HE flf O . tear

off label, and

return it to the above address. 

### Publicatio n No
. EPA - 600/R-97-01 8