p.1 

OAR Box 1392 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

129) 11 -A-4 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/7/2008 9:45:58 AM Sheet 129 of 136 
P.2 

&EPA 

United Slates 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Control Technology 

Center 

Research Triangle Park NC 27711 

A44-52 

EPA-600/R-93-212 

November 1993 

EVALUATION OF THE POLYAD® FB 

AIR PURIFICATION AND 

SOLVENT RECOVERY PROCESS 

FOR STYRENE REMOVAL r- : 

$ 1 OCT. I 91995, -S 

LI,2SV(', 

••"va$f 

control^technology center 

£'•$*£--
P.3 

EPA REVIEW NOTICE 

This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily 

reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or 

commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 
P.4 

EPA-600/R-93-212 

November 1993 

EVALUATION OF THE POLYAD* FB 

AIR PURIFICATION AND SOLVENT RECOVERY PROCESS 

FOR STYRENE REMOVAL 

Prepared by: 

Larry Felix, Randy Merritt, and Ashley Williamson 

Southern Research Institute 

Environmental Sciences Research Department 

P. O. Box 55305 

Birmingham, AL 35255-5305 

EPA Contract Number 68-D2-0062 

Task No. 2 

Task Officer Bobby E. Daniel 

Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Prepared for 

Control Technology Center 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 
P.5 

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER 

Sponsored by: 

Emission Standards Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Center for Environmental Research Information 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, OH 45268 

ABSTRACT 

Manufacturing processes that involve the spraying of styrene-based resins have been identified as a 

possible significant source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions that may affect human heaith 

and contribute to the ozone non-attainment problem. Until recently, no known technology has been 

demonstrated to control such emissions of styrene. Now, two processes have been developed to 

control styrene emissions and a short-term field evaluation was planned to characterize the styrene 

removal efficiency of pilot-scale versions of each process. Unfortunately, because only one system 

could be made available for the proposed test period, only one of these systems could be tested. This 

test was carried out at a facility (Eljer Plumbingware in Wilson, NC) that manufactures polyester 

bathtubs and shower stalls by spraying styrene-based resins onto molds in vented, open, spray booths. 

A side stream of air exhausted from one of the spray booths in the gel coating part of the process was 

used for this test. 

In this study the styrene removal efficiency of a pilot-scale version of the Polyad® fluidized bed (FB) air 

purification and solvent recovery system was quantified by continuously measuring the total hydrocarbon 

(THC) content of spray booth exhaust air entering and exiting the Polyad FB device with THC analyzers 

and by collecting NIOSH Method 1501/EPA Method 18 samples at the inlet and exit of the Polyad FB 

device. Styrene removal efficiencies greater than 90% were achieved. 

This work was performed at the request of the Control Technology Center (CTC) steering committee to 

provide information to state and local agencies for use in responding to public concerns. 
P.6 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abstract ii 

List of Figures v 

List of Tables vi 

Acknowledgments vii 

Preface viii 

Metric to Nonmetric Conversions ix 

Section Page 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Project Description 3 

2.1 Experimental Approach 3 

2.2 Eljer Plumbingware Facility 4 

2.3 The Polyad* FB Process 7 

2.3.1 Pilot-Scale Polyad* FB Device 11 

2.3.2 Specific Test Conditions 14 

2.4 Experimental Apparatus 16 

2.4.1 Connection to the Pilot-Scale Polyad FB Unit 16 

2.4.2 Sampling Van 16 

2.5 Experimental Methods and Procedures 21 

2.5.1 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzers 21 

2.5.2 Collection of Volatile Organic Compound Samples 22 

2.5.3 Collection of Recovered Solvent Sample 23 

2.5.4 Total Flow Rate Measurements 24 

3. Data, Results, and Discussion 25 

3.1 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer Data 25 

3.1.1 Inlet Data .....26 

3.1.2 Outlet Data 32 

3.1.3 Efficiency Data 36 

3.1.4 Estimated Styrene Emissions from Gel Coat Booth #2 46 

3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Data 48 

3.2.1 Measurements at Spray Booth Exhaust Stacks 49 

3.2.2 Measurements at the Inlet and Outlet of the Polyad FB Device 53 

3.3 Analysis of Recovered Solvent Sample 56 

3.4 Total Flow Rate Data 56 

3.5 Styrene Capture by the Polyad FB Device .-. 59 

4. Costs Associated with Applying the Polyad FB System to Styrene Removal 61 

5. Summary and Conclusions 68 

in 
P.7 

TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED 

Appendix A NIOSH Method 1501 70 

Appendix B Quality Control Evaluation Report 78 

Appendix C Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer Daily Results 88 

iv 
P.8 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Rgure Page 

1. Layout ofthe Eljer Plumbingware Facility 5 

2. Diagramatic representation of the Polyad FB Air Purification and Solvent Recovery Process 9 

3. Schematic diagram of the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit tested at Eljer Plumbingware 12 

4. Component layout of the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit tested at Eljer Plumbingware 13 

5. Overall arrangement for sampling at the Eljer Plumbingware Facility 17. 

6. Equipment arrangement used for sampling with THC analyzers 18 

7. Equipment anangement used for NIOSH Method 1501 sampling 19 

8. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 3,1992 27 

9. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 4,1992 28 

10. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions, Novembers, 1992 29 

11. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions from 0910 to 0950, November 5, 1992 30 

12. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions from 1110 to 1150, November 5,1992 31 

13. Outlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 3,1992 33 

14. Outlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 4,1992 34 

15. Outlet hydrocarbon emissions, Novembers, 1992 35 

16. Hydrocarbon removal efficiency, November 3,1992 37 

17. Hydrocarbon removal efficiency, November 4,1992 38 

18. Hydrocarbon removal efficiency, November 5,1992 39 

19. Average inlet and outlet hydrocarbon and styrene emissions for each period of spraying 44 

20. Average hydrocarbon and styrene removal efficiency for each period of spraying 45 

21. Total system cost as $Aon of styrene removed for a nine year lifetime for various inlet 

concentrations of styrene. Data for 20,000 and 60,000 scfm inlet flow rates are shown 

along with values for the 200,000 scfm system proposed for Eljer Plumbingware 66 

22. Total system cost as $/scfm of inlet flow rate for a nine year lifetime for various inlet 

concentrations of styrene. Data for 20,000 and 60,000 scfm inlet flow rates are shown 

along with values for the 200,000 scfm system proposed for Eljer Plumbingware :....67 
P.9 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1. Daily Test Conditions 15 

2. Daily Averages and Grand Average of THC Analyzer Data, November 3 through 5,1992 41 

3. Summary of THC Analyzer Data, November 3 through 5.1992 42 

4. Styrene Removal from THC Data, November 3 through 5,1992 43 

5. Summary of Estimated Styrene Emissions from Gel Coat Booth #2, THC Data 47 

6. Sampling Conditions for Measurements made at the Outlet of Gel Coat Booth #2, First 

Lay-Up Booth # 5, and Second Lay-Up Booth #7,October - November, 1992. EPA Method 

18/NIOSH Method 1501 Sampling 50 

7. Styrene Concentrations Measured at the Outlet of Gel Coat Booth #2, First Lay-Up Booth 

# 5, and Second Lay-Up Booth #7,October - November, 1992. EPA Method 18/NIOSH 

Method 1501 Sampling 51 

8. Results of EPA Method 18/NIOSH Method 1501 Samples Taken at the Inlet of the Polyad 

FB Device, November3to Novembers, 1992 54 

9. Results of EPA Method 18/NIOSH Method 1501 Samples Taken at the Outlet of the Polyad 

FB Device, November 3 to November 5,1992 55 

10. Compounds Identified in Liquid Sample Recovered from the Polyad FB Device 57 

11. Flow Rate Measurements at the Inlet of the Polyad FB Device 58 

12. Estimated Styrene Capture in the Polyad FB Device 60 

13. Design Assumptions and Price Quotes for the Polyad Concentrator System and the Polyad 

Recovery System for the Eljer Facility 62 

14. Equipment List and Dimensions for Large Components for Polyad Systems Suitable for 

Installation at the Eljer Facility 63 

B-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals for Critical Measurements Estimated in QAPP 82 

B-2. Data Quality Indicator Values for NIOSH Method 1501 Measurements Made at 

Eljer Plumbingware 83 

B-3. Data Quality Indicator Values for NIOSH Method 1501 Charcoal Sample Tubes 

Spiked with Known Concentrations of Styrene 84 

B-4. Data Quality Indicator Values for THC Analyzer Measurements Made at Eljer Plumbingware 85 

C-1. THC Analyzer Results from November 3,1992, First Period of Spraying 89 

C-2. THC Analyzer Results from November 3,1992, Second Period of Spraying 90 

C-3 THC Analyzer Results from November 3,1992, Third Period of Spraying 91 

C-4 THC Analyzer Results from November 4,1992, First Period of Spraying 92 

C-5 THC Analyzer Results from November 4,1992, Second Period of Spraying 93 

C-6. THC Analyzer Results from November 4,1992, Third Period of Spraying 94 

C-7. THC Analyzer Results from November 5,1992, First Period of Spraying 95 

C-8. THC Analyzer Results from November 5,1992, Second Period of Spraying 97 

C-9. THC Analyzer Results from November 5,1992, Third Period of Spraying 98 

VI 
P.10 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors would like to thank J. N. Eason, Plant Manager at Eljer Plumbingware in Wilson, 

NC, for providing a site to carry out this evaluation and Rollie Nagel, Manager of Safety and 

Environmental Health at Eljer, for his support and help during the test. The authors would also like to 

thank Lennart Odbratt and Magnus Danielsson of Weatherty, Inc. for making available the Polyad* FB 

unit for this test and for their help and assistance before, during, and after the test. Rnally, the authors 

would like to thank EPA Task Officer Bobby Daniel of the EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research 

Laboratory for his help, support, and coordination throughout this work. 

VII 
JL11 

PREFACE 

The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by EPA's Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical 

assistance to state and local air pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be accessed 

through the CTC. Rrst, a CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone assistance on 

matters relating to air pollution control technology. Second, more in-depth engineering assistance can 

be provided when appropriate. Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of 

technical guidance documents, development of personal computer software, and presentation of 

workshops on control technology matters. 

The engineering assistance projects, such as this one, focus on topics of national or regional 

interest that are identified through contact with state or local agencies. 

vm 
Metric to Nonmetric Conversions 

Readers more familiar with nonmetric units may use the following factors to convert to that 

system. 

Metric Multiplier Yields Nonmetric 

kPa 

kPa 

*C 

m 

m

3 

mmHg 

kg 

1000 kg 

rr^/min 

1450.38 

4.0145 

1.8T + 32 

3.2808 

35.3134 

0.03937 

2.2026 

0.90802 

35.3134 

psig 

in. H20 

'F 

ft 

ft3 

in.Hg 

Ib 

ton 

ft3/min 

IX 
P.13 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

The controi of styrene is a major concern for many areas of the country. Up to the time of this 

evaluation, The Control Technology Center (CTC) had received over 30 calls on the topic. One area of 

styrene emissions is in the manufacture of shower stalls and bathtubs. There are approximately 200 of 

these plants operating in the U.S. emitting uncontrolled styrene to the atmosphere. Until recently, no 

known technology had been demonstrated to control the emission of styrene. 

The CTC was contacted by the firm of Weatherty, Inc.. of Atlanta, GA, with regard to the 

possibility of evaluating a system (The Polyad® FB Process) that had been developed in Europe and is 

presently being used there to control styrene emissions. This process uses a fluidized bed adsorption 

system with proprietary macro porous polymer particles as the adsorbent. In the Polyad FB process the 

adsorbent continuously migrates from an adsorption section to a desorption section where the polymer 

particles are regenerated and the solvent is condensed and recovered back to the adsorption section. 

After being contacted by Weatherty, Inc., the CTC attempted to find other vendors of control 

technology for styrene removal. One other vendor was found and the CTC contacted this vendor, 

QUAD Environmental Technologies Corporation, of Northbrook, IL, to propose the evaluation of their 

chemical scrubber process (QUAD ChemtactTM System) along with the Polyad FB process on a source 

of styrene emissions. The QUAD Chemtact process removes styrene by spraying fine droplets (a mist) 

of a diluted chemical solution into a contaminated air stream as it is injected tangentially into the top of a 

hollow cylindrical reaction chamber. Styrene is apparently oxidized and adsorbed into the mist of 

scrubber liquor which is continuously collected and exhausted through the chamber drain. The treated 

air is then exhausted tangentially through the bottom of the reaction chamber. 
P.M 

The CTC initiated a proposed project to evaluate the Polyad and Chemtact processes for 

controlling styrene emissions at a representative fiberglass shower stall and bath tub manufacturing 

plant. Eljer Incorporated of Wilson, North Carolina was selected as a possible site and was visited by 

representatives of EPA in August of 1992 and later, in October, by representatives of EPA, SRI, 

Weatherty, and QUAD. This facility was selected because at this site Eljer manufactures both fiberglass 

shower stalls and bathtubs by spraying styrene-based resins onto various mold shapes in individual 

spray booths that are vented to the atmosphere. During the August visit, a tentative agreement was 

reached to test both the Polyad FB and Chemtact processes on a representative source of styrene 

emissions from the shower stall/bathtub construction process. Subsequently, during testing of the 

Polyad FB unit, it was found that QUAD Environmental could not supply the unit for testing within the 

time frame allotted for this work. 

Vent air from the spray booths used for mold-coating that is exhausted to the atmosphere is the 

major point source of emissions from the manufacture of fiberglass shower stalls and bathtubs. Thus, 

the number of manufacturing steps that involve the spraying of styrene-based resins and the number of 

individual spray booths in operation at a particular facility determine the level of styrene emitted to the 

atmosphere. 

Any fiberglass product that during its manufacture requires the spraying of styrene is a source of 

organic vapors that could affect human health both directly and indirectly. The results of this evaluation 

will provide information to state and local agencies for use in responding to public concerns. 
P.15 

SECTION 2 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH 

Styrene is an integral part of the industrial process that produces fiberglass bath tubs and 

shower stalls. In the first step of this manufacturing process, styrene is mixed with polyester resin and a 

pigment to create a "gel coat" that is sprayed onto a previously prepared mold. Molds are typically 

reusable and before each use the mold is waxed and coated with a mold-release agent that also helps 

to provide a high gloss to the finished product. In subsequent manufacturing steps, styrene and 

polyester resin are mixed with inert fillers and sprayed onto the previously coated mold along with 

chopped fiberglass. Between each application the coated mold is set aside while the resin is allowed to 

cure. Because curing is an exothermic process, the next manufacturing step is usually not carried out 

until the coated mold has cooled. Fiberglass provides structural support for the finished article, styrene 

and polyester resin act as a glue to hold the matrix together, and the inert fillers provide additional 

structural support and can also be used as a fire retardant. The final step of manufacture is to separate 

the finished fiberglass product from the mold. 

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the performance of two pilot-scale devices designed 

to control styrene emissions. During this evaluation, each pilot-scale control device was to be 

configured to treat a portion of the air exhaust from a gelcoat booth at a fiberglass shower stall and bath 

tub manufacturing plant operated by Eljer Plumbingware located in Wilson, North Carolina. As indicated 

above, of the two devices selected for evaluation, only the Polyad FB device could be tested within the 

time allotted for this work. 

To measure the styrene removal efficiency of the pilot-scale Polyad FB device, total 

hydrocarbon (THC) analyzers equipped with flame ionization detectors (FID) were used to determine 

total hydrocarbon levels at the inlet and outlet of the device on a continuous basis while charcoal-filled 

sampling tubes were used to collect samples of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) at the inlet and 

outlet of the device over time periods ranging from one to two hours. Styrene ieveis in the inlet and 
P.16 

outlet gas streams were quantified by subsequent chromatographic analysis (with FID detection) of the 

VOC's retained in the charcoal-filled sampling tubes. 

2.2 EUER PLUMBINGWARE FACILITY 

The Eljer Plumbingware facility, diagrammatically shown in Rgure 1, is located in Wilson, North 

Carolina. In this figure the location of the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit is shown along with the location of 

the van used for sampling and the generator used to provide power for the Polyad device. 

Each stage of manufacture except for mold separation or "pulling" is carried out in a spray 

booth. At the Eljer facility the spray booths were not constructed in place but are prefabricated units 

manufactured by Binks, Inc. Each spray booth is approximately 3.05 m (10 ft) high, 4.11 m (13.5) ft 

wide, and approximately 3.66 m (12 ft) deep. The booths are actually several feet deeper but 3.66 m 

back from the mouth of the booth an expanded metal grate is mounted across the width and height of 

the booth on which a large sheet of air conditioning-type filter material is mounted. The filter material is 

usually changed every other day. Each spray booth is continuously vented with air from the interior of 

the plant that is pulled into the booth entrance, through the air conditioning filter mat, to a large fan unit 

mounted outside of the building. Air pulled into the fan exits through ductwork that reenters the side of 

the building and exhausts vertically through a 0.91 m (3 ft) diameter stack mounted on the roof of the 

facility. Each exhaust fan has a nominal rated flow of 411 m3/min (14,500 acfm). 

There are three distinct manufacturing steps that are required to produce a fiberglass shower 

stall or bath tub at the Eljer facility. Rrst, a prepared mold is mounted on a cart and wheeled into one of 

the three gelcoat spray booths located in the mold repair shop. In the spray booth, the mold and cart 

are designed to slide onto the ami of a permanently mounted pedestal assembly that can be elevated 

above the floor of the spray booth. The mold and cart are also designed to rotate on the arm of the 

pedestal so that all parts of the mold are accessible for spraying. This mounting system is duplicated in 

every spray booth at the Eljer facility. 

Gelcoat is a nominal mixture of 1/3 styrene monomer, 1/3 polyester resin, and 1/3 pigment. At 

the time of this test two colors of pigment were used: white and pink. About three minutes are required 

to coat a bath tub mold with gelcoat and five minutes are required to coat a shower stall mold with 
P.17 

•190 ft.-

ACCESS AREAWAY 

FOR RLTER SERVICE 

X 

FIBERGLASS 

ROVING CHOPPER 

174.5 ft 

RESIN 

MIXING 

ROOM 

GELCOAT 

STAGING 

AREA 

T 

IXStt 

SECOND LAY-UP 

BOOTH M 

cGF 

SECOND LAY-UP 

BOOTH #7 

FIRST LAY-UP • 

BOOTH #8 

FIRST LAY-UP 

BOOTH #5 

[@l 

FIRST-LAY-UP 

BOOTH M 

iHh 

FIRST LAY-UP 

BOOTH «3 

FIRST LAY-UP 

BOOTH « da 

FIRST LAY-UP 

BOOTH »1 

J . GELCOA' T PUMPS 

' tro-cr 

MOLD SEPARATING 

STATION 9

MOLD SEF 

STATION 

•/• 

WimmmnimsmiimmBmimtmm&mBimimmmm* 

iPLAr 

\ \ § 

SAMPLING 

VAN 

POLYAD 

PILOT 

UNIT 

PLANT OFFICEt 

SPACE » 

•qpH-mfHHfqaM-yMMnviqatf 

MOLD REPAIR SHOP 

GENERATOR 

Figure 1. Layout of the Eljer Plumbingware Facility 
P.18 

gelcoat. When spraying is complete, the mold is oriented upright and the pedestal is lowered until the 

wheeled cart mounted to the mold contacts the floor. The mold and its attached cart is then wheeled out 

of the booth to await the next stage of manufacture. Between each stage of manufacture the coated 

mold is set aside to cure and harden for about an hour. Curing generates heat so there is a time interval 

between sprayings to allow the coated mold to cool. 

The second stage of manufacture is called the "first lay-up" or "initial laminating" step. In this 

stage, the mold is conveyed to one of the first lay-up booths and, as with the first step of manufacture, 

mounted on a pedestal and prepared for spraying. In this step, calcium carbonate (CaC03) powder is 

added to a mixture of 50% styrene monomer and 50% polyester resin to form a slurry that contains 

approximately 50% solids. This slurry is sprayed onto the mold and during the spraying operation, 

chopped fiberglass roving is also blown at about a 30* angle into the stream of spray as it exits the spray 

nozzle. The spray mixes with, the strands of chopped fiberglass and forms a entangled mat of resin 

impregnated fiberglass on the surface of the mold. The CaC03 powder and the chopped fiberglass help 

provide structural support to the finished product. As with the first stage of manufacture, this step is 

brief and requires only three to five minutes to complete. When this step is completed the coated mold 

is once again set aside to cure. 

The third, and final, spraying step is called the "second lay-up' or "backup" step and takes place 

in one of the two second lay-up booths shown in the upper left comer of Rgure 1 (Booth #7 or Booth 

#8). In this step, a 60%-40% blend of powdered CaC03 and hydrated alumina is added to a mixture of 

50% styrene monomer and 50% polyester resin to form a slurry that is contains approximately 50% 

solids. Hydrated alumina is added as a fire retardant. This mixture is also sprayed with chopped 

fiberglass fibers and forms the final layer on the mold. As with the first stage of manufacture, this step is 

brief and requires only three to five minutes to complete. When this step is completed the coated mold 

is set aside to cure for the final time. 

The final stage of manufacture is "pulling" or separation of the mold from the completed shower 

stall or bath tub. After the finished fiberglass piece is trimmed and inspected it is prepared for shipment 

to its final destination. 

6 
P.19 

2.3 THE POLYAD* FB PROCESS 

The Polyad FB process was developed and is marketed internationally by Nobel Chematur (now 

Chematur Engineering AB) of Karlskoga, Sweden. Weatherty, Inc., located in Atlanta, Georgia, is a 

wholly-owned subsidiary of Chematur Intemational AB, and has the responsibility for domestic marketing 

and sales of the Polyad FB process. The pilot-scale Polyad FB device that was evaluated at the Eljer 

Plumbingware facility was provided and operated by Weatherty, Inc. who also supplied the information 

from which the following description of the Polyad FB process was taken. 

Polyad is a collective name for adsorption processes developed by Chematur AB for the 

removal of organic substances from process exhaust air and water. These purification processes are all 

based on adsorption onto macro-porous polymer particles instead of activated carbon, which previously 

was the adsorption agent of choice for most solvent removal processes. Chematur indicates that 

Polymer adsorbents are superior to activated carbon because polymer formulations can be optimized for 

the adsorption of a specific solvent. 

For air purification applications Chematur markets their proprietary macro-porous polymer under 

the trade name of Bonopore*. It is supplied in the form of off white to pale tan particles with an average 

size of 0.5 mm, bulk density of 0.3 g/cm3, and specific surface area of approximately 800 m2/g. The 

high surface area is due to the macro-porous nature of the material. The Material Safety Data Sheet for 

Bonopore indicates that it has a molecular weight > 1,000,000 and lists its components as 

divinlybenzene, ethylvinlybenzene, toluene, and water. Chematur indicates that the adsorption 

properties of Bonopore are unaffected by high humidity and that the polymer has no catalytic effect on 

solvents such as styrene. It also resists abrasion which is important as the Bonopore particles are 

generally used to constitute a bed that is fluidized with solvent-laden air. The amount of Bonopore 

required for a given application is governed by total air flow through the bed, the amount of solvent 

present in the air stream, the adsorption rate of the solvent onto the Bonopore polymer, and the desired 

solvent removal efficiency. 

The Polyad FB (fluidized bed) air purification and solvent recovery process utilizes a 

continuously fluidized bed for air purification and the recovery of solvents from air. Chematur claims that 
P.20 

this process is especially weil suited for recovery of solvents from air streams when the solvents have 

relatively high boiling points. Typical solvents that are suitable for removal with the Polyad FB process 

include aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain freons, alcohols, 

aldehydes, ketones, and esters. Organic solvents with low boiling points and very polar solvents, such 

as methanol or methylene chloride, are not suitable candidates for removal with the Polyad process. 

At this time, two Polyad FB processes are marketed. The first of these processes is the one 

that was tested at Eljer Plumbingware where solvent is recovered for reuse or disposal. In this process 

(Rgure 2) solvent-laden air is purified as it passes through a fluidized bed of Bonopore adsorbent. The 

saturated Bonopore adsorbent is then pneumatically conveyed to a desorption unit where it is 

regenerated. 

The adsorption section consists of two, or more, beds of Bonopore. The number of beds 

depends on the type and concentration of the solvent and on the degree of solvent removal required. 

Solvent is adsorbed by the polymer particles as air passes through and fluidizes each bed. Bonopore 

continuously flows from one bed to the next. In the last bed the adsorbent, now saturated with solvent, 

is removed from the bottom of the bed and pneumatically conveyed to the desorption section at the 

same rate as regenerated Bonopore is fed into the first bed. 

Bonopore from the adsorption section is pneumatically conveyed to the top of a vertical moving 

bed desorber or "stripper" for regeneration. The desorption section consists of a container mounted 

above the stripper unit comprising a specially designed heat exchanger with gas collector. As particles 

of Bonopore descend through the desorber they are heated in a heat exchanger to a temperature at 

which the solvent evolves. The heating medum is steam but, by using a heat exchanger, steam and 

water do not come in contact with the recovered sorbent or the Bonopore polymer. The vacuum created 

in the container at the top of the desorption section by the pneumatic transport fan causes air to be 

drawn in through an air intake at the bottom of the stripper. It is then drawn upward through the 

descending adsorbent. This air, together with the released solvent, is collected and directed into a 

condenser. Condensed solvent is captured in a tank. Air containing any uncondensed solvent is fed 

back into the top of the stripper and allowed to ascend again through the heated desorption zone. 

8 
P.21 

CLEAN AIR 

Rgure 2. Diagrammatic representation of the Polyad FB Air 

Purification and Solvent Recovery Process. 
P.22 

Once past the heated section of the stripper, adsorbent is cooled by a water cooled heat 

exchanger situated at the bottom of the stripper. Ordinary tap water is usually sufficient to provide for 

satisfactory condensation of the recovered solvent. Regenerated adsorbent is pneumatically conveyed 

from the bottom of the desorber to the top of the adsorber into the first fluidized bed, to complete the 

cycle. 

In a properly designed unit, essentially all of the solvent entering the unit will be adsorbed onto 

the Bonopore polymer before the process air stream carrying the solvent exits the Polyad FB unit. 

Therefore, outlet emissions are primarily due to sorbent "bleeding" from Bonopore polymer as it reenters 

the adsorber after being discharged from the desorber. This is because desorbed Bonopore is 

introduced back into the adsorption section at the last fluidized bed before the system outlet. Weatherty 

engineers emphasize that such outlet emissions can be minimized by proper design and are acceptable 

in light of the gain in design simplicity and reliability afforded by the use of gravity to aid in the feeding of 

Bonopore polymer from one fluidized bed to the next. 

The second type of Polyad FB process is used in cases where solvent recovery is not required. 

In this case, the Polyad FB process is used as a preconcentrator to increase solvent concentration in 

the exhaust stream so that it can be easily incinerated. The net effect of such preconcentration is to 

reduce the total volume of air in the exit stream while increasing the concentration of solvent. For this 

application, the fluidized bed adsorber is unchanged but instead of a moving bed desorber a fluidized 

bed desorber is used. In the fluidized bed desorber the Bonopore is regenerated by blowing hot air 

through the adsorbent (in a fluidized bed) which causes the solvent to evolve. As with the first process, 

regenerated adsorbent is pneumatically conveyed back to the first adsorber. The hot solvent/air mixture 

leaving the desorber is passed to an incinerator where it is bumed. To reduce energy consumption, a 

heat exchanger can be installed to recover waste heat at the incinerator outlet. 

Among the Polyad FB units that have been installed, two were installed specifically to remove 

and recover styrene. One of these units was installed at the IFO-SanitSr AB plant in Bromolla, Sweden 

in 1989. This unit treats 21,200 nrVhr of air and can recover up to 8 kg/hr of styrene with a 90% overall 

10 
P.23 

efficiency. This unit requires 52 kW of electric power, 0.5m3/h of cooling water and 150 kg of Bonopore 

catalyst per year. Another styrene removal/recovery unit was recently ordered (in Germany). 

2.3.1 Pilot-Scale Polvad FB Device 

The Polyad mobile unit used at the Eljer Plumbingware facility was designed to accommodate 

an air flow of up to 500 m3/h (294 acfm). With this unit configured as it was for this evaluation, a 

maximum steady state concentration of 1000 ppm of styrene could be accomodated before the level of 

outlet emissions would be affected. Short-duration peak concentrations of up to 3000 ppm of styrene 

could also be experienced before outlet emissions would be expected to increase. Solvent removal 

efficiency was expected to be greater than 90%. A schematic diagram of the pilot unit is shown in 

Rgure 3 and a component arrangement drawing of the pilot unit is shown in Figure 4. 

This portable unit consists of three separate modules designed to be assembled on site after 

being shipped there by truck. The total weight of the assembled package is 2000 kg and once set up it 

occupies a space 3.8 m long by 2.0 m wide by 5.0 m high. During operation the pilot-scale Polyad FB 

unit requires 45 kW of 480 VAC of electrical service, primarily for steam generation, fan power, and 

cooling water refrigeration. A separate generator is usually used to provide this service. The design 

cooling water pressure is 5 bar with a design volume flow of 200 l/h. 

The pilot-scale unit uses four fluidized beds (two sections of two fluidized beds). Air that enters 

the unit passes first through a filter to remove foreign objects and then into the first fluidized bed. The 

filter housing also holds a heat exchanger to cool water used to condense recovered solvent. As shown 

in Rgure 3, flow is upward. Clean air is passes out of the top of the adsorber unit through a cyclone to 

the atmosphere. The cyclone catches any Bonopore adsorbent that escapes and feeds it back to the 

third fluidized bed. 

Bonopore that has passed through the four fluidized beds is pneumatically conveyed to the top 

of the moving bed desorber unit. Excess air from the conveying process is routed back to the first 

fluidized bed at the inlet of the adsorber unit abng with fluidizing air that is injected at the bottom of the 

desorber. The desorber incorporates two heat exchangers that are designed so that evolved solvents 

and the Bonopore adsorbent do not come into contact with the source of heating or cooling. The first 

11 
AIR INLET AIR OUTLET 

ro 

DESORBER UNIT 

FAN 

ADSORBER UNIT 

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit tested at Eljer Plumbingware 
P.25 

CONTROL 

CA8MET 

t3 

-1.640 m-

© 

FAN T 

b 

© 

OUTLET B8> 

THIRD BED 

SECOND BH) 

INLET BED 

l 

Iri 0 

o 

-ZMOm-

© 6 

s 

FAN 

STEAM I 

IGOERATOR 

i ! 

I CONTROL \ 

j CABINET 

© 

© 1 

FAN 

FAN 

© 

I I 

J, 

© 

0 

© 

PWHCPAl COMPONHIB QF THE UOBJLE POLYAD UMT: 

1. IWETPtENUM. WC0RP0RATESF1TERAND 

HEAT EXCHANGER FOR SOLVENT RECOVERY. 

Z FUflOCED BED ADSORBER. HUT AT BOTTOM. 

1 CYCLONE. RECOVERS BONOPORE ADSORBENT THAT 

ESCAPES FROM THE LAST R.UDBED BED. AIR DISCHARGED FROM CYCLONE TO ATMOSPHERE. CYCLONE 

CATCH ROUTED BACK TO THIRD RUBBED BED. 

4. DESORBER BONOPORE ADSORBENT FROM OUTLET 

FLUIDIZED BED 6 PNEUMATICALLY CONVEYED TO THE 

TOP OF THE DESORBER WHERE IT 6 HEATED TO DESORB SOLVENT. REGENERATEDADSORBENT IS 

PNEUMATCAUY CONVEYED TO THE OUTIET 

FUHOCED BED. 

Rgure 4. Component layout of the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit tested at Eljer Plumbingware 

13 
P.26 

(three-section) heat exchanger uses 135*C steam to evolve adsorbed solvent from the Bonopore 

polymer. The second (single-section) heat exchanger uses tap water to cool the Bonopore adsorbent 

back to room temperature (nominally 20 • 25* C) before it passes to the bottom of the desorber and is 

pneumatically conveyed back to the last section of the fluidized bed adsorber. The average time 

required for the Bonopore adsorbent to make one complete circuit of the system is one hour. 

In the desorber, air and solvent evolved from the heated bonopore polymer is drawn from 

between the second and third section of the first heat exchanger and is sent to a separate water-cooled 

solvent condensing unit. Air that has passed through the condensing unit is returned to the inlet of the 

desorber to mix with incoming Bonopore adsorbent. Although tap water was used for this test, if it is 

required, an on-board refrigeration unit can supply chilled water (at 10*C) to the heat exchanger in the 

solvent condensing unit. 

2.3.2 Specific Test Conditions 

For this test the inlet airflow rate varied from 4.5 to 6.1 rTrVmin (159 to 215 acfm) at a pressure 

drop of from -2 to -2.5 kPa (-8 to -10 in. H2O). The flow rate of Bonopore through the fluidized beds was 

kept at 10 kg/h (5.6 l/m, the lowest flow rate that can be maintained through the unit), except for one 

day (November 4) when the flow was set at 17 kg/h (9.4 l/m). The temperature of the desorber was set 

at 135*C (275*F), which is near, but below, the boiling point for styrene monomer (146*C). The tap 

water used for cooling the Bonopore adsorber and the heat exchanger in the solvent condensing unit 

averaged 20* C throughout the test. Table 1 summarizes the test conditions for each day of testing. 

During analysis of VOC samples collected at the inlet and outlet of the pilot unit it was 

determined that while only styrene was present at the inlet of the Polyad FB device, substantial amounts 

of compounds other than styrene (mainly napthalene and napthalene derivatives) were present at the 

outlet. Through conversations with Weatherty, Inc. it was learned that this pilot unit had recently been 

tested at a naptha manufacturing plant and that the Bonopore adsorbent used for that test was also 

used at Eljer. At the end of that test no special attempt was made to clean the unit or to desorb naptha 

from the Bonopore adsorbent. At the beginning of this test VOC emissions at the outlet of the Polyad 

FB device were approximately 22% styrene. By the end of the test VOC emissions at the outlet of the 

14 
P.27 

Table 1. Daily Test Conditions* 

Date 

3 November 

4 November 

5 November 

Inlet Air Temp. 

ro 

20-25 

20-25 

20-25 

Rel. Humidity 

(%) 

N/A 

62-66 

N/A 

Inlet Air Flow 

(m3/min) 

4.47 

4.81 

5.63 

Bonopore Flow 

(kg/h) 

10 

17 

10 

Desorber Temp. 

ro 

135 

135 

135 

System pressure drop of from -2 to -2.5 kPa (-8 to -10 in. H20) 

15 
P.28 

Polyad FB device were approximately 85% styrene. A sample of recovered solvent obtained from the 

solvent condensing unit at the end of the test was approximately 26% styrene. 

2.4 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS 

2.4.1 Connection to the Pilot-Scale Polvad FB Unit 

As is shown in Rgure 1, the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit was installed on the outside of the plant 

as near as possible to the exhaust from gelcoat booth #2. Also shown in this drawing are the relative 

locations of a generator used to provide electrical power for the pilot unit and a small van used to house 

the sampling equipment used for this test. Rgure 5 shows the overall arrangement for sampling. 

Approximately 19.5 m (64 ft) of flexible 15.24 cm (6 in.) diameter aluminum ducting was used to connect 

the Polyad FB unit on the ground to the exhaust of gelcoat booth #2 on the roof of the plant 

(approximately 4.6 m above the ground). Because outside temperatures were moderate (20 - 25* C) the 

ducting was not heated or insulated. A 0.9 m (3 ft) section of the same flexible aluminum ducting was 

attached to the outlet of the Polyad FB unit. All connections for the sampling equipment were made at 

the actual inlet and outlet of the pilot unit through rigid duct adapters and bulkhead fittings acquired for 

this test. 

At the pilot unit inlet and outlet single 9.53mm (0.375 in.) diameter Teflon® sample lines were 

used to carry gas samples to the sample van for analysis. Both were about 2.13 m (7 ft) long. I t 

was determined that Method 18 sample lines did not 

need to be maintained near the boiling point of styrene but did need to be held at least 20* F above the 

local ambient temperature. Thus, the sample lines were maintained at a temperature of 49* C (120* F). 

2.4.2 Sampling Van 

Rgures 6 and 7 show how the gas sampling equipment was connected within the van used to 

house the sampling equipment. Separate equivalent systems were constructed so that concurrent 

samples could be obtained at the inlet and the outlet of the Polyad FB device. Thus, the description that 

follows applies to either system. 

Shortly after each 9.53mm diameter sample line entered the sampling van it was divided into 

two short 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) diameter sample lines less than 1 m in length. The smaller sampling lines 

16 
SAMPLING 

VAN 

EXHAUST 

DESORBER 

UNIT 

POLYAD® FB 

PILOT UNIT 

Rgure 5. Overall arrangement for sampling at the Eljer Plumbingware Facility 

17 
P.30 

INLET OR OUTLET 

HEATED SAMPLING LINE 

t TO EPA METHOD 18 

(NIOSH METHOD 1501) 

SAMPLING APPARATUS 

OUTPUT TO DAS AND 

CHART RECORDER 

EXHAUST 

TO OTHER THC ANALYZER 

SPAN AND ZERO GAS INPUTS 

1 r^Sh 

J.U.M. VE-7 

THC Analyzer 

<fc 

- » 

T 

H2 

FUEL 

GAS 

^ t 

<£> 

<£> 

N2 

PURGE 

GAS 

m 

& 
 

ZERO 

AIR 

25 

ppm 

49 

ppm 

171 

ppm 

STYRENE CALIBRATION GAS 

TO OTHER THC 

ANALYZER 

Figure 6. Equipment arrangement used for sampling with THC analyzers 

18 
P.31 

X 

INLET OR OUTLET 

HEATED SAMPLING LINE 

• • TO THC ANALYZER 

CHARCOAL TUBE 

CHARCOAL TUBE 

0 » 

CHARCOAL TUBE 

EXAUST 

P 

SAMPLING 

PUMP 

FLOW 

REGULATING 

MANIFOLD 

BYPASS PUMP 

Q 

< & 

Rgure 7. Equipment arrangement used for EPA Method 18 / NIOSH 

Method 1501 sampling 

19 
P.32 

were not heat traced. One line was connected to a J.U.M. Instruments VE-7 THC analyzer and the 

other line was connected to three SwagelockTM "Tee" connectors in series from which samples of gas 

could be withdrawn into charcoal-filled adsorption tubes (EPA Method 18, Section 7.4 or NIOSH Method 

1501). After the last Tee connector this sample line was connected to a small 28.3 l/m (1 cfm) capacity 

sampling pump that was operated at approximately one-third of its rated flow. This pump served two 

purposes. The first purpose was to assure that more sample was withdrawn from the flexible aluminum 

duct than was required by the THC analyzer and the adsorption tube sample pump. The second 

purpose was to minimize the time required to convey a gas sample to the sampling equipment. The 

exhaust from this pump was diverted to the outside of the sample van. 

Rgure 6 shows the calibration gas system used for the THC analyzers. Three mixtures of 

styrene in nitrogen were used for calibration (171 ppm. 49 ppm, and 25 ppm), in addition to zero air. 

The bottles of calibration gas .were interconnected with positive shut-off valves to a common manifold 

that was itself connected to the span gas port on both THC analyzers. This system allowed both THC 

analyzers to be calibrated from the same calibration gases. 

The 0 -10 V output signal from each THC analyzer was fed to one channel of a two-channel 

chart recorder. The output signal from each THC analyzer was also recorded on 720 kb floppy disks 

with a dedicated PC-based datalogger. Output from each THC analyzer was logged once every second. 

The software used to log the data (Labtech Notebook) was configured to display the last 50 minutes of 

data (last 3000 data values) from both channels on the PC monitor. Output from the inlet THC analyzer 

was displayed from 0 to 1000 ppm full scale and output from the outlet THC analyzer was displayed on 

a 0 to 100 ppm scale. 

Preliminary measurements with charcoal-filled adsorption tubes (using NIOSH Method 1501, 

equivalent to the Adsorption Tube Procedure in Section 7.4 of EPA Method 18) made on a pre-test 

survey trip to Eljer Plumbingware revealed that virtually all (99%) of the organic material exhausted from 

the gelcoat spray booths was styrene monomer. During this test similar measurements were also made 

at the inlet and outlet of the Polyad FB device to quantify what organic compounds were present at the 

inlet and exhaust of this device. The primary intent of these measurements was to establish time20 
P.33 

averaged levels of styrene at the inlet and outlet of the Polyad FB device to determine the styrene 

removal efficiency of the Polyad FB device. As with the pre-test visit, NIOSH Method 1501 was followed 

in obtaining these samples (see Appendix A). 

Figure 7 shows the equipment arrangement used for the NIOSH Method 1501 sampling. The 

same arrangement was used to obtain inlet and outlet samples. Provision was made to obtain three 

replicate samples at one time by taking a sample at each tee in the sample line that led to the bypass 

pump. The three samples were obtained with a single sampling pump connected to a manifold that, in 

turn, was connected to each tee through a standard small charcoal-filled tube. Flow through each leg of 

the manifold was set before each measurement to approximately 0.2 l/m. 

2.5 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES 

2.5.1 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzers 

J.U.M. Instruments Model VE-7 total hydrocarbon (THC) analyzers equipped with flame 

ionization detectors (FID) were used to obtain a continuous measurement of the total hydrocarbon 

content in air that entered the Polyad FB device (air exhaust from gelcoat booth #2) and exited the 

Polyad FB device. This analyzer extracts approximately 3 l/m of sample with an internal sample pump 

and sends from 17 to 20 cm3/m of that sample to an onboard FID. The FID's in these instruments were 

set up to use hydrogen as a fuel. Two of these THC analyzers were rented from Clean Air Engineering 

of Palatine, IL for the duration of testing. These instruments were inspected and calibrated with propane 

span gases before shipment. 

Five decade output ranges can be selected from 0-10 ppm to 0-100,000 ppm. A 0-10V signal is 

output at the rear of the instrument that corresponds to the decade range selected. The instrument 

used to sample air from the inlet of the Polyad FB device was set to measure in the 0-1000 ppm range 

and the instrument used to monitor air exhausted from the Polyad FB device was set to measure in the 

0-100 ppm range. As indicated above, the output from each of these instruments was recorded on a 

two-channel chart recorder and also logged on a dedicated PC-based data acquisition system. 

These instruments are normally calibrated with propane. However, for this test they were 

calibrated with three mixtures of styrene in nitrogen (171 ppm, 49 ppm, and 25 ppm, certified by 

21 
P.34 

Matheson® Gas Products, Inc) in addition to zero air (less than 0.1 ppm hydrocarbons). When the 

instruments were zeroed on zero air, Instrument response was linear with the three calibration gases. 

The instruments were calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer's instruction 

manual. Calibration and zero gas connections were made at the back panel of the instrument and 

calibration and zero gas pressures were maintained at 1 bar (15 psig). Fuel gas (hydrogen) pressure 

was maintained at 1.5 bar (21 psig). Sample pressure was maintained at 200 mbar (3 psig). Full 

calibrations (all span gases, zero gas) were performed on both THC analyzers at the beginning and 

middle of each day and instrument calibration was checked at the end of each day of testing. 

2.5.2 Collection of Volatile Organic Compound Samples 

The Adsorption Tube Procedure defined in Section 7.4 of EPA Method 18 (equivalent to NIOSH 

Method 1501) was followed to obtain samples of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from air that 

entered the Polyad FB device (air exhaust from gelcoat booth #2) and exited the Polyad FB device. 

NIOSH Method 1501 was followed for the analysis of the samples. A copy of the NIOSH procedure is 

included in Appendix A. 

As shown in Rgure 7, the heated inlet and outlet sampling lines were divided after reaching the 

van housing the sampling equipment. One side was directed to a THC analyzer and the other side to a 

bypass pump through three tee fittings where VOC samples were taken. Row through the bypass pump 

was set (by restricting an internal bypass loop between the inlet and outlet of the pump) at a level only 

high enough to provide a small excess flow when the THC analyzer and adsorption tube samples were 

taken. Typically, the THC analyzer required 3 l/m and the three adsorption tube samples required a 

total of 0.6 l/m. 

Three samples were taken at a time (to provide replicate samples, one sample from each tee) 

and concurrent measurements were made at the inlet and outlet of the Polyad FB device. The three 

samples were obtained with a single sample pump connected to a flow-regulating manifold. This 

manifold is designed so that up to three samples can be obtained with a single sample pump (SKC 

Model 224-26-03 adjustable low flow controller). Provision is made for internal regulation of each 

sample flow. At each tee, a standard small charcoal tube (SKC Model 226-01 charcoal-filled tube, 

22 
P.35 

NIOSH approved, Lot 120) was connected to one side of the tee with the other side connected to the 

flow regulating manifold. 

Before sampling commenced flow through each leg of the manifold was set to approximately 0.2 

l/m. This was done by inserting a "dummy" small charcoal tube into the flow path after a bubble flow 

meter (Gilian Instruments Primary Flow Calibrator, 20 crrvVmin to 6 l/m). A dummy tube could be used 

because the flow resistance properties of the NIOSH-approved charcoal-filled sample tubes are 

designed to be uniform from tube to tube. After calibration was completed, the dummy tubes were 

replaced with previously numbered charcoal-filled tubes. To prevent contamination, these sample tubes 

are designed so that a small glass seal on either end of the tube must be broken off before a gas 

sample can be pulled through the tube. Samples were taken over time periods ranging from one to one 

and one-half hours. When sampling ended each tube was sealed with a plastic cap provided by the 

manufacturer. Previous experience at SRI has shown that when styrene is sampled, these tubes do not 

require refrigeration to preserve the sample prior to analysis. Thus, they were kept at room temperature 

until their contents were extracted for analysis. 

The charcoal-filled sample tubes from this evaluation were returned to SRI's laboratories in 

Binningham, Alabama for analysis. Analysis consisted of desorption of VOC's adsorbed on the charcoal 

with carbon disulfide (according to NIOSH Method 1501, reproduced in Appendix A) followed by injection 

into a gas chromatograph (GC) coupled to an FID. In addition, several styrene standards were used to 

spike randomly selected charcoal-filled tubes and these samples were analyzed according to the NIOSH 

method to determine a desorption efficiency specific to this lot of charcoal-filled tubes (91.23%). From 

this analysis, styrene present in the samples was quantified. Knowledge of the amount of styrene 

present, the sample time, and the sample gas flow rate allowed the determination of a time averaged 

value for the styrene present at the inlet and outlet of the control device. 

2.5.3 Collection of Recovered Solvent Sample 

A sample of liquid desorbed from the Bonopore adsorbent (2.6 liters) was collected at the end of 

the test from the reservoir in the Polyad FB device. The liquid had the approximate color of new motor 

23 
P.36 

oil but a viscosity more like that of light cooking oil. The liquid had a pronounced unpleasant odor, not 

necessarily that of styrene monomer. 

The liquid was brought back to SRI's Birmingham, Alabama laboratories for analysis. A sample 

of the liquid was diluted with carbon disulfide and subjected to GC-FID analysis to detennine styrene 

content. A second sample of the liquid was subjected to GC analysis with mass spectrographic 

detection to determine what other compounds were present. 

2.5.4 Total Row Rate Measurements 

During each day of testing, the total flow rate into the Polyad FB unit was measured with a 

thermal anemometer that had been calibrated in a wind tunnel at SRI's laboratories in Birmingham, 

Alabama before being taken into the field. These measurements were made at the inlet of the Polyad 

FB device at the end of a tong section of straight ducting (2.5 to 3 m in length). The inside diameter of 

the flexible aluminum ducting was measured and found to be 14.6 cm (5.75 in.) which corresponds to an 

area of 167.5 cm3 (0.180 ft2). To measure flow, air velocity measurements were made at five evenly 

spaced points across the small duct, the measurements were repeated (except on the first day of 

testing), and the readings were averaged. The averaged air velocity measurement was then converted 

to volumetric flow. The daily average results of these measurements are shown in Table 1. More 

information on these measurements is presented in Section 3.4 of this report. 

24 
P.37 

SECTION 3 

DATA. RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION 

3.1 TOTAL HYDROCARBON ANALYZER DATA 

The THC's were operated continuously through the three days of testing. On the last day of 

testing a 15 minute power failure at 1:18 pm resulted in the loss of all data to the datalogger for the 

balance of the day. Data were reconstructed from the chart recorder record (which itself was lost while 

the power was off) by scanning the inlet and outlet record into computer files that were analyzed by 

specialized software to determine the numerical value of the data recorded during that time. The 

recovered data were then imported into the software package used to generate the experimental record 

presented in this report. 

Some operational problems were encountered with the THC monitors. On the morning of the first 

day of sampling, November 3,1992. the THC used to monitor hydrocarbon emissions at the inlet of the 

Polyad FB device experienced an abrupt shift in output (by a factor of 1.75). The exact reason for this 

behavior was not known but from an examination of the chart recorder record it was clear that the shift 

occurred shortly after the first calibration of the morning. It was detected (and corrected) at the 

lunchtime calibration. A correction factor was determined and the morning's data were corrected during 

analysis of the data. The THC at the outlet of the Polyad FB unit did not exhibit this behavior. The fact 

that both of these analyzers were calibrated at the same time with the same calibration gas allowed the 

problem to be quickly isolated and corrected. The same behavior (in the inlet THC analyzer) was 

observed one other time, during the calibration check at the end of the day on November 3. The 

problem did not appear again and in this instance did not affect any results. Afterwards, the behavior of 

this monitor was closely monitored. 

The THC analyzer used to monitor hydocarbon emissions at the outlet of the Polyad FB device 

experienced problems with FID flame-outs. The problem worsened until on November 5, technicians at 

Clean Air Engineering, Inc. provided guidance on how to correct the problem and the problem was fixed. 

25 
P.38 

Because these periods were short and because the instruments were monitored closely no significant 

data were lost. 

3.1.1 Inlet Data 

VOC emissions from the spraying process can be characterized as being quite variable. At the 

inlet of the Polyad FB device instantaneous hydrocarbon emissions (essentially 100% styrene) ranged 

from as low as 90 ppm to as high as 400 ppm during spraying in the gelcoat booth. While molds were 

being removed from the spray booth or installed in the spray booth hydrocarbon emission levels ranged 

from 18 ppm to 45 ppm. During midday lunch breaks in the production process, hydrocarbon levels 

decreased to approximately 9 ppm. 

Figures 8 through 10 show output from the inlet THC analyzer that was recorded on the 

datalogger for the three days of testing, November 3 through 5,1992. For clarity, THC data taken 

during periods of calibration are not shown. 

These figures show that there are three distinct "periods" of spraying per day. The first period 

lasts from the start of spraying in the morning (starting at about 0845) and ends when the plant 

employees have a 15 minute break at approximately 1000 hours. The second period starts at 

approximately 1015 and lasts until.the lunch break at 1145. The final period starts around 1230 and 

lasts until 1415. 

In order to show the variability and the periodic nature of the emissions from this process, inlet 

THC data from two 40 minute periods before the lunch break on November 5 are presented in Rgures 

11 and 12. Because these data have a one-second resolution in time, emissions from the spraying 

process can be resolved in some detail. With the exception of the second period of spraying shown in 

Rgure 11, the operator spent from four to five minutes spraying gel coat on the mold. In the case of the 

second spraying period in Figure 11 and the periods of spraying shown in Rgure 12 the operator spent 

from five to six minutes spraying gel coat on the mold and the pattern of emissions appears distinctly 

different between the two types of spraying. Whether these differences are due to differences in the 

type of mold (bath tub versus shower stall) or to the approach used by the operator cannot be 

determined because no attempt was made to track what type of mold was being sprayed. 

26 
IO 

-*1 

E 

ta. o. 

*-? 

c 

a> 

*—. 

c 

o 

O 

c 

£ 

as 

u g 

TJ 

>» 

I 

.0) 

c 

500 

400 

300 

200 - -

100 

8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 

Time of Day, 11/3/92 

13:30 14:30 

Figure 8. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 3, 1992 
ro 

co 

400 

320 - ~ 

E 

Q. 

CL 

t£ 240 

c 

& 

c 

o O 

c 

o 

XJ 

u 2 

"5L 

x *^ 

c • 

160 - ~ 

80 - -

8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 

Time of Day, 11/4/92 

13:30 14:30 

Figure 9. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 4, 1992 
ro 

E 

Q . 

Q . 

C 

Q) 

C 

O O 

c 

o 

-O 

^. 

CD 

O 

O 

k_ 

TJ 

c 

400 

350 - -

300 

250 

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 

Time of Day, 11/5/92 

13:00 14:00 

Figure 10. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 5, 1992 

13 
CO 

o 

E 

Q. 

O. 

c 

c 

o O 

c o 

-Q 

1 _ 

OJ o o 

l _ 

TJ 

>. 

I 

c 

9:10 9:15 9:20 9:25 9:30 9:35 

Time of Day, 11/5/92 

9:40 9:45 9:50 

Figure 11. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions from 0910 to 0950, November 5, 1992 

ro 
CO 

E 

Q. 

a. 

c 

CD 

c 

o 

o 

c 

o 

.o 

a) 

o 

o 

TJ 

IE 

• • ^ ^) 

C 

11:10 11:15 11:20 11:25 11:30 11:35 11:40 11:45 11:50 

Time of Day, 11/5/92 

Figure 12. Inlet hydrocarbon emissions from 1110 to 1150, November 5, 1992 
P.44 

3.1.2 Outlet Data 

Figures 13 through 15 show output from the outlet THC analyzer that was recorded on the 

datalogger for the three days of testing, November 3 through 5,1992. As with THC data from the inlet, 

periods of calibration are not shown. Also not shown are data from periods when the FID in the outlet 

THC experienced a flame-out. 

These data show that outlet emissions from the Polyad device are essentialy uncoupled from inlet 

emissions. This behavior should be expected because the pilot-scale Polyad FB unit was designed to 

remove up to 1000 ppm of styrene before outlet emissions would be expected to increase. Thus, outlet 

emissions observed during this test were mainly due to the "bleeding" of solvent from Bonopore polymer 

that was not completely evolved in the desorption section. 

Outlet emissions tended to decrease throughout the day. At the start of the test, 9 am on 

November 3, outlet emissions were near 22 ppm. Outlet emissions dropped to near 4.5 ppm after 

several hours and remained at that level for the balance of the day. On November 4, at the start of 

testing outlet emissions averaged nearly 15 ppm. During the day the emissions level dropped to about 6 

ppm and thereafter increased slowly reaching approximately 8 ppm by the end of the day. This rise may 

have been due to the higher flow rate of Bonopore adsorbent used during that day (17 kg/h as opposed 

to 10 kg/h on other days). On November 5, the emissions level started out at approximately 7.5 ppm. 

However, at approximately 0925 outlet emissions were observed to rise quickly to about 11 ppm before 

they dropped back to about 5.5 ppm by 1030. The reason for this "spike" is not known because at that 

time the inlet emissions showed no such increase, as is shown in Figure 12. By the end of testing outlet 

emissions were in the range of 3 to 4 ppm. 

The results shown in these figures are for total hydrocarbon emissions. Previous measurements 

(and other measurements to be reviewed here) have shown that virtually all of the VOC emissions from 

the Eljer facility occur as styrene. As indicated in Section 2.3.2, other VOC's were present in air at the 

outlet of the Polyad FB device because the device was contaminated with VOC residue from a previous 

test. However, because these contaminants did not contain styrene, it was possible to determine the 

portion of the outlet emissions that were due to styrene from analysis of the charcoal tube samples. 

32 
8 

E 

Q . 

Q . 

C 

<D 

m-» 

C 

o O 

c 

o € 

cd o o 

TJ 

X 

*m* 

Oi 

• 3 

3 

o 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 

Time of Day. 11/3/92 

Figure 13. Outlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 3, 1992 
15.0 

10.0 

E 

Q. 

Q. 

•J" 

C 

<D 

C 

o O 

c o 

€ 

s 

S 

TJ 

\W 5.0 

a> 

33 

o 

0.0 

THC Analyzer 

Calibration 

26% Styrene 

Draeger Tube 

Runs 13 • 15 

(9:05 -10:05) 

THC Analyzer 

Calibration 

(***•» 

6 1 % Styrene 

Draeger Tube 

Runs 19 - 21 

(12:40 • 14:10) 

8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 

Time of Day, 11/4/92 

13:30 14:30 

Figure 14. Outlet hydrocarbon emissions, November 4, 1992 
OJ 

E 

Q. 

Q. 

C 

CD 

*-. 

C 

o O 

c 

o 

€ 

CO 

o o 

TJ 

X 

"3 

O 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 - -

6.0 - -

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

8:00 

THC Analyzer 

Calibration 

69% Styrene 

Draeger Tube 

Runs 25 - 27 

(8:52 -10:0^ 

^^Vf N 

77% Styrene 

Draeger Tube 

Runs 31 - 33 

(10:25- 11:30) 

F=F 

THC Analyzer 

Calibration 

. ^ . 

Power 

Failure 

85% Styrene 

Draeger Tube 

Runs 37 - 39 

(12:42 - 14:02) 

9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 

Time of Day, 11/5/92 

13:00 14:00 

Figure 15. Outlet hydrocarbon emissions, Novembers, 1992 

^i 
P.48 

Thus, in Rgures 13 through 15, periods are shown during which charcoal tube (Draeger tube) samples 

were taken at the outlet of the Polyad device and the percentage of styrene measured in those samples 

is indicated on these figures. Taking into account the actual amount of styrene that was present at the 

outlet of the Polyad FB device, styrene emissions at the outlet of the Polyad FB device were never 

greater than 8 ppm. By the end of testing emissions of styrene had fallen to less than 4 ppm. 

3.1.3 Efficiency Data 

Rgures 16 through 18 show calculated hydrocarbon penetration through the Polyad FB device 

and removal efficiency across the Polyad FB device for the three days of testing, November 3 through 5, 

1992. Because of the cyclic nature of the inlet emissions the calculated penetration-efficiency curves 

shown in these figures exhibit the same cyclic nature. To provide the reader with visual information on 

average levels of penetration and efficiency over time so that trends can be seen, average penetrationefficiency values during each period of spraying are also shown in these figures along with curve fits 

through the peak average values during each period of spraying. As indicated above, outlet emissions 

appear to be essentially uncoupled from inlet emissions. Thus, the highest penetrations (lowest 

efficiencies) were observed during periods between sprayings and the lowest penetrations (highest 

efficiencies) were observed during periods of spraying. In terms of penetration-efficiency values 

measured during periods of spraying, efficiencies never fell below 91% and on the last day of testing an 

efficiency of over 99% was measured during one period of spraying at around 1300. Clearly, from the 

data collected during this period, the Polyad FB process was very efficient in collecting the styrene 

emissions. 

Because of the rapid variability in process inlet emissions and the level of inlet emissions it was 

not possible to confirm the assertion made by Weatherly, Inc. that any stepwise increase in inlet 

emissions below 1000 ppm would not affect the immediate outlet emissions level for the Polyad FB pilot 

unit. However, the inlet and outlet emissions data presented above do suggest that within the levels of 

instantaneous emissions monitored at the inlet to the Polyad FB device (up to 400 ppm of styrene) outlet 

emissions are governed by "bleeding" of solvent from Bonopore polymer as it is reintroduced into the 

adsorber from the desorption section. 

36 
•>J 

100.0 

9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 

Time of Day, 11/3/92 

13:00 14:00 

Figure 16. Hydrocarbon removal efficiency, November 3, 1992 
g 

99.0 

— 90.0 

X 

»< Q. 

-n 

o 

o 

-^ 

ex 

o 

3J 

CD 

3 

s 

o. 5' 

O 

100.0 0.0 

8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 

Time of Day, 11/4/92 

13:30 14:30 

Figure 17. Hydrocarbon removal efficiency, November 4,1992 

o 
CO 

CO 

99.0 

90.0 

X 

CL 

~* 

o 

o 

0> —% 

CT 

O 

3D 

CD 

3 

3 

o 

CD* 

3 

100.0 0.0 

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 

Time of Day. 11/5/92 

13:00 14:00 

Figure 18. Hydrocarbon removal efficiency, November 5,1992 

Ul 
P.52 

Because outlet emissions were effectively not coupled to inlet emissions during this test it would 

be deceptive to concentrate on the relatively low penetration-efficiency values determined during periods 

between sprayings. Likewise, it may also be deceptive to concentrate on high penetration-efficiency 

values determined only during periods of spraying. Thus, in order to obtain a conservative estimate of 

the efficiency of the Polyad FB device the following approach was adopted: Inlet and outlet emissions 

were averaged during periods of spraying and during periods between sprayings. Penetrations and 

efficiencies were then calculated based on these averages. Overall averages were calculated for each 

of the three periods of active spraying for each day of testing and from these averages daily averages 

and a grand average of all the data were determined. 

An inspection of the inlet emissions record suggested that an inlet hydrocarbon emissions level of 

63 ppm was a resonable cutoff point to determine if a mold was being sprayed. Thus, inlet emissions 

greater than 63 ppm were found to be typical for periods of spraying and inlet emissions of less than 63 

ppm were found to be typical for periods between sprayings. THC data during each period of active 

spraying were averaged according to this criteria. Also, a record of the length of time of each spray/nonspray period was maintained as part of the averaging process. After averaging, the data were sorted by 

ascending emissions. Overall averages (weighted by the time span of each emission) were determined 

for periods when emissions were greater than 63 ppm and for periods when emissions were less than 

63 ppm. Finally, the percentage of time that molds were sprayed was determined for each period of 

active spraying. 

Table 2 shows the overall result of these calculations and includes the daily and grand test 

averages referred to above. Table 3 includes the averages for each of the three test daily periods of 

active spraying over the three days of testing. In these two tables no attempt was made to correct the 

level of outlet emissions for actual styrene content. Table 4 provides this correction for the times that 

the amount of styrene at the outlet was determined. In these tables average inlet and outlet emissions 

and efficiency and penetration are presented for periods when molds were sprayed (emissions > 63 

ppm), between sprayings (emissions < 63 ppm) and. for the entire period. Figures 19 and 20 present 

graphically the entire period averages shown in Tables 3 and 4 for each period of spraying. Tables 

40 
P.53 

Table 2. Daily Averages and Grand Average of THC Analyzer Data, 

November 3 through 5,1992 

1992 

Date 

3 Nov 

4 Nov 

5 Nov 

3 - 5 Nov 

Inlet 

Emissions 

Level 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm • 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

Percent 

of Time 

at that Level 

63.7 

36.3 

100.0 

67.1 

32.9 

100.0 

65.0 

35.0 

100.0 

65.4 

34.6 

100.0 

Average 

Inlet THC 

ppm 

187.5 

39.2 

133.7 

177.4 

41.7 

132.7 

160.0 

40.4 

118.2 

174.4 

40.5 

127.9 

Average 

Outlet THC 

ppm 

10.28 

9.10 

9.85 

7.47 

7.31 

7.42 

5.53 

5.21 

5.42 

7.62 

7.13 

7.45 

Average 

Efficiency 

% 

94.51 

76.79 

92.63 

95.79 

82.47 

94.41 

96.55 

87.10 

95.42 

95.63 

82.37 

94.18 

Average 

Penetration 

% 

5.49 

23.21 

7.37 

4.21 

17.53 

5.59 

3.45 

12.90 

4.58 

4.37 

17.63 

5.82 

41 
P.54 

Table 3. Summary of THC Analyzer Data, November 3 through 5,1992 

1992 

Oate 

3-Nov 

4-Nov 

5-Nov 

_____ 

Time Period 

for Spraying 

Start 

9:04 

10:01 

12:54 

8:42 

10:12 

12:19 

8:29 

10:11 

12:19 

End 

10:01 

11:48 

14:21 

10:05 

11:53 

14:15 

10:05 

11:49 

14:14 

Inlet 

Emissions 

Level 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

Percent 

of Time 

at that Level 

71.8 

28.2 

100.0 

60.1 

39.9 

100.0 

61.8 

38.2 

100.0 

71.4 

28.6 

100.0 

70.2 

29.8 

100.0 

60.6 

39.4 

100.0 

69.5 

30.5 

100.0 

58.6 

41.4 

100.0 

67.3 

32.7 

100.0 

Average 

Inlet THC 

ppm 

173.7 

46.1 

137.7 

206.8 

38.7 

139.7 

176.9 

35.7 

122.9 

152.6 

45.6 

122.0 

193.8 

44.4 

149.3 

182.0 

37.5 

125.0 

156.5 

47.0 

123.1 

172.7 

37.6 

116.8 

151.6 

37.8 

114.4 

Average 

Outlet THC 

ppm 

19.40 

19.66 

19.47 

7.86 

7.64 

7,77 

4.81 

4.81 

4.81 

9.69 

10.07 

9.80 

5.79 

5.53 

5.71 

7.30 

7.05 

7.20 

7.97 

7.49 

7.82 

4.73 

4.78 

4.76 

3.57 

3.54 

3.56 

Average 

Efficiency 

% 

88.83 

57.40 

85.86 

96.20 

80.28 

94.44 

97.28 

86.53 

96.09 

93.65 

77.92 

91.97 

97.01 

87.56 

96.17 

95.99 

81.21 

94.25 

94.91 

84.05 

93.65 

97.26 

87.28 

95.93 

97.65 

90.65 

96.89 

Average 

Penetration 

% 

11.17 

42.60 

14.14 

'3.80 

19.72 

5.56 

2.72 

13.47 

3.91 

6.35 

22.08 

8.03 

2.99 

12.44 

3.83 

4.01 

18.79 

5.75 

5.09 

15.95 

6.35 

2.74 

12.72 

4.07 

2.35 

9.35 

3.11 

42 
P.55 

Table 4. Styrene Removal from THC Data, November 3 through 5,1992 

1992 

Oate 

3-Nov 

4-Nov 

5-Nov 

Time Period 

for Spraying 

Start 

12:54 

8:42 

12:19 

8:29 

10:11 

12:19 

End 

14:21 

10:05 

14:15 

10:05 

11:49 

14:14 

Inlet 

Emissions 

Level 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

> 63 ppm 

< 63 ppm 

ALL 

Percent 

of Time 

at that Level 

61.8 

38.2 

100.0 

71.4 

28.6 

100.0 

60.6 

39.4 

100.0 

69.5 

30.5 

100.0 

58.6 

41.4 

100.0 

67.3 

32.7 

100.0 

Average 

Inlet THC 

ppm 

176.9 

35.7 

122.9 

152.6 

45.6 

122.0 

182.0 

. 37.5 

125.0 

156.5 

47.0 

123.1 

172.7 

37.6 

116.8 

151.6 

37.8 

114.4 

Average 

Outlet THC 

ppm 

4.81 

4.81 

4.81 

9.69 

10.07 

9.80 

7.30 

7.05 

7.20 

7.97 

7.49 

7.82 

4.73 

4.78 

4.76 

3.57 

3.54 

3.56 

Styrene 

in Outlet Air 

% 

21.8 

21.8 

21.8 

26.2 

26.2 

26.2 

61.5 

61.5 

61.5 

69.3 

69.3 

69.3 

77.2 

77.2 

77.2 

84.8 

84.8 

84.8 

ppm 

1.05 

1.05 

1.05 

2.54 

2.64 

2.57 

4.48 

4.33 

4.42 

5.53 

5.19 

5.43 

3.66 

3.69 

3.67 

3.03 

3.00 

3.02 

Styrene 

Efficiency 

% 

99.41 

97.07 

99.15 

98.34 

94.22 

97.90 

97.54 

88.45 

96.46 

96.47 

88.95 

95.60 

97.89 

90.17 

96.86 

98.00 

92.07 

97.36 

Styrene 

Penetration 

% 

0.59 

2.93 

0.85 

1.66 

5.78 

2.10 

2.46 

11.55 

3.54 

3.53 

11.05 

4.40 

2.11 

9.83 

3.14 

2.00 

7.93 

2.64 

43 
P.56 

175 

150--

E 

Q . Q. 

"3 

> CD 

- J 

CO 

c o CO 

CO 

E 

UJ 

"5 

In 

CD 

CO 

co i _ 

CD 

> < 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25-

-

III I 

III I 

—#— Inlet Hydrocarbons 

I—- j 

I 1 

-O— Outlet Hydrocarbons 

—A— Outlet Styrene 

—i—i — 1 

-iiii i 

35 

-30 

?5 

20 

15 

10 

> 

< 

C—D » CD 

CO 

CD 

O 

c 

CD 

<-* 

m 

3 

CO 

CO 

o 

3 CO 

i— 

CD 

< • 

2. 

•a 

-5 

Spray Period 

Day 

1 2 3 

November 3 

1 2 3 

November 4 

1 2 3 

November 5 

Figure 19. Average inlet and outlet hydrocarbon and styrene 

emissions for each period of spraying 

44 
P.57 

100-

98-

96-

94-

o 

c 

CD 

'o 

92-

\r, US SO-

> o 

E 

CD 

CC 

88-

86- -; 

84-

82-

Total Hydrocarbons 

Styrene 

80-rSpray Period 1 2 3 

Day November 3 

1 1-

1 2 3 

November 4 

1 2 3 

November 5 

Rgure 20. Average hydrocarbon and styrene removal 

efficiency for each period of spraying 

45 
P.58 

detailing averages within each period of active spraying (sorted by time) along with population standard 

deviations and 95% confidence intervals are presented in Appendix C. 

Tables 2 and 3 show that, on the average, 65% of each period of active spraying activity is 

occupied by spraying. During these periods the average level of styrene emissions at the inlet ranged 

from 152 to 207 ppm while the average level of hydrocarbon emissions at the outlet ranged from 3.6 to 

9.8 ppm (excluding the first period of active spraying on November 3). If the first period of active 

spraying on November 3 is excluded the average efficiency during periods of spraying ranged from 93 to 

nearly 98%, and the average efficiency during periods between sprayings ranged from 78 to almost 

91%. Overall, an average efficiency of just slightly greater than 94% was measured for the test. 

Table 4 and Rgure 19 show that styrene at the outlet increased before it started to decrease. 

These data also show that outlet emissions dropped by a factor of over four from the beginning to the 

end of the test. This is probably because during most of the first two days of testing outlet emissions 

were dominated by the evolution of napthalene-related contaminants from the Bonopore polymer. 

If data from the last period of the last day of testing can be viewed as representative of the Polyad 

FB process (in the absence of contamination) then, as Table 4 and Figure 20 show, overall efficiencies 

of at least 97% can be achieved. 

3.1.4 Estimated Styrene Emissions from Gel Coat Booth #2 

It is possible to estimate styrene emissions to the atmosphere from the shower stall and bath tub 

gel coating process from THC data taken at the inlet of the Polyad FB device. THC data from each day 

of testing were inspected to determine times during which bath tubs or shower stall molds were sprayed. 

VOC emissions (assumed to be 100% styrene) were averaged over the time required to spray each bath 

tub or shower stall mold and multiplied by the time required to spray the mold to determine the 

emissions rate in mg of styrene per m3/s of air flow. This value was multiplied by the nominal flow rate 

of the vent exhaust fan (6.84 m3/s or 14,500 cfm) to obtain a mass emissions rate of styrene to the 

atmosphere for each bath tub or shower stall. 

Table 5 shows the results of these calculations with population standard deviations and 95% 

confidence intervals. Over the three days of testing sufficient data were acquired to estimate styrene 

46 
P.59 

Table 5. Summary of Estimated Styrene Emissions from Gel Coat Booth #2, THC Data 

Date 

3-Nov 

4-Nov 

5-Nov 

3-5 Nov 

Start 

9:04 

10:18 

12:59 

Daily J 

8:48 

10:20 

12:32 

Daily S 

8:29 

10:16 

12:33 

Daily £ 

Tests 

End 

10:01 

11:42 

14:07 

lummary 

9:57 

11:50 

14:08 

lummary 

9:49 

11:45 

14:07 

lummary 

ummary 

Units 

Sprayed 

8 

9 

9 

26 

9 

12 

12 

33 

9 

8 

8 

25 

84 

Time 

Average 

(sec) 

304.5 

356.6 

297.6 

320.1 

322 

328.7 

290.8 

313.1 

373.7 

410.1 

340.9 

374.8 

333.6 

:o Spray Eacl 

Pop. Std. 

Dev. (sec) 

58.9 

93.8 

81.1 

84.2 

99.1 

99.2 

81.5 

94.7 

68.8 

108.7 

146.7 

114.6 

101.8 

i Unit 

95% C. 1. 

(sec) 

40.8 

61.3 

53.0 

32.4 

64.7 

56.1 

46.1 

32.3 

44.9 

75.3 

101.6 

44.9 

21.8 

— Styren 

Average 

(kg) 

1.551 

2.137 

1.521 

1.744 

1.470 

1.842 

1.541 

1.631 

1.761 

1.990 

1.619 

1.789 

1.713 

9 Emissions per Unit — 

Pop. Std. 95% Cl . 

Dev. (kg) (kg) 

0.296 

0.530 

0.318 

0.492 

0.353 

0.448 

0.315 

0.411 

0.274 

0.460 

0.547 

0.462 

0.458 

0.205 

0.346 

0.208 

0.189 

0.231 

0.254 

0.178 

0.140 

0.179 

0.319 

0.379 

0.181 

0.097 

47 
P.60 

mass emissions for a total of 91 separate mold sprayings. On the average, 5.6 ±1.7 minutes were 

required to spray a mold and during that time approximately 1.9 ± 0.5 kg of styrene was vented to the 

atmosphere, assuming that the exhaust fan in gel coat booth #2 was operated at its nominal flow rate. 

The fairly high population standard deviations for these numbers are most likely due to the fact that two 

different types molds were sprayed and that bath tub enclosures require a longer time to spray (with 

higher emissions) than smaller shower stalls. 

3.2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND DATA 

NIOSH Method 1501 (equivalent to EPA Method 18, Adsorption Tube Procedure) was followed 

to obtain charcoal tube samples at selected booth exhausts and at the inlet and outlet of the Polyad FB 

device situated at gel coat booth #2. Due to the nature of the adsorption tube sampling procedure and 

the desire to sample process emissions over an extended period, sample times of from one to one and 

one-half hours were typical. . 

During a pretest visit on October 13,1992 charcoal tube samples were obtained at the roof 

exhaust stack of gel coat boot #2. Later, on November 6,1992, charcoal tube samples were obtained at 

the roof exhaust stack of first lay-up booth #5 and second lay-up booth # 7. As described above, during 

each day of sampling from November 3 -5,1992 charcoal tube samples were obtained from air 

exhausted from gel coat booth #2 (the inlet of the Polyad FB device) and air exhausted from the Polyad 

FB device. 

Only one operational problem was encountered during this testing. This was when a 15 minute 

power failure occurred on the last day of sampling. Even though the battery-powered pumps that were 

used to acquire these samples continued to function during the interval while power was lost, the sample 

bypass pumps did not operate during that time (19% of the 80 minute sample period). Thus, those 

particular samples may not be completely representative of the process. 

Equipment problems did significantly affect sampling. After testing was completed it was 

discovered that both sample pumps did not maintain proper sample flow under negative inlet pressures 

typical of those found during this test (approximately 1 kPa above that required to sample through the 

sample manifold with three charcoal tubes attached). These pumps are designed to maintain flow at 

48 
P.61 

negative inlet pressures of up to 10 kPa (40 in H20). This problem was exacerbated by a crack in the 

tube of the Gilian Instruments flow calibrator that prevented it from being operated at a negative 

pressure of more than 0.25 kPa (1 in. H20). Thus, although the sample pumps were calibrated before 

each use, they could not be calibrated with the flow calibrator inserted into the sample line before each 

charcoal tube. The net effect of this was to render the charcoal tube data taken from November 3-5, 

1992 unusable except for information as to styrene content. Fortunately, charcoal tube samples taken 

at roof exhaust vents during the pretest visit on October 12 and after testing was completed on 

November 6 were usable because for these measurements the sample pumps were calibrated for flow 

under the actual conditions of use. 

3.2.1 Measurements at Spray Booth Exhaust Stacks 

Charcoal tube samples were obtained at the exhaust stack of gel coat booth #2 during the 

pretest visit on October 13,1992. Samples were also taken at the exhaust stack of first lay-up booth #5 

and second lay-up booth # 7 on November 6,1992. While samples taken at the outlet of other types of 

spray booths were not required to determine the applicability of the Polyad FB device to controlling 

styrene emissions from a gel-coating booth, these measurements were necessary to determine if 

styrene emissions from the gel-coating operation were characteristic of other parts of the bath tub and 

shower stall manufacturing process. Also, if higher levels of styrene emissions were typical of other 

parts of the manufacturing process, costs to install and maintain a Polyad FB - type of control device 

would be affected. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the results of these measurements. 

Table 6 presents the sample parameters, spraying times, and number of units sprayed during 

each set of runs and Table 7 presents averages with population standard deviations, emissions levels of 

styrene in ppm, and emission rate in kg of styrene per hour and kg of styrene per unit sprayed. 

Because the number of molds sprayed were recorded during each period of .sampling, it was possible to 

determine an emission rate in terms of the amount of styrene emitted to the atmosphere per mold 

sprayed. Compared to styrene emissions rates reported in Table 5 for gel coat booth #2 on November 3 

- 5, the level of styrene emissions measured on October 13 with charcoal sample tubes are lower. 

However, on October 13, at gel coat booth #2 only 44% of the time was spent in spraying (each period 

49 
P.62 

Table 6. Sampling Conditions for Measurements made at the Outlet 

of Gel Coat Booth #2, Rrst Lay-Up Booth # 5, and Second 

Lay-Up Booth #7, October - November, 1992. EPA Method 

18/NIOSH Method 1501 Sampling. 

Date 

10/13 

11/6 

Location 

Gel Coat Booth #2 

Rrst Lay-Up Booth #5 

Second Lay-Up Booth #7 

Sample 

Numbers 

1 -6 

40-42 

43-45 

Start 

Time 

13:10 

08:40 

08:40 

End 

Time 

14:14 

09:40 

09:40 

Sample 

Time 

min 

64 

60 

60 

Time Spent 

Spraying 

min % 

28.17 

21.08 

28.33 

44.0 

35.1 

47.2 

Number 

of Units 

Sprayed 

8 

15 

27 

Average Time 

to Spray a Mold 

sec 

211.9 ±36.7 

84.3 ±26.9 

63.0 ±20.1 

50 
P.63 

Table 7. Styrene Concentrations Measured at the Outlet of Gel Coat 

Booth #2, First Lay-Up Booth # 5, and Second Lay-Up Booth #7, 

October • November, 1992. EPA Method 18/NIOSH Method 

1501 Sampling. 

Date 

10/13 

11/6 

Location 

GC#2 

Average** 

FLU #5 

Average 

SLU#7 

Average 

Sample 

Number 

1* 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Sample 

Volume 

liters 

16.09 

13.68 

16.69 

13.41 

14.13 

13.97 

16.08 

15.52 

15.94 

7.08 

6.64 

7.00 

Styrene 

Measured 

ug 

141.4 

6154.3 

6702.7 

6071.6 

6102.1 

5965.5 

5664.6 

5853.9 

55^.7 

3611.5 

3138.5 

4359.2 

Styrene 

Concentration 

ppm 

2.1 

105.7 

94.3 

106.3 

101.4 

100.3 

101.6 ±4.3 

84.3 

90.2 

83.2 

85.9 ± 3.1 

122.3 

113.4 

149.1 

128.3 ±15.2 

Equivalent Styrene 

Emissions 

kg/h 

0.22 

11.08 

9.89 

11.15 

10.64 

10.52 

10.66 ±0.45 

8.68 

9.29 

8.57 

8.85 ± 0.32 

12.57 

11.65 

15.34 

13.18 ±1.57 

kg/Unit 

0.029 

1.478 

1.319 

1.487 

1.419 

1.403 

1.421 ±0.061 

0.579 

0.619 

0.571 

0.590 ± 0.021 

0.465 

0.431 

0.568 

0.448 ±0.017 

Styrene 

Measured 

% 

>99 

>99 

>99 

>99 

>99 

>99 

N/A 

99.76 

99.69 

99.65 

99.70 ± 0.05 

99.66 

99.77 

99.82 

99.72 ± 0.05 

Not representative, leak around tube 

Sample #1 not in averages or population standard deviations 

51 
P.64 

of spraying averaged 212 seconds). As Tables 2 and 5 show, during November, molds were usually 

sprayed for 65% of any period of spraying activity and the average period of spraying was approximately 

334 seconds long. Thus, styrene emissions measured for October 13 may be less than those measured 

during November because of a lower production rate. 

For styrene emissions measured at first lay-up booth #5 and second lay-up booth #7 exhaust 

vents on November 6, production rates were higher and styrene emission rates per unit were lower than 

that observed for the gel coating operation at any time. In first lay-up booth #5, 15 units were sprayed 

over an hour of sampling (84 seconds of spraying per unit) with an average emission rate of 0.59 kg/unit 

sprayed. At second lay-up booth #7, 27 units were sprayed over an hour of sampling (63 seconds of 

spraying per unit) with an average emission rate of 0.45 kg/unit sprayed. Evidently the second and third 

stages of manufacture require shorter times to complete than does the initial stage of spraying with gel 

coat. Also, as Table 6 shows, the population standard deviation for average time to spray a unit can be 

large compared to the average. These large standard deviations are almost certainly due to the mix of 

units sprayed (bath tubs and shower stalls with different surface areas). 

On a per unit basis, styrene emissions are lower for the last two stages of manufacture which 

might be expected because the mix sprayed in these last two processes contains less styrene monomer 

than the mix sprayed in the gel coating process. However, on an hourly basis, at second lay up booth 

#7, styrene emissions were greater than measured at gel coat booth #2 (13.2 kg/h versus 10.7 for gel 

coat booth #2 and 8.9 kg/h for first lay-up booth #5). 

Compared with the results from THC measurements reported in Table 2. mass emissions 

measured for first lay-up booth #5 (86 ppm) and gel coat booth #2 (102 ppm) appear very low compared 

to the average for all spraying at gel coat booth #2 (128 ppm, Table 2) while mass emissions measured 

for second lay-up booth #7 (128 ppm) agree better. In terms of emissions of styrene per unit sprayed, 

the results from gel coat booth #2 from October 13, (1.42 kg/unit) agree better with the result shown in 

Table 5 (1.71 kg/unit), especially when the time of spraying is taken into account (6.7 g/sec on October 

13 versus 5.1 g/sec for November 3-5). 

52 
With respect to the amount of styrene present in the samples, while it was only verified for the 

samples taken in October that styrene was the only significant VOC present in emissions from gel coat 

booth #2, quantitative determination of styrene was performed for the samples taken in November. As 

Table 6 shows, styrene is essentially the only VOC present in the booth exhaust air at the Eljer facility. 

3.2.2 Measurements at the Inlet and Outlet of the Polvad FB Device 

Table 8 summarizes the results of measurements made at the inlet of the Polyad FB device and 

Table 9 summarizes the results of measurements made at the outlet of the Polyad FB device during 

testing on November 3-5,1992. Because of the sampling problems discussed above, Tables 8 and 9 

show the percentage of styrene and amount of styrene collected rather than concentration of styrene 

measured. Tables 8 and 9 also include averages and population standard deviations for each triplicate 

set of runs. 

Table 8 shows the amount of styrene at the inlet of the Polyad FB device from November 3 to 

November 5. This table also shows the percentage of styrene measured at the inlet as compared to the 

total amount of material detected. While these numbers do not indicate as high a percentage of styrene 

in the exhaust of gel coat booth #2 as was reported in Table 7, an inspection of the gas chromatograms 

for each sample shown in Table 8 suggests that the samples were not contaminated by any particular 

compound. These results also show the effects of the malfunctioning of the sample pump. The third 

sample in each set usually has much less styrene present than is present in the first two samples. 

Table 9 presents the amount of styrene at the outlet of the Polyad FB device from November 3 

to November 5 and cleariy shows that the amount of styrene in the gas exiting the Polyad FB device 

increased throughout the test. This was probably due to the desorption of naphthalene-related 

contaminates from previous testing with the Polyad FB pilot unit (seeSection 2.3.2). These samples 

also show the effects of a malfunctioning sample pump. The effect was probably more drastic at the 

outlet, compared to the inlet, because a higher sample flow rate was used. Flow through the third tube 

in each manifold was very low and so little styrene was detected that it cannot be assumed that the 

amount of styrene present was reliably measured. Therefore, these samples were excluded from 

condition averages and population standard deviations. 

53 
P.66 

Table 8. Results of EPA Method 18/NIOSH Method 1501 

Samples Taken at the Inlet of the Polyad FB 

Device, November 3 to November 5,1992 

Date 

11/3 

11/3 

11/4 

11/4 

11/5 

11/5 

11/5 

Run 

Number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

10 

11 

12 

16 

17 

18 

22 

23 

24 

28 

29 

30 

34 

35 

36 

Start 

Time 

10:26 

13:00 

9:05 

12:40 

8:52 

10:25 

12:42 

End 

Time 

11:26 

14:02 

10:05 

14:10 

10:02 

11:30 

14:02 

Styrene 

% 

96.47 

96.91 

97.30 

97.96 

97.46 

96.76 

97.32 

96.91 

98.19 

97.34 

96.96 

93.81 

97.39 

96.91 

98.75 

97.26 

97.04 

97.14 

97.26 

96.71 

94.24 

Styrene 

uq 

1563.1 

4123.8 

6072.0 

4909.2 

1899.4 

120.4 

5043.3 

1149.6 

33.0 

7614.2 

4019.4 

80.4 

5979.9 

1863.7 

50.7 

4332.2 

1917.4 

38.5 

6988.4 

2708.9 

105.1 

Average 

Styrene, %* 

96.89 ± 0.34 

97.39 ± 0.49 

97.47 ± 0.53 

96.04 ±1.58 

97.68 ± 0.78 

97.14 ± 0.09 

96.07 ±1.31 

± one population standard deviation 

54 
P.67 

Table 9. Results of EPA Method 18/NIOSH Method 1501 

Samples Taken at the Outlet of the Polyad FB 

Device, November 3 to November 5,1992 

Date 

11/3 

11/4 

11/4 

11/5 

11/5 

11/5 

Run 

Number 

7 

8 

9** 

13 

14 

15** 

19 

20 

21t 

25 

26 

27** 

31 

32 

33** 

37 

38 

39" 

Start 

Time 

13:00 

9:05 

12:40 

8:52 

10:25 

12:42 

End 

Time 

14:02 

10:05 

14:10 

10:02 

11:30 

14:02 

Styrene 

% 

17.67 

25.83 

27.69 

21.78 

30.61 

41.29 

61.52 

61.39 

97.32 

69.22 

69.42 

36.55 

81.12 

73.32 

48.78 

85.87 

83.78 

52.72 

Styrene 

ug 

31.9 

38.8 

3.4 

103.5 

117.8 

5.1 

282.1 

324.5 

78.2 

210.1 

158.0 

7.2 

205.7 

181.5 

7.3 

212.8 

184.0 

11.3 

Average 

Styrene, %# 

21.75 ±4.08 

26.19 ±4.42 

61.45 ±0.06 

69.32 ±0.10 

77.22 ± 3.90 

84.83±1.04 

± one population standard deviation 

Too little sample for accurate determination, excluded from average 

and population standard deviation 

Inconsistent result and small styrene sample, excluded from average 

and population standard deviation 

55 
P.68 

3.3 Analysis of Recovered Solvent Sample 

After testing had ended on November 5, the solvent recovery unit in the Polyad FB device was 

drained and 2600 ml of liquid was recovered. This liquid had a strong odor, different from that of 

styrene. Approximately 100 ml of this liquid was preserved in a glass container with a Teflon sealed cap 

and transported to Birmingham for analysis. 

A sample of the liquid was diluted with carbon disulfide (1:100) and subjected to GC-FID 

analysis to determine styrene content. It was determined that styrene was present in the sample and 

was the largest constituent, but only at a concentration of 28.7 %. Many other hydrocarbons were 

present. A second sample of the liquid was subjected to GC analysis with mass spectrographic 

detection to identify what compounds were present. An NBS-certified software library was used for 

compound identification. Table 10 presents the results of this analysis. 

As Table 10 shows, only two compounds could not be identified. The compounds other than 

styrene appear to be contamination from the Polyad FB unit. As noted above, before being evaluated at 

Eljer Plumbingware, the Polyad FB unit had been tested at a chemical plant that produced naphthalene. 

The sample recovery reservoir in the Polyad FB unit was not drained at the end of that test. When the 

Polyad FB unit was prepared for this test, the reservoir was not drained nor was the Bonopore 

adsorbent changed. Thus, naphthalene and naphthalene-related VOC's were present in the Polyad FB 

unit at the start of the test and throughout the test they continued to be desorbed from the Bonopore 

adsorbent. 

3.4 Total Flow Rate Data 

Following the methodology described in Section 2.5.4, air flow into the Polyad FB device was 

measured during each day of testing. Table 11 presents the results of these measurements. The flow 

measurements made on November 3 (at 14:45) and November (at 08:55) 5 were the actual flows used 

for testing. On November 4, flow rate measurements were made at the end of the day (14:45). The 

flow rate indicated as "Flow for Testing" in Table 11 was the flow rate used during that day. Flow rates 

were measured at two other fan settings to help detennine the fan setting to be used for the final day of 

testing. 

56 
P.69 

Table 10. Compounds Identified in Liquid Sample 

Recovered from the Polyad FB Device 

Compound Identified* 

Unknown • 1 

Styrene 

Unknown - 2 

Diethyl Benzene 

1,2 - Diethyl Benzene 

1,3 - Diethyl Benzene 

2 - Methyl - 2 - Propenyl Benzene 

Naphthalene 

Bis (2 - Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 

Total of Compounds Present 

Percent 

Present 

1.439 

25.737 

4.578 

17.028 

16.052 

5.071 

5.809 

17.342 

6.944 

100.000 

Amount 

(ml) 

37.4 

669.2 

119.0 

442.7 

417.4 

131.9 

151.0 

450.9 

180.5 

2600.0 

57 
P.70 

Table 11. Row Rate Measurements at the Inlet of the Polyad FB Device 

Date and Time 

11/3/92,14:45 

Average 

11/4/92,14:45 

(Row for testing) 

Average 

(Trial Row #1) 

Average 

(Trial Row #2) 

Average 

11/5/92, 08:55 

Average 

Distance from 

Far Wall of Duct* 

cm 

1.3 

3.8 

6.4 

8.9 

11.4 

1.3 

3.8 

6.4 

8.9 

11.4 

1.3 

3.8 

6.4 

8.9 

11.4 

1.3 

3.8 

6.4 

8.9 

11.4 

1.3 

3.8 

6.4 

8.9 

11.4 

Rrst 

Traverse 

m/min 

259.1 

289.6 

266.7 

228.6 

289.6 

266.7 

304.8 

274.3 

259.1 

292.6 

350.5 

373.4 

342.9 

304.8 

358.1 

388.6 

396.2 

359.7 

335.3 

381.0 

365.8 

335.3 

312.4 

304.8 

358.1 

Second 

Traverse 

m/min 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

281.9 

320.0 

289.6 

274.3 

304.8 

335.3 

373.4 

335.3 

312.4 

365.8 ' 

381.0 

373.4 

335.3 

329.2 

373.4 

350.5 

365.8 

312.4 

304.8 

350.5 

Average 

Velocity 

m/min 

259.1 

289.6 

266.7 

228.6 

289.6 

266.7 ±22.6 

274.3 

312.4 

281.9 

266.7 

298.7 

286.8 ±16.6 

342.9 

373.4 

339.1 

308.6 

362.0 

345.2 ±22.2 

384.8 

384.8 

347.5 

332.2 

377.2 

365.3 ±21.5 

358.1 

350.5 

312.4 

304.8 

354.3 

336.0 ±22.7 

Average 

Row Rate** 

m

3

/min 

4.47 ± 0.38 

4.81 ±0.28 

5.78 ± 0.37 

6.12 ±0.36 

5.63 ±0.38 

The duct diameter was 14.61 cm 

The flow rate used for testing appears in bold face type. 

58 
P.71 

3.5 Styrene Captured bv the Polvad FB Device 

Using the flow measured during each day of testing and the total time of spraying, it is possible 

to estimate the minimum amount of air that passed through the Polyad FB device while styrene was 

present. Also, if it is assumed that 95% of the styrene that entered the Polyad FB unit was captured and 

completely recovered from the Bonopore adsorbent and that the average level of styrene present in the 

exhaust air from gel coat booth #2 during periods of spraying was 128 ppm (from Table 2), then it is 

possible to estimate the maximum amount of styrene that should have been recovered by the Polyad FB 

device. Table 12 shows that amount to be 1.9 kg or 2.1 liters of liquid styrene. 

Unfortunately, it is not possible to reconcile the amount of styrene that should have been 

recovered with the amount of styrene that was recovered. This is because after testing had been 

completed on November 4 (from 15:00 until 18:30 when the unit was powered down), and before testing 

was started on November 5 (from 07:00 when the unit was powered up until 08:50), the return air line 

from the desorber was vented to the atmosphere (as recorded in the Weatherty, Inc. Polyad Mobile Unit 

Log Book for the test at the Eljer Facility). The reason given in the Log Book for this modification to the 

device was: "To remove residual sorbent from previous testing." Thus, an unknown amount of styrene 

that would have been otherwise recovered was lost. 

However, if even half of the styrene that could have been collected through the whole test was 

lost, approximately 500 ml of styrene liquid would remain unaccounted for. Two explanations are 

possible. First, some styrene did remain on the Bonopore adsorbent at the end of the test. A sample of 

the Bonopore adsorbent sent to SRI after the test retained a strong, styrene-like odor. Second, because 

the recovered solvent container in the Polyad FB device is not designed to be completely emptied, some 

condensed liquid may not have been recovered. 

59 
P.72 

Table 12. Estimated Styrene Capture in the Polyad FB Device 

Date 

11/3 

11/4 

11/5 

Total 

Spraying 

Start/Stop 

Times 

09:04-10:01 

10:01 -11:48 

12:54 -14:21 

08:42-10:05 

10:12-11:53 

12:19-14:15 

08:29-10:05 

10:11 -11:49 

12:19-14:14 

Polyad FB 

Operation 

hours 

0.95 

1.49 

1.21 

1.25 

1.54 

1.72 

1.42 

1.48 

1.43 

12.49 

Polyad FB 

Flow Rate 

m

3

/min 

4.47 

4.81 

5.63 

Volume of Air 

Sampled 

rn3 

978.9 

1301.6 

1462.7 

3743.2 

Estimate of Styrene 

Recovered* 

Liters 

0.58 

0.76 

0.76 

2.10 

Assuming daily average styrene concentrations from Table 2 

and a liquid styrene density of 0.9074 g/ml 

60 
P.73 

SECTION 4 

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH APPLYING THE POLYAD FB SYSTEM 

TO STYRENE REMOVAL 

In tenns of styrene removal, the mobile Polyad FB pilot unit exhibited excellent performance. 

Based on the results of this evaluation, this technology can be expected to easily meet or exceed a 95% 

average removal efficiency for styrene entrained in air. While such performance is excellent, this 

technology is only suitable if it can compete with other styrene removal technologies on a cost basis. 

Thus, Weatherty, Inc. was asked to provide a price quote for a Polyad FB system suitable for the Eljer 

facility. 

Price quotes were obtained for two Polyad systems. The first system corresponds to the 

configuration tested at Eljer Plumbingware: an adsorber/desorber system with solvent recovery (the 

Polyad Recovery System). The second system incorporates a concentrator rather than a desorber and 

relies on incineration with catalytic oxidation to dispose of styrene captured in the adsorber (the Polyad 

Concentrator System). Both systems were described in Section 2.3 of this report. Weatherty Inc. 

certifies that either system will meet a guarantee of 95% styrene removal and a maximum outlet styrene 

concentration of 5 ppm. At the Eljer facility, installation of either Polyad system would require the 

addition of ducting to the present roof-vent system so that spray booth emissions would be directed to 

the Polyad system. However, these price quotes did not include stacks, manifolding, foundations, 

buildings, or weather protection. 

Both systems were quoted on the same design basis with a nine-year depreciation period. 

Table 13 lists the design assumptions and price quote for each system and Table 14 provides an 

equipment list for each system. The air capacity of 200,000 scfm was based on the necessity of 

accommodating the output from all of the 14 available spray booths operating near their rated capacity 

of 14,500 acfm. An average inlet emissions level of 110 ppm of styrene was assumed and the 

temperature of the air entering the Polyad unit was assumed to be 30* C (86* F). 

61 
P.74 

Table 13. Design Assumptions and Price Quotes for the Polyad Concentrator System 

and the Polyad Recovery System for the Eljer Facility 

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS 

Air Capacity 

Inlet Temperature 

Inlet Styrene Concentration 

Outlet Styrene Concentration 

Total System Efficiency 

Operation 

Hours of Operation per Year 

Period of Depreciation 

Cost of Electrical Power 

Cost of Natural Gas 

Cost of Steam 

Cost of Bonopore Adsorbent 

3.000 

86 

110 

5 

>95 

1 

2000 

9 

0.04 

1.50 

2.00 

21.00 

scfm 

*F 

ppm 

ppm Maximum 

% 

shift/day 

hours 

years 

$/kWh 

$/MMBtu 

$/1000lb 

$/lb 

POLYAD RECOVERY SYSTEM* 

Installed Cost 

Total Cost 

Utility Consumption 

Electrical Power 

Steam 

Cooling Water 

Bonopore Adsorbent 

5,000,000.00 

1828.00 

29.32 

690 

595 

82 

4800 

$ 

$/tonof 

$/scfm 

kWh 

lb/hour 

gal/min 

lb/year 

$/ton of styrene removed (over 9 year life) 

POLYAD CONCENTRATOR SYSTEM" 

Installed Cost 

Total Cost 

Utility Consumption 

2,340,000.00 

886.00 

14.21 

$/ton of styrene removed (over 9 year life) 

$/scfm (over 9 year life) 

Electrical Power 

Natural Gas 

Instrument Air 

Bonopore Adsorbent 

690 kWh 

0.05 106Btu/hour 

80 psig 

1200 lb/year 

Delivery 8 months after receipt of order. Not included in the system 

price or equipment list is a stack, manifolding, foundations, buildings, 

or weather protection. 

62 
P.75 

Table 14. Equipment List and Dimensions for Large Components for Polyad 

Systems Suitable for Installation at the Eljer Facility 

POLYAD RECOVERY SYSTEM* 

Quantity Equipment Description Fppt Print 

16 ft x 40 ft 

14ftx14ft 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

Rlter Unit 

Ruid Bed Adsorber Unit 

Cyclone 

Main Fan 

Moving Bed Desorber Unit 

Transport Fan 

Condenser Unit Fan 

Styrene Condenser Unit 

Styrene Recovery Tank 

Water Chiller 

Static Separator 

Necessary pipes and valves between units 

Electrical and Instrumental Equipment 

Bonopore for Initial Riling 

POLYAD CONCENTRATOR SYSTEM* 

Quantity Equipment Description Foot Print 

16ftx40ft 

8 ft x 8.3 ft 

25 ft x 14 ft 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Rlter Unit 

Ruid Bed Adsorber Unit 

Cyclone 

Main Fan 

Ruid Bed Desorber Unit 

Desorber Unit 

Catalytic Oxidizer Unit 

Necessary pipes and valves between units 

Electrical and Instrumental Equipment 

Bonopore for Initial Riling 

Not included in the system price or equipment list is a stack, manifolding, 

foundations, buildings, or weather protection. 

63 
The Polyad Recovery System is identical in function to the Polyad mobile unit tested at Eljer 

Plumbingware. In order to recover styrene monomer, hot styrene-laden air from the moving bed 

desorber is passed through a solvent recovery unit where styrene is condensed and directed to a 

solvent recovery tank. Recovered solvent can be disposed of or reused. No attempt was made to 

estimate how cost savings from solvent reuse affect overall system cost because it may not be possible 

to use the recovered styrene monomer without distillation. In their quote for the PRS, Weatherty, Inc. 

noted that styrene has a tendency to discolor during recovery and in most cases requires distillation 

before it can be reused. This system was priced at $5,000,000.00 (installed). Depreciated over a nine 

year lifetime, total cost (installation plus operation) is $29.32/scfm or $1828/ton of styrene removed. 

It is possible to estimate the magnitude of savings that would be realized from the recovery of 

styrene over a nine-year lifetime for the Polyad Recovery System. In April of 1993, Mr. Rollie Nagel at 

Eljer Plumbingware reported that Eljer's current cost for styrene was $0.68/lb, not including shipping or 

handling costs. At an average inlet concentration of 110 ppm, system flow rate of 200,000 scfm, and 

2000 hour work year, in a period of 9 years, approximately 3048 tons of styrene would be recovered, 

assuming 95% recovery. Presuming that 75% of this styrene could be reused, without escalating the 

cost of styrene, a savings of approximately $3,109,000 would be realized. If the cost of styrene 

escalated at 2.5% per year, the savings would be approximately $3,437,000 over nine years. It should 

be noted that this estimate of savings does not include capital or operating costs of redistilling styrene (if 

needed), costs associated with disposing of spoiled or unusable recovered styrene, or manhour savings 

realized from the handling and storage of less fresh styrene monomer. What this simple analysis does 

indicate, however, is that solvent recovery may be cost effective. 

The Polyad Concentrator System uses the same type of fluidized bed adsorber as was tested in 

the Polyad FB pilot unit. However, rather than cooling hot air from the desorber to condense styrene as 

was done in the pilot unit, hot styrene-laden air from the desorber (where styrene emissions are 

concentrated by a factor of 11.8) is sent to a catalytic oxidizer to be bumed. Flow to the catalytic 

oxidizer is 17,000 acfm and because the styrene has been concentrated, combustion is self supporting 

within the oxidizer. Natural gas is required to start ignition and maintain a pilot light. This system was 

64 
P.77 

priced at $2,340,000.00 (installed). Depreciated over a nine year lifetime, total cost (installation plus 

operation) is $14.21/scfm or $886/ton of styrene removed. 

Weatherty, Inc. also provided additional cost information for both types of Polyad systems. This 

cost infonnation is shown in Rgures 21 and 22. Rgure 21 shows total cost (for a nine year operating 

life) in $/ton of styrene removed as a function of styrene concentration at the inlet for two inlet flow rates: 

20,000 and 60,000 scfm. Rgure 22 also shows total system cost (for a nine year operating life) but in 

terms of $/scfm as a function of the same inlet styrene concentrations for the same two inlet flow rates. 

On both figures total cost information for the proposed 200,000 scfm Eljer Polyad system is shown at an 

inlet styrene concentration of 110 ppm. 

65 
95% Styrene Removal 

TJ 

CD 

> o 

E 

CD 

CC 

CD 

c 

CD 

OO 

c 

I 

l o 

o 

O 

"co 

Inlet Styrene Concentration, ppm 

Rgure 21. Total system cost as $/ton of styrene removed for a nine year 

lifetime for various inlet concentrations of styrene. Data for 20,000 

and 60,000 scfm inlet flow rates are shown along with values for the 

200,000 scfm system proposed for Eljer Plumbingware 

66 
P.79 

O 

cn 

o O 

70 

60 

50 

40 

« 30 

"5 

I -

20 

10 

10' 

95% Styrene Removal 

-o-

-O20,000 scfm Inlet Flow Rate 

60,000 scfm Inlet Flow Rate 

200,000 scfm, Eljer Facility . 

Polyad Recovery 

System 

Polyad Concentrator 

System 

'•» «...-»—.|—.|—+• 

10' 10* 

Inlet Styrene Concentration, ppm 

Rgure 22. Total system cost as $/scfm of inlet fiow rate for a nine year 

fifetime for various inlet concentrations of styrene. Data for 20,000 

and 60,000 scfm inlet flow rates are shown along with values for the 

200,000 scfm system proposed for Eljer Plumbingware 

67 
P.80 

SECTION 5 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Polyad and Chemtact processes for controlling 

styrene emissions at a representative fiberglass shower stall and bath tub manufacturing plant. 

Because the Chemtact unit could not be made available within the time frame allotted for this work, only 

the Polyad process was evaluated. The Polyad process was evaluated with the aid of a small, 

transportable Polyad FB (fluidized bed) unit supplied by Weatherty, Inc., who is responsible for domestic 

marketing and sales of the Polyad process. The evaluation was earned out from November 3 - 5,1992 

at the Eljer Plumbingware facility located in Wilson, NC. 

The Polyad process uses successive beds of a proprietary regenerate adsorbent (Bonopore®) 

that are fluidized by incoming solvent-laden air. Clean air is exhausted to the atmosphere from the last 

bed through a cyclone (to recover bed material). Adsorbent is continually removed from the fluidized 

beds, heated to evolve adsorbed solvent, and returned to the fiuidized beds. Solvent is evolved from the 

bed material in a vertical moving bed desorber and recovered in a separate water-cooled condenser.. 

Testing of the Polyad FB pilot unit was complicated by the fact that just before this evaluation the 

Polyad FB unit was operated at a chemical plant to remove naphthalene from a contaminated air 

stream. Unfortunately, at the conclusion of that test, the unit was not cleaned and residual naphthalene 

and naphthalene-related compounds were not desorbed from the Bonopore adsorbent in the unit. 

Nevertheless, the Polyad FB device demonstrated that the Polyad process could achieve 

styrene removal efficiencies of 99%. After the first day of testing, when molds were being sprayed the 

unit operated at a styrene removal efficiency of 94% or greater. During the last day of testing, when 

most of the naphthalene from the last series of tests had been evolved, the Polyad FB unit achieved an 

average styrene removal efficiency of 95.4% (96.6% while molds were being sprayed). 

The possibility exists that greater styrene removal efficiencies could have been reached. An 

engineer at Weatherty, Inc. indicated that the lowest available Bonopore mass flow rate for the Polyad 

68 
P.81 

styrene monomer has a relatively high boiling point (146*C) and a longer residence time in the 

adsorption unit and the desorption unit (lower flow rate) would have resulted in greater solvent recovery 

and higher overall efficiency. 

In addition to the evaluation of the Polyad process, it was possible to quantify styrene emissions 

in the spray booth exhaust to which the Polyad FB device was connected and from the exhausts of two 

other spray booths at the Eljer Facility. These measurements showed that styrene was the only volatile 

organic compound present in the spray booth exhausts at this facility and that time averaged 

concentrations of styrene ranged from 85 to 150 ppm. 

69 
P.82 

FORMULA: Table 1 

M.U.: Table 1 

HYDROCAR80NS. AROMATIC 

NETHOO: iiol 

ISSUED: 2/15/84 

OSHA, NIOSH, ACGIH: Table 2 PROPERTIES: Table 5 

COHPOUNOS: 

(Synonyms 

in Table 1) 

benzene 

p-tert-buty1 to1uene 

cuneme 

ethylbenzene 

o-methylstyrene 

naphthalene 

styrene 

toluene 

vinyl toluene 

xylene 

SAMPLING 

SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE 

(coconut shell charcoal, 

100 mg/50 mg) 

FLOW RATE, VOLUME: Table 3 

SHIPTOT: no special precautions 

SAMPLE STA8ILITY: not determined 

BLANKS: 2 to 10 fiel d blanks per set 

BULK SAMPLE: desirable, 1 to 10 mL; ship in 

separate containers from samples 

ACOSWCY 

RANGE STUDIED, 

BIAS and OVERALL PRECISION (s r ) : Table 3 

MEASUREMENT 

TECHNIQUE: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY. FID 

ANALYTES: hydrocarbons listed above 

DESORPTION: 1 mL CS2; stand 30 min 

INJECTION VOLUME: S uL 

TEMPERATURE-INJECTION: 22S °C 

-DETECTOR: 225 °C 

-COLUMN: see step 11 

CARRIER GAS: (^ or He, 25 mL/min 

COLUMN: glass, 3.0 m x 2 mn, 101 OV-275 on 

100/120 mesh Chromosorb W-AU 

or equivalent 

CALIBRATION: analytes in CS2 

RANS AM) PRECISION (s,.): Table 4 

ESTIMATED LOO: 0.001 to 0.01 mg per sample 

with capillary colum Cl] 

APPLICABILITY: This method is for peak, ceiling and TVM determinations of arcmatic hydrocarbons 

I t may be used for simultaneous measurements, though there is the possibility that interactions 

between analytes may reduce the breakthrough vol tines and change desorption efficiencies. 

INTERFERENCES: Use of the recomnended colum will prevent interference by alkanes (£CIQ) . 

Under conditions of high huhidity, the breakthrough volumes may be reduced by as much as 501. 

Other volatile organic solvents, e.g. , alcohols, ketones, ethers and halogenated hydrocarbons, 

are possible interferences. I f interference is suspected, use a less polar'colum or change 

column temperature. 

OTHER METHODS: This method is based on and supercedes Methods P8CAH 127, benzene, styrene, 

toluene and xylene [2]; S311, benzene [4]; S22, p-tert-butv 1 to 1 uene [3]; S23, cunene [3]; S29, 

ethylbenzene [3]; S26, a-methylstyrene [3]; S292, naphthalene [4]; S30, styrene [3]; S343, 

toluene I**]; S2S. vinyltoluene C31; S318. xylene C41. \ 

2/15/84 1501-1 

71 
P.83 

HYDROCARBONS. AROMATIC HETHOO: 1501 

REAGENTS: 

1. Eluent: Carbon disulfide*, 

chromatographic quality containing 

(optional) suitable internal 

standard. 

2. Analytes, reagent grade* 

3. Nitrogen or heliun, purified 

4. Hydrogen, prepurified. 

5. Air, filtered. 

6. Naphthalene calibration stock 

solution. 0.40 g/mL in CS2. 

*See Special Precautions. 

EQUIPMENT: 

1. Sampler: glass tube. 7 cm long, 6 am 00, 4 mn ID, 

flame-sealed ends, containing two sections of 

activated (600 "CJ coconut shell charcoal (front 

s 100 mg, back » 50 mg) separated by a 2-mm urethane 

foam plug. A silylated glass wool plug precedes the 

front section and a 3-am urethane foam plug follows 

the back section. Pressure drop across the tube at 

1 L/min airflow oust be less than 3.4 kPa. Tubes 

are comercially available. 

2. Personal sampling pumps, 0.01 to 1 L/min 

(Table 3), with flexible connecting 

tubing. 

3. Gas chromatograph, FID, integrator, and colum 

(page 1501-1). 

4. Vials, glass, 1-mL, with PTFE-lined caps. 

5. Pipet, 1-mL, and pipet bulb. 

6. Syringes, 5-, 10-, 25- and 100-uL. 

7. Volumetric flasks, 10-mt. 

SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Carbon disulfide is toxic and extremely flammable (flash point • -30

 aC); 

benzene is a suspect carcinogen. Prepare samples and standards in a well-ventilated hood. 

SAMPLING: 

1. Calibrate each personal sampling punp with a representative sampler in line. 

2. Break the ends of the sampler innediately before sampling. Attach sampler to personal 

sampling puip with flexible tubing. 

3. Saople at an accurately known flow rate between 0.01 and 0.2 L/min (to 1 L/min fbr 

naphthalene or styrene) for a total sample size as shown in Table 3. 

4. Cap the samplers with plastic (not rubber) caps and pack securely for shipment. 

SAMPLE PREPARATION: 

5. Place the front and back sorbent sections of the sampler tube in separate vials, 

the glass wool and foam plugs. 

6. Add 1.0 m. eluent to each vial. Attach crimp cap to each vial innediately. 

7. Allow to stand at least. 30 min with occasional agitation. 

Oiscard 

CALIBRATION ANO QUALITY CONTROL: 

8. Calibrate daily with at least five working standards over the appropriate range (ca. 0.01 

to 10 mg analyte per sample; see Table 4). 

a. Add known amounts of analyte (calibration stock solution fbr naphthalene) to eluent in 

10-mL volumetric flasks and dilute to the mark. 

b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 11, 12 and 13). 

c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area of analyte vs. mg analyte). 

2/15/84 1501-2 

72 
P.84 

METHOO: 1SQ1 HYOROCARBONS. AROMATIC 

9. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each batch of charcoal used for 

sampling in the calibration range (step 8). Prepare three tubes at each of five levels 

plus three media blanks. 

a. Remove and discard back sorbent section of a media blank sampler. 

b. Inject a known amount of analyte (calibration stock solution for naphthalene) directly 

onto front sorbent section with a microliter syringe. 

c. Cap the tube. Allow to stand overnight. 

d. Oesorb (steps 5 through 7) and analyze together with working standards (steps 11, 12 

and 13). 

e. Prepare a graph of t£ vs. mg analyte recovered. 

10. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to insure that the 

calibration graph and OE graph are in control. 

MEASUREMENT: 

11. Set gas chranatograph according to manufacturer's reconnendations and to conditions given 

on page 1501-1. Select appropriate column temperature: 

Approximate Retention Time (min). at Indicated Column Temperature 

Substance* 

benzene 

toluene 

xylene (para) 

ethylbenzene 

xylene (meta) 

cumene 

xylene (ortho) 

styrene 

a-methy1styrene 

vinyltoluene (meta) 

naphthalene 

50 »C 

2.5 

4.3 

7.0 

7.0 

7.2 

B.3 

10 

16 

100 "C 

1.1 

1.4 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

1.9 

2.6 

3.2 

3.8 

25 

150 "C 

1.0 

1.2 

4.3 

Programed0 

2.S 

4.2 

5.2 

5.5 

5.6 

6.0 

6.S 

7.6 

8.1 

a.s 

12 

*0ata not available for p-tert-butyl tol uene and g-vinyl tol uene. 

temperature program: 50 *C for 3 min, then 15 "C/min to 200 *C. 

NOTE: Alternatively, colum and temperature may be taken from Table 4. 

12. Inject sample aliquot manually using solvent flush technique or with autosampler. 

NOTE: I f peak area is above the linear range of the working standards, dilute with eluent, 

reanalyze and apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations. 

13. Measure peak area. 

CALCULATIONS: 

14. Oetermine the mass, mg (corrected for OE) of analyte found in the sample front (Uf) and 

back (wt,) sorbent sections, and in the average media blank front (Bf) and back (B^) 

sorbent sections. 

NOTE: I f Wg > Mf/10, report breakthrough and possible sample loss. 

.2/15/84 1501-3 

73 
P.85 

HYDROCARBONS. AROMATIC HETHOO: 1SQ1 

15. Calculate concentration, C, of analyte in the air volume sampled, V (L): 

r ,tw f cl^.gf-yiO ' mg/n 

V 

EVALUATION OF METHOD: 

Precisions and biases Usted in Table 3 were determined by analyzing generated atmospheres 

containing one-half, one, and two times the OSHA standard. Generated concentrations were 

independently verified. Breakthrough capacities were determined in dry air. Storage stability 

was not assessed. Measurement precisions given in Table 4 were determined by spiking sampling 

media with amounts corresponding to one-half, one, and two times the OSHA standard for nominal 

a ir volumes. Oesorption efficiencies for spiked samplers containing only one ccmpound exceeded 

751. Reference [12] provides more specific information. 

REFERENCES: 

[1] User check. UBTL. NIOSH Sequence #4121-S (unpublished, December 7, 1983). 

[2] NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd. ed.. V. 1, PSCAM 127, U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare. Publ. (NIOSH) 77-1S7-A (1977). 

C3] Ibid. v. 2, S22. S23. S25. S26. S29. S30, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare. Publ. (NIOSH) 77-157-8 (1977). 

[4] Ibid, V. 3, S292, S311, S318, S343, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

Publ. (NIOSH) 77-157-C (1977). 

[5] R. 0. Oreisbach. "Physical Properties of Chemical Compounds"; Advances in Chemistry 

Series, No. IS; American Chemical Society, Washington (1955). 

[6] Code of Federal Regulations; Title 29 (Labor), Parts 1900 to 1910; U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington (1980); 29 CFR 1910.1000. 

[7].Update Criteria and Reconmendations for a Revised 8enzene Standard, U.S. Department of 

Health, Education, and welfare, (August 1976). 

[8] Criteria for a Reconnended Standard....Occupational Exposure to Toluene, U.S. Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 73-11023 (1973). 

[9] Criteria for a Reconnended Standard—Occupational Exposure to Xylene, U.S. Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 75-I6B (1975). 

[10] TLVs - Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents MI the Work 

Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-84. ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH (1983). 

[11] Criteria for a Reconnended Standard...Occupational Exposure to Styrene, U.S. Department of 

Health and Hunan Services, Publ. (NIOSH) 83-119 (1983). 

[12] Documentation of the NIOSH Validation Tests, S2 , S23, S2S, S26, S29, S30, S292, S311, 

S318, S343, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Publ. (NIOSH) 77-185 (1977). 

HETH00 REVISED BY: R. Alan Lunsford, Ph.0., and Julie R. Okenfuss; based on results of NIOSH 

Contract CDC-99-74-45. 

2/15/84 1501-4 

74 
HSTHOO: 1501 HY0R0CAR8ONS. AROMATIC 

Table 1. Synonyms, formula, molecular weight, properties [5] . 

Molec- Boiling Vapor Pressure Oensity 

Eapirical ular Point 9 25

 aC 9 20 °C 

Name/Synonyms 

benzene 

CAS J71-43-2 

p-tert-buty1 to1uene 

CAS i»98-51-1 

Structure 

© 

-CH1 -tert-buty 1 -4-methy 1 benzene 

cunene 

CAS J98-82-3 

isopropylbenzene 

ethylbenzene 

CAS 0100-41-4 

<0K 

<0K 

a-methy 1 styrene g) S / 

CAS #98-83-9 >C^\ ^ 

i sopropeny1benzene 

(1-methy 1 etheny 1)-benzene 

naphthalene 

CAS.#91-20-3 

styrene 

CAS *100-42-5 

vinylbenzene 

toluene 

CAS #108-88-3 

methylbenzene 

e© 

Q-% 

©-

vinyltoluene1* —^)S— — 

CAS #25013-15-4 ^C^\ ^ 

methyl styrene (o,-vinyl toluene) 

methy1vinylbenzene 

xylenec 

CAS #1330-20-7 

dimethylbenzene 

-o-

(^-xylene) 

Formula 

CftHs 

C

11H16 

^ 1 2 

VlO 

•^I O 

Cl0"8 

CgHg 

C7«8 

C9"10 

CgHio 

Weight 

78.11 

148.25 

120.20 

106.17 

118.18 

128.18 

104.15 

92.14 

118.18 

(meta) 

(para) 

(ortho) 

106.17 

(ortho) 

(meta) 

(para) 

(°C) 

80.1 

192.8 

152.4 

136.2 

165.4 

80..2* 

145.2 

110.6 

167.7 

171.6 

172.8 

169.8 

144.4 

139.1 

138.4 

(mm Hq) 

95.2 

0.7 

4.7 

9.6 

2.S 

0.2 

6.1 

28.4 

1.6 

1.9 

1.8 

1.8 

6.7 

a. 4 

8.8 

ikPai 

12.7 

0.09 

0.62 

1.28 

0.33 

0.03 

0.81 

3.79 

0 . 2 

0.26 

0.24 

0.24 

0.89 

1.12 

1.18 

(q/mp 

0.879 

0.861 

0.862 

0.867 

0.911 

1.025 

0.906 

0.867 

0.898 

0.911 

0.911 

0.904 

0.88O 

0.864 

0.861 

Sitin g point. 

bcannercial mixture of meta and para isomers. 

CHixture of isomers. 

.2/15/84 1.501-5 

75 
P.87 

HYOROCARBONS. AROMATIC 

Table 2 . Permissible exposure 

Substance 

benzene 

p-tert-buty1 to1uene 

cunene 

ethylbenzene 

a-methy1styrene 

naphthalene 

styrene 

toluene 

vinyltoluene 

xylene 

TWA 

10 

10 

SO 

100 

10 

100 

200 

100 

100 

limits 

OSHA 

C 

25 

(skin) 

100 

200 

300 

,, ppm 

Peak 

50* 

600° 

500* 

C6-H]. 

NIOSH 

TWA C 

1 

SO 

100 

100 

100 

200* 

200* 

TLV 

ACGIH 

STEL 

10** 25** 

10 

50 

100 

so 

10 

50 

100 

50 

100 

20 

75 (skin) 

I S 

100 

IS 

100 

ISO (skin) 

100 

150 

HETHOO: 1501 

mg/nt* 

per DOT 

3.19 

S.06 

4.91 

4.34 

4.83 

5.24 

4.26 

3.77 

4.83 

4.34 

dMaximun duration 10 min in 8 hr. 

^Maximum duration S min in any 3 hr. 

**ACGIH: suspect carcinogen [10]. 

* 10-min sample. 

Table 3. Sanpling flowrate*, volune, capacity, range, overall bias and precision [3,4,12]. 

Substance 

benzene 

p-tert-buty 1 to 1 uene 

cunene 

ethylbenzene 

a-methy1styrene 

naphthalene4 

styrene 

toluene 

vinyltoluene 

xylene 

. 

Flowrate 

(L/min) 

S0.2D 

£0.20 

£0.20 

£0.20 

£0.20 

41.0 

£1.0 

£0.20 

£0.20 

£0.20 

Sampling 

Volume (L) 

V0L-N0M 

29 

10 

10 

10 

3** 

200 

S9 

29 

10 

12 

VOL-MKX0 

30 

29 

30 

24 

30 

200 

14 

8 

24 

23 

Breakthrough 

Volume 9 

Concentration 

(L) 

>4S 

44 

XS 

3S 

>4S 

>240 

21 

12 

36 

35 

(mg/m3) 

149 

112 

480 

917 

940 

81 

1710 

2294 

952 

870 

Range 

at 

VOL-MOM 

(mg/nH) 

4 2- 165 

2 9 - 119 

120- 480 

222- 884 

236- 943 

19- 83 

426-1710 

548-2190 

256- 970 

218- 870 

Overall 

Bias 

CW 

0.8 

-10.4 

4.6 

-8.1 

-10.8 

-0.5 

-10.7 

3.8 

-9.5 

-2.1 

Precision 

<Sr> 

0.059 

0.071* 

0.059 

0.089d 

0.061d 

0.055 

0.058* 

0.0S2 

0.061* 

0.06O 

Minimun reconnended flow is 0.01 L/min. 

^Approximately two-thirds the breakthrough volune, except for naphthalene. 

ClO-min sample. 

^Corrected value, calculated frcm data in Reference 12. 

©Naphthalene shows poor desorption efficiency at low loading; 100-L minimun volune is 

reconnended. 

^15-min sample. 

95-min sanple. 

2/15/84 1501-6 

76 
P.88 

METHOO: 1501 HYDROCARBONS. AROMATIC 

Table 4. Measurement range, precision and conditions* [3,4,12]. 

Substance 

benzene 

p-tert-buty1 to1uene 

cunene 

ethylbenzene 

a-methy1 styrene 

naphthalene 

styrene 

toluene 

vinyltoluene 

xylene 

Desorption 

Volune 

(mL) 

1.0 

O.S 

o.s 

0.5 

O.S 

1.0 

O.S 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

Measurement 

Range Precision 

(mg) 

0.09- Q.3S 

0.27- 1.09 

0.86- 3.46 

2.17-8.67 

0.69- 3.57 

4.96-19.7 

2.17-8.49 

1.13- 4.51 

2.41- 9.64 

2.60-10.4 

<Sr> 

0.036 

0.021* 

0.010 

0.010 

0.011 

0.019 

0.013* 

0.011 

0.008 

0.010 

Carrier 

Flow 

(mL/min) 

SO 

50 

SO 

SO 

SO 

30 

SO 

50 

SO 

SO 

Co 

t 

CO 

115 

115 

99 

85 

115 

1.25 

109 

155 

120 

180 

lumn Parameters0 

Length 

(m) 

0.9 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

0.9 

3.0 

0.9 

Packing0 

A 

B . 

B 

B 

B 

C 

a 

0 

B 

0 

^Injection volume, 5.0 uL; nitrogen carrier gas. 

°A11 col m m stainless steel, 3.2 am outside diameter. 

CA. SO/80 mesh Porapak P; 3, 101 FFAP on 80/100 mesh Chronosorb W AW-OMCS; 

C, 10X OV-101 on 100/120 mesh Supelcoport; 0, SO/80 mesh Porapak Q. 

^Corrected value, calculated from data in [12]. 

2/1.5/84 1501-7 

77 
P.89 

APPENDIX B 

QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT 

78 
P.90 

SUMMARY 

A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was written and approved for this project before 

testing began. No field audits were planned or performed. However, as stated in the QAPP, certified 

calibration gases (28, 55, and 192 ppm of styrene in nitrogen and zero air with less than 0.1 ppm THC 

content) served as field performance audit samples for NIOSH Method 1501 and THC sampling. Also, 

EPA personnel were on site to oversee diagnostic measurements. In the field, QC was addressed by 

strict adherence to standard sampling protocols either as specified for NIOSH Method 1501 or by 

following a standard operating procedure (modified as needed for this particular sampling task) with the 

THC analyzers as specified in the THC instruction manual. 

In SRI's Analytical Chemistry facilities, QC is addressed by strict adherence to standard 

operating procedures (SOP) previously defined and implemented. Pertinent SOP's for the analyses 

required on this project were included in the QAPP. While random audits can occur while the field 

samples from any project are being analyzed, and audits are regularly performed by the QA officer at 

this facility, no audit was planned or performed as part of this project. 

Overall, data quality indicator (DQI) goals were achieved. However, some data were lost due to 

an equipment malfunction and because of that malfunction much less data were obtained from the 

NIOSH Method 1501 samples than was planned. Since these measurements were duplicated by the 

THC analyzer measurements, overall objectives of the project were not compromised. 

SIGNIFICANT QA/QC PROBLEMS 

One significant QA/QC problem was encountered. Styrene concentrations determined from 

charcoal tube samples taken at the inlet and outlet of the Polyad FB mobile pilot unit were not reliable 

because the sample pumps used to draw air samples through the charcoal tubes were unable to 

maintain correct flow at inlet pressures negative with respect to ambient. This problem was not 

discovered until after all field sampling was completed primarily because the bubble flow meter used to 

calibrate the sample pumps could not be operated at inlet pressures negative with respect to ambient. 

After this problem was discovered, numerous attempts were made to simulate the sampling conditions 

79 
P.91 

under which the samples were taken so that sample flow rates could be corrected. However, these 

attempts were not sucessful. No other corrective actions were required or taken during the collection of 

samples and data or during subsequent analysis of samples collected during testing. 

DATA QUALITY 

The following procedures were used to determine how well data quality indicator (DQI) goals 

were met: 

• Precision is expressed as percent coefficient of variation: 

%CV = 100x(Sx/XaVg) 

where Sx is the standard deviation of x number of data vaiues from the data set and 

Xavg is the mean or average of the x number of data values from the data set. 

• Bias is expresses as a difference or percent difference between measured and known 

values: 

Bias = (X-T) 

%RPD = 100 x [(X-TVT] 

where T is the true value (reference standard) and X is the mean sample 

concentration. %RPD is the relative percent difference. 

• Completeness is expressed as a percent between successful analyses and total 

attempts: 

80 
P.92 

Completeness = 100 x S/A 

where S is the number of successful analyses and A is the total number of attempts. 

• Comparability is expressed as a percent difference (%Diff) between the results for two 

methods: 

%Diff = 100 x (Ri-R2)/[(R1+R2)/2J 

where Ri is the result for one method and R2 is the result for the second method. 

Table B-1 shows the DQI goals that were estimated for critical measurements in the QAPP. 

Tables B-2 and B-3 show DQI values for measurements carried out with charcoal tubes (NIOSH Method 

1501). Table B-4 shows DQI values for THC analyzer measurements. Below, the precision, accuracy, 

and completeness of the data that were obtained in this project are reviewed. 

Precision 

Triplicate charcoal tube samples taken on October 13,1992 and on November 6,1992 provided 

a total of 12 samples from which precision for this method could be estimated. Details and results of 

these measurements are shown in Tables 6 and 7 of this report. Three series of runs were made. Six 

separate runs were made at the same time at gel coat booth #2 on October 13,1992 and two sets of 

triplicate runs were made on November 6,1992 after sampling was completed at gel coat booth #2 (one 

set at first lay-up booth #5 and one set at second lay-up booth #7). An outlier was identified in the first 

set of 6 runs made on October 13,1992 and was not included in results reported in Table B-2. 

Precision for the three distinct sets of runs averaged 6.6%, greater than the 5.8% expected for NIOSH 

Method 1501. However, if the third sample taken at second lay-up booth #7 on November 6,1992 is 

excluded, the average precision drops to approximately 4%. 

81 
P.93 

Table B-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals for Critical Measurements Estimated in QAPP 

Method and 

Reference 

NIOSH 1501 

Total 

Hydrocarbon 

Analyzer with 

FID.2 

Measurement 

Parameter 

Styrene 

Content 

Hydrocarbon 

compounds in 

air. 

Experimental 

Condition 

Unlet and Outlet 

of control 

device, 

2. Calibration gas 

samples. 

Unlet and Outlet 

of control 

device, 

2. Calibration gas 

samples. 

Expected 

Precision 

(Rel. Std. Dev., %) 

5.8i 

±103 

Expected 

Accuracy 

(% Bias) 

-10.71 

±53 

Completeness 

(%) 

85 

85 

i Precision and bias for sampling with charcoal-filled tube. 

2 J.U.M. Model VE-7 THC Analyzer. 

3

 Estimated values. Precision and bias will be determined for each instrument 

82 
P.94 

Table B-2. Data Quality Indicator Values for NIOSH Method 1501 

Measurements Made at Eljer Plumbingware 

Method and 

Reference 

NIOSH 

1501 

Measurement 

Parameter 

Styrene 

Content 

Experimental 

Condition 

1 Gel Coat Booth #2 

Exhaust, 10/13/92 

2. First Lay-Up Booth 

#5 Exhaust, 11/6/92 

3. Second Lay-Up 

Booth #7 Exhaust, 

11/6/92 

Precision 

(Rel. Std. Dev., %)* 

4.3 

3.6 

11.9 

Accuracy 

(% Bias) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Completeness 

(%) 

83.3 

100 

100 

Precision for sampling with charcoal-filled tube. Average of three conditions = 6.6% 

83 
P.95 

Table B-3. Data Quality Indicator Values for NIOSH Method 

1501 Charcoal Sample Tubes Spiked with Known 

Concentrations of Styrene 

Known Styrene Content 

(po/ml) 

90.6 

181.2 

181.2 

453.0 

1812 

1812 

1812 

3624 

3624 

3624 

7248 

Recovered Styrene Content 

(ug/ml) 

73.7 

181.1 

231.0 

338.7 

1750 

1938 

1643 

3831 

3590 

3764 

7103 

Average 

Bias* 

(%) 

-18.65 

-0.06 

27.48 

-25.23 

-3.42 

6.95 

-9.33 

5.71 

-0.94 

3.86 

-2.00 

-1.42 

Precision 

(%) 

-

-

-

8.4 

3.3 

-

5.9 

Expressed as Relative Percent Difference 

84 
P.96 

Table B-4. Data Quality Indicator Values for THC Analyzer 

Measurements Made at Eljer Plumbingware 

INLET THC ANALYZER 

Span Gas/% Bias 

Precision (% CV) 

Average % Bias 

25 ppm Span Gas 

(Measured Value) 

25.0 

27.0 

25.0 

27.6 

27.8 

24.1 

6.0 

Bias 

% 

0.0 

8.0 

0.0 

10.4 

11.2 

-3.6 

4.3 

49 ppm Span Gas 

(Measured Value) 

53.1 

51.1 

50.8 

2.4 

Bias 

% 

8.0 

4.0 

3.4 

5.1 

171 ppm Span Gas 

(Measured Value) 

172.5 

171.7 

164.8 

170.0 

2.0 

Bias 

% 

0.5 

0.0 

-4.0 

-1.0 

-1.1 

OUTLET THC ANALYZER 

Span Gas/% Bias 

Precision (% CV) 

Average % Bias 

25 ppm Span Gas 

(Measured Value) 

25.0 

26.0 

25.0 

24.3 

26.0 

26.2 

3.0 

Bias 

% 

0.0 

4.0 

0.0 

-2.8 

4.0 

4.8 

1.7 

49 ppm Span Gas 

(Measured Value) 

53.1 

48.1 

51.1 

5.0 

Bias 

% 

8.0 

-2.2 

4.0 

3.3 

171 ppm Span Gas 

(Measured Value) 

168.2 

175.1 

159.7 

169.1 

171.7 

3.8 

Bias 

% 

-2.0 

2.0 

-7.0 

-1.5 

0.0 

-1.7 

85 
Table B-3 shows the results of measurements made with charcoal tubes spiked with a known 

amount of styrene monomer. These data were fit with a linear regression (R2 = 0.9969) to quantify the 

results of GC-FID measuremants made on styrene desorbed from the charcoal tube samples taken 

during testing. Two concentrations were spiked in triplicate (1812 and 3624 ug/ml). The precision 

measured for these two sets averaged 5.9%. 

For THC analyzer measurements, precision was determined from repeated measurements of 

the three span gases. Averaged precision vaiues for the inlet and outlet THC analyzers reported in 

Table B-3 (3.5% for the inlet THC and 3.9% for the outlet THC) are approximately one-third of that 

originially estimated in Table B-1. 

Bias could not be determined from charcoal tube samples obtained during testing at Eljer 

Plumbingware because of the problems in sampling reported above. However charcoal tubes spiked 

with known concentrations of styrene were prepared and analyzed at SRI. The results of this analysis 

are reported in Table B-3. For some of the lower concentrations listed, several bias values (as relative 

percent difference) in this table are rather high. However, on the average, bias was low (-1.4%). 

For THC analyzer measurements, bias was determined for each measurement made of the 

three span gases and are reported in Table B-3. Average bias values for the inlet THC ran from -1.1% 

(192 ppm styrene) to 5.1% (55 ppm styrene). Average bias values for the outlet THC ran from -1.7% 

(192 ppm styrene) to 3.3% (55 ppm styrene). Overall, bias values were within the ±5% estimated in 

Table B-1. 

Completeness 

For the NIOSH Method 1501 samples taken at the inlet and outlet of the Polyad FB device, 

completeness was 0% because styrene concentration could not be determined from any of the 

samples. From the NlOSH Method 1501 samples taken before and after testing the Polyad FB device 

completeness was 91.7%. 

For THC analyzer measurements, completeness was much higher. Some data was lost during 

FID flame-outs and other data was lost during a power failure on the last day of testing. Out of 

86 
P.98 

approximately 12.3 hours of data (at one data point per second) less than 5 minutes worth of data were 

lost due to FID flame-outs (completeness of 99.3%). Including in a power failure of 15 minutes when no 

data were obtained, completeness was 97.3%. 

Representativeness 

The design of the portable Polyad FB device dictated much of the sampling strategy and 

sampling methodology practiced during this evaluation to obtain representative samples. The use of a 

large, flexible aluminum sampling line avoided contamination from plasticizers in a flexible plastic line. 

Location of the sampling line inlet (within the vent exhaust duct) and the high flow velocity into the 

Polyad FB unit (4-6 m/sec) assured that the sample extracted from the gel coat booth #2 exhaust was 

representative. Following the sample methodology recommended in NIOSH Method 1501 and EPA 

Method 18 (Section 7.4) also assured that representative samples were obtained. 

Comparability 

The sampling plan for this project made provision for simultaneous sampling using the two 

measurement methods of this study which wouid allow comparison of the results when suitably 

averaged over the same sampling period. However, because the NIOSH 1501 samples taken 

coincident with the THC sampling periods were unusable, no such comparison can be made. 

Nonetheless, since measured precision and accuracy of the THC data were both well within our DQI 

objectives, we feel confident that the overall objectives of the project were not compromised. 

87 
P.99 

APPENDIX C 

TOTAL HYDROCARBON ANALYZER DAILY RESULTS 

88 
P.1 

Table C-1. THC Analyzer Results from November 3,1992, Rrst Period of Spraying 

November 3,1992 

Start 

Time 

9:04 

9:08 

9:09 

9:09 

9:09 

9:09 

9:12 

9:16 

9:16 

9:22 

9:25 

9:30 

9:32 

9:33 

9:33 

9:39 

9:40 

9:41 

9:47 

9:48 

9:54 

9:55 

9:55 

9:55 

9:55 

9:55 

9:57 

End 

Time 

9:08 

9:08 

9:09 

9:09 

9:09 

9:12 

9:16 

9:16 

9:22 

9:25 

9:30 

9:32 

9:33 

9:33 

9:39 

9:40 

9:41 

9:47 

9:48 

9:54 

9:55 

9:55 

9:55 

9:55 

9:55 

9:57 

10:01 

Emissions > 63 PPM 

Emissions < 63 PPM 

All Emissions 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

262 

8 

10 

6 

3 

218 

217 

23 

306 

182 

304 

145 

31 

30 

359 

42 

100 

302 

64 

409 

9 

6 

3 

6 

3 

134 

246 

2460 

968 

3428 

Ih 

Average 

165.7 

61.1 

60.5 

63.7 

63.3 

41.0 

176.9 

55.9 

195.7 

45.8 

171.9 

45.5 

99.9 

53.4 

202.3 

54.2 

49.1 

190.4 

52.5 

131.0 

64.9 

59.1 

63.6 

59.6 

64.5 

41.6 

183.3 

173.7 

46.1 

137.7 

ILETTHC(ppi 

Population 

Std. Oev. 

81.8 

0.8 

1.2 

0.6 

0.5 

5.7 

58.1 

3.7 

59.4 

5.6 

55.0 

5.4 

22.3 

4.0 

80.1 

4.8 

4.3 

87.6 

5.2 

68.3 

1.3 

1.7 

0.2 

1.4 

1.2 

9.1 

59.7 

ml 

T 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

9.9 

0.5 

0.7 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

7.7 

1.5 

6.6 

0.8 

6.2 

0.9 

7.9 

1.4 

8.3 

1.4 

0.8 

9.8 

1.3 

6.6 

0.9 

1.3 

0.2 

1.2 

1.3 

1.5 

7.4 

OUTLET THC ( 

Average 

21.52 

21.37 

21.31 

21.24 

21.24 

21.09 

20.64 

20.50 

20.39 

20.20 

19.87 

19.61 

19.56 

19.59 

19.53 

19.38 

19.21 

18.94 

18.57 

18.14 

17.68 

17.67 

17.65 

17.65 

17.71 

17.46 

16.71 

19.40 

19.66 

19.47 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

0.14 

0.04 

0.06 

0.01 

0.04 

0.13 

0.11 

0.04 

0.08 

0.10 

0.14 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.08 

0.06 

0.05 

0.17 

0.05 

0.23 

0.03 

0.03 

0.02 

0.04 

0.00 

0.15 

023 

}pm) 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.02 

0.04 

0.04 

0.01 

0.04 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.03 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.03 

0.01 

0.03 

0.03 

71.8 % of time spent spraying, 9:04 -10:01 AM 

89 
o 

°8 

3 9. 

H 

n 

3"-

o P 

«2 

Ii 

m m 

> g g rfr?.•f.-fr?.-f.-fr?-f-f.-'-f-*-*-*-*-*-*ooooooooooooooooo

m A v 

g & & ^ — .-f^^. — ^^-ill^^^i^ill^^opooooooooooooooo

§33 S^feS^S^^K^»^SSgS3g8SSSSfe^^^g^S^KK^^KK

g ss 

f

ro w 

S2^o^oina8i

M-viCB nobiub^ouiin^kbi^sbU'uboDbiouinbi^bsbiuiobuuMik

SoiftA|dOfco|t)0»M*ftin->ooui^l«|SaiS(k|t)|d8»u-'Aauois

b>s^wia«iob)Mb)bioia^o)^bib^d)b)iabNbo^iaiobii)K>iD(nb°

bowau^bbob^osbuubia»^bbau^^^<obuiios->b(nuK)

-j ~j -^i o>cAO>a)cno>o)o>o>'>io>a>o>a>cno>o>cna>'vi^i-ja>cs<oio<o<o<o <o o oooo-'-

pppppppppoppoopppppoppopppppopppppppp

88SS28A^28S88mS2Sro8<D£KSol88SS8(oSS8S°bl

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

222228222228!2J32SS22SS288r38S2S82SSSS8
P.3 

Table C-3. THC Analyzer Results from November 3,1992, Third Period of Spraying 

November 3,1992 

Start 

Time 

12:54 

12:55 

12:59 

13:04 

13:04 

13:05 

13:08 

13:09 

13:10 

13:16 

13:19 

13:23 

13:26 

13:29 

13:33 

13:37 

13:37 

13:40 

13:44 

13:48 

13:53 

13:55 

14:01 

14:02 

14:07 

Emissions 

Emissions 

All 

End 

Time 

12:55 

1259 

13:04 

13:04 

13:05 

13:08 

13:09 

13:10 

13:16 

13:19 

13:23 

13:26 

13:29 

13:33 

13:37 

13:37 

13:40 

13:44 

13:48 

13:53 

13:55 

14:01 

14:02 

14:07 

14:21 

>63 PPM 

< 63 PPM 

Emissions 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

26 

263 

273 

3 

45 

231 

54 

9 

411 

151 

262 

192 

174 

220 

218 

3 

184 

265 

207 

336 

126 

342 

78 

286 

729 

2692 

1667 

4359 

Ifi 

Average 

281.2 

28.5 

186.6 

61.9 

75.2 

28.1 

121.8 

57.3 

160.1 

28.3 

177.5 

31.0 

192.3 

39.4 

181.0 

61.0 

48.4 

190.5 

424 

179.0 

38.5 

164.6 

41.5 

195.7 

27.4 

176.9 

35.7 

122.9 

ILETTHC(ppi 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

11.0 

26 

88.2 

0.6 

5.5 

6.8 

41.2 

5.5 

80.3 

7.0 

55.4 

6.2 

65.6 

6.5 

67.9 

1.2 

4.9 

80.0 

5.5 

77.1 

4.6 

78.4 

8.0 

68.4 

10.4 

Til 

mj 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

4.2 

0.4 

10.5 

0.7 

1.6 

0.9 

11.0 

3.6 

7.8 

1.1 

6.7 

0.9 

9.7 

0.9 

9.0 

1.3 

0.7 

9.7 

0.7 

8.2 

0.8 

8.3 

1.8 

8.0 

0.7 

OUTLET THC (ppm) 

Average 

• 

4.92 

4.82 

4.69 

4.70 

4.67 

4.63 

• 

.4.79 

4.77 

4.73 

4.67 

4.67 

4.69 

4.71 

4.75 

4.77 

4.91 

4.93 

4.95 

5.09 

5.08 

5.05 

4.52 

5.16 

4.81 

4.81 

4.81 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

• 

0.04 

0.05 

0.02 

0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

• 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

0.O4 

0.03 

0.06 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

1.69 

0.04 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

. 

0.01 

0.01 

0.03 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

* 

0.00 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

0.00 

0.00 

0.03 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

0.20 

0.00 

61.8 % of time spent spraying, 12:54 - 2:21 PM 

Data lost due to flame out of FID in outiet THC analyzer. 

Outlier, from period at end of spraying. 

91 
co 

ro 

o ^ 

c . 

II 

I? 

o 

8 

m m 

egg . sa28o

, S6333888oi88gio,

8&B^ ^ 

m A v 

25' u u Q«ojo«p<o<o<0«>a>co«o<o<o$0«p<o©«0cpq»jo<O5Ojo<o©o>o)p)cpo9cocDCpojp>cpc0 » 

3 3 8$28o

,

£fc333oioicn'8k8o

,

l8lo

,

c 0 - K ^ 

s s 

^8 I 8 3i cn £ 2 81 tn tn ID to u a 8 I K » S e 83 § 8 H 8 § ^ & 8 M V Ol >j U Ul U 

o cn cn U)sb)4uiD«uiac«bK>ubibb>iobi^bioa^biau^io^uuabiosuib^a^nioai

(LS^^^^S|0)4^^o|4^"uo^|o"ui!SviTMviS|o3ii)urooi--o--ooo|tiou|oo

bbu'«^'»aoauibuia)<i)^^i»bso^uo^N^s^^aioiobub)ioo)a^^ob>(nbu

0<»-»-»0>-»-4-'-»0-'0-'-»<000000>00>-*-'<l-»UI>*-'-*WO(dOO-'0000,0-'{00-N

Abbua^K)»ubibbiiobbbiaasas»^abb)a^Nbafrbi^ioa^AaNtui^ffib

(oot o mcno>cncno>^^^^^^^vio»coooo)Oo<o«o<oooo^MfofOfOfO[0(OforofOfOfO(Ofv>fOfococ

8 3 3 8K^S2gskSS&ftSSSfe2g^2S88ig^B^^feSSgSSSeS5cS!S«i8Sgb

opoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-S8g^8MSS88Sg85S88gu8^Si^elgSg^Sgg8S82S88S8Sg^

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o ooooo

2228S2222SSSSS8S222S222SSgS2SS2S2S8Sg-2f3»S8g
f

c 

Q

2 

. 

CO 

CD 

Q . 

*S 

CO 

CM" 

O) 

O) 

CD 

& 

E 

o 

> 

C

3 

CO 

•^ 

D 

r

I 

o 

< 

-

iri 

1 

J

O 

3 

D 

jpm) 

95

% Conf. 

Interval 

TLETTHC( 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

Average 

m) 

95

% Conf. 

Interval 

ILETTHC(ppi 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

Average 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

K 4,1992 

End 

Time 

Novembt 

Start 

Time 

S8S8888Sq8SSSS3SSSS8SSSS8pq88o8So8SSSqq885qSSgq

0' oooooooo * o'o* o'oooooo'oooooooooo'ooo'o'oooo * 0" 0" 00*000000*

28333S8383S8S88855S388353Sq33q85S8S3S883S88S588

ooooo o 0' 0* 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

cor^w^K»-^ioeoc»^i^inc\ico<o^N^coc»o>*n»-

irimriuiiiiiriuiiriwuiiOmOuiitiuiiriuiviuiuiuimrt-fimO 

. ioco^r»^«oe»^»^tou>eoh»ptoi^^^*co

d oi oi cd 0' r^ 0' ui -^ co' -^ oi »-' <\i -^ 0 d r- -- f-' 0 co 0' 0 «^ o> »-' d 0 «- 0' «-' »- 0° 0 co c\J <o 0' o» 0 »^ 0 »- 0' »- 

a<DS'«c4«cooian4«oanN«oou)a>in«^r-<-n^a)Ooioia>-iflin(iio«oifloiDOi04

oi co' 10 o> ui oj <• eo co oi -^ co' *t co ^ 0 d »-' co ci •* »-' d d ci g> ^ d d ^ d r^ ^ •-' *-' to cJ N'"{jc>8j6s6t-'i

o<-T<o400sai(nB<CNuiNin<-NoiiiNoaoieo4ioiDU)r4«in<ccosn<ou>aaiitiu)inM'-r-u>N

2 £ 8 fc S $ fe 8 3 fe 8 8 

g§»gS§g8S8*"S8^

w

^

w S^gn

"2g^

w

*

C T

^ ^

w

*82

O T

^2a

w

|

w

8^^8
Table C-6. THC Analyzer Results from November 4,1992, Third Period of Spraying 

P.6 

November 4,1992 

Start 

Time 

1219 

1232 

1234 

1234 

1234 

1239 

1239 

1239 

1247 

1248 

1248 

1248 

1254 

1256 

13:05 

13:10 

13:12 

13:15 

13:16 

13:19 

13:20 

13:25 

13:25 

1329 

13:30 

13:34 

13:34 

13:34 

13:38 

13:42 

13:46 

13:52 

13:54 

14:00 

14:00 

14:04 

14:08 

Emissions 

Emissions 

All 

End 

Time 

1232 

1234 

1234 

1234 

1239 

1239 

12:39 

1247 

12:48 

1248 

12:48 

1254 

12:56 

13:05 

13:10 

13:12 

13:15 

13:16 

13:19 

13:20 

13:25 

13:25 

13:29 

13:30 

13:34 

13:34 

13:34 

13:38 

13:42 

13:46 . 

13:52 

13:54 

14:00 

14:00 

14:04 

14:08 

14:15 

> 63 PPM 

< 63 PPM 

Emissions 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

739 

123 

10 

6 

285 

28 

4 

476 

33 

3 

4 

347 

152 

518 

312 

105 

177 

69 

201 

38 

283 

27 

218 

45 

264 

6 

7 

211 

273 

237 

347 

103 

370 

11 

254 

206 

416 

3487 

2266 

5753 

i k 

Average 

11.5 

173.3 

69.6 

54.6 

156.9 

73.8 

60.9 

27.1 

136.0 

64.1 

58.3 

176.8 

37.2 

327 

204.0 

43.3 

185.6 

47.2 

188.0 

55.4 

186.3 

46.6 

200.9 

502 

2102 

61.5 

64.4 

44.3 

221.3 

46.5 

1552 

462 

144.8 

528 

35.9 

218.3 

40.0 

1820 

37.5 

125.0 

ILETTHC(ppi 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

5.8 

57.0 

3.1 

3.7 

66.8 

7.8 

1.2 

5.7 

429 

1.0 

24 

68.1 

6.3 

3.8 

73.9 

4.6 

60.3 

4.3 

68.6 

24 

59.9 

4.5 

69.3 

4 2 

75.0 

0.7 

0.9 

5.9 

832 

7.0 

662 

6.9 

64.6 

5.5 

3.3 

76.7 

8.0 

Tl) 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.4 

10.1 

2 0 

3.0 

7.8 

2 9 

1.2 

0.5 

14.7 

1.2 

23 

7.2 

1.0 

0.4 

8.2 

0.9 

8.9 

1.0 

9.5 

0.8 

7.0 

1.7 

9 2 

1.3 

9.0 

0.5 

0.6 

0.8 

9.8 

0.9 

7.0 

1.3 

6.6 

3 2 

0.4 

10.5 

0.8 

OUTLET THC (ppm) 

Average 

6.10 

5.92 

5.90 

5.87 

5.87 

5.84 

5.87 

5.87 

5.93 

5.94 

5.92 

6.01 

6.13 

6.41 

6.83 

6.97 

7.05 

7.16 

7.24 

7.30 

7.30 

7.35 

7.46 

7.58 

7.72 

7.93 

7.95 

8.07 

8.18 

8.27 

8.26 

8.28 

8.28 

8.30 

8.39 

8.37 

8.44 

7.30 

7.05 

7.20 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

0.17 

0.04 

0.05 

0.02 

0.04 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

0.01 

0.04 

0.07 

0.04 

0.14 

0.10 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.08 

0.04 

0.05 

0.04 

0.07 

0.04 

0.12 

0.02 

0.03 

0.10 

0.06 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.08 

0.04 

0.09 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.01 

0.01 

0.04 

0.01 

0.01 

0.O2 

0.03 

0.00 

0.01 

0.01 

0.04 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

0.00 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

60.6 % of time spent spraying, 1219-14:15 

Outlier, from periods at beginning and end of spraying. 

94 
P.7 

Table C-7. THC> 

November5. 1992 

Start 

Time 

8:29 

8:37 

8:37 

8:37 

8:38 

8:38 

8:38 

8:46 

8:49 

8:55 

8:55 

8:55 

8:56 

8:56 

8:56 

8:58 

9:03 

9:03 

9:03 

9:10 

9:14 

9:14 

9:14 

9:15 

9:17 

9:23 

9:27 

9:32 

9:32 

9:33 

9:33 

9:33 

9:33 

9:35 

9:42 

9:42 

9:43 

9:43 

9:49 

9:49 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

End 

Time 

8:37 

8:37 

8:37 

8:38 

8:38 

8:38 

8:46 

8:49 

8:55 

8:55 

8:55 

8:56 

8:56 

8:56 

8:58 

9:03 

9:03 

9:03 

9:10 

9:14 

9:14 

9:14 

9:15 

9:17 

9:23 

927 

9:32 

9:32 

9:33 

9:33 

9:33 

9:33 

9:35 

9:42 

9:42 

9:43 

9:43 

9:49 

9:49 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:50 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:51 

9:52 

Analyzer P 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

467 

3 

5 

26 

11 

41 

440 

165 

386 

5 

6 

41 

3 

10 

113 

309 

5 

12 

398 

241 

10 

7 

14 

134 

391 

227 

318 

3 

28 

7 

4 

9 

83 

438 

6 

41 

16 

373 

4 

18 

13 

4 

5 

4 

3 

4 

3 

24 

3 

5 

6 

3 

3 

4 

4 

20 

tesults frc 

• I 

Average 

148.0 

61.2 

63.2 

55.7 

65.0 

51.2 

163.8 

46.3 

154.6 

58.7 

65.2 

529 

64.0 

602 

48.3 

190.1 

61.9 

65.2 

39.8 

180.1 

58.6 

64.8 

57.8 

43.2 

184.6 

45.1 

163.4 

60.9 

59.3 

64.4 

612 

65.7 

45.8 

147.7 

612 

725 

54.7 

140.6 

60.1 

67.9 

68.7 

67.3 

59.8 

64.6 

59.4 

67.1 

612 

67.8 

64.3 

67.9 

59.7 

61.5 

64.5 

60.4 

60.7 

58.3 

>m Novemb 

LETTHC(ppr 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

66.1 

0.7 

0.5 

3.6 

2 1 

6.9 

64.6 

5.1 

77.1 

1.5 

25 

3.7 

0.7 

1.3 

4.4 

69.7 

0.3 

1.4 

7.2 

76.7 

2 1 

1.6 

3.1 

8.6 

58.8 

5.5 

76.1 

0.6 

2 6 

1.3 

0.8 

2 1 

4.6 

620 

1.1 

6.3 

4.7 

722 

0.5 

4.5 

25 

2 8 

1.9 

0.5 

1.3 

0.9 

1.2 

2 2 

1.4 

3.0 

1.4 

0.8 

1.0 

1.1 

1.4 

2.1 

er5,199 

ni 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

6.0 

0.8 

0.4 

1.3 

1.3 

21 

6.0 

0.8 

7.7 

1.3 

2.0 

1.1 

0.8 

0.9 

0.8 

7.8 

0.3 

0.8 

0.7 

9.7 

1.3 

1.2 

1.6 

1.4 

5.8 

0.7 

8.4 

0.7 

1.0 

1.0 

0.8 

1.4 

1.0 

5.8 

0.8 

1.9 

2 3 

7.3 

0.5 

21 

1.3 

2 7 

1.6 

0.5 

1.4 

0.9 

1.3 

0.9 

1.6 

2 7 

12 

0.9 

1.2 

1.1 

1.3 

1.0 

2, Rrst P eriod of S| D raying 

OUTLET THC (ppm) 

Average 

7.41 

6.99 

6.97 

6.98 

6.95 

6.90 

6.73 

6.66 

6.83 

7.03 

7.04 

7.06 

7.12 

7.09 

7.14 

7.24 

7.27 

7.28 

7.25 

6.97 

6.90 

6.87 

6.88 

6.86 

6.75 

7.69 

9.74 

9.75 

10.17 

10.72 

10.94 

11.11 

10.97 

10.89 

9.92 

9.89 

10.09 

8.77 

7.85 

7.81 

7.77 

7.71 

7.67 

7.70 

7.68 

7.64 

7.64 

7.60 

7.59 

7.56 

7.53 

7.50 

7.49 

7.48 

7.47 

7.42 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

0.30 

0.04 

0.01 

0.02 

0.03 

0.03 

0.06 

0.03 

0.15 

0.02 

0.02 

0.03 

0.02 

0.03 

0.04 

0.05 

0.02 

0.02 

0.07 

0.09 

0.02 

0.02 

0.03 

0.05 

0.04 

0.80 

0.11 

0.03 

024 

0.09 

0.09 

0.11 

0.31 

0.37 

0.02 

0.04 

0.04 

0.69 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

0.01 

0.03 

0.01 

0.04 

0.01 

0.01 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

0.01 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.02 

0.04 

(Cont 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.03 

0.04 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.11 

0.01 

0.04 

0.09 

0.06 

0.09 

0.07 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.02 

0.03 

0.07 

0.03 

0.01 

0.03 

0.01 

0.03 

0.01 

0.04 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.03 

0.03 

0.01 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

inued) 

95 
P.8 

Table C-7 Continued 

November 5,1992 

Start 

Time 

9:52 

9:52 

9:54 

9:55 

9:55 

Emissions 

Emissions 

All 

End 

Time 

9:52 

9:54 

9:54 

9:55 

10:05 

> 63 PPM 

< 63 PPM 

Emissions 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

4 

131 

23 

42 

599 

3565 

1561 

5126 

if 

Average 

59.4 

53.6 

67.8 

58.9 

328 

156.5 

47.0 

123.1 

J.LETTHC(ppi 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

2 1 

3.8 

3.5 

3.0 

7.4 

ml 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

21 

0.6 

1.4 

0.9 

0.6 

OUTLET THC (ppm) 

Average 

7.36 

7.30 

7.13 

7.02 

6.34 

7.97 

7.49 

7.82 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

0.03 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.33 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.03 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.03 

69.5 % of time spent spraying, 829 • 10:05 AM 

Outlier, from period at end of spraying. 

96 
O O K 

Sf 8 • 

5" * 8* 

M l 

co 

praying, 1 

beginning 

out of FID 

5 « 2 1-11 endo outlet $** 

fli 

| 1 N 

^ 

m m 

> » « rfr?.-frfr^.-frfrf.-? r?.•f.-frf.-frf-^-'.-f-•-'-*-'-•-'. 9 oooooooooooooooooooooo

- | o ftftS^^^BSIn^^^SssssSiisgSSSKBBSfifeSSSin 

u u 

m A v 

j j- to CO ^^ r '^^ r 4-4^-^-.-4 r .^-.-.^-.^-.-4^^Zl^.'^ooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

| 3 3 6ftft^^yyy^KK^^^^^^uSSSg8SSC!5«B§fe^ySSKa^^^^K^KK88

a s s .. 

vl co 'aO»«^Ouwouoiulnu»auaouSwSNiauiSaauuusN»aaAcgaoio ^ 

dA$# y^^ft^^S^yygS^fe22iSa^g!^!Safcc52g^3s8!S5^SSS2SCS^SS

to cn ->i inAinA^<nMtocBcocnd^uMlnK)bcncna9coK>b>iococBiococ»^^i o 

UiaSs»SC4«M5«OUIII*OOliiASlllMa^NJ>|OOtlia!n^'ol5c40«^olSoioSll)U^

CBwbk>daunl*c»WitebK>b)«k^oAtn«Mui\>M^onl'^t a 

OAO>^|0«oo-»j-»-'»o-«foco~»oo-»-»>io-"-»-«<no-»0(eioa»-»isjo-»oofo-»ovi;oo|\j-»co-»-

s'»swin^bAin«i>b^bouic«biba»uub««ususNsbwMbo^^inb^obiio^^b 

it «. .h. »«A*»A» A k»o.»k(kA*>fc»A»»<,b o t-uit-t-x-m-t-t-t-m-t-t-t-utt-tnininu

SC SI 21 olbib}8222& • * 53 fe fe13 5) 5) 8 8 2J 3 3 5 fe 8 SS il ' ' 8 8 8 8 t t 8 fc fc 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 

ooooooo o ooooooooooooooo o ooooooooooooooooooo

8Sg828g =

 : s

fc2S8SS88888fc82fcf c '

 s

 8 fc 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 fc fc 2 8 fc 2 8 8 S 8 8 

ooooooo o po p po p OOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2S22S22 2 ' '228228822288^28 2 *

 5

222S88228S828222288
P.10 

Table C-9. THC Analyzer Results from November 5,1992. Third Period of Spraying 

November a, in < 

Start 

Time 

1219 

1233 

1233 

1234 

1238 

1242 

1248 

12:48 

12:48 

1248 

1248 

12:48 

1248 

1253 

1253 

1254 

1255 

1255 

12:55 

1255 

1256 

1257 

1257 

13:00 

13:06 

13:11 

13:12 

13:13 

13:17 

13:33 

13:34 

13:38 

13:50 

13:54 

13:59 

14:03 

14:07 

End 

Time 

1233 

1233 

12:34 

1238 

12:42 

1247 

1248 

12:48 

1248 

12:48 

1248 

12:48 

12:53 

12:53 

1254 

12:54 

12:55 

12:55 

1255 

1256 

12:57 

1257 

13:00 

13:06 

13:11 

13:12 

13:13 

13:17 

13:18 

13:34 

13:38 

13:50 

13:54 

13:59 

14:03 

14:07 

14:14 

Emissions > 63 PPM 

Emissions < 63 PPM 

All Emissions 

Elapsed 

Time 

(seconds) 

763 

26 

11 

245 

245 

344 

4 

9 

5 

4 

4 

9 

307 

8 

60 

4 

4 

6 

10 

66 

36 

3 

217 

365 

271 

90 

50 

247 

58 

114 

225 

723 

252 

292 

223 

262 

370 

3229 

1570 

4799 

I L 

Average 

6.6 

135.5 

53.2 

168.1 

25.7 

1429 

67.4 

65.4 

60.4 

64.8 

60.4 

58.4 

84.9 

65.4 

68.1 

60.5 

60.4 

61.5 

65.7 

48.8 

1412 

60.1 

2042 

40.9 

194.2 

48.0 

116.4 

188.7 

48.8 

116.1 

34.9 

144.8 

36.9 

163.8 

35.9 

164.5 

27.7 

151.6 

37.8 

114.4 

ILETTHC(ppi 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

3.4 

43.5 

5.3 

71.6 

7.4 

68.8 

3.0 

2 1 

1.4 

0.4 

0.9 

2 2 

8.6 

24 

2 7 

0.8 

0.9 

0.7 

1.7 

4.7 

53.6 

2 0 

70.7 

4.6 

629 

5.1 

43.6 

58.4 

4.8 

55.6 

5.5 

73.6 

15.7 

59.6 

10.7 

55.7 

7 2 

T1J ••' • 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.3 

16.7 

3.1 

8.9 

0.9 

7.2 

3.0 

1.3 

1.3 

0.4 

0.9 

1.4 

1.0 

1.7 

0.7 

0.8 

0.9 

0.5 

1.1 

1.2 

17.5 

2 1 

9.4 

0.4 

7.5 

1.1 

121 

7 2 

1.3 

102 

0.7 

5.4 

2 0 

6.8 

1.4 

6.7 

0.7 

OUTLET THC ( 

Average 

3.34 

3.18 

3.17 

3.13 

3.10 

3.16 

3.16 

3.14 

3.14 

3.16 

3.16 

3.15 

3.15 

3.09 

3.08 

3.06 

3.04 

3.07 

3.07 

3.08 

3.09 

3.15 

3.06 

3.09 

325 

3.40 

3.44 

3.61 

3.72 

3.99 

4.05 

4.13 

3.98 

3.88 

3.93 

3.96 

3.89 

3.57 

3.54 

I 3.56 

Population 

Std. Dev. 

0.10 

0.04 

0.02 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.04 

0.03 

0.04 

0.02 

0.03 

0.02 

0.02 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

0.08 

0.04 

0.03 

0.09 

0.03 

0.01 

0.04 

0.07 

0.06 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

)pm) 

95% Conf. 

Interval 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.00 

0.03 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

0.02 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.03 

0.00 

0.00 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

67.3 % of time spent spraying, 1219 - 214 PM 

Outlier, from period at beginning or end of spraying, 

' THC data lost due to power failure. 

98 
P.11 

TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 

(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) 

1. REPORT NO. 

EPA-600/R-93-212 

2. 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Evaluation of the Polyad* FB Air Purification and 

Solvent Recover y Process for Styrene Removal 

7. AUTHOR(S) 

Larr y Felix, Randy Merritt, and Ashley Williamson 

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AN D ADDRESS 

Southern Researc h Institute 

P.O . Box 55305 

Birmingham, Alabama 35255-5305 

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS 

EPA , Office of Researc h and Development 

Air and Energy Engineering Researc h Laboratory 

Researc h Triangl e Park , NC 27711 

3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO. 

5. REPORT DATE 

November 1993 

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 

11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 

68-D2-0062. Task 2 

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 

Task Final; 4-7/9 3 

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 

EPA/600/13 

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEER L pro j e c t office r i s Bobb y E # Danie i , Mail Drop 61. 919/541-

0908. 

i6. ABSTRACT Th e repor t gives results of a study evaluating the Polyad fluidized-bed (FB) 

process for controlling styrene emissions at a representative fiberglass shower 

stall and bath tub manufacturing plant. The process was evaluated using a transportable unit supplied by Weatherly, Inc. , of Atlanta, GA, responsibl e for domestic 

marketing and sal e of the process. The evaluation was carrie d out November 3-5, 

1992, at the Elje r Plumbingwar e facility in Wilson, NC. The Polyad FB process 

use s beds of macroporou s polymer particle s as a regenerabl e adsorbent to capture 

styren e emissions. The sourc e tested was a gel coat spra y booth exhaust. A side 

stream from the sourc e wa s routed to the pilot unit, and inlet and outlet styreme 

concentrations wer e measure d using Total Hydrocarbon Analyzers (THCs) and carbor 

adscoption tubes (EPA Method 18). The process demonstrated the capabilities of 

removing from 94 to 99% of the styrene emissions. 

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 

a. DESCRIPTORS 

Pollution 

Styrene 

Styrene Resin s 

Solvents 

Hydrocarbons 

Fluidized Bed Processors 

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 

Releas e to Publi c 

b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS 

Pollution Control 

Stationary Source s 

Polyad FB Process 

19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 

Unclassified 

20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 

Unclassified 

c. COSATI Field/Group 

13B 

07C 

111. IU 

ILK 

131. 07A 

2 1 . NO. OF PAGES 

108 

2 2 . PRICE 

EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) 99 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Research and Development 

Center for Environmental Research Information 

Cincinnati. Ohio 45268 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 

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 HERE • ; tear off label, and return it to the 

above address. 

Publication IMo. EPA- 60 0/R- 93-212