DRAFT Appendix A: Application of PS-11B to BAM-Base PM CEMS Data CES, LLC

January 10, 2013

Appendix A

Preliminary Application of Alternative Performance Specification 11B to 

Examples of Existing BAM-Based PM CEMS Database
DRAFT Appendix A: Application of PS-11B to BAM-Base PM CEMS Data CES, LLC

January 10, 2013

Introduction

An alternative to EPA Performance Specification 11 (PS-11) for initial certification of PM CEMS has been 

proposed. This alternative, Performance Specification 11B (PS-11B), is similar to PS-11 except for how it 

(PS-11B) determines an in-stack response function (calibration curve) for the PM CEMS and is specific to 

PM CEMS based on beta attenuation monitor (BAM) mass sensors. PS-11 requires an operator to 

perform simultaneous EPA Reference Method 5 (M5, “true” PM concentration) and PM CEMS 

measurements at different concentrations and develop a regression correlation between these two 

measurements. The operator is then required to use this correlation (calibration) to relate all future PM 

CEMS readings to the “true” PM concentration. However, it is difficult to alter the in-stack PM 

concentrations and it is difficult to achieve an adequate range of concentrations that extends to or 

beyond the emission limit. As such, it is often necessary to extrapolate the correlation relationship to 

the emission limit. In addition, it is uncertain how the perturbed operating conditions impact the 

aerosol characteristics, and subsequently CEMS sampling efficiency. 

Alternative PS-11B on the other hand, requires only simultaneous M5 and BAM-based PM CEMS 

measurements at a plant’s normal operating conditions as discussed in the main body of this report. In 

this case, the PM CEMS linear range is established off-line using a quantitative reference aerosol 

generator (QAG) that is capable of generating reference aerosols whose concentration is traceable to 

NIST standards that cover a concentration range including the emission limit. An in-stack correlation is 

then calculated based on this off-line QAG-based linear correlation and the simultaneous in-stack 

M5/CEMS measurements at normal operating conditions.

The available database of BAM-based PM CEMS and M5 simultaneous measurements as part of PS-11 

certifications consists of 16 MSI BetaGuard systems installed over the past 3 to 5 years. Cooper 

Environmental Services LLC (CES) conducted off-line QAG correlations of three of these MSI BetaGuard 

BAM-based PM CEMS and determined that there was very little difference in these off-line response 

functions; i.e. coefficients of determination for all three PM CEMS were greater than 0.985 and the

slopes were within ±2% of 1.06 based on the PM CEMS factory calibrations. Because of the similarity of 

these three PM CEMS manufactured at different times, it seems reasonable to assume the factory 

calibrations for the other 13 PM CEMS for which we have data, would have similar QAG off-line 

correlation functions. As such, it is possible to apply PS-11B to these 15 sets of PS-11 data and compare 

the results. This comparison has been performed; the results of which are presented in this appendix, 

summarized in the following table, and discussed in the text.
DRAFT Appendix A: Application of PS-11B to BAM-Base PM CEMS Data CES, LLC

January 10, 2013

% uncertainty in 

slope PS-11b

% uncertainty in 

slope of PS-11 Emission limit

1A 1.169

± 0.025 1.180

± 0.060 0.9 5.1 2.1 97.9 -0.6

2B 1.194

± 0.043 1.078

± 0.079 9.7 7.3 3.6 94.4 8.6

3A 1.626

± 0.054 1.321

± 0.149 18.7 11.3 3.3 93.2 21.7

1 2.053

± 0.095 2.130

± 0.352 3.7 16.5 4.6 9.9 0.8

2 2.297

± 0.083 2.575

± 0.190 12.1 7.4 3.6 9.9 -2.3

5 1.805

± 0.042 1.903

± 0.203 5.4 10.7 2.3 53.2* -3.2

6 1.263

± 0.107 1.019

± 0.204 19.3 20.0 8.5 6.9* 12.4

7 1.462

± 0.045 1.333

± 0.104 8.8 7.8 3.1 55.5* 4.8

8 1.529

± 0.058 1.433

± 0.117 6.3 8.2 3.8 11.8 4.8

9 2.665

± 0.134 2.392

± 0.334 10.2 14.0 5.0 29.0 8.2

10 1.355

± 0.088 1.163

± 0.134 14.2 11.5 6.5 27.0 14.7

11 1.488

± 0.054 1.430

± 0.224 3.9 15.7 3.6 37.8* 3.3

12 3.702

± 0.125 3.698

± 0.455 0.1 12.3 3.4 182.6* -0.3

13 1.845

± 0.114 1.896

± 0.197 2.8 10.4 6.2 43.1* -2.6

Avg. 8.3 11.3 4.3 5.0

Stdev. 6.1 4.1 1.8 7.4% RSD 74 37 41 147

a Two CEMS outlier data sets were omitted (3,4). Three because its slope was <1.0 and determined during unstable startup conditions. Four was omitted because of 

excessive uncertainty in the slope (40%) and results were more than 5 SD from mean.

* Emission limit was estimated as 125% or highest PS-11 reading.

% error in the 

predicted Conc. At 

the emission limit

Comparison of PS-11/PS-11B Calibration Correlations For 14 BAM-Based PM CEMS Databasesa

Slopes CEMS 

ID PS-11 PS-11b % error of PS-11b slope from PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 1

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 1

Example 1. A waste coal fired power plant. Has SCR and Baghouse. Mid and High-level PM for the 

correlation was done with B3 injection of plant ash upstream of the ID fan.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Three Method 5b tests were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1.176 ± 0.26. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 2.42 5.06 2.6 1.091

2 2.49 4.48 2.0 0.799

3 2.46 6.15 3.7 1.500

Average 2.46 5.23 2.77 1.130

Stdev 0.04 0.85 0.86 0.352

% RSD 1.43 16.21 30.93 31.15

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 1

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 1.130 ± 0.352

m = (1+k) =2.130 ± 0.352

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 2.130±0.352(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 0.20 0.02 1.32 0.13 -1.00 0.87 2.32 1.00 NO

2 0.16 0.01 0.75 0.08 -1.09 0.87 1.84 0.95 NO

3 3.70 0.29 8.74 0.87 6.45 1.68 2.29 2.56 YES

4 3.72 0.29 7.46 0.75 6.49 1.69 0.97 2.43 YES

5 3.64 0.28 8.86 0.89 6.32 1.66 2.54 2.55 YES

6 3.78 0.29 7.7 0.77 6.62 1.71 1.08 2.48 YES

7 2.42 0.19 5.06 0.51 3.72 1.28 1.34 1.79 YES

8 2.49 0.19 4.48 0.45 3.87 1.30 0.61 1.75 YES

9 2.46 0.19 6.15 0.62 3.81 1.29 2.34 1.91 NO

10 0.24 0.02 0.57 0.06 -0.92 0.87 1.49 0.93 NO

11 0.31 0.02 0.84 0.08 -0.77 0.88 1.61 0.96 NO

12 0.25 0.02 1.39 0.14 -0.90 0.87 2.29 1.01 NO

13 0.26 0.02 0.47 0.05 -0.88 0.87 1.35 0.92 NO

14 0.24 0.02 0.97 0.10 -0.92 0.87 1.89 0.97 NO

15 0.11 0.01 0.98 0.10 -1.20 0.87 2.18 0.97 NO

16 0.11 0.01 0.71 0.07 -1.20 0.87 1.91 0.94 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 1.75

Stdev 0.57

% RSD 33
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 1

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 9.9 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11(y = 2.130*Ccems -1.430)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 2.130*Ccems)

y = 2.053x + 0.437

R2 = 0.971

y = 2.130x - 1.430

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

C

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 1

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 2.053x + 0.437

R2 = 0.971

y = 2.130x + 0.000

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

C

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 1 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 1

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 2.130 *Ccems – 0.080)

y = 2.053x + 0.437

R2 = 0.971

y = 2.130x - 0.080

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

C

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 1 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 1

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 0.20 0.02 1.32 0.13 -1.00 0.87 2.32 1.00 NO 0.43 0.08 0.89 no 0.35 1.48 0.97 yes 2 0.16 0.01 0.75 0.08 -1.09 0.87 1.84 0.95 NO 0.34 0.06 0.41 no 0.26 1.48 0.49 yes 3 3.70 0.29 8.74 0.87 6.45 1.68 2.29 2.56 YES 7.88 1.44 0.86 yes 7.80 2.06 0.94 yes 4 3.72 0.29 7.46 0.75 6.49 1.69 0.97 2.43 YES 7.92 1.45 0.46 yes 7.84 2.07 0.38 yes 5 3.64 0.28 8.86 0.89 6.32 1.66 2.54 2.55 YES 7.75 1.42 1.11 yes 7.67 2.05 1.19 yes 6 3.78 0.29 7.7 0.77 6.62 1.71 1.08 2.48 YES 8.05 1.47 0.35 yes 7.97 2.09 0.27 yes 7 2.42 0.19 5.06 0.51 3.72 1.28 1.34 1.79 YES 5.15 0.94 0.09 yes 5.07 1.75 0.01 yes 8 2.49 0.19 4.48 0.45 3.87 1.30 0.61 1.75 YES 5.30 0.97 0.82 yes 5.22 1.77 0.74 yes 9 2.46 0.19 6.15 0.62 3.81 1.29 2.34 1.91 NO 5.24 0.96 0.91 yes 5.16 1.76 0.99 yes 10 0.24 0.02 0.57 0.06 -0.92 0.87 1.49 0.93 NO 0.51 0.09 0.06 yes 0.43 1.48 0.14 yes 11 0.31 0.02 0.84 0.08 -0.77 0.88 1.61 0.96 NO 0.66 0.12 0.18 yes 0.58 1.48 0.26 yes 12 0.25 0.02 1.39 0.14 -0.90 0.87 2.29 1.01 NO 0.53 0.10 0.86 no 0.45 1.48 0.94 yes 13 0.26 0.02 0.47 0.05 -0.88 0.87 1.35 0.92 NO 0.55 0.10 0.08 yes 0.47 1.48 0.00 yes 14 0.24 0.02 0.97 0.10 -0.92 0.87 1.89 0.97 NO 0.51 0.09 0.46 no 0.43 1.48 0.54 yes 15 0.11 0.01 0.98 0.10 -1.20 0.87 2.18 0.97 NO 0.23 0.04 0.75 no 0.15 1.48 0.83 yes 16 0.11 0.01 0.71 0.07 -1.20 0.87 1.91 0.94 NO 0.23 0.04 0.48 no 0.15 1.48 0.56 yes Avg. 1.75 Avg. 0.55 Avg. 0.58 Stdev 0.57 Stdev 0.34 Stdev 0.38 % RSD 33 % RSD 62 % RSD 65 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS Run Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction) Difference M5b and Ctrue' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue'' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue σCtrue + σM5b Same with in one σ of each measurement Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 2

Example 2: A waste coal fired power plant. Has SCR and Baghouse. Mid and High-level PM for the 

correlation was done with B3 injection of plant ash upstream of the ID fan.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Four Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1.575 ± 0.19. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

6 3.13 8.71 5.6 1.783

Normal

7 3.39 9.11 5.7 1.687

8 3.15 7.66 4.5 1.432

9 3.32 7.96 4.6 1.398

Avg 3.25 8.36 5.11 1.575

Stdev 0.13 0.67 0.63 0.19

% RSD 3.93 7.98 12.24 12.04

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 1.575 ± 0.190

m = (1+k) =2.575 ± 0.190

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 2.575±0.190(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 0.66 0.05 2.49 0.25 0.27 0.89 2.22 1.14 NO

3 4.54 0.35 12.56 1.26 10.26 1.53 2.30 2.78 YES

5 4.68 0.37 11.22 1.12 10.62 1.56 0.60 2.68 YES

6 4.96 0.39 11.44 1.14 11.34 1.62 0.10 2.77 YES

7 4.7 0.37 11.48 1.15 10.67 1.56 0.81 2.71 YES

9 3.13 0.24 8.71 0.87 6.63 1.23 2.08 2.10 YES

10 3.39 0.26 9.11 0.91 7.30 1.28 1.81 2.19 YES

11 3.15 0.25 7.66 0.77 6.68 1.23 0.98 2.00 YES

12 3.32 0.26 7.96 0.80 7.12 1.26 0.84 2.06 YES

13 0.71 0.06 2.32 0.23 0.40 0.89 1.92 1.12 NO

14 0.63 0.05 1.5 0.15 0.19 0.89 1.31 1.04 NO

16 0.62 0.05 3.28 0.33 0.17 0.89 3.11 1.21 NO

18 0.62 0.05 2.06 0.21 0.17 0.89 1.89 1.09 NO

19 0.01 0.00 0.97 0.10 -1.40 0.87 2.37 0.97 NO

20 0.03 0.00 0.98 0.10 -1.35 0.87 2.33 0.97 NO

21 0.07 0.01 0.71 0.07 -1.25 0.87 1.96 0.94 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Average 1.66

Stdev 0.81

% RSD 48
DRAFT – Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 9.9 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11(y = 2.575*Ccems -1.43)

 

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 2.575*Ccems)

y = 2.297x + 0.848

R2 = 0.982

y = 2.575x - 1.430

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

C

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

true (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 2

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 2.297x + 0.848

R2 = 0.982

y = 2.575x + 0.000

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

C

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

true (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 2 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 2.575*Ccems). Same as putting intercept through zero.

y = 2.297x + 0.848

R2 = 0.982

y = 2.575x + 0.000

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 2 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative 11B Example 2

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 0.66 0.05 2.49 0.25 0.27 0.89 2.22 1.14 NO 1.70 0.18 0.79 no 1.70 0.98 0.79 yes 3 4.54 0.35 12.56 1.26 10.26 1.53 2.30 2.78 YES 11.69 1.26 0.87 yes 11.69 1.58 0.87 yes 5 4.68 0.37 11.22 1.12 10.62 1.56 0.60 2.68 YES 12.05 1.29 0.83 yes 12.05 1.61 0.83 yes 6 4.96 0.39 11.44 1.14 11.34 1.62 0.10 2.77 YES 12.77 1.37 1.33 yes 12.77 1.67 1.33 yes 7 4.7 0.37 11.48 1.15 10.67 1.56 0.81 2.71 YES 12.10 1.30 0.62 yes 12.10 1.62 0.62 yes 9 3.13 0.24 8.71 0.87 6.63 1.23 2.08 2.10 YES 8.06 0.87 0.65 yes 8.06 1.29 0.65 yes 10 3.39 0.26 9.11 0.91 7.30 1.28 1.81 2.19 YES 8.73 0.94 0.38 yes 8.73 1.34 0.38 yes 11 3.15 0.25 7.66 0.77 6.68 1.23 0.98 2.00 YES 8.11 0.87 0.45 yes 8.11 1.30 0.45 yes 12 3.32 0.26 7.96 0.80 7.12 1.26 0.84 2.06 YES 8.55 0.92 0.59 yes 8.55 1.33 0.59 yes 13 0.71 0.06 2.32 0.23 0.40 0.89 1.92 1.12 NO 1.83 0.20 0.49 no 1.83 0.98 0.49 yes 14 0.63 0.05 1.5 0.15 0.19 0.89 1.31 1.04 NO 1.62 0.17 0.12 yes 1.62 0.98 0.12 yes 16 0.62 0.05 3.28 0.33 0.17 0.89 3.11 1.21 NO 1.60 0.17 1.68 no 1.60 0.98 1.68 no 18 0.62 0.05 2.06 0.21 0.17 0.89 1.89 1.09 NO 1.60 0.17 0.46 no 1.60 0.98 0.46 yes 19 0.01 0.00 0.97 0.10 -1.40 0.87 2.37 0.97 NO 0.03 0.00 0.94 no 0.03 0.96 0.94 yes 20 0.03 0.00 0.98 0.10 -1.35 0.87 2.33 0.97 NO 0.08 0.01 0.90 no 0.08 0.96 0.90 yes 21 0.07 0.01 0.71 0.07 -1.25 0.87 1.96 0.94 NO 0.18 0.02 0.53 no 0.18 0.96 0.53 yes Avg. 1.66 Avg. 0.73 Avg. 0.73 Stdev 0.81 Stdev 0.38 Stdev 0.38 % RSD 48 % RSD 52 % RSD 52 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS Run Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction) Difference M5b and Ctrue' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue'' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue σCtrue + σM5b Same with in one σ of each measurement Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 3

Example 3: A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD, and WESP. Varying unit load was 

used to generate the mid and high-level PM for the correlation. Paired Method 5B trains were used for 

the stack testing.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Ten Method 5 tests were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.690 ± 0.676. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 1.21 1.54 0.330 0.273

Normal

2 1.21 1.46 0.250 0.207

3 1.18 1.79 0.610 0.517

4 1.18 1.53 0.350 0.297

5 0.78 2.31 1.530 1.962

6 0.78 2.25 1.470 1.885

7 1.04 1.4 0.360 0.346

8 1.04 1.47 0.430 0.413

9 1.19 2.17 0.980 0.824

10 1.19 1.4 0.210 0.176

Avg. 1.08 1.73 0.652 0.690

Stdev 0.17 0.37 0.498 0.676

% RSD 15.8 21.4 76.4 98.0

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.690 ± 0.676

m = (1+k) =1.690 ± 0.676

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.690±0.676(Ccems)-1.43±.609
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 0.41 0.03 0.16 0.02 -0.74 0.67 0.90 0.69 NO

2 0.41 0.03 0.11 0.01 -0.74 0.67 0.85 0.68 NO

3 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 -1.41 0.61 1.48 0.62 NO

4 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.01 -1.41 0.61 1.50 0.62 NO

5 0.01 0.00 0.3 0.03 -1.41 0.61 1.71 0.64 NO

6 0.01 0.00 0.41 0.04 -1.41 0.61 1.82 0.65 NO

7 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.04 -1.41 0.61 1.77 0.65 NO

8 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.03 -1.41 0.61 1.75 0.64 NO

9 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.05 -1.41 0.61 1.87 0.66 NO

10 0.01 0.00 0.62 0.06 -1.41 0.61 2.03 0.67 NO

11 1.21 0.09 1.54 0.15 0.61 1.03 0.93 1.19 YES

12 1.21 0.09 1.46 0.15 0.61 1.03 0.85 1.18 YES

13 1.18 0.09 1.79 0.18 0.56 1.02 1.23 1.19 NO

14 1.18 0.09 1.53 0.15 0.56 1.02 0.97 1.17 YES

15 0.78 0.06 2.31 0.23 -0.11 0.81 2.42 1.04 NO

16 0.78 0.06 2.25 0.23 -0.11 0.81 2.36 1.04 NO

17 1.04 0.08 1.4 0.14 0.33 0.94 1.07 1.08 YES

18 1.04 0.08 1.47 0.15 0.33 0.94 1.14 1.09 NO

19 1.19 0.09 2.17 0.22 0.58 1.02 1.59 1.24 NO

20 1.19 0.09 1.4 0.14 0.58 1.02 0.82 1.16 YES

21 3.08 0.24 3.65 0.37 3.78 2.21 0.13 2.57 YES

22 3.08 0.24 3.32 0.33 3.78 2.21 0.46 2.54 YES

23 3.34 0.26 3.5 0.35 4.21 2.38 0.71 2.73 YES

24 3.34 0.26 3.64 0.36 4.21 2.38 0.57 2.74 YES

25 3.39 0.26 3.54 0.35 4.30 2.41 0.76 2.77 YES

26 3.39 0.26 3.07 0.31 4.30 2.41 1.23 2.72 YES

27 3.00 0.23 5.24 0.52 3.64 2.15 1.60 2.68 YES

28 3.00 0.23 4.34 0.43 3.64 2.15 0.70 2.59 YES

29 2.95 0.23 4.33 0.43 3.56 2.12 0.77 2.55 YES

30 2.95 0.23 3.97 0.40 3.56 2.12 0.41 2.52 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 1.53

Stdev 0.53

% RSD 35
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit: Unknown mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.690*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.690*Ccems)

y = 1.100x + 0.376

R2 = 0.864

y = 1.690x - 1.430

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 3

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.100x + 0.376

R2 = 0.864

y = 1.690x - 0.000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 3 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.690*Ccems -0.090). 

y = 1.100x + 0.376

R2 = 0.864

y = 1.690x - 0.090

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 3 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 3

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches

Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue''

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm

1 0.41 0.03 0.16 0.02 -0.74 0.67 0.90 0.69 NO 0.69 0.28 0.53 no 0.60 0.82 0.44 yes2 0.41 0.03 0.11 0.01 -0.74 0.67 0.85 0.68 NO 0.69 0.28 0.58 no 0.60 0.82 0.49 yes3 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 -1.41 0.61 1.48 0.62 NO 0.02 0.01 0.05 no -0.07 0.77 0.14 yes

4 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.01 -1.41 0.61 1.50 0.62 NO 0.02 0.01 0.07 no -0.07 0.77 0.16 yes

5 0.01 0.00 0.3 0.03 -1.41 0.61 1.71 0.64 NO 0.02 0.01 0.28 no -0.07 0.77 0.37 yes

6 0.01 0.00 0.41 0.04 -1.41 0.61 1.82 0.65 NO 0.02 0.01 0.39 no -0.07 0.77 0.48 yes

7 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.04 -1.41 0.61 1.77 0.65 NO 0.02 0.01 0.34 no -0.07 0.77 0.43 yes

8 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.03 -1.41 0.61 1.75 0.64 NO 0.02 0.01 0.32 no -0.07 0.77 0.41 yes

9 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.05 -1.41 0.61 1.87 0.66 NO 0.02 0.01 0.44 no -0.07 0.77 0.53 yes

10 0.01 0.00 0.62 0.06 -1.41 0.61 2.03 0.67 NO 0.02 0.01 0.60 no -0.07 0.77 0.69 yes

11 1.21 0.09 1.54 0.15 0.61 1.03 0.93 1.19 YES 2.04 0.83 0.50 yes 1.95 1.13 0.41 yes12 1.21 0.09 1.46 0.15 0.61 1.03 0.85 1.18 YES 2.04 0.83 0.58 yes 1.95 1.13 0.49 yes13 1.18 0.09 1.79 0.18 0.56 1.02 1.23 1.19 NO 1.99 0.81 0.20 yes 1.90 1.12 0.11 yes14 1.18 0.09 1.53 0.15 0.56 1.02 0.97 1.17 YES 1.99 0.81 0.46 yes 1.90 1.12 0.37 yes15 0.78 0.06 2.31 0.23 -0.11 0.81 2.42 1.04 NO 1.32 0.54 0.99 no 1.23 0.94 1.08 yes16 0.78 0.06 2.25 0.23 -0.11 0.81 2.36 1.04 NO 1.32 0.54 0.93 no 1.23 0.94 1.02 yes17 1.04 0.08 1.4 0.14 0.33 0.94 1.07 1.08 YES 1.76 0.72 0.36 yes 1.67 1.05 0.27 yes18 1.04 0.08 1.47 0.15 0.33 0.94 1.14 1.09 NO 1.76 0.72 0.29 yes 1.67 1.05 0.20 yes19 1.19 0.09 2.17 0.22 0.58 1.02 1.59 1.24 NO 2.01 0.82 0.16 yes 1.92 1.12 0.25 yes20 1.19 0.09 1.4 0.14 0.58 1.02 0.82 1.16 YES 2.01 0.82 0.61 yes 1.92 1.12 0.52 yes21 3.08 0.24 3.65 0.37 3.78 2.21 0.13 2.57 YES 5.21 2.12 1.56 yes 5.12 2.26 1.47 yes22 3.08 0.24 3.32 0.33 3.78 2.21 0.46 2.54 YES 5.21 2.12 1.89 yes 5.12 2.26 1.80 yes

23 3.34 0.26 3.5 0.35 4.21 2.38 0.71 2.73 YES 5.64 2.30 2.14 yes 5.55 2.43 2.05 yes24 3.34 0.26 3.64 0.36 4.21 2.38 0.57 2.74 YES 5.64 2.30 2.00 yes 5.55 2.43 1.91 yes

25 3.39 0.26 3.54 0.35 4.30 2.41 0.76 2.77 YES 5.73 2.33 2.19 yes 5.64 2.46 2.10 yes

26 3.39 0.26 3.07 0.31 4.30 2.41 1.23 2.72 YES 5.73 2.33 2.66 no 5.64 2.46 2.57 yes

27 3.00 0.23 5.24 0.52 3.64 2.15 1.60 2.68 YES 5.07 2.07 0.17 yes 4.98 2.20 0.26 yes

28 3.00 0.23 4.34 0.43 3.64 2.15 0.70 2.59 YES 5.07 2.07 0.73 yes 4.98 2.20 0.64 yes

29 2.95 0.23 4.33 0.43 3.56 2.12 0.77 2.55 YES 4.99 2.03 0.66 yes 4.90 2.17 0.57 yes30 2.95 0.23 3.97 0.40 3.56 2.12 0.41 2.52 YES 4.99 2.03 1.02 yes 4.90 2.17 0.93 yes

Avg. 1.21 Avg. 0.79 Avg. 0.77

Stdev 0.59 Stdev 0.71 Stdev 0.67

% RSD 48 % RSD 90 % RSD 87

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 4

January 10, 2013

PS-11B Example 4

Example 4: A blended coal (bituminous and PRB) fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning 

was done to get the mid and high-level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.903 ± 0.203. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 9.46 18.2 8.740 0.924

Normal

2 8.03 13.4 5.370 0.669

3 8.53 15.4 6.870 0.805

4 8.23 14.4 6.170 0.750

5 9.38 19.4 10.020 1.068

6 8.30 18.3 10.000 1.205

Avg. 8.66 16.52 7.862 0.903

Stdev 0.61 2.44 2.003 0.203

% RSD 7.1 14.8 25.5 22.5

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 4

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.903 ± 0.203

m = (1+k) =1.903 ± 0.203

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.903±0.203(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems

PM 

Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 21.86 1.71 42.6 4.26 40.17 5.53 2.43 9.79 YES

2 20.89 1.63 39.6 3.96 38.32 5.29 1.28 9.25 YES

3 21.59 1.68 42.1 4.21 39.66 5.46 2.44 9.67 YES

4 21.86 1.71 38.4 3.84 40.17 5.53 1.77 9.37 YES

5 22.95 1.79 42.4 4.24 42.24 5.80 0.16 10.04 YES

6 20.29 1.58 34.7 3.47 37.18 5.14 2.48 8.61 YES

7 0.58 0.05 3.7 0.37 -0.33 0.63 4.03 1.00 NO

8 0.74 0.06 2.6 0.26 -0.02 0.64 2.62 0.90 NO

9 1.04 0.08 2.9 0.29 0.55 0.66 2.35 0.95 NO

10 1.07 0.08 3.8 0.38 0.61 0.67 3.19 1.05 NO

11 1.61 0.13 4 0.40 1.63 0.73 2.37 1.13 NO

12 0.17 0.01 0 0.00 -1.11 0.61 1.11 0.61 NO

13 0.17 0.01 0.7 0.07 -1.11 0.61 1.81 0.68 NO

14 9.46 0.74 18.2 1.82 16.57 2.46 1.63 4.28 YES

15 8.03 0.63 13.4 1.34 13.85 2.11 0.45 3.45 YES

16 8.53 0.67 15.4 1.54 14.80 2.23 0.60 3.77 YES

17 8.23 0.64 14.4 1.44 14.23 2.16 0.17 3.60 YES

18 9.38 0.73 19.4 1.94 16.42 2.44 2.98 4.38 YES

19 8.3 0.65 18.3 1.83 14.36 2.17 3.94 4.00 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 1.99

Stdev 1.16

% RSD 58
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 4

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.903*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.903*Ccems)

y = 1.805x + 1.024

R2 = 0.991

y = 1.903x - 1.430

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 4

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.805x + 1.024

R2 = 0.991

y = 1.903x

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 4 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 4

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.903*Ccems -0.050). 

y = 1.805x + 1.024

R2 = 0.991

y = 1.903x + 0.050

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 4 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 4

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 21.86 1.71 42.6 4.26 40.17 5.53 2.43 9.79 YES 41.60 5.50 1.00 yes 41.65 6.16 0.95 yes 2 20.89 1.63 39.6 3.96 38.32 5.29 1.28 9.25 YES 39.75 5.25 0.15 yes 39.80 5.94 0.20 yes 3 21.59 1.68 42.1 4.21 39.66 5.46 2.44 9.67 YES 41.09 5.43 1.01 yes 41.14 6.10 0.96 yes 4 21.86 1.71 38.4 3.84 40.17 5.53 1.77 9.37 YES 41.60 5.50 3.20 yes 41.65 6.16 3.25 yes 5 22.95 1.79 42.4 4.24 42.24 5.80 0.16 10.04 YES 43.67 5.77 1.27 yes 43.72 6.40 1.32 yes 6 20.29 1.58 34.7 3.47 37.18 5.14 2.48 8.61 YES 38.61 5.10 3.91 yes 38.66 5.81 3.96 yes 7 0.58 0.05 3.7 0.37 -0.33 0.63 4.03 1.00 NO 1.10 0.15 2.60 no 1.15 2.78 2.55 yes 8 0.74 0.06 2.6 0.26 -0.02 0.64 2.62 0.90 NO 1.41 0.19 1.19 no 1.46 2.78 1.14 yes 9 1.04 0.08 2.9 0.29 0.55 0.66 2.35 0.95 NO 1.98 0.26 0.92 no 2.03 2.79 0.87 yes 10 1.07 0.08 3.8 0.38 0.61 0.67 3.19 1.05 NO 2.04 0.27 1.76 no 2.09 2.79 1.71 yes 11 1.61 0.13 4 0.40 1.63 0.73 2.37 1.13 NO 3.06 0.40 0.94 no 3.11 2.80 0.89 yes 12 0.17 0.01 0 0.00 -1.11 0.61 1.11 0.61 NO 0.32 0.04 0.32 no 0.37 2.77 0.37 yes 13 0.17 0.01 0.7 0.07 -1.11 0.61 1.81 0.68 NO 0.32 0.04 0.38 no 0.37 2.77 0.33 yes 14 9.46 0.74 18.2 1.82 16.57 2.46 1.63 4.28 YES 18.00 2.38 0.20 yes 18.05 3.65 0.15 yes 15 8.03 0.63 13.4 1.34 13.85 2.11 0.45 3.45 YES 15.28 2.02 1.88 yes 15.33 3.43 1.93 yes 16 8.53 0.67 15.4 1.54 14.80 2.23 0.60 3.77 YES 16.23 2.15 0.83 yes 16.28 3.51 0.88 yes 17 8.23 0.64 14.4 1.44 14.23 2.16 0.17 3.60 YES 15.66 2.07 1.26 yes 15.71 3.46 1.31 yes 18 9.38 0.73 19.4 1.94 16.42 2.44 2.98 4.38 YES 17.85 2.36 1.55 yes 17.90 3.64 1.50 yes 19 8.3 0.65 18.3 1.83 14.36 2.17 3.94 4.00 YES 15.79 2.09 2.51 yes 15.84 3.47 2.46 yes Avg. 1.99 Avg. 1.42 Avg. 1.41

Stdev 1.16 Stdev 1.03 Stdev 1.04

% RSD 58 % RSD 72 % RSD 74

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 5

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 5

Example 5: A PRB coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. A slight amount of ESP detuning was 

done to get higher PM levels for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

9 Method 5 test where performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations where 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.019 ± 0.204. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 4.03 3.43 -0.600 -0.149

Normal

2 3.16 2.25 -0.910 -0.288

3 4.27 5.59 1.320 0.309

4 3.58 3.25 -0.330 -0.092

5 2.91 2.72 -0.190 -0.065

6 2.79 3.48 0.690 0.247

7 2.93 3.66 0.730 0.249

8 3.07 3.05 -0.020 -0.007

9 2.83 2.74 -0.090 -0.032

Avg. 3.29 3.35 0.067 0.019

Stdev 0.55 0.95 0.712 0.204

% RSD 16.65 28.33 11.686 0.702

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 5

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.019 ± 0.204

m = (1+k) =1.019 ± 0.204

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.019±0.204(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems

PM 

Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 4.03 0.31 3.43 0.34 2.68 1.07 0.75 1.42 YES

2 3.16 0.25 2.25 0.23 1.79 0.92 0.46 1.15 YES

3 4.27 0.33 5.59 0.56 2.92 1.12 2.67 1.67 NO

4 3.58 0.28 3.25 0.33 2.22 0.99 1.03 1.32 YES

5 2.91 0.23 2.72 0.27 1.54 0.88 1.18 1.15 NO

6 2.79 0.22 3.48 0.35 1.41 0.86 2.07 1.21 NO

7 2.93 0.23 3.66 0.37 1.56 0.88 2.10 1.25 NO

8 3.07 0.24 3.05 0.31 1.70 0.91 1.35 1.21 NO

9 2.83 0.22 2.74 0.27 1.45 0.87 1.29 1.14 NO

10 0.76 0.06 0.05 0.01 -0.66 0.63 0.71 0.64 NO

11 0.72 0.06 0.11 0.01 -0.70 0.63 0.81 0.64 NO

12 0.62 0.05 0 0.00 -0.80 0.62 0.80 0.62 NO

13 0.71 0.06 0 0.00 -0.71 0.63 0.71 0.63 NO

14 0.68 0.05 0 0.00 -0.74 0.63 0.74 0.63 NO

15 0.56 0.04 0 0.00 -0.86 0.62 0.86 0.62 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 1.17

Stdev 0.64

% RSD 54
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 5

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.019*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.019*Ccems)

y = 1.263x - 0.809

R2 = 0.914

y = 1.019x - 1.430

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.263x - 0.809

R2 = 0.914

y = 1.019x - 0.000

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 5 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 5

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.019*Ccems). Same as Zero intercept

y = 1.263x - 0.809

R2 = 0.914

y = 1.019x - 0.000

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 5 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 5

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 4.03 0.31 3.43 0.34 2.68 1.07 0.75 1.42 YES 4.11 0.88 0.68 yes 4.11 1.54 0.68 yes 2 3.16 0.25 2.25 0.23 1.79 0.92 0.46 1.15 YES 3.22 0.69 0.97 no 3.22 1.44 0.97 yes 3 4.27 0.33 5.59 0.56 2.92 1.12 2.67 1.67 NO 4.35 0.93 1.24 yes 4.35 1.57 1.24 yes 4 3.58 0.28 3.25 0.33 2.22 0.99 1.03 1.32 YES 3.65 0.78 0.40 yes 3.65 1.48 0.40 yes 5 2.91 0.23 2.72 0.27 1.54 0.88 1.18 1.15 NO 2.97 0.64 0.25 yes 2.97 1.41 0.25 yes 6 2.79 0.22 3.48 0.35 1.41 0.86 2.07 1.21 NO 2.84 0.61 0.64 yes 2.84 1.40 0.64 yes 7 2.93 0.23 3.66 0.37 1.56 0.88 2.10 1.25 NO 2.99 0.64 0.67 yes 2.99 1.41 0.67 yes 8 3.07 0.24 3.05 0.31 1.70 0.91 1.35 1.21 NO 3.13 0.67 0.08 yes 3.13 1.43 0.08 yes 9 2.83 0.22 2.74 0.27 1.45 0.87 1.29 1.14 NO 2.88 0.62 0.14 yes 2.88 1.40 0.14 yes 10 0.76 0.06 0.05 0.01 -0.66 0.63 0.71 0.64 NO 0.77 0.17 0.72 no 0.77 1.27 0.72 yes 11 0.72 0.06 0.11 0.01 -0.70 0.63 0.81 0.64 NO 0.73 0.16 0.62 no 0.73 1.27 0.62 yes 12 0.62 0.05 0 0.00 -0.80 0.62 0.80 0.62 NO 0.63 0.14 0.63 no 0.63 1.27 0.63 yes 13 0.71 0.06 0 0.00 -0.71 0.63 0.71 0.63 NO 0.72 0.16 0.72 no 0.72 1.27 0.72 yes 14 0.68 0.05 0 0.00 -0.74 0.63 0.74 0.63 NO 0.69 0.15 0.69 no 0.69 1.27 0.69 yes 15 0.56 0.04 0 0.00 -0.86 0.62 0.86 0.62 NO 0.57 0.12 0.57 no 0.57 1.26 0.57 yes Avg. 1.17 Avg. 0.60 Avg. 0.60 Stdev 0.64 Stdev 0.30 Stdev 0.30 % RSD 54 % RSD 50 % RSD 50 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS Run Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction) Difference M5b and Ctrue' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue'' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue σCtrue + σM5b Same with in one σ of each measurement Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 6

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 6

Example 6: A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, and WFGD. ESP detuning was done to 

get the high-level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.333 ± 0.104. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 18.1 23 4.900 0.271

normal

2 18.2 22.5 4.300 0.236

3 18.5 23.3 4.800 0.259

4 18.5 28.1 9.600 0.519

5 18 24.3 6.300 0.350

6 18.9 25.8 6.900 0.365

Avg. 18.37 24.50 6.133 0.333

Stdev 0.33 2.12 1.964 0.104

% RSD 1.8 8.6 32.0 31.3

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 6

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.333 ± 0.104

m = (1+k) =1.333 ± 0.104

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.333±0.104(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems

PM 

Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 2.3 0.18 0.3 0.03 1.64 0.79 1.34 0.82 NO

2 2.2 0.17 0.2 0.02 1.50 0.78 1.30 0.80 NO

3 1.9 0.15 0.5 0.05 1.10 0.74 0.60 0.79 YES

4 2.2 0.17 0.2 0.02 1.50 0.78 1.30 0.80 NO

5 2.4 0.19 0.6 0.06 1.77 0.80 1.17 0.86 NO

6 30.2 2.36 37.5 3.75 38.83 6.64 1.33 10.39 YES

7 29.9 2.33 39.9 3.99 38.43 6.57 1.47 10.56 YES

8 30.4 2.37 42.5 4.25 39.09 6.68 3.41 10.93 YES

9 30.1 2.35 44.4 4.44 38.69 6.62 5.71 11.06 YES

10 18.1 1.41 23 2.30 22.70 4.01 0.30 6.31 YES

11 18.2 1.42 22.5 2.25 22.83 4.03 0.33 6.28 YES

12 18.5 1.44 23.3 2.33 23.23 4.10 0.07 6.43 YES

13 18.5 1.44 28.1 2.81 23.23 4.10 4.87 6.91 YES

14 18 1.40 24.3 2.43 22.56 3.99 1.74 6.42 YES

15 18.9 1.47 25.8 2.58 23.76 4.18 2.04 6.76 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 1.80

Stdev 1.64

% RSD 91
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 6

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.333*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.333*Ccems)

y = 1.462x - 2.689

R2 = 0.988

y = 1.333x - 1.430

-5

5

15

25

35

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 6

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.462x - 2.689

R2 = 0.988

y = 1.333x + 0.000

-5

5

15

25

35

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 6 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 6

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.333*Ccems + 0.020). 

y = 1.462x - 2.689

R2 = 0.988

y = 1.333x + 0.020

-5

5

15

25

35

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 6 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 6

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 2.3 0.18 0.3 0.03 1.64 0.79 1.34 0.82 NO 3.07 0.50 2.77 no 3.09 2.30 2.79 no 2 2.2 0.17 0.2 0.02 1.50 0.78 1.30 0.80 NO 2.93 0.48 2.73 no 2.95 2.30 2.75 no 3 1.9 0.15 0.5 0.05 1.10 0.74 0.60 0.79 YES 2.53 0.42 2.03 no 2.55 2.28 2.05 yes 4 2.2 0.17 0.2 0.02 1.50 0.78 1.30 0.80 NO 2.93 0.48 2.73 no 2.95 2.30 2.75 no 5 2.4 0.19 0.6 0.06 1.77 0.80 1.17 0.86 NO 3.20 0.53 2.60 no 3.22 2.31 2.62 no 6 30.2 2.36 37.5 3.75 38.83 6.64 1.33 10.39 YES 40.26 6.61 2.76 yes 40.28 6.98 2.78 yes 7 29.9 2.33 39.9 3.99 38.43 6.57 1.47 10.56 YES 39.86 6.55 0.04 yes 39.88 6.92 0.02 yes 8 30.4 2.37 42.5 4.25 39.09 6.68 3.41 10.93 YES 40.52 6.66 1.98 yes 40.54 7.02 1.96 yes 9 30.1 2.35 44.4 4.44 38.69 6.62 5.71 11.06 YES 40.12 6.59 4.28 yes 40.14 6.96 4.26 yes 10 18.1 1.41 23 2.30 22.70 4.01 0.30 6.31 YES 24.13 3.96 1.13 yes 24.15 4.55 1.15 yes 11 18.2 1.42 22.5 2.25 22.83 4.03 0.33 6.28 YES 24.26 3.98 1.76 yes 24.28 4.57 1.78 yes 12 18.5 1.44 23.3 2.33 23.23 4.10 0.07 6.43 YES 24.66 4.05 1.36 yes 24.68 4.63 1.38 yes 13 18.5 1.44 28.1 2.81 23.23 4.10 4.87 6.91 YES 24.66 4.05 3.44 yes 24.68 4.63 3.42 yes 14 18 1.40 24.3 2.43 22.56 3.99 1.74 6.42 YES 23.99 3.94 0.31 yes 24.01 4.54 0.29 yes 15 18.9 1.47 25.8 2.58 23.76 4.18 2.04 6.76 YES 25.19 4.14 0.61 yes 25.21 4.71 0.59 yes Avg. 1.80 Avg. 2.03 Avg. 2.04 Stdev 1.64 Stdev 1.19 Stdev 1.19 % RSD 91 % RSD 58 % RSD 58 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS Run Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction) Difference M5b and Ctrue' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue'' Same with in one σ of each measurement Difference M5b and Ctrue σCtrue + σM5b Same with in one σ of each measurement Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 7

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 7

Example 7: A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, BH, WFGD, WESP. Detuning of the baghouse 

was done to get the mid and high-level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Nine Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.433 ± 0.117. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 5.9 7.8 1.9 0.322

Normal

2 6.1 8.3 2.2 0.361

3 5.7 9.1 3.4 0.596

4 4.9 6.3 1.4 0.286

5 4 5.5 1.5 0.375

6 5 7.2 2.2 0.440

7 5.6 7.7 2.1 0.375

8 6.2 9.7 3.5 0.565

9 6.1 9.6 3.5 0.574

Avg 5.5 7.911 2.411 0.433

Stdev. 0.73 1.44 0.84 0.117

% RSD 13.30 18.20 34.85 27.09

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 7

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.433 ± 0.117

m = (1+k) =1.433 ± 0.117

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.433±0.117(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 5.9 0.46 7.8 0.78 7.02 1.13 0.78 1.91 YES

2 6.1 0.48 8.3 0.83 7.31 1.16 0.99 1.99 YES

3 5.7 0.44 9.1 0.91 6.74 1.11 2.36 2.02 NO

4 4.9 0.38 6.3 0.63 5.59 1.00 0.71 1.63 YES

5 4 0.31 5.5 0.55 4.30 0.89 1.20 1.44 YES

6 5 0.39 7.2 0.72 5.74 1.01 1.47 1.73 YES

7 5.6 0.44 7.7 0.77 6.59 1.09 1.11 1.86 YES

8 6.2 0.48 9.7 0.97 7.45 1.17 2.25 2.14 NO

9 6.1 0.48 9.6 0.96 7.31 1.16 2.29 2.12 NO

10 7.7 0.60 12.4 1.24 9.60 1.39 2.80 2.63 NO

11 7.3 0.57 12.1 1.21 9.03 1.33 3.07 2.54 NO

12 7.7 0.60 11.2 1.12 9.60 1.39 1.60 2.51 YES

13 0.7 0.05 1.2 0.12 -0.43 0.62 1.63 0.74 NO

14 0.5 0.04 1.2 0.12 -0.71 0.61 1.91 0.73 NO

15 0.7 0.05 0.59 0.06 -0.43 0.62 1.02 0.68 NO

16 1 0.08 1.2 0.12 0.00 0.63 1.20 0.75 NO

17 0.7 0.05 0.95 0.10 -0.43 0.61 1.38 0.70 NO

18 0.6 0.05 0.8 0.08 -0.57 0.61 1.37 0.69 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Average 1.62

Stdev 0.69

% RSD 43
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 7

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 11.8 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.433*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.433*Ccems)

y = 1.538x - 0.274

R2 = 0.971

y = 1.433x - 1.430

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 7

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.538x - 0.274

R2 = 0.971

y = 1.433x - 0.000

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ctrue' (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 7 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 7

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.433*Ccems +0.030). 

y = 1.538x - 0.274

R2 = 0.971

y = 1.433x + 0.030

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ctrue'' (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 7 slope corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 7

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 5.9 0.46 7.8 0.78 7.02 1.13 0.78 1.91 YES 8.45 0.95 0.65 yes 8.48 2.11 0.68 yes 2 6.1 0.48 8.3 0.83 7.31 1.16 0.99 1.99 YES 8.74 0.99 0.44 yes 8.77 2.13 0.47 yes 3 5.7 0.44 9.1 0.91 6.74 1.11 2.36 2.02 NO 8.17 0.92 0.93 yes 8.20 2.10 0.90 yes 4 4.9 0.38 6.3 0.63 5.59 1.00 0.71 1.63 YES 7.02 0.79 0.72 yes 7.05 2.04 0.75 yes 5 4 0.31 5.5 0.55 4.30 0.89 1.20 1.44 YES 5.73 0.65 0.23 yes 5.76 1.99 0.26 yes 6 5 0.39 7.2 0.72 5.74 1.01 1.47 1.73 YES 7.17 0.81 0.04 yes 7.19 2.05 0.01 yes 7 5.6 0.44 7.7 0.77 6.59 1.09 1.11 1.86 YES 8.02 0.91 0.32 yes 8.05 2.09 0.35 yes 8 6.2 0.48 9.7 0.97 7.45 1.17 2.25 2.14 NO 8.88 1.00 0.82 yes 8.91 2.13 0.79 yes 9 6.1 0.48 9.6 0.96 7.31 1.16 2.29 2.12 NO 8.74 0.99 0.86 yes 8.77 2.13 0.83 yes 10 7.7 0.60 12.4 1.24 9.60 1.39 2.80 2.63 NO 11.03 1.25 1.37 yes 11.06 2.26 1.34 yes 11 7.3 0.57 12.1 1.21 9.03 1.33 3.07 2.54 NO 10.46 1.18 1.64 yes 10.49 2.22 1.61 yes 12 7.7 0.60 11.2 1.12 9.60 1.39 1.60 2.51 YES 11.03 1.25 0.17 yes 11.06 2.26 0.14 yes 13 0.7 0.05 1.2 0.12 -0.43 0.62 1.63 0.74 NO 1.00 0.11 0.20 yes 1.03 1.89 0.17 yes 14 0.5 0.04 1.2 0.12 -0.71 0.61 1.91 0.73 NO 0.72 0.08 0.48 no 0.75 1.88 0.45 yes 15 0.7 0.05 0.59 0.06 -0.43 0.62 1.02 0.68 NO 1.00 0.11 0.41 no 1.03 1.89 0.44 yes 16 1 0.08 1.2 0.12 0.00 0.63 1.20 0.75 NO 1.43 0.16 0.23 yes 1.46 1.89 0.26 yes 17 0.7 0.05 0.95 0.10 -0.43 0.62 1.38 0.71 NO 1.00 0.11 0.05 yes 1.03 1.89 0.08 yes 18 0.6 0.05 0.8 0.08 -0.57 0.62 1.37 0.70 NO 0.86 0.10 0.06 yes 0.89 1.88 0.09 yes Avg. 1.62 Avg. 0.53 Avg. 0.53 Stdev 0.69 Stdev 0.45 Stdev 0.44

% RSD 43 % RSD 85 % RSD 83

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

low Conc. Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 8

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 8

Example 8: A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning was done to get 

the mid and high-level PM for the correlation. Paired trains were used on some of the test runs.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Eight Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1.392 ± 0.334. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

5 5.26 13.48 8.2 1.563

Normal

6 5.26 13.54 8.3 1.574

7 4.87 12.25 7.4 1.515

16 4.8 12.2 7.4 1.542

17 4.8 10.85 6.1 1.260

18 4.94 9.64 4.7 0.951

19 4.93 9.28 4.4 0.882

20 4.85 13.83 9.0 1.852

Avg 4.96 11.88 6.920 1.392

Stdev 0.19 1.78 1.712 0.334

% RSD 3.83 14.98 24.739 24.008

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 8

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 1.392 ± 0.334

m = (1+k) =2.392 ± 0.334

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 2.392±0.334(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 0.49 0.04 0.46 0.05 -0.26 0.64 0.72 0.68 NO

2 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.01 -1.14 0.61 1.22 0.62 NO

3 0.31 0.02 0.15 0.02 -0.69 0.62 0.84 0.64 NO

4 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.02 -1.29 0.61 1.44 0.62 NO

5 5.26 0.41 13.48 1.35 11.15 2.10 2.33 3.45 YES

6 5.26 0.41 13.54 1.35 11.15 2.10 2.39 3.46 YES

7 4.87 0.38 12.25 1.23 10.22 1.96 2.03 3.19 YES

8 9.62 0.75 28.31 2.83 21.58 3.73 6.73 6.56 NO

9 9.62 0.75 25.36 2.54 21.58 3.73 3.78 6.27 YES

10 8.36 0.65 23.35 2.34 18.57 3.26 4.78 5.59 YES

11 8.3 0.65 24.17 2.42 18.42 3.23 5.75 5.65 NO

12 8.69 0.68 20.21 2.02 19.36 3.38 0.85 5.40 YES

13 8.69 0.68 21.23 2.12 19.36 3.38 1.87 5.50 YES

14 8.45 0.66 18.98 1.90 18.78 3.29 0.20 5.19 YES

15 8.29 0.65 19.03 1.90 18.40 3.23 0.63 5.13 YES

16 4.8 0.37 12.2 1.22 10.05 1.93 2.15 3.15 YES

17 4.8 0.37 10.85 1.09 10.05 1.93 0.80 3.02 YES

18 4.94 0.39 9.64 0.96 10.39 1.99 0.75 2.95 YES

19 4.93 0.38 9.28 0.93 10.36 1.98 1.08 2.91 YES

20 4.85 0.38 13.83 1.38 10.17 1.95 3.66 3.34 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Average 2.20

Stdev 1.83

% RSD 83
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 8

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 29.0 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 2.392*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 2.392*Ccems)

y = 2.665x - 0.923

R2 = 0.957

y = 2.392x - 1.430

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 8

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 2.665x - 0.923

R2 = 0.957

y = 2.392x - 0.000

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 8 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 8

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 2.392*Ccems +0.408)

y = 2.665x - 0.923

R2 = 0.957

y = 2.392x + 0.408

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 8 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 8

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 0.49 0.04 0.46 0.05 -0.26 0.64 0.72 0.68 NO 1.17 0.19 0.71 no 1.58 1.95 1.12 yes 2 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.01 -1.14 0.61 1.22 0.62 NO 0.29 0.05 0.21 no 0.69 1.94 0.61 yes 3 0.31 0.02 0.15 0.02 -0.69 0.62 0.84 0.64 NO 0.74 0.12 0.59 no 1.15 1.94 1.00 yes 4 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.02 -1.29 0.61 1.44 0.62 NO 0.14 0.02 0.01 yes 0.55 1.94 0.40 yes 5 5.26 0.41 13.48 1.35 11.15 2.10 2.33 3.45 YES 12.58 2.01 0.90 yes 12.99 2.79 0.49 yes 6 5.26 0.41 13.54 1.35 11.15 2.10 2.39 3.46 YES 12.58 2.01 0.96 yes 12.99 2.79 0.55 yes 7 4.87 0.38 12.25 1.23 10.22 1.96 2.03 3.19 YES 11.65 1.86 0.60 yes 12.06 2.69 0.19 yes 8 9.62 0.75 28.31 2.83 21.58 3.73 6.73 6.56 NO 23.01 3.68 5.30 yes 23.42 4.16 4.89 yes 9 9.62 0.75 25.36 2.54 21.58 3.73 3.78 6.27 YES 23.01 3.68 2.35 yes 23.42 4.16 1.94 yes 10 8.36 0.65 23.35 2.34 18.57 3.26 4.78 5.59 YES 20.00 3.20 3.35 yes 20.40 3.74 2.95 yes 11 8.3 0.65 24.17 2.42 18.42 3.23 5.75 5.65 NO 19.85 3.18 4.32 yes 20.26 3.72 3.91 yes 12 8.69 0.68 20.21 2.02 19.36 3.38 0.85 5.40 YES 20.79 3.32 0.58 yes 21.19 3.85 0.98 yes 13 8.69 0.68 21.23 2.12 19.36 3.38 1.87 5.50 YES 20.79 3.32 0.44 yes 21.19 3.85 0.04 yes 14 8.45 0.66 18.98 1.90 18.78 3.29 0.20 5.19 YES 20.21 3.23 1.23 yes 20.62 3.77 1.64 yes 15 8.29 0.65 19.03 1.90 18.40 3.23 0.63 5.13 YES 19.83 3.17 0.80 yes 20.24 3.72 1.21 yes 16 4.8 0.37 12.2 1.22 10.05 1.93 2.15 3.15 YES 11.48 1.84 0.72 yes 11.89 2.67 0.31 yes 17 4.8 0.37 10.85 1.09 10.05 1.93 0.80 3.02 YES 11.48 1.84 0.63 yes 11.89 2.67 1.04 yes 18 4.94 0.39 9.64 0.96 10.39 1.99 0.75 2.95 YES 11.82 1.89 2.18 yes 12.22 2.71 2.58 yes 19 4.93 0.38 9.28 0.93 10.36 1.98 1.08 2.91 YES 11.79 1.89 2.51 yes 12.20 2.70 2.92 yes 20 4.85 0.38 13.83 1.38 10.17 1.95 3.66 3.34 NO 11.60 1.86 2.23 yes 12.01 2.68 1.82 yes

Avg. 2.20 Avg. 1.53 Avg. 1.53

Stdev 1.83 Stdev 1.44 Stdev 1.32

% RSD 83 % RSD 94 % RSD 86

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

low Conc. Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 9

PS-11B - Example 9

Example 9: A bituminous coal fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning was done to get 

the high-level PM for the correlation test. Paired trains were used for some of the test runs.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Nine Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 1.163 ± 0.134. 

Run

PM 

CEMS

M5b PM 

Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 11.48 11.79 0.3 0.027

Normal

2 11.48 12.52 1.0 0.091

3 11.61 12.85 1.2 0.107

4 9.94 9.85 -0.1 -0.009

5 9.94 10.8 0.9 0.087

6 10.5 11.03 0.5 0.050

7 10.5 12.19 1.7 0.161

8 8.09 10.44 2.4 0.290

9 8.09 10.7 2.6 0.323

10 7.05 9.1 2.1 0.291

11 7.05 9.7 2.7 0.376

Avg 9.61 11.00 1.385 0.163

Stdev 1.75 1.22 0.951 0.134

% RSD 18.18 11.08 68.647 81.938

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 9

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.163 ± 0.134

m = (1+k) =1.163 ± 0.134

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.163±0.134(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 11.48 0.90 11.79 1.18 11.92 1.95 0.13 3.13 YES

2 11.48 0.90 12.52 1.25 11.92 1.95 0.60 3.21 YES

3 11.61 0.91 12.85 1.29 12.07 1.97 0.78 3.26 YES

4 9.94 0.78 9.85 0.99 10.13 1.72 0.28 2.70 YES

5 9.94 0.78 10.8 1.08 10.13 1.72 0.67 2.80 YES

6 12.31 0.96 19.19 1.92 12.89 2.08 6.30 4.00 NO

7 12.31 0.96 18.04 1.80 12.89 2.08 5.15 3.89 NO

8 12.89 1.01 18.96 1.90 13.56 2.17 5.40 4.07 NO

9 12.89 1.01 17.35 1.74 13.56 2.17 3.79 3.91 YES

10 10.5 0.82 11.03 1.10 10.78 1.80 0.25 2.91 YES

11 10.5 0.82 12.19 1.22 10.78 1.80 1.41 3.02 YES

12 13.41 1.05 19.37 1.94 14.17 2.25 5.20 4.19 NO

13 13.41 1.05 19.31 1.93 14.17 2.25 5.14 4.18 NO

14 13.61 1.06 19.68 1.97 14.40 2.28 5.28 4.25 NO

15 13.61 1.06 19.84 1.98 14.40 2.28 5.44 4.27 NO

16 8.09 0.63 10.44 1.04 7.98 1.44 2.46 2.49 YES

17 8.09 0.63 10.7 1.07 7.98 1.44 2.72 2.51 NO

18 7.05 0.55 9.1 0.91 6.77 1.29 2.33 2.20 NO

19 7.05 0.55 9.7 0.97 6.77 1.29 2.93 2.26 NO

20 0.25 0.02 0.5 0.05 -1.14 0.61 1.64 0.66 NO

21 0.26 0.02 0.5 0.05 -1.13 0.61 1.63 0.66 NO

22 0.18 0.01 0.5 0.05 -1.22 0.61 1.72 0.66 NO

23 0 0.00 0.1 0.01 -1.43 #DIV/0! 1.53 ###### #DIV/0!

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Average 2.73

Stdev 2.03

% RSD 75
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 9

Comparison: Emission limit 27.0 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11(y = 1.163*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.163*Ccems)

y = 1.355x - 0.493

R2 = 0.919

y = 1.163x - 1.430

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C

0 5 10 15 20 25

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 9

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.355x - 0.493

R2 = 0.919

y = 1.163x - 0.000

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C

0 5 10 15 20 25

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 9 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 9

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.163*Ccems -0.181).

y = 1.355x - 0.493

R2 = 0.919

y = 1.163x - 0.181

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C

0 5 10 15 20 25

true (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 9 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 9

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 11.48 0.90 11.79 1.18 11.92 1.95 0.13 3.13 YES 13.35 1.86 1.56 yes 13.17 3.07 1.38 yes 2 11.48 0.90 12.52 1.25 11.92 1.95 0.60 3.21 YES 13.35 1.86 0.83 yes 13.17 3.07 0.65 yes 3 11.61 0.91 12.85 1.29 12.07 1.97 0.78 3.26 YES 13.50 1.88 0.65 yes 13.32 3.08 0.47 yes 4 9.94 0.78 9.85 0.99 10.13 1.72 0.28 2.70 YES 11.56 1.61 1.71 yes 11.38 2.93 1.53 yes 5 9.94 0.78 10.8 1.08 10.13 1.72 0.67 2.80 YES 11.56 1.61 0.76 yes 11.38 2.93 0.58 yes 6 12.31 0.96 19.19 1.92 12.89 2.08 6.30 4.00 NO 14.32 1.99 4.87 no 14.14 3.15 5.05 yes 7 12.31 0.96 18.04 1.80 12.89 2.08 5.15 3.89 NO 14.32 1.99 3.72 yes 14.14 3.15 3.90 yes 8 12.89 1.01 18.96 1.90 13.56 2.17 5.40 4.07 NO 14.99 2.09 3.97 yes 14.81 3.21 4.15 yes 9 12.89 1.01 17.35 1.74 13.56 2.17 3.79 3.91 YES 14.99 2.09 2.36 yes 14.81 3.21 2.54 yes 10 10.5 0.82 11.03 1.10 10.78 1.80 0.25 2.91 YES 12.21 1.70 1.18 yes 12.03 2.98 1.00 yes 11 10.5 0.82 12.19 1.22 10.78 1.80 1.41 3.02 YES 12.21 1.70 0.02 yes 12.03 2.98 0.16 yes 12 13.41 1.05 19.37 1.94 14.17 2.25 5.20 4.19 NO 15.60 2.17 3.77 yes 15.41 3.27 3.96 yes 13 13.41 1.05 19.31 1.93 14.17 2.25 5.14 4.18 NO 15.60 2.17 3.71 yes 15.41 3.27 3.90 yes 14 13.61 1.06 19.68 1.97 14.40 2.28 5.28 4.25 NO 15.83 2.20 3.85 yes 15.65 3.29 4.03 yes 15 13.61 1.06 19.84 1.98 14.40 2.28 5.44 4.27 NO 15.83 2.20 4.01 yes 15.65 3.29 4.19 yes 16 8.09 0.63 10.44 1.04 7.98 1.44 2.46 2.49 YES 9.41 1.31 1.03 yes 9.23 2.77 1.21 yes 17 8.09 0.63 10.7 1.07 7.98 1.44 2.72 2.51 NO 9.41 1.31 1.29 yes 9.23 2.77 1.47 yes 18 7.05 0.55 9.1 0.91 6.77 1.29 2.33 2.20 NO 8.20 1.14 0.90 yes 8.02 2.70 1.08 yes 19 7.05 0.55 9.7 0.97 6.77 1.29 2.93 2.26 NO 8.20 1.14 1.50 yes 8.02 2.70 1.68 yes 20 0.25 0.02 0.5 0.05 -1.14 0.61 1.64 0.66 NO 0.29 0.04 0.21 no 0.11 2.45 0.39 yes

21 0.26 0.02 0.5 0.05 -1.13 0.61 1.63 0.66 NO 0.30 0.04 0.20 no 0.12 2.45 0.38 yes22 0.18 0.01 0.5 0.05 -1.22 0.61 1.72 0.66 NO 0.21 0.03 0.29 no 0.03 2.45 0.47 yes

23 0 0.00 0.1 0.01 -1.43 #DIV/0! 1.53 ###### #DIV/0! 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.10 #DIV/0! -0.18 #DIV/0! 0.28 #DIV/0!

Avg. 2.73 Avg. 1.85 Avg. 1.93

Stdev 2.03 Stdev 1.56 Stdev 1.62

% RSD 75 % RSD 85 % RSD 84

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

low Conc. Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 10

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 10

Example 10: A bituminous coal-fired power plant. Has SCR, ESP, WFGD. ESP detuning was done to get 

the high-level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

11 Method 5 test where performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations where 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.430 ± 0.224. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM 

Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 7.5 11.3 3.800 0.507

normal

2 7.3 8.5 1.200 0.164

3 7.3 12.2 4.900 0.671

4 7.1 11.9 4.800 0.676

5 7.1 9.1 2.000 0.282

6 6.9 9.2 2.300 0.333

7 7.1 11.8 4.700 0.662

8 6.8 11 4.200 0.618

9 7.5 8.7 1.200 0.160

10 7.0 10.8 3.800 0.543

11 7.0 7.8 0.800 0.114

Avg. 7.1 10.2 3.064 0.430

Stdev 0.23 1.57 1.588 0.224

% RSD 3.2 15.4 51.8 52.0

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 10

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.430 ± 0.224

m = (1+k) =1.430 ± 0.224

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.430±0.224(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems

PM 

Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 7.5 0.59 11.3 1.13 9.30 1.97 2.01 3.10 YES

2 7.3 0.57 8.5 0.85 9.01 1.93 0.51 2.78 YES

3 7.3 0.57 12.2 1.22 9.01 1.93 3.19 3.15 NO

4 7.1 0.55 11.9 1.19 8.72 1.88 3.18 3.07 NO

5 7.1 0.55 9.1 0.91 8.72 1.88 0.38 2.79 YES

6 6.9 0.54 9.2 0.92 8.44 1.83 0.76 2.75 YES

7 7.1 0.55 11.8 1.18 8.72 1.88 3.08 3.06 NO

8 6.8 0.53 11 1.10 8.29 1.81 2.71 2.91 YES

9 7.5 0.59 8.7 0.87 9.30 1.97 0.60 2.84 YES

10 7 0.55 10.8 1.08 8.58 1.85 2.22 2.93 YES

11 7 0.55 7.8 0.78 8.58 1.85 0.78 2.63 YES

12 0.3 0.02 0.8 0.08 -1.00 0.61 1.80 0.69 NO

13 0.4 0.03 1 0.10 -0.86 0.62 1.86 0.72 NO

14 0.6 0.05 0.6 0.06 -0.57 0.63 1.17 0.69 NO

15 0.2 0.02 0 0.00 -1.14 0.61 1.14 0.61 NO

16 0.7 0.05 0.2 0.02 -0.43 0.63 0.63 0.65 YES

17 19.3 1.51 30.3 3.03 26.17 4.87 4.13 7.90 YES

18 19.3 1.51 25.4 2.54 26.17 4.87 0.77 7.41 YES

19 18.4 1.44 27.7 2.77 24.88 4.64 2.82 7.41 YES

20 19.2 1.50 29.4 2.94 26.03 4.84 3.37 7.78 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 1.69

Stdev 1.01

% RSD 60
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 10

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.430*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.430*Ccems)

y = 1.488x - 0.298

R2 = 0.977

y = 1.430x - 1.430

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 10

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.488x - 0.298

R2 = 0.977

y = 1.430x + 0.000

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 10 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 10

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.430*Ccems + 0.010). 

y = 1.488x - 0.298

R2 = 0.977

y = 1.430x - 0.010

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 10 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 10

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 7.5 0.59 11.3 1.13 9.30 1.97 2.01 3.10 YES 10.73 1.88 0.58 yes 10.72 2.55 0.59 yes 2 7.3 0.57 8.5 0.85 9.01 1.93 0.51 2.78 YES 10.44 1.83 1.94 yes 10.43 2.51 1.93 yes 3 7.3 0.57 12.2 1.22 9.01 1.93 3.19 3.15 NO 10.44 1.83 1.76 yes 10.43 2.51 1.77 yes 4 7.1 0.55 11.9 1.19 8.72 1.88 3.18 3.07 NO 10.15 1.78 1.75 yes 10.14 2.47 1.76 yes 5 7.1 0.55 9.1 0.91 8.72 1.88 0.38 2.79 YES 10.15 1.78 1.05 yes 10.14 2.47 1.04 yes 6 6.9 0.54 9.2 0.92 8.44 1.83 0.76 2.75 YES 9.87 1.73 0.67 yes 9.86 2.44 0.66 yes 7 7.1 0.55 11.8 1.18 8.72 1.88 3.08 3.06 NO 10.15 1.78 1.65 yes 10.14 2.47 1.66 yes 8 6.8 0.53 11 1.10 8.29 1.81 2.71 2.91 YES 9.72 1.70 1.28 yes 9.71 2.42 1.29 yes 9 7.5 0.59 8.7 0.87 9.30 1.97 0.60 2.84 YES 10.73 1.88 2.03 yes 10.72 2.55 2.02 yes 10 7 0.55 10.8 1.08 8.58 1.85 2.22 2.93 YES 10.01 1.75 0.79 yes 10.00 2.45 0.80 yes 11 7 0.55 7.8 0.78 8.58 1.85 0.78 2.63 YES 10.01 1.75 2.21 yes 10.00 2.45 2.20 yes 12 0.3 0.02 0.8 0.08 -1.00 0.61 1.80 0.69 NO 0.43 0.08 0.37 no 0.42 1.72 0.38 yes 13 0.4 0.03 1 0.10 -0.86 0.62 1.86 0.72 NO 0.57 0.10 0.43 no 0.56 1.72 0.44 yes 14 0.6 0.05 0.6 0.06 -0.57 0.63 1.17 0.69 NO 0.86 0.15 0.26 no 0.85 1.73 0.25 yes 15 0.2 0.02 0 0.00 -1.14 0.61 1.14 0.61 NO 0.29 0.05 0.29 no 0.28 1.72 0.28 yes 16 0.7 0.05 0.2 0.02 -0.43 0.63 0.63 0.65 YES 1.00 0.18 0.80 no 0.99 1.73 0.79 yes 17 19.3 1.51 30.3 3.03 26.17 4.87 4.13 7.90 YES 27.60 4.83 2.70 yes 27.59 5.13 2.71 yes 18 19.3 1.51 25.4 2.54 26.17 4.87 0.77 7.41 YES 27.60 4.83 2.20 yes 27.59 5.13 2.19 yes 19 18.4 1.44 27.7 2.77 24.88 4.64 2.82 7.41 YES 26.31 4.60 1.39 yes 26.30 4.91 1.40 yes

20 19.2 1.50 29.4 2.94 26.03 4.84 3.37 7.78 YES 27.46 4.80 1.94 yes 27.45 5.10 1.95 yes

Avg. 1.69 Avg. 1.14 Avg. 1.14

Stdev 1.01 Stdev 0.70 Stdev 0.70

% RSD 60 % RSD 62 % RSD 62

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 11

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 11

Example 11: A low sulfur subbituminous coal fired power plant. Has ESP. Plant uses SO3 injection to 

help the ESP. Particulate was a yellow color. ESP detuning was done to get the high-level PM for the 

correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Seven Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 2.698 ± 0.455. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM 

Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 11.9 36.89 24.990 2.100

normal

2 13 41.16 28.160 2.166

3 12.2 47.11 34.910 2.861

4 12.9 53.1 40.200 3.116

5 13.6 47.65 34.050 2.504

6 13.9 53.63 39.730 2.858

7 13.1 56.03 42.930 3.277

Avg. 12.94 47.94 34.996 2.698

Stdev 0.71 6.99 6.585 0.455

% RSD 5.5 14.6 18.8 16.9

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 11

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 2.698 ± 0.455

m = (1+k) =3.698 ± 0.455

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 3.698±0.455(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems

PM 

Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 11.9 0.93 36.89 3.69 42.58 6.44 5.69 10.13 YES

2 13 1.01 41.16 4.12 46.64 7.03 5.48 11.15 YES

3 12.2 0.95 47.11 4.71 43.69 6.60 3.42 11.31 YES

4 12.9 1.01 53.1 5.31 46.27 6.98 6.83 12.29 YES

5 13.6 1.06 47.65 4.77 48.86 7.35 1.21 12.12 YES

6 13.9 1.08 53.63 5.36 49.97 7.51 3.66 12.88 YES

7 13.1 1.02 56.03 5.60 47.01 7.08 9.02 12.69 YES

8 36.7 2.86 143.1 14.31 134.29 19.78 8.81 34.09 YES

9 31.8 2.48 119.8 11.98 116.17 17.14 3.63 29.12 YES

10 36.8 2.87 146.1 14.61 134.66 19.83 11.44 34.44 YES

11 36.5 2.85 122.6 12.26 133.55 19.67 10.95 31.93 YES

12 32.5 2.54 106.2 10.62 118.76 17.52 12.56 28.14 YES

13 1.1 0.09 1.1 0.11 2.64 0.85 1.54 0.96 NO

14 0.8 0.06 0.86 0.09 1.53 0.75 0.67 0.83 YES

15 0.3 0.02 0.48 0.05 -0.32 0.63 0.80 0.68 NO

16 0.3 0.02 1.02 0.10 -0.32 0.63 1.34 0.73 NO

17 0.5 0.04 1.07 0.11 0.42 0.67 0.65 0.77 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 5.16

Stdev 4.10

% RSD 80
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 11

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 3.698*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 3.698*Ccems)

y = 3.702x - 0.820

R2 = 0.983

y = 3.698x - 1.430

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 11

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 3.702x - 0.820

R2 = 0.983

y = 3.698x

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 11 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 11

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 3.698*Ccems + 0.080). 

y = 3.702x - 0.820

R2 = 0.983

y = 3.698x + 0.080

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 11 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 11

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 7.5 0.59 11.3 1.13 9.30 1.97 2.01 3.10 YES 10.73 1.88 0.58 yes 10.72 2.55 0.59 yes 2 7.3 0.57 8.5 0.85 9.01 1.93 0.51 2.78 YES 10.44 1.83 1.94 yes 10.43 2.51 1.93 yes 3 7.3 0.57 12.2 1.22 9.01 1.93 3.19 3.15 NO 10.44 1.83 1.76 yes 10.43 2.51 1.77 yes 4 7.1 0.55 11.9 1.19 8.72 1.88 3.18 3.07 NO 10.15 1.78 1.75 yes 10.14 2.47 1.76 yes 5 7.1 0.55 9.1 0.91 8.72 1.88 0.38 2.79 YES 10.15 1.78 1.05 yes 10.14 2.47 1.04 yes 6 6.9 0.54 9.2 0.92 8.44 1.83 0.76 2.75 YES 9.87 1.73 0.67 yes 9.86 2.44 0.66 yes 7 7.1 0.55 11.8 1.18 8.72 1.88 3.08 3.06 NO 10.15 1.78 1.65 yes 10.14 2.47 1.66 yes 8 6.8 0.53 11 1.10 8.29 1.81 2.71 2.91 YES 9.72 1.70 1.28 yes 9.71 2.42 1.29 yes 9 7.5 0.59 8.7 0.87 9.30 1.97 0.60 2.84 YES 10.73 1.88 2.03 yes 10.72 2.55 2.02 yes 10 7 0.55 10.8 1.08 8.58 1.85 2.22 2.93 YES 10.01 1.75 0.79 yes 10.00 2.45 0.80 yes 11 7 0.55 7.8 0.78 8.58 1.85 0.78 2.63 YES 10.01 1.75 2.21 yes 10.00 2.45 2.20 yes 12 0.3 0.02 0.8 0.08 -1.00 0.61 1.80 0.69 NO 0.43 0.08 0.37 no 0.42 1.72 0.38 yes 13 0.4 0.03 1 0.10 -0.86 0.62 1.86 0.72 NO 0.57 0.10 0.43 no 0.56 1.72 0.44 yes 14 0.6 0.05 0.6 0.06 -0.57 0.63 1.17 0.69 NO 0.86 0.15 0.26 no 0.85 1.73 0.25 yes 15 0.2 0.02 0 0.00 -1.14 0.61 1.14 0.61 NO 0.29 0.05 0.29 no 0.28 1.72 0.28 yes 16 0.7 0.05 0.2 0.02 -0.43 0.63 0.63 0.65 YES 1.00 0.18 0.80 no 0.99 1.73 0.79 yes 17 19.3 1.51 30.3 3.03 26.17 4.87 4.13 7.90 YES 27.60 4.83 2.70 yes 27.59 5.13 2.71 yes 18 19.3 1.51 25.4 2.54 26.17 4.87 0.77 7.41 YES 27.60 4.83 2.20 yes 27.59 5.13 2.19 yes 19 18.4 1.44 27.7 2.77 24.88 4.64 2.82 7.41 YES 26.31 4.60 1.39 yes 26.30 4.91 1.40 yes

20 19.2 1.50 29.4 2.94 26.03 4.84 3.37 7.78 YES 27.46 4.80 1.94 yes 27.45 5.10 1.95 yes

Avg. 1.69 Avg. 1.14 Avg. 1.14

Stdev 1.01 Stdev 0.70 Stdev 0.70

% RSD 60 % RSD 62 % RSD 62

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 12

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 12

Example 12: A low sulfur subbituminous coal fired power plant. Has ESP. ESP detuning was done to get 

the high-level PM for the correlation test.

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols. (Average response from all three BMP CEMS)

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5 test were performed next to the PM CEMS probe nozzle. These concentrations were 

compared to the PM CEMS concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.896 ± 0.197. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM 

Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 5.9 12.3 6.400 1.085

normal

2 6.1 10.98 4.880 0.800

3 5.3 10.75 5.450 1.028

4 5.6 11.42 5.820 1.039

5 8 14.88 6.880 0.860

6 9 14.09 5.090 0.566

Avg. 6.65 12.40 5.753 0.896

Stdev 1.49 1.72 0.773 0.197

% RSD 22 14 13 22

y = 1.06x - 1.43

R2 = 0.990

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

QAG Conc (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS (mg/wscm)

All CEMS data correlated to QAG
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 12

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.896 ± 0.197

m = (1+k) =1.896 ± 0.197

b = -1.43 ± 0.609

Ctrue = 1.896±0.197(Ccems)-1.43±.609

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements

Run

PM CEMS Method 5 Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Ccems σ Ccems

PM 

Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 5.9 0.46 12.3 1.23 9.76 1.58 2.54 2.81 YES

2 6.1 0.48 10.98 1.10 10.14 1.62 0.84 2.72 YES

3 5.3 0.41 10.75 1.08 8.62 1.44 2.13 2.52 YES

4 5.6 0.44 11.42 1.14 9.19 1.51 2.23 2.65 YES

5 8 0.62 14.88 1.49 13.74 2.06 1.14 3.55 YES

6 9 0.70 14.09 1.41 15.63 2.30 1.54 3.71 YES

7 13.3 1.04 27.64 2.76 23.79 3.33 3.85 6.10 YES

8 15.6 1.22 34.16 3.42 28.15 3.89 6.01 7.31 YES

9 15.5 1.21 34.49 3.45 27.96 3.87 6.53 7.32 YES

10 17.7 1.38 28.1 2.81 32.13 4.40 4.03 7.21 YES

11 16.6 1.29 26.35 2.64 30.04 4.13 3.69 6.77 YES

12 16.3 1.27 26.83 2.68 29.47 4.06 2.64 6.74 YES

13 0.7 0.05 0.56 0.06 -0.10 0.63 0.66 0.69 YES

14 0.5 0.04 0.22 0.02 -0.48 0.62 0.70 0.64 NO

15 0.4 0.03 0.22 0.02 -0.67 0.62 0.89 0.64 NO

16 0.3 0.02 0.49 0.05 -0.86 0.61 1.35 0.66 NO

17 0.4 0.03 0.57 0.06 -0.67 0.62 1.24 0.67 NO

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For Ccem

uncertainty = 7.8%

Avg. 2.47

Stdev 1.80

% RSD 73
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 12

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit ? mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11 (y = 1.896*Ccems -1.43)

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.896*Ccems)

y = 1.844x + 0.058

R2 = 0.945

y = 1.896x - 1.430

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 12

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.844x + 0.058

R2 = 0.945

y = 1.896x + 0.000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 12 intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT – Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 12

January 10, 2013

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.896*Ccems – 0.210). 

y = 1.844x + 0.058

R2 = 0.945

y = 1.896x - 0.210

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ctrue (M5) Conc. (mg/wscm)

Ccems (mg/wscm)

Example 12 corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT 

– Application of Alternative PS-11b Example 12

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 5.9 0.46 12.3 1.23 9.76 1.58 2.54 2.81 YES 11.19 1.45 1.11 yes 10.98 3.66 1.32 yes 2 6.1 0.48 10.98 1.10 10.14 1.62 0.84 2.72 YES 11.57 1.50 0.59 yes 11.36 3.68 0.38 yes 3 5.3 0.41 10.75 1.08 8.62 1.44 2.13 2.52 YES 10.05 1.31 0.70 yes 9.84 3.61 0.91 yes 4 5.6 0.44 11.42 1.14 9.19 1.51 2.23 2.65 YES 10.62 1.38 0.80 yes 10.41 3.64 1.01 yes 5 8 0.62 14.88 1.49 13.74 2.06 1.14 3.55 YES 15.17 1.97 0.29 yes 14.96 3.90 0.08 yes 6 9 0.70 14.09 1.41 15.63 2.30 1.54 3.71 YES 17.06 2.22 2.97 yes 16.85 4.03 2.76 yes 7 13.3 1.04 27.64 2.76 23.79 3.33 3.85 6.10 YES 25.22 3.28 2.42 yes 25.01 4.70 2.63 yes 8 15.6 1.22 34.16 3.42 28.15 3.89 6.01 7.31 YES 29.58 3.84 4.58 yes 29.37 5.11 4.79 yes 9 15.5 1.21 34.49 3.45 27.96 3.87 6.53 7.32 YES 29.39 3.82 5.10 yes 29.18 5.09 5.31 yes 10 17.7 1.38 28.1 2.81 32.13 4.40 4.03 7.21 YES 33.56 4.36 5.46 yes 33.35 5.51 5.25 yes 11 16.6 1.29 26.35 2.64 30.04 4.13 3.69 6.77 YES 31.47 4.09 5.12 yes 31.26 5.30 4.91 yes 12 16.3 1.27 26.83 2.68 29.47 4.06 2.64 6.74 YES 30.90 4.02 4.07 yes 30.69 5.24 3.86 yes 13 0.7 0.05 0.56 0.06 -0.10 0.63 0.66 0.69 YES 1.33 0.17 0.77 no 1.12 3.37 0.56 yes 14 0.5 0.04 0.22 0.02 -0.48 0.62 0.70 0.64 NO 0.95 0.12 0.73 no 0.74 3.37 0.52 yes 15 0.4 0.03 0.22 0.02 -0.67 0.62 0.89 0.64 NO 0.76 0.10 0.54 no 0.55 3.37 0.33 yes 16 0.3 0.02 0.49 0.05 -0.86 0.61 1.35 0.66 NO 0.57 0.07 0.08 yes 0.36 3.37 0.13 yes 17 0.4 0.03 0.57 0.06 -0.67 0.62 1.24 0.67 NO 0.76 0.10 0.19 no 0.55 3.37 0.02 yes Avg. 2.47 Avg. 2.09 Avg. 2.05 Stdev 1.80 Stdev 2.01 Stdev 2.03

% RSD 73 % RSD 96 % RSD 99

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5 PM CEMS

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For 

Ccem uncertainty = 7.8%

Run

Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement
DRAFT- Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 13

January 10, 2013

PS-11B – Example 13 (Bruce Mansfield CEMS 1A)

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols.

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Six Method 5b tests were performed. These concentrations were compared to the PM CEMS 

concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.180 ± 0.060. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 21.80 27.0 5.2 0.239

Normal 

Conc.

2 21.10 26.0 4.9 0.232

3 19.50 22.9 3.4 0.174

4 20.10 21.6 1.5 0.075

5 20.30 23.5 3.2 0.158

6 20.80 25.0 4.2 0.202

Average 20.60 24.33 3.73 0.180

Stdev 0.81 2.03 1.35 0.060

% RSD 3.93 8.33 36.16 33.60

y = 1.0736x - 2.9605

R2 = 0.9847

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

QAG PM Conc. (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS response (mg/wscm)

QAG linearity with CEMS 1A
DRAFT- Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 13

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.180 ± 0.060

m = (1+k) = 1.180 ± 0.0.060

b = -2.9605 ± 1.293

Ctrue = 1.180±0.060(Ccems)-2.9605±1.293

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using

simultaneous M5 measurements.

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 21.80 1.20 27.0 2.70 22.76 2.11 4.24 4.81 YES

3 21.10 1.16 26.0 2.60 21.94 2.06 4.06 4.66 YES

5 19.50 1.07 22.9 2.29 20.05 1.93 2.85 4.22 YES

6 20.10 1.11 21.6 2.16 20.76 1.98 0.84 4.14 YES

7 20.30 1.12 23.5 2.35 20.99 1.99 2.51 4.34 YES

9 20.80 1.14 25.0 2.50 21.58 2.03 3.42 4.53 YES

10 0.30 0.02 0.6 0.06 -2.61 0.87 3.21 0.93 NO

11 0.30 0.02 0.8 0.08 -2.61 0.87 3.45 0.95 NO

12 0.40 0.02 0.3 0.03 -2.49 0.87 2.80 0.90 NO

13 0.60 0.03 0.7 0.07 -2.25 0.87 2.98 0.94 NO

14 0.60 0.03 0.4 0.04 -2.25 0.87 2.65 0.91 NO

16 24.40 1.34 29.9 2.99 25.83 2.33 4.07 5.32 YES

18 19.10 1.05 22.1 2.21 19.58 N/A 2.52 N/A YES

19 17.70 0.97 23.9 2.39 17.93 N/A 5.97 N/A YES

20 19.50 1.07 24.5 2.45 20.05 N/A 4.45 N/A YES

21 29.1 1.17 33.95 3.40 31.42 2.39 2.53 5.78 YES

22 30.7 1.23 34.96 3.50 33.21 2.50 1.75 5.99 YES

23 30.9 1.23 36.46 3.65 33.47 2.51 2.99 6.16 YES

24 30.8 1.23 35.28 3.53 33.40 2.51 1.88 6.04 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 5.5%

Average 3.11

Stdev 1.14

% RSD 36
DRAFT- Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 13

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 97.9 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11(y = 1.180*Ccems -2.960)

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993

y = 1.180x - 2.960

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 1A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993

y = 1.180x - 2.960

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 1A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT- Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 13

January 10, 2013

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.180*Ccems)

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction

( y = 1.180*Ccems + 1.556)

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993

y = 1.180x + 0.000

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 1A Intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.169x + 0.344

R2 = 0.993

y = 1.180x + 1.556

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 1A corrected to M5

PS-11 EL Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT

- Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 13

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 21.80 1.20 27.0 2.70 22.76 2.11 4.24 4.81 YES 25.72 1.93 1.28 yes 25.75 3.08 1.25 yes 3 21.10 1.16 26.0 2.60 21.94 2.06 4.06 4.66 YES 24.90 1.86 1.10 yes 24.92 3.04 1.08 yes 5 19.50 1.07 22.9 2.29 20.05 1.93 2.85 4.22 YES 23.01 1.72 0.11 yes 23.04 2.96 0.14 yes 6 20.10 1.11 21.6 2.16 20.76 1.98 0.84 4.14 YES 23.72 1.78 2.12 yes 23.74 2.99 2.14 yes 7 20.30 1.12 23.5 2.35 20.99 1.99 2.51 4.34 YES 23.95 1.79 0.45 yes 23.98 3.00 0.48 yes 9 20.80 1.14 25.0 2.50 21.58 2.03 3.42 4.53 YES 24.54 1.84 0.46 yes 24.57 3.03 0.43 yes 10 0.30 0.02 0.6 0.06 -2.61 0.87 3.21 0.93 NO 0.35 0.03 0.25 no 0.38 2.40 0.22 yes 11 0.30 0.02 0.8 0.08 -2.61 0.87 3.45 0.95 NO 0.35 0.03 0.49 no 0.38 2.40 0.46 yes 12 0.40 0.02 0.3 0.03 -2.49 0.87 2.80 0.90 NO 0.47 0.04 0.16 no 0.50 2.40 0.19 yes 13 0.60 0.03 0.7 0.07 -2.25 0.87 2.98 0.94 NO 0.71 0.05 0.02 yes 0.73 2.40 0.00 yes 14 0.60 0.03 0.4 0.04 -2.25 0.87 2.65 0.91 NO 0.71 0.05 0.31 no 0.73 2.40 0.33 yes 16 24.40 1.34 29.9 2.99 25.83 2.33 4.07 5.32 YES 28.79 2.16 1.11 yes 28.82 3.23 1.08 yes 18 19.10 1.05 22.1 2.21 19.58 1.90 2.52 4.11 YES 22.54 1.69 0.44 yes 22.56 2.94 0.46 yes 19 17.70 0.97 23.9 2.39 17.93 1.79 5.97 4.18 NO 20.89 1.56 3.01 yes 20.91 2.87 2.99 yes 20 19.50 1.07 24.5 2.45 20.05 1.93 4.45 4.38 NO 23.01 1.72 1.49 yes 23.04 2.96 1.46 yes 21 29.1 1.60 33.95 3.40 31.42 2.72 2.53 6.11 YES 34.39 2.58 0.44 yes 34.41 3.52 0.46 yes 22 30.7 1.69 34.96 3.50 33.21 2.84 1.75 6.34 YES 36.17 2.71 1.21 yes 36.19 3.62 1.23 yes 23 30.9 1.70 36.46 3.65 33.47 2.86 2.99 6.51 YES 36.43 2.73 0.03 yes 36.45 3.64 0.01 yes

24 30.8 1.69 35.28 3.53 33.40 2.86 1.88 6.39 YES 36.36 2.72 1.08 yes 36.38 3.63 1.10 yes

Avg. 3.11 Avg. 0.82 Avg. 0.82

Stdev 1.14 Stdev 0.78 Stdev 0.78

% RSD 36.5 % RSD 95.5 % RSD 95.2

Ctrue'' = (1+k)Ccems +(bqag+bM5correction) Method 5b

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bqag Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. 

Ccem uncertainty = 5.5%

PM CEMS

Run Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 14

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 14 (Bruce Mansfield CEMS 2B)

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols.

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Nine Method 5b test were performed. These concentrations were compared to the PM CEMS 

concentrations giving a correction constant (k) of 0.078 ± 0.079. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

Notes

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

1 23.7 28.2 4.5 0.190

Normal 

Conc.

2 23.8 25.2 1.4 0.059

3 24.1 24.2 0.1 0.004

5 23.2 24.6 1.4 0.060

6 23.1 25.3 2.2 0.095

7 22.2 22.1 -0.1 -0.005

8 20.9 21.8 0.9 0.043

9 19.7 19.5 -0.2 -0.010

Average 23.70 25.6 1.85 0.078

Stdev. 0.37 1.81 1.87 0.079

%RSD 1.6 7.1 101.1 100.7

y = 1.0534x - 1.348

R2 = 0.9936

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

QAG Conc. (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS response (mg/wscm)

QAG linearity with CEMS 2B
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 14

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.078 ± 0.079

m = (1+k) = 1.078 ± 0.0.079

b = -1.348 ± 0.886

Ctrue = 1.078±0.079(Ccems)-1.348±0.886

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements.

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

1 23.70 1.26 28.2 2.82 24.20 2.47 4.00 5.29 YES

2 23.80 1.26 25.2 2.52 24.31 2.48 0.89 5.00 YES

3 24.10 1.28 24.2 2.42 24.63 2.51 0.43 4.93 YES

5 23.20 1.23 24.6 2.46 23.66 2.43 0.94 4.89 YES

6 23.10 1.22 25.3 2.53 23.55 2.42 1.75 4.95 YES

7 22.20 1.18 22.1 2.21 22.58 2.34 0.48 4.55 YES

8 20.90 1.11 21.8 2.18 21.18 2.22 0.62 4.40 YES

9 19.70 1.04 19.5 1.95 19.89 2.12 0.39 4.07 YES

10 2.10 0.11 0.94 0.09 0.92 0.91 0.02 1.00 YES

11 1.60 0.08 0.82 0.08 0.38 0.90 0.44 0.98 YES

12 1.90 0.10 0.54 0.05 0.70 0.91 0.16 0.96 YES

13 1.60 0.08 0.62 0.06 0.38 0.90 0.24 0.96 YES

14 1.40 0.07 1.24 0.12 0.16 0.90 1.08 N/A YES

17 33.70 1.79 35.8 3.58 34.98 3.40 0.82 N/A YES

19 33.70 1.79 43 4.30 34.98 3.40 8.02 N/A YES

20 41.30 2.19 50 5.00 43.17 4.12 6.83 9.12 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 5.3%

Average 1.69

Stdev 2.43

% RSD 144
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 14

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 94.4 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11(y = 1.078*Ccems -1.348)

y = 1.194x - 1.992

R2 = 0.983

y = 1.078x - 1.348

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 2B

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.194x - 1.992

R2 = 0.983

y = 1.078x - 1.348

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 2B

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 14

January 10, 2013

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.078*Ccems)

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.078*Ccems – 0.4868)

y = 1.194x - 1.992

R2 = 0.983

y = 1.078x

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 2B intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.194x - 1.992

R2 = 0.983

y = 1.078x - 0.4868

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 2B corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

-11B Example 14

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 1 23.70 1.26 28.2 2.82 24.20 2.47 4.00 5.29 YES 25.55 2.31 2.65 yes 25.06 4.01 3.14 yes 2 23.80 1.26 25.2 2.52 24.31 2.48 0.89 5.00 YES 25.66 2.32 0.46 yes 25.17 4.01 0.03 yes 3 24.10 1.28 24.2 2.42 24.63 2.51 0.43 4.93 YES 25.98 2.35 1.78 yes 25.49 4.03 1.29 yes 5 23.20 1.23 24.6 2.46 23.66 2.43 0.94 4.89 YES 25.01 2.26 0.41 yes 24.52 3.98 0.08 yes 6 23.10 1.22 25.3 2.53 23.55 2.42 1.75 4.95 YES 24.90 2.25 0.40 yes 24.41 3.97 0.89 yes 7 22.20 1.18 22.1 2.21 22.58 2.34 0.48 4.55 YES 23.93 2.16 1.83 yes 23.44 3.92 1.34 yes 8 20.90 1.11 21.8 2.18 21.18 2.22 0.62 4.40 YES 22.53 2.04 0.73 yes 22.04 3.85 0.24 yes 9 19.70 1.04 19.5 1.95 19.89 2.12 0.39 4.07 YES 21.24 1.92 1.74 yes 20.75 3.79 1.25 yes 10 2.10 0.11 0.94 0.09 0.92 0.91 0.02 1.00 YES 2.26 0.20 1.32 no 1.78 3.28 0.84 yes 11 1.60 0.08 0.82 0.08 0.38 0.90 0.44 0.98 YES 1.72 0.16 0.90 no 1.24 3.28 0.42 yes 12 1.90 0.10 0.54 0.05 0.70 0.91 0.16 0.96 YES 2.05 0.19 1.51 no 1.56 3.28 1.02 yes 13 1.60 0.08 0.62 0.06 0.38 0.90 0.24 0.96 YES 1.72 0.16 1.10 no 1.24 3.28 0.62 yes 14 1.40 0.07 1.24 0.12 0.16 0.90 1.08 N/A YES 1.51 0.14 0.27 no 1.02 3.27 0.22 yes 17 33.70 1.79 35.8 3.58 34.98 3.40 0.82 N/A YES 36.33 3.29 0.53 yes 35.84 4.64 0.04 yes 19 33.70 1.79 43 4.30 34.98 3.40 8.02 N/A YES 36.33 3.29 6.67 yes 35.84 4.64 7.16 yes 20 41.30 2.19 50 5.00 43.17 4.12 6.83 9.12 YES 44.52 4.03 5.48 yes 44.03 5.19 5.97 yes Avg. 1.69 Avg. 1.74 Avg. 1.53 Stdev 2.43 Stdev 1.83 Stdev 2.12

% RSD 144 % RSD 1.05 % RSD 1.38

PM CEMS Method 5b Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. 

For Ccem uncertainty = 5.3%

Run
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 15

January 10, 2013

PS-11B - Example 15 (Bruce Mansfield CEMS 3A)

Step 1: Perform an off-line independent certification of the PM CEMS linear range using QAGgenerated reference aerosols.

Step 2: Determine probe and/or transport losses

Eleven Method 5b tests were performed. These concentrations were compared to the PM CEMS 

concentrations giving a probe deposit factor (k) of 0.321 ± 0.149. 

Run

PM CEMS M5b PM Conc. Cc

pd K

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm (Ccpd/Cc)

3 7.30 9.1 1.8 0.247

4 7.00 11.1 4.1 0.586

5 6.70 8.9 2.2 0.328

6 6.70 9.6 2.9 0.433

7 6.80 8.4 1.6 0.235

8 6.70 10.3 3.6 0.537

10 6.80 8.8 2.0 0.294

11 6.40 8.8 2.4 0.375

13 6.60 8.0 1.4 0.212

14 6.30 7.1 0.8 0.127

15 6.90 8.0 1.1 0.159

Average 6.75 8.92 2.17 0.321

Stdev 0.27 1.12 1.02 0.149

%RSD 4.05 12.51 47.08 46.3

y = 1.0628x - 0.3636

R2 = 0.9931

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

QAG PM Conc. (mg/wscm)

PM CEMS response (mg/wscm)

QAG linearity with CEMS 3A
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 15

January 10, 2013

Step 3: Calculate in-stack response function

Ctrue = mCcems +b

m = (1+k)

k = 0.321 ± 0.149

m = (1+k) = 1.321 ± 0.149

b = -0.364 ± 0.869

Ctrue = 1.321±0.149(Ccems)-0.364±0.869

Step 4: Perform independent certification of BAM-based PM CEMS in-stack response function using 

simultaneous M5 measurements.

Run

Ccems σ Ccems

M5b PM 

Conc.

σ M5b PM 

Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σCtrue

+ 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm measurement

3 7.30 0.40 9.1 0.91 9.28 1.48 0.18 2.39 YES

4 7.00 0.39 11.1 1.11 8.88 1.44 2.22 2.55 YES

5 6.70 0.37 8.9 0.89 8.49 1.40 0.41 2.29 YES

6 6.70 0.37 9.6 0.96 8.49 1.40 1.11 2.36 YES

7 6.80 0.37 8.4 0.84 8.62 1.41 0.22 2.25 YES

8 6.70 0.37 10.3 1.03 8.49 1.40 1.81 2.43 YES

10 6.80 0.37 8.8 0.88 8.62 1.41 0.18 2.29 YES

11 6.40 0.35 8.8 0.88 8.09 1.36 0.71 2.24 YES

13 6.60 0.36 8.0 0.80 8.35 1.39 0.35 2.19 YES

14 6.30 0.35 7.1 0.71 7.96 1.35 0.86 2.06 YES

15 6.90 0.38 8.0 0.80 8.75 1.43 0.75 2.23 YES

16 0.30 0.02 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.87 0.03 0.87 YES

17 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.03 -0.36 N/A 0.66 N/A YES

18 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.05 -0.36 N/A 0.86 N/A YES

19 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.01 -0.36 N/A 0.46 N/A YES

1H 18.40 0.74 29.2 2.92 23.94 3.00 5.26 5.92 YES

2H 17.80 0.71 30.4 3.04 23.15 2.91 7.25 5.95 NO

3H 17.20 0.69 26.0 2.60 22.36 2.82 3.64 5.42 YES

4H 17.90 0.72 28.5 2.85 23.28 2.92 5.22 5.77 YES

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem

uncertainty = 5.5% for high equal 4.0%

Average 1.69

Stdev 2.10

% RSD 124
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 15

January 10, 2013

Comparison: Emission limit 93.2 mg/wscm

Section 1: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept to PS-11(y = 1.321*Ccems -0.364)

y = 1.626x - 1.260

R2 = 0.981

y = 1.321x - 0.364

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 3A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.626x - 1.260

R2 = 0.981

y = 1.321x - 0.364

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 3A

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS-11B Example 15

January 10, 2013

Section 2: Comparison of k defined slope with ZERO intercept (y = 1.321*Ccems)

Section 3: Comparison of k defined slope with QAG determined intercept with M5 single point correction 

( y = 1.321*Ccems + 0.0074)

y = 1.626x - 1.260

R2 = 0.981

y = 1.321x 

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Ctrue' (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 3A intercept through Zero

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11

y = 1.626x - 1.260

R2 = 0.981

y = 1.321x + 0.0074

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Ctrue (M5b) Conc. (mg/wscm

Ccems (mg/wscm)

CEMS 3A corrected to M5

PS-11 Linear (PS-11) Linear (PS-11b)

Linear (25% EL) Linear (25% EL) Linear (EL)

PS-11b

PS-11
DRAFT Application of Alternative PS

-11B Example 15

January 10, 2013

Section 4: Table comparing three different approaches Ccems σ Ccems PM Conc. σ PM Conc. Ctrue σ Ctrue Ctrue' σ Ctrue' Ctrue'' σ Ctrue'' mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm mg/wscm 3 7.30 0.40 9.1 0.91 9.28 1.48 0.18 2.39 YES 9.64 1.20 0.54 yes 9.65 1.89 0.55 yes 4 7.00 0.39 11.1 1.11 8.88 1.44 2.22 2.55 YES 9.25 1.15 1.85 yes 9.25 1.86 1.85 yes 5 6.70 0.37 8.9 0.89 8.49 1.40 0.41 2.29 YES 8.85 1.10 0.05 yes 8.86 1.83 0.04 yes 6 6.70 0.37 9.6 0.96 8.49 1.40 1.11 2.36 YES 8.85 1.10 0.75 yes 8.86 1.83 0.74 yes 7 6.80 0.37 8.4 0.84 8.62 1.41 0.22 2.25 YES 8.98 1.12 0.58 yes 8.99 1.84 0.59 yes 8 6.70 0.37 10.3 1.03 8.49 1.40 1.81 2.43 YES 8.85 1.10 1.45 yes 8.86 1.83 1.44 yes 10 6.80 0.37 8.8 0.88 8.62 1.41 0.18 2.29 YES 8.98 1.12 0.18 yes 8.99 1.84 0.19 yes 11 6.40 0.35 8.8 0.88 8.09 1.36 0.71 2.24 YES 8.45 1.05 0.35 yes 8.46 1.80 0.34 yes 13 6.60 0.36 8.0 0.80 8.35 1.39 0.35 2.19 YES 8.72 1.08 0.72 yes 8.73 1.82 0.73 yes 14 6.30 0.35 7.1 0.71 7.96 1.35 0.86 2.06 YES 8.32 1.03 1.22 yes 8.33 1.79 1.23 yes 15 6.90 0.38 8.0 0.80 8.75 1.43 0.75 2.23 YES 9.11 1.13 1.11 yes 9.12 1.85 1.12 yes 16 0.30 0.02 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.87 0.03 0.87 YES 0.40 0.05 0.40 no 0.40 1.46 0.40 yes 17 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.03 -0.36 N/A 0.66 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A 0.30 N/A 0.01 N/A 0.29 N/A 18 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.05 -0.36 N/A 0.86 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A 0.50 N/A 0.01 N/A 0.49 N/A 19 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.01 -0.36 N/A 0.46 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A 0.10 N/A 0.01 N/A 0.09 N/A 1H 18.40 0.74 29.2 2.92 23.94 3.00 5.26 5.92 YES 24.31 2.87 4.89 yes 24.31 3.22 4.89 yes 2H 17.80 0.71 30.4 3.04 23.15 2.91 7.25 5.95 NO 23.51 2.77 6.89 no 23.52 3.14 6.88 no 3H 17.20 0.69 26.0 2.60 22.36 2.82 3.64 5.42 YES 22.72 2.68 3.28 yes 22.73 3.05 3.27 yes 4H 17.90 0.72 28.5 2.85 23.28 2.92 5.22 5.77 YES 23.65 2.79 4.85 yes 23.65 3.15 4.85 yes

Avg. 1.69 Avg. 1.58 Avg. 1.58

Stdev 2.10 Stdev 1.96 Stdev 1.95

% RSD 123.8 % RSD 123.8 % RSD 123.8

Run

Difference 

M5b and 

Ctrue

σ Ctrue + 

σM5b

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Notes: assuming a 10% uncertainty for M5b for all Conc. For low Conc. Ccem uncertainty = 5.5% for high equal 4.0%

Ctrue = (1+k)*Ccems + bQAG Method 5B PM CEMS Ctrue' = (1+k)Ccems + 0 Ctrue'' = (1+k)*Ccems +(bQAG+bM5correction)

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue'

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement

Difference 

M5b and Ctrue''

Same with in 

one σ of each 

measurement