This article was downloaded by: [116.203.172.

122]
On: 17 December 2013, At: 23:05
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Gas Cleaning Efficiency Requirements For Different

Pollutants
Wesley C. L. Hemeon

Director , Hemeon Associates , Pittsburgh , Pa , USA

Published online: 19 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Wesley C. L. Hemeon (1962) Gas Cleaning Efficiency Requirements For Different Pollutants, Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, 12:3, 105-108, DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1962.10468053
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1962.10468053

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not
be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis
shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and
other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation
to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Gas Cleaning EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS For

Different POLLUTANTS*

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

WESLEY C. L. HEMEON, Director, Hemeon Associates, Pittsburgh, Pa.

I he shotgun approach to the

abatement of air pollution, apparent
in control equipment engineering as
well as in public administration, tends
to be frustrating and ineffective or
excessively wasteful. It usually results in installation of corrective equipment that either does not result in
noticeable alleviation of the problem,
or costs very much more than the
problem demands when considered in
relation to the needs of people offended
thereby.
The offenses of the shotgun approach
may be illustrated by a consideration of
the air pollution due to apartmenthouse incinerators of large cities. The
offensive qualities of incinerator operation may potentially include the following three (and unrelated) effects:
(./) malodors; (2) obscuring haze
due to fine particulate matter in atmospheric suspension; (8) objectionable
deposition of flakes of paper ash on
people's premises.
The shotgun approach fails to consider
whether all three of these are practically
objectionable and demands the neutralization of all of them for a perfect
control of all emissions. If they are
not all important, the cost of resulting
equipment may be excessive in these
terms.
If careful investigation were to
establish, for example, that the paper
ash nuisance were of dominant importance, then an attack on this
particular quality could result in the
design of controls at a fraction of the
cost of the more perfect shotgun solutions.
Another characteristic of this faulty
approach to air pollution problems
is in its failure adequately to consider
the quantitative aspects of some objectionable emission in relation to the
affected inhabitants. A common description of gas cleaning equipment cites
weight collection efficiency, and if the
collection efficiency is in the 90's,
some quirk of the adult mind automati* Presented at the 54th Annual Meeting
of APCA, Commodore Hotel, June 11-15,
1961, New York, New York.
March 1962 / Volume 12, No. 3

cally concludes that this is good, perhaps

a subconscious reaction resulting from
school-day experience with scales of
scholastic performance. A moment's
reflection of course indicates in fact how
meaningless such percentagefiguresare.
Similarly, the common basis for
specifying gas cleanliness in units of
weight concentration or weight rate
of emission ignores the relationship
between emission rates and objectionable conditions in the neighborhood,
the limitations of which will be better
understood from the later discussion.
Knowledge is now available whereby
the particular needs of a community
can be identified and from a consideration of the permissible ground concentration, engineering specifications
can be derived for the performance of
gas cleaning equipment, required height
of stack, or other control measures.
We shall illustrate these principles in
terms of the following common specific
nuisance pollutants which encompass
the vast majority of objectionable air
pollution effects: smoke and haze, dustfall, incinerator paper ash, metal corrosion, malodors.
Dust Weight Emission Rates

A description of weight rate of emission of dust is subject to some serious

shortcomings. As everyone knows, the
quantitative knowledge describing diluting power of the atmosphere, on
which subject so much knowledge has
developed in the past 15 to 20 years,
provides the basis for calculating in
given atmospheric conditions, concentration at ground level resulting from any
given rate of emission. Note, however,
that when the units of emission are in
weight per unit time, it is possible only
to compute ground-level concentrations
in terms of weight per unit volume (e.g.,
milligrams per cubic meter) which in
fact have limited practical application,
since these are not the units ordinarily
employed in describing intensity of particulate matter in the community.
By way of introduction to later
subjects, the logic of consistent units
for concentration and rate of emission

is in the following tabulation, comparing

them with the familiar units employed
for gas concentrations:

Pollutant

Gas (e.g., SO,)

Dust

Concentration
Units
Ground Level

Ft3 gas/ft3 air

(ppm)
Mgms/M3 air

Corresponding Stack Gas Data

Concentration
Emission Rate

Ft3 gas/ft3 flue gas

(ppm)
Mgms/ft3 flue gas

Ft3 gas/hr
Mgms dust/hr

Concentrations of a gaseous contaminant, usually expressed as parts

per million in the ambient ground level
atmosphere, demand the same kind
of units to express stack gas concentrations which, when multiplied by the
stack gas flow rate, give the emission
rate in cubic feet per hour.
Similarly as to dust, on the second line,
ground level concentrations when expressed in concentration units of weight
per unit volume, e.g., milligrams per
cubic meter of air, require concentration
units and units describing emission
rate in the corresponding units shown
in the third and fourth columns. The
latter are those customarily employed
for the description of stack dust concentrations and stack dust emission
rates.
Note that such stack gas data do not
permit calculation of ground level
concentrations of particulate matter
in the more common units, COHs
per 1000 feet, for smoke, etc., or tons
per square mile per month, for dustfall.
Stack Gas Smoke and Haze Units

While we have previously discussed1

the practical value in measurement
of smoke concentration in stack gases
by the filter paper technique and expression of the results in the units,
COHs/ft, it is important to our present
thesis to repeat those principles here.
The common description of smoke and
105

haze ground concentration in the units

COHs per foot of air, it will now be
seen from the preceding discussion of
weight concentration, demands the
same kind of units for a description
of smoke concentration in stack gases
and consistent units for total rate of
emission of smoke. These relationships
are illustrated in the following extension
of the preceding tabulation:

Pollutant

Concentration
Units
Ground Level

Smoke, haze
COHs/ft air
Corresponding Stack Data
Concentration

Emission Rate

COHs/ft flue gas

COHs-ft2/hr

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

The peculiar units COH-ft2/hr derive

from the multiplication of COHs/ft
(smoke concentration) and ft3/hr(stack
gas flow rate), as explained in the
previously cited reference.
ExampleSmoke and Haze

In its application to the question of

gas cleaning efficiency specifications,
the following example is given:
A flue gas stack emission flows at
a rate of 550,000 cfm, the smoke concentration in which has been measured at an average intensity of 4.5
COHs per foot (4500 COHs per 1000
feet).
The mass rate of emission then is
550,000 X 4.5 = 2.48 X 106
COH-ft2/min
Suppose further that the stack height,
the X-distance of interest, and the appropriate diffusion parameters (Sutton's
Cv, C, n, and u) amount to a Meteorological Ventilation Rate* of 1.5 X 109
cu ft/min.
The ground concentration then
equals:
.

Mass Rate of Emission

Met Vent Rate
_ 2.48 X 106 COH-ft2/min
1.5 X 109 ft3/min
- 1.6 X 10 ~3 COHs/ft

= i.ecoHs/ioooft
The required efficiency of any gas
cleaning equipment, additional stack
height, or other corrective means,
can now be determined by reference
to standards appropriate to a particular
situation. If for example it were
felt that ground level concentration
should not exceed 0.2 COH/1000 ft, an
*It will be noted that Met Vent Rate is
merely the ratio
Mass rate of emission of any substance
Calculated ground concentration
106

efficiency of around 80% would be

specified.
Stack Gas Dusffall

We had been concerned for many

years with the problem of measuring
dustfall in stack gases. The importance
of such a technique is pointed up by the
reminder that the dustfall nuisance
is probably the most common and
objectionable nuisance with which people
contend. The solution to what had
originally been a vexing and elusive
problem appeared with the successful
development of the channel elutriator.2
While originally conceived as a tool
for the rating of dust collectors of a
common class, it has an equally important function for the measurement
of dustfall, based on its ability to measure the spectrum of settling velocities
in a dust mixture.
Moreover, as will be apparent from
the following discussion, in the rating
of dust collectors the device is applicable
not only for describing the percent
weight efficiency but also the dustfall
collection efficiency. A review of the
units describing ground level dustfall
and stack dustfall emission rate, following the logic in the preceding example,
looks like this:

Pollutant

Concentration
UnitsGround Level

Tons/mile2/month
Lbs/ft2/hr
Corresponding Stack Data <

Dustfall
/

Concentration
2

Lbs/ft /hr

Emission Rate
2

Lbs-ft/hr

In the application of these relationships to an estimate of ground level

dustfall intensity, we visualize that
representative volumes of stack gas
containing the particles of interest
are diluted and transported by the
turbulent diffusion process to ground
level just as though it carried a gaseous
contaminant, and that sedimentation
does not occur appreciably except in a
shallow air layer near the ground
surface, such sedimentation occurring
in accordance with the CV relationships
cited.
The assumption that no sedimentation occurs in the interval between emission from the stack and arrival of plume
elements at ground level is of course
not accurate. The error, however,
is on the conservative side and is
greatest in the case of particles having
higher settling velocity, conditions of
low wind speed, and for the longer
distances. One may visualize the magnitude of this error by comparing the
settling velocity of such particles with
the vertical velocity of the turbulent
eddies in the diffusion process.
ExampleDustfall Emission

By way of practical illustration,

consider the example which includes
the data presented in Table I showing
the spectrum of settling velocities and
quantities obtained in a certain stack
gas emission (time intervals having
been changed from hours to minutes).
Values of C have not been computed
separately; it is more convenient to
employ the product CQ. The relation
between these units is
C =

These new and strange units merit

some explanation. It should be noted
that the rate of dust sedimentation
onto a surface by gravity is a product
of dust concentration and settling
velocity. This will be apparent from
a review of the units of concentration
and velocity as displayed in the following:

lbs dust/min
Q(ft8/min)

The actual value of Q, gasflowrate, is

not needed since it was previously employed in the development of the total
dust emission rate, 85 pounds per
minute.
Consider that the circumstances of
stack height, X-distance of interest, and
appropriate diffusion parameters, add up

Dustfall Rate
C
V
(i.e., "Dustfall Concentration") = (dust concentration) (settling velocity)
Lbs/ft2/hr = (lbs/ft3)
(ft/hr)
= lbs/ft 2/hr
(i.e.,C-F)
Thus the intensity of dustfall is the
product CV where C is weight concentration of suspended dust, not concentration of dustfall. Rather, "dustfall concentration" is the product CV itself.
Since mass rate of emission of a pollutant from a stack is a product of
concentration, C, and total volume rate
of flow of flue gas, Q, the mass rate of
emission has the units previously described, i.e.,
(C-V) (Q) = (Ibs/ft2/hr) (ft3/hr)
= lbs-ft/hr2

to a Meteorological Ventilation Rate of

12 X 109 ftymin.
A calculation of the "hourly" dustfall
rate at ground level at the significant
location is derived as follows:
Mass Rate Emission
Met Vent Rate
lb-ft/min2
ft3/min
_ 286
~~ 12 X 109
= 23.8 X 10 " Ibs/ft2/min
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

Table IExample Data and Calculation of Dustfall Intensity in a Stack Gas,

and Dustfall Emission Rate
C-Q-V
V

Settling
Velocity
Range, ft/min

Median
Settling
Velocity, ft/min

Measured
Wt % Each
Fraction

(a)
>20

(b)
20
15
8.5
5.5
3

(c)
5.3
1.5
5.8
9.6

10-20
7-10
4-7
2-4

Dustfall
Emission Rate
Wt Rate
in Each
Each Fraction,
Velocity Range,
a
lbs/min
lb-ft/min2
C-Q

(d)
4.5
1.3
4.9
8.2

16.0
34.7
27.1
Based on, separately measured, total lbs/min = 85; 286
V2-2

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

<v*

1.25

0.5

This may be converted to the units,

tons per square mile per month, by
multiplying it by 0.60 X 109 which results in the calculated dustfall rate of
14.3 tons per square mile per month.
This is the "hourly" rate, indicating
that it applies only when the wind is in a
particular direction. Suppose that an
analysis of wind direction frequency
shows that the wind blows toward this
location four percent of the total time,
then the average dustfall rate is
14.3 X 0.04 = 0.6 ton per square
mile per month.
If the monthly measured rate at this
location be, for example, 30 tons per
square mile per month, it is concluded
that the particular dustfall emission
accounts for two percent of the total
dustfall.
The collection efficiency required of a
dust collector to reduce this contribution
can now be specified on an engineering
basis and by reference to the circumstances of a particular locality. Referring to Table I, it can be seen that the
dustfall contributed by particles having
settling velocity less than two feet per
minute* is 37 + 12, i.e., 49/286 = 17%.
Therefore if the dust collector removed
all larger particles, the dustfall collection efficiency would be 83%. The
weight collection efficiency required
for this result is found by reference to
the corresponding figures in the third
column (34.7 + 27.1) and indicates
that a dust collector having a weight
efficiency of only 38% would reduce
the dustfall contribution to 17%.
Incinerator Paper Ash
Waste incinerators of the type used
in large city apartment houses may be
responsible as indicated in the introduction, for two separate kinds of
particulate nuisance (in addition to that
of malodors): CO haze and smoke;
{2) paper ash flakes. The first of these

13.6
29.5
23.0
lb-ft/min2.

would logically be measured and rated

by reference to the COH units previously discussed. The second, however, requires separate consideration.
While deposition of paper ash is
essentially a dustfall nuisance, it is
not adequately described by the conventional measurement of dustfall in
weight units, because the magnitude
of the paper ash nuisance is out of all
proportion to the weight of such
particles.
These considerations signify the need for a quite different means
for measurement of paper ash dustfall.
With this single modification, all of the
principles discussed in the preceding
section on dustfall will still apply.
We have found that incinerator stack
gas sampling with the channel elutriator
is an effective means for capturing them
in a systematic manner and unfractured.
Adhesive-coated glass slides on the
elutriator plates serve conveniently to
receive them. Evaluation of the quantity is most logically determined by a
light-measurement means because of the
optical nature of the nuisance effect.
Percent light transmission and subsequent transformation according to
the well-known principle embodied in
the quantity log Io/I appears to be a
satisfactory means for this purpose.
One could thus develop and employ a
system of measurements analogous to
COH units.
Suppose such optical density units
for paper ash flakes were thus described
as PAF units. Unlike the case of
dustfall, they would be related only
to time since area cancels out in the
ratio Io/I just as in COH units for
stained filter paper. The relationship
between concentrations and emission
rates would thus appear as in the following tabulation:

Pollutant
* The settling velocity, Ut, of spherical
particles, sp gr = Z, in air at 70F,
corresponds to particle diameter, dm
microns, as follows:
dm = 10.WUt/Z
March 1962 / Volume 12, No. 3

(e)
90
19
42
45
41
37
12

Concentration
Units
Ground Level

Paper ash flakes

PAFs/hr
Corresponding Stack Data
Concentration
Emission Rate
PAFs/hr
PAFs-ft3/hr2

Corrosion Potential
The same principles have been interestingly applied by us in the measurement of corrosion potential, a term
which, it will be noted, deemphasizes
the chemistry of materials causing the
corrosion and emphasizes as before, the
objectionable effect.
Selected specimens of metal, glass and other materials
are mounted in an enclosure which is
continuously ventilated with diluted
stack gases. At the end of the exposure
period, the degree of corrosion is measured, usually by determination of reduced light reflectance, and the relationship represented once again by log
Io/I applied to a description of the corrosion effect in terms of reduced capacity
for reflection of light. The resulting
numbers which for convenience we shall
term COR units, appear in the tabulation below as units of concentration and
provide the basis for description of corrosion potential emission rate. (The absence of area in the concentration units
has the same explanation as in the preceding case.)

Pollutant

Concentration
Units
Ground Level

Corrosion potential
CORs/hr
'Corresponding Stack Data -^
Concentration
Emission Rate
COR-ft3/hr2
CORs/hr
A specification for gas cleaning equipment can now be framed on exactly the
same basis as the other pollution effects
to insure any desired degree of accomplishment relative thereto in the neighborhood.
Odors
The handling of odor problems on a
perfectly quantitative basis follows the
same principles as apply to the previously discussed pollutants, but subject
to an interesting difference in detail pertaining to a description of odor concentration.
The chemistry of an odor, like the
chemistry of corrosion potential, is of
no particular interest. In fact, its consideration would only confuse the issue.
It follows that lack of knowledge of its
chemistry prevents a description of odor
concentration directly. This, however,
is no bar to a quantitative treatment.
The approach employed in this case is to
deal entirely with ratios, as illustrated
by the tabulation of units below, in
which Ca represents concentration of
odor in the ground level atmosphere,
Cg represents concentration of odor
in the stack gas, and Ct represents the
concentration corresponding to the
threshold of perception as determined
by quantitative subjective measurements, according to techniques outlined
107

Table IISummary of a System of Consistent Units for Expressing Ground

Concentrations and Stack Gas Concentrations, Respectively, for Various Air
Pollution Qualities; Whereby Gas Cleaning Performance Can Be Related to
Ground Level Concentrations

Pollutant
Gas (e.g., SO2)
Dust
Smoke, haze
Dustfall
Paper ash
(incinerator)
Corrosion
potential
Odors

Concentration
Units
Ground Level
Ft3 gas/ft3 air (ppm)
Mgms/M3 air
COHs/ft air
2
Tons/mile
/hr
2
Lbs/ft /hr
PAFs/hr

PAFs-fF!/hT1!

CORs/hr

CORs/hr

CORs-ft3/hr2

Ca/Ct

Cg/Ct

Ft 3 /hr

Downloaded by [116.203.172.122] at 23:05 17 December 2013

Concentration
Units
Ground Level
Ca/Ct

-
Corresponding Stack Data
Concentration
Emission Rate

cB/ct

Ft/hr
(dilution air)

The subjective methods of measurement

provide a direct indication of the ratio
Cg/Ct which, when multiplied by the
total flue gas rate of emission, results in
the units cubic feet of air per hour as
shown in the last column.
This quantity, a description of the
total rate offlowof air that would be required to dilute all the odor to the
threshold level, can be applied to any
quantitative engineering analysis of any
means of odor abatement whether it be
by scrubbers or by employment of tall
stacks to elevate the source above
ground level. In the case of the latter
which refers to the diluting capacity of
the atmosphere, the kind of calculations
illustrated in the following can be applied to a quantitative conclusion. As
in all the preceding examples, the ratio
of mass rate of emission to Meteorological Ventilation Rate prevailing in
specified weather conditions, stack
height and distance, results in the resulting concentration at the location of
interest:
Mass Rate of Emission
ft3/hr
Met Vent Rate
ft3/hr
In this case the "concentration" appears as a dimensionless ratio which
describes the number of times the actual
odor concentration bears to the threshold, i.e., Ca/Ct.
Conclusion

We have indicated in this paper the

need for sorting out the different types
of air pollution nuisances that may
afflict a community and how measure108

Corresponding Stack Gas Data

Concentration
Emission Rate
Ft3 gas/ft3 flue gas
Ft3 gas/hr
(ppm)
Mgms/ft3 flue gas
Mgms/hr
COHs/ft
flue gas
COHs-ftVhr
2
Lbs/ft /hr
Lbs-ft/hr2
PAFs/hr

elsewhere.3

Pollutant
Odors

ment methods appropriate to each demand the same kind of measurement at

ground level as in stack gases. The air
pollution qualities discussed and the
systems of consistent units are summarized in Table II. The approach outlined here permits statements of quantitative relationships between emission
quantities and concentrations at places
of habitation and can provide a basis for
development of sound policy for abatement of the particular air pollution
nuisances that are objectionable in any
community.
It is sometimes suggested that a prime
requirement for important progress in air
pollution abatement is in the discovery
of cheaper methods and equipment for
the cleaning flue gases. We disagree
with the implications of this viewpoint.
We believe the real need is for more discriminating appraisal of the character
of air pollution in a community for the
design of a pin-pointed attack on the
particular problems found to be of principal significance.
Such progress as has been made in the
Los Angeles area (and scientifically the
progress is quite satisfactory) has derived from adherence to this principle of
discrimination and a quantitative appraisal of their particular problem. It
is hoped that the ideas presented in this
paper will stimulate equally good and
constructive scientific efforts for attack
on the important problems of the East.
REFERENCES

1. W. C. L. Hemeon, G. F. Haines, Jr.,

and Harold M. Ide, "Determination of
Haze and Smoke Concentrations by
Filter Paper Samplers,'' Air Repair 3:
1, 22-29 (August 1953).
2. W. C. L. Hemeon, G. F. Haines, Jr.,
and S. D. Puntureri, "Rating of Dust
Collectors According to Dust Settling

Velocities,'' J. Air Poll. Control Assoc.

11:6, 264-67 (June 1961).
3. Hemeon Associates, "Odor Control
Research and Engineering" (June
1958).

1962 ANNUAL MEETING

MAY 20-24

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
HEARS ACTION REQUESTS
At its meeting on November 14, 1961,
in Pittsburgh, the Board of Directors
received and discussed the following
letter from Raymond Smith, Chief of
Air Pollution Control, City of Philadelphia, who was acting in his capacity
in New York as Chairman of the Control Officials' Conference Committee.
"Being duly assembled at their forum
on Tuesday June 13, 1961, the control
officials present did resolve by unanimous vote that the chairman of said
forum (Raymond Smith) should convey
to the Board of Directors of the Air
Pollution Control Association the following requests for action:
(1) That the designers and manufacturers of diesel operated vehicles
be requested by the Air Pollution
Control Association, through its
Board of Directors, to energetically undertake a program
for the abatement of odors characteristically associated with diesel
engine operation.
(2) That the Board of Directors of
the Air Pollution Control Association establish a more effective
and expeditious means of transmitting information between the
Board and control officials on
matters of specific concern to
control officials.
(3) That the Board of Directors of the
Air Pollution Control Association
formally report to the membership each year on the manner in
which each objective of the Association, as listed in Article III
of the By-Laws, has been met
during the past year with special
reference to sub-items (a), (b),
(c), (e), (f), and (h) of Article
III, Section 1.
(4) That the Executive Secretary
advise, in writing, all control
officials who are members of the
Air Pollution Control Association
of the action taken by the Board
on the disposition of each of the
above three requests for action
prior to the 1962 annual meeting
of the Association.
The following actions were taken by
the Board on each paragraph of the
letter: S. Smith Griswold has requested
in his capacity as Chairman of TA-10
Vehicular Exhaust Committee to prepare an appropriate statement for the
Board on diesel smoke and fumes. No
action was taken on paragraph 2. With
respect to paragraph 3 the Executive
Secretary is to prepare a report annually
for the President. For item 4, this
note informing the member of the above
actions is to be published in the JOURNAL.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association