1 / 26

New UEF Emission Factors for SMC Production and Compression Molding

New UEF Emission Factors for SMC Production and Compression Molding . David Lipiro Environmental Compliance & Risk Management dlipiro@ecrminc.com. ECRM. Terminology. SMC = Sheet Molding Compound BMC = Bulk Molding Compound LCM = Liquid Composites Molding

chacha
Télécharger la présentation

New UEF Emission Factors for SMC Production and Compression Molding

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. New UEF Emission Factors for SMC Production and Compression Molding David Lipiro Environmental Compliance & Risk Management dlipiro@ecrminc.com ECRM

  2. Terminology • SMC = Sheet Molding Compound • BMC = Bulk Molding Compound • LCM = Liquid Composites Molding • UEF = ANSI/ACMA/ICPA UEF-1-2009, Estimating Emission Factors from Open Molding and Other  Composite Processes (Current Version)

  3. Factors for VOC Emissions • Compounding (in UEF) – from SMC machines – based on ECRM study • Compression molding (proposed) – SMC, BMC, LCM – based on EECS studies (R. Haberlein)

  4. Estimating Emissions • Emission Factor = ratio • Lb emitted/lb compound used = E/C = 0.002 • Lb emitted/lb styrene used = E/S = 0.02 • Equivalent Emission Models • E = 0.002*C • E = 0.02*S • Simplest model  constant factor • Derive models and factors from test data

  5. Compounding Emission Model • Theory • Lab weight loss experiments at MFG Research – C. Piper • Evaluate recent VOC emission tests of 7 SMC machines

  6. Theory • Areas where paste is not covered by carrier film = window to environment • Exposed area A ft2 is constant for each SMC machine • Simplest model:E lb/hr = kA, k = constant Upper Lower

  7. Styrene Content? • Affects skinover? • Expected to be important based on UEF for open molding

  8. Line Speed? • Skinover effect at longer travel times  lower emissions at lower linespeeds? • Induced air velocity as paste moves under air  impact depends on vent airflow patterns?

  9. MFG Lab Tests • Wt loss by analytical balance + datalogger, 10 readings per second, 6-8 reps • Constant sample pan area = 0.16379 ft2 • Range of S.G. and styrene % in pastes used • “Wind tunnel” w anemometer – simulate motion-induced airflow • Run times cover realistic line travel times - simulate skinover

  10. Conclusions/Predictions • Not much skinover effect – most weight loss curves linear or near • Styrene content will probably have little impact on emissions • Line speed probably won’t effect emissions • Emissions will vary with open area, temperature and air velocity - only area practical for permitting

  11. Field Verification • Method 24 TTE emission tests • 7 uncontrolled machines – 24”, 48”, 60” • Wide range of open areas, styrene contents, linespeeds • No temperature control at doctor boxes • Doctor boxes open to nearly closed

  12. Field Data Analysis • Regression: Emissions vs Predictor • Predictors compared: • Area • Styrene throughput (traditional) • SMC throughput

  13. Compounding Emission Model in UEF • Er = 0.1457*A-0.1454, where: • Er = emission rate of SMC machine, lb/hr • A = open wet area of machine (including uncovered doctor box area), ft2 • Emissions = Er * t (hrs) • Permitting: E is constant when paste on line - throughput irrelevant

  14. Compression Molding • SMC, BMC, LCM • Emissions from charge prep only - Once press closes, negligible emissions • EECS Study: Charge prep emissions measured in Method 204 TTE

  15. SMC Compression Molding • Two “traditional” EFs proposed based on test data • Which is best predictor? • What are underlying models?

  16. Compound Throughput Model

  17. Styrene Throughput Model

  18. EFs Compared • E/C = 0.002 is poorer predictor(R2=0.74, 10% total overestimate) • E/S = 0.0152 is better predictor (R2=0.81, 5% total overestimate), same form as published AP-42 factor • UEF: E lb = 1.5% styrene lb run vs 2% AP-42 factor

  19. BMC and LCM • UEF: BMC Molding Emissions = 1.15% of styrene in compoundmolded • UEF: LCM EF, lb styrene / lb paste molded = • Spread prep: 0.0072*S% + 0.008 • Pour prep: 0.0022*S% + 0.008 • LCM Emissions = EF * lb paste molded

  20. Why Use These Factors? • Best available methods to estimate emissions w/o site testing • Most credible factors available – adopted into UEF by transparent ANSI consensus process involving industry and state/fed regulators

  21. Thank you for attending Questions ECRM

More Related